A lot of people have talked about the "prison planet" but I haven't seen a lot to be handled in a cautious, rigorous way.
Developing a "prison planet theory" would yes be a specific branch of "conspiracy theory" and while the mainstream constantly pushes to associate this phrase with insanity, one can only assume that something like "conspiracy theory" is something like the phrase "water theory". I mean who's denying that conspiracies exist?
But moving onto prison planet theory. Obviously the mainstream is going to categorically bash it, or avoid it, likely a combination. But from the lens of such a theory that just fits.
But such a theory would need to have a number of models as to how it might work. It may even venture into operations that would ideally resist the prison, even just to provide testable hypotheses.
Much of what Farsight gives us helps us support such a model even if we don't buy the Farsight narrative. Hidden UFOs are perhaps the most powerful evidences. But there's now a lot of evidence today for deliberate large scale chicanery. People are not so secret about having secret societies. Bills and Acts forbidding very minor activities that deal with independent exploration also point to such a "prison planet" model.
The idea is that the important pieces can become independent of a single brand. In such a theory we are kind of saying a brand can do almost anything it wants, we're not really concerned. The theory would survive brand reputations and just a few strong publications would become it's hallmark. Now there's a weird caveat here which is sort of like the reverse of a circular argument. The more popular the theory becomes or the more circulated a publication on its behalf: the more counter-argument holds: "see? Then why is this not being suppressed?" - it seems the appropriate response is to simply assert that the counter-argument *depends* on the theory's success. It's like a sort of vampirism clause. "We're letting you draw blood. So why not bring it into mainstream and bash it in the open there. Why half measures? At least match it with similar effort in critique" because if it's not a valid theory, and we could argue it's a waste of time, then take the aesthetic point of view. Lots of things seem to happen that are pure wastes of time , like in the entertainment industry. Billions annually. So if it's fake: then parading it around shouldn't be a big deal at all. One more silly venture in the nihilistic side of humanity.
So there's a philosophical and scientific foundation.
Anyways if you believe Farsight, you believe the theory by default. And the premise is that it needs survivability beyond Farsight or any other brand for that matter. Where to start, well , it's another random thing in the wind for the time being. But I wanted to at least map out a few goal posts for how it exists and why