[A report just published on the STV News website reads as follows:]
Archivists from a university which lost 35 students in Lockerbie are visiting the town ahead of the 25th anniversary of the bombing.
The group from Syracuse University in America arrived in Scotland on Tuesday and have toured the memorials and crash site.
On Wednesday, they will start interviews with various people who were involved in the search and recovery and investigation.
Pan Am flight 103 was flying from London to New York when it was blown up as it passed over the Dumfries and Galloway town on December 21, 1988 killing 270.
The archives at the university already hold materials about 104 victims, 16 people involved in the aftermath, the investigation and the trial. With the anniversary coming up, they would like to collect more information about Lockerbie itself.
They would like to speak to anyone who has material or stories to share about the bombing, and particularly want to hear about any good that has come from the tragedy. Anyone who wants to speak to them can visit Lockerbie Academy until Saturday [14 September].
[Interviews with two members of the visiting group can be seen here on the ITV News (Border) website.]
Archivists from a university which lost 35 students in Lockerbie are visiting the town ahead of the 25th anniversary of the bombing.
The group from Syracuse University in America arrived in Scotland on Tuesday and have toured the memorials and crash site.
On Wednesday, they will start interviews with various people who were involved in the search and recovery and investigation.
Pan Am flight 103 was flying from London to New York when it was blown up as it passed over the Dumfries and Galloway town on December 21, 1988 killing 270.
The archives at the university already hold materials about 104 victims, 16 people involved in the aftermath, the investigation and the trial. With the anniversary coming up, they would like to collect more information about Lockerbie itself.
They would like to speak to anyone who has material or stories to share about the bombing, and particularly want to hear about any good that has come from the tragedy. Anyone who wants to speak to them can visit Lockerbie Academy until Saturday [14 September].
[Interviews with two members of the visiting group can be seen here on the ITV News (Border) website.]
"On Wednesday, they will start interviews with various people who were involved in the search and recovery and investigation.
ReplyDelete...
They would like to speak to anyone who has material or stories to share about the bombing..."
"Like"? "Anyone"? If the usual attitude from Syracuse is in effect, this only holds if we add "- provided, of course, that they do not want to discuss evidence that supports other views than that of the Zeist verdict".
Wednesday, that is now. A pity Bangkok is so far away. Wouldn't mind a fresh cold bicycletrip to Lockerbie.
Syracuse University Pan Am 103 Memorial Service - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WOU0hO3qoc
ReplyDeleteFine speech, the content of which hardly anyone could object to. It does not deal with controversial matters.
ReplyDelete- - -
I fell over this 56 min video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlf6-7QI488
where Richard Marquise walks through his process of collecting evidence. I am sure it will be known to many, but it wasn't to me.
He does make a convincing masterpiece of a presentation. A certainty in style, and a clarity that is rarely seen.
Needless to say, he does not touch the weak points at all. This is clearly not his job.
Nothing about the horrible statement history by Guaci.
@35:52 he says about Megrahi "We knew he'd been in Malta the date the clothes were purchased".
This is just not fair to say by any means, and it disappoints me.
Etc. Not his job.
- - -
@33:07
I hadn't until now picked up that CIA had two MEBO timers in their possession already, one picked up in Sep. 86 in Togo, and one from two "Libyan intelligence officers" in Dakar, Feb. 1988.
This means that CIA
- would not have had to require a timer from Lumpert, MEBO, to make a convincing copy
- that the PT-35 timer already was linked to Libya long before Lockerbie
@33:52
Marquise says "When he [Thurman] takes it [one of the timers they have already] apart Tom finds letters in the back of it, MEBO"
But that can't be the full story.
To recognize the PCB, the timer must have been taken apart _already_ at an earlier time. It is of course possible it was just opened, the "1" spotted, then recognized later, and next time the PCB board was taken out in full and the MEBO discovered only now. But it does appear sloppy.
I recall Marquise saying somewhere (here) that FBI knew nothing about MEBO before (and then giving a much later date, long after Dec. 88).
But it remains a fact that CIA/FBI had a timer in possession that had been investigated, with MEBOs name printed inside, and already knew that it was linked to Libya.
So IF somebody over there decided to produce false evidence against Libya, it could have been done any time since the Lockerbie disaster.
- - -
@34:25
Marquise says that MEBO delivers 20PT-35 timers to Libya in 85/86,
@34:55
In December '88 Libya calls MEBO to order 40 more timers.
@37:03
Bollier goes to Libya with 40 "Olympus" timers but they are rejected! "We have what we need!" he is told by the Libyans (all according to Marquise, of course).
This is all strange.
Note, that the "1" seen on the fragment is not a part of the electronic circuit.
Copying a pcb is not like making a xeroxing. It is elaborate work, with significant manual input.
If somebody else would make a copy of the MEBO timers (could explain the Sn-only technology and why Libya could have said 'we have what we need'), why spend time on copying such a conspicuous but useless detail, exactly at the right place? Usually, when copying technology you do what you can _not_ to reveal its origin.
If the timer _was_ made by MEBO, we are back to explaning the Sn-only thing.
It is odd that if Libya should keep one until 1988, then call MEBO and say they urgently needs 40
- - -
It is not possible to know what to trust and think. By far the easiest explanation is that CIA made a copy of one of those they had, and forgot that it should have been Sn/Pb. A very plausible mistake to make.
But Occam's razor sometimes shaves the wrong area.
The bit that looks like a 1 is part of the circuitry. It's the relay pad. More than that, the shape of the finer line under it is such that PT/35b must have been made (directly or indirectly) from the MEBO template.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, it would have been possible to copy an existing circuit board by photographing it, and this would have reproduced the tell-tale irregularity too. But if you were doing that just to get a working PCB, why apply solder resist only to the back? That's a strange thing to do, and pointless, but 10 of the boards supplied to Libya were indeed made like that.
The "copy" is bloody perfect, apart from the tinning. Solder resist on the "wrong" side, 9-ply fibreglass board, the lot. It looks like something deliberately produced to masquerade as a MEBO board, except that whoever made it just dipped it in liquid tin rather than going through the professional process.
But why make that mistake if the fragment is intended to be taken apart by forensic scientists? And as you said, why bother when they had access to genuine Thuring boards and could probably have used the real thing?
No, I can't explain any of this either. There's something we don't know or aren't getting here.
The fragment and blast damaged clothing were ‘exhibit’ evidence to be pointed at rather than forensically examined, which of course the defence failed to do.
ReplyDeleteEven if the metal content was correct, the fragment was still an obvious fake because it would not have survived the explosion and even if it did, not in the condition shown.
So why worry about the metal content being wrong when any forensic examination would reveal the rest of the fragment to be fake?
And why worry about an examination when there isn’t going to be one?
Dear Rolfe,
ReplyDeletethank you for this.
When saying that the "1" was not a part of the circuit, I meant that the _shape_ of it was not significant (unlike if a chip would have to be soldered there).
The pcb designer just makes an area big enough to be strong enough to hold soldering, or to be connected to with springs, clamps, whatever. The shape does not matter. Of course, one could construct examples where it did.
There are a number of ways to reproduce prints, but there is always much engineering work.
Prints copied from prints have no good reason to look 100% like the original.
Such an identity is simply not a natural result of any engineering done for reproducing a _functionality_.
We may buy a Volvo to figure out how they make their engines perform so well - but if we end up with our own engine being indistinguishable from the original, then it was intended all the way and would come at very significant costs.
As you write:
"It looks like something deliberately produced to masquerade as a MEBO board, except that whoever made it just dipped it in liquid tin rather than going through the professional process.
But why make that mistake if the fragment is intended to be taken apart by forensic scientists? And as you said, why bother when they had access to genuine Thuring boards and could probably have used the real thing?
"
History shows how well it did. It was a hair's width from never being discovered. It made it all the way through the trial. With a 'friendly' police force, maybe they didn't think it mattered so much?
BTW, I have with greatest interest read through the discussion here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153971&page=25
If you look at the high-resolution photos of PT/35b before it was cut up, and of the control board DP/347a, the morphology of the thin line of circuitry just where it angles down under the relay pad is strikingly similar in both items. If you then compare this to the MEBO template for the MST-13 boards, which seems to have been made with Letraset, the same feature appears.
ReplyDeleteMy information was that this meant that PT/35b must either had been made from that template, or as a daughter board from another one made from that template. Are you telling me the latter doesn't apply?
Or put more simply.
ReplyDeleteAn inflammable circuit board that could be ignited with a match would not survive the heat of an alleged 450+ semtex IED explosion.
But even if, for the sake of argument, it did survive, it could not have survived un-singed.
But if it was singed it would not have survived because the heat needed to singe it, would be enough to ignite it, leaving no remains.
Therefore the fragment is an obvious fake because it is un-singed and an un-singed bit of circuit board would not have survived the explosion.
Dear Rolfe,
ReplyDeleteat least we should demand an explanation why a production was done in such an unusual way.
It is plausible to think that, when copying an electronic product, it is easy and smart to "photo-copy" the pcb from the last product.
But in fact, basing the procedure on modifying the pcb is totally fundamental for easy and succesful copying the product.
Every time.
Why is that? I ran a small electronics business in the years 87-90, and while that would never qualify me as knowing more than just a bit, well:
1. Using an exact copy would force you to use matching components.
Does the factory have that? Components, display panels, switches, plugs, cases, buttons are different.
So without modifying the print you'd have to order small series (not good for the price) of components just to match your board.
Since you didn't use them already, you will not know if they are problematic (not good for reliability)
And wait for delivery (not good for the speed).
See how much space there is in the PT-35 timer. What would be there first - the cabinet or the pcb-design.
Stupid question! MEBO designed the PCB like they did because they had that case available.
Usually, it would be smart with the timer being as small as possible?
A good competitive factor?
All in all - what is more likely to be easiest, fastest and cheapest?
a. chosing the cabinet freely, and modify the pcb
b. getting the same cabinet, and keep the pcb
2. Are we talking multi-layer? Then you couldn't even get a photograph of the other layers.
So, reproducing one layer by photography and the others reverse-engineered, and re-drawn and -produced that way.
Time-saving? No way.
3. You are going to test the entire lot, right, before you go through the process of starting the production of boards?
Well, testing means putting up on the bench with gear. Here your photo-copy will do you no good.
You have to reverse-engineer it all anyway.
4. Not a single improvement to make? One more little thing for the competition?
Often just one more LED can make the buyer go your way.
5. When paying the company to make your pcb-copy, you will ask for the Gerber file (a file that defines the print)?
They'd like to keep it, to bind you to the company for the next time - but the problem is that their competitor that offers you this file will get the order.
OK, Gerber-files were not in widespread use in 88, so this argument falls out.
6. Because of (1-4, plus nowadays 5), nobody would even _think_ about photo-copying the original pcb.
It will just not be a part of the routine, even in a case where it could have been smart.
7. Well, maybe it is not so relevant for underground-timer equipment, but if you later want to claim towards a judge that "Sure, we developed this design ourselves", then having used a 100% copy of the very lanes and components will decide the case, and not in your favour.
(continued)
ReplyDeleteLots of companies advertises copies of pcbs.
But if you want the lanes to look like an exact copy of your original, be sure to tell them first.
Be prepared for a disappointing answer, and the question "Why one earth would you want to do that?"
There numerous copycats in electronics, maybe more than in any other business.
A simple reason is that electronics is quite easy to copy, with most components being a commodity or clone.
So let's try to google for "fake pcb copy", "fake pcb clone", "stolen pcb", "counterfeit pbc clone".
Let's find pictures of two identical pcbs from two different factories.
"Our original, their copy".
Maybe with tiny differences, that would allow the detection of the fake, like on banknotes?
I didn't find an example. Somebody else try, I admit I was biased toward whether I would or not.
Even finding one with very _different_ lanes was hard.
There is no reason to make a picture of that. Of course the lanes are different, it would demonstrate nothing.
But there are a couple!
Anyone who would like to see how a clone compared to an original of an electronic product would typically turn out should have a look here.
Note, this clone product is to be _sold_ as the original, so the exterior must be look exactly the same.
And the lanes?
http://www.nh-game.com/goods.php?id=403
Now, cut a corner of one of the clones and compare it to the original...
- - -
So, reproducing an electronic product, for the purpose of getting a new with same function - and photographically copying the lanes for that purpose?
Note, BTW, that this unusual, primitive copying-lowest-pcb-layer was done by a company that mastered the more advanced Sn-only production method.
"Unthinkable" is the only word that comes to my mind, but maybe somebody has a completely natural explanation.
And maybe even just one example of this happening?
Until this is given, I'll stay in the belief, that _either_ the two pcbs (of which the fragment is from one of them) came from the same factory, same series (again raising the Sn-only matter)
- _or_ somebody went out of their way to give it that impression.
I am out of ideas of why somebody would do that.
Someone claiming to be selling genuine MEBO timers, to suspicious buyers that might open the timer, and might have an original circuitboard to compare with?
The faked-evidence theory is a lot easier to swallow.
And
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the photo of the fragment, let alone a closer forensic look, the '1' is clearly shown.
It was necessary for the purposes of identification to keep it clearly shown.
But in doing so it becomes a fake, because the fragment would not have survived the explosion in such an unblemished condition.
"...because the fragment would not have survived the explosion in such an unblemished condition."
ReplyDeleteI recall reading somewhere that fragments like that _could_ be found after tests.
Though my gut feelings agree with you, it is just very hard to know what could happen in the center of an explosion.
But yes, how lucky it is, that the only found piece of the fragment is one which would allow plausible visual identification. But as they say "Luck happens".
Saying "plausible", it is still a bit weird how that would have worked.
Thurman must then have opened the timer, taken out the board - but the only identifiable text "MEBO" was of no interest, on a device grabbed from two Libyans with explosives, in an airport? Not making it into any system?
OK, but conspiracy-settled minds have one more thing to frown at.
The faked-evidence theory is a lot easier to swallow.
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to agree with you, for most of the reasons you state. However, one of the problems is that many of the people who have to be convinced will clutch at any far-fetched explanation rather than agree that something has been faked, so you have to take it one step at a time.
As regards making a functional copy, just to be functional, I think your point about the case is a very good one which I hadn't actually considered. I was thinking of either some other organisation which had got hold of one of the originals deciding to run off a small number of cobbled-together copies for their own use, or even that the Libyan military, realising they were running out and Bollier being able to supply more, had done that. And that they'd used a liquid tin solution because it was easier.
However, arguments against that are that the copy is simply too damn good. It uses 9-ply fibreglass, not the commonest product. The back has a green solder resist coating, for no particularly good reason - but the originals had such a coating. Why bother to get all that right if you're simply knocking up a few more?
It looks like a deliberate exercise to make a fake PCB, but where the maker decided just to use liquid tin rather than go to the trouble of getting it professionally done with alloy.
I can't explain why anyone making such a fake wouldn't go the whole hog and get it all right. I also don't know why the CIA, for example, would have needed to make a fake at all, because there were real ones they could have used.
There's something here we're not "getting", and I don't know what it is.
"...people who have to be convinced will clutch at any far-fetched explanation rather than agree that something has been faked..."
ReplyDeleteSuch explanations will always be there. But even if not, many people are simply not interested in evidence.
"It looks like a deliberate exercise to make a fake PCB, but where the maker decided just to use liquid tin rather than go to the trouble of getting it professionally done with alloy."
That is a plausible mistake to make.
"...there were real ones they could have used."
OK, but taking a timer out of your stock, where it would be minus one is also not great. Could there be internal issues? Registrations of items, accessing them etc. Maybe that would pose some kind of problem.
Not overly convincing, especially if you regard CIA as being a professional lie factory.
Yes, there is something which we are not getting.
- - -
That damned timer fragment!
One day soon I will have a go on this suitcase-thing of yours, which I haven't studied close enough yet.
OK, but taking a timer out of your stock, where it would be minus one is also not great. Could there be internal issues? Registrations of items, accessing them etc. Maybe that would pose some kind of problem.
ReplyDeleteYes, it occurred to me that might be a possible explanation. They only had two in their possession, but Bollier had several more circuit boards left over from the original order, which he later handed over to the police for comparison purposes. Maybe it was again seen as too risky to get one of Bollier's stock back in 1989, and use it for that purpose. (Hehe, we'd have Ebola on here telling us all about it if they had!)
Deliberate fabrication to use as a pretend-timer in the evidence chain is the likeliest explanation, for sure. Unfortunately it relies on quite a complex explanation (vide supra) which may not be followed by the plodding ones, and it certainly doesn't amount to beyond reasonable doubt.
One day soon I will have a go on this suitcase-thing of yours, which I haven't studied close enough yet.
I can sell you a book about it....
> I can sell you a book about it....
ReplyDeleteBut not yet?! As least not on Troubadour. Looking forward to that.
I haven't even seen any proofs yet. Patience, grasshopper....
ReplyDeleteIn the mean time, John's book comes out in a fortnight.