James Corbett comes close but his time is primarily allocated to zoomed-out big-picture research, so there's many important pieces that barely even make it onto his radar.
There's gotta be at least one other person out there somewhere with similar abilities but more time (eg, someone retired, financially secure and no wife & kids to deal with).
It's really gone the other way: there's almost no theory left in conspiracy theory.
Picture the classic conspiracy theorist meme of a wall covered in pushpins and red string. Reduce that down to two pushpins and one bit of string between them. The pushpins are facts and the string a theory of their connection, and each of these elements may not be well known or even unknown. To say that 5% of conspiracy posts fit this model of theory may be an overstatement. Two percent? Sub one?
To be blunt--and not to single him out but only because he was specifically mentioned--James Corbett is not a conspiracy theorist either. He's a stenographer, a collater, a documentarian, but not a theorist. Nothing he says breaks new ground or reveals that which was previously hidden.
Frankly, I suspect he's a certain type of long-running disinfo mole. I didn't realize it until he made certain comments on the Ukraine War. How could any self-respecting conspiracist be in total agreement with the NYT and WaPo without having deep misgivings? And even if you somehow did, you'd still feel compelled to begin with a disclaimer such as, "It's bizarre to me that I'm in agreement with these people, but...."
Just as the normie world has official narratives set by the mainstream media, so too does the conspiracy world, set by people like Corbett. Could anyone possibly believe that "They" would infest and dominate one world, but it completely slipped Their minds and Their grasp not to do so with the other? That's retarded.
From another angle, you can see he has nothing to say about issues where you'll stir up a real controversy in conspiracy circles. Did planes crash into buildings on 911? Were the towers nuked? Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuked? Did anyone actually die at the Vegas shooting? Who shot JFK? Nope, none of these questions were intriguing enough for him to wish to find an answer.
Theory (suggestion) tempts one to ignore practice (perception)...ignorance confines expression.
Ones (life) way (inception towards death)....and what other?
Aka ones bit (choice) of stringing (consent) self to another ones suggestion.
Con (together; with) nectere (to bind) tion (action)...if action binds together, then how could reactions react to being (life) enacted upon (inception towards death)?
What if few suggest "con-nect" to tempt consenting many to ignore "tion"? What if consent binds many together, which in return permits few to amass many through suggested temptations?