Many thanks for the thread reference that you provided sf. That was an excellent discussion and I felt that some parts of the debate reflected much of my own thoughts on these matters.
By their very definition conspiracy theories, secret agendas (call them what you will) cannot be supported by the normal rules of factual evidence. For this reason they are wide open to a variety of interpretations dependent upon who is reading the situation and why.
For example, although Russells father shows up in the Masonic records, Charles Taze Russell does not. This is explained by those who support such theories in one of two ways. Either CT Russell was too senior or prominent to have his name recorded, or his name was removed from the records in yet another Masonic conspiracy.
When I was studying "the truth" I asked for factual evidence to support some of the things that I was being told. It was not forthcoming and consequently I did not "join up". I was then told that the evidence was there but because I did not want to see it I could not.
I get the feeling that conspiracy theories travel along much the same lines.
link