I have not been conditioned to any view of philosophy. This however does not seem to be really philisophical, though it does have some similarties. Now mayhaps you can show me how this qualifies as philisophical, and please don't just say it is my duty to prove how it isn't not yours to prove how it is, and stop calling me a brainwashed ignoramous.
As to why I don't think it philispophical:
Philisophy I think can be best defined as: a pursuit of knowledge; an attempt to understand reality based on conjectural grounds rather than factual.
This issue does meet this definition, to some extent. However it seems more of some silly question/conspiracy theory, with no real point and certainly unresolvable. What is more this issue can be best resolved not by speculation but by factual observations. Thus it is philisophical, but only to the extent that we can philosophy on issues that are mainly scientific, ie evolution, the nature of the universe. WHich in my opinion just about invalidates any qualifications it has as philosophy