Tuesday, 5 October 2010

Of grasshoppers and skyscrapers

This is the heading over a thoughtful essay posted today by Caustic Logic on his blog The Lockerbie Divide. The essay is subtitled "Some thoughts on truth, belief, and stakes" and poses the question why the official explanation of Lockerbie is still so readily accepted (by relatives and by the mainstream media, among others) notwithstanding the exposure of the problems with that version (on The Lockerbie Divide, The Lockerbie Case, the Lockerbie thread of the JREF forum and elsewhere).


  1. This is the part I find really bizarre. The very same journalists who were going on and on about the "Golfer" and the iniquitous refusal to disclose the PIIC document, and the money paid to Gauci, and even that the original verdict was inexplicable, now seem content to go on and on about "the Lockerbie Bomber" and what an embarrassment for the SNP it is that he isn't dead yet.

  2. Thanks, Prof and Rolfe. It came out too long and a little stilted, had a hard time establishing the central thread, dumb title that doesn't sum up the whole thing, but it gets the ideas across.

    Rolfe: same exact journalists, or jus same general pool?

    Am I Godwinned for citing Hitler?