|
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. |
23rd November 2009, 06:29 PM | #241 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
I have to jet to work myself now, but Rolfe, awesome analysis there. If we have a simpler explanation that ties it all together I'm all ears, even if it means giving up on one of my big discrepancy possible conspirator lead things. It may just be that her stories are consistent, not that that makes them true, but it keeps us from following false leads any further.
Cheers! ETA: That awesome post now buried last page was this, of course: |
24th November 2009, 04:45 AM | #242 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Alright, a consideration as simple as an editing choice changing the whole context; that I can dig. "We normally destroy all the printouts ..." only makes it seem this was a "normally" printout, but normal procedure could come into effect even for one you made specific. You look, nothing much of interest, you decide to destroy it like you would the automatic ones. But then you think again and keep it "as a souvenir." This could be, an intervening mood she didn't mention, or an honest embellishment years on. She was speaking for a video after all, not a trial with lives in the dock.
Would this be perhaps creative editing to entirely omit her decision to print and create an apparent discrepancy to lead people astray? : Whatever. Anyway, I don't see any reason to dismiss this as a viable explanation for the difference. I'll have some re-writing to do, maybe... (groan)
Quote:
|
24th November 2009, 08:03 AM | #243 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
I'm still very uncomfortable with Mrs Erac's accounts of the events surrounding the printout, how it was exactly obtained, and her reasoning for, essentially, withholding vital evidence. It troubles me that her claim of ignorance as to the eventual significance of the record she had retrieved does not match her actions as detailed in her testimony, and she certainly does not, to me anyway, strike me as a character you associate with incompetence or blissful ignorance.
Conversely, she, by her own initial reaction and actions, would appear efficient, deliberate and most definitely, competent. Not only does she present herself considered when taking account that 103A's loading and departure had occurred during her shift that day (although given initial German media reports that it had been a Frankfurt flight itself that had crashed, this is understandable), but even more, the following day when "that was virtually all that people talked about", she was solely vigilant enough to not simply examine the records, but take her own printout (apparently unlike the BKA and the countless others throughout the airport involved in security and the baggage loading and screening procedures). Presumably this was something she had the authority to access associated with her position with FAG, together with the knowledge flight 103A had departed during her shift, and simply retained this information as a souvenir or memento. (?) Maybe it's just me, but my gut instinct (although that's more likely my ulcer getting agitated!), together with the information that is known about Frankfurt systems, and her own testimony, implies that this story doesn't quite sit comfortably. We know Frankfurt was on high alert after the discovery of the Khreesat's devices in Neuss, just six weeks previous. If anything can be gleaned from their operation 'Autumn Leaves', it's that the information regarding bombs disguised within Toshiba Radio's was circulated to the airport baggage screening operators, and I think it's reasonable to think that the arrests made in Neuss, together with the various warnings that were made known within airport and airline security employees, although perhaps not the exact details, would be disseminated among many different departments within the airport. Indeed, Mrs Erac, if working in an area which dealt with baggage quantities, tracking and loading, she should, given her capacity and her (noted in court) experience of airport computer systems, immediately be aware of the significance of any information relating to these very procedures. I find her experience, application and evident aptitude on rescuing the 'printout', does not equate to her sudden symptomless coma-like state that became of her in the immediate aftermath. Not only of the crash of 103, but after the printout was itself obtained, not to mention the subsequent 3/4 weeks she was on holiday with the news and media full of reports about 103 all accross our screens. Although her date of departure for her holiday, it would appear, was after the Christmas holidays (25th/26th), but before New year, it is not conclusive. Far from the notion generally assumed that she left the next day, and therefore wasn't alerted to the posibility that any information about 103A's records had become imperative given it was now known that a bomb had caused the disaster. This is not to even mention the further 5/6 months the BKA delayed before releasing the devastating clue to the 'bomb' originating at Malta. The document that was produced (1060) is also subject to further suspicion, given that we have no absolute proof as to when that 'printout' was obtained. Even if we accept the time was 1932 and was taken on December 22, as is claimed, showing information relating to 103 on the 21st, that is not verified or qualified by any clear time/date stamp on the master or copied printout as kept by Mrs Erac. We know she wanted the details of 103 for the flight out on the 21st, and printed this (or took the teletype) she stated on the 22nd, but, despite me being a computer ignoramus, why on earth a precise time/date would not also be detailed on the hard copy taken by Mrs Erac from the computer, is unfathomable. |
24th November 2009, 11:44 AM | #244 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I actually wrote this earlier, before Buncrana's post, but just managed to rescue it from a database error. It's taking a rather different line from Buncrana, and I'll just post it for comparison. I also totally see what Buncrana is saying.
For myself, I'm fairly comfortable about Bogomira's story, and that it's consistent both internally and psychologically, and between the different tellings, and with the physical evidence as produced. She heard about the crash about 10pm on her car radio on the way home. (Two hours after the event.) She believed it to have been a direct Frankfurt to New York flight, from the information in the broadcast. She knew she must have dealt with the luggage for the flight. She went back to work about mid-day on the 22nd, and talk was of nothing else. The thought of the luggage niggled at her, though whether she was really thinking about a suitcase bomb or not isn't clear. She just wanted to know more, to see if she could see anything unusual about the luggage records. About 7.30, she used her own computer to print off the records for the loading of that flight (whether she had to transfer data to do that isn't stated). She had a look, and was struck by how few bags there were for a direct transatlantic flight just before Christmas. She checked to see if anything had been left behind that should have been on the flight, but found nothing. She saw nothing else of any note, and she was just about to throw the printout away when on the spur of the moment she decided to keep it as a souvenir - a memento of the people who were on the plane - and instead put it in her locker. She soon learns that the reason for the small quantity of luggage was that only 49 passengers on the flight were actually going to New York, transferring to a larger plane at Heathrow and joining another 200 or so. So that solves that part of the mystery. Nothing else seems to have happened for the next few days to remind her about it, or prompt her to come forward. "A few days later" she went on holiday to Slovenia, as usual, for the New Year. She didn't say whether she worked the week beginning 25th December or not, but it seems likely she worked at least part of it if her holiday was a New Year one. Also, since she didn't get back until 14th or 15th January, it's likely she worked until at least 30th December - a 2-week holiday is nice, 3 weeks would be a bit unusual. But even so, she mentions nothing about policemen ransacking the place and searching for deleted computer files. She returns from holiday on about 15th January, working morning shifts, and about a week later it finally dawns on her that she hasn't heard anyone looking for baggage records relating to the flight. (I believe it was public knowledge by this time that the crash was due to a bomb in a suitcase, and that the suitcase had probably been introduced at Frankfurt.) So she goes to her supervisor and says something about it, and he replies "but the baggage list doesn't exist any more." She then produces the printout. Mr. Berg was "very, very surprised." Mr. Berg asks her to look in the files to see if any other printouts (which were apparently made automatically as well) were still there, but she found nothing. Now this is perfectly credible, as far as Bogomira's actions and account is concerned. The printout doesn't seem to have been dated, but it has about the right time of day on it. Bogomira wasn't being massively conscientious, or trying to pre-empt the police, it was just private curiosity about the big news story she was connected to. And since nobody had instructed her to make the printout, and none of the bags was glowing in spooky green letters saying "unaccompanied and suspicious", she didn't do anything with it. It's still possible the entire story is fabricated, in order to provide credible provenance for an isolated printout intended to implicate KM180, but we have no evidence for that. It's still possible that Bogomira's story is true, but her printout was falsified while in police hands to introduce evidence of a connection to KM180, but subtly enough that she didn't notice (she even needed to put on her glasses to see it was the right piece of paper, in court). But again we have no evidence for that. So we leave these speculations to one side. What we do have evidence of is very very peculiar behaviour on the part of the police, and to a certain extent Mr. Berg. Bogomira was on duty when the suspect bag went through the system. And yet nobody seems to have tried to interview her in the days following the crash, before she went on holiday. Indeed, she gives no account of any police presence then or any other time, when they should have been all over the place well before 30th December. Nobody was waiting to interview her when she returned from holiday. We know that Jones showed up on Monday 23rd January, and says he found nothing. (He believed the police were not responsible for removing the evidence, because in that case copies should have been retained, however I think he is mistaken in this, on the basis of the police later being seen to be in possession of certain items that appear to have been part of the missing hoard.) He doesn't say who he spoke to or what explanations he was given. Bogomira gives 20th to 25th January as the date she came forward with the printout. It seems possible this might actually have been prompted by Jones's visit. At last, some talk about someone looking for some evidence. But apparently he has been sent empty away? Perhaps I have something in my locker that might help! Mr. Berg: But the baggage list doesn't exist any more! Bogomira: Come and see what I've got. Mr. Berg (very, very surprised!!!): makes lame suggestion about looking in the drawer to see if anything else might still be kicking about. Am I the only one who thinks this is screaming "cover-up"! I think it's suspicious of a concerted effort to remove all the documentary evidence relating to the baggage for that day (and maybe the days surrounding it, to make it more credible), with as little fuss as possible. I suspect advantage was taken of the fact that everyone would be on holiday at some point over the next two weeks to cover up the absence of a big, co-ordinated investigation, and instead simply get the evidence out of there with as few people as possible knowing about it. Christmas Day, which was a Sunday, may have been particularly useful. That doesn't prove it was the police, but I think the absence of police officers running around demanding to know where the hell the data have all disappeared to, and the fact that later, the documents needed to make sense of the printout surfaced in their hands, suggests at least complicity. This last bit is a kite I'm flying. I'd be grateful to anyone who'd do me the favour of trying to shoot it down. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
24th November 2009, 03:57 PM | #245 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Epic analysis! I can totally see this, and it's troubling. However to be fair 'suppressing evidence' may or may not be relevant. If she didn't know all other records would go "missing" she wouldn't have reason to think of this personal query as "evidence." She may have known what was up of course, but by her story she didn't know it was evidence so for internal consistency it pans out. A bit of an odd story in itself, the fact this became THE evidence just keeps casting a harsh light back on it.
I did agree with Rolfe earlier where she said the main thing coming out of this is the absence of/silence over the main records. This is unacceptable when so much is at stake for an investigation. |
24th November 2009, 04:07 PM | #246 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Rolfe: first half, great summation. The last part about Berg and Erac is still a little iffy, but we're working from old memory.Anyway, I can buy it, rent it.
Second half, some grat points to consider. One I'd like to add to
Quote:
Oh an on the printout, maybe it's just me but if I was visiting my family for the New Year having just touched history like that, I wouldn't keep my souvenir at work, I'd take it with me to to show. After all, it's not "evidence." Right? |
24th November 2009, 04:54 PM | #247 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I think you're right. Coleman touches on this (chapter 7 again).
Originally Posted by The Trail of the Octopus
As Hamlet remarked, well, well, well. Depends on how much weight she put on it I suppose. Maybe she forgot. I'm mildly intrigued by all these family visits - to the other side of the Iron Curtain. This was (just) before the whole thing collapsed, remember, and Bogomira had succeeded in moving from East to West 20 years before, when she was in her mid-20s. However, we have to bear in mind that she's from Slovenia, which was probably the most liberal and free-contact of the Eastern states - I was there myself (Ljubljana) on holiday earlier in 1988. So it may be of no significance. I have to say though, I didn't realise it was quite so easy to waltz from one side to the other prior to 1989. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
24th November 2009, 05:05 PM | #248 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
As far as Bogomira goes, I can cope with the idea that she's on the level. Nobody instructed her to make a printout. It wasn't her job to do anything on her own initiative. (I'm serious, read Three Men on the Bummel and you'll see what I mean.) On that reading, she's just one more person who seems blissfully oblivious to the fact that this airport which was on high alert for a possible suitcase bomb at the time, has experienced a mysterious absence of both enquiring policemen and retained evidence.
The alternative is that this is all a carefully-crafted and credible story to allow a fabricated printout apparently implicating KM180 to be introduced into the evidence, even though all the flight baggage records are supposed to have gone to the big bit-bucket in the sky. It's perfectly possible. It's the yin to the yang of my questioning of Gauci's story. It's either that, or the "mystery item" (which conveniently seemed to have some from Luqa but actually couldn't have) is just one more wild co-incidence in an incident absolutely stuffed with the things. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
24th November 2009, 06:36 PM | #249 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
Okay I've been giving some thought. Allowing the benefit of doubt to fall on the side of Mrs Erac, excuse me, or retrieve me, as I venture down what could be a rather deep, as Rolfe aptly puts, rabbit hole.
So, Bogomira returns from her holiday and is oblivious to the apparent lack of records recovered by the BKA and other interested parties during the first week after 103 crashed and the growing furore that is beginning to emerge, especially at Heathrow and Frankfurt Airports, over where, if and how a bomb had been loaded onto Pan Am 103. For a couple of weeks she doesn't really give any thought to the 'printout' she had retrieved on Dec 22nd, but eventually realising the significance it might have, decides to admit this to her superior, who inturn advises she pass the document to the BKA. This is late January 1989. Mid to late January '89, and we have the discovery of the scorched debris recovered from the area around the Kielder forest and Scottish border. As well as set aside in the recovery shed designated for 103 debris, it is passed to a specific area for items showing burn marks. This evidence is thought to have been sent to Rarde within the week of being logged. Late Jan 89. During the following months nobody raises any issues at the lack of records at Frankfurt. Meanwhile the cut locks at Heathrow have been quietly filed away. However, in Spring 89, we have widespread reporting that evidence is at hand and confidently arrests are imminent. Iran, Syria and the PLFP GC will stand accused having duped a young man into unwittingly carrying the bomb in his luggage. Little is heard of the charred debris found in January until May later that year, when Hayes and Feraday discover the fragment. As it happens, the fragment, yet to be identified, is linked to a timer made by a company whose owner has already made several statements to the Scottish Police and the FBI. The defector Giaka is on the scene and Bollier is the timer man with the links to Megrahi in Malta. August and September, the clothing is identified as coming from Malta, and we have Mrs Erac's printout showing a rogue bag maneuvering it's way with stealth accross the Frankfurt system onto 103A, and ultimately 103 at Heathrow coming all the way from an Air Malta flight. Thurman meets with Khreesat, and Bollier claims he is visited by head of Swiss Police. I'm slowly being drawn to the whole damn suitcase, it's contents, timer and printout all being coordinated and pulled together during that dead spot that appears to be from February thru summer 1989. Just the timer and the fragment weren't quite right. Yet. I'm too tired now, pull me back out. |
25th November 2009, 03:30 AM | #250 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
No, I think it's a place we need to stay for a while to see if we like it.
There are a few problems and loose ends though. For a start, Khalid Jafaar started his journey in Frankfurt. His luggage was NOT the Bedford suitcase. As far as I can see, the Jaafar theory and the Heathrow/Manly/Bedford evidence are either-ors. Also, I have a bit of a credibility gap with the concept of such wholesale fabrication of evidence at such an early stage in the investigation. Baggage container AVW4041 really was blown up from the inside, and bits of it found on the ground on Christmas Eve. The snag about fabricating a whole suitcase and contents is that it might conflict with the real stuff that's also coming in. More than that, though, I'm not sure how they would have been able to figure out what to do, fabricate the evidence, and introduce it, all so close to the time of the disaster. Longtabber was pushing this theory a bit (but without the background information to know how credible the idea was), and at the time it seemed to me to be a bit much to swallow. However, I don't think it should be dismissed wholesale. If we're getting on to where these bits of charred clothing really came from, I think we should take it to the Tony Gauci thread. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
25th November 2009, 03:47 AM | #251 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Uh, Buncrana, that was just the official facts and evidence. You know, that prove his guilt? A rabbit hole would be some crazy story you folow into deeper paranoid delusion. Hey, wait... why do they seem so similar in this case? It's confusing!
Quote:
|
25th November 2009, 08:03 AM | #252 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
Rolfe, You seem to have a good start on a timeline for what's happening at Frankfurt. Could you put that into a Frankfurt Airport page on the wiki.
|
25th November 2009, 05:49 PM | #253 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I can give it a start. My idea was to do a page per main topic (this one will do for a start) with as much detail as possible, and hope that others would populate it with any links I've missed. My bookmarks are in a mess and I'm not sure where all the factoids are located now.
It seems that "why did the evidence disappear and why do we not hear anybody asking questions about this" is by far the most interesting question in this respect. Showing that the orphan bag didn't have to have come off KM180, and in fact almost certainly didn't, is relatively minor. I think we've gone as far as we can with Bogomira, and that one basically winds up as she may well be entirely on the level. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
26th November 2009, 06:24 AM | #254 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
With regards to the examination and x-raying of baggage as it passed through the Frankfurt system. It would seem that Alert (Pan Am's security company) had alleged authorization had been granted to allow x-raying of baggage without a physical search at Frankfurt during 1988. From the link I posted earlier in this thread relating to the original Pan Am case in 1992. It would seem that not only was the testimony of the x-ray operator at Frankfurt dismissed at Zeist in that he would not have neccessarily spotted the bomb contained within the radio, but at the original Pan Am case, the equipment that was being used by the baggage screening operators was also excluded.
Quote:
Something that could be seen to also lend weight to Mrs Erac's account is also detailed here:
Quote:
Would this be the first indication of Malta being in someway involved in the investigation and possible bomb that brought down 103? Feb '89? Then again, it doesn't neccessarily dispell the possibility that the BKA had pinpointed this 'printout' as a possible way of simply shifting the investigation away from there own ground. Air Malta had been the carrier, and Alert had failed to spot the bomb - no fault of Frankfurt. |
26th November 2009, 04:52 PM | #255 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
That's fasinating, where did you find the transcript of the Pan Am case? I was going by Coleman's account, which seems pretty accurate. He reported the bit about the x-ray machine not being allowed to be viewed by the jury, and gave the opinion that was because even a completely untrained person would have been able to spot the device on it, and the jury would have realised that.
There's a lot more evidence he says was excluded, and if even half of it is true it strongly suggests the government was extremely keen that Pan Am should be hung out to dry. For whatever reason. Your other point, about the Frankfurt police contacting Malta in February about KM180, is extremely important. It shoots down my speculation that they may have sat on the evidence until August in the hope that any Malta records would have gone to the great shredder in the sky. It also shows interest in tracing the bomb back to Malta as early as two months after the crash. Which shoots down the speculation that this idea wasn't dreamed up until July or August. I like this, the more speculation we shoot down, the more it might become clear what the actual possibilities are. I'm not entirely sure at what point the finding of the label on the Babygro pointed the Scottish investigators to Malta. I think it was earlier than this, but I can't be sure. Do you happen to know? This may be heading for the conclusion that the orphan bag seeming to have come from Malta was actually a coincidence (in the context of the clothes in the bomb bag being of Maltese origin). I'd like to be surer, though. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
27th November 2009, 06:00 PM | #256 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
I agree that the fact Frankfurt authorities were pursuing some sort of connection to Malta in Feb '89 would indicate and possibly vidicate the appearence of the Erac printout. However, whichever way I decide to interpret this, I am constantly drawn back to Erac's printout being the only record of note, disclosed by the BKA. Given the issues raised on this thread, the initial reports of the crash, the known PLFP group arrested, and the fact it had supplied the main feeder flight, it is very difficult to believe that the German authorities did not suppress all other records. I've painted out the scenario again and again within my head and verbally to others (some vaguely familiar with the Lockerbie case, some not) and without fail, on every occassion, it is highly probably and absolutely expected, that the BKA and a host of security and associated officials would and should have been crawling all over Frankfurt on the 22 December 1988.
Yet, media reports, all the documentary investigations, all the books written and the actual court judgement itself would simply have us believe that this one single document (in association with 2 handwritten worksheets), was all that was recovered, purely by chance, and it should point remarkably to Malta. Although, perhaps this was one of many calls made by the BKA. Were there other documents they had seized showing the possibility of an errant bag and had contacted other airlines? Would we have heard about any such calls? Highly unlikely I'd assume. If not for the initial media reports on the night of the crash or the fact that the primary feeder flight had departed from their airport, or the fact the BKA must have been aware of Gannon and McKee's (amoongst others) presence on the 103A flight, the Frankfurt authorities would have been absolutely aware that container AVE4041, containing luggage from Frankfurt, was identified within 3 days as to been the one which had contained the bomb. So despite, Heathrow hiding some it's cards behind it's back, and Frankfurt replicating, the 4041 container presents an immediate focus upon Frankfurt and essentially away from Heathrow. Bedfords suitcases and the Heathrow break-in, together with the loss of records from Frankfurt, opens the possibility that both sets of authorities, airport security officials and law enforcement and intellligence agencies are preparing to, or at the very least attempting to, deflect any responsibilty, culpability and further inquiries from discovering any discrepancies or possibilty of surreptitious activities involving luggage loading, screening and reconciliation on either flight. |
27th November 2009, 06:40 PM | #257 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I totally agree. I really just commented that the contacting of Malta in February shot down my favoured speculation - that the entire Malta connection was dreamed up in July. Or that perhaps the Frankfurt police sat on the transcript until August to give Malta time to discard its December paperwork.
The implication that the BKA were smothering something like mad doesn't go away. And it's still perfectly possible that the Erac printout is either a complete fabrication, with Erac's little human-interest story carefully crafted to give it provenance, or that her story is entirely on the level but the printout was tampered with after she produced it, without her knowledge. I could imagine that if the BKA had colluded with the Frankfurt airport management in a clean sweep of all the evidence (maybe on Christmas Day), Bogomira producing that printout would be a bit of a shock. Her manager's reaction, as described, is quite interesting. I'd just have expected that, if the BKA decided to make use of this fortuitous happening to get the evidence they wanted into play, they had their act together as quickly as February. By the way, "Baz" categorically declares that Gannon and McKee were not on PA103A. I kind of thought myself that they joined PA103 at Heathrow. Could you go into your reasons for thinking that they flew from Frankfurt? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
28th November 2009, 11:37 AM | #258 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
Many recent changes on the wiki now.
|
28th November 2009, 02:33 PM | #259 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Sigh. Where do I apply for 48-hour days?
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
29th November 2009, 03:27 AM | #260 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Catching up partly: the thread's got some good headway lately. Notably Buncrana, your sustained effort here is verging on Language Award nomination. (It's sort of the anti-Stundie) First specific point tho from Rolfe:
That's certainly an interesting thought I missed before. In my mind, a lot's riding on Jones'
Quote:
Quote:
Now if you take it, do you do anything with it, or just keep it hidden? Either way, we've got something like that probably going on, and then this weird story about a weird paper. We've got a fairly consistent story for how that happened, but it's still a suspiciously well-placed brain fart next to the combustible data and the spark of being the only survivor. Fooomp gos the credibility to me. It's like those horror movies where a whole (village, space station, etc) was wiped out but this one survivor - perhaps a young girl - find orphaned. Some wandering Samaritans take her in only to find she's the one that killed the (village, space station, etc) and is disguised and then kills the new crew one by one. This paper is that suspicious little girl. Just how did she survive? Don't take her in, I scream twelve minutes in, and then have their failure played out in graphic detail for the next hour.
Quote:
We are getting somewhere, right? |
29th November 2009, 03:32 AM | #261 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
I saw them. I like the Rolf bait you placed. Sorry I haven't been looking for me-bait or adding anything for a bit. This next week I'll work it up some more. I still say it should be Lockerbie specific instead of a Lockerbie section in an otherwise empty network. Feels weird, imbalanced. Can that be helped?
For those unfamiliar, it's easy to register and help a little and hopefully learn Well you could skim a bit off the tl;drs to offset other expenditures. |
29th November 2009, 04:22 AM | #262 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Sorry, also found this interesting, from above
Originally Posted by Trail of the Octopus, ch 7
|
29th November 2009, 07:34 AM | #263 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,594
|
Right now there are a lot of missing details to fill in on Lockerbie. But eventually it will stabilize or we will have exhausted our talents for finding new data. At that point, some of the Lockerbie researchers will want to move on to other topics until new evidence is revealed. Having the site framework and talent pool already in place will allow the site to quickly expand into the other topics.
It also helps the other way. The more researchers we gather working on other topics, the more likely it will be for one of them to stumble on some piece of missing information that fits in the Lockerbie investigation. I'm just not starting the other topics until Lockerbie is fleshed out. Although our goal is to grow our user base as quickly as possible, we need to be selective initially on who we let in to limit vandalism until we have enough experiences users to patrol the site and keep it clean. For this reason, I request that you don't publish the site address but send it privately to those that you know have something to contribute. |
1st December 2009, 04:42 AM | #264 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
D'oh! If a moderator reads this, it's cool to remove that link above, if possible?
You know it might be cool to get other issues going too, when the right person comes along, who might want to contribute in a certain area they're good with. EG, new member Gawdzilla might be excited to copy and paste some of his recent findings on Pearl Harbor, and I'd promise to not work on that category at all. and if a few others with interests start working there, maybe we'd get some cross pollination, etc.... I'm not really hyped on it myself yet, with so much else going on. I think you're in the lead, and doing okay so far. I found a new video - in German w/no subtitles. It's co-produced by Conspiracy Files Guy Smith, uses a lot of the same footage and sounds as that sneaky little video, but is significantly different. A number of Germans are interviewed and say some things I'm curious about. One in particular is Herr Manfred Klink, damals Leiter Terrorabwehr BKA, discussing Frankfurt Airport, I think. Actually 7:00-8:30 span he's in the middle of would be fascinating if there were an audio babelfish site. Interestingly, neither Frau Erac nor her printout were present in this produktion (visibly). http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...BaX2qAOjxKXmDQ 10:03 the time zone difference is illustrated Early on the breakup animation is awesome and terrifying 8:58 Siegfried Niedek is saying some things that must be relevant to this thread. Blast my provincialism. |
1st December 2009, 06:00 AM | #265 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I'll have a look at that later if I can, though my German isn't very reliable.
I noticed another little wrinkle about the Frankfurt end. Coleman notes that the stuff the BKA finally passed on to the Scottish police in August included a report about the baggage records at Malta dated 2nd February 1989. That's even earlier than I'd thought, and suggests they were actually inteviewing the Malta personnel in late January. Given that Bogomira came out with her printout between 20th and 25th January (Jones having visited Frankfurt airport on 23rd January if that's relevant), they must have spotted the orphan bag and its possible origin almost immediately. And leaped into action. This is all extremely odd. No reports at all of police activity in Frankfurt airport in the week or two following the crash - despite the airport being on a state of high alert as regards the threat of Semtex disguised in suitcases at the time, and the Frankfurt connection being noted right from the get-go. Press reports that police had visited the airport within a few days of the crash do not appear to be substantiated by anyone who was actually there. The crucial baggage records apparently discarded despite the high alert, the recognised Frankfurt link of the doomed flight and the police supposed to have swooped. Bogomira's supervisor is remarkably laid back about all this, even asking her to check a file to see if there are any more printouts, but nobody ever describes a systematic search for such records. Reports that the baggage records had been discarded never explain who by and how and how the hell that could possibly have happened under the circumstances. Jones reports finding the cupboard bare on 23rd January, but doesn't say what explanations he was offered. Bogomira comes forward with her printout, probably just after Jones's visit, and the police immediately grab it and start acting like real detectives. Somehow, they already have the handwritten records they need to make sense of the printout and identify that there is a bag recorded which seems to have come from a flight from which no passenger joined PA103A. Wouldn't these records be part of what Jones complained was missing? Where and when did they get these? Within a week or so they have it sewn up, they've got all the information about the loading of KM180 at Luqa (which was still available a month after the crash even though there would have been no particular reason to have suspected Malta in the initial stages), and presumably have noted the paradox that there was no unaccompanied bag on that flight. That's early February. In March the Scottish police go to Malta in response to finding the blue babygro, but as the manufacturer (in Malta) has supplied 500 different retailers all over Europe, they despair of identifying its provenance and come home empty handed. Note that the Frabnkfurt police had the information about the orphan bag and KM180 at this point, but they hadn't told the Scottish police. In August, six months after identifying the possible connection with KM180, the Frankfurt police finally pass this information on to the Scottish police. Why the wait? Once they'd done the clever detective work, why not display it proudly for everyone to see at the earliest possible moment? What was going on in these six months? The Scottish police apparently decide that this means the clothes were bought in Malta as well as being manufactured there, and return to investigate local retailers. This is actually a non sequitur, but never mind. The field thus narrowed, they find themselves talking to Tony Gauci on 1st September. There are links in this chain we do not have. How many different manufacturers were there? How was Mary's House identified as the probable retailer? Who first raised the issue with Tony Gauci and when (because I don't think the 1st September statement represents first contact)? But the main mysteries at the moment are the events immediately after the crash and what the hell happened to the originals of all these records, and why did the BKA sit on their detective work for more than six months, during which time the Scottish detectives made a fruitless visit to Malta following a different lead? (Surely the necessity of interviewing potential witnesses as early as possble would have been recognised - if that information had been shared, in theory Tony Gauci could have been interviewed about the mystery shopper within a couple of months of the purchase.) It's looking less and less likely that Bogomira's printout is a fake, but I just don't know what's going on here. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
1st December 2009, 02:35 PM | #266 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Feb 2, huh? That's the same day they "first" inquired at Frankfurt Main as well. I dare say you got that mixed up. Chapter 7 seems the right spot, but it's not there. As the only bolded line, I reckon I ought ta tell ye.
Otherwise tho awesome points. But nothing new without a 2/2 Malta hop. I just spent ten minutes looking for a transcript (Abschrift) of that show and didn't find one. Any helpful German-speaking members here care to transcribe or summarize? |
2nd December 2009, 03:50 AM | #267 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
You're right, I had got mixed up. I read "the airport" as Luqa, but you're right, "the airport" in that context is Frankfurt.
I'll quote the passage properly.
Quote:
I don't think this advances the story much. Bogomira came forward (let's say) on 24th January, as a result of hearing about Jones's enquiries on 23rd January when he found all relevant records missing. Maier gives Bogomira's printout to the BKA without significant delay. The BKA then make enquiries to try to establish the significance of the entries in the printout. The reports they wrote about this are dated 2nd February. These reports draw on information from the handwritten worksheet at station 206, and the interline writer's records. There are clearly more documents being consulted during this process, as reference is made in the court judgement to alternative explanations involving containers of baggage from Damascus and Warsaw. So when did the BKA get these documents? You suggested they got them when they visited the airport after receiving Bogomira's printout, I suggested they got them earlier, because on 23rd January all documentation had apparently already vanished. If these documents were still available at the airport in the last week of January for the BKA to find then, A. why didn't Jones find them on the 23rd, and B. why the hell had all this stuff not been hoovered up in the first week anyway? Is it really conceivable that the BKA didn't go near Frankfurt airport until after Bogomira came forward with that printout, in spite of all the alerts about suitcase bomb-making at Frankfurt, and the early identification of the plane as "PA103 from Frankfurt to New York"? Is it really conceivable also that nobody at the airport took any initiative to preserve the baggage records under those circumstances? They do have security people in airports, I believe! So by 24th January everything important had just vanished in the normal course of events (except, could you just have a look in the drawer and see if anything else has been kept?), but when the police arrived for the first time a few days later, they fortuitously found a few scraps of paper still in existance that allowed them to interpret Bogomira's printout and identify a connection to KM180. Oh, come on. That can't be the situation. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
2nd December 2009, 05:33 AM | #268 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
I also haven't seen evidence Jones, a Pan Am security guy, was looking at anything other than Pan Am files. All he said to the Maltese Double Cross was
Quote:
Quote:
Can some one please have the spine enough to step up and tell us this is conceivable, in any meaningful way? Why would the BKA be unable to get this data until Bogomira handed over her odd souvenir? Doesn't this all make nice neat sense in some way we're missing? People jump to debunk fake moon landings crap and 9/11 holograms so why withhold the medicine for this ridiculous conspiracy theory? |
2nd December 2009, 06:15 AM | #269 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
It's not making sense as a complete fabrication. The evidence you turned up from Malta shows the BKA really did do as they said and followed up the Malta lead in February 1989. This definitely knocks out the suggetion that the Maltese connection could have been dreamed up and put together in the summer of 1989.
The evidence that we're seeing supports what Bogomira has been saying all along. That she was personally interested in the crash because it literally happened on her watch, and so made that printout the following evening. However, she didn't see it as her responsiblilty to run around securing evidence, and she didn't see anyone else doing that either. However, in the latter half of January something (Jones?) prompted her to take the printout to Maier. At that point there is no (0) evidence of any police visit to the airport baggage handling facilities. This has been so little regarded that Maier actually asks Bogomira to check the drawers in case there's anything else lurking there, which suggests no police swoop he knows about. He takes the printout to the police, probably fairly promptly. At this point the police do get off their backsides and do some detective work, and by 2nd February they have identified luggage tray 8847 as apparently having come off KM180. They then trot off to Malta and get hold of the evidence surrounding the loading of that flight. Which just happens to be present, not discarded, and shows no realistic possibility of an unaccompanied bag being on that flight. They then sit on this for six months, before sending what they've discovered to the Scottish police on 17th August. They haven't been ignoring terrorism in the mean time though, because in April ....
Originally Posted by The Trail of the Octopus, ch. 2
I don't understand why they didn't turn over Frankfurt airport in December 1988. And I don't know why they sat on the evidence they did manage to assemble for six months - six months in which Tony Gauci's memory would inevitably become less reliable. And I don't quite follow where the other Khreesat bombs some in, was this part of the PA103 investigation, or a completely different game being played? At the kindest, the BKA were grossly negligent and then dilatory. And it was pure chance that handed them what seems to have been a vital piece of evidence. But then it seems to have been equally pure chance that the apparent link to Malta which was seized on was itself coincidental and really represented a bag unconnected to the explosion. I still think there's some dirty work going on though. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
2nd December 2009, 09:52 AM | #270 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
Would Jones have visited Frankfurt had he not anticipated records would be available to him? Was he told that the records had been secured, only to show up at Frankfurt and be told the BKA had siezed them and he was denied access? If, as we're told, that records were lost due to them only being retained for upto a week, would Jones as someone aware of Airport procedures, have even considered it in any way viable to seek records beyond 28th Dec? Jones visited Franfurt at the end of January and these records were not made avaiable to him, thereby suggesting the records had been secured but just not made available to him.
As a technician, who was working on the day of the 103a left frankfurt, and in fact, had delt precisely with loading records (given Mrs Erac's account, and her immediate thought on hearing the news, this would appear so) of 103a, would it not seem reasonable for any LE to request Mrs Erac assist them with any records recovered in the days subsequent - before she went on holiday? She was a technician after all, with many years of experience in airport computer programming. It was on her 'watch' that 103a was loaded and even she was aware of the implications of the crash from the very first report. We're supposed to believe neither her supervisior, anyone involved in Frankfurt security nor the BKA, had any inclination of the significance of PA103A?... |
2nd December 2009, 02:15 PM | #271 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Here's the appropriate part of the documentary that gives Jones and Phipps's accounts.
Originally Posted by The Maltese Double Cross
This is tantalisingly incomplete. The first thing I'd like to know is, when you couldn't trace the documents you were looking for, who did you ask about this? And what was their explanation for that state of affairs? Note that Jones doesn't believe the situation was consistent with the police having seized the records, though. This view seems to be supported by Phipps's experience at Malta. When he visited Luqa, which must have been after the BKA were there in February, the loading records were still available for him to see. Notice that they're not really talking about the missing computer files at all. Jones is talking about the tarmac loading plans for PA103A, which never surfaced. These would not have been part of the computer files,they would have been paper records as far as I know. Phipps is talking about the comparable records for the unloading of KM180. Again, they never turned up. And yet the worksheets from the coding stations turned up, and the interline writers records. Exactly what was necessary to support the suggestion that 8849 came off KM180, but the records that might have shown that it wasn't unloaded from that plane, or that it didn't get loaded on PA103A (or if it was, identify it as something innocent), never surfaced. What is actually going on here? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
2nd December 2009, 03:07 PM | #272 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I hope that bit of The Maltese Double Cross I posted is helpful. The records that were "only retained for a week" were the files on Bogomira's rinky-dinky little computer system. This was because the storage meda were over-written by a new batch of files. (Even so, we have evidence from the designer of the system that there should have been backups retained - that's somewhere in Robert Black's unsearchable blog, I could do with a specific link to it.) The rest of the bumph was supposed to be filed. Like it was in Luqa. Jones expected the Frankfurt files to be there, even if the police had been to call, because he knew that SOP was to keep copies of anything the police removed. (And this makes sense - any airline would want to know what it was the police had taken, in order to look after its own interests, just as Air Malta did.) I'd just love to know who he asked about these missing files, and what the explanation was. I'd also like to know about what else was missing - was it just the paperwork from these specific flights that was gone, or what? We don't know how big a team dealt with that baggage. Maybe Bogomira was only one little cog in the wheel. Nevertheless, there's no record of anyone being asked. Within her account there's no mention even of awareness of any investigation going on. Now I don't know exactly when Bogomira went on holiday, but I don't think it was 23rd December (Friday). She speaks of a "New Year" holiday, and she didn't get back until 14th or 15th January. My guess is she was there until 30th December or thereabouts. On 28th December a press report is already saying that the BKA visited Frankfurt airport "last week". Really? And Bogomira didn't notice? And when they found the records were already missing, there was no general call to see if anything at all might have been retained? That press report makes it quite clear that the involvement of Frankfurt airport was generally recognised only a week after the crash. And sooner than that, the very first radio news reports actually gave the impression that the plane was a direct Frankfurt to New York flight. There's absolutely no reason for the police not to have swooped on Frankfurt airport within hours. This is the same police force that knew about Jibril and Dalkamoni and Khreesat, and the Toshiba barometer bombs, and had put Frankfurt airport on alert for exactly such a device coming through. Less then eight weeks previously. Now we have an exploding airliner, out of Frankfurt (even at one remove), and even if the warning bells aren't ringing first go out of the box, it's identified as being a bomb very quickly, and being in a suitcase that was in a container that largely contained baggage from Frankfurt by early January. Are we seriously expected to believe they didn't go anywhere near the airport until after Maier passed on Bogomira's printout in late January? And yet, if they did go, why didn't they secure these missing records, or if the records were already missing, why didn't they turn the place over? It still looks to me very much like a clean sweep of everything relevant, including backups, and leaving no copies, followed by selective release or discovery of only the parts that will support the "8840 came from KM180 and was loaded on to PA103A" theory, while continuing to suppress any items that might contradict this. And I don't see how that could have been done without the police at least being involved. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
2nd December 2009, 03:31 PM | #273 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
|
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
2nd December 2009, 04:28 PM | #274 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/20...mes-malta.html
Unnamed FA system desginer guy Glad you covered the week-held records. The central file is all this refers to, the digital one held in-system. No mention anywhere of how long tape or disc backups were held. No mention of them at al in fact. Paperwork was kept for records at other spots (coding stations) - and we'd presume at the planes - loading and unloading. Both Phipps and Jones found papers at this point missing later on, so apparently taken. I'm not sure how long there would normally be kept on file. Jones seemed to expect a copy still there when he looked and he'd know the procedures. And Rolfe, I'm confused that you've mentioned Malta and February together twice again. Was there some other evidence for that? I do suppose it's possible they'd go there anytime after 2/2 and putting papers together, to check into the origin end of that one unaccompanied bag among a dozen. On that video, I don't know if they're saying anything amazing, probably not, but it would be an addition either way. I'm going to start pestering some Germans or sumthin. |
2nd December 2009, 04:40 PM | #275 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Thanks for that. I feel a wiki article coming on. Buncrana's find, a couple of pages back in the thread. Transcript from the original court case against Pan Am in the early 1990s. I don't know where he found it.
Quote:
Reading that in detail, it looks as if they just asked for the evidence to be sent, rather than visiting in person. At the moment, it's all the same to me. The point is that the BKA in Frankfurt were looking for the records from KM180 in February. Independently verified. So they didn't dream the idea up in July, Let me know if you have any success. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
2nd December 2009, 04:54 PM | #276 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Here's the relevant part from the Black blog, which is from the newspaper The Times of Malta. The date is 10th May 2009.
Quote:
The plot gets even thicker. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
2nd December 2009, 05:03 PM | #277 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Oh yeah, Borg, I remember that now. Sometime in February, sure, after the 2nd the BKA would be able to (roughly) know which bags were unaccompanied after checking coding stations and times to see which flights these items probably came from and compare it to passenger transfers. So they'd ask Air Malta, presumably some other air lines. Nothing about visits, just info called in via Germany to Malta and passed back by phone it seems. Okay.
The date would also seem to confirm the BKA did have the printout like they say at that time, and also shows they weren't just sitting in it at first - they first found out it pointed to a dead end. Then somewhere in the next months, what happened is that became okay somehow. |
2nd December 2009, 05:46 PM | #278 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 458
|
Here's the link to details of the original PanAm case detailing admissions which were denied to PanAm by the court - http://openjurist.org/37/f3d/804
Unless someone can provide a plausible argument supporting the theory that not one solitary German policeman or anyone from any number of security agencies involved at an airport, thought about any of the records relating to 103a, and according to what was revealed in Court and articles contained here, is it reasonable to assume that is most likely not fact? We have an unnamed expert stating records should have still been available, even after the week as claimed. We have Khreesat. We have AVE4041. We have initial reports that the crash over Lockerbie was a flight from Frankfurt. We even have the media reporting that the investigators are at Frankfurt, and obviously Heathrow, within days. On Tuesday the 27th December, The Arizona Republic carried a report stating
Quote:
|
2nd December 2009, 06:02 PM | #279 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
I'm trying to think, if I was a BKA minion, and I had to follow up the printout that maier handed over, what would I do?
I'd need the other documents first, because it makes no sense as it stands. Do we have any information about where that came from? Any evidence of a BKA visit to Frankfurt airport in the last week of January? Or did they already have the documents from an earlier visit? I suppose the first thing I'd want would be the coders' worksheets showing which station was coding luggage from which flight at which time. If I had these, and knew the key to the printout (for example that S0009 was station 206), I could get at least an approximation of which flight each of these 111 items came from. I would also have a passenger list for PA103A (which I don't believe was missing), and a record of where each passenger came from. A good number of these bags would have come from the checkin desks at Frankfurt itself, and more would belong to passengers who weren't transferring to PA103 at Heathrow. These would have to be identified and ticked off, even though the main focus would naturally be luggage being interlined to PA103A and on to PA103. Here's Coleman's version of this, which is the most detailed I can find.
Quote:
129 passengers 79 stopping at Heathrow, presumably unimportant because their luggage wouldn't be transferred to Maid of the Seas. 49 going on to New York Of these 49, 28 came through the Frankfurt checkin desks. The remaining 21 came from other connecting flights at Frankfurt. So how would I, PC Plod, approach this? I suppose I'd start by excluding the checkin desk bags, because I couldn't prove anything untoward about any of these. (Though how I could exclude them as being the bomb bag, if I can't trust the x-ray screen, is another matter.) I'm then left with all the connecting-flight bags, whether headed for New York or not. So, the bags of the 21 passengers coming from connecting flights and going all the way are presumably indistinguishable from the bags of the connecting-flight passengers who are getting off at Heathrow, at this stage. (Unless the BP and TO designations signify something, but I don't know about that.) That second group might be about 40 bags, possibly. That gives me maybe 60 entries to check (or more, some passengers had more than one bag). My first move is going to be to look at the coding stations and times to see which flights these came from. I should end up with a list of flights that seem to have supplied baggage to PA103A. I then need to look at the passenger lists to see which flights I know passengers transferred from. Presumably all this tallies, except for KM180. I then shout "I have you now, Mr. Bond!" and go tell the boss. There's so much wrong with this I don't know where to start. First, all these bags were x-rayed, so what are we assuming? That the x-ray examination was pointless? In that case any of the bags could have had the bomb in it. Including the ones checked in at Frankfurt, or any of the ones that came off a connecting flight apparently attached to a passenger. And again, I don't know that item 8849 was tagged for New York - do I? I'm just assuming that was the case. Have I definitely attached all the other bags to passsengers, or at least to flights with people on them who were headed to PA103A? Or are there any other items there that aren't convincingly attached to a flight with a passenger? We don't know. What about the 24 other bags, or possibly more, including bags from three other PA flights, first class bags, and bags with short connection times? Have I any idea whether any of these might appear to be unaccompanied? I have not. And let's face it, that stuff is more likely to have excaped the x-ray. Two things strike me here.
Quote:
Quote:
It seems to me there's far too little information here to conclude a damn thing. It's just the coincidence that this orphan item seems to have come from Malta, and the babygro had "Made in Malta" on its label that seems to have impressed people. Too much, I think. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
2nd December 2009, 06:07 PM | #280 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
By the way, I note that in several recent posts I've called Bogomira's supervisor Maier instead of Berg. Maier was the x-ray operator.
Apologies if I've confused anyone. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|