Is there any mistake?

Certainty does not depend on our opinion to exist in actuality, but requires a knowledge of its existence; hence, many historical theories are rejected by some skeptics on the account of a lack of proof to verify the claims, thus a lack of knowledge of certainty; however, in historical sciences, there is no certainty, which undermines their argument. Thus the government and other agencies can act in secrecy and erase any record of their actions and can then try to undermine any suscispious pundits by highlighting a lack of factual evidences. It is then no surprise that agencies that directly advise policymakers in matters of geopolitics hold many confidential information, that the media is highly censored due to government interference and corporate interests through market incentives and that two different governments may make two diametrically opposed statements. If, begun as a mere recommendation, it then becomes an actual policy which knowledge may be highly prejudiciable to the government, traces of it are likely to disappear before they can be made public. There perhaps seems to be something particularly absurd in conspiracy theories, namely many stretched claims; however, absurd claims does not amount to a false theory. And it is not so absurd if there is a definite possibility and consistency can be found. For instance, it is obvious that the United States had an hidden agenda when it attacked Iraq, and that one of these was the dollar hegemony. An individual who is hiding his tracks, typically meaning he has something to hide, will do with more scrutinity the more vital it is for him to do so.