Conspiracy Theory - Science or Religion?

Science has proven itself more useful than faith because it relies on empiricism- nothing can be known unless there is sufficient evidence to prove it to be so.  Now, take conspiracy theories, which rely on facts.  Sure, the facts may be wrong, skewed, exaggerated, misinterpreted, but most of them are based on some part of history, some bizarre corner of human civilization that seems odd or unbelievable to most people. 

Events in the past are not as empirical or testable as hard science, so some history is taken on faith.  Look at a history book, and you have descriptions of events we believe to be true based on historical research, forming the most likely explanation.  Of course there are always anomalies, quirks, and oddities that history books fail to mention.  For some reason, mentioning these oddities becomes incongruous with the currently accepted view in education, thus conspiracy theories are merely a collection of bizarre, odd, and hard to believe data. 

The number of presidents and politicians involved in Freemasonry, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones?  Don't worry about it.  The coincidences and conflicts of interest surrounding 9/11?  Who cares.  The Holocaust?  Just accept what you're told.    UFOs?  Don't touch the subject.  Of course belief plays a part, just as historians believe their view of history.  But does keeping pleasant facts and ignoring oddities make mainstream history any more truthful?  

Is a collection of unpleasant facts unscientific?

When a conspiracy becomes known, it becomes history.  There has never been, and will never be, a conspiracy. Ever. Just retards doing retarded, fucked-up shit that they need to have themselves,  and their family, punished for. Yes, if your daddy made millions ripping off little old ladies, then you should lose that money.