Marshall,

                    You have confused  anti-"conspiracy theorist" with  counter "conspiracy theorist" . Besides which your introduction of 'holocaust deniers' as comparable to those of us who are not willing to accept conspiracy fantasies without challenge is profoundly insulting.

In logical terms conspiracy is amost always a poor explanation of an 'event' because it requires a complexity in the face of simpler expalantions. Of course 'conspiracy' happens but because conspiracies are inherently complex they are subject to a high proportion of failure. To argue for a 'successful conspiracy' in the face of a simpler counter explantion is to adopt a double degree of irrationality.

According the Rawat cult the capacity to mount a 'successful conspiracy' is give it far more credence than it deserves. Rawat's operations have always been hit and miss (mostly miss) and have been dependent not on the application of forethought and intelligence but on the gullability of a limited number of 'co-operators' and on the hysterical behaviour of crowds.  Neither provideds a template for entrapping a victim in some bizzarre legal trickery which involves revealing some profoundly damaging information about the cult's finances for very limited return.

N