Can conspiracy theorists be considered public intellectuals?

After attending a lecture by John F. Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Expert Dr. Martin J. Kelly, I realized that conspiracy theorists can often be depicted as crazy and paranoid. Dr. Kelly showed videos of different JFK Assassination conspiracy theorists and the sentiments in the room were that of disbelief and mockery. How could these people with PhDs argue conspiracies consisting of “Helmet Man” and the classic “Grassy Knoll?”

Well I would say, these people observed something that they thought was overlooked, and then developed this into a theory. They did not accept previous ideas or take things at face value. I feel that this is what a public intellectual also does, and yet, I feel that most would not consider conspiracy theorists public intellectuals. Or intellectual at all, for that matter.

Why are conspiracy theorists, especially JFK Assassination theorists, more often looked down upon than theorists such as Galileo and Newton? I think this is because the general public does not want to look more into the assassination. John F. Kennedy was still murdered in a very brutal and public way, no matter who did it for what reasons. This is what makes public intellectuals stand out, is that they look further into things than the general population.

I think conspiracy theorists do the same as public intellectuals, and yet once the word “conspiracy” is mentioned, the argument loses credibility. I would classify the two differently in the respect that conspiracy theorists base their ideas on events, whereas public intellectuals have a broader scope and do not necessarily have a common topic.

Conspiracy theorists serve a similar function as public intellectuals— they make people think beyond common thought and formulate their own opinions. Saying this, you should treat conspiracy theories as skeptically as you would anything else, because this is how a true public intellectual works.