ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi , Lockerbie bombing , Pan Am 103

Reply
Old 31st October 2009, 12:51 PM   #361
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
If it had suited the authorities to "prove" that Abu Talb bought those clothes, then Gauci would have identified him for them, just as easily (and probably just as definitely!). They could have built just as good a circumstantial case against him as they did against Megrahi. (The marked calendar, the trip to Malta including 23rd November 1988, the clothes bought in Malta in his flat, the association with Khreesat and Jibril, and so on and so on.)

But it didn't suit the politicians and the spooks. And there are a lot of heavy hints floating around that the CIA had solid evidence that the PFLP-GC did the dirty, but didn't pass this on to the FBI. Instead they leant on Giaka to make stuff up about Megrahi and Fhimah they hoped would hold up in court.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2009, 12:58 PM   #362
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
They were wittering on about DNA on the radio this morning while I was getting dressed. Yeah right, they'll get meaningful DNA from the dregs of an explosion that happened over 21 years ago, after the evidence has been trawled over for explosives residues and all sorts - not.

DNA fingerprinting is getting better all the time. Long shot but posible.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st October 2009, 01:19 PM   #363
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Yeah, I did rethink that remark after reading some more commentary. If they found DNA belonging to a suspect on something identified as being in the bomb bag, and the world could be convinced it hadn't been planted, it would be a very big deal indeed.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 31st October 2009 at 01:21 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2009, 06:36 AM   #364
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
When new science rather than new thinking is the proposal, expect more abuse of the latest forensic science has to offer.

In the news, Malta's PM denies the rumors of a specific Gauci probe. Prof. Black agrees it's best to hold out for a more all-inclusive UN probe rather than get too narrow. It was Hans Kochler, not Jim Swire, calling specifically for a Gauci-specific probe by Malta.

Our good fiend Juval Aviv is back saying he's got, or knows of, whatever, the "lost" CCTV footage of a Frankfurt handler loading a bown Samsonite onto PA103A. He can't show it to us because of the CIA or something. But he'll also describe the video and audio he has to put it all together
Quote:
“The video shows a baggage handler called Roland O’Neill,” said Mr Aviv. “He picks up the suitcase and realises it is heavier than usual. He goes to the phone and makes a call.

“Then he takes the case and puts it on the trolley. All the phones were tapped, so I also had a tape of the phone call.

“O’Neill called the CIA guy at the embassy in Bonn. He said, ‘This is O’Neill, I have the suitcase but it is much heavier than usual’. The CIA guy says, ‘Yes, we know, let it go’.”
How on Earth can you deny that kind of total proof that's definitely hidden away somewhere?

PM Gordon Brown has ruled out a more expansive, enabled Lockerbie probe as inappropriate. As Foreign Secretary David Miliband had said, any investigation "should be a matter for the Scots" and no one else. Had the timer ben set differently, it would be a matter for some school of fish out there off Newfoundland.

ETA: And Chomsky speaks!

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 2nd November 2009 at 06:39 AM.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2009, 07:17 AM   #365
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Why would a suitcase containing a radio-cassette player with 450g of Semtex in it be "much heavier" than a suitcase full of heroin?

That's frankly nuts. The bomb suitcase had the radio-cassette bomb, only 450g of Semtex remember, and rather less in the way of clothes than a normal piece of luggage, by all accounts. It should have been lighter than most suitcases, and certainly lighter than a bag full of heroin, not heavier.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2009, 04:22 PM   #366
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Why would a suitcase containing a radio-cassette player with 450g of Semtex in it be "much heavier" than a suitcase full of heroin?

That's frankly nuts. The bomb suitcase had the radio-cassette bomb, only 450g of Semtex remember, and rather less in the way of clothes than a normal piece of luggage, by all accounts. It should have been lighter than most suitcases, and certainly lighter than a bag full of heroin, not heavier.

Rolfe.
I kind of thought the same thing, but it pales next to the image him actually sitting in some room watching this hidden video, with the secret wiretap audio, and these two guys having just this detailed conversation. And he's the take it to the media just don't bring proof guy anyway, so hidden this crap would not be. My opinion of Mr. Aviv just went up. He's being quite helpful with this new phase, being very up front and clear about his intentions so we can all just happily ignore and keep moving.

However, since a guy was specifically named - unusual specificity - don't be surprised if he surfaces and 'verifies' that's just what happened. Also maybe that won't happen, I dunno.

A lot of back and forth on investigations lately. Apparently there's some kind of widespread interest in or expectation of one, perhaps being tested or tired out.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2009, 05:31 PM   #367
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Read Coleman. He describes all that too, same names. And the polygraph interrogations of the baggage handlers.

I have no frickin idea, frankly. I have no idea why Pan Am would employ a fantasist to investigate the affair on their behalf.

It's kind of interesting the number of people who have been smeared and discredited (or against whom attempts have been made to smear and discredit).

Lester Coleman
Allan Frankovich
Juval Aviv
Oswald le Winter
Jim Swire
David ben Aryeah (look at the first comment on this blog entry - the reason why we have to sign in to comment on Robert black's blog now)

Has anyone tried to smear Robert Black or Hans Kochler, I wonder?

BTW, look what I just found. Lesley Riddoch is a highly respected Scottish journalist who for years fronted an excellent politics show on Radio Scotland.

I don't know who's right. But it does seem to work - it doesn't matter if the material is out there, even as a film or a book, if the smearing has been done right it just lies there and only the conspiracy theorists pay any attention to it.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2009, 05:12 PM   #368
realdon
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 59
A bit more random stuff here from a detectives tale by John Crawford.
Now this book will certainly not win the Booker prize but...

DCI Crawford was on site early doors 22nd Dec and was involved in body recovery and the search for evidence, they were told on arrival by superiors that "they would be investigating murder on a massive scale" (P27) Someone seem to have come to this conclusion pretty quick or may be DCI Crawford was a bit sleepy and wasn't paying attention perhaps "they could be.." etc

After the searching was over he then became part of the team investigating the autumn leaves files, the timer fragment. He wine and dined Bollier when he came to Scotland for interview. Went to Jordan to assist with Khreeset He also spent alot of time in Malta. He said he was just a small gog etc and was not party to all information just an intrepid plod on the trail.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nh9...age&q=&f=false

Pages 58 to 63 are interesting as he recounts how he had problems with the production labels and had to go back and find items at Dexstar that had been mislaid.

Page 65 he tells how a DCI Cairns and McColm
"had found a small piece of aluminium in H sector. This turned out to be a piece of the luggage container in which the bomb had exploded and a piece of the timer mechanism had been blasted into the corner of it"

Well here we have another bit of bad memory, assumption whatever as we know that this was actually a piece of the Toshiba radio. Or do we ?

D
realdon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2009, 05:46 PM   #369
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Probably bad memory. These two bits of circuit board tend to get confused by a lot of people. But I can't believe the Dextar operation was secure - particularly from an insider with nefarious intent.

I just have a bit of a problem with the intent and means being there to plant anything like that timer fragment as early as January.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 10:15 AM   #370
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
It seems impossible to provide a plausible way for Megrahi, or anyone for that matter, to have introduced an unaccompanied bag at Luqa Airport on Dec 21 1988. Both the airport and the airline Air Malta would appear to have provided, and to those with expert knowledge on how these airline and baggage systems operate, irrefutable documentation showing it was virtually impossible for a bag to be inserted, and indeed the records of KM180 completely support this conclusion in respect of their passenger and baggage reconciliation on that day. Given this, if there are no arguments to what has been probed and concluded on these threads, then that puts Megrahi, although not necessarily Libya, out of the frame altogether in relation to the charges alleged by the US and UK authorities for his part in the bombing of flight 103.

There is some evidence that unaccompanied bag(s) were loaded onto PanAm 103a in Frankfurt, possible through various means, although it appears from the arguments of the prosecution that, the rouge bag that appears at the station assigned to collect baggage from the Malta flight, had to be the bomb bag. As has been demonstrated on here, that is simply not the case.

The distinct, and lets be honest, questionable lack of official records for Frankfurt handling of baggage, by virtue leaves me highly suspicious of the Erac printout, the reasons for it's initial retainment, and it's subsequently major significance in somehow linking origination of the bomb with the Air Malta flight despite the far more incontrovertible evidence that was made available from the very beginning by Air Malta and Luqa airport authorities. The fact that if indeed the bomb suitcase was introduced either from the KM180 flight, or inserted at the coding station where the baggage arrived from Malta, also ignores the security measures that bag would need to negotiate through the Frankfurt system, where although discrepancies are found in their baggage reconciliation with passengers, their baggage system operators did x-ray all baggage loaded onto PA103a. In addition, the warnings that had been issued and the exposing of the PLFP cell just outside Frankfurt and their Toshiba bombs containing barometric timers, would surely have resulted in a step-up in security around German Airports, especially the baggage areas with the x-ray examiners forewarned about the possible Toshiba Radio disguise.

Perhaps, as has been suggested by a few, there were covert activities in operation at Frankfurt involving 'controlled drug deliveries' and therefore disclosure of all relevant records could have exposed illegal surreptitious operations which could be highly damaging to the US, UK and German governments. To expect that these kinds of covert activities are not operated at State level is unrealistic. The theory of the 'drugs for hostages' deals and the integral part played by Frankfurt and Heathrow put forward by Aviv, Coleman and Francovich is one which carries immeasurable rewards, but clearly also inherently very grave risks for all those involved. I would not completely rule out the possibility of ingestion of the suitcase containing the bomb at Frankfurt, but on the balance of what is known, I tend to think Heathrow the more likely.

The poor security and baggage reconciliation at Heathrow was ably shown by the story given to the court by Bedford and Kamboj, the baggage handlers at Heathrow loading luggage onto 103. Despite Bedfords claim of two suitcases, unknown to him, were placed in the container from which the bomb exploded, and that had been left unguarded at the PanAm gate, the judges then provided novel interpretations of how the bags Bedford viewed could not be the bomb simply because of extraneous positioning claims, when the most patent evidence that a rogue samsonite suitcase had been introduced at Heathrow was compelling.

The break-in at Heathrow, at the PanAm gate no-less, reported so soon after it occurred by Ray Manley, seems to have been simply cast aside by the police who recorded it. This despite a PanAm plane being blown out of the sky later that same day. Even more disturbingly, it seems there was a concerted effort to conceal this breach of security until it finally became known only at the first appeal by Megrahi in 2002. Why on earth would information like that be suppressed? It becomes even more perturbing given what we now know of the, in comparison, scant evidence pertaining to security at Luqa and with Air Malta. Great effort has seemingly been made to either conceal or divert any attention away from the more substantial and significant areas of evidence which exist at Heathrow and Frankfurt in favour of the more fanciful and indeed preposterous notions as laid out by the prosecution case that Luqa Airport, and therefore Megrahi, were instrumental in the bombing of flight 103.

Perhaps, if there was a 'controlled delivery' in operation incorporating the DEA (under the auspices of the CIA), the German BKA and British MI6 on 21 dec, using Frankfurt and Heathrow Airport, then we have good reason for those agencies to steer the investigation away from those areas. Better still, the loss of all records and any evidence which does come to light is either ignored, or if possible must point the investigators in another direction entirely? Perhaps the first assumption made was that the attack on 103 had utilised the controlled delivery to insert a bomb? My own thoughts have drifted towards two operations (the drug sting and the attack on 103) as entirely separate. The covert operation happening from Frankfurt, while the bomb suitcase was inserted at Heathrow. Perhaps with the knowledge of a covert drug operation, any group wanting to bring down an Airline, would know to inflict their attack during this operation would present any government or investigators with a real dilemma?

The loss of documentation from Frankfurt obscures any real conclusive evidence of anything untoward, or legitimate, taking place at that airport, while the suppression of the break-in and the apparent gaping holes in security at Heathrow together with the Bedford suitcase are just quietly (hopefully) and discreetly ignored as though not noteworthy far less worth further investigation? Given the intelligence on Khreesat's devices, and the public knowledge that the BKA had simply released the 'caught red-handed' bomb-maker Khreesat back to Jordan, it would be imperative that any evidence discovered and any investigation instigated, should not be allowed to dig too far into this - for it would be absolutely obvious to everyone that this would be the most likely course of inquiry and Khreesat the clear suspect - and would be the first focus of any investigation.

I have a VHS copy of the Maltese Double Cross taken from it's one and only public showing on UK's channel 4 in 1995. I really should endeavour to have this transferred and uploaded, if not for making a slightly better copy available online, then for the 'Lockerbie Debate' that was broadcast immediately after the film, which I also recorded. The discussion, primarily focussing on the film's assertions, included Allan Francovich, Jim Swire, Jim Duggan (representing US families), David Leppard (Sunday Times) and Oliver 'Buck' Revell who headed the FBI investigation prior to Richard Marquise. The discussion made for fascinating viewing reaching a dramatic point when Jim Swire probed Oliver Revell on the fact his son had been booked on Pan Am 103 only to change and fly home on a different date. Swire asked quite bluntly if this had been as a result of the warnings that were made known to many US diplomats, or whether Revell had any prior knowledge of a possible attack on 103. Revell confirmed the change by his son but that this was simply due to a change in his son's work commitments with the US military in Germany and had no connection to any warnings.

All aspects of the Lockerbie disaster deserve close attention, and there are some aspects which deserve the particular attention of Americans and the British such as those examined on here. These will not be addressed by people and press elsewhere. These topics, the ones that are close to home - literally in our backyard - that have been most abysmally ignored or covered up by the US and UK media. There are a few lone voices on both sides of the Atlantic, who are either dismissed as some sort of nutty CT's, or who's cries of foul play by the government slowly fade away isolated in a lonely dark corner. As Flora Swire's fiancé, Hart Lidov said in his highly critical article written for the Columbia Journalism Review on the tenth anniversary of the disaster, "it is unrealistic to suppose that they (those who ordered the bombing) will ever be held accountable. Khomeni, Mohtashemi, Assad, and Khaddaffi did not take an oath of office to protect us - officials of the US government did."

He continued, "In the case of Lockerbie there are innumerable theories, no indisputable proof that any one is correct, and no reason to assume that situation will change at any specific time in the future. Thus any discussion that is predicated on knowing who precisely carried out the bombing is essentially a dead end. The answer may be known by the intelligence services of any of several countries, but it may not be. If it is, there is no reason to expect that it will be divulged except as it suits other political purposes in what may be a very long fullness of time. In the absence of this information are there questions that the press could have addressed - yes, lots of them. Who had an interest in seeing the Pan Am 103 bombing succeed? What do the few facts have become public since Dec. 21 1988 add up to? Did the US security services take appropriate actions in light of what was known? What can be inferred was known based on actions - as opposed to public statements about “what was known”? None of these questions have been addressed by American journalists, or if they have it is in the manner of Michael Wines of the NY Times who like a weathercock points in which ever direction the State Department is blowing, or Steve Emerson, whose continued relationship with Oliver Revell (at least as late as Emerson's WSJ article “Stop Aid and Comfort for Patrons of Terror” 8/5/96) make his reporting of a story in which Revell may in fact be a central culprit, unreliable."

In short, Lidov's claim was not only one of culpability on the part of the US security services, but specifically of Revell and the grave assertion of complicity in bombing. Indeed, Revell so incensed by the allegations made by Lidov, he made application to the US court claiming defamation of character, which was ultimately lost. However, given it's sensitive nature, and time that has elapsed, the full article is very hard to track down, and even although I do have a copy, I don't feel it would be in the best interests of the forum for me to post it in full. Anyone wishing to read the full article, pm me and I will oblige.

Last edited by Buncrana; 5th November 2009 at 10:19 AM.
Buncrana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 02:00 PM   #371
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Probably bad memory. These two bits of circuit board tend to get confused by a lot of people. But I can't believe the Dextar operation was secure - particularly from an insider with nefarious intent.

I just have a bit of a problem with the intent and means being there to plant anything like that timer fragment as early as January.

Realdon, I've been reading that, and it's more complicated than I thought. I've taken it to the MST-13 thread.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 02:55 PM   #372
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,729
Not intending to distract from the many excellent and fascinating posts here on this subject, but :

cartoon from The Guardian
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 03:20 PM   #373
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Buncrana View Post
I have a VHS copy of the Maltese Double Cross taken from it's one and only public showing on UK's channel 4 in 1995. I really should endeavour to have this transferred and uploaded, if not for making a slightly better copy available online, then for the 'Lockerbie Debate' that was broadcast immediately after the film, which I also recorded. The discussion, primarily focussing on the film's assertions, included Allan Francovich, Jim Swire, Jim Duggan (representing US families), David Leppard (Sunday Times) and Oliver 'Buck' Revell who headed the FBI investigation prior to Richard Marquise. The discussion made for fascinating viewing reaching a dramatic point when Jim Swire probed Oliver Revell on the fact his son had been booked on Pan Am 103 only to change and fly home on a different date. Swire asked quite bluntly if this had been as a result of the warnings that were made known to many US diplomats, or whether Revell had any prior knowledge of a possible attack on 103. Revell confirmed the change by his son but that this was simply due to a change in his son's work commitments with the US military in Germany and had no connection to any warnings.
That does sound like excellent viewing. The movie itself is so long, and IMO the copy we have is acceptable, so that's a time-payoff issue, but the after-talk... I didn't even get what Revell's connection was until now - he was the pre-Marquise! (and looking at Lidov now). If you think it's a valuable addition, someone with a video input card could do it easily. I recommend almost any format aside from WMA, perhaps different resolutions - one pro-quality for later, one smaller for uploading. Anyway, excellent post altogether, lotta thoughts.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 04:26 PM   #374
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
The Channel 4 version was cut down to only 90 minutes. Could you lose a whole hour without damaging the informaton? But the after-chat sounds fascinating. The trouble is, though, that it so seldom settles anything. Oh, so Revell's son's job forced him to change flights? "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?" Could be perfectly true. Doesn't have to be though.

I didn't see it at the time. Rats. Could have got a Super-Betamax copy, which was the best picture quality you could get at the time - not that dissimilar to a CD on a bog-standard telly. Oh well. I'd sure like to see that discussion.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 05:02 PM   #375
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Buncrana, my thinking is very much tending in the same direction as yours on this. (Which is why I keep trying to knock down that timer fragment, because it doesn't fit with a heathrow introduction.)

I think a lot of what you say about Frankfurt is more appropriate in the "unaccompanied bag" thread, so I hope you don't mind if I take part of your post over there.

I'm slowly making a better transcript of The Maltese Double Cross. The online one is a decent start, but it's got a lot of errors and omissions, and you can't navigate it as it only has one-page-on buttons. I thought we might then try to annotate it with whatever we've managed to establish, or reasonably speculate, about particular passages. But just a PDF of the transcript would be handy.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2009, 06:22 PM   #376
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Originally Posted by Buncrana View Post
All aspects of the Lockerbie disaster deserve close attention, and there are some aspects which deserve the particular attention of Americans and the British such as those examined on here. These will not be addressed by people and press elsewhere. These topics, the ones that are close to home - literally in our backyard - that have been most abysmally ignored or covered up by the US and UK media. There are a few lone voices on both sides of the Atlantic, who are either dismissed as some sort of nutty CT's, or who's cries of foul play by the government slowly fade away isolated in a lonely dark corner.

This touches on something I've been ruminating about. In 1988 the internet was barely a foetus. Nobody could have imagined the form it would take, or that within 20 years anyone with a modem and a phone line would be able to access humungous reams of evidence and discussion without leaving their desk.

But it goes further than that. The development of this sort of public discussion is even more recent. The ability of the internet to bring together people with a common interest to discuss all sorts of matters is an amazing sociological phenomenon. I already have my name on Letters to the Editor in scientific journals, as a co-author with other forum members I have never met, letters entirely written on this forum. A number of such groups was responsible for shredding an entire issue of the journal Homeopathy, on the subject of "the memory of water". Without the internet, it's probable nobody but homoeopaths would even have known the articles existed, never mind read them. Alone, maybe none of us would have bothered to do any more than sound off in private for ten minutes. Alone, maybe none of us would have been able to dissect these papers quite as forensically as was achieved. Collaborating, it was accomplished.

This forum is almost a unique resource in that respect - certainly for CT-related issues, I think. ("Bad Science" is also pretty hot on the SCAM merchants.) Look at what's been done in the field of 9/11. There is a critical mass of posters who have the evidence and the couter-arguments to the nonsense at their fingertips. We've done moon hoaxing and Kennedy and Rosewell and contrails and alien livestock mutilations as well.

If you look at my OP on this thread, you'll see that I came here looking for a similar forensic dissection of the events surrounding Lockerbie. I didn't find a thing. The thread petered out in less than a page. It was suggested that I should become the forum expert. I took a look at the height of the mountain, and declined (at the time).

However, we're now close to a critical mass of interested posters bouncing ideas around, keeping each other on track, and correcting misconceptions, to have the possibility to achieve something. We'll never prove anything, but even providing a balanced look at the evidence and some reasonable interpretations would be a start.

I just want to know what I think. I want to have an opinion, and I want that opinion to be as closely aligned to the known facts as possible. People like us didn't really exist even ten years ago. We couldn't have been conceived of 20 years ago. Is it possible for people like us to contribute to a critical mass that eventually changes perceptions?

I think it's worth a go.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2009, 05:03 PM   #377
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
This touches on something I've been ruminating about. In 1988 the internet was barely a foetus. Nobody could have imagined the form it would take, or that within 20 years anyone with a modem and a phone line would be able to access humungous reams of evidence and discussion without leaving their desk.

But it goes further than that. The development of this sort of public discussion is even more recent. The ability of the internet to bring together people with a common interest to discuss all sorts of matters is an amazing sociological phenomenon. I already have my name on Letters to the Editor in scientific journals, as a co-author with other forum members I have never met, letters entirely written on this forum. A number of such groups was responsible for shredding an entire issue of the journal Homeopathy, on the subject of "the memory of water". Without the internet, it's probable nobody but homoeopaths would even have known the articles existed, never mind read them. Alone, maybe none of us would have bothered to do any more than sound off in private for ten minutes. Alone, maybe none of us would have been able to dissect these papers quite as forensically as was achieved. Collaborating, it was accomplished.

This forum is almost a unique resource in that respect - certainly for CT-related issues, I think. ("Bad Science" is also pretty hot on the SCAM merchants.) Look at what's been done in the field of 9/11. There is a critical mass of posters who have the evidence and the couter-arguments to the nonsense at their fingertips. We've done moon hoaxing and Kennedy and Rosewell and contrails and alien livestock mutilations as well.

If you look at my OP on this thread, you'll see that I came here looking for a similar forensic dissection of the events surrounding Lockerbie. I didn't find a thing. The thread petered out in less than a page. It was suggested that I should become the forum expert. I took a look at the height of the mountain, and declined (at the time).

However, we're now close to a critical mass of interested posters bouncing ideas around, keeping each other on track, and correcting misconceptions, to have the possibility to achieve something. We'll never prove anything, but even providing a balanced look at the evidence and some reasonable interpretations would be a start.

I just want to know what I think. I want to have an opinion, and I want that opinion to be as closely aligned to the known facts as possible. People like us didn't really exist even ten years ago. We couldn't have been conceived of 20 years ago. Is it possible for people like us to contribute to a critical mass that eventually changes perceptions?

I think it's worth a go.

Rolfe.
Yes, I have often wondered why exactly the whole disaster in Lockerbie, the subsequent enquiry and the resulting court case, never really entered the public's psyche, as many other dramatic historical events, especially those involving mass murder, aimed at in the main, the US. The lack of knowledge about the whole tragedy in the UK is astounding, given the proximity of the disaster and the relatively wide coverage it has received in the media. Admittedly, usually a very subjective media and that which suppports the official investigation and court judgement on Megrahi steadfastly.

These forums, and the collective voices they are capable of bringing together to discuss the vast array of topics is indeed as you say, an "amazing sociological phenomenon". I have often tried in vain to broach the subject of Lockerbie, from social circles, professionally and on other forums, and was all too often met with silence or simple indifference. As I said in my first post, the discussion on here has been reasoned, conversant and objective. It has without doubt provided me with much more knowledge about the events and the evidence of the case, than I previously did over nearly 15 years of following the case. Although, I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news about 103 going down over Lockerbie, it was only while on a visit to Windsor in 1994, that purely by chance I came across a copy of Trail of the Octopus, and decided it looked, more that anything, curious. After reading it, I followed events much more closely.

Questioning oneself was constant, while looking to support one's position with evidence. In the case of Lockerbie, it is undoubtedly a complex weave of many facets where evidence can be found, but, I for one, think you deserve immense credit for persisting in trying to uncover these facts. As you say, who could have possibly imagined 20 years ago, the capabilities that the internet would allow, let alone forums such as this. We are making balanced conclusions on what we do know, and yes I absolutely believe, perceptions can be changed. To what degree, and with what outcomes, is another matter I think.
Buncrana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2009, 03:08 AM   #378
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Actually, I think the opinion that "Megrahi was framed" is fairly widespread in Scotland. If for no other reason than that every time it's mentioned it prompts a rash of letters to the Editor and opinion articles from respected journalists saying so. However, not many people are very conversant with the details, and the official line is simply to pretend these opinions don't exist.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2009, 08:15 AM   #379
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Originally Posted by Buncrana View Post
As Flora Swire's fiancé, Hart Lidov said in his highly critical article written for the Columbia Journalism Review on the tenth anniversary of the disaster, "it is unrealistic to suppose that they (those who ordered the bombing) will ever be held accountable. Khomeni, Mohtashemi, Assad, and Khaddaffi did not take an oath of office to protect us - officials of the US government did."

He continued, "In the case of Lockerbie there are innumerable theories, no indisputable proof that any one is correct, and no reason to assume that situation will change at any specific time in the future. Thus any discussion that is predicated on knowing who precisely carried out the bombing is essentially a dead end. The answer may be known by the intelligence services of any of several countries, but it may not be. If it is, there is no reason to expect that it will be divulged except as it suits other political purposes in what may be a very long fullness of time. In the absence of this information are there questions that the press could have addressed - yes, lots of them. Who had an interest in seeing the Pan Am 103 bombing succeed? What do the few facts have become public since Dec. 21 1988 add up to? Did the US security services take appropriate actions in light of what was known? What can be inferred was known based on actions - as opposed to public statements about “what was known”? None of these questions have been addressed by American journalists, or if they have it is in the manner of Michael Wines of the NY Times who like a weathercock points in which ever direction the State Department is blowing, or Steve Emerson, whose continued relationship with Oliver Revell (at least as late as Emerson's WSJ article “Stop Aid and Comfort for Patrons of Terror” 8/5/96) make his reporting of a story in which Revell may in fact be a central culprit, unreliable."

In short, Lidov's claim was not only one of culpability on the part of the US security services, but specifically of Revell and the grave assertion of complicity in bombing. Indeed, Revell so incensed by the allegations made by Lidov, he made application to the US court claiming defamation of character, which was ultimately lost. However, given it's sensitive nature, and time that has elapsed, the full article is very hard to track down, and even although I do have a copy, I don't feel it would be in the best interests of the forum for me to post it in full. Anyone wishing to read the full article, pm me and I will oblige.

Thanks for the link Buncrana. As it's just a link I'm not sure why you don't want to post it, but I'll respect your decision.

I never really thought about who Flora Swire's boyfriend was (were they actually engaged?), and I didn't know he was a journalist or a Lockerbie "truther". That's an interesting page altogether.

However, I note that Mr. Lidov falls into that oft-repeated fallacy that PA103 was late on the fateful evening.

Originally Posted by Hart Lidov
In fact there was the completely unpredictable turn that take off from Heathrow was delayed by an hour, the plane took a longer than usual course over dry land, reaching the preset altitude over Lockerbie, and resulting in all of that awkward evidence for examination - the one thing that Revell and company did not expect, a large amount of forensically examinable material.

It really wasn't. PA103A was late, and the baggage handlers had to move fast to get Maid of the Seas loaded from the Frankfurt jet, but they made it. (As far as I can tell, the Frankfurt baggage wasn't x-rayed at this point. Was this because of the short time, or would it not have been normal practice anyway? Would they have found anything if they had x-rayed it?)

PA103 was scheduled to depart at 6pm. The plane pushed off from the gate a minute or two after six. This is "on time" by anybody's standards. Planes do not, ever, leave the tarmac at their scheduled departure time. They have to taxi to the end of the runway, wait for instructions, and then make their take-off run before they leave the ground. How long does this normally take? Ten minutes? Fifteen?

PA103 left the ground at 6.25pm. That is ten to fifteen minutes late at the most. Even without that negligible (in the context of a transatlantic flight) delay, and even if the plane had taken a more southerly course, it would not and could not have been "far out over the Atlantic" (as others have suggested) when it exploded.

So what's this about the "pre-set altitude"? That pre-supposes a barometric device, not the timer-only device postulated at Camp Zeist. With a barmoetric device it doesn't matter a damn how long the plane is delayed, it will always explode the same time after take-off. So the (erroneous) comment about the time delay is actually a total irrelevance.

What he really seems to be saying is that it was the unusually northerly route that caused the over-land explosion, nothing to do with the delay. That could be quite true, but whichever way you slice it, an explosion only 38 minutes after take-off is chancing it. It could have hit Ireland.

It's a timing that makes sense if what you're relying on is one of those primitive analogue timers which could only be set for a maximum delay of 30 minutes (Khreesat's modus operandi). You know you're going to get an explosion at 30,000 feet, you kind of hope it might be over the sea to destroy the evidence, but you're willing to risk bits of plane being scattered all over the countryside if that's how it pans out.

It doesn't make sense if you have the opportunity to set a longer delay.

The way Lidov presents his argument is quite confused and contradictory, and makes me wonder just how clearly he's thinking about all this. Maybe not so much?

By the way, the "the US authorities knew about PA103 in advance and allowed it to happen so as to allow Iran to level the score for the Airbus" theory has been advanced more publicly than that. Tam Daylell put it forward in a newspaper article quite recently.

I don't think I'm prepared to believe that US personnel would let an aircraft full of innocent civilians take off, knowing it was going to blow up, and do nothing about it. I suppose we have to add it to the list of theories though.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 9th November 2009 at 08:16 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2009, 03:33 AM   #380
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
November 20, Friday, was the day Megrahi had to die by for Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to avert a fresh row. It has passed and Megrahi lives a bit longer still. Was there a deal? Did they actually know he'd likely live significantly longer than three months?

Oddly, I suspect such a deal. The evidence is he dropped his appeal just after talking in private with MacAskill (a first, I hear) before getting that diagnosis and then, per law, going home. After all, you want something, like an appeal dropped, wouldn't it help to offer something - like an extra month, say - in return? Like water for a thirsty man, life for a dying man is an irresistable lure. It can give you much leverage if you're low or desperate enough to use it...

Speaking of firsts, my reason in bumping, asides from marking the 3-month point, is this neat little list of firsts from a site that makes me feel less clandestine for having the whole trial transcripts now (news later):
Quote:
6 From the running list of "firsts" which we maintain on the web-site: "The Lockerbie trial has been said to be: 1) the first time that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has provided documentary evidence to a foreign court, and the first time that it has permitted a former intelligence source to testify in a trial on foreign soil; 2) the first time that LiveNote (http://www.livenote.com) software has been used in a Scottish court to produce simultaneous transcripts; 3) the largest mass murder in Scottish legal history; 4) the first time a Scottish court has sat abroad; 5) the first time in Scottish legal history that serious criminal charges have been tried without a jury; 6) the most expensive and possibly the longest trial in Scottish legal history, employing the largest prosecution and investigation team without even including US Department of Justice personnel; 7) the first time that the United Nations Security Council has pressured a state, through economic sanctions, to surrender its nationals for trial abroad; 8) the first time that a national civilian court has ever conducted an entire criminal trial in the territory of another sovereign country; and 9) held in what is quite possibly the most secure and most high-tech courthouse ever built."
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/lessons/lesoct00.htm
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2009, 11:35 AM   #381
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Ronnie Biggs is still alive. Ergo, nobody is going to say anything about Megrahi.

Rofe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2009, 02:54 PM   #382
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Ronnie Biggs is still alive. Ergo, nobody is going to say anything about Megrahi.

Rofe.
Apparently not many after all, judging by Black's blog. Only know-nothing Americans ... like Senator Schumer. If the "Lockerbee" bomber (ala Huckabee, Applebee's) is still alive Gordon Brown should have him fly back to Scotland to make up the post 3-months days in prison.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/6...cottish-prison

Friggin Americans, and I am one. (shakes head).
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2009, 03:13 PM   #383
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Oh, I saw it. About an inch and a half on an inside page of yesterday's paper. Nobody's paying any attention.

The Labour party would love to give the SNP stick about it, but it was the Labour government in England who let Ronnie Biggs out on the same terms about a fortnight earlier than Megrahi was released, so they can't say a word.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2009, 06:40 PM   #384
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
By the way, I got Marquise to tell me what special information he has that leads him to be so sure that Merahi is guilty.

Originally Posted by Richard Marquise
There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe me. I (and my colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic) collected the evidence and presented it to a Scottish court. It was they--not me--who found the evidence compelling enough to convict Mr. Megrahi. It was they who believed the evidence was proof beyond a reasonable doubt and they are the only ones who needed convincing. None of us involved in the investigation ever believed the evidence was "perfect." It was what it was and we gave it to prosecutors and then to judges. However when I read about all the "evidence" which links Iran to the attack (see MP Grahame's missive of earlier today), that I find quite lacking and not holding a candle to what was presented at Camp Zeist. Perfect--no--beyond a reasonable doubt--based on what three judges wrote in 2001--yes--absolutely and that is all that does matter.

Nothing. Just the same as the rest of the head-in-the-sand brigade. The judges brought in a guilty verdict and that's all that matters, that proves it.

And by the way, my post to which he replied was about the Gauci identification and the introduction of the bag at Malta, I said nothing at all about any case against Iran.

Wow. Just, wow.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 23rd November 2009 at 06:56 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 12:11 AM   #385
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
By the way, I got Marquise to tell me what special information he has that leads him to be so sure that Merahi is guilty.
Awesome. For those who don't know, Richard Marquise is the former chief of the FBI's whole SCOTBOM investigation. He comments at Blogger, mostly talking with or about Bollier at Robert Black's blog. My favorite comment so far is this one, which I can partly sympathize with is at the bottom of this page: "Spook Terror".

in response to Rolfe:

Quote:
Nothing. Just the same as the rest of the head-in-the-sand brigade. The judges brought in a guilty verdict and that's all that matters, that proves it.

And by the way, my post to which he replied was about the Gauci identification and the introduction of the bag at Malta, I said nothing at all about any case against Iran.
Is this a formal logical fallacy? Appeal to having already won the argument (legally)? Uh, we know that, it's the fact that you cheated. "But no, the judges bought it! They said blah blah

And on the Iran argument, to be fair, that is where you tend to lean, as do I, for the likely real explanation. Everyone questioning a theory or supposition should have some alternate explanation for observed facts (eg, re:9/11 "where'd they put the passengers then?")

But all he's doing is appealing to a lack of alternatives (that simply doesn't exist BTW) in a weak effort to bolster their positive claims. Sorry, the "evidence"s positive claims. Ah, can't explain it right, but it's definitely a straw man the way he uses the point. Oh and also a false straw man. How did he describe the evidence against the PFLPGC?

Originally Posted by R. M.
I find quite lacking and not holding a candle to what was presented at Camp Zeist.
Now I'm not a real expert on this aspect, but if the details I've heard from fairly credible people is any clue, the case has quite a nice glowing candle to hold up high. Problem is he's comparing it to the manufactured halogen flood light they brought in, with the ridiculously complete evidence no mere factual case could ever stand up against. (to a certain class of mind anyhoo)

He's also probably forgetting that their star witness was tossed from the case as a liar, that half the accused were found not guilty, and that even so scaled back the fact the case worked has been repeatedly found a "miscarriage of justice" by people who know from these things.

But hey, they did it, squeaked by, and now it's all facty and fit to lock people up over, start a war over, or whatever you want. Why didn't we ever bomb Libya over this anyway?
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 03:40 AM   #386
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Is this a formal logical fallacy? Appeal to having already won the argument (legally)? Uh, we know that, it's the fact that you cheated. "But no, the judges bought it! They said blah blah

Yes, I think it is a logical fallacy, though as it was very late at night I may have got the wrong one! (I said straw man.) "Your case is flawed because x, y and z points don't stand up." "But it's a better case that the one she made!"

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
And on the Iran argument, to be fair, that is where you tend to lean, as do I, for the likely real explanation. Everyone questioning a theory or supposition should have some alternate explanation for observed facts (eg, re:9/11 "where'd they put the passengers then?")

Yes, I lean to the Jibril/Dalkamoni/Khreesat et al. theory. Though I don't know how and I don't know who might have assisted them. (They almost certainly got munitions from Libya.) However, I didn't say that on the Black blog.

I'm starting here from not seeing how Megrahi (in person) can actually be guilty of what he was said to have done (put the bomb into the luggage system at Luqa). Now if you accept that, then the question obviously arises, well, where and how was the bomb introduced then, and who did it? It is not necessary to know the answer to these questions to doubt Megrahi's guilt.

I completely disagree with you that "everyone questioning a theory or supposition should have some alternate explanation for observed facts." There is no inherent illogic in observing that the accepted wisdom simply does not fit the observed facts, even if you don't have another explanation that does.

Your "where did they put the passengers then?" example is in fact inapplicable. In that case, you're looking at a ridiculous hole in the twoofer's theory. Indeed, if you put forward an alternative theory, it must be internally consistent and consistent with observed facts. Which is why I'm flying kites here and, not posting them in blog comments or in blogs. I'm trying to see what can't be shot down, first.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
But all he's doing is appealing to a lack of alternatives (that simply doesn't exist BTW) in a weak effort to bolster their positive claims. Sorry, the "evidence"s positive claims. Ah, can't explain it right, but it's definitely a straw man the way he uses the point. Oh and also a false straw man. How did he describe the evidence against the PFLPGC?

He's in fact simply saying that his explanation must be correct because he hasn't seen a better one. I think that's possibly the fallacy of the excluded middle? He's ignoring the possibility that neither he nor the person putting forward the alternative theory are correct.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Now I'm not a real expert on this aspect, but if the details I've heard from fairly credible people is any clue, the case has quite a nice glowing candle to hold up high. Problem is he's comparing it to the manufactured halogen flood light they brought in, with the ridiculously complete evidence no mere factual case could ever stand up against. (to a certain class of mind anyhoo)

But the evidence wasn't "ridiculously complete", it was as full of holes as a Swiss cheese (Bollier!).

I think the real problem is that evidence we've been hearing about against the PFLP-GC has been systematically suppressed, probably by the CIA. There are heavy hints about that from a number of sources. Hard evidence against Jibril was not passed to the FBI, so that Marquise could only see this apparent stack of evidence growing against Libya. (Which fell over when tested in court, but somehow the judges didn't notice.)

However, I'm not saying that outside of this discussion, because we have no evidence to support it.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
He's also probably forgetting that their star witness was tossed from the case as a liar, that half the accused were found not guilty, and that even so scaled back the fact the case worked has been repeatedly found a "miscarriage of justice" by people who know from these things.

Oh, I said all that in my post. He ignored it.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
But hey, they did it, squeaked by, and now it's all facty and fit to lock people up over, start a war over, or whatever you want. Why didn't we ever bomb Libya over this anyway?

We didn't have to. We crippled them with sanctions instead. Libya was vulnerable enough to be sanctioned. Iran wasn't.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 04:04 AM   #387
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
My favorite comment so far is this one, which I can partly sympathize with is at the bottom of this page: "Spook Terror".

Well, that entire page is a pile of rubbish. If Marquise simply reads the batant CT haverings, then obviously he's going to become more entrenched in his belief in his own righteousness. (I love the way he blamed the nonsense on Black, who had nothing to do with it apart from mildly correcting a mistake in his first blog comment.)

I can see where the cries of "disinfo" come from. Honestly, I'm not entirely joking here. Sometimes I really wonder if anyone can be quite the loon Bollier is making himself out to be.

Remember, in the distant past "before the Wall fell", Bollier was a Stasi asset. However, in The Maltese Double Cross, documents are apparently shown on screen suggesting that the Stasi was suspicious that he was actually a CIA agent of some sort.

He enters the case first, very early, blaming Libya. Nobody pays any attention to him.

Then later, when he's connected to the case again via the tracing of the timer fragment, he goes into buffoon mode. He makes such a fool of himself in court that the judge discounts his evidence. Since then, he seems to have been presenting ever more convoluted and ever more ludicrous "explanations" of how the authorities tampered with the fragment and fabricated it and got their bits mixed up and who knows what else.

Is he deliberately trying to muddy the waters to prevent close scrutiny of the actualite surrounding the timer fragment, and to tar those questioning the Official Version with the label of raving CTers? I have no idea, but the thought occasionally crosses my mind.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 03:48 PM   #388
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Yes, I think it is a logical fallacy, though as it was very late at night I may have got the wrong one! (I said straw man.) "Your case is flawed because x, y and z points don't stand up." "But it's a better case that the one she made!"
That was a separate fallacy. The judges believed the evidence, and the alternate (he guessed or maybe read that you lean towards) is "quite lacking." His presumption could also be a clue that he knows that's the strongest rational alternative, as many are concluding, so it's the growing bud that you snip to kill the whole branch. It's a good sign. People should take a look at the candle it's holding.

Quote:
It is not necessary to know the answer to these questions to doubt Megrahi's guilt.
[...]
I completely disagree with you that "everyone questioning a theory or supposition should have some alternate explanation for observed facts."
That's true and my wording wasn't quite right. It does of course help, a lot, to show that there are rational alternatives. But t's not necessary to "know" the answer. In this case we have a bomb that blew up Flight 103. It had to get on there somehow, and it's rational to realize there are many different origins and routes possible, making different degrees of sense based on what evidence one does or doesn't have access to.

So no it's not necessary to "know" or even to have a good guess what did happen, in order to suggest an alternate idea. It helps tho.

And most importantly to ever move forward from there, collectively or individually, we'd need a next square to step into. Mainly I think he was anticipating the one and trying to deny that, mostly for the eyes of Mr. Duggan et al. Stay put, eh? There's nothing out there. Etc. So I guess, he wasn't just talking to you at that point.

Quote:
But the evidence wasn't "ridiculously complete", it was as full of holes as a Swiss cheese (Bollier!).
Surely full of holes of logic, reliability, etc. But as far as having all the points strangely at hand, guy X did A B C D E F G and we can prove them all even though they don't make sense and neither does the evidence if you stop and think about it. So they didn't think about it and Guy X did do A B ... It's not natural light but it illuminated the key 'facts" just right, guess. And my benchmark is the case they built, not the one that came out at the end of trial. They had Giaka seeing the accused both arrive with the very suitcase. did they not? On top of similar cartoonishness from Bollier partly accepted, the one identifiable part of an MST-13 surviving to allow this, and the lucky printout, the finger of Tony Gauci doings its ouija board thing showed the same guy (old man Jenkins!) bought thetimers in Zurich and Tripoli and between the two on Malta bought the clothes, packed them, somehow planted them on a plane that avoided all security at two transfers and then blew up all over the ground. Remarkably complete for being fake.

Quote:
Well, that entire page is a pile of rubbish. If Marquise simply reads the batant CT haverings, then obviously he's going to become more entrenched in his belief in his own righteousness. (I love the way he blamed the nonsense on Black, who had nothing to do with it apart from mildly correcting a mistake in his first blog comment.)
That was the part I liked. A real doo-de-doo moment. He only even writes a few of his own posts so I never presume Black is saying this unless I look, but he was at a different blog even. Ah I guess it's not that funny.

ETA: OH, and I dug your Bollier summary.

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 24th November 2009 at 03:50 PM.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2009, 05:41 PM   #389
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
That was a separate fallacy. The judges believed the evidence, and the alternate (he guessed or maybe read that you lean towards) is "quite lacking." His presumption could also be a clue that he knows that's the strongest rational alternative, as many are concluding, so it's the growing bud that you snip to kill the whole branch. It's a good sign. People should take a look at the candle it's holding.

I don't think it's that complicated. I think he's just so much in the habit of countering the "it was the Iranians, dummy" argument, that he just comes out with it on a spinal reflex. I don't think he even really read what I typed and appreciated that I was making entirely different points.

I think he's so desperate to hang on to his certainty that he only goes near the easily-debunkable CT theories. He didn't even notice my post was something else.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
So I guess, he wasn't just talking to you at that point.

He wasn't talking to me at all. He was regurgitating his standard anti-debunker spiel, that's all.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
They had Giaka seeing the accused both arrive with the very suitcase. did they not? [....] and between the two on Malta bought the clothes, packed them, somehow planted them on a plane that avoided all security at two transfers and then blew up all over the ground. Remarkably complete for being fake.

Yes, we were told how the entire plot was going to be revealed in excruciating detail, back to the construction of the bomb and how it got on the plane - and all that completely fell apart when Giaka was exposed as telling porky-pies. Without Giaka's evidence, which we didn't actually have because it was disallowed, it's cobwebs.

It almost seems to me that the judges were acting as if in some way they still thought Giaka can't have been completely making it all up, even after they ruled that he was. No smoke without fire, sort of thing. Even after the connection that made sense of the disjointed bits of evidence was wiped away, somehow the skeleton remained in their judgement.

I keep waiting for someone to come and tell us that Giaka was completely on the level all the time, and that's why Megrahi did it (so that's why we all hate Scotland and we'll never give you another dollar you baby-killers....). It would at least be rational. One could start to enquire as to the reasons for believing Giaka. But no, all we get from everyone from Darth Rotor to Marquise is "three judges looking to their seats in the House of Lords can't be wrong".

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
ETA: OH, and I dug your Bollier summary.

Another kite, but it's quite a pretty one, if very, very unorthodox.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2009, 02:19 AM   #390
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Ph/137

Well I'm supposed to be in Thanksgiving mode (we did it a day late here for a few reasons). But I've got this odd find nagging at me. From the transcripts I just got, day 21, June 15 2000. Testimony of Allen Feraday. For those who don't have the transcripts (most of us), here's a .doc file daily summary for this day, courtesy the LTBU.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_78553_en.doc
The issue I'm interested in here is not mentioned in that, nor anywhere else on the internet. So whatever it is, should be brand-new. At issue is a damaged piece of luggage, described as “a purple-coloured holdall” and labeled PH/137. This bag, Feraday agreed, had within it two metal fragments “which both originate from the primary IED suitcase,” so it should be of some interest. From pages 3330-3336:

"Q So from Dr. Hayes' draft report -- and I think you just told us he prepared this part of the report -- we can see that he designated this as explosion-damaged luggage?
A I think it was lightly --
Q Lightly explosion-damaged luggage?
A Yes."

This attitude would help explain Feraday’s own notes (production 1498), in which Keen noted “that nowhere in the index” and in fact “nowhere in your examination notes does the item PH/137 appear.” The witness confirms to both “that's correct, sir. Yes.” If it’s only <i>lightly</i> blast-damaged, it’s not even worth mentioning in your analysis? Next Mr, Keen pulled up a photograph of this item. (Production 181, photograph 91)

"Q It is apparent, is it not, Mr. Feraday, that you have not signed the label as it is photographed in photograph 91?
A That's correct, sir. Yes.
Q But your signature now appears on the label PH/137 in court?
A Yes, sir.
Q When did you sign that label, Mr. Feraday?
A When I had the bag back to write this -- the final report.
Q And what date was that, Mr. Feraday?
A I can't tell you without looking it up again on a list, I'm afraid.
Q Are you saying that that was before December 1991?
A I think it must be, yes. I finished the report by then, so yes.
Q And are you saying that you examined PH/137 before you finished the report?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where are the notes of that examination, Mr. Feraday?
A Well, there aren't any, because as I said, I did not always, when I was looking at them, make any difference between myself and Hayes -- although in this instance I did, and I told him so, that in my opinion you couldn't necessarily put that in the explosion damage. I couldn't convince myself that it was explosion damage. Prior to that, Hayes had written this preliminary report for another purpose -- I think the Fatal Accident Inquiry --"

So if I’m reading this right, he disagrees with the actual PhD scientist, but did no examination of his own to back this up, because they work as a team and agree, except that here they didn’t. Is that what he's saying? The reason for Feraday’s divergence seems to be an unexplained lack of conviction:

"Q And you recall --
A Sorry, I'm waiting for the --
Q I don't think you had finished, Mr. Feraday, so do finish your answer if you wish.
A Sorry. I came to the conclusion that I couldn't myself put it in the explosion – necessarily in the explosion-damaged baggage. I'm not saying it isn't, but I couldn't convince myself. And I still can't. And for that reason, I had a word with Hayes, and we agreed to put it in the second section.
Q So you -- you recall discussing this with Dr. Hayes, do you?
A At some stage I discussed it with Dr. Hayes, but I can't remember exactly when or if, in fact, it was when the -- I wrote the final report. And then Hayes certainly came in, obviously, and read it all and then signed, and we went through each item then. We through the report, if you like, line by line.
Q Line by line, Mr. Feraday?
A Well, he read through it, obviously, line by line."

This implies no disagreement – Hayes was able to check Feraday’s findings and found no problem with the exclusion of PH/137.

"Q If you would like to turn for a moment, Mr. Feraday, to your report 181 at page 51.
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, we can read this section for ourselves, but I'd like to look in particular at the third paragraph on that page, which you corrected during your examination in chief by proposing the insertion, after the fourth word in the first line, of the word "other"?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, taking the paragraph, of course, in its context, can we read that corrected paragraph. It states: "As there are no other penetration holes in either the holdall or the plastics bag, it appears most likely that these two fragments, which both originate from the primary IED suitcase, were picked up and placed inside the plastics bag, which was then itself
placed inside the purple holdall for convenience of carriage."
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, I have to suggest, Mr. Feraday, that if you insert the word "other" into that paragraph in the context of this section, the paragraph is deprived of sense or content.
A Is ... ?
Q Deprived of any sense or content. It tells us absolutely nothing if you correct it in that way. What do you say to that?
A I am not sure what you mean. But what it would then say is as there are no other penetration -- at the top of the page, I am talking about the ragged horizontal cuts which, obviously, one can see as penetrations. I see them as cuts. Now, in dealing with, first of all, the holdall, there are no other penetration holes in it, other than those that I've already said about the cuts. And in the plastics bag, there were none, the plastics bag which contained the two fragments of metal from the suitcase. So I was left scratching my head as to how they can get inside there, in a plastics bag, if they didn't come through any part of the bag.
Q Do you --
A I can't convince myself they come through the ragged cuts.
Q You recollect the label attached to the plastics bag, Mr. Feraday, having said "two pieces of metal, charred, found within baggage."
A Yes, I do, sir.
Q And you recollect finding penetrations in the side of the bag that went right through to the interior of the bag?
A Horizontal cuts, yes, sir.
Q But you felt it pertinent to remind us that there were no other penetrations in the bag, Mr. Feraday; is that right?
A Not big enough for the -- for anything to do with the two pieces of metal. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q But the penetrations you'd already found were big enough for the penetration of the two bits of metal?
A Oh, yes, sir.

Q Well, that might be an appropriate point, My Lords, if there is to be a short adjournment.
LORD SUTHERLAND: Yes, very well. We'll adjourn for 15 minutes."

His reasoning then seems to be - presented with bomb bag bits found inside plus "not necessarily explosion-damaged" means only surface scratches, not holes sufficient to allow the shards – maybe? And why is he brining the plastic evidence bag into what happened in the explosion? someone please make this make sense.

On the bag itself, I'll let someone else google this one for the very scant clues we have to go on. Go ahead and use "Sophie Hudson." Was there something unusual about where this might have been relative to, say, the Bedford suitcase? Or something? Or is it just an irrelevant patch of oddness?

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 28th November 2009 at 02:21 AM.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2009, 02:45 PM   #391
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
I haven't read that in detail yet, but if you want a new rabbit hole, try this one.

Pan Am 103: what really happened?

ETA: I should maybe mention that this guy is as mad as a bag of spanners.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 28th November 2009 at 03:22 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 02:45 AM   #392
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I haven't read that in detail yet, but if you want a new rabbit hole, try this one.

Pan Am 103: what really happened?

ETA: I should maybe mention that this guy is as mad as a bag of spanners.

Rolfe.
Looks pretty dumb. On a quick read it seems he's saying it was an accident, not a bomb, but there was a guy in the cockpit with a gun. And some stuff besides that I don't have the patience for. I guess I don't want a new rabbit hole.

On this PH/137, I was hoping for more commentary. Reading Feraday's explanations here I can only paraphrase Michael Palin (IIRC) in The Holy Grail: “what a strange person.” Am I just reading it wrong? The long quotes above are almost continuous, and it seems all that's said about this investigation. That's about all there is to study, I think, aside from two other bits:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/...in191456.shtml
In an article dated June 5 but obviously filed much earlier, CBS News reported the trial was to be adjourned for two weeks until May 23rd after both sides “reached a deal on how to handle evidence from debris” of the crash. This agreement “also stipulated that a purple hold-all piece of luggage was checked on at London's Heathrow airport by victim Sophie Hudson.”

The trial transcript is just as enigmatic on what this means and why it bears special mention. Testimony of a witness introduced by Mr. Campbell as "my learned junior, Ms. Armstrong" that "the following facts are agreed and should be admitted in evidence." From day 7, May 11 2000, trasnscript pages 1026/1027
Quote:
If I can go back now to the second paragraph on the first page. 2 (a), that label 134 (police reference PH/137) is a purple coloured nylon-canvas holdall with a pink base and black canvas carry handles; (b) that said holdall was used by Sophie Hudson on flight Pan Am 103 on the 21st of December 1988, and was checked-in baggage; and (c) that the said Sophie Hudson boarded flight 103 and checked in her holdall on the 21st of December 1988 at Heathrow Airport, London.
LORD SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Ms. Armstrong.
I wouldn't mind seeing if there's more out there, but that's it so far. I could swear Rolfe or someone I saw somewhere mentioning a purple caryall, or some such, somehwere, but that also doesn't come up in a GoogleTM brand search.

But considering Feraday's strained logic over this issue, I suspect we may be looking at a valuable clue.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 06:00 PM   #393
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
I'm still not with you. When I googled the name, all I got was lists of victims.

You're going to have to spell it out for me.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2009, 06:36 PM   #394
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm still not with you. When I googled the name, all I got was lists of victims.

You're going to have to spell it out for me.

Rolfe.
Okay well that confirms that there's no other info about, so to recap the little we know:
Sophie Hudson's purple bag was loaded at Heathrow, I would think checked there as opposed to interline. This fact came up as requiring special mention in court, for some reason. During the explosion, this bag was apparently penetrated by two bits of metal from the bomb suitcase, was later studied by Hayes in this light, and obfuscated from the explosion damage area by Feraday's inexplicable reasoning. It does not seem to have been included in calculating where or how the explosion happened.

This reasoning in turn seems (to me) that even though these shards could fit through the "penetrations," Feraday couldn't *convince himself* this was explosion damage and chose to think of them as surface "cuts." The pieces were just put in the bag from somewhere else, and he didn't find out where. His report first supported this saying there were "no penetrations" in the bag, corrected just before his questioning to "no other pentrations," aside from the "cuts" that *could* allow the fragments through but for some reason he doesn't think that's how they got there.

No damage to the plastic evidence bag is also cited as a clue these didn't fly in thru the cuts and into the evidence bags. This in particular is a ridiculous non-sequitur, so I must be misreading, right?

A I am not sure what you mean. But what it would then say is as there are no other penetration -- at the top of the page, I am talking about the ragged horizontal cuts which, obviously, one can see as penetrations. I see them as cuts. Now, in dealing with, first of all, the holdall, there are no other penetration holes in it, other than those that I've already said about the cuts. And in the plastics bag, there were none, the plastics bag which contained the two fragments of metal from the suitcase. So I was left scratching my head as to how they can get inside there, in a plastics bag, if they didn't come through any part of the bag.
Q Do you --
A I can't convince myself they come through the ragged cuts.
Q You recollect the label attached to the plastics bag, Mr. Feraday, having said "two pieces of metal, charred, found within baggage."
A Yes, I do, sir.
Q And you recollect finding penetrations in the side of the bag that went right through to the interior of the bag?
A Horizontal cuts, yes, sir.
Q But you felt it pertinent to remind us that there were no other penetrations in the bag, Mr. Feraday; is that right?
A Not big enough for the -- for anything to do with the two pieces of metal. That's correct, sir, yes.
Q But the penetrations you'd already found were big enough for the penetration of the two bits of metal?
A Oh, yes, sir.


Reading that again, I'm still unsure how else to read it, but this way it looks so incredibly stupid that...
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 12:38 AM   #395
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
To ammend the above just a bit, I shouldn't have adduced "evidence bag" from "plastics bag." If it was a proper evidence bag he'd likely have called it that. Instead it would seem some careless investigator put them in an ad hoc plastic evidence bag after finding them. I don't see why, but I don't see anything else making sense.

I guess what I'm trying for is a more rational explanation for Feraday's thought process than what I was seeing off the bat which seems Bollier-esque contempt of court loony. Perhaps he just meant, "obviously, the bomb didn't put them in the plastic bag, one of our people did. Therefore, they probably got the scraps from somewhere else, but threw them in there instead." Perhaps if we could see the evidence we'd see why he felt the shards did not just enter through the two tears that did run into the bag. These were made by something, could allow these two pieces, and then some knucklehead could find them in there but separate them into their own plastic bag before carrying on, leaving Mr. Feraday scratching his head later and for whatever intent or effect, almost erasing this piece of evidence from the picture based on his solution.

And to sum up, I suspect this is some class of clue, but of an inconclusive nature. We simply don't have the information to know just what it means. Or do we? Or make some guesses? What do we know about loading procedures at Heathrow and where this bag might have wound up? I suspect it might feed the hull-bomb theories and such more than anything.

Noted anyway.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 03:48 PM   #396
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
I agree this makes Feraday look like a complete idiot. I've done expert witness work and there's no excuse for that sort of performance.

However, where does it get us beyond that?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th November 2009, 04:34 PM   #397
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I agree this makes Feraday look like a complete idiot. I've done expert witness work and there's no excuse for that sort of performance.

However, where does it get us beyond that?

Rolfe.
Well, hmmm. Firstly, I suspect Feraday is not actually an idiot. Therefore, if he seems like one, he may be playing dumb and that's often a clue. Of what exactly I don't know. If I ever learn concrete details of how the Heathrow loading was done, maybe this could mean more. Until then...

Anotther point I meant to make a while back, on the case in general so this is the best thread: MSP Christine Grahame and others are calling for a new international probe into the "linked bombings" of PA103 and Iran Air 655. http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/20...robe-call.html
I've always felt if "we" ever did revisit the guilt behind Lockerbie and it pointed to Iran/Syria/PFLPGC/etc. then it should be looked at in context. If This is a tit-for-tat the West just wasn't prepared to continue, we'll need to understand the tat in order to grasp the tit.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2009, 03:59 AM   #398
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,717
Rolfe has a birthday
Hmmm, remember the account of Feraday as having no more qualifications than an HNC that was 30 years out of date? Could be wrong of course, but it gives the impression of someone who managed to get promoted way above his abilities.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2009, 05:26 PM   #399
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Cross-quoting from another thread where I agree it's a bit out of place.

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Friendly suggestion. If you have evidence that a conspiracy or a coverup has occurred with regard to an act of terrorist mass murder like Pan Am 103, don't ask us to investigate it with you. Take it to a prosecutor or an investigative journalist, or write up an article yourself and submit it for publication somewhere. Yes, I realize that's the recommendation we give the 9-11 Troofers, but it's sound advice, possibly the only non-spurious advice we give them. Take it to heart.
We do have evidence, and plenty. I see what you're saying about the futility of internet discussion vs. real legal action and such, and I for one am quite serious about it. But there are different tracks, including public opinion that will need to change, I think before it can do so officially. At the moment the proper authorities would be no help, with their heels dug in so deep on the issue. And most important from my end, I'm prepared to give a speech at the UN or whatever, once I figure stuff out better. It's tougher making up your own mind than accepting a ready-made narrative.

Plus people are already writing great articles, books, videos, and probing at least on new official investigations.

So, considering that it's quite possible the real killers were never punished, and the real truth never uncovered, it's worth re-visiting. And for the public awareness track, we're all part of that and can do our parts. Or not I guess. Just a friendly suggestion.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2009, 01:16 AM   #400
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Rolfe being mentioned for excellent contributions at Prof. Black's blog.
Originally Posted by Dr. Jim Swire
I must congratulate 'Rolfe' and Patrick Haseldine on the interesting set of comments re Pik Botha, Carlsson and Pan Am 103. At the same time I hope they will forgive me for pointing out that to us the relatives, this all falls into the category of 'speculation'.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/20...at-really.html

Jim Swire is awesome. He's obviously highly intelligent. He clearly wants truth and justice over his daughter's death. And yet he refused to accept the carefully prosecuted (intelligent?) case against Libya (the killers?)? What gives, huh?

Originally Posted by Dr Swire
Personally I entered the Zeist courtroom expecting to see the murderers of my daughter condemned and punished. The effect was the opposite, the evidence and the way in which it was derived and used, convinced me that neither Megrahi nor Fhimah were guilty as charged. But I was left with some relatively reliable information, compared with that derived from the best efforts of those people, may of them so well meaning, who previously had had no access whatever to any means of penetrating the official wall of silence, being obliged to speculate as a result of their (and our) exclusion.
Bolding mine. It really was an evidence-led investigation, as Marquise et al. state. So why does the evidence itself seem led by some made-for-teevee script? Why are most people so confident in the results so reluctant to ever pay close scrutiny to the evidence that led to that wonderful place? All that matters is that once it was put together in such a way that some judges agreed. They never did seem eager to repeat the performance, and the cancer gave them their way to avoid a dangerous repeat for good.

Man am I cynical by now. I think my heart hurts.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.