How it works

Conspiracy Matrix is a record of what public figures have said, on the record, about a fixed list of subjects. Every line is their exact words with a link to where they said it. The site does not claim to know what anyone privately believes.

What a tile means

Each tile is one person on one subject. It sums up the quotes on file, read against a single claim sentence, such as "Elements of the US government planned or knowingly allowed the 9/11 attacks".

• Believes: their words affirm the claim.
• Leans believe: their words point toward it but stop short.
• Unclear: they have spoken about it without taking a clear side, or have said both.
• Leans deny: their words point against it but stop short of denying it.
• Denies: their words deny the claim.
• No stance found: the subject was researched and nothing on the record was found. It does not mean the person has no view.
• Not researched: not looked into yet.

A tile is calculated from the lines, never written by hand. Direct statements weigh more than shares, jokes and slogans count only as a lean, older lines count less, and a change of position over time is shown as a trend. Hover a tile for the lead quote; click it for every line.

Where each line comes from

Every line carries a badge saying where its words were seen:

• Verified: a reviewer opened the original and the words are exact.
• Matched at source: the words were matched in the person's own post or in the captions of a video of them speaking.
• Quoted by a named site: the words were matched on a page quoting them, such as a news story or a transcript, but not yet at the original. The line counts for less.
• Not matched to a source yet: the words could not be matched anywhere. The line counts for less until they are.

Where possible, each source is saved to the Internet Archive, so the evidence survives if the original is deleted.

How lines are found and read

Public material is gathered from the person's own accounts and channels, public archives, published fact-checks and the open web. A combination of AI models, Claude and Grok, reads each candidate quote and records whether it is the person's own words, which part of the claim it speaks to, which way it points, and whether it is a joke, a quotation of someone else or a hypothetical. Software then checks the quote word for word against the source and the account, removes repeats, and sends anything uncertain to a person for review.

AI makes mistakes. That is why every line links to its source, every tile shows how many lines it rests on, and you can read each quote in full before trusting a conclusion. If a line is wrong, the site has a way to say so, below.

Red and Blue

Nobody is put on a side by hand. A person's side is read from their own tiles on the conspiracy subjects: once at least five of those take a side, they are placed on the side most of them point to, Red when they mostly believe the claims and Blue when they mostly deny them. An even split goes to the side whose tiles are firmer. Fewer than five, or a dead heat, is Not yet placed. The side shows as a ring round the person's photo and a badge on their page, always with the numbers behind it and the subjects where they go against their own side. Belief in a creator is shown as a subject but does not count toward a side.

Who is listed, and which subjects

A person is added when they have a large public following, about a million followers on one platform, or hold or have held elected office, and they stay once they have on-record lines on at least five subjects. The grid shows the twenty people on each side whose records are clearest. Everyone else researched stays on record, out of view, and the ranking is recomputed whenever the record changes.

A subject is added only when it can be stated as one clear claim sentence and at least one independent fact-checker has published on it. Subjects are chosen to cover claims believed across the political spectrum, not on one side only.

Some quotes contain hateful language. They stay on the record, since they are what the person said, but they appear word for word only where they are the evidence for a tile, behind a content note you open deliberately, and never in hover cards or summaries.

Consensus

Below the matrix, the subjects are grouped by what the two sides make of them. A lean counts with its side; Unclear and No stance found are left out of the split. A side agrees when at least two thirds of its placed members point the same way. Every subject gets a call, believed or denied, from the majority of the people with a stance, with a note of how sure it is. Each person counts once, whatever their audience. The grid says what forty people have said, not what is true, so the words are believed and denied, never true and false.

Corrections, discussion and right of reply

Suggest a correction under any subject, or from Suggest in the header: a quote that is missing or wrong, with the position, the exact words, a link and the date if you know it. Nothing changes on the spot. The quote is checked against its link like every other, then reviewed, and if kept it joins the record labelled as suggested by a reader. The same form takes a person or a subject to add.

Discussion sits under every position: an agree bar and short comments under a name you choose, with no account. Comments appear at once and can be reported; three reports hide one until we look. You can take your own comment back for five minutes. Comments never change the record; the route to change a tile is a correction with a link.

Right of reply. Anyone listed, or their representative, can reply to any line, through Suggest a correction or by email to [email protected]. We aim to acknowledge within two days and to correct or annotate within a week. Corrections are noted on the What's new page.

Your data

The site records public statements by public figures, for journalism and research in the public interest. It sets no tracking cookies. Comments and suggestions are stored with a random browser id and, to limit abuse, the sender's network address for a short time. If you are listed and want to object to or correct how your statements are used, write to the address above.

Funding and independence

The research runs on one person's time and a few paid searches, supported by readers who buy a coffee. There are no ads, no sponsors, no betting or prediction-market links, and the site earns nothing from any person's position.