Wednesday, 3 February 2010
FBI is sued for not releasing Megrahi files
This is the headline over an article -- tagged as exclusive -- in today's edition of The Herald. It relates to the legal action raised in the United States by Judicial Watch following its fruitless FOIA application for documents held by the FBI relating to the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. This was the subject of a post on this blog as long ago as 22 January 2010.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
== Dear Mr Aku
ReplyDeleteCharles: I didn't say that containers are "loaded all over the apron". I said that containers are LYING all over the apron. Containers are, of course, loaded in a specific loading area. Loading of containers does NOT normally start until 2-3 hours before scheduled departure time. Interline (and on-line for that matter) bags are usually just left on the ground or in a more secure lock-up, depending on how long they have to wait until loading starts properly. I think it is quite likely that the IED in a suitcase went on at Heathrow, but I can't see how it could have been attached to a container. No bile, no axe to grind.
== Forgive me, Mr. Aku.
== I have condensed too much of my argument.
== If I had been born in the 1980s or 1990s, I would probably have been classified as Aspergers. From what I remember of school I was good at arithmetic and grammar, especially Latin and science, and schoolboys did not have diseases with advanced definitions then. I suffered from measles, not mental complications!
== So the sort of hole I have fallen in to, is still temperamentally possible for me.
== You say that loading does not not normally start until 2- 3 hours before.
== Yet we are considering the possibility of suitcases lying around on the ground, possibly from about 07:00 on 21 December 1988. They are from relatively high profile passengers who would be really rather annoyed if their luggage went missing. So why not designate a container early on, into which they will go!
== That seems quite reasonable, and a reasoned understanding is what I'd like to get to.
== I have more difficulties with your rejection of my idea of the attachment of the IED, but I think you have inferred it might be possible.
== This is a very interesting debate, and I would like us to be able to pursue it much, much further.
== Please if you find my response hard and difficult, come back and engage again. I value your contribution, almost more than anybody who has responded to me.
Hi Charles! Reliving old debates you never should have had, I see.
ReplyDeleteJudical Watch is a lame Right-Wing group opposed to "Liberal Judicial activism." They really should busy themselves examining what the actual Judges decided. Watch those judges, JW.
I wonder if Charles and anybody who cares to "debate" him could confine their comments to the appropriate thread?
ReplyDeleteJudicial Watch president Tom Fitton said: "Not only was the decision to release Megrahi from prison an affront to justice and an insult to the families of the victims of the Pan Am tragedy, but it also served to rally terrorists around the world."
ReplyDeleteTom Fitton seems to be parroting the words of Robert Mueller that the FBI Director deployed in his idiotic letter to Kenny MacAskill last August.
What therefore is the point of Judicial Watch suing the FBI: a publicity stunt, perhaps?
[OT]
ReplyDeleteCL, Charles has made the finals of the January Stundies, and is currently leading by a whisker.
Vote, vote, vote!
[/OT]
Rolfe, if you are going to make insults to people who have been looking at Lockerbie rather longer than you, you might make them more comprehensible. You accuse me of beong obscure, and you invent something called a "January Stundie", whatever that is.
ReplyDelete[OT]It's a JREF prize for, basically, stupidest (Conspiray theoory) comment of the month. You're leading a pack of 20 nominations for saying:
ReplyDelete"You cannot start from facts. That's unscientific.
You've got to start with a thesis. Make it the best you can. Then test it against the facts you have."
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166480[/OT]
On topic - good eye, Mr. H. Publicity stunt is one of the major possibilities here. Mr. Fitton is quite fittin' for this sort of case.
Dear Mr Logic,
ReplyDelete"You cannot start from facts. Th
at's unscientific.
You've got to start with a thesis. Make it the best you can. Then test it against the facts you have."
That is a quote from me (I believe) and id simly the tightest statement of Popper's h-d method I can find.
For example, the theory of continental drift which took a long time to be accepted was preceded by the theory of land bridges, for no sensible scientist thought that continents could ever move. Even the anecdotal evidence that South America seemed to fit into Africa notds by Bacon or Rayleigh in the early C17.
A fact really doesn't exist until in is placed in a context by a theory (such as the fact of radioactivity, and the age of the Earth).
I have been having another little think on the Indian Head, Bruntingthorpe and Wyatt tests.
If the IH and Bruntingthorpe tests had used Wyatt's protocol, then no suitcase, contents or parts thereof would have been recovered from them. I don't think I have seen a report on either set of those earlier tests so, as far as we are concerned, perhaps they were merely demonstrations that baggage containers and aircraft could be blown up.But it means (a) if material were recovered, the explosive quantity was rather less than used at Lockerbie, or (b) if it was of the Lockerbie quantity, the tests results have been suppressed as pace Wyatt there would have been no suitcase or contents remains. Remember a half-clue - no detonator was recovered at Lockerbie, and these tend to survive explosions (rather more than the rest of the assembly). I take it Wyatt did not recover a detonator. Am I right?
http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?s=53a33b01806271290ea9d69a2325ebf8&p=1287607#post1287607
ReplyDeletePlease have a look at the story above. It seems to be about an
over-weaponed member of the US military, who has an anecdote a
connecting flight (presumably 103A) of 21 December 1988.
The more I read this kind of thing from a man with no known axe to
grind (he's a member of the US military), the more I think there was a
suspiciously large pool of people who had been told something was up,
even if they did not know what. Those German policemen obviously
didn't know, nor the senior German staff, nor perhaps the BND, but
perhaps the CIA was being say a little overprotective, or has been put "economical with the actualite" (sorry abot missing accent)
[OT]
ReplyDeleteCharles has taken a five-point lead overnight. He's a surprise winner for me, because I rather fancied the guy who thought that clouds stayed up by anti-gravity, and the one who thought that Alaska and California were adjacent US states, but this total reversal of the relationship between fact and theory seems to have struck a chord.
The bit about it being someone else's job to find the facts to support Charles's theory didn't make it into the nomination, sadly.
[/OT]
I see Jim Swire has a letter in today's Herald about Feraday, the fact that he was discredited by the Lord Chief Justice in 1991, and suggesting that he was (like Goldsmith) heavily influenced by "consultations in the USA" regarding his work on the Lockerbie case.
Rolfe: May I draw your attention to Charles' comment on the thread "Well, Now We Know" of the 11th January 2010 which is a bit of nonsense concerning "remote viewing".
ReplyDeleteCharles' didn't get it was nonsense ande commented "why would the dear lady put the device in a music box and then strap it to her waist" - which completely misrepresents the content of the story.
I have tried to understand his "book" and tried patiently and politely to point out its flaws. I have also noticed how he routinely misrepresents my comments and his arguments always go off on a tangent. He regards Aku's comments on his theory as a "debate". He also insists that his theory is correct, although nobody else can see it, and resents people pointing out the fundamental flaws.
Recently Charles' made the unsolicited comment that had he been born later he may have been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome an ASD. He is still entitled to his opinion but you should bear this in mind in responding.
Will you get it into your thick head Rolfe, that I have a theory supported by facts I consider to be important.
ReplyDeleteYour views on baggage handling at Heathrow are only theories, and I have replied to each of Mr Aku's criticisms.
Fact is used to "test" a theory. It does not prove it right. A theory can by definition of what it is can only be proved wrong.
A fact may support a theory, but cannot prove it right, for another fact may come along and prove that the theory cannot be wrong.
Until you learn the basic of thinking in the philosophy of science, I can't help you, but it only goes to show even people with PhDs cannot think for toffee.
I shall quote from the Wikipedia on the h-d model:
"The hypothetico-deductive model or method, first so-named by William Whewell, is a proposed description of scientific method. It was popularised after Karl Popper's citation of the term. According to it, scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. A test that could and does run contrary to predictions of the hypothesis is taken as a falsification of the hypothesis. A test that could but does not run contrary to the hypothesis corroborates the theory. It is then proposed to compare the explanatory value of competing hypotheses by testing how stringently they are corroborated by their predictions."
Pleasr read and try to understand that rather bald statement of the process.
Mr. Aku has not yet produced evidence (and I'd need more than an entry in a blog) to disprove my theory, whatever you, as an expert of baggage, say Rolfe.
Now back to the weightlifting and macrame.
I really didn't get the story, and if it was meant to be a joke, why put it in what is meant to be a serious blog about the atrocity of Lockerbie.
ReplyDeleteI have spent a lot of time reading Baz's stuff, and given up as he comes to no clear conclusions. I have also spent several hours trying to repair his leaden prose, his grammatical solecisms ad trying to understand "International Relations Theory", which in my day I think we called rather more succinctly, "Realpolitik".
And who is Ian Spiro (if that's the name?)
MISSION LOCKERBIE,
ReplyDeleteMEBO announces its investigation proofs:
Luggage items loaded and transport on flight PA-103/A, from Frankfurt to Heathrow:
Total 136 pieces (guarantee on BKA Rapport ST 33-068507/88 of 2.July 1990) consisting of:
119 piece accompanied luggage items of passenger, according to passenger/baggage list C140V: (Zeist prod.199);.
17 pieces unaccompanied luggage items, according to load list PA-103/A, KIK computer printout, TADD 881221, police ref. DW 135). (via the baggage conveyancing system FRA);
(11 pieces on-line wrong coded as interline), 6 pieces inter-line; =
11 bags = Tray no: B-0622, B-1898, B-4941, B-8238, B-12244, B-11435, B-10852, B-6696, B-6559, B-6391, B-2377, from Berlin flights PA-637/PA-639/PA-107107; (Counter HM-4)
6 bags =Tray no: B-3148, B-4573 from LH-241 (ex Adolph Weinacker); Counter HM-2;
Tray no; B-5070, from flight AZ-421, (ex Susan Costa); Counter HM-3;
Tray no: B-7418, B-6001, B-4809, from Kuwait, with Lufthansa flight LH-631, all 3 bag items unaccompanied and the owner is unknown ! Counter HM-3;
Details
8 luggage items of passenger: 7 pieces inter-line + (1 piece on-line, wrong coded as interline) accompanied (via the conveyancing system FRA): =
Tray no: B-3546, B-10773, B-10467, from flight LH-1453, passenger no.99, K. Noonan; Counter V3-203, code S-0012+time
Tray no: B-5203, B-5936, from flight LH-1453, pasenger no.30, Patric M.Coyle; Counter V3-204; code S-0011+time
Tray no: B-5820, from passenger no.10, L. Bennett, Counter HM-3; code S-0074+time;
Tray no: B-8042, from passenger no.3, H. Aubrey, Counter HM-5, code S-0070;
Tray no: B-8849, from Berlin flight PA-643, passenger no.131, W. Wagenführ; Counter V3-206;code S-0009+time;
86 bags items of passenger registered on the KIK computer printout TADD 881221, have a code between: S-0500 to S-0600 + time (via checking counter airport Frankfurt, FRA).
25 bags items of passenger direct transfer, airplane to airplane, not via conveyancing system at Frankfurt, bags have no Tray numbers, PTM- telex from Berlin flight, PA-647 (21 bags); PTM- telex from Berlin flight, PA-649 (4 bags), (Prod. no,1089, Police Reference DW 25)
111 bags on the load list KIK TADD 881221 for flight PA-103/A consists of 86 bags , with code numbers between S-0500 to S-0600+ time, and 25 bags 13 piece inter-line, 12 piece on-line (wrong coded as interline) via the conveyancing system.
119 bags on the Pasenger/Baggage list V140V, consists of 86 bags of passenger with code numbers between S-0500 to S-0600+ time, and 25 bags of passenger from Berlin flights PA-647(21 bags) and PA-649 (4 bags) direct loading onto PA-103/A, without code or Tray number, registered only on PTM telex, (prod.1089) + 7 pieces of inter-line + (1 piece of on-line, wrong coded as interline) accompanied (via the conveyancing system FRA): >
continuation down >>>
continuation >>>
ReplyDelete136 bags Total: consists of baggage on load list KIK TADD 881221 for PA-103/A, 111 bags + 25 bags from Berlin flights PA-647 (21 bags) and PA-649 (4 Bags), without Tray and code number marked on 3 PTM telexe, prod 1089, Police Reference DW 125;
Important: for example: A luggage item from air Malta would have been inter-line.
Through the wrong statement, Gunther Kasteleiner, the court had accepted, the bag came from AirMalta, KM-180!
Thus witness Gunther Kasteleiner (sworn) traffic assistant FAG, is responsible for this fatal error, inter-line, instead of correctly on-line, solely the bag B-8849 could be assigned to AirMalta flight KM-180 !!!
It has been confirmed that the alleged bombbag no. B-8849 which had been coded over the counter V3-206 at 13.07 hour with code S-0009+Z1307, was forwarded on the moving floor (track in the main area HS33+Z1514) and singled out at 15.23 hour (code HS33+Z1514) to F1042/PA-103/A:
Tray: B 8849 F1042 S0009+Z1307--TO--HS33+Z1517--BO44+Z1523 V3
There was no inter-line bomb suitcase (B-8849) coming from Air Malta flight KM-180!
B-8849 was arriving on-line from Berlin /PA-643, W. Wagenführ and was not loaded from Airplane PA-643, direct to Airplane PA-103/B, but via the inter-line counter V3-206.
More information on our webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland
Sorry: correction of the feeders flight PA-103 from Frankfurt to Heathrow, was marked as PA-103/B (not A)
ReplyDeleteby ebol
Dear Mr Bollier,
ReplyDeleteThak you for that very detailed break-down. How does it fit in with Mr Taylor's (Mr Megrahi's QC) demonstration that no bag went through Frankfurt at the Zeist trial .
I don't remember Mr Kasteleiner's evidence very well.
There's always work for the Lockerbie theorist!
Recently Charles' made the unsolicited comment that had he been born later he may have been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome an ASD. He is still entitled to his opinion but you should bear this in mind in responding.
ReplyDeleteI saw that, indeed. I have some reservations about mocking the afflicted, but his complete lack of comprehension of things like the falsifiable hypothesis is too funny to resist.
There is no need for abuse Baz.
ReplyDeleteAmongst others who are thought to have has Asperger's are: Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, John Dalton, Henry Cavendish, Stanley Kubrick, George Orwell (Eric Blair), Paul Dirac, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Wolfagang Amadeus Mozart, Jonathhan Swift, Alan Turing, Carpentier Dirigiste, Michael Ventris and Nikola(s) Tesla. That is a a noble company and I was never diagnosed with it, neither were they; half the names will mean nothing to you Baz and purely bloody ignorance is not your only fault.
How about overweening arrogance, an ability to understand simple grammar and courtesy and an addiction to so-called international relations theory?. Your theories are hard to understand.
You will get as good as you give for as you fail to behave properly to others who blog, but the moment you show signs of re-engagement with the rest of us, I'll treat with you.
No more abuse, please.
There is no need for abuse Baz.
ReplyDeleteAmongst others who are thought to have has Asperger's are: Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, John Dalton, Henry Cavendish, Stanley Kubrick, George Orwell (Eric Blair), Paul Dirac, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Wolfagang Amadeus Mozart, Jonathhan Swift, Alan Turing, Carpentier Dirigiste, Michael Ventris and Nikola(s) Tesla. That is a a noble company and I was never diagnosed with it, neither were they; half the names will mean nothing to you Baz and purely bloody ignorance is not your only fault.
How about overweening arrogance, an ability to understand simple grammar and courtesy and an addiction to so-called international relations theory?. Your theories are hard to understand.
You will get as good as you give for as you fail to behave properly to others who blog, but the moment you show signs of re-engagement with the rest of us, I'll treat with you.
No more abuse, please.
Uh, what theories would those be?
ReplyDeleteYou're doing terribly well in the Stundies you know. Better than I had expected. Someone has even suggested renaming the award after you.
People who think they understand logical argument but don't, often tend to do very well.
I have little idea about what Rolfe talks about, and I don't even understand his reference to "what theories".
ReplyDelete"Stundies" seem to be some kind of rating connected with the "randi" website, which is rubbish, so don't bring your obsessions here.
We don't need them.
I have tried to explain Popperian hypothetico-deductive theory to you, but you make a pretence of not understanding, and won't even read the Wikipedia entry on it.
Pretending to be thick is even more stupid than being so.
Back to the macrame and weightlifting, Rolfe.
You've got an 8-point lead over your nearest rivals, Charles. That's very impressive! Especially from an unknown first-time-entrant with no 9/11 connections.
ReplyDeleteComplete failure to comprehend the basics of the scientific method while throwing around the august name of Popper is always good for a high vote though. I have to say I thought the guy with the "unbroken chain of hypothesising" (who also wanted his opponent to look for his evidence for him) might have trumped you, but you seem to have caught the public mood.
Why don't you go elsewhere Rolfe, unless you want to engage in reasoned argument.
ReplyDeleteI seem to have introduced you to the name of Popper, and I suspect Whewell, not by you to me.
A single provable fact could destroy may theory, and you are nowhere near it.
I have no idea what this public mood is that you are talking about.
Macramé and weightlifting are beckoning are they not.
For the umpteenth time, Charles, the onus is on you to research the facts to support your theory. Nobody else is going to do it for you. Nobody else cares.
ReplyDeleteWe're into February now. Are you going for two in a row?
Just get back to the macrame and weightlifting, Rolfe, if you cannot be polite and courteous towards people who disagree with you ill-thought out and eccentric views.
ReplyDeleteRemember that Mr Wyatt has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the IED was not in a suitcase, so where was it?
Your randi site may believe in magic, though they dress it up with another name, it's still magic.
It strikes me you are not wanted here, for all you ever do is sit on your backside, ranting at me.
Why don't you seek out your own site that can help you solve your intellectual, emotional and anger problems? They might also teach you to think critically.
Charles, I don't think Rolfe is angry. But it was a little mean to nominate you for a Stundie. Sometimes I suspect you're playing invesstigator but really just saying weird things and starting arguments... other times I wonder if we aren't just misreading you. I didn't make a big deal of that "facts" comment, other than 'boy, that sure sounded dumb.' It shouldn't really win the prize, but the apparent specific misunderstanding of scientific reasoning is exactly the opposite of what the JREF is about. So it's more them and their focus than you. (I voted for you only because it was Rolfe's nomination - several others were more genuinely silly).
ReplyDeleteAnd ultimately I just can't care very much. You have to fight your battles, as incoherent as they may seem to bystanders. And they do seem that way. The Asperger's type thing can lead to genius, imbalance, insanity, etc., depending how you handle it. Don't let people get you down - if your quest really is for real (on which my own undecided view will be unaffected by further public pronouncements to the affirmative) then you just need to acknowledge the criticism as educational (in whatever way it can be to you) and move on.
That's a decent effort to express fifteen half-formed thoughts that may be of use to you. Cheers.
Charles : I was not being abusive. By your own admission you have a serious cognitive disorder which is my experience of trying to have some reasoned debate with you.
ReplyDeleteYou have already made the mad claim that I was conspiring with the CIA to have you murdered. Such a claim is grossly defamatory and if you ever repeat it I will sue you.
ps. Mr Wyatt did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the IED was not in a suitcase. Again you are completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what he said.
ReplyDeleteps. Mr Wyatt did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the IED was not in a suitcase. Again you are completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what he said.
ReplyDelete==Will you stop misunderstanding me. Of course he did not, for he tried 20 such devices in a suitcase, and you can't derive a coclusion from something you did not test!
== What he concluded was that he could discover no remains of a suitcase from his 20 tests, and I conclude that that means that in each case the suitcase was destroyed by the explaosion.
== So I go to the next stage and say the RARDE says a bombed suitcase was recovered at Lockerbie recovered, so what was it?
== The best explanation is that it was a plant by someone - we'll call them the CIA for short, to give the impression the bomb had been in a suitcase.
== We then go on to have to work out that the CIA had to decide which container the actual device (in a suitcase or not) had been placed. We cannot determine from the evidence on the ground at Lockerbie that the device was in a suitcase or not for pace Wyatt the real bomb (suitcase or not) suitcase had been destroyed.
== I suggested that Mr McKee's suitcase, which had no bomb but had a radio transponder would allow the CIA to find it; they did, for they whisked it away - see Johnston; it had presumably fallen out of AVE4041 PA when that was blown up, but landed somewhere in the reasomable vicinity of it.
== OK. Next question?
Charles : I was not being abusive. By your own admission you have a serious cognitive disorder which is my experience of trying to have some reasoned debate with you
ReplyDelete== I do not have a serious cognitive disorder, and never said I did. I sid I might as a child have been diagnosed with Aspperger's (which is not very serious) (if such a disorder had been defined when I was a child, which it had not) is a spectrum disorder and not a black and white classification, and tends to endow the sufferer with extreme logicality at the expense of other traits. Extreme logicality is actually a help in studying Lockerbie, and it is very strange you could come to your very odd conclusion. So back off.
You have already made the made claim that I was conspiring with the CIA to have you murdered. Such a claim is grossly defamatory and if you ever repeat it I will sue you.
== No I have not.
== And the claim that one can sue somebody over a blog is ludicrous. Libel cases are extremely expensive to bring and you've got to have a reputation.
== You would have to get CIA men in the witness box to affirm that you had never worked for them, and I rather think they wouldn't bother.
== I actually spent quite a lot of money in writing my current piece to ensure that it wasn't libellous.
== Do jrealtively unior ex Hong Kong policemen conspire with the CIA. Mr Giaka made the claim he used to go out on jobs with Mr Senoussi and his evidence was laughed out of court by the Zeist bench. But, of course, he was only a garage mechanic.
Just come down of you high perch and we can settle down and get an agreed understanding on Lockerbie together.
== Mr Baz, just for the record you do not work for the CIA, have never worked or co=operated with thew CIA haven't conspired with them or ever mad (sic) the suggestion they you and they want to kill me. Geddit!
You did hint that pretty strong, if not an explicit statement. Don't make me dig it up.
ReplyDeletes - l - o - w d - o - w - n
ON Judicial Watch, they did once secure the Pentagon survillance footage from 9/11 to "to help put to rest conspiracy theories that a government drone or missile hit the Pentagon." They were accused of being "water carriers" for the Pentagon's "honey pot operation" where they tricked people into such beliefs only to prove them wrong. In that case, I was with JW, not that the crappy video helped much. People said it still showed a missile.
(roll eyes)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/180506moretapes.htm
They do seem to have stolen someone else's thunder, though. Another group had already secured the release of the footage.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/12/foia-wars.html
I am afraid that as usual I find Charles' comment largely unintelligible and this is not helped by the typos. Incidentally why, in misquoting me do you put the "sic" after the word "mad"? Baffling.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "Remember that Mr Wyatt has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the IED was not in a suitcase".
How is this "misunderstanding" you?
You now write "what he concluded was that he could discover no remains of a suitcase from his 20 tests, and I concluded that that means that in each case the suitcase was destroyed by the explosion".
He said no such thing and came to no such conclusion.
On the matter of libel (the offending text having now been withdrawn although I retain a copy) I disagree that the idea of suing over a blog is ludicrous. It is publishing. You accused me of conspracy to murder. I would also point out that as always you misunderstand the burden of proof - it would not be for me to call CIA officers as witnesses but you - if your defence is that the allegation is true. Of course you could always plead insanity.
May I conclude by quoting at length from your post of the 22.1.10 -
"What you've got to do is dream yourself into the dark suit of clothes and overcoat of an Iranian patriot into Mr Manly's boiler suit and into the very seat McKee is slumped in as he relaxes into it's first class depth, knowing that nothing has happened so far, and he'll soon be home.
Until you can actively think Yourself through all these roles and a dozen more, you can never develop understanding".
Perhaps there is something to this "remote viewing"!
Baz,
ReplyDelete"sic" means so a word that this is a quote and also that you don't know any Latin.
Because you comment is so silly.
Baz, in your opinion what were the conclusions Mr Wyatt came to?
I think what he said in Mr Marshall's piece on the Beeb was perfectly clear.
There was no libel of you, and it was in your imagination.
Insanity is not a defence to libel, and if you are accusing me of being insane, that is probably a libel, or defamation (there is a difference as you know) but I don't intend to do anything about what are increasingly obtuse and silly conclusions about what I write.
There is no point in bringing a case for libel against a man of straw. If you are familiar with Pugh v. Libya (US Federal Circuit, Eastern District courts) (which you ought to be, but have never probably bothered to read - I have all published 80 documents in it), you will recall that the plaintiffs brought that case against 6 Libyan defendants and the state of Libya, for only Libya had the money to pay up the huge sums demanded.
As usual I have left typos (means typographical errors all over this piece), which you ever assiduous self will reel back to me.
Don't bother to blog again, until you have some real information to impart.
You really aren't welcome here.
Charles, kindly stop telling people that they are not welcome to make comments on this blog. Who is or is not welcome is a matter for me -- not you -- to decide.
ReplyDeleteI apologise Robert,
ReplyDeleteBut both Baz and to some extent Rolfe, for entirely different issues, have taken a shine to what I say, and seem to think that derision, mocking and accusation is the best way to proceed. At all times, I have tried to behave courteously, towards people who seem on occasion wilfully to misunderstand what I am writing, and their abuse can get quite personal at times.
It is quite unnecessary, and I feel I can blog here as I have important contributions to make, on issues that have been singularly overlooked by the media, the Lockerbie blogocracy and the courts.
For example, I seem to be the only person who says that, if you read the AAIB report correctly, there was more than one explosion on the aircraft; it needs experience of the understanding of precise but uninformative civil service wording to get to this conclusion. It happens to be a field I have some experience in having read many civil service policy documents.
Once you are familiar with the way civil servants write, it becomes quite straightforward.
You can ask me to leave, but I am not sure that you have the power to prevent someone from blogging.
I believe I am very near a truth or a number of truths about Lockerbie, but I have decided rightly or wrongly, however much I admire this blog and almost all of its contributors that this is not the place to spell all of it out.
I would like the help of an established organ, and in the UK there are not many that come to mind who have sympathy to my views.
Baz has threatened me with a libel case (about something I never said), and Rolfe seems to have nominated me for an award from a site which is something to do with the paranormal. (I don't clearly understand what he is talking about).
He also has difficulty in understanding the nature of scientific inquiry, though he has told us he has a PhD, if I have understood him aright, so he should know what he is talking about.
I do not think my invitation will deter either Baz or Rolfe, and they will find some new non-issue on which to try to wind me up.
My thesis is very simple and obvious, and I will not trouble you by repeating it here.
With that I shall try to keep quiet and only blog on occasions I think are essential, and I think this is the first time I have suggested Baz and Rolfe go elsewhere so forcefully, though I have suggested that other sites may be more to their taste for drama.
But it is me who is being traduced.
Charles, I have not insulted you. I have criticised you, which is rather different. If you would like me to insult you, so you can tell the difference, I could do so, but I warn you, you may not care for the experience.
ReplyDeleteIf Professor Black asks me to stop posting here, I will stop. You have no say on the matter one way or another.
While I do not usually respond to "questions" posed so impolitely ("questioning is not the usual form of discourse amongst gentlemen"!)my understanding of Dr Wyatt's work was that he thought it extremely unlikely (he could not say impossible without conducting many more tests with the same result)) that the fragment of MST 13 circuit board (exhibit PT35B) could have survived the explosion.
ReplyDeleteI am wrong?
The case of Pugh v Libya ect. was not a case of libel and while your description of yourself as a "man a straw" may be apt I would only be seeking an apology, costs and a dopnation to charity. As long as you do not repeat the libel you will not be bothered.
I still don't understand what "sic" means. You wrote "sic means so a word that this a quote." What is wrong with inverted commas? Perhaps you thought when I wrote "your mad claim" I meant "you made claims". I didn't.
Anyway I look forward to some national journal printing charles' "theory").
Gentlemen, gentlemen, pray tell me why I find myself at one with that great American commentator Mr Twain when he mused: "Of all the things I have lost in my life, I miss my mind the most." Just a random thought.
ReplyDeleteQR
Indignation and temper are such marvelous sources of energy!
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately it can be hard to channel this kind of energy towards something actually worth doing.
I'm speaking from own bitter experience. Afterward I feel guilty, having spent so much unproductive time, in a world where so many people need my help.
Wise words from Quincy whatever they mean.
ReplyDeleteIn a comment on the thread "Crown Misinformation" Charles wrote (21.01.10).
"I am sure the CIA know who I am and can find me, but I have taken steps to protect myself."
While I believe that witnesses in this case have been murdered I thought the idea that Charles' claims posed some threat to the CIA bonkers and offered my opinion "he was pretty safe."
I later challenged one of Charles' many bizarre claims about Major McKee that he was "a CIA agent of good standing" (as I had earlier challenged a similar claim by Gareth Peirce.)
He replied "You don't actually believe what the CIA tells you do you Baz? Or are you working for them? Are you trying to extract the maximum information from me before sending the team in?"
Above (6.2.10) Charles denies making such a claim and (8.2.10) wrote "there was no libel of you and it was in your imagination" and "at all times I have tried to behave courteously" - "it is me who is being traduced".
How do you hold a rational discussion with somebody who (if you question their unfounded claims) accuses you of plotting with the CIA "before sending the team in"?
Er, you don't. The same way as you don't hold a rational discussion with someone who sketches out a fanciful theory and then insists it's the job of anyone who questions it to scare up the supporting evidence.
ReplyDeleteThe same way you don't hold a rational discussion with someone who claims to have been obsessing about this incident for 20 years, but who is self-evidently ignorant of many of the well-known facts about the case. And who then declares that looking at the facts is not the way to approach the subject.
There isn't a neat little "ignore" button that will hide everything Charles types, but you can try.