I was expecting it today. But I just checked the Docket and there's nothing new there.
I'm assuming that Judge Walton is spending a lot of time on gathering together precedents and citations to back up his ruling. And a lot of proof-reading may be going on. So, I don't expect he'll just issue a simple one-page ruling.
My best guess now is that he'll issue the Order sometime early next week. But that's still just a guess. Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com
Create the perfect conspiracy theory
Pick your adversary
A sense of anomie (dislocation from society and authority) fuels beliefs in conspiracy theories, so pick a big bad organisation of some sort - government or big business is ideal
The government is ideal. "They're always up to no good."
For added spice, identify a shadowy, secretive society with implied links to your adversary: the more shadowy, the better
The FBI and the CIA are ideal villains.
Choose your event
You'll need a big, contemporary newsworthy event around which to weave your theory
The anthrax attacks of 2001 are perfect.
If it's a sudden, shocking visual occurrence of international import it is more likely to become a "flashbulb memory" for the masses. Your key conspiracy audience, most able to create such vivid "indelible" memories will be between the ages of 20 and 35
Develop your story
Construct your theory from carefully selected information that weaves together into a compelling story
If something doesn't fit, reinterpret it in line with your theory
As we've seen in this thread, the two sentences above are TrebelRebel's forte. He uses arguments like the "failure to reverse engineer the attack anthrax" as if it were true, even though it has been shown to be totally FALSE. He totally relies upon some nonsense in an idiotic AFIP newsletter over any number of contradicting scientific observations and scientific publications.
Create uncertainty: question existing evidence or find new evidence that contradicts the "official" account
One way of doing that is to talk about some other work you don't like by some expert to show that he cannot be trusted on this subject.
Prepare your defence
If someone highlights a gap or inconsistency in your evidence, don't be afraid to tweak your story, but keep the core conspiracy in place
You can allow the finer details of the theory to mutate, but always keep in mind the maxim - "they did it, I just have to find the proof that they did it"
The above also and particularly applies to True Believers. They KNOW the truth. They just have to find "the proof" which MUST be out there somewhere.
Broaden the circle of conspirators to include those who question your position... "they're denying the truth - they must be involved too!"