A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists

[Laurel]

I didn't have to Google it, I read the story in university.

[Mag40]

I didn't have to Google it, I read the story in university.

I totally believe you....jus' saying for us that didn't, the University of Google works too

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

I can only assume that most are like this image. Sad, sad little people, with no true human bonds.

Hey!
Without the goofy specs that could be me 30 years ago.
I had pretty much the same set-up.

If 7/7 was a government conspiracy, why not just blow up the bus as it travelled its route?

Not fiendishly complicated enough?

Same with no-planers.
Why would an organisation evil enough to blow up skyscrapers WITH PEOPLE IN IT have any problem using aircraft as a weapon?
These guys (and occasional gal) seem to have never heard of the KISS principle.
Instead they use the Illuminati's Razor: The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer.
(Stolen from Fazor on BAUT.)

http://crispian-jago.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-conspiracy-theory-flowchart-they.html?spref=tw

Oh great! Another brilliant site to keep track off.
I'll never catch up.

[Glom]

In addition, the target wasn't originally the bus but the Northern line. But it was suspended that morning for Tube reasons so the bomber went on a bus instead.

So if the bus bombing was part of the original conspiracy, then so was suspending the Northern line, which is in fact the ultimate act of terror.

[Dr.Acula]

I don't know, if this question to the HBs has already been asked here, so I add it:

Dear HBs, CTs or however you prefer to be called,

you're convinced that NASA faked the manned moonlandings, and you've got all the evidence for it, right?

Why don't you go to court to file a suit against NASA?

Most of you tell us, NASA betrayed the taxpayers about 30 billion dollars. This isn't a small number, I think. So if you're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, why the hell don't you do anything with substance but creating some clips on youtube or dorky websites?

Why don't you present your findings to scientists/engineers/experts from Russia, China, India or other countries who are not involved in NASA (northkorean scientists would welcome you with open arms, I guess)?

[JayUtah]

Under U.S. law, a "taxpayer" does not have standing to sue in civil court for this type of allegation.  I'm not sure how well your legal system compares to Anglo-Saxon "Common Law," but I assume you can figure out what it means under our system to have "standing."

However your challenge is easily converted to one of criminal law.  If NASA really did use appropriated funds to hoax the Apollo missions rather than undertake an attempt in good faith, then that subjects its higher officials to criminal prosecution.  That would have to follow the course of submitting evidence to a federal prosecutor and convention of a federal grand jury to weigh the evidence and, if necessary, produce an indictment.

[Dr.Acula]

Under U.S. law, a "taxpayer" does not have standing to sue in civil court for this type of allegation.  I'm not sure how well your legal system compares to Anglo-Saxon "Common Law," but I assume you can figure out what it means under our system to have "standing."

However your challenge is easily converted to one of criminal law.  If NASA really did use appropriated funds to hoax the Apollo missions rather than undertake an attempt in good faith, then that subjects its higher officials to criminal prosecution.  That would have to follow the course of submitting evidence to a federal prosecutor and convention of a federal grand jury to weigh the evidence and, if necessary, produce an indictment.

I must admit, I'm not an expert in US law (even not in German law  ) but I hope, you can imagine my intention.  Everytime I'm still wondering about the reason, no one of the HBs give their findings to scientists/experts not involved in NASA.

[ChrLz]

I think you'll find it is exactly the same reason that they always run away when asked to present their very best, killer, smokin' gun, number one, piece of evidence.

They won't commit as they know it will fail under proper scrutiny / haven't researched any of it properly (or have, and realised they were wrong or is was just all too difficult, but went ahead anyway).

It's a game that is now only played (on the denier's side) by people who are:
- very, very silly
- very, very deluded
- very, very committed to every conspiracy theory out there
- trolling
or some combination thereof.  And the Gish Gallop is the only methodology they can apply...

[Dr.Acula]

I think you'll find it is exactly the same reason that they always run away when asked to present their very best, killer, smokin' gun, number one, piece of evidence.

They won't commit as they know it will fail under proper scrutiny / haven't researched any of it properly (or have, and realised they were wrong or is was just all too difficult, but went ahead anyway).

It's a game that is now only played (on the denier's side) by people who are:
- very, very silly
- very, very deluded
- very, very committed to every conspiracy theory out there
- trolling
or some combination thereof.  And the Gish Gallop is the only methodology they can apply...

That's the best definition I've ever received. Thank you 

[AstroBrant]

Why don't you go to court to file a suit against NASA?

I have used that same argument several times. Maybe there are some aspiring attention-seekers who have seriously considered it -- until they read the law or consulted an attorney. The penalty for frivolous litigation or malicious prosecution in federal court, even if you believe you're right, can involve serious financial, (double or triple the defendant's expenses + fines), and even criminal charges if it is determined that the claim is groundless and fundamentally ridiculous. Bottom line: there is no lawyer who would take the case. He/she could receive a fine in the tens of thousands of dollars, and sanctions against the attorney and/or that attorney's law firm.

That same argument could be made regarding 9-11, only this time it would be a mass murder charge in addition to criminal conspiracy. The costs would be enormous. The complainant would have to get the district attorney to agree to press charges. Well, that's not very likely.

Wunder-Blunder hired a lawyer to threaten me with lawsuit if I didn't remove 27 of my YT videos. I refused. I never heard from him again. An attorney told me that yes, there are lawyers who will intimidate people this way for a client, even if they are just bluffing. But getting one to go to court to prosecute such frivolous complaints is quite another story. Still, I would love to see Wunder-Blunder go into a US court, unrepresented, and tutor a judge on copyright law.

This all raises another question, though. If a lawsuit seems frivolous from the start, does the court attempt to assess the plaintiff's ability to pay fines and other damages to the defendant if his complaint is shown to be groundless and malicious? If so, would the court be likely to preemptively dismiss the case primarily on the grounds that the defendant could be financially ruined by a frivolous litigation?

[Dr.Acula]

Why don't you go to court to file a suit against NASA?

I have used that same argument several times. Maybe there are some aspiring attention-seekers who have seriously considered it -- until they read the law or consulted an attorney. The penalty for frivolous litigation or malicious prosecution in federal court, even if you believe you're right, can involve serious financial, (double or triple the defendant's expenses + fines), and even criminal charges if it is determined that the claim is groundless and fundamentally ridiculous. Bottom line: there is no lawyer who would take the case. He/she could receive a fine in the tens of thousands of dollars, and sanctions against the attorney and/or that attorney's law firm.

That same argument could be made regarding 9-11, only this time it would be a mass murder charge in addition to criminal conspiracy. The costs would be enormous. The complainant would have to get the district attorney to agree to press charges. Well, that's not very likely.

Wunder-Blunder hired a lawyer to threaten me with lawsuit if I didn't remove 27 of my YT videos. I refused. I never heard from him again. An attorney told me that yes, there are lawyers who will intimidate people this way for a client, even if they are just bluffing. But getting one to go to court to prosecute such frivolous complaints is quite another story. Still, I would love to see Wunder-Blunder go into a US court, unrepresented, and tutor a judge on copyright law.

This all raises another question, though. If a lawsuit seems frivolous from the start, does the court attempt to assess the plaintiff's ability to pay fines and other damages to the defendant if his complaint is shown to be groundless and malicious? If so, would the court be likely to preemptively dismiss the case primarily on the grounds that the defendant could be financially ruined by a frivolous litigation?

I couldn't agree more with you.

Btw, I've watched some of your yt-clips, especially these ones about HWSNBN. Great job, I've learned so many things from your clips (of course from other clips either  ) and fora like this one or i.e. Unexplained Mysteries.

Remembering your yt-clips, there comes a funny thing in my mind. There is one HB, who is repeatedly insisting in a courtfile against the astronauts. I told him the same about the lawyer and asked him to do something and stop  whining. You can imagine his response 

[AstroBrant]

To Dr. Acula,

Thanks.

What is "HWSNBN"?

[Dr.Acula]

To Dr. Acula,

Thanks.

What is "HWSNBN"?

He Who Shall Not Be Named 

Call me lazy, but it's easier to type

[Sus_pilot]

To Dr. Acula,

Thanks.

What is "HWSNBN"?

He Who Shall Not Be Named 

Call me lazy, but it's easier to type

HWSNBN:  Isn't that pronounced "hasn't-been"?  (A play on "has been")

[Dr.Acula]

HWSNBN:  Isn't that pronounced "hasn't-been"?  (A play on "has been")

Good question, but I don't know. My native language is German, so I don't pronounce the acronym that way. But it makes sense.