The trick is in deciding whom will present to you the said information (you haven't done the work to verify scientifically) in a way which you "feel" is correct.

A good example is that I don't have time to prove the earth is flat, or vice versa. HOWEVER, the space faring company that is in charge of our dreams of star trek, and gives you all these big blue marble pictures, is starting to show a little weakness. You can't physically pass the Van Allen Belts. Bubbles in space. We never went to the moon. You can't fly over the north pole. Everything NASA says starts to sound like bullshit. Now the physical form of the earth itself is called into question. Is it flat? Is it round? I don't know now at least from what NASA says because I can't trust the source. (dude I WORSHIPED NASA).

On a conspiracy forum, we are learning see multiple layers to what is being presented. (e.g. There is always an agenda. There is always history. Why are you telling me this specific story right now in this particular way?)

Therefore, we watch our news sources to see which ones present their information with not only integrity but in a way which is congruent to how a news source should be disseminating information.

Tucker Carlson. Everyone says he's compromised. However, he asks specific questions I would personally ask which are not just surface level questions. I would rate him at a higher level of reliability then say the nightly news which just tells me to take a jab so I don't kill grandma.

Anthony Fauci. Lies consistently. Consistently spreads disinformation. Agenda is to make money at all costs or worse.

Bill Gates. Polio deaths. Agenda is to kill people and make money doing it. Has killed people and made money doing it.

Alex Jones. Again possibly compromised. Possibly more entertainer then news source. Still asks valid questions e.g. Bilderberg group. May be crazy. Sometimes just want to give him a sedative or get somebody to give him a hug.

Nightly news. Completely compromised. They are getting paid to make you take the vaccine. No questions are being asked. You might as well be watching the Muppet Show.

Sources can be categorized in the way they present the "truth", how much they are paid, and how they are paid to do it.

Is it us analyzing and verifying that information? No. We don't have time to verify everything scientifically. But we can still make decisions with regards to who gets to use the brush that paints the picture we see when we look at the world.

And you may have noticed that lately, as conspiracy theorists, our (borrowed from everyone else) picture of the world is starting to look a lot more accurate (then even we wanted it to. There's a reason we don't talk about bigfoot much anymore).