IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 14th September 2010, 05:43 PM   #121
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post

I suspect the tests were commissioned by the Defence as part of the preparation for the second appeal.

Rolfe.
And ummm.... yeah, the defence [tests commissioned by...] would be Megrahi, whose expenses / defense (among many other things) were funded by Libya.
Bunntamas 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 14th September 2010, 05:45 PM   #122
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
I'm just saying it's interesting that his clients, including North Africa and the UK are omitted in Pr. Black's post, and as you note, in other media posts about him. Don't you think it's a bit wierd, if not possibly biased, to say the least, that North Afica, which includes Libya, is one of his clients? Seriiously, I'm asking you to be neutral here. If someone is conducting tests / research on a bomb that is allegedly (yes, I'm using that word for the sake of peace here, I'm not saying I agree) planted by Libyans / North African Government officials, that the person conducting the bomb tests is also being paid by a client about whom the research is being conducted? Really? No question whatsoever? Really????

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
How is "North Africa" a client? I recall he's the UN's explosive consultant for the Europe and North Africa region, which is just how they set up regions, I guess.

Bunntamas, I think you need to establish that any of what you're asserting is true, before suggesting it might lead to bias.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 05:47 PM   #123
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
And ummm.... yeah, the defence [tests commissioned by...] would be Megrahi, whose expenses / defense (among many other things) were funded by Libya.

Bunntamas, I've been an expert witness for the defence in my time. (And for the prosecution too, though not in the same case obviously.) And yes, the defence paid me. That's normal.

Do you really think I invened my results to order?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 05:50 PM   #124
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Look, I think there might be something not right about the Wyatt tests too. I just don't think it's reasonable to leap to dismiss the evidence of an expert witness for the defence on the grounds that he's being paid by .... the defence.

I trust you wouldn't accept the instant trashing of all the prosecution evidence on the grounds that the scientists and engineers and so on were paid by the prosecuting authority?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 06:05 PM   #125
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Bunntamas, I've been an expert witness for the defence in my time. (And for the prosecution too, though not in the same case obviously.) And yes, the defence paid me. That's normal.

Do you really think I invened my results to order?

Rolfe.
Rolfe, we're not discussing you, or your "witness" experience. Please stay on topic.
Bunntamas 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 14th September 2010, 06:09 PM   #126
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
You seem to be assuming that any expert witness paid by the defence may be assumed to be fabricating his or her evidence to order. So why wouldn't that include me? Or do you have special knowledge of Mr. Wyatt's corruptibility?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 06:10 PM   #127
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Look, I think there might be something not right about the Wyatt tests too.
Wow. Glad to see that you "think there migh be something not right about the Wyatt tests too."


Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I just don't think it's reasonable to leap to dismiss the evidence of an expert witness for the defence on the grounds that he's being paid by .... the defence.
I agree. I also agree that it's not reasonable to leap to dismiss everything that was presented at trial. Same argument can be made about Gauci.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I trust you wouldn't accept the instant trashing of all the prosecution evidence on the grounds that the scientists and engineers and so on were paid by the prosecuting authority?
Isn't that what you and other naysayers of the verdict are doing?
I bring up a possibility, and you trash it, but you do the same thing with the trial evidence and verdict.

Rolfe.[/quote]
Bunntamas 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 14th September 2010, 06:17 PM   #128
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
The Scottish Police traveled to Malta in Late August 1989 to find the maufacturers of the category one items. They located the Yorkie Clothing COmpany and determined that they only distributed their products in Malta. The investigators in Scotland had also determined that the piece of material having the Yorkie Label had the number 1705 in ink, on the garment [I was told by a DOJ attorney that this number was stamped on the inside pocket of the trousers, so that the manufacturer could track their sales and quality assurance] . When interviewed, the manager of the company said 1705 was an order number. He determined that order number 1705 was for 98 pair of trousers placed by a Tony Gauci in October 1988. It had been delivered to Mary's House.... on November 18, 1988.
Bunntamas 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 14th September 2010, 06:19 PM   #129
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
sorry about my typos re: usage of quotes above. They really are typos. Please don't throw me out. LOL!
Bunntamas 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 14th September 2010, 06:20 PM   #130
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Wow. Glad to see that you "think there migh be something not right about the Wyatt tests too."

Bloody hell, I've been saying that all along!



Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
I agree. I also agree that it's not reasonable to leap to dismiss everything that was presented at trial. Same argument can be made about Gauci.

I'm not Charles. I'm not leaping to dismiss everything presented at the trial by any manner of means. If there is a strong case to be made that a particular item of evidence is suspect, then that's something else.

Actually, although the money paid to the Gauci brothers is a howling scandal and by itself should technically make that evidence inadmissible, practically speaking I don't think it adds much weight to the criticism of the evidence they (or rather Tony) gave.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Isn't that what you and other naysayers of the verdict are doing?
I bring up a possibility, and you trash it, but you do the same thing with the trial evidence and verdict.

No. It's called basing your case on the evidence. I think there are inconsistencies in the Wyatt results as presented, so I entertain the possibility that there's some sort of problem with the methodology. I don't immediately leap to the accusation that an expert witness is corrupt simply because he is appearing for the defence.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 06:22 PM   #131
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
The Scottish Police traveled to Malta in Late August 1989 to find the maufacturers of the category one items. They located the Yorkie Clothing COmpany and determined that they only distributed their products in Malta. The investigators in Scotland had also determined that the piece of material having the Yorkie Label had the number 1705 in ink, on the garment [I was told by a DOJ attorney that this number was stamped on the inside pocket of the trousers, so that the manufacturer could track their sales and quality assurance] . When interviewed, the manager of the company said 1705 was an order number. He determined that order number 1705 was for 98 pair of trousers placed by a Tony Gauci in October 1988. It had been delivered to Mary's House.... on November 18, 1988.

OK. I was going by a different source that didn't have that information. However, since I wasn't disputing that the trousers were correctly traced through the manufacturer to the Gauci shop, we're still on the same page on this.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 06:23 PM   #132
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
sorry about my typos re: usage of quotes above. They really are typos. Please don't throw me out. LOL!

Oh yeah, very funny! Like nobody can tell the difference between a typo and Charles?

By the way, you can edit your posts for 2 hours after you make them. You see something like that, you can just fix it. I do it all the time.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 06:44 PM   #133
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
How is "North Africa" a client? I recall he's the UN's explosive consultant for the Europe and North Africa region, which is just how they set up regions, I guess.
See: His Bio

It says he's a consultant for North Africa, et al. Hence they are his clients. It says nothing about "how they set up regions". But nice try.


Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
I agree with Davies/Plane Truth that those total blow up tests have nothing to do with the bombing that happened. It looks like just good TV drama. Indicentally, the tests by Wyatt we've seen were selected for TV, also with a focus on the more dramatic end. He did 20 tests, 19 in controlled rooms, with blasts as low as 150 grams and perhaps lower. The huge blast in the container was the only of its kind.
Yep. Good TV drama... and resultant $$$


Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
I sent an e-mail to Dr. Wyatt some months back asking how we could get more details of the test results and methods, and how he came to do them. No response. How could he ignore ME, I thought? (note: that was said jokingly) Must be holding it back for something or someone else. Come to find out the details are going in Megrahi's book, they were done back in 2008 or so, and I forget just what but something I saw suggests Megrahi's legal team commissioned them. That's a slight PR problem if so, that will be made a huge one by some people.
EXCACTLY. If he was paid for research by Megrahi's legal team, who were paid the Libyan gov't, then it completely discredits his theories.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
But myself, I'm inclined by now to consider the most recent details of the findings, plus what Longtabber said, as more in line with common sense than accepting this debris is. If I may plug, I just put up a blog post on the subject. If the plane was ruptured, I think the radio would be dust and vapor.
I like your site, and no offense, but I'm kinda getting sick of your "plugs". We know who you are, dude. If we wanna go there and read your blog, we will. Again, no offense, sorry you don't have more commentors, but you're beginning to look a bit pathetic with your plugs, particularly with your "cry for help" on Pr. Black's site. Ugh.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
The clothes and suitcase are a bit more arguable. But I think there were two suitcases of the same basic sort to start with, stacked after Bedford saw them. The blast destroyed one and a half of these, leaving us only the bottom half of the lower case, which perhaps contained said clothes...
Gawd, I wish Longtabber weren't a fraud. His concept about how other suitcases weren't damaged was actually true. My dad was one of the "first fifteen" due to his interlining and "alleged" damage from the bomb to one of his suitcases. More than 15 years after the bombing we got the "questionable" suitcase back. It was in perfect condition, and the contents; textbooks and notebooks, clothing were all in tact, without one ounce char or of mud from the fields of Lockerbie. You'd never know it had been involved in a bombing or fallen 30,000 feet.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
And it just now struck me it could contain a Libya-traceable radio as well, if the PFLP-GC wanted to frame Libya to cover for themselves... Interesting, probably full of problems if I thought about it more...
You have totally bashed me for coming up with "ideas" like the above. NOW who's telling "stories"? I'll spare you my thoughts on CTs, considering the source.

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic View Post
ETA: And the clothes were first traced by conveniently intact serial numbers, and then at the Yorkie factory, the cutting records showed the material and make of that batch, small number variously reported of six to 20-ish pair, all sent to the shop with the compliant idiot savant Tony Gauci.
Yep. See above. It wasn't Gauci who provided the evidence on the serial numbers. It was evidence that was discovered at the manufacturer. Keeep trying. And please try to keep it civil.

Last edited by Bunntamas; 14th September 2010 at 07:02 PM.
Bunntamas 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 14th September 2010, 06:48 PM   #134
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Oh yeah, very funny! Like nobody can tell the difference between a typo and Charles?

By the way, you can edit your posts for 2 hours after you make them. You see something like that, you can just fix it. I do it all the time.

Rolfe.
HA! Glad I'm not considered in that category, and also back to civility here.
And thanks for the tip on editing.
Bunntamas 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 14th September 2010, 06:50 PM   #135
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Bloody hell, I've been saying that all along!


Well geez. Sorry. LOL! I obviously missed that, or wasn't tuning into the right thread. I just recently joined JREF when you bumped me, and I haven't seen you post anything about your disagreement w/ Wyatts tests on Black's blog. So, again, my apologies for missing it.
Bunntamas 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 14th September 2010, 06:53 PM   #136
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
See: His Bio

It says he's a consultant for North Africa, et al. Hence they are his clients. It says nothing about "how they set up regions". But nice try.

Yep. Good TV drama... and resultant $$$

EXCACTLY. If he was paid for research by Megrahi's legal team, who were paid the Libyan gov't, then it completely discredits his theories.

Non sequitur. In that case you might as well throw out all technical and scientific evidence in every case ever brought, because hey, the witnesses were paid by the side which called them. [ETA: And see below.]

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Gawd, I wish Longtabber weren't a fraud. His concept about how other suitcases weren't damaged was actually true. My was one of the "first fifteen" due to him interlining and "alleged" damage from the bomb to one of his suitcases. More than 15 years after the bombing we got the "questionable" suitcase back. It was in perfect condition, and the contents were all in tact. You'd never know it had fallen 30,000 feet.

Just because he was a fraud doesn't mean he was wrong. That's why I re-opened the thread.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
You have totally bashed me for coming up with "ideas" like the above. NOW who's telling stories. I'll spare you my thoughts on CTs, considering the source.

That's what I meant by "rabbit hole". Your point is valid. Caustic Logic shouldn't do it, neither should you.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Yep. See above. It wasn't Gauci who provided the evidence on the serial numbers. It was evidence that was discovered at the manufacturer. Keeep trying. And please try to keep it civil.

Er, was anybody disputing the clothes were genuinely traced to Tony Gauci? (Well, maybe Caustic Logic was, please allow me to slap him for you.) Whether it was a serial number or not, there's nothing wrong with the tracing of the clothes that I can see.

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; 14th September 2010 at 07:11 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 06:59 PM   #137
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Well geez. Sorry. LOL! I obviously missed that, or wasn't tuning into the right thread. I just recently joined JREF when you bumped me, and I haven't seen you post anything about your disagreement w/ Wyatts tests on Black's blog. So, again, my apologies for missing it.

OK, OK, let's go out and come in again. Looking at the evidence, the provenance of Mr. Claiden's fragment of Toshiba chip looks solid to me. Ditto the Maltese clothes sold to the tall dark 50-year-old stranger one rainy evening before the Christmas lights were lit. So any theory that throws these out creates more problems than it solves as far as I can see.

Given that, I'm not entirely convinced survival of the MST-13 fragment is impossible. I have serious doubts about the provenance of that item, but I'm not convinced it's an impossibility.

So I think life would be so much easier if there was some basic problem with the Wyatt results.

(Actually, I've been making that point in this thread pretty consistently. Just slow down a bit and don't assume everybody is automatically disagreeing with you on principle.)

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; 14th September 2010 at 07:10 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 07:08 PM   #138
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
See: His Bio

It says he's a consultant for North Africa, et al. Hence they are his clients. It says nothing about "how they set up regions". But nice try.

OK, I re-read the CV. Its exact words are

Quote:
International terrorism expert John Wyatt lectures regularly to professional institutions, he is the U.N.'s blast consultant for Europe and North Africa, the British Council's Consultant Worldwide and a Member of the London Olympic Group.

I read it as Caustic Logic did. He is consultant to the UN. The reference to "Europe and North Africa" appears merely to delineate his geographical area of responsibility in this role.

And you think there's something underhand about the British Council, or what?

Now can we talk about whether his actual results are credible rather than doing a knee-jerk trash-job?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 07:10 PM   #139
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Non sequitur. In that case you might as well throw out all technical and scientific evidence in every case ever brought, because hey, the witnesses were paid by the side which called them.


Just because he was a fraud doesn't mean he was wrong. That's why I re-opened the thread.
Wow. Thanks again. It's actually really nice for me to return here and have a civil conversation.


Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
That's what I meant by "rabbit hole". Your point is valid. Caustic Logic shouldn't do it, neither should you.
Got it. I'll try my best. But when cornered in the lion's den, sometimes I can't help myself. No excuses. I got yellow tagged, and I admit, I got unruly. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Er, was anybody disputing the clothes were genuinely traced to Tony Gauci?
I thought you were questioning whether or not the tracing of clothing from the manufacturer to Gauci was true. I was simply providing further information - something I have been highly scorned in the past for not doing.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
(Well, maybe Caustic Logic was, please allow me to slap him for you.)
PLEASE DO!!! Maybe if it comes from one of the Lions, it will have more impact.

Last edited by Bunntamas; 14th September 2010 at 07:12 PM.
Bunntamas 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 14th September 2010, 07:15 PM   #140
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
It wasn't exactly a serial number on the trousers, but the pattern and size and other features were, as you say, sufficient to trace the item from the manufacturer to the retailer, who remembered selling the trousers. This appears to me to be entirely kosher.

Rolfe.
This is what I was responding to re: clothing / manufacturer.
Bunntamas 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 14th September 2010, 07:19 PM   #141
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
OK, I re-read the CV. Its exact words are

I read it as Caustic Logic did. He is consultant to the UN. The reference to "Europe and North Africa" appears merely to delineate his geographical area of responsibility in this role.

And you think there's something underhand about the British Council, or what?
Not so much the British Council, but North Africa. As Caustic points out above, seems rather slimy to me.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Now can we talk about whether his actual results are credible rather than doing a knee-jerk trash-job?
Sure. But I have some catching up to do on the thread and your position, unless you'd lke to give me a quick and dirty refresher.
Bunntamas 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 14th September 2010, 07:23 PM   #142
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Wow. Thanks again. It's actually really nice for me to return here and have a civil conversation.

Right at the moment, I have to say you're a vast improvement on Charles, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Got it. I'll try my best. But when cornered in the lion's den, sometimes I can't help myself. No excuses. I got yellow tagged, and I admit, I got unruly. Sorry.

Not to worry. The yellow cards are only to make the point. Intelligent people learn. Unintelligent people don't. Charles didn't learn.

Now there's one thing I'm going to explain to you again. (Caustic Logic explained it on the Black blog, but maybe you didn't understand.) You are not in the lion's den here. This forum, as a general rule, hates conspiracy theories and their proponents with a fiery passion. Many people make a hobby of debunking conspiracy theories, and they're particularly hot on those involving cases where Arabs have caused airliners full of Americans to crash into buildings, by the way. Just take a quick look in the 9/11 forum. They're bored, because they have no credible opposition.

Most posters here would simply love an opportunity to support the Official Theory on Lockerbie. It's what they do. Quite a few have entered threads in the past and simply tried to "debunk" in first principles, but they all went away again because they had no evidence to support their position.

So if you can come up with coherent arguments, you'll find you're on home ground. It's those of us who believe the verdict was a miscarriage of justice who might find ourselves in the lion's den. It all depends on the quality of the argument you can bring to bear though.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
I thought you were questioning whether or not the tracing of clothing from the manufacturer to Gauci was true. I was simply providing further information - something I have been highly scorned in the past for not doing.

No, I think that was just a hangover from something someone else said - might even have been Longtabber. The very idea that those Maltese clothes were in any way fabricated gives me a headache you wouldn't believe. But that was good supplementary information anyway - if you wouldn't mind sourcing it. Crawford (who is an idiot who wrote a vanity-published book that isn't even proof-read) doesn't mention it.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
PLEASE DO!!! Maybe if it comes from one of the Lions, it will have more impact.

Caustic Logic just likes conspiracy theories. He often runs ahead of himself. Consider it brainstorming. He's amenable to logic and persuasion.

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; 14th September 2010 at 07:31 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 07:28 PM   #143
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Not so much the British Council, but North Africa. As Caustic points out above, seems rather slimy to me.

Honestly, he's consultant to the UN. The reference to "Europe and North Africa" is clearly merely geographical.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Sure. But I have some catching up to do on the thread and your position, unless you'd lke to give me a quick and dirty refresher.

On this topic, I think I just did. I don't believe the Claiden fragment of PCB is either a plant or coincidental, and I don't believe the Maltese clothes were planted or coincidental. The idea creates far more trouble than it solves. If I had to take on board that survival of any fragments of either the radio or the clothes in the bomb suitcase was impossible, I think my head would asplode.

Also, I'm agnostic on whether or not a fragment of timer PCB could have survived as claimed. I don't need any proof that this is an impossibility to have serious doubts about the provenance of that.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2010, 07:42 PM   #144
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Honestly, he's consultant to the UN. The reference to "Europe and North Africa" is clearly merely geographical.
Have to disagree with you there. He is a private consultant. One of his "clients" is the UN, which happens to include the geography of North Africa. And the UN also includes Libya. I think we may be beating a dead horse here. All I'm saying is that it seems a bit biased. And to add to your and Caustic's comments about the (possible) fact that the tests he conducted were not publicised until after the appeal, hence, possibly conducted for the defense (megrahi / Libya) seems to me to make it even more biased. Certainly he did not conduct these tests for free. If he was paid, by the defense, it makes the tests dubiously biased.


Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
On this topic, I think I just did. I don't believe the Claiden fragment of PCB is either a plant or coincidental, and I don't believe the Maltese clothes were planted or coincidental. The idea creates far more trouble than it solves. If I had to take on board that survival of any fragments of either the radio or the clothes in the bomb suitcase was impossible, I think my head would asplode.

Also, I'm agnostic on whether or not a fragment of timer PCB could have survived as claimed. I don't need any proof that this is an impossibility to have serious doubts about the provenance of that.

Rolfe.
My head is asploding now. Not because of this stuff, but because of my day and week yet to come. I'll be back later to pick up on this.

Last edited by Bunntamas; 14th September 2010 at 07:55 PM.
Bunntamas 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 15th September 2010, 12:56 AM   #145
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
On my rabbit hole moment, I take Pr. Black's point about distracting from the main point and shelve my pet theories for the moment. For the sake of non-argument, I'll accept the radio fragments as legitimate, and the clothes and suitcase (leaving some serious questions about who packed it) but maintaining questions about the MST-13 fragment. Or whatever variation it is we're trying to keep consensus on...

Anyway...

Bunntamas, I appreciate your mostly consistent civility and willingness to engage in reasoned discussion. I'll try for my part to keep the snark to a minimum and stick to the discussion.

Quote:
It says he's a consultant for North Africa, et al. Hence they are his clients.
Please think about what you are saying here, so we can move on. What is this entity "North Africa?" A company? A country? A reginal organization without any words like"union"attached? If he's a paid consultant, who cuts his check? The treasury of north Africa? Where are their headquarters?

It's not stated outright as a region, like the other one preceding it, Europe, but it seems to be saying he's a consultant for UN inquiries and such dealing with these regions. Made me wonder once if the UN, not Megrahi, had paid Dr. Wyatt to do the tests, either for an investigation they were planning or just their own curiosity. But that didn't make very much sense.

What the tests lay claim to is science and its process. Wyatt apparently knows his stuff, he says he tried similar arrangements at differing blast levels and found nothing like investigators found at anything like that blast level that's alleged. Unless we doubt the blast type (none of us here do, much) the tests question the remains. I've seen nothing convincing from anyone else to counter this, except implicitly the Lockerbie investigators, by saying such things DID survive. Personally, not convinced. There's some possible bias there as well, I hope we can agree. I won't dismiss the RARDE claims completely, but neither will I just accept them.

The question with sponsorship is bias - the defense paying Wyatt might in one way or another lead to bias towards what they want to find. Sure. I won't even go into probabilities, but the possibilities are outright biased process, completely honest and impartial, and the broad range in between with subtle decisions that lean it slightly or grossly one way. The way to find out is in how the science is carried out - can we see a slant entering the picture? With Dr. Wyatt's tests, there are doubts but no evidence I know of that it was done wrong. If you had it, it would include numbers.

Originally Posted by Bunntamas
Certainly he did not conduct these tests for free. If he was paid, by the defense, it makes the tests dubiously biased.
If you mean it's dubious whether there was any bias, I'd be close to agreeing with you. I presume you meant possibly biased and I agree. But we need to see more than a possibility to completely dismiss these provocative findings.

As you say
Quote:
... it's not reasonable to leap to dismiss everything that was presented at trial. Same argument can be made about Gauci.
Indeed, and with far greater specificity. We KNOW he was paid by those who were targeting Libya. I don't dismiss what the man said, not completely. When he says Megrahi resembled the buyer if he were ten years younger, I'm inclined to note that's a comparison between two men. Some others weren't and mischaracterized what he said (Gauci "identified Megrahi as the buyer"). One of the more important things Gauci did was establish the date of purchase by describing the day in details that line up exactly with November 23. but investigators and prosecutors insisted he meant to describe December 7, when Megrahi was there. At trial, perhaps to earn his conviction-contingent $2 million, he can be seen transparently fudging his details in all the relevant points to make it seem more like Nov 23 and/or Dec 7 whichever works. We can see in action who bought it and what they bought.

And don't forget we could say the same thing about Giaka. The all-wise judges who convicted Megrahi thought you COULD dismiss someone's evidence if it didn't line up, was acknowledged by the prosecuting forces as unreliable, and the "expert" was paid by the prosecuting forces. You don't still defend Giaka's "testimony"to the Grand Jury, do you?

In comparison, what have you really got against the tests? Take stock. Last I saw was:

Quote:
Have to disagree with you there. He is a private consultant. One of his "clients" is the UN, which happens to include the geography of North Africa. And the UN also includes Libya. I think we may be beating a dead horse here. All I'm saying is that it seems a bit biased. And to add to your and Caustic's comments about the (possible) fact that the tests he conducted were not publicised until after the appeal, hence, possibly conducted for the defense (megrahi / Libya) seems to me to make it even more biased. Certainly he did not conduct these tests for free. If he was paid, by the defense, it makes the tests dubiously biased.
Please elaborate on the highlighted part - that'ssuggesting something more specific than a contact in the North Africa... organization. I admit, there is a potential for bias in any such arrangement where someone is paying an expert in the hopes of hearing a certain outcome. But to be the slightest bit rigorous, as opposed to a sloppy connect-the-cots conspiracy theorist, one needs to look for actual evidence of skewed method. Are the results grossly out-of-step with established science? (and RARDE's challenged findings here don't count - we need a third opinion, as neutral and knowledgeable as possible).

In fact, until we can get some serious science up in here, I'm not sure how this conversation can go much of anywhere. I won't be the one to do that.
Caustic Logic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2010, 02:28 AM   #146
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Bunntamas View Post
Have to disagree with you there. He is a private consultant. One of his "clients" is the UN, which happens to include the geography of North Africa. And the UN also includes Libya. I think we may be beating a dead horse here. All I'm saying is that it seems a bit biased. And to add to your and Caustic's comments about the (possible) fact that the tests he conducted were not publicised until after the appeal, hence, possibly conducted for the defense (megrahi / Libya) seems to me to make it even more biased. Certainly he did not conduct these tests for free. If he was paid, by the defense, it makes the tests dubiously biased.

We seem to be going round in circles here, but I'll repeat what I said before.

If my assumptions are correct, he was employed as an expert witness for the defence. Since Megrahi wasn't on Legal Aid as far as I know, that inevitably means that he would have been paid from defence funds. This is normal. Just as expert witnesses for the prosecution are paid from prosecution funds.

And by the way, having done the job, I can tell you that expert witnesses for the defence are commissioned and contacted by the defence legal team. All communication is with the defence solicitors. You don't have any contact with the defendant or any of the defendant's other supporters.

Wyatt's web site is merely advertising that among his other clients are the UN (in Europe and North Africa) and the British Council (worldwide). This gives him a certain professional standing, so it's something he wants to publicise. As Caustic Logic said, "North Africa" isn't a political entity, any more than "Europe" is - or "worldwide", come to that. It's a geographical region. "Europe and North Africa" is a geographical region. (You might as well say he's biassed to the prosecution because Britain is in Europe and a member of the UN, for goodness sake!)

I am completely baffled as to how you can spin this into an automatic assumption that the man is corrupt and producing falsified results to order. That's a slur on all expert witnesses everywhere, who are trained and on oath to act independently, and whose future careers depend on them being seen to do exactly that. I would agree that there are exceptions (Karol Sikora being one in my opinion), but you need some reasonable grounds for suspicion to entertain that notion.

Another point to consider is, where on earth are you going to get a truly independent expert witness if the defence aren't allowed to pay them? Especially when the situation requires expensive explosives testing? Expert witnesses don't work for nothing, and people don't as a rule set up such tests out of the goodness of their hearts. Are you aware of any charitable foundation that's prepared to fund expert witnesses for the defence? 'Cos I'm not.

And finally, could I point out where you're going with this? Exactly the same accusation can be levelled in reverse against all the scientific officers working for the prosecution. If we have to reject all evidence attested to by someone who was paid by one side or other of the case, then there's bugger-all scientific evidence left. Maybe the AAIB is independent, but that's about your lot.

More than that, the prosecution relied heavily on evidence given by three particular "experts", Thomas Hayes, Allen Feraday and Tom Thurman. We know that these three men were either corrupt or incompetent or possibly both. Hayes and Thurman both left their jobs under clouds of suspicion (to put it no more strongly) of having "sexed-up" evidence to suit the prosecution (in different cases), and Feraday was shown to have no professional standing to present himself as an expert witness.

Do you want that we should hand-wave away all the evidence they worked on as "dubiously biassed"? Because I have to say, there's your case straight down the toilet right there.

I do think these three were up to no good in the Lockerbie investigation. However, I base that not simply on their shocking track records, which are a matter of public record, but on defects, deficiencies and contradictions in the actual evidence they presented. And I confine my doubts to those particular items where such defects exist.

So could you maybe quit with the knee-jerk assumptions that everybody on the side of the case you don't support is corrupt, and actually look at the strength or otherwise of the evidence presented? If there is evidence of corruption that's certainly an issue. But hey, defence expert paid by defence funds does not cut it.

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; 15th September 2010 at 03:27 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2010, 02:43 AM   #147
Soily
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 740
The BBC are hardly the most conspiracy friendly of organisations, so I doubt they'd have broadcast wyatts claims if his client made him obviously compromised.
Soily 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 15th September 2010, 03:31 AM   #148
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
I agree entirely with Rolfe's arguments with regards to experts used to support the defense or the prosecutions claims in any judicial case. Evidence and conclusions given cannot simply be precluded on the basis they are not arguing for your case. Arguments and questions may be made as to someone's particular qualifications to be carrying out such tests and the conclusions subsequently produced. Indeed, procedures followed, testimony given and any known improprieties of experts used, by either of the parties involved, can be a basis for disputing any conclusions found. Contention cannot be made simply on the basis of conclusions you do not find favourable to your argument. Therefore, until we wither know the full extent of Dr Wyatt's tests, it should be accepted that we have no known basis for disputing what his conclusions were of the survival of the fragment.

Moreover, it would seem that Dr Wyatt is regarded as a trustworthy and creditable expert to merit involvement in the tests designed to determine the possible damage that would have been sustained by the aircraft involved in the 'underpant bomber' attempted attack last Christmas.

Quote:
"Kip Hawley, the former head of the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) said: "We can be sure that al Qaeda and others have taken lessons from their failed attempt and this program allows the public to be privy to some of those lessons. [..]

The explosives analysis done by Dr John Wyatt gave a realistic picture of the effects of a carry-on bomb roughly similar to the one used on Christmas Day.

Dr Wyatt's test results are to be shared with governments and aviation security experts around the world."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8547329.stm
Buncrana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2010, 03:51 AM   #149
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Buncrana View Post
Therefore, until we either know the full extent of Dr Wyatt's tests, it should be accepted that we have no known basis for disputing what his conclusions were of the survival of the fragment.

I'm not crazy about the Wyatt results, as it happens. They throw up serious inconsistencies with the totality of the evidence in the case. In my opinion this is far more pertinent than baseless mud-slinging about his honesty.

As I said, I'm agnostic on the MST-13 fragment's survivability. Some people believe it couldn't have survived the explosion, others are prepared to accept the possibility. It seems to me that admitting that it could have survived is very far from admitting it's kosher though.

In contrast, there's strong evidence that the Claiden PCB fragment (of Toshiba circuit board) is genuine. It was found and identified as potentially important by an independent witness (Claiden is AAIB) within about three weeks of the disaster. If that wasn't part of the IED, then the only other sensible explanation is that it was an innocent radio packed in an adjacent suitcase. If that's the case, then we have next to no information about the nature of the IED - the whole "bomb disguised as a radio-cassette player" is right out of the window.

If we have to go there, we have to go there, but srsly, I'd rather not. It throws so much back into the melting pot that you might as well declare it was a rogue IRA unit and be done with it! I realise there's room to doubt the survival, if not of the flake of PCB itself, of the delicate white ID numbers on it that remained legible. However, Wyatt's results have not convinced me, over the provenance Claiden's evidence gives to the fragment.

Also, one can't discuss the radio or IED fragments without discussing the Maltese clothes, which were held to be just about as close to the bomb. It's extremely difficult to make a case for these clothes being anything other than genuine (most of them, at least, one could leave a little wiggle-room for one of two rags).

Yes, I know the whole tale appears way too convenient and indeed far-fetched to be true. But looking at Tony Gauci's first statement, it pretty much has to be. That he sold seven of the items identified as being within the "primary suitcase" to an Arabic-speaking customer a few weeks before the bombing, and that he remembered the transaction, does not seem to be in doubt.

So if these clothes weren't in the primary suitcase, where did they come from? Oh they were planted! Spare me. Any suggestion of that nature requires Tony Gauci not only to be in on this conspiracy up to his neck, but to be in possession of a brain. Get real.

This then leaves only the possibility that they were in another suitcase close to the bomb. In that case, whose were they? They were never traced to any of the passengers. Nobody matching Tony Gauci's description of the purchaser was among the victims. If the purchaser had passed them on to an innocent passenger who died, I think we might have heard about that by now. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

These are my reasons for not accepting Wyatt's results at face value. But rather than instantly accusing him of being bent, my suspicions are that there was some methodological problem with what he was doing. He was trying to replicate the forensic conclusions about the exact nature of the IED, but could there be an incorrect assumption in there that was throwing everything out?

However, I'm not an explosives expert, so I can't go further than that. My position is that I don't believe Wyatt's results, as we understand them at the moment, outweigh the other evidence available that the Claiden fragment and at least the seven items of clothing described on 1st September 1989 by Tony Gauci are genuine.

As a result, I'm not prepared to assert categorically that Wyatt has proved that the MST-13 fragment couldn't have survived, either. Not without a lot more detail about his results. I can't go any further. Until we get more detail, I feel we just have to park Wyatt in the "not proven" file, and move on.

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; 15th September 2010 at 03:55 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2010, 03:59 AM   #150
Soily
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 740
For me, it's not a case of possibility but likelihood. It's incredibly unlikely the fragment would have survived. It's also incredibly unlikely if it did survive it would be found. So we're multiplying unlikehoods. And I actually find the second unlikehood even harder to believe than the first.
Soily 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 15th September 2010, 04:11 AM   #151
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Oh, I agree with that to a large extent too. I don't have any problem with the concept that the MST-13 fragment is close to impossible. It's the largest piece of PCB that was found by a metric mile, and it was from the part of the device right up against the Semtex. And by another of those amazing chances that seem to characterise this affair, it seems to be exactly the part of the board with a circuit pattern distinctive enough to allow it to be identified (that "fingerpad" that looks like a 1).

However, I wouldn't major too hard on the likelihood of its being found. The search was extraordinarily systematic and extraordinarily thorough. Assuming it existed in the first place, it was likely to be found if it fell short of the Newcastleton Forest - which it seems to have done, by maybe 100 yards.

I merely point out that I'm not ready to assert that the Claiden PCB fragment is impossible, or the Maltese clothes, and if that means I also have to allow the possibility that the timer fragment might have survived too, then so be it.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2010, 04:34 AM   #152
Soily
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 740
I suppose it's impossible to meaningfully quantify, but the idea that a tiny 4mm square fragment which would later prove to be the entire crux of the case, would be found amoungst millions of pieces of debris over a 1000 square miles of countryside is pretty hard for me to believe.

Last edited by Soily; 15th September 2010 at 04:35 AM.
Soily 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 15th September 2010, 04:53 AM   #153
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
"If it's not growing, or a rock, pick it up."

I think the bloody timer fragment was planted, but not for that reason. Argument from incredulity isn't really enough.

It's arguable just how much it can be described as the "crux of the case" though. It certainly was a turning point when it was identified. It was the identification of the MST-13 that set the whole investigation off on the road to prove Libya did it. On the other hand, it was peripheral to the case against Megrahi himself, as he was never shown to have had one in his possession.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2010, 05:08 AM   #154
Soily
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 740
I admit I don't know the case that well but I thought the unbelievably flimsy case against Megrahi was bolstered by the specious logic that the fragment pointed to Libya...and well Megrahi is Libyan, so it must have been him.
Soily 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 15th September 2010, 05:17 AM   #155
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Yes, that's part of it! But even the extraordinarily biassed bench at Zeist couldn't have brought in a conviction with only that. The MST-13 fragment is the main answer to "why Libya", but for the answer to "why this particular Libyan?" you have to look at Tony Gauci's mystery shopper and the amazing case of the disappearing Frankfurt baggage records.

All the fuss about the provenance of the timer is in a sense peripheral. The timer isn't evidence against Megrahi, and it was Megrahi who was convicted, not "Libya". Even if the timer is completely and absolutely above board, found and examined exactly as described, the case against Megrahi is a steaming pile of foetid dingoes' kidneys.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2010, 06:03 AM   #156
Buncrana
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
Wyatt's conclusions are disturbing because they support the host of suspicions and unsatisfactorily explained inconsistencies that surround the chain of examination and identification of the fragment. Aptly descibed by someone as That Bloody Fragment! Clearly however, more comprehensive details of Wyatt's tests and conclusions are required to detremine just how much they support the suspicions; conclusively, likely, improbable or unfeasibly. As I've said before, short of flying an aircraft to 31,000ft, with passengers and luggage, I don't think the exact conditions of the explosion can ever be truly replicated, far less the appropriate weather conditions that Maid of the Seas, travelling in excess of 500mph, would have been facing that December evening.

I think it's relatively immaterial whether we work on the assumption that the Claiden fragment was genuine, but not part of the actual device, or whether it was somehow planted very early into the investigation, as Wyatt's test's appear to imply. It would appear from Wyatt's tests the suggestion is that the timer fragment wuold have been virtually obilterated by the blast, thereby the same can be speculated about the whole radio. But that is not referred to or concluded in his report, and therefore we can speculate about Wyatt's conclsuion witnh regards to the Claiden fragment, but as it stands, cannot dispute his conclusions on PT35(b) and it's survival as "highly improbable...most unlikely...incredible". Although, it's worth remembering the curious circumstance that allowed the identification of AG145: the bomb-makers had re-inserted this circuit board in reverse when assembling the bomb device and radio, thus allowing it to be identified by the numbers not being exposed to the initial blast. [Claiden Fragment AG145]

This fragment merely indicated some type of Toshiba electronic appliance, and the brown circuit board it formed part of was initially part of seven assorted appliances used by Toshiba. It was then Feraday who narrowed it down to a possible two Radio's, and on balance he concluded the white Toshiba RT-8016. Anyway, I think, at this moment, examining the Claiden fragment beyond what is known of it's provenance and identification is a somewhat futile, and wholly speculative discussion. If anything, Claidens discovery and Wyatt's conclusions indicate to me that, much like Mrs Horton's find, these items were consequently ascribed to have been intimately involved as part of the bomb device, lending weight to a threadbare and questionable assertion made by the forensic experts presented, as oppose to innocent pieces of debris carried amongst the luggage on 103.

However, scepticism with the entirely unsatisfactory documented finding of PT35(b), with the re-writing of the label on the evidence bag, it's subesquent control and forensic noting as highlighted in Hayes and Feraday's page 51, it's further analysis and apparent photographing, not to mention it's continuity of possession alluded to in Levy's film, are then latterly given considerable support by Wyatt's tests and conclusions.
Buncrana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2010, 07:28 AM   #157
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
Originally Posted by Buncrana View Post
I think it's relatively immaterial whether we work on the assumption that the Claiden fragment was genuine, but not part of the actual device, or whether it was somehow planted very early into the investigation, as Wyatt's test's appear to imply. It would appear from Wyatt's tests the suggestion is that the timer fragment wuold have been virtually obilterated by the blast, thereby the same can be speculated about the whole radio. But that is not referred to or concluded in his report, and therefore we can speculate about Wyatt's conclsuion witnh regards to the Claiden fragment,

I don't entirely agree. The Claiden fragment could be a mistake, as you say. A fragment from an innocent radio being carried in luggage close to the blast. Though as it's the only half-way convincing and reputable piece of radio we have in the evidence, where are we if we eliminate it? We don't really know how this bomb was assembled or disguised!

However, if we're going to consider the possibility that it was planted, that's a whole other ball game. For that, I want to know who, where, when, how and why. I can do the first four of these quite easily, knowing who was yomping around Dumfriesshire that January. I have a big problem with the why part, as early as that.

Originally Posted by Buncrana View Post
but as it stands, cannot dispute his conclusions on PT35(b) and it's survival as "highly improbable...most unlikely...incredible".

However, scepticism with the entirely unsatisfactory documented finding of PT35(b), with the re-writing of the label on the evidence bag, it's subesquent control and forensic noting as highlighted in Hayes and Feraday's page 51, it's further analysis and apparent photographing, not to mention it's continuity of possession alluded to in Levy's film, are then latterly given considerable support by Wyatt's tests and conclusions.

I think I'm just trying to be as fair as possible here. I find it incredible that the clothes (at least Tony's initial seven items) weren't part of the bomb bag. I find it pretty unsettling to contemplate that the Claiden fragment may be a complete red herring, so no actual radio. And veering in that direction, it seems irrational of me to baulk at the timer fragment too.

I'm not concerned about the continuity of possession of the timer fragment after it had been passed to Scottish custody. It's perfectly clear from the photos that the item hasn't been substituted at any point. And some at least of the confusion in Levy's film could be ascribed to faulty memories nearly 20 years on and insufficient attention being paid to the distinction between "it never left Scotland - er the UK" and "it never left Scottish jurisdiction". It definitely left the UK, but there's no evidence that it wasn't properly in the custody of a Scottish copper every time that happened.

The provenance and continuity from 13th January to 15th September 1989 are an entirely different story, I agree. But these still exist, unaffected, even if it's conceded that it's perfectly possible for the fragment to have survived the explosion as alleged.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2010, 09:14 AM   #158
Soily
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 740
Apologies for my ignorance, but how could they be sure that any of the relevant fragments were even from the 'bomb case'?
Soily 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 15th September 2010, 09:40 AM   #159
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
There's screeds of tedious detail about all that. It was down to whether or not they showed evidence of blast damage, whether or not they had bits of the radio blasted into them, and whether or not they had bits of the actual suitcase blasted into them.

It's hard to know how reliable the conclusions are, but it doesn't look manipulated to me.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2010, 10:30 AM   #160
Bunntamas
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 310
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
We seem to be going round in circles here
I agree. As I said before, I think we're beating a dead horse. I also agree that I don't think any of us have any hard evidence to prove whether or not he was biased, based on who paid him to do the tests. It was just my opinion re: Wyatt / possibility of bias. Sorry I brought it up.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
So could you maybe quit with the knee-jerk assumptions that everybody on the side of the case you don't support is corrupt, and actually look at the strength or otherwise of the evidence presented? If there is evidence of corruption that's certainly an issue. But hey, defence expert paid by defence funds does not cut it.
While I do believe there was plenty of corruption involved in this case, and the release of Megrahi, I don't necessarily think that everyobdy on the other side of the case is corrupt.
I said yesterday I have a ton of stuff I have to do until next week, so I won't be posting again til then.. Just wanted you to know I'm not running away.
Bunntamas 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

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 09:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.