Amidst the flow of conspiracy theories (CTs) about the coronavirus pandemic, many logically incompatible ones arise. Upon pretesting for familiarity and logical incompatibility, we choose eight pairs of contradictory CTs. Across two studies, we observed a significant portion of respondents (40%-48%) endorsed at least one pair. In Study 1 (N = 290), we showed that conspiracy mentality and doublethink, a general proneness to contradictions, but not preference for consistency, meaningfully relate to endorsement of contradictory COVID-19 CTs; doublethink contributed over and above other predictors. In Study 2 (N = 281), we related the same tendency to different indicators of superficial information processing. Those more prone to endorse contradictory COVID-19 CTs were more intuitive, less rational, more prone to ontological confusions and pseudo-profound bullshit; doublethink again contributed independently of all other predictors. We end by suggesting how the observed psychological profile of endorsers could inform interventions aimed to tackle conspiratorial thinking.