What is the formal definition of the line between insane conspiracy theories and credible human rights violations? What usually distinguishes the two, and makes some rational, and others not? For example, 9/11 conspiracy theories don't seem to be credible nor believable at all. However, US journalists being arrested by the DPRK government for a "grave crime", or virtually all the major Russian opposition leaders being raided and arrested for reasons such as "punching a journalist", "participating in a corruption scheme", etc. (without any proper evidence being displayed) after major anti-government protests they organized seems like a politically motivated abuse of the legal system to me, which is also acknowledged by virtually every human rights organization. However, how does one draw the line between genuine human rights violations (ex: legal system abuse, show trials, journalist disappearances) and insane conspiracy theories? I can usually distinguish the two instinctually, but I have no idea what the formal distinction is. And what kind of formal rules and practices could aid distinguishing the two? Ex: Probably some which concern mathematical logic, truth tables, statistics, semantic networks, etc.