tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post5413986764080915037..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: Lockerbie: the alternate theoriesRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-75460558963994744492015-10-08T15:19:16.288+01:002015-10-08T15:19:16.288+01:00Frank Duggan is certainly into ad hominem. His co...Frank Duggan is certainly into <i>ad hominem</i>. His comment on the PBS article consisted of a complaint that Hans Köchler's report on the trial wasn't "official" as he wasn't required to produce one as a UN observer, and none of the other UN observers did.<br /><br />As usual, no attempt at all to address the content of the report, simply try to discredit the author. He invariably plays the man rather than the ball, on any pretext he can dream up.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16206952819245786811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-51728546880367064882015-10-08T14:02:13.653+01:002015-10-08T14:02:13.653+01:00Ha! Trust a man like Duncan to use 'self-publi...Ha! Trust a man like Duncan to use 'self-published' as an argument against the quality of a piece of work.<br /><br />Is it the idea, that if an established publishing company think it will appeal to a sufficient percentage of readers out there, then it must have some quality beyond that too? In that case I should rather have bought '50 Shades of Grey' which must be in the order of a million times better value for money than 'Adequately explained...'<br /><br />At the very best you can say that if a piece of work is filled with nonsense and factual errors, then the publishers review process might catch it, as selling it would backfire on the company.<br /><br />But as far as I know nobody has yet pointed out any weak argumentation in 'Adequately explained...'. <br /><br />For the verdicts of Megrahi. however, it might have been good that nobody had to let it go through a publisher.<br />"Sorry, guys, thank you, it is, eh, a nice piece of work, but it is a bit long-winded on a thin background, and our reviewers say that the conclusions are very poorly supported..."SMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13272238187226269250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-28665478708660431452015-10-07T22:08:40.098+01:002015-10-07T22:08:40.098+01:00We progress. I'm now drafting a 400-word vers...We progress. I'm now drafting a 400-word version. If that goes through, then stand by for ad hominem abuse from Frank Duggan. (Last time we met in a BTL comments section, he derided the very idea that he might read my "self-published" book. I didn't bother to point out to him that Richard Marquise's execrable offering <i>Scotbom</i> was also self-published.)<br /><br />I can understand the derision sometimes heaped on fiction authors who go down the self-publishing route, though that's becoming less and less justifiable by the year. It remains the case that a good fiction book should be able to find a publisher if the author is persistent enough. (Though <i>Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone</i> was rejected by almost every publisher in the business before being accepted by Bloomsbury, and I wonder what scorn would have been heaped on it if Rowling had given up and decided to self-publish before getting to Bloomsbury!)<br /><br />Non-fiction is a different matter. Many non-fiction books are nîche products that are never going to sell millions. I don't believe John Ashton's books, published by Birlinn, have sold more than a few thousand. My particular reason for going down the self-publishing route was speed, as it became increasingly obvious in mid-2013 that neither of the publishers who had expressed an interest had the slightest intention of getting the finger out and publishing the book to catch the December 25th anniversary of the bombing. This became a particularly acute concern when one publisher indicated the necessity for having a lawyer go over it line by line to check for possible defamation. (Professor Black had already looked at it in that light and was confident that there was nothing in it that anyone <i>would</i> sue over, but that's not the same as a legal opinion that nothing in it could conceivably be grounds for a defamation suit!)<br /><br />It dawned on me pretty forcefully that no publisher was going to get the thing out in time, but not only that, it was possible I'd be forced to water it down quite substantially to get it past any publisher's lawyer. I went to Troubador, and they provided an excellent service. Defamation was covered by my signing an undertaking to take sole responsibility for the content in that respect, something I was entirely prepared to do.<br /><br />But, you know, it's <i>self-published</i>. So it's obviously rubbish and can be ignored. Just like <i>A Detective's Tale</i> and <i>Scotbom</i>, presumably.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-49442572710487283362015-10-07T21:02:27.761+01:002015-10-07T21:02:27.761+01:00I've had an email from Frontline, saying that ...I've had an email from Frontline, saying that they have "corrected" the article. The passage (above) which originally read <br /><br /><i>.... writing in a recent opinion piece that a researcher “has effectively proved that the bomb originated from Heathrow.” This theory hangs on evidence of a security breach at Heathrow Airport in London — where Pan Am Flight 103 originated — 18 hours prior to the attack. However, an appeals panel rejected this argument as grounds for a retrial.</i><br /><br />now reads<br /><br /><i>.... pointing to research conducted since the trial that he writes, “effectively proved that the bomb originated from Heathrow,” where Flight 103 departed from.</i><br /><br />A link to my book is now included, which is a positive, but the sentence is now pretty short and a bit mangled, and I doubt if anyone will actually take it on board.<br /><br />It seems they are not going to allow my comment which actually explains the reasoning behind this conclusion to see the light of day.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-18118685022001321082015-10-07T20:54:42.943+01:002015-10-07T20:54:42.943+01:00Well, let's not fight about it. My argument i...Well, let's not fight about it. My argument is not with the journalist particularly, but with the Frontline investigative team. While you might excuse a journalist for omitting to read every source in detail, this excuse cannot be made for an investigative team that has been examining the case for over three years.<br /><br />Yes, there is a problem, in that journalists in general are not picking up on what I have written. Excellent reviews were published by Private Eye and by the Irish edition of Big Issue, but there it stops. I had a short exposition published in iScot, the January 2015 issue, but again no follow-up interest seemed to be generated. Perhaps it's simply Lockerbie ennui. (I have a different explanation, myself.)<br /><br />Nevertheless Ken Dornstein knows I exist. We had dinner together with Robert Forrester in late 2012, when I tried to explain my thesis to him as it was then formulated - unfortunately this happened before I had sight of the crucial baggage photographs in February 2013. He simply evaded the points I was making, instead asking me if I would change my mind if conclusive proof of Megrahi's involvement was discovered. (My answer was that I'd have to see the proof and judge it for myself.)<br /><br />Forgive my irritation, but in almost two years not one single person who has read my thesis has come to me and said, I disagree with you because of [some rational argument]. Instead I am ignored, abused as a "conspiracy theorist" and so not worth reading, and misrepresented. Ken Dornstein and/or some other member of the Frontline investigative team has to have read the book. To fail to do so would be an unthinkable oversight given the subject they were investigating. It seems they have taken the "ignore" approach.<br /><br />Well, I'm getting tired of it. If there is a flaw in my analysis or my reasoning, explain it to me, debate it with me, and try to point out my error. But if you can't find one, you can't go blindly on behaving as if nothing has changed and the bomb can be assumed to have been introduced on Malta.<br /><br />Yes, the article has been changed. It looks as if Frontline don't want a succinct explanation of my analysis (750 words) on their web site.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-64813362422152857412015-10-07T20:39:35.544+01:002015-10-07T20:39:35.544+01:00I really, really hope that your comment(s) gets th...I really, really hope that your comment(s) gets there.<br />Anything else would be 'adequately unexplainable...' :-(<br />SMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13272238187226269250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-43249572719835053872015-10-07T19:41:18.366+01:002015-10-07T19:41:18.366+01:00"What it says to me is that the Frontline tea..."What it says to me is that the Frontline team ignored or sidelined or entirely failed to appreciate the nature of the Heathrow evidence."<br /><br />Have you ever considered that it is not that simple to pick up? <br /><br />I don't have your book right here, but I remember the conclusion 'The Bedford suitcase was the bomb, beyond reasonable doubt'. Maybe on page 100 or so?<br />Show me the journalist who has time for that, and I will show you a very slim one with a virtually non-existing reader-base. <br /><br />Have you ever considered publishing a half-page bullet-pointed synopsis? <br />A "press-kit"? <br /><br />Duncan, Linklater. They are a sorry bunch, put in their position to be be deaf, dumb and blind, for a reason. Nothing you could write would have any effect, ever. <br /><br />But for the rest, offering whatever time they have and trying, it can never be too easy. <br /><br />"She made that bit up, apparently in order to dismiss the point. This is both lazy and incompetent in my book. It also speaks to a desire to dismiss concrete evidence indicating Megrahi's innocence."<br /><br />Oh, come on! In this matter we are like people being invited to a Rijsttafel, me thinking it was a terrific dinner, you, being a connaisseur of 'sambal kacang', peanut sauce, one of at least twenty-five elements, are furious because it wasn't right, and accuse the chef for deliberate trying to sabotage our evening.<br /><br />Too appease you the chef just came running with a statement about the failed peanut sauce: the paragraph has been corrected and a note has been added. While it will not make you enjoy the dinner it might shake your thoughts that the sauce was deliberately spoiled.<br /><br /><i>Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that the theory that the suitcase bomb believed to have taken down Flight 103 originated from London was based on evidence of a security breach at Heathrow Airport. However, this theory has been argued independent of the suspected breach.</i><br /><br />- - -<br /><br /><i>Please</i> write the bulleted synopsis, and let's make sure it is easily findable, also for people visiting this page. There are times where even I - or especially I? - could use it.<br /><br />And <i>please</i> let's be kind to our growing number of professional friends, despite the shortcomings that they, compared to the world's foremost experts in Lockerbie matters (you and Robert), are bound to have.<br /><br />"Adequately explained by the conditions under which people work."SMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13272238187226269250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-59694996961039540542015-10-07T19:32:31.179+01:002015-10-07T19:32:31.179+01:00Interesting. Frontline have approved a comment ma...Interesting. Frontline have approved a comment made before mine, and now a much more recent one by Frank Duggan no less, but no sign of mine. I wonder why?<br /><br />I've posted a one-word comment, merely to correct a bad spelling mistake in Frank Duggan's comment, so we'll see if that passes muster.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-42407410349132336602015-10-07T16:39:42.431+01:002015-10-07T16:39:42.431+01:00The article is on the web site of PBS, as an accom...The article is on the web site of PBS, as an accompaniment to the Frontline documentaries. I would expect that an article published in that context would be informed by the research carried out to support the thesis presented in these programmes. What's the point, otherwise?<br /><br />What it says to me is that the Frontline team ignored or sidelined or entirely failed to appreciate the nature of the Heathrow evidence. This isn't just A. N. Other journo publishing in the general press, this has the PBS imprint on it, and hence the Frontline imprint.<br /><br />If you're right and it's merely another hurried journalistic cobbling-together from a few easily-accessed sources, then the author should not invent facts not in evidence. The source of the sentence about the Heathrow origin being "essentially proved" was John Ashton's article from last Sunday. That article said nothing at all about this proof being simply that there had been a break-in the previous night. She made that bit up, apparently in order to dismiss the point. This is both lazy and incompetent in my book. It also speaks to a desire to dismiss concrete evidence indicating Megrahi's innocence.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-62750626845835961642015-10-07T14:42:47.013+01:002015-10-07T14:42:47.013+01:00Dear Rolfe
Wow! Should we send a warning to other...Dear Rolfe<br /><br />Wow! Should we send a warning to other journalists who'd write something spreading the words of Megrahi's insanely unjust conviction, that if they don't get it 100% right we us the word 'lazy' here?<br /><br />Have I misunderstood something? Did Ms. Worth have had considerable time to to study the subject, e.g. financed by an employer?<br /><br />I thought she was a freelance journalist that needs to pick up and produce in a matter of days or, rarely, weeks (and with concurrent doings). <br />Being able to do that is a condition for getting read in the first place. Only by productivity you can create a name and a position for yourself. So there must be, and will be, an inverse relationship between time spent on details, and the number of people who read what you write. <br /><br />Your book is one of the most impressive pieces of work that I have had in hand. Written by an amateur in the best sense of the word (= 'one that has heart and mind in matters' (which professionals often does not, it's just their work)) with the mental capacity and the detailed knowledge to see through the myriad of info.<br />But as an introduction for anyone that can devote limited to the matter – casual readers or journalists - it is of course just not it. <br /><br />Unlike Ms. Worth's article. We will be talking about readers who know nothing else than that Libya+Megrahi did it, and that he returned as a hero on top of it. <br /><br />In that light it is in an article that conveys the truth better than we could ever have hoped for.<br />SMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13272238187226269250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-65400071722822014032015-10-07T12:30:45.895+01:002015-10-07T12:30:45.895+01:00What, really? I think she completely blew it with ...What, really? I think she completely blew it with her lazy misrepresentation of the basis for the Heathrow introduction theory.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-38516298162366833332015-10-07T12:28:57.402+01:002015-10-07T12:28:57.402+01:00[continued] I am astonished that a team which has...[continued] I am astonished that a team which has been researching the Lockerbie evidence for several years seems unaware of this crucial aspect. It was published in detail in my 2013 book "Adequately Explained by Stupidity?", which I would have thought would be essential reading for anyone genuinely interested in establishing the truth of the matter. Indeed, I outlined an early version of my proof to Ken Dornstein himself, when we met in Edinburgh in 2012.<br /><br />No matter who Megrahi knew, or travelled with, or consorted with, this fact must be taken on board. The crime occurred at about 4.30 pm GMT in London, not in the morning on Malta. At 4.30 pm GMT on 21st December 1988, Megrahi was verifiably in Tripoli, 1,000 miles away.<br /><br />There are very many very bad people in the middle east, and indeed all over the world. Whether or not Megrahi was one of these is of secondary importance, unless he can be linked to this particular crime. As the evidence stands, it appears that he has an unbreakable alibi.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-50951361376884272052015-10-07T12:27:54.614+01:002015-10-07T12:27:54.614+01:00.... a researcher “has effectively proved that the...<i>.... a researcher “has effectively proved that the bomb originated from Heathrow.” This theory hangs on evidence of a security breach at Heathrow Airport in London — where Pan Am Flight 103 originated — 18 hours prior to the attack. However, an appeals panel rejected this argument as grounds for a retrial.</i><br /><br />As the researcher concerned, please allow me to correct this very serious misconception.<br /><br />My proof that the bomb originated from Heathrow (rather than flying in on the feeder flight from Frankfurt, the route alleged by the Crown to support the Malta theory) has nothing whatsoever to do with the break-in at Heathrow which occurred about 18 hours before the departure of Pan Am 103.<br /><br />The original investigators were convinced, on very questionable grounds, that the exploding suitcase was on the second layer of luggage in the container, not on the bottom layer. The suitcases in the second layer were all from the feeder flight, therefore they concluded that the bomb must have travelled on the feeder flight. This is the contention that I have proved to be in error.<br /><br />Detailed analysis of the pattern of explosion damage to the suitcases surrounding the bomb suitcase (and to the airframe under the floor of the container) proves beyond any doubt that the bomb suitcase was in fact on the bottom layer, not the second layer. This analysis is not complicated or esoteric, but it was unaccountably not carried out by the original investigation.<br /><br />The position of the bomb suitcase reconciles without doubt to the position of a mysterious "brown hardshell, the type Samsonite make" which was seen by a baggage handler in that position in the container in the loading shed at Heathrow, an hour before the feeder flight landed. That suitcase appeared while the baggage handler was on his tea break, and nobody was ever identified who admitted to putting it in the container.<br /><br />The bomb suitcase was identified as a Samsonite Silhouette hardshell, in a sort of brownish-maroon colour, matching exactly the description of this mysterious suitcase. No such suitcase was checked in by any of the Heathrow transfer passengers, and all luggage checked in by these passengers was recovered on the ground and can be excluded from being in the "under the bomb" position (which is where the case described by the baggage handler would have been if the bomb suitcase had indeed been on the second layer). In addition, none of the blast-damaged cases recovered at Lockerbie can be matched to the case the baggage handler described, apart from the bomb suitcase itself.<br /><br />This is the basis of the proof that the bomb was introduced into the container in the loading shed at Heathrow, not on Malta as alleged by the Crown. The fact of the break-in is neither here nor there, other than observing that once it is realised that the bomb did indeed originate from London, the break-in seems likely to be relevant. Nevertheless, airside security at Heathrow was widely agreed to be abysmal, and the break-in is in no way essential to the thesis.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-89655386297207290352015-10-07T11:31:34.949+01:002015-10-07T11:31:34.949+01:00.... a researcher “has effectively proved that th...<i>.... a researcher “has effectively proved that the bomb originated from Heathrow.” This theory hangs on evidence of a security breach at Heathrow Airport in London — where Pan Am Flight 103 originated — 18 hours prior to the attack. However, an appeals panel rejected this argument as grounds for a retrial.</i><br /><br />As Prof Black notes, this is an extremely serious error in the PBS piece. The source of their reference to my work on the Heathrow introduction seems to be nothing more than the short mention in John Ashton's recent piece in the <i>Sunday Herald</i>. The assumption that my reasoning is based on the break-in seems to be their own inference entirely, as John certainly said no such thing.<br /><br />I find it absolutely incredible that the Frontline team carried out their years-long investigation into the Lockerbie evidence without reading my book and forming an opinion on the merits of my argument - which of course doesn't relate to the break-in at all. Especially as I spoke to Ken Dornstein personally in Edinburgh in 2012 and outlined an early version of my theory to him. My argument was all about the luggage positioning and not at all about the break-in.<br /><br />If there is a flaw in my reasoning which still admits of the possibility of a Malta introduction I would be very grateful if someone would point it out. My book has been out for almost two years, and so far nobody has even tried. Instead my work has been ignored, misrepresented and badmouthed in the press (yes Magnus Linklater, I'm talking about you). This is the latest in that series, and whether the misrepresention is deliberate or indicative of no more than ignorance and abysmal research I don't know.<br /><br />I posted the following comment on the PBS article about 10 o'clock this morning, which is of course the middle of the night in America. We'll see if it's approved once they all get up and get to work.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-55153270118311935212015-10-07T10:06:35.680+01:002015-10-07T10:06:35.680+01:00What a fine piece of work, so rarely seen from a p...What a fine piece of work, so rarely seen from a professional writer with rather limited time to dig into a deeper understanding. <br /><br />Ms. Worth <br /> https://twitter.com/katieworth<br /> http://www.katieworth.com/<br />has just gained herself a fan!<br />SMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13272238187226269250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-87389419416352440162015-10-07T08:29:01.634+01:002015-10-07T08:29:01.634+01:00DOSSIER LOCKERBIE, 2015:
Ken Dornstein's Film...DOSSIER LOCKERBIE, 2015:<br /><br />Ken Dornstein's Filmstory "My Broder's Bomber", ist ein Ballon dem die Luft ausgeht. Das angeblich aufgefundene MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) ist ein Beweisbetrug mit einem manipulierten Circuit Board ! Neuste offizielle Dokumente eröffnen, dass das Circuit Board nicht von einem MST-13 Timer, welche nach Libyen geliefert wurden, abstammen kann !<br /> Bei Firma Siemens Comp. in Deutschland wurden auf Order von Police Officer, William Williamson, das PT-35) Fragment (Prototyp fabriziert aus 8 Lagen Fiberglas) in zwei Teile getrennt (PT-35/b) und (DP-31/a) und die entscheidenden Merkmale, 3 Kratzspuren und der Buchstabe "M", (für Muster) ausgeschliffen, damit auf ein grünes Duplikat (PT-35/b, fabriziert aus 9 Lagen Fiberglas) gewechselt werden konnte. <br />Begründung: Nur mit einem grünen , MST-13 Timerfragment mit 9 Lagen Fiberglas, konnte man Libyen mit dem "Bombing" auf PanAm 103 über Lockerbie verkoppeln. Neue offizielle Dokumente werden demnächst veröffentlicht.<br />Der Film dient nur dazu, das schlechte Gewissen zu beruhigen, wegen der Annahme des Blutgeldes von der Kadhafi Foundation GIFCA, über US$ 2,7 Milliarden.<br />Abdel Basset Al Megrahi & Libya have nothing to do with the attack on PanAm 103 over Lockerbie! <br />Mr. Al Megrahi was innocent in prison 10 years - He remains the political victim No. 271!<br /><br />Please visit also Information on link, Clearing House: Lockerbie : $2.7 billion Sham and Shame !<br />http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4460.htm<br /><br />by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch<br />ebolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681382726604052927noreply@blogger.com