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 , conspiracy theories , Lockerbie bombing

Reply
Old 27th December 2009, 06:35 PM   #41
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
This case reminds me in some ways of the Barry George case (the murder of Jill Dando, for anyone who was on Mars at the time).
  • Police thrash around for a while and a number of CTs are aired (especially the "it was a Serbian spy" one)
  • Some time after the crime, a suspect is arrested on purely circumstantial evidence
  • Suspect is convicted despite seriously threadbare nature of said evidence. It appears that it is necessary to get someone for thie high profile murder, and this weirdo wil do.
  • Defence think they ony have to lodge and appeal and acquittal will be a formality.
  • Conviction upheld on appeal.
  • Defence do some actual work.
  • Conviction overturned on second appeal. George really was just a weirdo who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  • Crime remains unsolved to this day.
I was interested in the case from the beginning, and could never see that there was sufficient evidence to convict George. My opinion was that, on the balance of probabilities, he didn't do it. I said so, quite often. I occasionally treated acquaintances to my opinion on the evidence, and why I thought it was insufficient to convict. In the end, of course, the court agreed with me.

But rewind to the time before the second appeal. Suppose I came on the forum wanting to discuss the Barry George case, putting forward the view that I didn't think he was guilty.

Fair enough, many people wouldn't be interested. But would they bother to come into the thread and explain at length why they weren't interested? Would the thread be dominated by posters insisting that as the courts had convicted him, that was good enough for them? Saying that while they knew nothing about the evidence, clearly I must be delusional if I disagreed with a court verdict?

I don't think so.

So what's so different about this case?

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 27th December 2009, 06:41 PM   #42
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
I was really serious when i wrote that...

I hate to say it, but similar theories are in fact proposed.

There is one school of thought which claims it was a very deliberate and agreed LIHOP on the part of the USA (not Britain) to allow Iran to take out one US airliner in revenge for the shooting down of Iran Air 655 less than six months previously. The logic of this is that Iran would normally have been obliged to attack a number of US aircraft to avenge the airbus, but this was negotiated down to one, and the US agreed to allow this to happen.

I think the theory is horse-feathers, but it has some high-profile adherents, including an MP who chaired a parliamentary committee enquiring into the incident.

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 27th December 2009, 06:53 PM   #43
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Another comment. This thread is similar to a poll I started some months ago, asking people how familiar they were with the evidence and whether they believed Megrahi was guilty. In the end a fair number of people declared they were familiar with the evidence and believed him to be guilty.

Unfortuately I allowed the poll to be anonymous, so I don't know who these people were. I appealed for them to come to the thread and explain their reasoning. Only one did.

Longtabber PE. He said he had inside knowledge that they framed the right guy. About 10 days later he was outed as a fantasist wannabee by Joey Donuts.

In all the documentaries I have watched about this, the only person outwith the investigating authorities who is prepared to declare they believe Megrahi to be guilty is....

David Shayler.

This is not a good track record, people.

The spokesman for the US families of Pan Am 103 is a paid shill who has no personal connection with the case, and has never given any reason at all for his strident insistence that Megrahi is guilty.

Nowhere at all in all the reams of discussion of this case, is anyone credible prepared to explain rationally why they believe Megrahi actually did it, or how he did it. I even managed to get Richard Marquise to answer that question on a blog, and all he could manage was "the court found him guilty and that's enough". So much for the "overwhelming evidence" he was boasting about.

Won't even one solitary soul of all the people who believe Megrahi to be guilty (and want to boycott Scotland and so on) please explain their reasoning and the basis for this belief? How do you think he got the bomb on the plane, despite all the evidence that no unaccompanied bag was carried on KM180?

And yes, I think Caustic Logic is right. This is a political question.

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; 27th December 2009 at 06:55 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 27th December 2009, 07:44 PM   #44
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
And yes, I think Caustic Logic is right. This is a political question.

Rolfe.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the mods apparently disagree.
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 27th December 2009, 07:59 PM   #45
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,490
[quote=Rolfe;5453098And yes, I think Caustic Logic is right. This is a political question.[/QUOTE]
In what way would you say it is a "political question"?

I mean, I can understand a theory that the court scapegoated the most likely-looking chump it could get its hands on. And I can understand how scapegoating has a "political" aspect, especially in an "international terrorism" case. But are you alleging that this case is somehow especially political? Or do you simply mean "political" in the sense that "the court convicted somebody, because somebody had to be convicted"?
theprestige is online now   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 27th December 2009, 08:12 PM   #46
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,490
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but the mods apparently disagree.
I think it's the "just asking questions" aspect of your discussion that continues to relegate your threads to the Conspiracy Theories subforum.

One of the defining characteristics of boards like JREF, BAUT, and ApolloHoax is the principle that simply raising questions about a mainstream idea is never sufficient to elevate an alternative idea to the same status as the mainstream idea.

It is important to not only raise questions, but also produce answers.

Just because nobody cares to address your concerns about Lockerbie the way they've addressed concerns about 9/11 doesn't mean your concerns are valid.

If you merely wish to speculate about the possible political aspects of the Megrahi case, then--on this forum, at least--Conspiracy Theories is where your threads will remain. Show concrete evidence that the Megrahi case had a political aspect, then I'm sure the mods will be more than happy to permit discussion of that proven political aspect in the Politics subforum.
theprestige is online now   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 27th December 2009, 11:28 PM   #47
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think it's the "just asking questions" aspect of your discussion that continues to relegate your threads to the Conspiracy Theories subforum.
Well, actually I was asking FOR questions, and asking questions about people's beliefs and disbeliefs. "why do you people think this way" kind of thing. Maybe it was more for social issues, not politics, since most politicians agree on the issue it's not partisan enough, etc.

Quote:
One of the defining characteristics of boards like JREF, BAUT, and ApolloHoax is the principle that simply raising questions about a mainstream idea is never sufficient to elevate an alternative idea to the same status as the mainstream idea.
Oh, this thread wasn't meant to elevate anything. It was to assess the elevation difference in peoples' various minds. Why is this higher than that to you?

Quote:
It is important to not only raise questions, but also produce answers.
Yeah, I was hoping some people would provide the answers with their questions, and i have got quite a few. But if I were asking questions about the case here, I could also provide a best-guess answer as well, in case you missed it the many other times it's been explained here. The bomb was actually a Khreesat-made altimeter unit loaded at Heathrow airport, on Iran's orders and pad for by them ($10 million acknowledged paid out), in retaliation for the shoot-down of IA655. That was not a tit-for-tat the West was inclined to continue or even acknowledge, especially with Iraq becoming a new enemy and the what whole shift, but it was the first and obvious lead investigators followed.

This answer explains everything except the few clues that pointed all-too-clearly at Libya, have their own fatal credibility problems, and paint a picture that's almost surreal compared to the original. So it does come back to a conspiracy theory - a false case like this does not come together by accident. And it's political, of course - that would be the whole point. The PTB know public perception matters, so they give the judges and the news media only so much information in controlled dribbles, and somehow most outfits just don't bother straying from their embedded places. And so popular truths are made - Iran just never did get their revenge, that's good, Libya just did something real similar for their own weird reasons, and they've been partly punished. Everyone's okay with this because it comes from on high. That's politics. Big picture geopolitics.

Quote:
Just because nobody cares to address your concerns about Lockerbie the way they've addressed concerns about 9/11 doesn't mean your concerns are valid.
Of course not, but it's a good clue when everyone wants to shout their opinion and run from the facts in this case, or avoid doing that by staying silent. How many started to look and got a bad feeling they couldn't win the argument their way and so just shrugged it off? At least a few I'm sure.

Quote:
If you merely wish to speculate about the possible political aspects of the Megrahi case, then--on this forum, at least--Conspiracy Theories is where your threads will remain. Show concrete evidence that the Megrahi case had a political aspect, then I'm sure the mods will be more than happy to permit discussion of that proven political aspect in the Politics subforum.
I just don't get what you're saying here, and your objecton sounds ridiculous. Geopolitics? Who's to blame for one of the most heinous acts of terrorism ever? What do you mean by "the Megrahi case" and what would be a "political aspect?" I think we have some semantics issues.
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 27th December 2009, 11:34 PM   #48
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
This case reminds me in some ways of the Barry George case (the murder of Jill Dando, for anyone who was on Mars at the time).
I must have been on Mars a really long time, sorry. Even Jill Dando isn't ringing a bell, but that is an excellent comparison case to have handy. The Lockerbie case of course can't just lay there unsolved like that, unfortunately. And the truth is in many ways more painful and certainly less convenient. It probably just won't be allowed. I don't know, they just keeping shouting how they know, and know they got it right.

Oh, and on politics, it's funny, I just wroote about the total lack of politics at the 21st anniversary memorial, under Mr. Duggan's apolitical leadership. Oh, but I'm implying a 'conspiracy theory" to manipulate the issue!
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/1...arlington.html
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 December 2009, 04:12 AM   #49
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,555
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
In all the documentaries I have watched about this, the only person outwith the investigating authorities who is prepared to declare they believe Megrahi to be guilty is....

David Shayler.

This is not a good track record, people.
In all fairness, Clive Fairweather - a man more than happy to have been a maverick towards the end of his career and, as it happens, a friend - has said that he thinks Megrahi did it.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect 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 December 2009, 04:37 AM   #50
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,331
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In what way would you say it is a "political question"?

I mean, I can understand a theory that the court scapegoated the most likely-looking chump it could get its hands on. And I can understand how scapegoating has a "political" aspect, especially in an "international terrorism" case. But are you alleging that this case is somehow especially political?
Are you familiar at all with any of the details surrounding the Lockerbie terrorist attacks beyond the most rudimentary outlines?

In the months following the attack the intelligence gathered by law enforcement seemed to point squarely at the PFLP-GC and Jibril. Which puts Iran squarely in the frame.

A politician of the time has lunch and leaks some of this detail to the media - and is promptly fired. Thatcher and Reagan have a meeting and decide to "soft peddle" the whole investigation and from that point on the PFLP-GC slides off the radar and not long after that Libya is blamed, which just happens to be *staggeringly* politically convenient what with Desert Storm brewing up a, er, storm.

A conviction is eventually secured against Megrahi and Libya made to pay compensation. Only the main plank of the crown case against Megrahi happens to be the testimony of a CIA informant Giaka who the CIA know is "telling stories" to put it kindly. The defense in court get a hold of cables between Giaka and his CIA handlers and his entire testimony is thrown out of court which clears Megrahis co-accused entirely.

There remains to date no evidence that Megrahi had any part of the destruction of 103. (Or it seems any evidence of his innocence either) The biggest piece of physical evidence connecting Libya to the whole thing looks very likely to have been fabricated and planted by the investigators.

To my mind this is one of the single greatest miscarriages of justice there has ever been. It looks as though the primary motivation for blaming some random scapegoat from an entirely different country was political and came down from the Prime Minister of England and the President of the US at a time where war vs Iraq was being orchestrated and the political situation in the middle East was "delicate". The US had not long ago shot down an Iran Airbus stuffed full of innocent pilgrims (before the ship in question ran away from the scene leaving others to pick up the pieces) the hostage crisis in Beirut was in full swing and the US needed Iran, if not as an ally, then at least as a neutral if it were to successfully go after Saddam.

Lockerbie is a very political animal.



But hey we're all just JAQing off.
All conspiracy theories must be complete bunk.
If we only opened our eyes and looked objectively at the overwhelming evidence we'd not only realise how guilty Meghrahi was, we'd also see the need to move out of our parents basement, get a real job and contribute something worthwhile to society, instead of spinning idle speculation and fantasy on some internet message board to make ourselves seem more important.
Ambrosia 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 December 2009, 05:06 AM   #51
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,351
And if we were discussing the failings of the Jill Dando/Barry George murder case (or almost any other major crime) we would be in the realms of "miscarriage of justice", and the discussion could rightly be held in the "Social issues" forum.

But because it runs much deeper than that it's classed as "Conspiracy Theory" ??

Regrettably anything thus classified is automatically tainted, seemingly justifying the CTist brush-off of "so take your case to the cops, kid". Which itself is a joke from the outset because a lot of bright people here happily research and discuss the deepest detail of 9/11 with the CTists. All-in-all I believe that Lockerbie is a subject that makes a lot of people uncomfortable even to approach, let alone study. They actively want people to drop the subject or - at worst - tuck it away out of sight.

So CL also gets my support for trying to raise the issue elsewhere.
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 28th December 2009, 05:59 AM   #52
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
 
commandlinegamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mazes of Menace
Posts: 8,578
I think it's inevitable you will have crossover between boards, and I think there are more important things to worry about.

Anyway, surely the question for anyone who believes in Megrahi's guilt is 'Ok, we've got one of them, now who else was involved?'.

[OT: for me Jill Dando is a JFK moment; I can remember exactly where I was when I heard she had been shot: the bar of the Argyll Hotel in Oban.]
commandlinegamer 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 December 2009, 05:59 PM   #53
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
In all fairness, Clive Fairweather - a man more than happy to have been a maverick towards the end of his career and, as it happens, a friend - has said that he thinks Megrahi did it.

But has he said why he thinks that? This is the question Caustic Logic has asked, and one that has not been answered by anyone. I can't see how you can maintain Megrahi did it without postulating a huge conspiracy on the part of a bought-out Maltese airport and airline security operation.

How the blazes did he get the suitcase on the plane? What's Clive Fairweather saying about 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 28th December 2009, 06:01 PM   #54
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Rolfe, Glenn B, Ambrosia, pipelineaudio, AndyAndy, Architect, thanks for "following" me into this little fray. Shemp, Brainster, Alt+FA, Skeptic, theprestige, Trisketthekid, Arcade 22, thanks for taking the time to type anything in response. I've got a lot of what I was hoping for, and will compile the basic thoughts and questions I encountered.

That's seven minds from across the line picked a little, and of those I think five haven't spoken up on the issue yet as it sat in the CT forum. So that nicely answers post #27. In general, as usual, knowledge of the facts correlates highly with questions of the case, while ignorance and trust line up perfectly on the other side.

If anyone else has anything to add, feel free to really drop any zingers.

Originally Posted by Theprestige
I mean, I can understand a theory that the court scapegoated the most likely-looking chump it could get its hands on. And I can understand how scapegoating has a "political" aspect, especially in an "international terrorism" case. But are you alleging that this case is somehow especially political? Or do you simply mean "political" in the sense that "the court convicted somebody, because somebody had to be convicted"?
Sorry, for my part anyway, I don't know if it's proportionally more political than other cases, but at least by magnitude the amount of politics is enormous compared to most other issues.

Originally Posted by Architect
In all fairness, Clive Fairweather - a man more than happy to have been a maverick towards the end of his career and, as it happens, a friend - has said that he thinks Megrahi did it.
I'd be curious if you could get him to explain what he thinks is the best evidence and share that here. If that ever seems convenient?

Ambrosia: I quite concur with your post #50. Thanks for that. The sentence isn't quite right.
Quote:
There remains to date no evidence that Megrahi had any part of the destruction of 103. (Or it seems any evidence of his innocence either)
Perhaps you meant proof? There's evidence in both directions, some of it 3-D and some cartoon.

I'll be back later with the distilled responses
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 December 2009, 06:05 PM   #55
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
All-in-all I believe that Lockerbie is a subject that makes a lot of people uncomfortable even to approach, let alone study. They actively want people to drop the subject or - at worst - tuck it away out of sight.

That's exactly the point the OP was making. Why is this the case? Why is nobody who is convinced of Megrahi's guilt prepared to present an argument?

Why do the majority of posters with little familiarity with the details of the case prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and hum real loud when the subject is raised, rather than make even the most cursory effort to find out what the controversy is all about?

We can discuss any apparent miscarriage of justice we like - Barry George, Sally Clark, OJ Simpson, anyone - except Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. Bring that one up and it's banished to the depths of "Conspiracy Theories" where the posters in Politics or Social Issues can get right back to ignoring it.

This is a very peculiar phenonenon, and I wish the mods hadn't played into the scoffers hands by moving the thread. Note that they've all stopped replying, because they've succeeded in getting it out of sight and out of 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 28th December 2009, 06:19 PM   #56
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
(Or it seems any evidence of his innocence either)

That was an excellent post, Ambrosia, but can I pick you up on just this one point? I think there may be more evidence of Megrahi's innocence in this respect than there is of mine, for example.

Several commentators have reported that they came at the affair simply because they could see that the prosecution hadn't proved their case and were intrigued to find out what was going on. After becoming familiar with the evidence, they formed the view that Megrahi was actually innocent, as opposed to there simply not being sufficient evidence against him.

I come back to the Luqa baggage records. They seem to be as watertight as anything of that nature can reasonably be. They've stood up to examination by everyone from Pan Am's own accident investigators to the lawyers acting for London Weekend TV. A couple of dozen baggage handlers and operatives were repeatedly interviewed. People's private phone lines were tapped in an effort to prove they were lying and the baggage records had been fabricated.

If this was all fabricated at the behest of Gadaffi, to cover up for Megrahi's action, it was a huge undertaking. Everybody from the chief of security to the guys who heave the cases was in on it. And yet no flaw was found in the documentation, nobody slipped up under questioning, and nobody cracked and admitted the plot even in the face of 270 horrific deaths.

Unless you subscribe to that particular CT, the suitcase didn't go on at Luqa. And Megrahi was at Luqa that morning. Ergo, Megrahi didn't put the bomb on the plane.

Can you prove you weren't at any airport with a flight connecting through to PA103 on the morning of 21st December 1988?

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 December 2009 at 06:27 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 28th December 2009, 06:52 PM   #57
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,331
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post

Perhaps you meant proof? There's evidence in both directions, some of it 3-D and some cartoon.
That ought to read "no credible evidence" but even so...

Lets see there is Gauci's identification. During interviews with police Gauci *explicitly* rules out Megrahi as their man *more than once* the police lineup was very seriously flawed as were their interview techniques and Gauci might well have had 3 million reasons to "tweak" his testimony in the back of his mind. No conviction, no payday for Gauci.

There is witness evidence that points to Megrahi being in Malta on the day in question at the airport. Yeah and... so were hundreds of other people going about their business. You have to prove that the bomb was loaded that day in Malta for that to even start being relevant, and the prosecution struck out there as well. There is evidence that the bag might have been loaded at Malta, only there is the niggling fact that Malta airlines sued Granada TV over that fact and won their case.

There's evidence Megrahi and Bollier were acquainted prior to the attack, how relevant that is depends on the provenance of MST-13. If we were to concede that MST-13 was in fact part of the IED, Megrahi is a Libyan intelligence officer and Bollier is an international arms dealer, with the scruples of half a stoat, willing it appears to sell anything and everything to anyone who pays. It does not follow that even if Megrahi is buying arms from Bollier that any of that is connected to 103.

There's evidence of Megrahi being a Libyan intelligence operative

There's evidence someone that kind of looked like Megrahi, but older, bought some clothes, at a clothes shop in Malta, that were later found to be aboard 103 in the material suitcase and thus highly likely to have been packed in said case along with the IED.

*IF* the bag was loaded at Malta (which has yet to be proved) then Megrahi was in kind of the right place at kind of the right time to do that.

Anything we hear from Giaka is make believe fairy sprinkles.

IIRC Meghrahi does not offer an alibi or explain what he was doing in Malta that particular day.

What have I missed that can count as evidence?
Ambrosia 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 December 2009, 07:08 PM   #58
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,331
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Can you prove you weren't at any airport with a flight connecting through to PA103 on the morning of 21st December 1988?
As it happens yes I can, I was 13 at the time, and didn't own a passport

Yay crossposts.

I am of the opinion that there is no evidence of Megrahis guilt or innocence that stands up to any scrutiny. I do firmly believe Megrahi is innocent, I am not sure it can be proved though.

I believe the weight of evidence points at Heathrow as point of ingestion for the bomb not Luqa. Which rules out Megrahi as the bomb loader, but without being able to prove that MST-13 was planted/fabricated I don't think we can prove Megrahi had nothing to do with it. He's still tied to Bollier, albeit tenuously.

Oh and for the record I am dissappointed this thread was moved from the Politics forum, I don't see the harm of a single thread in that forum on this topic provided that the discussion in it stays on topic to the political aspects of the case and the bulk of discussion happens over here. I don't blame the mods for moving it though.
Ambrosia 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 December 2009, 07:19 PM   #59
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
Ahem, excuse the latecomer..

Despite being a relative novice on this forum, I am somewhat surprised that any discussion at length with regards to Megrahi's trial, conviction and any such Lockerbie related matters on this forum should be consigned to a CT sub-forum. Whether you regard the indictment and conviction as justified or not, terrorism, international law, and real politik are at the very core of the initial attack on PanAm 103 and the subsequent trial.

From the front room, to factory floor to the halls of justice and government cabinet rooms, under the banner and brand War on Terror, we are faced with the real possibility that the man convicted of the worst terrorist attrocity on UK mainland, including the deaths of 179 Americans and people from 20 other countries, was actually innocent all along.

In 2007, after 4 years of investigating, an independent scottish judicial committee overwhelmingly decided there had been a possible "miscarriage of justice". The caveat obviously being possible, however, given the clearly highly sensitive nature of their investigations, only a limited release of their conclusions were made public. This itself is unprecedented. There are no 'if's' or 'buts' about the conclusion of the appeal.

Perhaps Libya signed the card of 103. However, examining the evidence, if you grant benefit of the doubt to that evidence, it still does not point to the guilt of Megrahi. You'd think people would like to know exactly why this seems to be the conclusion of any objective reader of the publicly known facts and the evidence that was presented at the court case.

Megrahi release was an international political and judicial issue, while the fact this was made on 'compassion grounds' raised many social and moral issues for society itself to contend with. The Lockerbie disaster may be a complex issue. However the evidence, as presented at Zeist, is not, and is so littered with flaws and irregular investigation methods, it simply cannot be plausibly accepted as 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Perhaps apathy can arise in the Megrahi conviction and 103 bombing from the fact that at first view, it may seem Megrahi was innocent, but it was only Iran anyway... Who cares why?...Libya, Iran. That aint no conspiracy, that's just, ahem, politics. However, studying the issues at length, it appears to reveal the possibilty of much deeper motives. And these important issues are not really being discussed. Except of course by the deniers and cranks. To the ct sub-forum with you..
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 28th December 2009, 07:29 PM   #60
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,331
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post

If you merely wish to speculate about the possible political aspects of the Megrahi case, then--on this forum, at least--Conspiracy Theories is where your threads will remain. Show concrete evidence that the Megrahi case had a political aspect,
I didn't realise you spoke for the mod team at JREF theprestige.

The political aspects of the Lockerbie case are large and well documented.

I'd suggest you read through the pertinent threads in the CT forum on this topic including the original thread started in fact by Rolfe some few years ago in which Rolfe links much good source material from Paul Foot, Robert Black, and Hans Kochler.

As an aside how often in major criminal trials does a UN observer make a comment such as:

"As far as the material aspects of due process and fairness of the trial are concerned, the presence of at least two representatives of a foreign government in the courtroom during the entire period of the trial was highly problematic. The two state prosecutors from the US Department of Justice were seated next to the prosecution team. They were not listed in any of the official information documents about the Court's officers produced by the Scottish Court Service, yet they were seen talking to the prosecutors while the Court was in session, checking notes and passing on documents. For an independent observer watching this from the visitors' gallery, this created the impression of "supervisors" handling vital matters of the prosecution strategy and deciding, in certain cases, which documents (evidence) were to be released in open court or what parts of information contained in a certain document were to be withheld"

or comments like:

"judgement was inconsistent" "considerable political influence put on judges" "trial was not fair" "Negotiated outcome"

He was even more scathing about the appeal hearing and you can read his thoughts on the whole of the Zeist trial and appeal here.

How much concrete evidence of a political aspect to the Lockerbie attacks would one need to produce?
Ambrosia 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 December 2009, 02:01 AM   #61
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,555
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
But has he said why he thinks that? This is the question Caustic Logic has asked, and one that has not been answered by anyone. I can't see how you can maintain Megrahi did it without postulating a huge conspiracy on the part of a bought-out Maltese airport and airline security operation.

How the blazes did he get the suitcase on the plane? What's Clive Fairweather saying about that?

Rolfe.
As I recall, Clive was HMIP at the time of the trial and, of course, thereafter. I've never actually discussed the case with him, but he said in a piece in the Post (yeah, I know, I'm sorry) that he'd spent a bit of time with him and had mo doubt he'd done it. But that was all. Not exactly an in-depth analysis, I know.

FWIW, remember I'm on the "he didnae dae it" side of the fence.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party

Last edited by Architect; 29th December 2009 at 02:03 AM.
Architect 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 December 2009, 02:16 AM   #62
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Oh and I forgot commandlinegamer Ė heís popped into the discussion before and is definitely alright and respectable open-minded. The rest of you, ehÖ I reserve judgment I suppose. It's true no one is required to take interest in my little "JAQ-off" "history project."

This whole thread was a little sloppy in what exactly I was trying to do, at first. Whether people were meaning to help or not I don't know, but think it came through okay.Apologies I sometimes forgot what I was doing, soliciting counter-argument or questions, and then argued back instead of just taking note. But I've taken note, and can summarize the few responses in categories kind of like this:

1) I donít care, I donít wan to think about it, click. This is the ultimate stumper Ė aside from someone who doesnít even hear your call or answer the phone, nothingís more impossible to argue with.

2) Officials already did the work to prove their case. It was proven based on the real evidence, and clearly pointed to Libya. There is no reason to doubt their work.

3) Brainster put it perfectly: "If you have evidence that disproves al Megrahi and Libya's involvement, don't just talk about it on an internet forum. Take it to the authorities, and if they won't do anything about it, take it to a good investigative journalist, or write it up yourself and submit it to one of the major magazines."

4) Megrahi had millions of dollars in a Swiss bank account. Oh, and since we know heís a terrorist, thatís probably terrorizing money. So that proves heís a terrorist.

5) (once accepting some valid problems with the evidence and the case against Megrahi) A few problems with the evidence and the case doesnít automatically prove (insert opponentís assertion and/or a strawman here).

Themes 1, 2 and 3 were most prevalent, often co-mingling. Point 3 purports to be the most constructive, but also reflects an ironic anti-question stance. "I'll consider your questioning of the answers I was given by 'the authorities' as soon you've proven your solid answer and convinced the same 'authorities' to tell me these new answers. Until it's official, it's just words.

It's almost as if reality itself has no power any longer to lend its weight to words. Either that, or we're hopelessly unable to discern that reality. Seems a depressing and almost Orwellian mindset.

Examples of the kind we didnít see:

6) Okay, if Megrahi didn't do it, then who did, smart guy?

7) They had to be Libyan, because of the MEBO timer sold only to Libya.

8) The bomb came from Malta, which is where Megrahi was on that very day.

9) Tony Gauci identified the guy in a photo lineup, and a real lineup in court.

10) Libya admitted responsibility and paid out billions of dollars!

These were not mentioned, and don't even rquire specialized knowledge to know of. Indicating, again, that those who accept the official court verdict are also the people who know the least about it. Has anyone ELSE noticed this pattern?

11) Anything relevant with a question mark at the end. That's ears with fingers in 'em, folks. Be aware you've got that kind, okay? That' all.
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 December 2009, 07:03 AM   #63
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,490
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
Examples of the kind we didnít see:

6) Okay, if Megrahi didn't do it, then who did, smart guy?

7) They had to be Libyan, because of the MEBO timer sold only to Libya.

8) The bomb came from Malta, which is where Megrahi was on that very day.

9) Tony Gauci identified the guy in a photo lineup, and a real lineup in court.

10) Libya admitted responsibility and paid out billions of dollars!
Well, you're seeing them now. Since you brought them up, I'm curious to see how you address them in your investigation.
theprestige is online now   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 December 2009, 08:16 AM   #64
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, you're seeing them now. Since you brought them up, I'm curious to see how you address them in your investigation.

6) Okay, if Megrahi didn't do it, then who did, smart guy?

God alone knows. I have no idea who killed Jill Dando either. Still didn't make Barry George guilty. (All right, I incline to the Ahmed Jibril/PFLP-GC theory, because sometimes the obvious is actually true. However, that's only opinion, and subject to change if further facts emerge.)

7) They had to be Libyan, because of the MEBO timer sold only to Libya.

Even if we accept that the timers were only sold to Libya (in itself debatable, because Bollier was selling anything to everybody), that was two years previously, and one thing Libya was definitely doing was suppling arms to terrorist groups (including the IRA). Anyone could have got hold of one of these timers.

And that, again, is accepting that the timer fragment wasn't planted in the evidence at a later date, a view held by a fair number of knowledgeable commentators. Personally, I'm agnostic about the timer fragment. It's not as easy to knock holes in the provenance of that as some people think. However, the fact remains that it's surrounded by an inordinate number of anomalies, anomalies that probably should have had it disallowed as evidence regardless.

And finally, even if we decide that the timers were sold only to Libya, and that they didn't re-sell any of them, and that a piece of one was definitely found on 13th January 1989 in Kielder Forest by PC Gilchrist, that would only implicate Libya. It still leaves us struggling for evidence to implicate Megrahi.

8) The bomb came from Malta, which is where Megrahi was on that very day.

Any assertion that the bomb came from Malta relies entirely on the Erac printout, which again has a very peculiar provenance. But again, even if one accepts that Bogomira Erac is entirely on the level (which I think is probable, despite the improbability of the story), the contents of baggage tray 8849 could have been anything, and there are several different possible explanations for its being coded at station 206 at 13:07. It certainly didn't have to have come off KM180.

I have covered the evidence that there was no unaccompanied luggage on KM180 above. Either there was a massive conspiracy on the part of the Maltese airline and airport authorities to fabricate baggage records, a conspiracy that has never been uncovered in 20 years and which none of the many people aware of it has confessed to, or there was no unaccompanied bag on that plane.

ETA: And of course if you bring up the Erac printout, you're into the question of the disappearing baggage records at Frankfurt - a circumstance that rather boggles my mind. There's far more evidence of a conspiracy to cover-up baggage records at Frankfurt than of any shenanigans at Luqa. (I think it's much more likely the bomb suitcase was introduced at Heathrow, that's where the evidence points, but there's certainly reason to suspect something was being covered up at Frankfurt.)

9) Tony Gauci identified the guy in a photo lineup, and a real lineup in court.

http://www.megrahimystory.net/downlo...9-12-2008.pdf?

http://www.megrahimystory.net/downlo...2012%2008.pdf?

10) Libya admitted responsibility and paid out billions of dollars!

Libya never really admitted responsibility, the wording of the statement was carefully couched to avoid that. The billions of dollars was paid to regain entry to normal world trade and commerce, and end the sanctions that had been imposed on the country. Gadaffi was a pragmatist.

Will that do for starters?

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; 29th December 2009 at 09:28 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 29th December 2009, 09:58 AM   #65
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
As I recall, Clive was HMIP at the time of the trial and, of course, thereafter. I've never actually discussed the case with him, but he said in a piece in the Post (yeah, I know, I'm sorry) that he'd spent a bit of time with him and had mo doubt he'd done it. But that was all. Not exactly an in-depth analysis, I know.

FWIW, remember I'm on the "he didnae dae it" side of the fence.

I think I know what you're talking about, I read an article that seems to have been recounting the same opinion. As I recall, Clive (if it was the same thing) said that he'd met Megrahi in prison and judged him to be a cunning, ruthless intelligence operative, fully capable of having blown that plane up. Or words to that effect. Since I'm certain Megrahi didn't confess to him, I don't think he can have had anything more than that.

I think this is falling into the false dichotomy often seen in this context. Believing that Megrahi didn't bomb Pan Am 103 doesn't mean subscribing to the view that he was a peaceful, blameless family man. He was a senior JSO officer. He was travelling on a coded passport. He had a stash of money in a Swiss bank account. He had dealings with a Swiss electronics manufacturer who was into armament components.

I think it's likely this guy was indeed involved in some pretty shady exploits. It's even likely he was involved in one of these exploits on 21st December 1988. It just isn't at all likely that the exploit in question was smuggling a suitcase bomb on to KM180, tagged for New York via Heathrow.

It's true he has never explained what he was actually doing at Luqa that morning. In my view, Gadaffi was prepared to support him (and Fhimah) just as far as the point where that would have had to be revealed, and no further. Libyan lawyers were all over the defence case, and in some areas essentially calling the shots. I think whatever Megrahi was up to that morning was not to be revealed, even at the cost of his being convicted. And then of course Gadaffi provides him with a widescreen plasma TV, and buys a house in a smart Glasgow suburb for his wife and children to live in, and so on. But he doesn't give him permission to explain what he was really doing that morning.

That's the sort of person Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was in 1988, I believe. Someone who might well be judged capable of doing something like Lockerbie. However, that doesn't prove he did it, and doesn't get us anywhere as regards the weight of evidence.

If Clive had studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that Megrahi was guilty, I'd be interested to hear his reasoning. However, it seems (if my recollection is right) that his opinion was based merely on his realisation that Megrahi was a Libyan intelligence operative. Which we already knew, really

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 December 2009, 03:31 PM   #66
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, you're seeing them now. Since you brought them up, I'm curious to see how you address them in your investigation.
The answers aren't the problem, as you can see. Not that they're 100% fact, but these don't really cut off our exists if you will. I almost remembered to ETA that I didn't want to have questions smothered with answers here, but just offered and accepted. Still accepting, just ignore answers if they upset you. Which of these do/did you think is the best zinger, before and/or after learning Rolfe's answers?
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 December 2009, 03:46 PM   #67
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Sigh. I think I smell another hasty exit.

I note some noob showed up in the 9/11 section a few days ago claiming that the Twin Towers "fell at free-fall speeds". The thread is already about five pages long. Posters have addressed the points he was making, with actual answers and explanations. Nobody told him to take it to an investigative journalist if he had hard evidence, otherwise shut up and go away.

I was rather surprised a few years ago to find no discusson about Pan Am 103 in the forum at all. I originally (being naturally lazy) hoped to get my information here, in fact I more than half-expected the "conspiracy theories" to have been debunked. However, nary a syllable. I had to go and find out the hard way.

Well, there's no compulsion on anyone to discuss anything they're not interested in. But what really surprises me now is the hostility to any suggestion that there has been a miscarriage of justice in the case, vehemently expressed from a platform of complete and utter ignorance of the evidence. And it's not just one person either, it's qute a few. They mock and they scorn, then when the discussion turns to these pesky facts they have no clue about, they go away never to return.

It's completely bizarre.

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 December 2009, 03:57 PM   #68
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I note some noob showed up in the 9/11 section a few days ago claiming that the Twin Towers "fell at free-fall speeds". The thread is already about five pages long. Posters have addressed the points he was making, with actual answers and explanations. Nobody told him to take it to an investigative journalist if he had hard evidence, otherwise shut up and go away.
We could pretend that's because they know we have a chance (factually if not politically). We could also pretend the thread was moved here to encourage people to examine why they so believe the official conspiracy theory. Heck, I'm already pretending I won the lottery and have a well-stocked retirement villa waiting in the south of France.

Quote:
I was rather surprised a few years ago to find no discusson about Pan Am 103 in the forum at all. I originally (being naturally lazy) hoped to get my information here, in fact I more than half-expected the "conspiracy theories" to have been debunked. However, nary a syllable. I had to go and find out the hard way.
The innocent/ignorant can sometimes have a wisdom those like us lack. Perhaps they somehow know without knowing the facts or the why that this case isn't real but MUST be maintained. Wouldn't that explain the endemic finger-ears situation pretty well?
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 December 2009, 04:15 PM   #69
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
 
commandlinegamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mazes of Menace
Posts: 8,578
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I originally (being naturally lazy) hoped to get my information here
You and one or two others are actually digging into the material while others comment (like myself) or ignore it. I wouldn't call that laziness.
commandlinegamer 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 December 2009, 04:24 PM   #70
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
We could pretend that's because they know we have a chance (factually if not politically). [....]

Well, it's not a competition. If there is credible evidence that Megrahi did it, it wouldn't bother me. In fact, I'd be fairly relieved, because it would mean we hadn't imprisoned an innocent man.

I just want to know. Not necessarily with absolute certainty, but to a reasonable degree of probability. Where did the bomb go on the plane? Who made it and who put it there? What the hell was going on at Frankfurt (destroying evidence)? Was that timer fragment really part of the bomb, and if so, how does that square with the very early detonation? If Megrahi didn't do it (as seems to be the case), were the investigating authorities simply misled by a couple of coincidences? Or was there deliberate misdirection?

Which of the improbable coincidences were genuine coincidences, and which are real clues? How much of the extraneous conspiracy theorising is based in fact (drug smuggling and CIA officers on the plane and outside interference with evidence in the early days and so on)?

If there's some killer piece of evidence there to show it was Megrahi all along, well fine, there's your answer. I have to say, though, I don't expect it.

It's not a competition though, and nobody "wins".

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; 29th December 2009 at 04:26 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 December 2009, 04:28 PM   #71
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Originally Posted by commandlinegamer View Post
You and one or two others are actually digging into the material while others comment (like myself) or ignore it. I wouldn't call that laziness.

Yeah, but I'm only doing it because there's no easier way to find out. No nice neat Gravy-site explaining away all the holes in the evidence to the sceptic's satisfaction.

Reasonable comment, or ignoring, is fine. What's so bizarre is the attitude that of course Megrahi did it, even though we know nothing about the case, so shut up and go away, twoofer.

Why?

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; 29th December 2009 at 04:39 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 December 2009, 04:30 PM   #72
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,331
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I note some noob showed up in the 9/11 section a few days ago claiming that the Twin Towers "fell at free-fall speeds". The thread is already about five pages long. Posters have addressed the points he was making, with actual answers and explanations. Nobody told him to take it to an investigative journalist if he had hard evidence, otherwise shut up and go away.
I think I can explain why 911 is so popular still and yet Lockerbie meets with little to no discussion.

People post for myriad reasons on forums, but one of the main ones is they like to feel better about themselves, and what better way to feel better about yourself than to put down some random loon on an anonymous forum who spouts nonsense that you know is false, where the hard work is all done already and you can copy/paste others work on the subject, where the overwhelming consensus is that the CTers are nuts so you feel like you belong as one of the crowd and can lump ontop of the latest bandwagon, quote or requote the same old talking points, and feel all superior.

I dont get how this topic, where it looks pretty likely that for once the CT actually looks closer to the truth than the "official story" we arent inundated with other CTers using aspects of Lockerbie and some of the odder coincidences to prop up their own faltering worldview, though I guess I am glad about that.

It might be as simple as the fact that 21 years ago when this happened a good chunk of the posters on these and other forums were not born.

I was shocked when Lockerbie happened, I was glued to TV news for a few days, and for a long time I assumed that the cops got their man. Maybe without having lived through the experience its hard to care about it.

I fully expected there to be a bunch of posters here who were knowledgable enough about the case to point to this and that evidence and prove that yes the cops did get the right man and this is why, I am still a little stunned that a) that wasn't the case and b) almost noone cares enough to even discuss it.
Ambrosia 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 December 2009, 04:34 PM   #73
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,490
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Yeah, but I'm only doing it because therre's no easier way to find out. No nice neat Gravy-site explaining away all the holes in the evidence to the sceptic's satisfaction.
Which, of course was probably not all that easy for Gravy to set up. Congratulations, your the Gravy of the Lockerbie Bombing case. Why complain that somebody else didn't do all your leg work for you?
theprestige is online now   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 December 2009, 04:41 PM   #74
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Which, of course was probably not all that easy for Gravy to set up. Congratulations, your the Gravy of the Lockerbie Bombing case. Why complain that somebody else didn't do all your leg work for you?

Was I complaining?

I've written a lot about this already, in threads here and elsewhere. So have Caustic Logic, Ambrosia, Buncrana and a couple of others.

So go away and read some of it so you can engage in informed discussion, or just go away. What possible enjoyment can you be getting from taking up a position and arguing in a hostile manner on a topic you know bugger-all about?

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; 29th December 2009 at 04:47 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 December 2009, 04:48 PM   #75
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
 
commandlinegamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Mazes of Menace
Posts: 8,578
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
What's so bizarre is the attitude that of course Megrahi did it
To paraphrase Al Gore, it's a convenient truth.

A person is found guilty of a crime so why query it? You cited the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, IIRC, cases which also involved terrorism; I don't think the majority of people were interested in questioning their guilt once a court had convicted them.
commandlinegamer 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 December 2009, 05:07 PM   #76
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Possibly not. But neither would the majority of people have been attacking anyone who questioned their guilt as "deluded", without having any knowledge of the basis for the doubts.

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; 29th December 2009 at 05:20 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 December 2009, 05:10 PM   #77
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
From the OJ Simpson thread.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Right, but again, what is it about the law's opinion that obligates you to share 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 29th December 2009, 05:45 PM   #78
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I dont get how this topic, where it looks pretty likely that for once the CT actually looks closer to the truth than the "official story" we arent inundated with other CTers using aspects of Lockerbie and some of the odder coincidences to prop up their own faltering worldview, though I guess I am glad about that.

That was actually my thinking when I came here expecting to find discussion about it. I imagined the 9/11 twoofers would be milking it for all it was worth for its parallels, and the rather more credible claims of cover-up and even LIHOP, but no. They don't do that.

I did search in the Twoofer forums for discussion about Lockerbie, and I was absolutely gobsmacked to find nothing but knowing assertions that Megrahi was really guilty. The main source for this seems to be David Shayler, who is credited with inside knowledge, and who has taken this line. Having heard him propound it in a documentary, he seemed simply to have decided that Giaka was credible after all, and to be delighting in espousing the opposite line from the mainstream journalists. Disbelief in Megrahi's guilt actually being the default position among investigative journalists who have actually looked at it.

I think this is what's going on with the twoofers in general on Lockerbie. They see that doubt over Megrahi's guilt is actually the default position in pretty much all the mainstream journalism that looks into the subject, so they delight in "knowing better" and supporting the conviction.

Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
I fully expected there to be a bunch of posters here who were knowledgable enough about the case to point to this and that evidence and prove that yes the cops did get the right man and this is why, I am still a little stunned that a) that wasn't the case and b) almost noone cares enough to even discuss it.

It's the last that confuses me. Specifically that there's nobody prepared even to try to defend the conviction with reference to the actual evidence. And yet, we have a number of people rabidly defending the conviction while standing in complete ignorance of the actual evidence.

I first got a taste of that when I posted in threads that had been started to complain about the compassionate release. I pointed out that there was a high probability he hadn't actually done what he was convicted of, and most of the US posters turned and rent me.

My working hypothesis is that it's a US pride thing. I think nearly all the scoffers have been American. The US can't have got it wrong, so they have to jump in and support the official line.

I may be being entirely unfair here, it's just my impression. I think in Britain and especially in Scotland we're more used to seeing mainstream articles by credible journalists pointing out that the verdict was a crock of ordure. In the US this isn't something that's had much publicity, so the knee-jerk reaction (with the emphasis on the jerk part) is to leap in and insist that "our side" must be right.

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 December 2009, 03:22 AM   #79
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
above, Frum quote, I think has some errors - I don't think Baer worked ON Lockerbie.

You guys know what else is funny, is how the people who would have to have a stroke to not know the evidence - people who ran the investigation and all - their arguments aren't much better. They can cite some specifics, but often strung together in ways that make little sense, and always sanitized of inconvenient details.

Consider Richard Marquise. FBI chief investigator for Lockerbie. He did put up some questions that official story doubters should ask themselves. (from a ltter to the Herald's Lucy Adams)
http://www.victimsofpanamflight103.org/node/99

Originally Posted by Richard Marquise
I have followed your articles on Lockerbie with interest before and after we had the chance to speak a year or so ago. You have generally been fair in your reporting but the article entitled “Embarrassment to a nation or an act of compassion” causes me to want to respond.

I certainly have an opinion about the guilt of Mr. Megrahi and Libya and have voiced it many times. That opinion is based on knowledge of the evidence not speculation, hypothesis or rumor which seems prevalent in the UK—both on blogs and in the media.

Most people including those in the media are totally unaware of the facts of the case ...
Too true, and most of these people just beilieve without question what you guys and the Zeist judges decided for them. The correct response here is touchť.

Quote:
... Those who believe he should be released (because they believe he is innocent) should ask more questions—certainly not of the media or the pundits because they have no idea of the facts. They only have their opinions. They should ask why Libyan officials were trying to find MST-13 timers in December 1988.
That's just.. what? Bollier said that, maybe there's other evidence, but that's a good clue it never happened. Maybe it did, but they needed one they clearly had. It was set to blow up over land and be found. Why refresh you behind-the-scenes links? What were hey gonna do with 40 more? What's your point?

Quote:
It was a senior Libyan official who had ordered the majority of all the Toshiba radios similar to that which carried the bomb. This official also talked in 1986 about putting a bag on a British or American flight from Malta. Ask why?
Those are both news to me. I'm mildly stumped at the moment. Anyone?

Quote:
Ask why Mr. Megrahi was picked out of a lineup by a Maltese shopkeeper as resembling the man who purchased the clothing contained in the bomb suitcase.
To specifically answer that question, I’d need to closely examine the line-up procedure. Evidence of this type – why exactly did a lineup produce the results it did - is too nuanced and fragile to assess lightly. I haven’t the skills to professionally asses it, nor the primary documentation on methodology. However, in Megrahi’s released-to-internet appeal papers, two highly qualified experts did look at the primary data and found it was slanted towards indicating al Megrahi. Professor Clark’s report noted of the February 1991 photo lineup: “Mr. Megrahi was years older than any of the Middle Eastern individuals in the lineup,” which is essential since gauci’s ID was older than Megrahi, making him the closest fit presented.

SCCRC, 2007 findings of a possible “miscarriage of justice”
Quote:
Additional evidence, not made available to the defence, which indicates that four days prior to the identification parade at which Mr Gauci picked out the applicant, he saw a photograph of the applicant in a magazine article linking him to the bombing. In the Commission’s view evidence of Mr Gauci’s exposure to this photograph in such close proximity to the parade undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself.
So that's another possible answer. He's been steered in the photo line-up, exposed to a photo they know of, and probably fifty TV news stories before pointing again in person in 1999. Wow. Prof. Clark noted on the Camp Zeist lineup:
Quote:
85. What about the composition of the lineup parade at Camp Zeist, 13 April, 1999? Photographs were taken of 12 individuals who were presumably present to participate in the lineup parade. However, only seven of these individuals were included in the lineup, and it is not clear who was included and who was excluded from the lineup, as there are conflicting accounts from Alistair Duff, who was Mr. Megrahi’s solicitor at the lineup, versus the police report.

86. Even with the incomplete and contradictory documentation of the lineup parade, it is clear that 9 of the 11 fillers were younger than Mr. Megrahi, by an average of 13 years
<snip detailed analysis by filler details, emphasis on filling out the too young end>
By this analysis, there may have been only one plausiblest filler in the lineup, that being #11.

87. There appears to be no photograph to document Mr. Megrahi’s appearance at the lineup parade. Might he have stood out in the lineup because of his clothing or some other aspect of his appearance? This cannot be known without proper photographic documentation.
If that analysis is any good (you could check the reasoning and try to debunk it), Gauci may have been presented with only one filler besides Megrahi to chose from. 50/50 shot then, at least Could YOU point to this man after all this? Yes you could, and you never sold him any clothes on the 7th of December 1988.

Originally Posted by Richard Marquise
It was strange that of all the people in the world, Mr. Megrahi was in Malta the same day the clothing was purchased and was there the same day the bomb left on its fateful journey.
Oh, boy. No, no, sorry... you know darn well what's strange about the day, Dick.
(hint - starts with "of all the days in the subset November 23 and December 7...")

Quote:
Ask why Mr. Megrahi had opened a “front” business in Zurich, at the premises of the man who had given the Libyan officials the MST-13 timers.
I don't need to know just what exactly that, or the money in his account, or his "coded passport" ID were for. Some kind of servie that involves secrecy. Outlaw regimes framed for crimes they didn't commit might just have a few. I'm not the one trying to connect all these dots into a politicaly-determined picture.

Quote:
Ask why Mr. Megrahi came to Malta from Tripoli on the evening of December 20, 1988, in a false name and only stayed long enough to get a night’s sleep.
Same. He was busy at something, on the island we have only the weirest flimsiest evidence the bomb ever came from. Only a paper-thin membrane separates damning indictment from great alibi.

Quote:
Ask why his friend and co-traveler on that date, Mr. Fhimah, who still had possession of his airside access badge as well as a notation in his diary he needed to get “Air Malta taggs,” spoke with him on the early morning of December 21.
No, Mr. Marquise, I'm through JAQing off with you. Any remaining questions will have to be left where they are. You bore me, dude.

- Adam.

ETA: I'm much nicer to forum members, so don't worry

Last edited by Caustic Logic; 30th December 2009 at 03:32 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 30th December 2009, 03:10 PM   #80
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 40,977
Theprestige seems to have left, as I rather expected. It's a big learning curve to get up to speed for arguing either side of this case from an informed perspective. You can't really do it in a day or two. It's just a shame that none of these people ever decide to do it at all. They come in, all guns blazing, railing against conspiracy theories and insisting that a court verdict is infallible (unless it's OJ Simpson, or Barry George, or Sally Clark....). They come over rude, aggressive, and insulting.

Then they go away. None of them ever comes back with any facts.

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
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 01:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.