Interestingly, in the German-speaking scientific literature and science communicators, there is a movement to call it "conspiracy ideologies", "conspiracy myth" or "conspiracy narratives" (they have not found a consensus yet), because they're not theories according to Karl Popper and generally lack any properties that we would usually expect a scientific theory to have.
Personally, I disagree. No one feels flattered being called a "conspiracy theorist" and I don't really see the need to differentiate, especially if a general audience is being addressed.
You could argue that conspiracy theories are falsifiable, and it's just that conspiracy theorists won't accept any proof. The flat earth theory for instance is easily debunkable: just take a flight from Auckland to Santiago de Chile.
You're absolutely right of course, about flat-earthers. Those sorts of
people delight in dismissing incontrovertible physical evidence.
Compare that with "Who really shot JFK?". Let's say that tomorrow we
read a deathbed confession by the highest ranking CIA or KGB officer,
setting out exactly how it all went down. At least half the people
would just not believe it. Especially in the age of "deep-fakes". The
narrative would just "slip sideways" into "how the whole fake
confession was engineered". It's like chasing that last pea around the
plate with a fork. The sharper the instrument, the less use it is.
With time it's essentially become an unknowable thing.
So that's what a I mean my "perfect conspiracy theory". JFK is a much
more perfect "conspiracy" than flat-earth or faked moon landings which
have elements of timeless physical evidence.
Personally, I disagree. No one feels flattered being called a "conspiracy theorist" and I don't really see the need to differentiate, especially if a general audience is being addressed.