tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post3988776789165558081..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: The real case for the Heathrow introductionRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-8113992396095167532014-01-04T17:27:53.149+00:002014-01-04T17:27:53.149+00:00Dave, I'm not your personal tutor.Dave, I'm not your personal tutor.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-14021264438366742522014-01-04T16:57:15.627+00:002014-01-04T16:57:15.627+00:00And if not the AAIB inspectors, then who are the &...And if not the AAIB inspectors, then who are the 'explosive boffins' you are referring to?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-45614756023546549322014-01-04T11:21:48.482+00:002014-01-04T11:21:48.482+00:00Well, thanks for that SM. However people like Dav...Well, thanks for that SM. However people like Dave do worry me a little - and he is only the latest incarnation.<br /><br />When nonsensical and frankly false comments are left on blogs like this, people read them just like any other. And if they're not countered, a proportion of the readers tend to think "ooh that chap knows something interesting!"<br /><br />Human nature is attracted to conspiracy theories, and many people prefer them to the more mundane explanation. And before you know where you are, another stream of nonsense is coursing across the internet. I think Dave may have been a victim of much the same thing in his time, when he read John Barry Smith's ill-considered analysis and became enamoured of it. And you know, Lockerbie is convoluted enough without adding to the barnacle accretion of false theories that encrusts it.<br /><br />So I try to address his nonsense rather than let it lie unchallenged.<br /><br />I'm still waiting to find definite evidence of the big conspiracy behind Lockerbie. I live in hope, because the whole thing simply reeks of double-dealing, but so far, every time I have been able to drill right down into a very suspicious-looking aspect of the case, what has been found lurking at rock-bottom is galactic-class incompetence.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-33240007955558641522014-01-04T00:02:37.698+00:002014-01-04T00:02:37.698+00:00Dear Rolfe
you wrote:
> Who cares, frankly.
...Dear Rolfe<br /><br />you wrote:<br />> Who cares, frankly. <br /><br />Only one person, I think.<br /><br />This comes from not having better arguments.<br /><br />But pointing out the '500g' vs. 'about half a kilo' takes the cake.<br /><br />Objection!<br />As one of the world's foremost experts on the Lockerbie evidence, PLEASE don't waste your valuable time on repeating answers on this level.<br />SMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13272238187226269250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-39361459102554601572014-01-03T20:03:29.966+00:002014-01-03T20:03:29.966+00:00Not the AAIB inspectors, obviously.
Now, are you ...Not the AAIB inspectors, obviously.<br /><br />Now, are you going to address the humungous piles of evidence of that IED in that suitcase in that baggage container?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-79230948997389448152014-01-03T18:22:31.770+00:002014-01-03T18:22:31.770+00:00You said the AAIB inspectors were not explosive ex...You said the AAIB inspectors were not explosive experts, so who are the ‘explosive boffins’ you’re referring to?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-17955322583427547532014-01-03T11:09:05.413+00:002014-01-03T11:09:05.413+00:00Semtex comes in 500 g blocks. The estimates of th...Semtex comes in 500 g blocks. The estimates of the explosives boffins were there or thereabouts, but mainly on the low side of that figure.<br /><br />Maybe the bombers shaved a bit off a standard block to get it into the radio. Who cares, frankly. So, "500 g <i>or less</i>".Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-29020178481038934622014-01-03T08:43:16.662+00:002014-01-03T08:43:16.662+00:00"That is the first time you have used the fig..."That is the first time you have used the figure 500g."<br /><br />Well spotted, Dave! Earlier it has been something like "nearly half a kilo" or "about a pound".<br /><br />I <i>knew</i> there was something fishy about this bomb-theory!<br />SMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13272238187226269250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-34612951209148761202014-01-02T21:33:53.095+00:002014-01-02T21:33:53.095+00:00Look at the evidence, Dave. Break the habit of a ...Look at the evidence, Dave. Break the habit of a lifetime.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-63081021448303578952014-01-02T16:06:45.763+00:002014-01-02T16:06:45.763+00:00That is the first time you have used the figure 50...That is the first time you have used the figure 500g.<br /><br />And can you confirm you said the AAIB inspectors were not explosive experts?Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-70819394440589769622014-01-02T10:46:42.538+00:002014-01-02T10:46:42.538+00:00Dave is insistent that nothing can possibly happen...Dave is insistent that nothing can possibly happen unless he thinks it makes sense. News flash. People often do things that don't make sense to Dave.<br /><br />The physical evidence of a relatively small (500 g or less) Semtex IED having exploded inside a suitcase in the bottom front left-hand corner of baggage container AVE4041 is overwhelming and incontrovertible. There is no possible way this could have been misinterpreted or faked short of supernatural intervention.<br /><br />Dave doesn't want to look at any of this evidence. He's reduced to whining "but I wouldn't have done it that way so that can't be what happened."<br /><br />It is what happened.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-33577023458124485382014-01-01T22:22:44.591+00:002014-01-01T22:22:44.591+00:00They didn't invent it. They convinced themsel...They didn't invent it. They convinced themselves that was what had happened.<br /><br />All because everyone was saying the bomb was in the suitcase on the second level, when it was obviously on floor level if you just look at ALL the evidence.<br /><br />Dave of course doesn't look at ANY of the evidence. He just makes things up in his own little head.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-65841931664625928102014-01-01T21:47:41.902+00:002014-01-01T21:47:41.902+00:00Dave,
If you're not willing to answer my (fair...Dave,<br />If you're not willing to answer my (fairly obvious) question, I don't feel under any compulsion to answer yours.<br /><br />The thing is, I could think up half a dozen rational answers to your questions. I can't think of a rational answer to mine.J MacKinnonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131217449396703281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-30491748949196361112014-01-01T19:46:53.497+00:002014-01-01T19:46:53.497+00:00John Mackinnon
“Why would they invent a plot with...John Mackinnon<br /><br />“Why would they invent a plot with an IED too small to destroy the plane”?<br /><br />Because they needed an IED of a particular size to fit the official plot!<br /><br />This ‘plot’ involved an unaccompanied ‘bomb case’ being loaded at Luqa for transit to New York via Frankfurt and Heathrow!<br /><br />Thus the ‘plot’ required an IED of a particular size to be hidden within the ‘bomb case’ to pass through custom checks.<br /><br />It also had to be loaded in the exactly right place at Heathrow so that it would be effective in destroying an American plane when it detonated at the right time!<br /><br />Now you may think this an improbable plot, but using a small hidden IED makes sense, as opposed to using a larger one that would be immediately found if the case was opened!<br /><br />Whereas if the plot was to by-pass customs and load the ‘bomb case’ at Heathrow it would make sense to use a larger ‘bomb’!<br /><br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-46575626478137273362014-01-01T18:50:03.471+00:002014-01-01T18:50:03.471+00:00Dear Dave,
Go back, read the script and listen to...Dear Dave,<br /><br />Go back, read the script and listen to the score.<br /><br />Pip, pip.Quincey Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09196728122070096913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-62567405490167086692014-01-01T17:21:25.340+00:002014-01-01T17:21:25.340+00:00John Mackinnon
Why would the State invent a plot ...John Mackinnon<br /><br />Why would the State invent a plot that involved a ‘bomb case’ being loaded at Luqa, when there is no evidence that this happened?<br /><br />And why would they hold a show trial whose verdict was debunked on the day it was delivered by the judges themselves?<br /><br />The fact is US/UK governments never wanted to hold the show trial and it shows because their ‘official plot’ has desperation written all over it.<br /> <br />It was held because they pursued a bogus criminal investigation to avoid holding a public enquiry and as a result was hoist by their own petard due to international pressure to conclude the investigation.<br /><br />But lies begat lies and the show trial brings the State into further disrepute, which is why they stonewall all questions to avoid telling more lies – or the truth.<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-76027348080505038822014-01-01T15:13:20.940+00:002014-01-01T15:13:20.940+00:00I would have to disagree with you Rolfe.
The me...I would have to disagree with you Rolfe. <br /><br />The media knew about the six SCCRC grounds to start with and they know the level of new evidence in the public domain to question the Megrahi conviction even since the SCCRC ruled on this case. <br /><br />Why then was the media not interested in homing in on the conviction? Come on now. Look at Linklater. He absolutely has blinkers on. The media clearly wasn't interested, they still aren't. They don't care about Megrahi. He is still the "Lockerbie Bomber" to them. And for reasons still to be explained, they want to keep it that way. The same media that went after MPs in the expenses scandal don't want to go after the truth about the worst atrocity to occur in the UK since WW2 when there is so much evidence to show we convicted the wrong guy? That is an astonishing position for the media to adopt on this issue. <br /><br /> Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-21538013704642720032014-01-01T15:09:08.854+00:002014-01-01T15:09:08.854+00:00Get back to me when you've looked at the evide...Get back to me when you've looked at the evidence, Dave. There are photos of it publicly available.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-41862716678681147662014-01-01T14:42:56.225+00:002014-01-01T14:42:56.225+00:00OK, Dave, if the IED is the invention of the offic...OK, Dave, if the IED is the invention of the official line, why on earth did they invent one that was "too small to destroy the plane"?J MacKinnonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131217449396703281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-82257469484919174822014-01-01T10:06:56.233+00:002014-01-01T10:06:56.233+00:00Except the official explanation is glaringly wrong...Except the official explanation is glaringly wrong about Megrahi and this must cast doubt on the entire official explanation.<br /><br />And affirming the official line by speculating about where the ‘bomb case’ was situated is pitiful really, considering the ‘IED’ was too small to destroy the plane!<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-72477072501424844362013-12-31T15:16:53.686+00:002013-12-31T15:16:53.686+00:00The "what" is unarguable. The evidence ...The "what" is unarguable. The evidence of the IED in the suitcase in the baggage container is beyond dispute. Only those who are so blind they will not see and so deaf they will not hear could possibly imagine otherwise.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-58901355657189067632013-12-31T14:00:54.582+00:002013-12-31T14:00:54.582+00:00I don't think they were deliberately asking th...I don't think they were deliberately asking the wrong questions. The whole mindset at present seems to be, well if Megrahi didn't do it, who did?<br /><br />It's a reasonable question, but it's putting the cart before the horse. This is new information, proving Megrahi's innocence and (perhaps more importantly) proving the utter incompetence of the original investigation. To skip gaily past the entire thing with no examination at all and rush directly into "who did it then?" is simply lazy journalism. Or unfocussed journalism.<br /><br />I have seen innumerable TV documentaries about the Lockerbie evidence. We've had in-depth examination of the radio manual, the clothes in the bomb suitcase, Megrahi's assorted passport photos, Tony Gauci's new lifestyle, and of course the "timer fragment". Always and incessantly the timer fragment.<br /><br />Frustratingly, much of the celluloid and videotape expended on the timer fragment has been wasted in irrelevancies. Was it substituted during the inquiry, with its shape changing? No, a slice was cut off the top for analysis, and this was fully documented. Was it taken to the USA without authorisation? Probably not, because it was always in the custody of a Scottish police officer wherever it went. The really interesting part, the metallurgy results, seems to have been revealed too late to catch the wave of interest that carried these irrelevancies on to our screens.<br /><br />The suitcase jigsaw is just as important as the metallurgical discrepancies uncovered in relation to the timer fragment - more so, in my opinion, because it proves the Crown case wrong more immediately and directly. It's just as visual as the timer fragment - more so, arguably, because the visual impact of the three suitcase parts I mentioned is very striking. Indeed, a good video animation of the argument, showing where the critical damaged pieces were positioned in the container in relation to the bomb suitcase would get the whole thing over far more quickly and convincingly than any verbal narrative.<br /><br />There is an absolutely dynamite short documentary right there, begging to be made. It would explain exactly how we know Megrahi was innocent, and it would explain in vivid, graphic terms what a complete mess the original forensics investigators made of the case.<br /><br />I don't think the journalists are deliberately trying to hush this up to protect the establishment. I think they have their current narrative, and can't think outside that box. The box is labelled "if Megrahi didn't do it, who did?"<br /><br />I need to try harder to change their agenda. It will take time.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-66963809161578117662013-12-31T13:31:30.098+00:002013-12-31T13:31:30.098+00:00They will only ask, ‘if not Megrahi, then who’?
T...They will only ask, ‘if not Megrahi, then who’?<br /><br />They could ask, ‘if not Megrahi, then what’? A good question, because if the State can get the Who wrong, then why not the What!<br /><br />And I was informed the defence team at Zeist were only allowed to offer a defence of ‘someone else’, rather than ‘something else’. Perhaps a reason why they didn’t challenge the forensics!<br /><br />Now why would that be?<br /><br />Well, because a ‘Who rather than What’ is the excuse for the bogus criminal investigation, as opposed to holding a public enquiry.<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-3238764065515674222013-12-31T10:56:49.779+00:002013-12-31T10:56:49.779+00:00I can understand Dr Kerr's frustration and I t...I can understand Dr Kerr's frustration and I think she has acquitted herself well in the interview situations when those posing the questions were, deliberately in my own view, asking the wrong questions. <br /><br />This has been the case throughout the many years since the Megrahi conviction up to and including the release of the "Lockerbie Bomber" with a frenzied media choosing to focus only on that unsound conviction and nothing else. Even the existence of the six grounds raised by the SCCRC was set aside as soon as Megrahi was persuaded to drop the appeal. It is as if no doubts were ever expressed by the SCCRC. And that's how the political and judicial establishments want it to stay. <br /><br />The big question is why the media continues to ask people like Dr Kerr the wrong questions. It would appear, sadly, that the media wants the conviction to stay around too. And that should shock us all. Especially when the likes of Linklater, in his own words, an experienced journalist over a period of decades and a man decorated for his "services to journalism", lead the attacks (there is no other word for it) on those who want to see this case fully investigated again in the interests of justice and justice alone.<br /><br />I congratulate Dr Kerr on the way in which she is handling those she is now confronting regularly on the issues of Lockerbie and the Megrahi conviction. <br /> <br /><br /> Jo Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08536467440869239587noreply@blogger.com