|
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. |
14th April 2011, 02:53 PM | #1 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Lockerbie: an Iranian In London
Just wanted to alert people to an interesting new angle on the Iranian plot to blow up PA 103. (note, dispensing with references to the legal reality and just focusing on what the evidence says).
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/...e-case-of.html One man. Parviz Taheri, was from Iran, lived in Frankfurt, flew to London on the first leg of PA103 on Dec 21, acting nervous as he boarded with almost no luggage (none checked). He carried on this flight the address of the PFLP-GC cell in Frankfurt where the PA 103 bomb was built, ripping the plane apart just after he stepped off. And he had been in Helsinki, where that warning call of a Pan Am flight out of Frankfurt around Dec 21 was placed from. He said the Iranian embassy there might have answers about the bombing, although he didn't know anything about it himself. At the least, weird enough to read about, just to read something weird. At the most, an indirect but possibly important clue to the bombing that killed 270 23 years ago. |
14th April 2011, 03:23 PM | #2 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Didn't someone say that Khaled Jafaar looked nervous when boarding PA103A too? Quite a lot of jumpy people on that plane I think....
You know, when we get into this area, I start to feel I'm going down for the third time. I can see the bomb didn't come from Malta, I can see it went on at Heathrow, I can see the entire operation has Jibril's fingerprints all over it - but when it comes to the comings and goings of that crowd of murdering bastards, false warnings, who was trying to warn whom, how the bomb actually travelled to London.... I think I need a lie down. I was speaking to Christine about it yesterday, and she reminded me that the IranAir handling facility at Heathrow was right next to Pan Am, and within the area violated by Manly's broken padlock. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
14th April 2011, 03:34 PM | #3 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Christine, Grahame I presume? That's great you're speaking with her finally, if so (MSP for south of Scotland). Be sure to ask her about those paprs I've been interested in.
True, appearing nervous on boarding doesn't mean much. I act nervous some times the same way without plotting anything. And carrying that address around doesn't prove much either, or his visit to Helsinki. Put together, however, together with the existing mystery of the Helsinki warning, and it's strange enough to wonder about. An excerpt:
Quote:
|
15th April 2011, 02:47 AM | #4 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
Oh, did I mention this part I just found the other night?
Quote:
|
15th April 2011, 03:52 AM | #5 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Well, do we know she wasn't simply mistaken about the passport? Is it possible that whatever passport he had simply resembled a US one, and as she was familiar with US passports, and knew the flight connected with a US flight, simply made a wrong assumption?
This is touching on something I've been meaning to bring up for a while. The Special Defence of Incrimination. We know the defence cited "hundreds" of witnesses, and then didn't call any of them. (They called two, just the Maltese meteorologist, and the guy who saw the sloppy coding at Franlfurt on a different visit.) The witnesses who weren't called were almost all in relation to the Special Defence, I believe. (As an aside, why didn't they call experts on identification procedures to rubbish the Gauci identification? OK, it was self-evidently rubbish, but letting it rest at that was stupid. Why didn't they call experts on the Frankfurt baggage system to find out how all the records disappeared?) Do we know who these witnesses were? Is there any record at all of what they might have testified that the defence originally thought they were worth bringing to court? So many of the prosecution witnesses would at first sight make more sense as defence witnesses - Bedford, Borg, Talb, and indeed all these Maltese passengers whose testimony ruled out the presence of an unaccompanied bag on KM180. It has been suggested that some at least of that was deliberate "spoiler" tactics, to deny the defence access to these people as witnesses for the defence and force the defence to treat them as hostile witnesses. But what about the rest of them? Who were these "hundreds" of uncalled defence witnesses? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
16th April 2011, 03:25 AM | #6 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,494
|
The defense sucked, for some reason. They helped bring a lot of information to light for historians with access to the transcripts. But as you note, nearly all the witnesses - even those with the best, most damning evidence, were called by the prosecution. I don't know if the spoiler theory holds water or not, but if so, I'm sure that's part of the reason for that. Either way, in their choices they did even more than the defense to help put down on paper valuable insights into what really happened.
I do realize this whole Taheri episode is quite speculative. And the questions you raise as to the passport and through passenger presumption are right on. That whole aspect hit me only as I was writing and I don't feel I've sorted it out well. She seems pretty sure on it being US issue, but that's possibly in error. And as I noted, the booking to New York might have been a deduction based on the first one. It wasn't apparently reflected in his booking records, or that would have come up. It is possible he was acting nervous on purpose, and even saying things about New York and going home, to draw attention to himself and his notebook. Who knows? |
16th April 2011, 04:11 AM | #7 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
Someone looked nervous getting on a flight. Well, that's enough to condemn them in conspiracy land is it?
|
__________________
Formerly known as Captain Swoop |
|
16th April 2011, 04:38 AM | #8 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
What is this with people picking up he most tangential, peripheral, throwaway points to criticise, and ignoring the actual arguments being presented?
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|