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 , John Wyatt , Lockerbie bombing , Muammar al-Gaddafi , Pan Am 103

Reply
Old 25th September 2009, 09:25 AM   #41
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
So how do you account for all the other evidence that the explosion occurred inside the luggage container? They reconstructed the plane and the luggage containers from debris found on the ground. I have great difficulty seeing how it would be possible or indeed on anyone's agenda to fabricate blast-damaged luggage containers in the very early weeks of the investigation. How many people are supposed to have been involved in this? Including Scottish police officers and English forensic experts, right from the get-go, as well as US law enforcement.

Also, although we don't have the primary evidence, the Court judgement does refer to tests similar to what you describe having been done in the USA, and said that these confirmed the quantity of explosive and the position.

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; 25th September 2009 at 09:29 AM.
Rolfe 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 25th September 2009, 09:39 AM   #42
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
So how do you account for all the other evidence that the explosion occurred inside the luggage container? They reconstructed the plane and the luggage containers from debris found on the ground. I have great difficulty seeing how it would be possible or indeed on anyone's agenda to fabricate blast-damaged luggage containers in the very early weeks of the investigation.

Rolfe.
As of this post, I'm still of the opinion the greatest likelihood is that the bomb was in the luggage container and I more of opinion #3- but its a developing hypothesis and not one I'm going to promote or defend at this point ( and may disregard altogether depending on what else I read)

You already know my suspicions regarding the board and states story and some of their testing ( so far)

You also cannot ignore the physical evidence either ( assuming its portrayed correctly)

There are also other variables which independantly or combined can radically affect the outcome that so far I havent seen addressed and confirmed or discarded.

So, when you remove the impossible ( my thoughts on the timer and such) whatever remains must be the truth.

I'm leaning toward a much different bomb and probably stronger in the compartment. I think thats whats being steered away from.

That would fit both sides of the physical evidence and not be outside legitimate possibility.

What really points me there ( so far) is the way they ( the state) has tried to sell rather than establish by process of elimination their theory. ( the tests to do it are simply and pretty cheap and commonly known)

I'm starting to think they DID run them and found something else and this isnt a "lie" in the conventional sense but more of a deliberate "steering away" from something else.
LONGTABBER PE 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 25th September 2009, 11:24 AM   #43
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
I'm finding it problematic enough to postulate the fabrication of that one little bit of MST-13 timer, and the concept of fabricating two luggage containers with blast damage on them seems to me a bridge too far.

Also, while it's always a consideration that nothing was fabricated but the evidence was innocently misinterpreted byt the investigators, I also find that quite hard to believe. If it's really so blindingly obvious that the Official Version can't be right, just by looking at pictures and diagrams of the fuselage, how did well-qualified and experienced people make that mistake, and how come nobody else spotted the anomaly for all these years?

That leaves deliberate misinterpretation, and again, it's all getting a but twooferish 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 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 25th September 2009, 11:52 AM   #44
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm finding it problematic enough to postulate the fabrication of that one little bit of MST-13 timer, and the concept of fabricating two luggage containers with blast damage on them seems to me a bridge too far.

Also, while it's always a consideration that nothing was fabricated but the evidence was innocently misinterpreted byt the investigators, I also find that quite hard to believe. If it's really so blindingly obvious that the Official Version can't be right, just by looking at pictures and diagrams of the fuselage, how did well-qualified and experienced people make that mistake, and how come nobody else spotted the anomaly for all these years?

That leaves deliberate misinterpretation, and again, it's all getting a but twooferish for me.

Rolfe.

As you said earlier- its not "twooferish" when theres some support for it and governt entities do lie and cover up for a variety of reasons.

There is also ignorance, a simple botched investigation and good old human error.

Quote:
concept of fabricating two luggage containers with blast damage on them seems to me a bridge too far.
Everything in close proximity to it SHOULD have had the same damage. Explosives detonate in spheres equally. Unless this lone bag was shanging by a rope 10' above everything- any bag beside it should be in the same condition- thats another piece I dont see. You always need to be suspicious of "1".

Where is the green samsonite make up case ( making that up as an example) sitting right beside it or under it with the EXACT same types of damage?

How did they distinguish what cloth was in what case?

What about electronics in a bag right beside it?

There should have been chunks of all kinds of things- then you need to figure out what was where.

I dont think Megrah sent along a packing list of his trunk

These are the things that flag me


Quote:
Also, while it's always a consideration that nothing was fabricated but the evidence was innocently misinterpreted byt the investigators, I also find that quite hard to believe.
Dont- all you have to do is google "Duke Rape Case" ( one I had a level of personal involvement in) and Nifong and the DPD's conduct. Thats not as rare as i wish it was- they just got caught.

Quote:
If it's really so blindingly obvious that the Official Version can't be right, just by looking at pictures and diagrams of the fuselage, how did well-qualified and experienced people make that mistake, and how come nobody else spotted the anomaly for all these years?
same reasons I said earlier

The casual observer doesnt have the skills to properly examine the case to begin with

The professional isnt going to stick his neck out without physically examining it himself

There are anomalies here and all the pieces do not fit together.

Then you look at some of the overt suspicious conduct and all these page alterations and different accounts of who found what and when.
LONGTABBER PE 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 25th September 2009, 04:09 PM   #45
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Unless this lone bag was shanging by a rope 10' above everything- any bag beside it should be in the same condition- thats another piece I dont see. You always need to be suspicious of "1".

Where is the green samsonite make up case ( making that up as an example) sitting right beside it or under it with the EXACT same types of damage?

How did they distinguish what cloth was in what case?

What about electronics in a bag right beside it?

There should have been chunks of all kinds of things- then you need to figure out what was where.

A summary of that is in the Court judgement.

Quote:
[9] During the course of the massive ground search, a large quantity of luggage and clothing was collected and labelled. Within a few days of the disaster it was established that an explosion had occurred, and accordingly the searchers were asked in particular to recover any items which appeared to be scorched or blackened or otherwise had the appearance of having been involved in an explosion. Any such items were then submitted to the Forensic Explosives Laboratory at RARDE for detailed examination, the principal forensic scientists involved being Dr Hayes and Mr Feraday. Fifty-six fragments which showed various signs of explosives damage were identified as forming part of what had been a brown hardshell Samsonite suitcase of the 26" Silhouette 4000 range (“the primary suitcase”). The nature of the damage indicated that it had been inflicted from within the suitcase. A further twenty-four items of luggage were identified by their characteristic explosives damage as having been in relatively close proximity to the explosive device. Within many of these items there were found fragments of what appeared to be parts of the primary suitcase, and also fragments of what appeared to have been a radio cassette player. Other similar fragments were found in clothing which from their charred appearance were considered to have been contained in the primary suitcase. [....]

[10] As we have noted, a substantial quantity of clothing was examined at RARDE. The primary concern was to ascertain what clothing showed signs of explosion damage, and then, if possible, to differentiate between clothing likely to have been contained within the suitcase that contained the explosive device and clothing in adjacent suitcases. The method adopted by the forensic scientists was to treat as a high probability that any explosion damaged clothing which contained fragments of the radio cassette player, the instruction manual, and the brown fabric-lined cardboard partition from within the suitcase to the exclusion of fragments of the outer shell, was within the primary suitcase. Where clothing carried neither fragments of the explosive device nor of one or more of the suitcase shells that would have surrounded it, or where it variously carried fragments of the suitcase shells with or without fragments of the explosive device, its specific location was problematic, although the possibility that it was contained in the primary suitcase could not be discounted. There were twelve items of clothing and an umbrella of which fragments were recovered and examined which fell within the first category and accordingly in their opinion had been contained within the primary suitcase. [....]

5 [....] Because of the distribution of the areas of sooting and pitting, and in particular the absence of any such signs on the base of the container, it appeared to Mr Claiden that, assuming that an explosive device was contained in a piece of luggage in the container, the likelihood was that that piece of luggage was not lying on the floor of the container but was lying probably on top of a case on the floor and projecting into the overhang of the container. [....]

25 [....] It was accepted, for the purposes of this argument, that the effect of forensic evidence was that the suitcase could not have been directly in contact with the floor of the container. It was submitted that there was evidence that an American Tourister suitcase, which had travelled from Frankfurt, fragments of which had been recovered, had been very intimately involved in the explosion and could have been placed under the suitcase spoken to by Mr Bedford [....]

I haven't read the AAIB report in detail, but I believe there is more detailed information available in that.

If this is all wrong, you have three possibilities.
  • The evidence was fabricated. Within "a few days" of the crash? Motive, means and opportunity seem a bit wanting.
  • The evidence was deliberately misinterpreted. Again, within a few days of the crash? Or even a few weeks? (Remember, most of this was pieced together during January and February 1989.) I can't see it.
  • The evidence was accidentally misinterpreted on a grand scale by people who should have known better, and when this was finally realised it was deemed better to continue with this massive deception than to revise the scenario? OK, I give you Shirley McKie here, absolutely, but it's still a stretch on this sort of scale, with three countries' law enforcement and forensics involved.
I still find this all extremely unlikely, and suspect the existence of a simpler explanation for the apparent anomalies.

Having said that, have you seen Bollier's diagrams? I think Bollier isn't quite the full shilling I have to say, but he does have these pictures....


The MEBO Inc.-defence team

The MEBO Inc.-defence team and Edwin Bollier, VR

Crazy or not, Bollier is in the arms industry.

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; 25th September 2009 at 04:21 PM.
Rolfe 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 25th September 2009, 04:53 PM   #46
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
A summary of that is in the Court judgement.




I haven't read the AAIB report in detail, but I believe there is more detailed information available in that.

If this is all wrong, you have three possibilities.
  • The evidence was fabricated. Within "a few days" of the crash? Motive, means and opportunity seem a bit wanting.
  • The evidence was deliberately misinterpreted. Again, within a few days of the crash? Or even a few weeks? (Remember, most of this was pieced together during January and February 1989.) I can't see it.
  • The evidence was accidentally misinterpreted on a grand scale by people who should have known better, and when this was finally realised it was deemed better to continue with this massive deception than to revise the scenario? OK, I give you Shirley McKie here, absolutely, but it's still a stretch on this sort of scale, with three countries' law enforcement and forensics involved.
I still find this all extremely unlikely, and suspect the existence of a simpler explanation for the apparent anomalies.

Having said that, I think Bollier isn't quite the full shilling I have to say, but he does have these pictures.
Crazy or not, Bollier is in the arms industry.

Rolfe.
Heres where my questions lie- from the quote

Quote:
asked in particular to recover any items which appeared to be scorched or blackened or otherwise had the appearance of having been involved in an explosion. Any such items were then submitted to the Forensic Explosives Laboratory at RARDE for detailed examination, the principal forensic scientists involved being Dr Hayes and Mr Feraday. Fifty-six fragments which showed various signs of explosives damage were identified as forming part of what had been a brown hardshell Samsonite suitcase of the 26" Silhouette 4000 range (“the primary suitcase”). The nature of the damage indicated that it had been inflicted from within the suitcase. A further twenty-four items of luggage were identified by their characteristic explosives damage as having been in relatively close proximity to the explosive device. Within many of these items there were found fragments of what appeared to be parts of the primary suitcase, and also fragments of what appeared to have been a radio cassette player. Other similar fragments were found in clothing which from their charred appearance were considered to have been contained in the primary suitcase. [....]
They make lots of statements such as "signs of an explosion" and such- thats fine for any summary report ( they arent supposed to be technical)- but that doesnt mean a damn thing in forensics or in a US Court by our rules of evidence UNLESS they can show residue from an explosive- it would be hearsay at worst- circumstantial at best.

There is no way to realistically determine whether a case contained the explosion or was sitting right beside the one that did.

Burning is burning- the question is how did the state determine the burning was from the explosion, a secondary fire or swallowed by an engine on the way down? All ignitions leave the same physical evidence and it would be almost impossible to distinguish between the detonation versus hull rupture decompression as force.

Thats why if they dont have those tests to back their very bold claims up- they wouldnt be considered valid over here.

I want to know specifically and exactly how they determined what was what.

In a US court, being an extrapolation of expert analysis- each and every bit of this testing would have to be given to the defense for their expert to review.

Are you aware of all these tests? I see no evidence of any specific tests or their conclusive results. ( but aint thru reading) I see these articles make all kinds of "claims" but I see no reference to tests backing it up.

If they dont have these tests to back up their assertions- their claims would not only be invalid but they would either be incompetent or criminal in their work.

Unless theres a lot more than what I'm seeing- I would have literally destroyed their case with reasonable doubt.

As to bollier- his claim is both valid and invalid depending on what type of charge he says did it.

If he is assuming the same size charge, he is totally wrong because if it had been placed there it would have penetrated the hull during the detonation process and the explosive decompression would have blown most of the force out the hole ( much bigger hole) and there would be almost no damage from the blast in the luggage because it would have equalized toward the lower pressure ( outside the plane- one of those force taking the path of least resistance things)
LONGTABBER PE 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 25th September 2009, 04:58 PM   #47
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
They did test an awful lot for explosives. Just not the MST-13 fragment.

It's in the AAIB report. It'll still be a summary, but there is more of that sort of detail there.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 25th September 2009, 05:30 PM   #48
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
They did test an awful lot for explosives. Just not the MST-13 fragment.

It's in the AAIB report. It'll still be a summary, but there is more of that sort of detail there.

Rolfe.
I read that ( already) but there are holes in it I could drive a truck thru.

Of course they did- but they didnt show how they determined what was where in relation.

That blast vaporized/shredded every case in about a 10 ft radius and mixed it together in a 20,000+ mph hurricane. That tore up everything else.

Then theres the turbulence from the ride down and all that.

Out of all that and no way to know what was where and what was in what individual piece of luggage- I want to know how they did?

I'll go ahead and tell you how they did. I see it clearly now. ( still developing tho) They either are the worst keystone kops in history or they cooked their investigation.

Heres why

They found 55 odd pieces with residue, charring etc because they were OUTSIDE the "zap zone" ( maybe 5-10ish foot radius for a single stick) of the detonation and all that WAS LEFT as they were ancillary damage. ( in literal terms, that force of detonation is not much less than the temperatures and pressures in an atomic bomb) They were hit by the blast wall and expanding fireball- NOT in the bubble.

if the bomb didnt have enough force to obliterate everything as I said- it couldnt have taken out the plane in the first place. ( they cant have it both ways- enough force to punch thru the wall and pepper it with debris and such yet not destroy everything in the path the same way)

Now, they want me to believe all this force somehow just "charred" some odd remnant pieces? and left pieces of all surrounding bags?
LONGTABBER PE 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 25th September 2009, 06:14 PM   #49
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
OK, I'm with you. I'd like to see a coherent scenario developed, including motive, means and opportunity, though. Given that all this emerged within about the first 8 to 10 weeks after the crash, including the time for the gathering up and sorting and piecing together.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 26th September 2009, 02:13 PM   #50
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
I'm copying this post in from the MST-13 thread, because I think it's relevant here and I'd be interested to see it addressed.

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
Quote:
BTW, Here's a book that might be usefull for the class: Forensic Investigation of Explosions By Alexander Beveridge (Especially chapter 13: "Evidence of Explosive Damage to Materials in Air Crash Investigations")

Well, Google and the publishers have clearly been got at, since you actually have to buy the book to read that chapter. The NWO is oppressing our investigation!!

Of the bits you can read for free, pp 109-110 are interesting, it describes investigation protocols, and comments that parts of the original device are key pieces of evidence to find, although they may be small and may not look exactly like they did before the explosion. What he doesn't say is that there is no point looking for these if the bomb was a high explosive, because they would have been vapourised.

Assuming that the book is reputable, and coupled with the fact no explosives expert has come out in the past 20 years and said that nothing can survive within x cm of a high explosive detonation, I'm still stuck with the opinion that it is plausible that the timer fragment as well as other fragments are genuine.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 September 2009, 04:37 AM   #51
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm copying this post in from the MST-13 thread, because I think it's relevant here and I'd be interested to see it addressed.

Rolfe.
Sorry for the delay- it takes days to move around here.

I'll be glad to explain

Quote:
Assuming that the book is reputable, and coupled with the fact no explosives expert has come out in the past 20 years and said that nothing can survive within x cm of a high explosive detonation, I'm still stuck with the opinion that it is plausible that the timer fragment as well as other fragments are genuine.
Thats a misnomer and nobody will for several reasons.



1) nothing is impossible

2) there are too many variables depending on the type and configuration of the charge set up.

For example, if I took a stick of C4 and did the textbook set up ( charge in the case unwrapped) and stuck the timer on the END where it normally goes- theres a good chance pieces will survive because of the detonation from the primed end.

Thats not what allegedly happened here- this charge was unwrapped and molded inside the case presumably in 100% contact and even overlapping ( encasing) it as the charged was packed all around.

So the question you have to ask ( to be relevant to this SPECIFIC application) is how many detonators survive that are encased by the explosive which is a military grade white explosive ( at least 75% since they obviously didnt pack the front side) Your answer will be zero.

Quote:
Of the bits you can read for free, pp 109-110 are interesting, it describes investigation protocols, and comments that parts of the original device are key pieces of evidence to find, although they may be small and may not look exactly like they did before the explosion. What he doesn't say is that there is no point looking for these if the bomb was a high explosive, because they would have been vapourised.
Another misnomer because its a general statement

The number of "bombs" ( defined as anything other than civilian or military applications) detonated are NOT with military grade high explosives. ( expensive and VERY hard to get) so you are dealing with commercial grade dynamite, TNT and Black Powder and most of those explosives are stacked or made in pipes.

TNT being the standard is a red explosive and that family burns from around .6 to TNT MOST CERTAINLY will leave remnants.

So, if 90+% of "bombs" are made from those materials- 90+% of bombs will leave parts. A no brainer.

Also, in most cases the "detonator" isnt there ( usually wire fire) except for remote and times detonations.

Also, depending on what it is you are blowing- you will have multiple charges hooked to a central detonator which can be several feet from the charge.

Also, you need to define "detonator" because in textbook lingo- the detonator is the power source that ignites the cap,squib, primer or whatever- the timer would be the "trigger".

Thats important because in jargon, a "detonator" is also the "detonator charge" ( cap,fuze, primer charge)

These are almost always ( except for the special ones) made out of hermetically sealed stainless ( for chemical and magnetic inertness) that is scored ( blows from all sides for immediate detonation) or end capped ( blows out of the end like a rifle so the charge "ramps" from one end to the other making like a tidal wave) depending on how you want the charge to fire. ( like which way you want the debris to blow)

These often blow OUT of the charge before they are fully detonated ( especially the end capped ones)- Thats why I said upthread we look for UXO ( unexploded ordinance) after a fire because they will often be half blown ( put out by the main charge) and still explosive and VERY dangerous.

So, when laypeople read things like that without the background- they need to understand all the scenarios and are talking apples to apples.

Like I said earlier, I can take 4 identical scenarios and place the charge several ways and get several results depending on what I want it to do.

Its very simple to test what I'm saying- Get Mythbusters ( mentioned from the other thread) to take a generic board from Radio Shack and pack a pound of C4 on it and around it ( say put it on a saucer)- see what you get then.
LONGTABBER PE 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 September 2009, 05:38 AM   #52
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,510
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE
Quote:
Assuming that the book is reputable, and coupled with the fact no explosives expert has come out in the past 20 years and said that nothing can survive within x cm of a high explosive detonation, I'm still stuck with the opinion that it is plausible that the timer fragment as well as other fragments are genuine.
Thats a misnomer and nobody will for several reasons.



1) nothing is impossible

2) there are too many variables depending on the type and configuration of the charge set up.
OK, I'm with you so far (although you should look up 'misnomer' in a dictionary, as it doesn't mean what you think it does).

Then the rest of your post seems to be trying to do exactly that. Given that all the data you have access to is public domain, why are you the only 'explosives expert' who has claimed that it is not possible for the timer fragment to survive?

Quote:
Thats not what allegedly happened here- this charge was unwrapped and molded inside the case presumably in 100% contact and even overlapping ( encasing) it as the charged was packed all around.
Where did you get this information? As far as I'm aware the exact arrangement of the bomb components is unknown, as they blew up 30,000 feet above Scotland.

Quote:
The number of "bombs" ( defined as anything other than civilian or military applications) detonated are NOT with military grade high explosives. ( expensive and VERY hard to get) so you are dealing with commercial grade dynamite, TNT and Black Powder and most of those explosives are stacked or made in pipes.
In 2001 the IRA was estimated as being in posession of 2.5 tonnes of Semtex (5000 Lockerbies worth), this was what was left after they had spent 20+ years blowing things up all over England and Northern Ireland. The UK authorities were quite familiar with high explosive devices and their effects

Quote:
Its very simple to test what I'm saying- Get Mythbusters ( mentioned from the other thread) to take a generic board from Radio Shack and pack a pound of C4 on it and around it ( say put it on a saucer)- see what you get then.
I'm sure it is possible to arrange an explosion with 1lb of Semtex that will completely obliterate a small circuit board. That is not where the burden of proof lies. In order to demonstrate that the timer fragment could not survive you need to show (not just state as an opinion) that it is impossible, or nearly impossible to arrange such an explosion without totally destroying the board. I haven't seen anyone credible attempt to do this yet.
Guybrush Threepwood 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 September 2009, 05:51 AM   #53
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
I read somewhere that the MST-13 couldn't have been put inside the Toshiba while still inside its case - the case would have had to be discarded to get it to fit. Presumably that strengthens your case there? I agree, the geometry of the Toshiba case suggests very close contact between Semtex and timer.

However, even given that observation, how confident would you be that such a fragment wouldn't have survived? 90%? 95% 99%? 99.9%?

Also, does this theory apply equally to the fragments of the Toshiba itself? These have a much more robust provenance within the evidence train than the timer fragment.

Quote:
Fifty-six fragments which showed various signs of explosives damage were identified as forming part of what had been a brown hardshell Samsonite suitcase of the 26" Silhouette 4000 range (“the primary suitcase”). The nature of the damage indicated that it had been inflicted from within the suitcase. A further twenty-four items of luggage were identified by their characteristic explosives damage as having been in relatively close proximity to the explosive device. Within many of these items there were found fragments of what appeared to be parts of the primary suitcase, and also fragments of what appeared to have been a radio cassette player. Other similar fragments were found in clothing which from their charred appearance were considered to have been contained in the primary suitcase. In addition, when examining a data plate which had been attached to AVE 4041, Mr Claiden recovered a piece of debris which appeared to be a small piece of circuit board. The number of fragments associated with the clothing in close contact with the explosion and the extent of the shattering of these fragments indicated that the explosive charge had in all probability been located within the radio.

I find it a lot more difficult to postulate fabrication or error concerning all this evidence than I do concerning the single piece of MST-13 circuit board.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 September 2009, 08:04 AM   #54
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
OK, I'm with you so far (although you should look up 'misnomer' in a dictionary, as it doesn't mean what you think it does).

Then the rest of your post seems to be trying to do exactly that. Given that all the data you have access to is public domain, why are you the only 'explosives expert' who has claimed that it is not possible for the timer fragment to survive?

Where did you get this information? As far as I'm aware the exact arrangement of the bomb components is unknown, as they blew up 30,000 feet above Scotland.

In 2001 the IRA was estimated as being in posession of 2.5 tonnes of Semtex (5000 Lockerbies worth), this was what was left after they had spent 20+ years blowing things up all over England and Northern Ireland. The UK authorities were quite familiar with high explosive devices and their effects

I'm sure it is possible to arrange an explosion with 1lb of Semtex that will completely obliterate a small circuit board. That is not where the burden of proof lies. In order to demonstrate that the timer fragment could not survive you need to show (not just state as an opinion) that it is impossible, or nearly impossible to arrange such an explosion without totally destroying the board. I haven't seen anyone credible attempt to do this yet.
Quote:
OK, I'm with you so far (although you should look up 'misnomer' in a dictionary, as it doesn't mean what you think it does).
Its a misrepresentation- thats more than enough

Quote:
Then the rest of your post seems to be trying to do exactly that. Given that all the data you have access to is public domain, why are you the only 'explosives expert' who has claimed that it is not possible for the timer fragment to survive?
I can give you several possible reasons

none of them give a damn being the first

who would they "claim" it to? No expert is going to publically claim anything without examining the actual reports and tests ( thats not the summary)- the only reason I am is because this is a discussion forum)

none were contracted to relook at it ( I wouldnt be commenting if I hadnt looked at all the inforemation out there myself)
And no its not "impossible" but I wouldnt bet on 100,000,000 to 1 as my only chance

Quote:
In 2001 the IRA was estimated as being in posession of 2.5 tonnes of Semtex (5000 Lockerbies worth), this was what was left after they had spent 20+ years blowing things up all over England and Northern Ireland. The UK authorities were quite familiar with high explosive devices and their effects
your point? Thats another paramilitary group- not the "average" bomber. Then again, you know how much those "estimates" are worth? I'm also not the only one claiming it couldnt. ( link posted upthread somewhere)

Quote:
Where did you get this information? As far as I'm aware the exact arrangement of the bomb components is unknown, as they blew up 30,000 feet above Scotland.
pictures of the alleged set up on links in the threads and the description of how the state claims it had to be stuffed combined with my own experience playing with radios and knowing how big a stick is

Quote:
I'm sure it is possible to arrange an explosion with 1lb of Semtex that will completely obliterate a small circuit board.
so am I

Quote:
That is not where the burden of proof lies. In order to demonstrate that the timer fragment could not survive you need to show (not just state as an opinion) that it is impossible, or nearly impossible to arrange such an explosion without totally destroying the board. I haven't seen anyone credible attempt to do this yet.
Thats not how it works. The burden is on those who claim it can since the science and probability support it being obliterated in the described configuration. You want it done? I'm licensed so all you have to do is pay for the test and I'll personally conduct it for you and give you all rights to it. You are looking around $10,000. That will purchase the permits,charge, detonator, fake bomb, film and report. I have a merchants acccount so PM me a visa,MC or amex and info # and where you want it sent. You will own it lock,stock and barrel.
LONGTABBER PE 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 September 2009, 08:19 AM   #55
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I read somewhere that the MST-13 couldn't have been put inside the Toshiba while still inside its case - the case would have had to be discarded to get it to fit. Presumably that strengthens your case there? I agree, the geometry of the Toshiba case suggests very close contact between Semtex and timer.

However, even given that observation, how confident would you be that such a fragment wouldn't have survived? 90%? 95% 99%? 99.9%?

Also, does this theory apply equally to the fragments of the Toshiba itself? These have a much more robust provenance within the evidence train than the timer fragment.

I find it a lot more difficult to postulate fabrication or error concerning all this evidence than I do concerning the single piece of MST-13 circuit board.

Rolfe.
Quote:
I read somewhere that the MST-13 couldn't have been put inside the Toshiba while still inside its case - the case would have had to be discarded to get it to fit. Presumably that strengthens your case there? I agree, the geometry of the Toshiba case suggests very close contact between Semtex and timer.
That would depend on the size of the components on the board and any other stuff. I would think the actual toshiba board would almost have to be removed because otherwise it would be stuffed like a Christmas Turkey.

Quote:
However, even given that observation, how confident would you be that such a fragment wouldn't have survived? 90%? 95% 99%? 99.9%?
99+%

Quote:
Also, does this theory apply equally to the fragments of the Toshiba itself? These have a much more robust provenance within the evidence train than the timer fragment.
same because in terms of thermal and elactic properties ( being polystyrene) they are weaker than the actual board. Also, if they survived- logic dictates that STRONGER parts such as the metal components, speaker magnets, frame pieces "should" be in there too.

Sorry, i forgot- this is a "miracle" bomb that disintegrates 8 oz solid iron magnets 5" away from it and all metal from carriages leaving no trace but allows plastics and fiberboard in direct contact with it to survive. It also puts trace on components inside the case but on nothing else touching it. It leaves shirts but vaporizes metal. Amazing damn device.

Quote:
I find it a lot more difficult to postulate fabrication or error concerning all this evidence than I do concerning the single piece of MST-13 circuit board.
I think they blew up a different radio with a stick of dynamite and called it evidence.

Why? we can debate and all theories are on the table- there just aint no way for it to have gone down the way the state claims leaving what they said they found.
LONGTABBER PE 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 September 2009, 08:42 AM   #56
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,510
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
who would they "claim" it to? No expert is going to publically claim anything without examining the actual reports and tests ( thats not the summary)- the only reason I am is because this is a discussion forum)
Well council for the defence for starters, it wouldn't be unheard of for an expert to contact them and make an offer to examine the evidence as he finds it implausible at first glance.

Quote:
pictures of the alleged set up on links in the threads and the description of how the state claims it had to be stuffed combined with my own experience playing with radios and knowing how big a stick is
That is an alleged set up, not the actual one, there is no way of knowing how close it was to the real thing. As Rolfe has also pointed out in another post, fragments of Radio pcb and casing also survived, so either they are all fake, or some things close to the explosion survived.

Quote:
Thats not how it works. The burden is on those who claim it can since the science and probability support it being obliterated in the described configuration.
Then provide the science, all you have done so far is make unsupported assertions and claim special knowledge.

Quote:
You want it done? I'm licensed so all you have to do is pay for the test and I'll personally conduct it for you and give you all rights to it. You are looking around $10,000. That will purchase the permits,charge, detonator, fake bomb, film and report. I have a merchants acccount so PM me a visa,MC or amex and info # and where you want it sent. You will own it lock,stock and barrel.


I'm pretty sure it's been done many times, if anyone has access to the results I'd be very interested in seeing them.
Guybrush Threepwood 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 September 2009, 08:58 AM   #57
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood View Post
Well council for the defence for starters, it wouldn't be unheard of for an expert to contact them and make an offer to examine the evidence as he finds it implausible at first glance.

That is an alleged set up, not the actual one, there is no way of knowing how close it was to the real thing. As Rolfe has also pointed out in another post, fragments of Radio pcb and casing also survived, so either they are all fake, or some things close to the explosion survived.

Then provide the science, all you have done so far is make unsupported assertions and claim special knowledge.



I'm pretty sure it's been done many times, if anyone has access to the results I'd be very interested in seeing them.
Quote:
Well council for the defence for starters, it wouldn't be unheard of for an expert to contact them and make an offer to examine the evidence as he finds it implausible at first glance.
Thats assuming one paid attention to the trial and cared. It would have had to have been post trial as the actual evidence wouldnt be public until then. But, if you want circumstantial evidence supporting a conspiracy- WHERE was the defense expert to rebut the state? Just the fact they didnt have one tells me something is fishy because under the best of circumstances this case was weak as water.

Quote:
That is an alleged set up, not the actual one, there is no way of knowing how close it was to the real thing. As Rolfe has also pointed out in another post, fragments of Radio pcb and casing also survived, so either they are all fake, or some things close to the explosion survived.
I know its a mock up ( i said that) but there is only so much volume in that case and only so many ways to stuff a turkey and no, they are ALL fake.

Quote:
Then provide the science, all you have done so far is make unsupported assertions and claim special knowledge.
I did - its upthread. I dont "claim it" i have it- the fact that the masses dont understand it is why they pay me and not the general public for it. Thats why we are the SME's and the general public isnt. if it was that easy, a caveman could do it.
LONGTABBER PE 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 September 2009, 09:50 AM   #58
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Sorry, i forgot- this is a "miracle" bomb that disintegrates 8 oz solid iron magnets 5" away from it and all metal from carriages leaving no trace but allows plastics and fiberboard in direct contact with it to survive. It also puts trace on components inside the case but on nothing else touching it. It leaves shirts but vaporizes metal. Amazing damn device.

Mmm, it's not quite that simple. Have you seen the area the debris covered? It's high heather moor and forest, and there's a helluva lot of it. It was searched by hand as carefully as possible, but there's only so much you can do. All the big stuff was picked up, and a lot of bits of clothing. It's notable though that all the (alleged) parts of the Toshiba, and the timer fragment, were discovered lodged in fragments of clothing. Small, heavier stuff that didn't lodge in clothing but perhaps fell to earth independently would have a much smaller chance of being picked up by the searchers, especially as it would tend to fall through the heather rather than lie on top of it. Speaker coil is however mentioned as being found, again caught in fabric.

There was some evidence led about stuffing the Toshiba, though I can't remember where I read it. I saw something about how much Semtex you could get into something like that before it would be visible to someone inspecting the radio from outside.

It was Bollier who said that the timer casing would have had to be removed, but I don't think anyone has disagreed with him about that. However, a fragment of the Toshiba circuit board was found among the debris.

The story of the Golfer might be relevant here, although we should remember that the SCCRC rejected his evidence as confused and contradictory.

Quote:
Golfer alleges pieces of supposedly bomb-damaged clothing, parts of a timer circuit board and an instruction manual for a Toshiba radio-cassette recorder were added to the evidence to lay a trail that would lead to the 'bomber'.

In a damning indictment of Scottish justice, he claims senior members of the Lockerbie investigating team agreed to manufacture and manipulate evidence to help secure a suspect and conviction.

He is definitely alleging that more was planted than just the MST-13 board, and that the Scottish police were a party to it. However, this would have had to be done at such an early stage that I have a great deal of difficulty in seeing how its supposed to have worked.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 September 2009, 11:40 AM   #59
Guybrush Threepwood
Trainee Pirate
 
Guybrush Threepwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: An Uaimh
Posts: 2,510
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
But, if you want circumstantial evidence supporting a conspiracy- WHERE was the defense expert to rebut the state? Just the fact they didnt have one tells me something is fishy because under the best of circumstances this case was weak as water.
I'm not sure there was one, for some odd reason the defence did not dispute the prosecution's assertion that a 747 blew up and fell out of the sky over Scotland. They only disputed that the two accused were involved.

Quote:
I know its a mock up ( i said that) but there is only so much volume in that case and only so many ways to stuff a turkey and no, they are ALL fake.
I sometimes almost start to believe that the MST-13 timer is a plant, but if the NWO is capable of organising the faking of all the results of the investigation in the middle of nowhere in Scotland 3 days before Christmas, then all I have left to say is; I for one welcome our new Reptilian Overlords.

Quote:
Quote:
Then provide the science.
I did - its upthread.
No, it isn't. Plenty of wild assertions, no science.
Guybrush Threepwood 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 September 2009, 12:12 PM   #60
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Thats assuming one paid attention to the trial and cared. It would have had to have been post trial as the actual evidence wouldnt be public until then.

I'm a bit startled Jim Swire didn't notice, if it's so obvious. He certainly paid attention to the trial and cared.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
But, if you want circumstantial evidence supporting a conspiracy- WHERE was the defense expert to rebut the state? Just the fact they didnt have one tells me something is fishy because under the best of circumstances this case was weak as water.

What tells me the defence weren't trying is the report of the official UN observer to the trial. (This from his report on the appeal proceedings.)

Quote:
9.One of the most serious shortcomings of the appeal proceedings (as of the trial proceedings) was that the appellant did not have adequate defense – a circumstance that weighs heavily in an adversarial judicial system where the fairness of the trial depends mainly on the equality of arms between prosecution and defense. Because of this situation, the requirements of Art. 6 (“Right to a fair trial”) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were not met.

24.In addition to that, the appellant was deprived of his right to adequate legal representation (in the many respects described above in regard to the conduct of the appeal proceedings on the part of the defense team). Furthermore, he did not have the possibility of choosing the defense team on his own. The team was chosen for him by the former Libyan defense lawyer, Mr. Maghour, who at the same time was acting as Libya’s representative in the cases Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States respectively at the International Court of Justice. The official role of the Libyan defense lawyer as agent of the Libyan state was incompatible with his duty to give adequate legal assistance to his client in a case of personal criminal responsibility such as the one before the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. In view of the Defense’s decision not to make use of many of the means available to it for the adequate defense of the appellant, the original choice of the defense team (made without the participation of the appellant) may have negatively impacted on the rights of the appellant. That the defense team was “out of tune” with the appellant – whom it was supposed to represent – became clear in the rather strange fact that the Defense refused to meet with the undersigned or to answer any of his questions, while the appellant, through the prison administration and the Scottish Court Service, asked for a meeting with the undersigned.

25.In the meeting of 12 February 2002, requested by the appellant, he disclosed to the undersigned that he was made aware of only 3 out of 16 joint minutes agreed upon by the Prosecution and the Defense in the course of the trial. He also stated that his instructions were not always followed by the Defense (as for instance in the case of the x-ray machine which the appellant had asked to have brought into the courtroom for inspection) and that he did not give instructions to the Defense to drop the “special defense” during the trial (see Par. 9 of the undersigned’s report of 3 February 2001); he further said that he did not understand why no submission of “no case to answer” was made in his case by the Defense (while they made such a step in regard to the co-accused), etc. All of these details underline the basic fact that the appellant did not get adequate legal representation and suggest that the defense strategy may not have been genuine and authentic (as required under European standards). The suspicions raised by the undersigned in his trial report were confirmed by the information obtained during the aforementioned meeting with the appellant.

Nevertheless, the only people I see declaring that no fragment of a timer could possibly have survived that explosion are Bollier and de Braeckeleer, and there seems to be a distinct lack of a stampede of other explosives experts to agree with them.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 September 2009, 07:22 PM   #61
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Mmm, it's not quite that simple. Have you seen the area the debris covered? It's high heather moor and forest, and there's a helluva lot of it. It was searched by hand as carefully as possible, but there's only so much you can do. All the big stuff was picked up, and a lot of bits of clothing. It's notable though that all the (alleged) parts of the Toshiba, and the timer fragment, were discovered lodged in fragments of clothing. Small, heavier stuff that didn't lodge in clothing but perhaps fell to earth independently would have a much smaller chance of being picked up by the searchers, especially as it would tend to fall through the heather rather than lie on top of it. Speaker coil is however mentioned as being found, again caught in fabric.

There was some evidence led about stuffing the Toshiba, though I can't remember where I read it. I saw something about how much Semtex you could get into something like that before it would be visible to someone inspecting the radio from outside.

It was Bollier who said that the timer casing would have had to be removed, but I don't think anyone has disagreed with him about that. However, a fragment of the Toshiba circuit board was found among the debris.

The story of the Golfer might be relevant here, although we should remember that the SCCRC rejected his evidence as confused and contradictory.




He is definitely alleging that more was planted than just the MST-13 board, and that the Scottish police were a party to it. However, this would have had to be done at such an early stage that I have a great deal of difficulty in seeing how its supposed to have worked.

Rolfe.
Quote:
Mmm, it's not quite that simple. Have you seen the area the debris covered?
It really is that simple. Since 04, I have done well over 100 assessments and recovery ops regarding IED's and other ordinance on AH64's, hummers, 5 tons and a host of other NTV's. I have seen explosions do many weird things. I have been on the revovery sites looking for debris, body parts, sensitive/classified electronics and the whole bit. Thats all the more reason to suspect it.
Its hard to find that level of parts in a desert thats 100% open with metal detectors. Even when you KNOW its suposed to be there and deliberately searching for it.

Quote:
Speaker coil is however mentioned as being found, again caught in fabric.
Didnt see that but why ( i wonder) isnt it part of the debris as well as the plastic pieces. I have a theory on that.

Quote:
There was some evidence led about stuffing the Toshiba, though I can't remember where I read it. I saw something about how much Semtex you could get into something like that before it would be visible to someone inspecting the radio from outside.
I read it and I'm not sure what he was talking about being "visible" unless he is referring to it being a black case and Semtex is red/orange. Thats easily fixed by spray paint and if you are concerned about the fumes giving you away just use black electrical tape on the inside of the vents. ( its not like you are going to play the radio again)

Quote:
It was Bollier who said that the timer casing would have had to be removed, but I don't think anyone has disagreed with him about that. However, a fragment of the Toshiba circuit board was found among the debris.
I could see it either way- theres plenty of "air" room to stuff the explosive. ( I've packed a many a hole with a wood dowel)- the question is "can you fit the timer,trigger and electronic stuff in there with the OEM stuff still present and close the case?"

I dont see why not with some selective packing but it would be tight. If it were me, I would have removed the board just to make it easy. The only reason I would see to leave it would be if your objective was to give it to someone and let them actually play it before detonation.
LONGTABBER PE 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 September 2009, 07:46 PM   #62
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm a bit startled Jim Swire didn't notice, if it's so obvious. He certainly paid attention to the trial and cared.




What tells me the defence weren't trying is the report of the official UN observer to the trial. (This from his report on the appeal proceedings.)




Nevertheless, the only people I see declaring that no fragment of a timer could possibly have survived that explosion are Bollier and de Braeckeleer, and there seems to be a distinct lack of a stampede of other explosives experts to agree with them.

Rolfe.
Quote:
I'm a bit startled Jim Swire didn't notice, if it's so obvious. He certainly paid attention to the trial and cared.
I guess you need to ask him- it really is that obvious

Quote:
What tells me the defence weren't trying is the report of the official UN observer to the trial. (This from his report on the appeal proceedings.)
That really has to be the answer. I find it personally impossible to believe any element would attempt to influence a defense team. ( states case- yes)

Granted, I have zero knowledge of the UK legal system but I do a good bit of it here.

Lawyers know law- they dont know all the technical nuances of all kinds of evidence, thats why they hire people like me. Its very possible they didnt grasp or realize the importance of it. ( seen it happen)

Also, I can partially buy sub theory #6214.3 that I have read in your links where many people believed it may not make it to trial and even then almost certainly not a conviction.

I'm not finished reading yet but if this case had been tried in a US Federal court ( under Federal rules of evidence) theres a very strong possibility it never would have made it to trial because there would be a hearing for cause and I'm not convinced the state could fully point the finger at the accused.

Even if they did- an average defense lawyer ( not even a good one) should have been able to shoot the bomb theory of the state out of the sky.

Granted this is at best a weak circumstantial case ( but winnable) but the evidence is tainted.

I'm doubtful there would have been a conviction here.

Quote:
Nevertheless, the only people I see declaring that no fragment of a timer could possibly have survived that explosion are Bollier and de Braeckeleer, and there seems to be a distinct lack of a stampede of other explosives experts to agree with them.
What do you expect? Explosives Union Local # 69 to strike and protest?

How many were asked? How many people were contracted to independantly review the evidence?

Thats the opposite of the bigfooters claiming "all these sightings must mean something- they cant all be false". Just because everyone working in demolitions didnt take up arms and rail against the verdict ( assuming they even followed the case) doesnt mean a thing.
LONGTABBER PE 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 September 2009, 12:45 PM   #63
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
It really is that simple. Since 04, I have done well over 100 assessments and recovery ops regarding IED's and other ordinance on AH64's, hummers, 5 tons and a host of other NTV's. I have seen explosions do many weird things. I have been on the revovery sites looking for debris, body parts, sensitive/classified electronics and the whole bit. Thats all the more reason to suspect it.
Its hard to find that level of parts in a desert thats 100% open with metal detectors. Even when you KNOW its suposed to be there and deliberately searching for it.

Are you saying that the amount of evidence recovered was improbable per se, irrespective of whether certain items should have been vaporised?

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Didnt see that but why ( i wonder) isnt it part of the debris as well as the plastic pieces. I have a theory on that.

I'm anticipating this theory with bated breath, but take your time....

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
I read it and I'm not sure what he was talking about being "visible" unless he is referring to it being a black case and Semtex is red/orange. Thats easily fixed by spray paint and if you are concerned about the fumes giving you away just use black electrical tape on the inside of the vents. ( its not like you are going to play the radio again)

I could see it either way- theres plenty of "air" room to stuff the explosive. ( I've packed a many a hole with a wood dowel)- the question is "can you fit the timer,trigger and electronic stuff in there with the OEM stuff still present and close the case?"

I dont see why not with some selective packing but it would be tight. If it were me, I would have removed the board just to make it easy. The only reason I would see to leave it would be if your objective was to give it to someone and let them actually play it before detonation.

I gathered he was talking about a security inspection spotting that there was more in the case than there ought to be, but not sure if he meant on a x-ray or by direct inspection.

I know British airports have been in the habit of asking passengers with electronic items in their baggage to switch them on and demonstrate that they work. I've been asked to do that myself. It seemed to be a standard assumption that a radio rigged up as a bomb wouldn't work. It's not impossible the bomb maker might have tried to construct the device so that it would pass that test.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 30th September 2009, 01:15 PM   #64
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
I guess you need to ask him- it really is that obvious

Well, I'm not personally acquainted with him, but I would have expected him to have caught on to that one considering he's convinced the MST-13 fragment is a plant and sat through the entire trial.

Having said that, he currently has a book about the case which nobody wants to risk publishing because it's too hot to handle. Given that we have titles like The Trail of the Octopus in the public domain, and there are serious allegations of just about everything up to and including a MIHOP scenario readily accessible, I have a bit of a boggle about what he can possibly have to say that he can't publish. (And why he doesn't just self-publish the thing and be done with it.)

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
That really has to be the answer. I find it personally impossible to believe any element would attempt to influence a defense team. ( states case- yes)

Granted, I have zero knowledge of the UK legal system but I do a good bit of it here.

Lawyers know law- they dont know all the technical nuances of all kinds of evidence, thats why they hire people like me. Its very possible they didnt grasp or realize the importance of it. ( seen it happen)

First, there's no such thing as UK law. This trial was under the law of Scotland. Second, it was highly unusual. There was an agreement to waive trial by jury. The defendant was not allowed to choose his own defence team, or instruct them freely. Both prosecution and defence teams had representatives of foreign governments breathing down their necks and instructing them how to conduct their case. And that's before you even notice that the judges appeared to be bending over backwards to convict.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Also, I can partially buy sub theory #6214.3 that I have read in your links where many people believed it may not make it to trial and even then almost certainly not a conviction.

I think few people believed it would come to trial. However, over the ten years, with sanctions being applied to Libya, political pressure mounted to extradite the accused. Once the trial was on, though, it seems that a conviction was a foregone conclusion - until we actually got to see the nature of the "irrefutable evidence" the Crown said it had.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
I'm not finished reading yet but if this case had been tried in a US Federal court ( under Federal rules of evidence) theres a very strong possibility it never would have made it to trial because there would be a hearing for cause and I'm not convinced the state could fully point the finger at the accused.

Even if they did- an average defense lawyer ( not even a good one) should have been able to shoot the bomb theory of the state out of the sky.

Granted this is at best a weak circumstantial case ( but winnable) but the evidence is tainted.

I'm doubtful there would have been a conviction here.

I'd have said the same as regards Scots law, but this was no normal trial. Hans Kochler's reports are worth reading in detail.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
What do you expect? Explosives Union Local # 69 to strike and protest?

How many were asked? How many people were contracted to independantly review the evidence?

Thats the opposite of the bigfooters claiming "all these sightings must mean something- they cant all be false". Just because everyone working in demolitions didnt take up arms and rail against the verdict ( assuming they even followed the case) doesnt mean a thing.

Well, I'd expect the police and army explosives experts who have a lot of experience with the IRA's little games to notice that something's not right, in such a high profile and widely reported case.

I'd have imagined that even if Jim Swire didn't spot it, some of his army explosives expert mates might have mentioned it to him.

Of course it's not inevitable, but it's something I take note of. I hesitate to pull the "you're just some guy on the internet" line, because I'm always reluctant to do that when a poster is self-evidently talking the talk. However, I don't have any way to tell exactly how expert you really are, obviously. So I don't have any easy way to decide whether to trust what you're saying and open a can of CT worms that makes the individual timer fragment issue look like an open-and-shut case, or to stick with current received wisdom that the fragments are not intrinsically impossible.

So I continue to keep an open mind. And argue Devil's Advocate when I see a relevant point.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 30th September 2009, 01:44 PM   #65
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
Additionally, I've come across another commentary by Hans Kochler.

Quote:
12. It is to be noted further that the defense teams for the two accused Libyan nationals – and in particular for the sentenced Libyan national – were not chosen by the two Libyan individuals, but by the Libyan government. Mr. Al-Megrahi’s defense team was chosen by the Libyan authorities and paid for by them, not by Mr. Al-Megrahi who has no funds. It did not act in defense of its client in a professional manner, but may have acted according to the instructions of the Libyan authorities whose interests are not necessarily directed towards establishing the truth in this particular matter of criminal justice, but towards reaching a political settlement with the United States and the United Kingdom for the removal of the sanctions and for unhindered economic cooperation.

13. In view of the above considerations, Mr. Al-Megrahi may well be the scapegoat in a comprehensive political arrangement, which allows the parties to the Lockerbie dispute, including Libya, a face-saving way out of the impasse that prevailed for more than a decade. Agreeing on putting the blame on a lone individual (as irrational and improbable as this may be) absolves the parties to the Lockerbie dispute from entering into delicate and highly embarrassing investigations of the potential role of the intelligence services (including advance knowledge of the crime and the question why they have done nothing to prevent it) of the countries involved in the Lockerbie dispute. Because Mr. Al-Megrahi’s guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, further investigations would have to be conducted by the Scottish judicial authorities so as to find out the truth.

This might accord with your own thinking. I also note that in his references to advance warnings, Kochler may be closer to alleging a LIHOP than I realised.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 30th September 2009, 04:15 PM   #66
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Well, I'm not personally acquainted with him, but I would have expected him to have caught on to that one considering he's convinced the MST-13 fragment is a plant and sat through the entire trial.

OK, I concede. Swire has noticed, I just didn't pick it up.

This is him commenting on the Dutch film Lockerbie Revisited, where he apparently did voice this opinion. First he pointed out the mistake with regard to the picture of the circuit board fragment shown on a fingertip, then he continued....

Originally Posted by Jim Swire
Otherwise it gave excellent support to the idea that the PT35B fragment has a very suspicious history, lacking the confirmed freedom from interference required of any significant item of 'evidence' for use in a murder trial.

I was able to point out at the end that PT35B also appeared to be something that could hardly have survived such close proximity to the Semtex charge, and that at least two independent explosives firms have confirmed this.
Also that its police evidence bag had had its label interfered with, while its entry into the UK forensic report appeared to have been a hasty afterthought, requiring renumbering of the subsequent pages.

You definitely win on that one. I still don't hear him suggesting that the fragments of Toshiba were all planted too, though, unless I missed a lot more.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 30th September 2009, 08:51 PM   #67
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Well, I'm not personally acquainted with him, but I would have expected him to have caught on to that one considering he's convinced the MST-13 fragment is a plant and sat through the entire trial.

Having said that, he currently has a book about the case which nobody wants to risk publishing because it's too hot to handle. Given that we have titles like The Trail of the Octopus in the public domain, and there are serious allegations of just about everything up to and including a MIHOP scenario readily accessible, I have a bit of a boggle about what he can possibly have to say that he can't publish. (And why he doesn't just self-publish the thing and be done with it.)




First, there's no such thing as UK law. This trial was under the law of Scotland. Second, it was highly unusual. There was an agreement to waive trial by jury. The defendant was not allowed to choose his own defence team, or instruct them freely. Both prosecution and defence teams had representatives of foreign governments breathing down their necks and instructing them how to conduct their case. And that's before you even notice that the judges appeared to be bending over backwards to convict.




I think few people believed it would come to trial. However, over the ten years, with sanctions being applied to Libya, political pressure mounted to extradite the accused. Once the trial was on, though, it seems that a conviction was a foregone conclusion - until we actually got to see the nature of the "irrefutable evidence" the Crown said it had.




I'd have said the same as regards Scots law, but this was no normal trial. Hans Kochler's reports are worth reading in detail.




Well, I'd expect the police and army explosives experts who have a lot of experience with the IRA's little games to notice that something's not right, in such a high profile and widely reported case.

I'd have imagined that even if Jim Swire didn't spot it, some of his army explosives expert mates might have mentioned it to him.

Of course it's not inevitable, but it's something I take note of. I hesitate to pull the "you're just some guy on the internet" line, because I'm always reluctant to do that when a poster is self-evidently talking the talk. However, I don't have any way to tell exactly how expert you really are, obviously. So I don't have any easy way to decide whether to trust what you're saying and open a can of CT worms that makes the individual timer fragment issue look like an open-and-shut case, or to stick with current received wisdom that the fragments are not intrinsically impossible.

So I continue to keep an open mind. And argue Devil's Advocate when I see a relevant point.

Rolfe.
Quote:
Well, I'm not personally acquainted with him, but I would have expected him to have caught on to that one considering he's convinced the MST-13 fragment is a plant and sat through the entire trial.

Having said that, he currently has a book about the case which nobody wants to risk publishing because it's too hot to handle. Given that we have titles like The Trail of the Octopus in the public domain, and there are serious allegations of just about everything up to and including a MIHOP scenario readily accessible, I have a bit of a boggle about what he can possibly have to say that he can't publish. (And why he doesn't just self-publish the thing and be done with it.)
I can well see how things get overlooked and I understand not talking about things as I have a similar issue with 2 US events that I personally know were set up but cant say because thats too dangerous.

Quote:
First, there's no such thing as UK law. This trial was under the law of Scotland. Second, it was highly unusual. There was an agreement to waive trial by jury. The defendant was not allowed to choose his own defence team, or instruct them freely. Both prosecution and defence teams had representatives of foreign governments breathing down their necks and instructing them how to conduct their case. And that's before you even notice that the judges appeared to be bending over backwards to convict.
And you dont find this suspicious? I do.

Quote:
I think few people believed it would come to trial. However, over the ten years, with sanctions being applied to Libya, political pressure mounted to extradite the accused. Once the trial was on, though, it seems that a conviction was a foregone conclusion - until we actually got to see the nature of the "irrefutable evidence" the Crown said it had.
Sounds to me like this entire trial was a set up

Quote:
Well, I'd expect the police and army explosives experts who have a lot of experience with the IRA's little games to notice that something's not right, in such a high profile and widely reported case.
They probably did but its a dangerous thing to speak against the establishment

Quote:
Of course it's not inevitable, but it's something I take note of. I hesitate to pull the "you're just some guy on the internet" line, because I'm always reluctant to do that when a poster is self-evidently talking the talk. However, I don't have any way to tell exactly how expert you really are, obviously. So I don't have any easy way to decide whether to trust what you're saying and open a can of CT worms that makes the individual timer fragment issue look like an open-and-shut case, or to stick with current received wisdom that the fragments are not intrinsically impossible.
I understand
LONGTABBER PE 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 September 2009, 09:39 PM   #68
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Are you saying that the amount of evidence recovered was improbable per se, irrespective of whether certain items should have been vaporised?




I'm anticipating this theory with bated breath, but take your time....




I gathered he was talking about a security inspection spotting that there was more in the case than there ought to be, but not sure if he meant on a x-ray or by direct inspection.

I know British airports have been in the habit of asking passengers with electronic items in their baggage to switch them on and demonstrate that they work. I've been asked to do that myself. It seemed to be a standard assumption that a radio rigged up as a bomb wouldn't work. It's not impossible the bomb maker might have tried to construct the device so that it would pass that test.

Rolfe.
Quote:
Are you saying that the amount of evidence recovered was improbable per se, irrespective of whether certain items should have been vaporised?
exactly- I have seen hummers and MRAP's that entire transaxles and other major components have literally "disappeared" that were big and dense enough to have survived.

Quote:
I'm anticipating this theory with bated breath, but take your time....
Its nothing secret since now I'm 99.99% convinced the entire states case is a complete fabrication along with the "claimed" evidence.

Speakers are normally subbed out to speaker manufacturers and have their codes stamped in them. I'm of the opinion those codes and housing survived the "dummy explosion" that created these debris but could be traced thru those codes that would point to another model radio or maybe even manufactured after the incident. Kinda difficult to sell the idea that a speaker made in 90 was in a crash in the 80's.

Otherwise, why not say "lookey here" at all the radio fragments we found.

Quote:
I gathered he was talking about a security inspection spotting that there was more in the case than there ought to be, but not sure if he meant on a x-ray or by direct inspection.

I know British airports have been in the habit of asking passengers with electronic items in their baggage to switch them on and demonstrate that they work. I've been asked to do that myself. It seemed to be a standard assumption that a radio rigged up as a bomb wouldn't work. It's not impossible the bomb maker might have tried to construct the device so that it would pass that test.
Thats kinda where i was going. A glob of semtex certainly WOULD show up on an Xray. Thats a hell of a risk to take. The only way to effectively hide it would be to profile it against the tape carriage and OEM board. That would take some sculpting and removal/installation of the components.

Even then, now theres the space issue- unless they were very creative- a good X Ray operator SHOULD have noticed this great big glob. Why didnt they?

Option 1 is the bomb was physically installed on the plane

Option 2 is there never was a radio bomb ( in something else)
LONGTABBER PE 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 October 2009, 02:33 AM   #69
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
And you dont find this suspicious? I do.

Sounds to me like this entire trial was a set up

Er, hasn't the entire thrust of what I've been saying been that the trial was rigged, a set-up, a kangaroo court, a show trial, all the rest of it? (You were the one who joined the discussion saying you were familiar with the evidence and believed Megrahi to be guilty, not me!)

The behaviour of the defence has always been a bit of a mystery to me, because they did a great job of demolishing Giaka as a credible witness and I wonder in retrospect why they pushed so hard on that one. However, there was a big falling-out in the defence team early on, with the original Scottish advocate leaving the team because of interference from the Libyan lawyers he was forced to work with. After that, substantial chunks of the defence were dropped, including the "special defence of incrimination" against Abu Talb and the PFLP-GC.

It appears that it was in Libya's interests also that at least one of the defendants should be convicted. The trial was a central plank of the negotiations to get the sanctions lifted. It was all arranged that Libya was going to accept responsibility, pay the relatives of the victims eye-watering sums of money, and everybody would move on. (Including the law enforcement authorities, who would stop investigating who did it, or who else might have been involved in what was undoubtedly a large conspiracy with high-up government backing whoever did it.)

I think it was becoming so obvious that Giaka wasn't credible, that it was decided to sacrifice him and his evidence (and so inevitably acquit Fhimah) on the altar of defence credibility, while retaining Gauci's testimony and a lot of the tittle-tattle coming from Bollier and his mates, so as to convict Megrahi.

So the defence had Libyan lawyers breathing down their necks manipulating the case, with their national interest vested in getting Megrahi convicted as a scapegoat. The prosecution had the CIA breathing down their necks telling them what they could and couldn't bring forward in evidence, and feeding them fairly-tales invented by Giaka.

Received wisdom says the judges were swayed by indirect political pressure to convict someone after all these years of international hard-ball, Nelson Mandela's intervention, the wildly expensive three-ring circus at Camp Zeist, and all the media attention. Whether there was any more to it and they had been directly leaned on with instructions to bring in a guilty verdict I couldn't say. Scrutiny of the evidence presented, and their stated reasons for their decision, does however bear that interpretation.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
They probably did but its a dangerous thing to speak against the establishment

Well, Jim Swire doesn't seem scared. However, as I said in a later post, I note now that he has indeed stated that the survival of that fragment would have been close to impossible.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 1st October 2009, 02:56 AM   #70
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Er, hasn't the entire thrust of what I've been saying been that the trial was rigged, a set-up, a kangaroo court, a show trial, all the rest of it? (You were the one who joined the discussion saying you were familiar with the evidence and believed Megrahi to be guilty, not me!)

Rolfe.
Come on now, thats not exactly correct.

I said I did ( and still do) believe he is guilty ( at some level but probably not directly) based on other things i had heard. I have never examined the evidence or trial.

Funny thing- now that I am looking at it, I'm almost open to the idea that he might have been legitimately framed.
LONGTABBER PE 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 October 2009, 04:36 AM   #71
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Come on now, thats not exactly correct.

I said I did ( and still do) believe he is guilty ( at some level but probably not directly) based on other things i had heard. I have never examined the evidence or trial.

Funny thing- now that I am looking at it, I'm almost open to the idea that he might have been legitimately framed.

I don't believe he put the suitcase on the plane, which is what he was convicted of. The evidence is laughable.

First, the securiity evidence at Luqa was as tight as a duck's arse; it's the only one of the three airports with no apparent opportunity for an unaccompanied suitcase to be introduced. (And yet the judges decided it must have gone on there, capitalising on a tiny shred of "well you can never be 100% sure" in the general manager's evidence. An amazing contrast to the way they hand-waved away Bedford's highly suggestive evidence with, "well, the case could have been moved within the container before it was put on the plane.")

Second, the original indictment had Fhimah, who had changed jobs but stll had an air-side pass for Luqa, as the essential accomplice to get this done. It was always understood that Megrahi could not possibly have done what was alleged without an accomplice. But Fhimah was acquitted (there was no evidence he was even there on that day), and no other evidence was presented that there might have been another accomplice present.

So, if the bomb was not introduced at Luqa, and Megrahi was definitely at Luqa that day, looks like an alibi to me.

There was also no evidence led whatsoever to show that he had even been involved with explosives or bomb-making, nobody was able to say where this bomb had been made or who made it, and basically there was little in his record to support the suggestion that he was involved in terrorism - depending on how you view the JSO, I suppose, but certainly not linking him with hands-on terrorism.

Yes, I think he was in the JSO, certainly while he worked for Libyan Arab Airlines. He denies any JSO connection after he left that job and went to work in the Centre for Strategic Studies, however I take that with a pinch of salt. He was involved in military procurement almost certainly - otherwise, why the connection with MEBO.

I think that, together with the fact he happened to be in Malta on the right day (and the investigators were obsessed with the idea the suitcase went on at Malta because the clothes had been bought there) made him eminently frameable. But it's so thin, when you really get down to it, that I can't make any deduction that he was actually involved in the bombing.

So, he was involved in the Libyan security services and military procurement. He wasn't a Sunday School teacher, and it's perfectly possible he was involved in "stuff". However, I don't think it's anywhere near proved he even knew about the plot to bomb PA103, and then again, I don't necessarily think awareness of such a plot is the same thing as actually carrying it out of being involved in carrying it out.

If you really think he was materially involved in the operation, I'd be interested to know why. Also "stuff I heard" doesn't really cut it with this one. The rumour mill has been so active you could have heard apparently reliable information to pin it on anyone from Abu Talb to the CIA.

Wrong thread probably, but [/end derail].

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; 1st October 2009 at 04:40 AM.
Rolfe 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 1st October 2009, 04:46 AM   #72
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
exactly- I have seen hummers and MRAP's that entire transaxles and other major components have literally "disappeared" that were big and dense enough to have survived.

Of course, remember that you're not just saying it could all have been vaporised, but that it's 99.9% certain it would all have been vaporised. If there's even a 10% chance these fragments could have survived as described, that's the interpretation I'd go for.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Its nothing secret since now I'm 99.99% convinced the entire states case is a complete fabrication along with the "claimed" evidence.

Speakers are normally subbed out to speaker manufacturers and have their codes stamped in them. I'm of the opinion those codes and housing survived the "dummy explosion" that created these debris but could be traced thru those codes that would point to another model radio or maybe even manufactured after the incident. Kinda difficult to sell the idea that a speaker made in 90 was in a crash in the 80's.

Otherwise, why not say "lookey here" at all the radio fragments we found.

I thought they did say "lookie here at all the radio fragments we found."

Originally Posted by Court judgement
1) A charred fragment of white cotton material which from the details of the stitching and method of assembly appeared most likely to have originated from a white T-shirt of Abanderado brand. Contained within this fragment there were found a piece of loudspeaker mesh and eleven plastic fragments which could have come from a Toshiba radio, and some blue/white fragments consistent with having come from a Babygro (see item 5).

2) Explosion damaged fragments of brown tartan patterned material two of which still retained parts of labels which identified them as having formed part of a pair of Yorkie brand trousers size 34. Contained within one of these fragments there were found fragments of the lining and internal divider of the primary suitcase, five black plastic fragments which could have come from a Toshiba radio, four fragments of an RT-SF 16 owner’s manual, and five clumps of blue/white fibres consistent with having come from a Babygro.

3) Four charred and disrupted fragments of grey cloth.... [the disputed item, which contained the alleged fragment of MST-13, but also fragments of plastic thought to be from the Toshba, and five scraps of the Toshiba owner's manual].

4) Six charred fragments of white material with a fine blue pin-stripe. Although there were no identifying marks on any of these fragments, their colour, weave, texture and construction indicated that their origin was from a shirt closely similar to a Slalom brand shirt. Contained within these fragments there were found sixteen fragments of black plastic and four fragments of loudspeaker mesh which could have come from a Toshiba radio and fragments of an RT-SF 16 owner’s manual.

[And so on to more than ten items.]

Of course it's always theoretically possible that all this could have been fabricated. However, I question the practicality of being able to do that without this being discovered, and in particular the suggestion that it was done after 1990, when to my recollection the basic stuff about fragments of a cassette player and a suitcase was made public early in the investigation.

If you want to make the case that this was all planted evidence, I could even see where they might have got it from.

Originally Posted by Court judgement
Mr Feraday was present at tests in the USA. These tests involved the use of luggage filled metal containers and the placing of plastic explosives within Toshiba radio cassette players in a garment filled suitcase.

However, the probability that this could or would have been done (especially without any sign of falsification of documents except in the case of the timer fragment) in the time scales apparently involved seems to me to be remote.

Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
Thats kinda where i was going. A glob of semtex certainly WOULD show up on an Xray. Thats a hell of a risk to take. The only way to effectively hide it would be to profile it against the tape carriage and OEM board. That would take some sculpting and removal/installation of the components.

Even then, now theres the space issue- unless they were very creative- a good X Ray operator SHOULD have noticed this great big glob. Why didnt they?

Option 1 is the bomb was physically installed on the plane

Option 2 is there never was a radio bomb ( in something else)

I'm currently reading The Trail of the Octopus, and the suggestion there seems to be that the suitcase was put on the luggage conveyor at Frankfurt after the security checks. I'm not sure how well that fits with the rest of the evidence, but it's something to consider.

Also, there have been questions raised as to the sensitivity of the x-ray checks at Frankfurt and Heathrow. Frankfurt airport had had the security warning about bombs in Toshiba radio-casette players, and the x-ray technician was confident he would have pulled out anything that looked like such a radio for hand-searching, but the Court managed to dismiss his evidence anyway.

Quote:
It was submitted that that examination would have revealed the presence of the radio cassette player and its contents, particularly in view of the fact that there had been a warning to look out for explosive devices hidden in radio sets. The x-ray operator, Kurt Maier, was not fit through illness to give evidence, but reference was made to statements by him to the investigators from which it appeared that he had x-rayed the consignment in question. One statement was spoken to by Naomi Saunders, one of the FAA investigators, the other by Hans Fuhl of the BKA. In both, Mr Maier explained that he had had some limited training in the use of the machine, but said that in the course of using it he had taught himself to distinguish various sorts of electrical equipment, and that he knew how to tell if explosives were present, from their appearance. Neither statement directly dealt with the question whether, and if so how, Mr Maier would detect explosives hidden in a radio cassette player. What he said was that the approach in dealing with electrical equipment was to see whether it presented a normal appearance, for example whether it had a plug. Other evidence, however, particularly that given by the witness Oliver Koch, Alert’s trainee manager at the time, shows that the standard of training given to Alert employees was poor. That was also the view of the FAA investigators who visited Frankfurt in 1989. Mr Maier’s description of what he looked for does not suggest that he would necessarily have claimed to be able to detect explosives hidden in a radio cassette player. There was no expert evidence as to the ease or difficulty of detecting such hidden devices.

It's possible the Court's view on this is correct, or that the bag was introduced at Frankfurt after the security checks. Of course that still leaves the x-ray checks at Heathrow, however the Toshiba bomb warning hadn't been circulated there (it was still lying on someone's desk), so it's more likely that it could have got past there.

Then we have the possibility of the bag being introduced at Heathrow, the "Bedford suitcase". No matter what The Trail of the Octopus alleges, or how persuasive the theory may be that the MST-13 timer fragment is genuine thus pointing to introduction elsewhere than at Heathrow, this still seems the likeliest point of introduction.

Quote:
He [John Bedford] said that he had left the interline shed to have a cup of tea with Mr Walker in the build-up area. On his return, he saw that two cases had been added to the container. These cases were laid on their sides, with the handles towards the interior of the container, in the way that he would normally have loaded them. The arrangement of these cases was shown in a set of photographs (production 1114) taken in early January 1989 in Mr Bedford’s presence. Mr Bedford said that he had been told by Mr Kamboj [the x-ray technician] that he had placed the additional two suitcases in the container during his absence. Mr Kamboj denied that he had placed any suitcases in the container and denied also that he had told Mr Bedford that he had done so.

Bedford also said Kamboj had told him he had x-rayed the suitcases before putting them in the container. I would assume somebody did searching background checks on Mr. Kamboj after this lot emerged, but the circumstances seem to me quite suspicious.

Anyway, there are ways to have got this suitcase on while circumventing the x-ray procedure, and also no certainty that a bomb suitcase would definitely have been picked up even if it had been x-rayed.

I'd certainly like to hear how you think this "complete fabrication" of great swathes of evidence could possibly have been accomplished, in a way that is consistent with the rest of the information we have available.

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; 1st October 2009 at 04:47 AM.
Rolfe 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 1st October 2009, 05:12 AM   #73
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I don't believe he put the suitcase on the plane, which is what he was convicted of. The evidence is laughable.

If you really think he was materially involved in the operation, I'd be interested to know why. Also "stuff I heard" doesn't really cut it with this one. The rumour mill has been so active you could have heard apparently reliable information to pin it on anyone from Abu Talb to the CIA.

Wrong thread probably, but [/end derail].

Rolfe.
Well, I'll put the train back on the track

I thought I said I DO NOT believe he had an "operational" hand in it. I also believe i told you the information floating back then was Libya was the conduit ( ostensibly for Nidal's group) but a conduit.
LONGTABBER PE 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 October 2009, 05:35 AM   #74
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Of course, remember that you're not just saying it could all have been vaporised, but that it's 99.9% certain it would all have been vaporised. If there's even a 10% chance these fragments could have survived as described, that's the interpretation I'd go for.




I thought they did say "lookie here at all the radio fragments we found."




Of course it's always theoretically possible that all this could have been fabricated. However, I question the practicality of being able to do that without this being discovered, and in particular the suggestion that it was done after 1990, when to my recollection the basic stuff about fragments of a cassette player and a suitcase was made public early in the investigation.

If you want to make the case that this was all planted evidence, I could even see where they might have got it from.




However, the probability that this could or would have been done (especially without any sign of falsification of documents except in the case of the timer fragment) in the time scales apparently involved seems to me to be remote.




I'm currently reading The Trail of the Octopus, and the suggestion there seems to be that the suitcase was put on the luggage conveyor at Frankfurt after the security checks. I'm not sure how well that fits with the rest of the evidence, but it's something to consider.

Also, there have been questions raised as to the sensitivity of the x-ray checks at Frankfurt and Heathrow. Frankfurt airport had had the security warning about bombs in Toshiba radio-casette players, and the x-ray technician was confident he would have pulled out anything that looked like such a radio for hand-searching, but the Court managed to dismiss his evidence anyway.




It's possible the Court's view on this is correct, or that the bag was introduced at Frankfurt after the security checks. Of course that still leaves the x-ray checks at Heathrow, however the Toshiba bomb warning hadn't been circulated there (it was still lying on someone's desk), so it's more likely that it could have got past there.

Then we have the possibility of the bag being introduced at Heathrow, the "Bedford suitcase". No matter what The Trail of the Octopus alleges, or how persuasive the theory may be that the MST-13 timer fragment is genuine thus pointing to introduction elsewhere than at Heathrow, this still seems the likeliest point of introduction.




Bedford also said Kamboj had told him he had x-rayed the suitcases before putting them in the container. I would assume somebody did searching background checks on Mr. Kamboj after this lot emerged, but the circumstances seem to me quite suspicious.

Anyway, there are ways to have got this suitcase on while circumventing the x-ray procedure, and also no certainty that a bomb suitcase would definitely have been picked up even if it had been x-rayed.

I'd certainly like to hear how you think this "complete fabrication" of great swathes of evidence could possibly have been accomplished, in a way that is consistent with the rest of the information we have available.

Rolfe.
Quote:
Of course, remember that you're not just saying it could all have been vaporised, but that it's 99.9% certain it would all have been vaporised. If there's even a 10% chance these fragments could have survived as described, that's the interpretation I'd go for.
True, I am and I'm going to stay with that assessment given the type and amount of explosive claimed

Quote:
I thought they did say "lookie here at all the radio fragments we found."
Note their emphasis on COULD be and I'm not talking about the grille- I'm talking about the frame and magnet

Quote:
Of course it's always theoretically possible that all this could have been fabricated. However, I question the practicality of being able to do that without this being discovered, and in particular the suggestion that it was done after 1990, when to my recollection the basic stuff about fragments of a cassette player and a suitcase was made public early in the investigation.

If you want to make the case that this was all planted evidence, I could even see where they might have got it from.
I can go either way with you on that one now based on what i have read and now believe. For example- I have no problem they legitimately recovered bits of a blown up Toshiba radio from the blast. I DO have a problem when they claim that radio housed the explosive. Thats why I can go either way.

Quote:
I'm currently reading The Trail of the Octopus, and the suggestion there seems to be that the suitcase was put on the luggage conveyor at Frankfurt after the security checks. I'm not sure how well that fits with the rest of the evidence, but it's something to consider.
I'm still thinking on that one. I'm stuck between that and a installed device on the bird. In any case- I dont believe it was put there a great distance away or made a long trip

Quote:
Also, there have been questions raised as to the sensitivity of the x-ray checks at Frankfurt and Heathrow. Frankfurt airport had had the security warning about bombs in Toshiba radio-casette players, and the x-ray technician was confident he would have pulled out anything that looked like such a radio for hand-searching, but the Court managed to dismiss his evidence anyway.
I've done some of that for training and internal components all have nice crisp lines even at low settings- a glob of goo looks like a tumor. Theres no way even a half assed operator with good vision could miss it. I dont think the court dismissed it as much as they didnt want to hear it.

Quote:
Anyway, there are ways to have got this suitcase on while circumventing the x-ray procedure, and also no certainty that a bomb suitcase would definitely have been picked up even if it had been x-rayed.
It should have been

Quote:
I'd certainly like to hear how you think this "complete fabrication" of great swathes of evidence could possibly have been accomplished, in a way that is consistent with the rest of the information we have available.
The only thing I think fabricated is the suitcase contents
LONGTABBER PE 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 October 2009, 06:22 AM   #75
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,470
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I thought they did say "lookie here at all the radio fragments we found."
They did, but the only fragments positively IDed as being from that particular make of Toshiba were the manual and some of the circuit board fragments, and IIRC the circuit board bits weren't exclusive to an RT-SF 16, there are a handful of models that carry that board. Also if the plastic fragments are black I am pretty sure that rules out an RT-SF 16, it was a model shipped to Libya with a white not black case. I'll go and find where I read that, I might be misremembering.

The thing that bugs me about the Toshiba radio ID is the manual. In the grey shirt PI995 they dug out fragemnts of black plastic, the MST-13 fragment and pieces of Toshiba manual.

Does anyone know how they reconcile those fragments of Toshiba manual with the "intact" page(s) of manual that Decky Horton found, is that one and the same manual, two seperate manuals?

It was nearly Christmas, presumably many of the passengers are taking Christmas presents home. Toshiba Radios are not exactly rare items.
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 1st October 2009, 09:55 AM   #76
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,511
Originally Posted by LONGTABBER PE View Post
The only thing I think fabricated is the suitcase contents

Well, you'll find support on that one. There are a number of assertions of tampering with items alleged to have been in the suitcase.

Gauci at first seems to have had an unexpectedly accurate recollection of what the mystery shopper bought from him. Some people (even those otherwise "an apple short of a picnic"!) can do this, and he seems to have remembered the sale because of the peculiar mix of items bought. Among other things, the purchaser bought a tweed jacket he's been trying to get rid of for months. I imagine most of his sales involve fewer items, and not such an eclectic mix of stuff. He also said the purchaser didn't seem to care much what he was buying, unlike most customers who would go through a process of choosing.

According to de Braeckeleer, Gauci originally ran off a list of stuff that was bought, and also said how much the purchaser paid for the purchase. The list didn't include a slalom shirt and a number of other things he was apparently "persuaded" to remember later that he sold. Nevertheless (again according to de Braeckeleer), if you add up the prices of the items on his original list, the total comes to exactly what he said the purchaser's bill had been. The suggestion is that his original list was correct, and the items he "remembered" later were not among them.

I don't know what you think of the whole Gauci story, but I very much doubt that he's clever enough to have made that lot up to order, or be acting. I think his original memories are probably right (6-foot, 50-ish customer who bought the items he originally listed), because that's the way his mind works, and the rest is confusion due to police pressing him, and offering him money/inducements.

This is a helluva funny story to attach to an innocent suitcase that just happened to be right next to the bomb. It does sound consistent with someone purchasing stuff to be used for just that purpose. And then it looks as if the police wanted him to add extra items to his list, in order to provide them with the provenance they wanted in the enquiry. Of course these were the items with significant stuff caught in them, and include the items people are reporting discrepancies with.

But on the other hand, I always thought it was slightly odd for the bomber to go and buy stuff at random like that, in a small shop where he might well be remembered. What was wrong with a nice anonymous checkout at a big chain store somewhere? Or a charity shop with second-hand items?

Sigh.

Off the top of my head, tampering accusations include the blue babygro (said to have been found intact, but later presented shredded and charred), the Toshiba manual (or at least a substantial part of it), and the slalom shirt itself, about which there are allegations that it is the wrong size, as well as that it has been tampered with.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 1st October 2009, 05:02 PM   #77
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
 
Ambrosia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,470
page 26 of this pdf of declassified intelligence documents from the DIA pertaining to Lockerbie says:

Quote:
New information in the investigation of the bombing of the UTA DC-10 has revealed similarities between the UTA explosion, the Pan Am 747 explosion over Lockerbie, and a bombing of the Marks and Spencer store in Paris in Feb 85.

In an article entitled "Terrorism - DC-10, New Discovery", "Le Express" reported that the analysis of the Debris of the UTA DC-10 which exploded over the Niger Desert on 19 Sep 89 revealed that a coating of Pentrite which had not exploded was found on the inside wall of a suitcase.
(my emphasis)

PETN is one of the noted substances found in forensic tests at Lockerbie used to ID the explosive used as SEMTEX-H.

What are the odds that the Lockerbie bomb might have been of similar manufacture and had a coating of PETN on the inside wall of a suitcase? Perhaps with just a timer/detonator circuit held within the radio?

Would such a setup mean it was more or less likely that fragments of radio/clothing etc were found in the wreckage in the way that they were?

Libya were blamed for the UTA bomb there's controversy there as well.

The 1985 Paris bomb was attributed to Hezbollah, responsibility was claimed by Abu Nidal, and the PFLP(not the PFLP-GC, who are a different group)

Online archives of "le express" only go back to 2003 and I can't find the article it refers to.
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 1st October 2009, 06:59 PM   #78
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
What are the odds that the Lockerbie bomb might have been of similar manufacture and had a coating of PETN on the inside wall of a suitcase? Perhaps with just a timer/detonator circuit held within the radio?
Possible but HIGHLY unlikely- heres why

Plastics ( like every other kind but because of their nature are more prone to it because they are often used "unwrapped" rather in the case like say dynamite) desorb both vapors ( slight but there) and residue from the media they are mixed in.

Imagine playing with play doh or silly putty and you get that slight residue and odor on your hands.

To get it there ( touching the suitcase or anything else) would mean the explosive was in physical contact with it for a pretty good while.

If we accept the bomb in the boom box theory- it couldnt have happened.

USUALLY- these signatures are left by the handler ( gloves or not but gloves transfer more since they are impermeable) and are trace except in cases where the explosive literally sat there for days or weeks.
LONGTABBER PE 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 October 2009, 07:09 PM   #79
LONGTABBER PE
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,528
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Well, you'll find support on that one. There are a number of assertions of tampering with items alleged to have been in the suitcase.

Gauci at first seems to have had an unexpectedly accurate recollection of what the mystery shopper bought from him. Some people (even those otherwise "an apple short of a picnic"!) can do this, and he seems to have remembered the sale because of the peculiar mix of items bought. Among other things, the purchaser bought a tweed jacket he's been trying to get rid of for months. I imagine most of his sales involve fewer items, and not such an eclectic mix of stuff. He also said the purchaser didn't seem to care much what he was buying, unlike most customers who would go through a process of choosing.

According to de Braeckeleer, Gauci originally ran off a list of stuff that was bought, and also said how much the purchaser paid for the purchase. The list didn't include a slalom shirt and a number of other things he was apparently "persuaded" to remember later that he sold. Nevertheless (again according to de Braeckeleer), if you add up the prices of the items on his original list, the total comes to exactly what he said the purchaser's bill had been. The suggestion is that his original list was correct, and the items he "remembered" later were not among them.

I don't know what you think of the whole Gauci story, but I very much doubt that he's clever enough to have made that lot up to order, or be acting. I think his original memories are probably right (6-foot, 50-ish customer who bought the items he originally listed), because that's the way his mind works, and the rest is confusion due to police pressing him, and offering him money/inducements.

This is a helluva funny story to attach to an innocent suitcase that just happened to be right next to the bomb. It does sound consistent with someone purchasing stuff to be used for just that purpose. And then it looks as if the police wanted him to add extra items to his list, in order to provide them with the provenance they wanted in the enquiry. Of course these were the items with significant stuff caught in them, and include the items people are reporting discrepancies with.

But on the other hand, I always thought it was slightly odd for the bomber to go and buy stuff at random like that, in a small shop where he might well be remembered. What was wrong with a nice anonymous checkout at a big chain store somewhere? Or a charity shop with second-hand items?

Sigh.

Off the top of my head, tampering accusations include the blue babygro (said to have been found intact, but later presented shredded and charred), the Toshiba manual (or at least a substantial part of it), and the slalom shirt itself, about which there are allegations that it is the wrong size, as well as that it has been tampered with.

Rolfe.
Quote:
I don't know what you think of the whole Gauci story, but I very much doubt that he's clever enough to have made that lot up to order, or be acting.
I think it bogus and either made up or he was "told" what to remember. I've seen this in my LE career. There are many people who get caught up in the moment and want to "help" or otherwise feel like a "part of the case" and embellish a great deal. I obviously cant say thats what this guy did but it looks like it from here.

Quote:
But on the other hand, I always thought it was slightly odd for the bomber to go and buy stuff at random like that, in a small shop where he might well be remembered. What was wrong with a nice anonymous checkout at a big chain store somewhere? Or a charity shop with second-hand items?
BINGO, theres your answer. Maybe its just my SF mindset and living that life for so long but I cannot fathom even the possibility or accept it as possible that a TRAINED and/or experienced military type ( dont care whose army he is in) who set out with the SOLE PURPOSE of stuffing a suitcase for a bomb would go to what amounts to a specialty shop and buy odd items ( that a clerk might remember) and pay for it with a credit card when he could go to the flea market or just dumpster dive and leave no trails.

To me that would qualify for a Darwin- maybe he did but I just cant accept it.
LONGTABBER PE 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 October 2009, 07:54 PM   #80
Dan O.
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
Originally Posted by Ambrosia View Post
page 26 of this pdf of declassified intelligence documents from the DIA pertaining to Lockerbie says:

Quote:
a coating of Pentrite which had not exploded was found on the inside wall of a suitcase.
It's conceivable that a booster charge could be concealed as a thin layer on the outer case. But the destructive force of high explosives comes from producing a uniform shock wave that concentrates the energy in a short time period. By the time the shock wave travels from the initiator charge to the outer case it will have been significantly distorted rendering the boost less effective because of incomplete detonation and a much wider time dispersion of the resulting shock wave.

Unless there is a better description of what was found, I am inclined to think they are only referring to trace deposits that were transfered by the blast. This is something that is looked for and is a primary means of establishing what explosive was used.
[*]I know that the technical jargon user the term booster as an intermediary between the primer and the main charge but this isn't exactly a technical forum
Dan O. 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 06:41 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.