The chip thing has been going around for so long that I can't even remember when it started. I recall having that conversation not less than 15 years ago. I think the conspiracy idea comes from the mark of the beast from the Book of Revelation. My personal belief is that most interpretations of the verses in question don't bother to recognize that the mark of the beast is a voluntary system, not one that is forced*. Being "injected" with a chip against one's will is a use of force, not of voluntary reception. Thus, in my opinion at least, it becomes a moot point.
And here is an interesting question: Let's say for the sake of argument that a piece of evidence exists that clearly craps on the "official" story. Is there now a conspiracy in place, or do we poo-poo the conspiracy because we really, really, really want to believe the official story is super-always-honest-no-matter-what? Since most conspiracies are grounded in political flag-waving, I think one of two things will happen: 1) We will accept any "evidence" that fits our political narrative; 2) We will deny any "evidence" that does not fit our political narrative. Thus, any and all stories/videos/proof is either accepted or denied based solely on which side of the flag we stand. The point here is that true conspiracies exist, and we cannot permit ourselves to look the other way simply because the conspiracy doesn't line up with our political thinking.
* I am stating this here to inject an idea of where the conspiracy comes from, not to have a religious debate/argument. As it stands, this thread is only going to survive if we keep it civil. Debate the merits of the theory. Name-calling, "my religion is better than yours", political finger-pointing, and other such crap has no place. So please stow it. 