Thursday 12 August 2010

Blowing the lid off Lockerbie

"In law there is a credible alternative to the Crown theory about the explosions on Pan Am 103 which must produce doubt about the merits of the Crown case. Mr Megrahi, you deserve the benefit of that doubt and I, along with so many decent people in Scotland, am deeply embarrassed and terribly sorry that you did not receive the benefit of that doubt. I sincerely hope you manage to read this."

This is the concluding paragraph of a long essay published on the Veterans Today website by Robbie the Pict. It sets out the case for questioning the accepted wisdom that Pan Am 103 was destroyed by a bomb (rather than the accidental explosion of -- illegally carried -- munitions by RadHaz).


  1. He's the guy that wrote, "A Sensible Person's Guide to Semtex" - don't be caught reading that at the airport.

  2. He has an attitude to facts that makes Charles seem positively down-to-earth.

    * The plane was seen to break up at 31,000 by the radar operators.
    * The entire plane landed to the east of the A74 dual carriageway - it didn't cross the road at any point.
    * If the plane was intact at 500 feet, I'm not quite sure how the engines ended up in Sherwood Crescent and the cockpit at Tundergarth Mains.
    * The first pieces of blast-damaged luggage container (indicating an explosion in a suitcase, not in the cargo hold) were found less than three days after the crash - someone was *that* quick off the mark with faked evidence to cover up an entirely unexpected accident?
    * And the worst error - assuming the Daily Record got its facts right.

    And that's just off the top of my head, I'm sure you can spot more.

  3. Just for a moment, let's give some thought to Mr Pict's thesis.

    "An eye-witness saw the plane, still basically intact, flying a high speed version of a landing approach. With the engines on full throttle it passed over his head at about 500’, crossed the A74 dual carriageway and ploughed into Lockerbie at about a 10 degree angle where it exploded, sending bits high into the air. This concurs with the cigar shaped gouge on the ground and the scatter pattern of debris."

    Please let me point out that every landing at London's City Airport is made at a 6° angle. That's twice as steep as usual at most aiports, but less than half as steep as the absurd suggestion of 10°.

    Let me also point out that the crater in Sherwood Crescent displaced something like 1,500 tonnes of subsoil. Even the heaviest landing at London City Airport doesn't do that.

    John Barry Smith's thesis is rather better argued.

    The engine which was tossed into the North North Eastern end of the town is entirely consistent with the forward cargo door (which is located on the right hand side of the aircraft) having let go and having ejected baggage all the way across the slipstream and into the mouth of that engine. There is a previous example of this happenning with a United Airlines Boeing 747 on flight UA811 from Honolulu to New Zealand, at a comparable phase of departure, which also showed that baggage gets tossed all the way across the slipstream and into the outer right hand engine in these events.

    The enormity of the force of explosive decompression neither proves nor disproves an internal explosion as the initiator of the explosive decompression.

  4. There is however a blast-damaged luggage container that was listed as being right next to the part of the fuselage that was ruptured. At least one of these would have to be faked to fit with anything other than a bomb in luggage.I'm perfectly willing to consider planted evidence,but I see no need to go down a rabbit hole carrying chunks that big and found that early. Not based on some misconstrued or false "eyewitness report" and a string of errors behind it.

    Sorry, didn't actually read the article. But it's not a credible source, despite the word "veteran."

  5. My only problem with alternative mechanisms for the destruction of the aircraft is it widens the conspiracy to include the aircraft accident investigators, and this I think makes it unfeasible. I do not think they could make such an honest mistake so they would have to be faking it too - and then that leaves Mr Chief Conspirator hoping tens if not hundreds of people don't eventually blow the gaffe.
    However, the witnesses that saw the aircraft 'landing' cannot just be dismissed. I reconciled that away by recalling that myself and two aquaintances saw a spectacular road traffic accident in Spain (not unusual), and two of us saw it completely different from the other...and when we got home to the appartment to tell the others, I was in the minority because someone had changed their mind and would not be persuaded otherwise despite their original stance. This taught me a big lesson about the value of witness reports. They can range from very accurate to the downright delusional without the witness being dishonest.
    Finally, yer man Bobbie the Pict (or whateva) is no crank - however, he's peeing into the wind, a bit like the chap who believes it was South Africans who did it, going it alone. Good luck to him.

  6. HAHA! Isn't Robbie the Pict one of the "founders" of the Justice for Megrahi" group?

    There was no explosion inside the container AVE 4041 PA !

    A "Bomb-bag" was between the outside wall and the container
    AVE 4041 PA, or a IED explosives was near behind the Skin.

    MEBO is certain that the explosion did NOT occur in container AVE 4041 PA, rather than at the POSITION/STATION /700 near at the interior wall or a "Bomb-bag" was between the outside wall in front of the container AVE 4041 PA. MEBO declares why:

    New forensic pictures of the explosion site in the cargo room of Pan Am 103 are in the possession of MEBO Ltd. They show clearly that the explosion happened near the fuselage skin, at the intersection of Frame no. 700 and stringer no. 39L, at station 700 and NOT in container AVE 4041 PA, position 14L!
    Technical details:
    All named figures are available in the official report of the AAIB 2/90.
    The forensic photographies show clearly that frame no. 700 at the intersection of stringer L39 was cut through due to near contact with explosive material. (Figure 11)

    Also, a 20 cm long piece of the light metal stringer no 39L was cut oblique through. The structures of the cut surflaces are typical signs of explosive material coming into near contact with frame no. 700 and stringer no. 39L (figure F-11 and B-15)

    Another sign is the well viewed deformation of the opposite frame no. 680, at the same height as stringer no. 38, 39 and 40. Such deformation could only happen in the case of a very strong negative schockwave vectoring from the centre of the explosion (frame no. 700) horizontal upon the frame no. 680. The fibreglass cover/shell of those frames work to thicken the protective walls in moment of explosion. (figure F-11)

    And also forensic photographies in the AAIB report figure B-15 (details of shatter zone of fuselage) show clearly the stringer no. 39L with the oblique slized fractured surfaces. Additionally, other shown sections from the shatter zone, figure B-15, carry typical signs, that could only erupt from a near explosion in absolute proximity.

    Had an explosion occurred in container AVE 4041 PA, the distance (25 inch= 63,5 cm) would have been to large to show such typical rupture structures on the secured metal parts, as shown in figure B-15.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  8. Bunntamas: No, Robbie the Pict is not associated with the Justice for Megrahi campaign. He is the founder of the Lockerbie Justice Group. The two are not connected.

  9. It is nice to get some recognition from a member of this group, if only a rather slight endorsement from Rolfe.

    If she were to see my whole thesis she might come round to my point of view.

    Rolfe is rather one of those people who wants to disbelieve everything, and they're really rather good until there comes a point that somebody comes up with a reasonable theory, like me, and necessarily can't explain every hole in the fabric.

    They then go for the hole, however minor. Rolfe has never addressed the fact I found out that there were two explosions on the aircraft and only one of them was an IED.

    But keep the mystery turning. I'm only interested in argued solutions

  10. * The plane was seen to break up at 31,000 by the radar operators.

    == Correct. That actually doesn't fit with a 400g bomb, but let that be

    * The entire plane landed to the east of the A74 dual carriageway - it didn't cross the road at any point.

    == Correct

    * If the plane was intact at 500 feet,

    == It is not correct, and may be a conflated argument by the observer or reporter. The second explosion took place at 19000' while the aircraft had been diving at about 45 degrees for 14 seconds 3.1 km horizontal for 14 seconds.

    I'm not quite sure how the engines ended up in Sherwood Crescent and the cockpit at Tundergarth Mains.

    == They essentailly dropped from the sky when the second explosion went off.

    * The first pieces of blast-damaged luggage container (indicating an explosion in a suitcase,

    == In a baggage container, not a suitcase!

    not in the cargo hold) were found less than three days after the crash - someone was *that* quick off the mark with faked evidence to cover up an entirely unexpected accident?

    == It was not an expected accident it was a plot.

    * And the worst error - assuming the Daily Record got its facts right.

    == I am alert to the fact that the CIA has edited out an entry I made to the Wikipedia. I and they know what!

  11. Well now, Charles takes my criticisms of Robbie's thesis and applies them to his own. Of course, that's pretty irrelevant, as his thesis and Robbie's are two very different animals.

    If Charles were to make his entire thesis public, rather than holding it close to his chest and declaring that "if" we could see it in its entirety we'd be convinced, we could perhaps discuss it. However, since he is holding it close, and since the parts of it he has shared with us completely fly in the face of the known facts of the incident, this is all a bit beside the point.

    So far as Robbie's theory goes, I'm with Blogiston all the way. Eye-witness reports are notoriously inaccurate, and it's possible for people to be completely sincere and yet wildly mistaken. In particular, I could well understand someone in the right position, catching a momentary glimpse of the wing section coming down on Sherwood Crescent, mistaking it for a whole airliner.

    Also, the extension of the conspiracy to include the first responders, the air accident investigators and the front-line police investigation teams, which is implicit in any theory other than the "explosion in a suitcase in container AVE4041" one, is wildly implausible at the best of times. To imagine that such a conspiracy was successfully mounted within a day or two of the disaster in order to cover up for an accident, no matter what sort of wrongdoing caused that accident, strains credulity well past breaking point.

    Oh, and Robbie not a crank? Blogiston, Robbie practically defines the term "crank". In this context, he's the equivalent of a cross between a FOTL and a no-planer.

  12. It's very good of Rolfe to respond to me; but s/he must learn to try to treat other people's views as seriously intended. I exclude Mr Duggan from that though. When he describes one as being like a Holocaust denier, you just have to say to him, there is rather for evidence for the Holocaust, than Mr Megrahi's guilt.

    I am looking into ideas for making my whole position public, for I only distribute it in hard copy. But, since no-one has got anywhere near what I am saying, it can't but help if I publish.

    My theory is on going. I am currently examing the thesis of a third explosion, as Diagram F5 of the AAIB report makes quite clear there were 2, 14 seconds apart, 3.1km horizontally and 12000' vertically (sorry about the mixed units - one is a reading from air navigation conventions, the other from an OS map) apart.

    But, given that the manual evidence and the chip evidence is faked, why believe in the suitcase evidence. Have a look at the diagrams in the AAIB report and see if you can come unp with any recntagular or square holes, read Mr Claiden's evidence and compare it with Mr Charles'.

    I think Mr Pict is wrong, but I would not abuse him by saying he's a crank. But does he have a mechanism for the radhaz event yet? No.

  13. Charles, even if Robbie had never uttered the words "Lockerbie" or "Megrahi" in his life, he's still a crank. Are you completely unfamiliar with his extremely kenspeckle history?

    He adds considerably to the gaiety of nations, but sober sensible citizen he ain't!

  14. I had to look up FOTL in the Urban Dictionary :) - and if I could make one comment (perhaps out of scope) which is more introspective, really; we're all a wee bit not normal - normal people are at Asda (Walmart) doing normal stuff - they're not on this blog pouring over theories with varying degrees of passion and/or eccentricity. Only the few who were involved, directly or otherwise, escape my pointy stick - maybe.
    I'm having to conceal my activities in the house - (klaxon sound) - WARNING!
    I've reached the point, like McMurphy in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, where he discovers the rest of the (nutty) inmates are voluntary just before he goes for ECT treatment - and he's the sane one...

  15. I believe he has his moments and I like the Scottish dialectical word kenspeckle, which I've never heard before, but seems somehow appropriate.

  16. I know this is probably an insensitive thing to say, because we're dealing with actual dead people here, but in a sense it's an intellectual puzzle. Some people do crosswords, or Sudoku (sp?). Remember the Masquerade book, which contained clues in its text to the location of a golden hare the author had buried as a prize? Hundreds of thousands of people spent many hours puzzling over that, and following various theories from the sensible to the downright bizarre.

    This is a lot more complicated than Masquerade, and a lot more messy, but it's the same impulse - the fascination with a puzzle known to have an answer, and trying to narrow down the possibilities. It's always going to attract people who enjoy that sort of intellectual exercise.

    Crank? Maybe. But it keeps the old grey cells exercised better than watching Eastenders, and if there's any possibility of helping to drag our criminal justice system out of the gutter where this case has placed it, then so much the better.

  17. Blogiston is currently Out of the Office: I am at Asda and doing normal stuff, and I will get back to you ASAP

  18. I don't think Rolfe is being at all insensitive. It is of the nature of a quest to solve a crime that it should have a clear and straightforward resolution of mysterious clues as in a classic crime puzzle. Unfortunately, most crime is either trivial or banal and uninteresting to work out, or its overladen with lots of silly judicial rules on what's admissible and what's not. I suspect no Sherlock Holmes story could be produced in court today; but that's the fault of the legal process.

    I have made the point of not contacting those I feel have some part in Lockerbie, either the original plot or the cover-ups, but they have a curious habit of condemning themselves out of their own mouths. Before I published my pamphlet, I had it checked by a senior English libel lawyer, theough my copy-editor was certain she had left no hostages to fortune. She hadn't.

    But the crooks are clear enough. As I am actual a relative of somebody who died of Libyan terrorism, I sometimes ask the God I don't believe in what my brother would make of it. I am convinced he would say, "you're not entirely wrong, Charles, but you've taken a damn long time getting here!"

    With that insight on he afterlife, I wish Rolfe many productive thinking hours.

  19. I don't think anyone's suggesting that the existence of the 'bomb' was faked.

    The timer fragment seems very dodgy though, but that's a whole different can of worms and not rerlevant to this topic.

    The AAIB report describes the damage to the fuselage on the left hand side as being 20" by 18-20" and rather like a mild shotgun blast. Most of the major damage appears to have been on the right hand side as a result of the forward cargo door having been blown open by the overpressure and the catastrophic effects of explosive decompression.

    The damage to the face of the number Three engine (inner one on the right hand side) together with evidence that it had ingested foreign objects, is very clearly indicative of baggage having been ejected through the opened forward cargo door with the enormous force which explosive decompression exerts in these events.

    Robbie the Pict's thesis, on the other hand, is riddled with errors and parts which are in direct contravention of reality, such as the 10° descent angle nonsense.

  20. Charles: I'm still in Asda, but regarding your comment about Rolfe's kenspeckle word, is dialectical not different from the intended dialect, perhaps? If not, apologies for being pedantic. To me dialect is about local language variations - if yi ken whit a' mean?
    And dialectical is the major reason we can exist on the prof's blog; reasoned argument, persuasion through discourse. Which is why Mad Wullie's theory about PA103 passenger number discrepancy, 258 vs 259 (being that the CIA had a quantuum device in the hold coming back from CERN, which had zapped a passenger into two places simultaneously) can be discussed.

  21. Oh Blogiston. How foolish of me. And you managed to correct me in the delights of the local Asda.

    As to bomb. The explosion was not faked, but I believe and can demonstrate to a degree the suitcase was.

  22. I'm intrigued by this theory of Charles's, which is "ongoing", and "looking into the possibility of a third explosion", but at the same time has been copy-edited and checked by a lawyer!

    Charles, until very recently you had assumed that an identifiable blast-damaged brown suitcase was found within the remains of an identifiable blast-damaged luggage container. It was pointed out to you that the luggage container was brought in in pieces and re-assembled, and that only a number of shards of the brown suitcase were ever found, again gathered together after being found scattered across the landscape.

    Robbie is doing much the same thing. The plane was actually seen to break up in mid-flight, at 31,000 feet, by a radar operator who was watching it on the screen at the time. The flag identifying PA103 disappeared, as did the dot it was identifying, and in its place three objects could be seen, falling in diverging trajectories.

    That's what I mean about facts. You may consider them a distraction, but any one of them can shoot down a pet theory as effectively as that Toshiba bomb brought down Maid of the Seas.

  23. Rolfe, you are quite wrong. My own views and Mr Pict's are entirely different.

    Please do not try to conflate them in any way.

    Mr Pict has not spent twenty painful years trying to work out what happened. I have.

    But, I'm not going to post my collation and take on the evidence, until such time as I wish to.

    By now, you must have had my email address. But I won't blog universally until I have decide when.. The CIA definitely knows my number, even if ####### ########### and ### #### are not yet quaking in their boots and the appalling ######## ######## is dead.

  24. Professor Black: Thank you for the clarification.

  25. Bunntamas, have you acknowledged yet that you were mistaken about Libyan Arab Airways being in overall charge of security at Luqa Airport, Malta, in December 1988?

    Would you care to address the facts of the case in one of these threads (or elsewhere), or have you given up on that exercise?

  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

  27. Charles, your theory and Robbie's are indeed quite different as regards the specifics. They have however one thing in common. They exist inside your heads, without taking any heed of the facts that contradict them.

  28. Untrue Rolfe. I'm holding copy in my hand now.

    I'm not going simply to put in on line so the likes of VC, the CIA, and Baz can have a go, but I'm willing to supply you with hard copy.

    You'll probably not like it anyway, but that really is your problem, not mine.

    If you want to to get in touch via Jim or Bob Black, I'm sure they'll help, but I can't help those who won't help themselves. I'm not a wet-nurse service, I'm a researcher.

  29. Wow. I left a comment and now it says it was "removed by the author". I didn't remove my comment.
    Also, Rolfe, I registered on JREF but they won't let me in to that forum string you bumped. Hmmmmmm....

  30. Always Bunntaams believe cock-up over conspiracy, unless you can prove the conspiracy.

  31. Bunntamas, your post is still there. The "removed by author" was mine, where I deleted a duplicate post. (An accidental double-click gets you more than you bargain for around here.)

    There's no reason on God's green earth you can't get into that JREF thread. It's in the publicly-visible part of the forum, so you should be able to read it even if you're not a member.

    Let me try again. This is the thread itself.

    The first 70 posts or so consist of attempts to persuade one poster who decided (in a different thread) that Megrahi was guilty, but didn't actually know anything at all about the case, to back up his assertions. He eventually went away. It's not very logical or informative.

    This link should go directly to the first new post.

    Or you could just scroll down the Conspiracy Theories index page for "Did Abdelbaset al-Megrahi blow up Pan Am 103?"

  32. I've yet to find a single person who knows something or should know something about Lockerbie who cam support the official line. Even Marquise who says "read my lips" and Henderson who threatens to kill you, and has not been arrested for his incitement to or threat of violence.

  33. Well, I can't disagree with that.

    Bunntamas, when asked to explain how the bomb suitcase got on board KM180, announced that Libyan Arab Airlines was in overall charge of security at Luqa airport in December 1988.

    Er, what?

    And this is someone who claims to have been closely following the case for over 20 years, and actually to have attended the trial at Zeist.

    Oh dear.

  34. Mr Bunntamas,

    Perhaps it is usual in your country for airline staff to run airports, but it isn't in Europe. Your claim that Libya ran security at Luqa Airport is a lie, and Malta may very well sue you. They did Granada TV. Be very very careful about opening your mouth and spouting lies. It can be very expensive indeed especially if the case is brought before the English courts, where libel is notoriously expensive.

    You must speak to me very nicely or I'll tell them about your lie.

  35. Well, be fair, as far as I know, security at Luqa was actually run by Air Malta, the Maltese national airline.

    And they had a very efficient baggage security system, and they were able to prove no uaccompanied bag had travelled on that plane.

    Deal with it, Bunntamas.

  36. Rolfe, I'm being honest. I don't see this as an intellectual puzzle and yes, we ARE talking about lots of dead people. Your contributions fascinate me and I have learned a great deal. Please don't take the heart out of all you have spent time on yourself, on Lockerbie, by calling it an intellectual puzzle. It takes away the heart bit when you call it that. And elsewhere there is a fight to be fought with our politicians, our media and our judiciary for justice.

    Charles, this is not about you. It is much more important than that. It really isn't about any of us here and if some are engaged in a competition involving nothing more than egos then I can't find words to express my disgust. You have contributed your thoughts in various posts and I almost always find them interesting. But, with respect, when you appear to be seeking what you called recognition I have to ask why it is you expect it. We are all doing our bit in different ways and we are all equal. And if, in this terrible situation, we seek only personal recognition then we have our priorities all wrong. I would repeat I respect your contributions but please think about some of the things you have said earlier on this thread.

    While we all focus on our particular strengths or even on our superiority to others in the same debate we achieve only one thing.....we waste precious time.

  37. It's not only an intellectual puzzle, but in answer to Blogiston's musings about whether we're all cranks, I have to admit that one of my motivations is to try to understand what happened. To try to make sense of the evidence and what the judges did, and maybe even what might have happened.

    Different people have different motivating factors, and for me, the intellectual puzzle-solving part is a strong element.

  38. It must be down to motivating factors then Rolfe. I'm thinking about a man who I believe was wrongly convicted and to be honest I don't have time for the intellectual puzzles surrounding that. If people just see it as a puzzle then I think they've been diverted somewhere along the line. That grieves me.

  39. I try not to get too hung up about Megrahi. I don't know him, I've never met him. I think he's had a very raw deal, but then a lot of people get a very raw deal.

    I'm a lot more outraged that our criminal justice system was capable of perpetrating this atrocity against logic, reason and justice. It puts us on a par with the Soviet Union at its worst. Show trials and political verdicts and so on.

    I'm glad he got home, I'm glad he's had a decent length of time with his family, and I hope at least some of it has been quality time. I wish he hadn't got cancer in the first place. I wish we could put this injustice right, and remove that conviction.

    But I'm not running a crusade for the wronged Megrahi. If I was running a crusade, it would be to lynch these judges.

  40. Rolfe, a crusade? That sounds patronising I must say. Is that what you think I'm about? Do say. I can take it. Because you're wrong.

  41. And this is NOT about getting "hung up" about Megrahi. Its about being appalled that something that calls itself the Scottish Justice System sits silently while there are SIX grounds to suggest it committed a miscarriage of justice at the Lockerbie Trial.

  42. Oh dear, I keep saying the wrong thing. I'm sorry my motives aren't pure enough for you.

    I was only musing about motivation after Blogiston's comments about us all possibly being described as cranks. I find the puzzle aspect compelling. But I don't imagine anyone has only one motivation for anything they do. We're all complex people.

    I said I wasn't running a crusade. You know your own motivations, and how you might want to describe them. But I don't see why we can't converse and discuss even if we aren't all coming from exactly the same place.

  43. Rolphe ultimately we should all have the same aim. To challenge the establishment over what happened, because we all know it wasn't a just outcome.

    We cannot all be described as cranks. I reject that utterly. I think it is possible to have one motivation. Its called justice. Anything else is irrelevant.

  44. It becomes that, yes. For years, I didn't know enough about the case to understand what an affront to justice it actually was. I read stuff about fabricated timer chips and babygros found intact and suitcases full of heroin lying on the fields. And sort of peripheral to that was, the verdict was perverse of course.

    It took me a while to realise how peripheral these other points really were, and that in fact the evidence as it was accepted by the court really wan't enough to stick anyone with a parking ticket.

    And yet a court of our land brought in that verdict, and an appeal court upheld it. And our politicians and now even our journalists are turning a blind eye to it all, and supporting this abortion of logic and reason, just because the men who perpetrated it were sitting on the bench at the time.

    So it's about justice.

    But I started it out of intellectual curiosity, and that doesn't go away.

  45. I'm glad we agree about justice. (I knew that of you anyway.) And I hope you have your packing all done lady! Cos you fly later today! Have a good holiday, chill out and come back soon. x

  46. Rolfe: Bunntamas, when asked to explain how the bomb suitcase got on board KM180, announced that Libyan Arab Airlines was in overall charge of security at Luqa airport in December 1988.
    To clarify, regarding my comment about LAA / Luqa, I was COMMENTING about a piece I thought I recalled reading. I was NOT responding to any request to explain about how the bomb got on the plane.
    My goodness, you all are testy this evening. Hard week? Try spending 20+ years dealing with multiple corrupt governments (and Jo, spare me the "our government is not screwed up" bit. you have commented on, and agreed with the screwed-up-ness of both the scottish, UK and obviously American governments governments on numerous occasions) the explained, unexplained, explained, unexplained.... reasoning / illogic / idiotic and intellectual "reasoning" of this case.
    Like all of you, I would like to know what happened: BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER the bombing.
    At times there is a very nice tone to the conversations in these comments. At other times, you are like a bunch of blood thirsty...well... I shouldn't say, ready to pounce whilst criticising others about civility in comments.
    And you wonder why folks with a different perspective from yours dont return. SHEESH!!!
    Have a pint, and/or a cocktail. stop arguing amongst yourselves and being so harsh on others.
    Take a chill pill and have a nice weekend.
    PS. - Rolfe, re: JREF, I can get in and read the forum you linked. They just won't allow me to comment (at least last time I checked, which was yesterday, a couple of days after I registered). Suggestions???

  47. Bunny, I'm not surprised. I wouldn't allow you to comment either. : )

    Oh and incidentally we're not "arguing among ourselves". I've made observations. End of.

  48. And again, safe travels, Rolfie.

  49. How charming of you Jo. Too bad for you, that you're not in charge of who comments and who doesn't.
    Looks like your comment "end of" got cut off. How ironic.

  50. Oh, and BTW, Jo, re: your previous comments about who posts where, and what they post, per: "safety" (as if you're actually concerned), I've noticed you actually posted your name and ADDRESS in a comment on the Herald news site on 27 July. Suggest you take a bit of your own medicine. But then again, considering your contradictions in comments here, it appears you already have taken a bit of... something.

  51. PS. - Rolfe, re: JREF, I can get in and read the forum you linked. They just won't allow me to comment (at least last time I checked, which was yesterday, a couple of days after I registered). Suggestions???

    It takes a day or two for registration to become effective, I think. You'll also need to log in with your password. If you can't do this after 2 or 3 days, email Lisa and she'll fix it.

    We often get mad homoeopaths and so on complaining that they're being blocked from registering, and it's always just some sort of glitch.

  52. Bunntamas, in that case you didn't answer the question at all. What evidence can you present to prove even on the balance of probabilities that the bomb travelled on KM180?

    I won't be around for a bit though. I'm off on holiday - I have to catch the 5 o'clock ferry from Rosyth this afternoon. I'll have to rely on finding unsecured wireless connections for internet access I think. And I don't plan on trying too hard!

    See you in a while.

  53. Rolfe: And when you disembark at Zeebrugge and say to your partner, "Did you know Camp Zeist is only two hours up the road?" - I would like to see their face. :)

  54. I don't think my car would "get" it....

  55. Oh, well then, Happy Days! Camp Zeist is only two hours up the road.

  56. "At other times, you are like a bunch of blood thirsty...well... I shouldn't say, ready to pounce whilst criticising others about civility in comments."

    Appearances, perceptions...consider how sarcasm so seldom comes through in text, and how different our views are here, and I don't think it's as harsh as it seems, or could be. Or rather, eh, it's to be expected,right? Why make a big drama describing your feelings about it?

    If you're after the truth, it will help to get on the JREF threads. Patience, it works out for anyone who really tries. I second a request to hear your understanding of how we know the bomb came in on the KM180. I'll be pretty busy all weekend, but will have some time in there to join in. Cheers.

  57. This thread started well then went downhill. Incidentally the engines and the cockpit didn't just fall to earth. Their trajectory was determined by Inertia, Resistance and Gravity.

  58. Bunntamas.......I did not post my name and address to a "newssite". I wrote to the Herald, a Scottish Newspaper and they published that letter. One does not write to a publication like the Herald anonymously. They do not publish anonymous contributions or contributions sent in a false name. It is a quality newspaper. In any case, my full address was not published.

    The reason I expressed concern about sites like the Beast was because of the vile approach adopted by many towards others posting there. I can assure you the Herald is NOT the Beast.

    So save the medicine for someone who needs it Bunny. I'm just fine thanks.

  59. "Looks like your comment "end of" got cut off. How ironic."

    It didn't actually Bunny. But don't worry if you don't follow. You Americans aren't too hot on proper English. I forgive you. : )

  60. Jo G,

    You ask very reasonably what I expect especially as I do not publish my full theory (anyway incomplete) except in hard copy.

    I have let out bits of my theory and I have reshaped it somewhat especially in relation to criticisms by Baz or others.

    Some bits are really hard to get your head round, partly because the investigators have been parsimonious with their knowledge (e.g. the about the remains of the suitcase). But I think if we can throw out the timer, chip and manual stuff on the grounds of fakery why not the suitcase too?

    Some bits like the impossibility of working out which containers would go on 103, I don't accept at all, or is in my theory a reasonable hypothesis. The unexamined views of a retired baggage handling official is irrelevant, until we can work out what they are talking about.

    I have a certain proprietary pride in my solution, though if it is demonstrably wrong it will be egg on my face, but mine alone, and I have been careful to consider alternatives at every stage.

    But for instance no PFLP GC theorist has been able to work out a mechanism for the bomb to have got onto the plane, and why the PFLP GC should have done is also not addressed. Were the PFLP GC usually bag carriers for the Iranians, for example? It would help if anyone showed parallel actions by them, but I haven't seen them.

    Nobody seems to have a philosophical, moral or other reason for the bombing.

    As a year has gone by since my theory was produced in its current form and nobody has made any progress at working out what I am saying, I shall probably opt for some kind of web publication. But I fear becoming the Aunt Sally for all sorts of uninformed and inept opinion. I might decide to distribute the theory as a pdf to interest parties for example.

    All serious comments will be accepted and reworked into the theory, if possible. I don't want money, fame or recognition, and I hope to be able to get the theory out so that named parties can be proceeded against and for me a sort of intellectual closure (there I used that hated word) reached.

  61. You Americans aren't too hot on proper English. I forgive you. : ) Jo: End of. is not a complete sentence. Ever heard of verb, noun, etc.? I do however recognize it may be "web speak". But if you think that is "proper english", then, I forgive you too, as well as the sarcastic, nose in the air tone. :)
    And by the way, your complete address WAS posted on that article. I won't jeopardise privacy here, save to say ...House #45?

  62. Bunntamas, are you threatening me? You are jeopardising more than my privacy through this behaviour. You are being menacing in fact.

    And my complete address was NOT in that paper, . I would therefore like to know where you got that information.

  63. On the "end of" matter, this phrase on its own is acceptable as a complete sentence. I will not argue with you about it Bunny, you are crossing more serious lines elsewhere.

    I have attempted to engage with you on earlier occasions and finally decided I did not care for your method of debating. But when you return here and start implying "I know where you live." I do indeed pay attention. It is despicable.

  64. Charles I very much appreciate the time you took on that post. Thank you very much indeed.

  65. Baz, it just hit the pits. Now we have Americans here, who claim to be closely associated with a certain Mr Flynn, telling other people who disagree with them that they know where we live!

  66. Bunntamas, I have just spoken to the Herald. They do not publish full addresses either in the paper or on on-line sites. I'm asking you again where did you get my address?

  67. Greetings of peace! I am busy with a reply to the Justice for Megrahi Campaign, but if I may interject...

    The information that Bunntamas disclosed partially is available on the web under a letter identified with the Herald, but all of this is on an apparent news search/indexing site, not the Herald website itself, where other letters by the same author can be found.

    Both sides are conceivably right. The Herald may not have published the information directly, but it is available--quite easily--and attributed to the Herald.

    Bunntamas: Having said all of that, I suggestion: If anyone feels threatened, and especially if you think the claim is unjustified, you would not be giving up too much to change the subject.

  68. Jo G: Just reading the end of this thread and I share your concerns - and Suliman's sentiments.
    The Herald (Scotland) should not be allowing a third party access to data that the Herald do not publish in the first place, as part of their guarantee they give their readers about confidentially.
    I think this exposes a hole in security or policy, or both.

  69. Bloggy I will be taking this up with the Herald today. I spoke to them last night and I know they were correct in telling me that full addresses are not published either in the paper or on their internet sites. It appears that when general searches are done, however, the full address comes up.

    That is bad enough but I believe the way in which Bunny used that information was an attempt to intimidate me and I believe that was appalling. I am grateful to Suliman for his later comments.

    Can I say, incidentally, that I don't have a problem providing my address for the Herald: in the past the Herald did publish full addresses with letters.

    I am not afraid to express my own views either. I believe they are perfectly rational. There are clear grounds to investigate the Lockerbie trial along the six grounds identified by the SCCRC. The loss of the appeal is irrelevant: sufficient alarm bells should have sounded when those findings were published to allow a full investigation to proceed in any case, with or without the Appeal. Our justice system is damaged badly and should be desperate to restore confidence in it. But most of all the man we convicted almost certainly suffered a miscarriage of justice.

  70. Jo:
    My, how you twist things.
    I am in NO way, shape or form threatening you. Going back to a previous comment where you advised me and others about safety re: posting on other web sites, I simply noted in my comments above, that you should take some of your own medicine, in advising others, because your full address had been published on another web site. Perhaps what I should have said was: "Jo, you should contact the publication and request they remove your full address". My reference to your address was NOT a threat. I was countering your statement that your full address had not been published. It WAS published. You jeopardised yourself by providing it to the publication, and they published it on the web for the whole world to reference. Again, this is NOT a threat, re: "jeopardized". YOU're the one who brought up the point about safety. I agree with you and in fact thanked you for your advisement in a previous comment. I hesitate to post the link where your full address is published, considering your slant toward litigiousness and twisting benign comments into alleged threats, lest you threaten ME with posting your private information here.
    You can simply Google your full name, which Professor Black published in another post where he referenced one of your letters.

  71. Suliman, and Blogiston, thank you for confirming that the address is in fact readily available on the web for anyone who chooses to search the name.
    Suliman: Bunntamas: Having said all of that, I suggestion: If anyone feels threatened, and especially if you think the claim is unjustified, you would not be giving up too much to change the subject. On the address point, I'll take your advice following this comment. Thanks for that too. However, I am obviously an outsider here. If I changed the subject each time someone disagreed with me, I would constantly be changing the subject. An act (among many) for which I have been scorned in other comments. Going forward, I'll just stay ignore Jo. She seems to get rattled easily by me, my "American" views and writing style.
    Enough said.

  72. Bunntamas, enough said indeed and every word of your last post illustrates beautifully why I have nothing but contempt for you. Your nationality and your style are irrelevant. I welcomed you here, if you remember, when you felt others were not being exactly kind to you.

    You made outrageous attacks on the government here in Scotland, you called it corrupt I believe, among other things, you attempted to trash the findings of the SCCRC surrounding the original conviction of Megrahi, you insulted Dr Jim Swire and you have attempted several times to trash me personally. None of that weakens my position on the Lockerbie issue so I remain unrattled. It merely leaves me disappointed in you as an individual.

    You have contributed little in the way of evidence to rattle anyone who uses this site incidentally.

    You support a group of US senators who right now are engaged in breaching UN protocol and international law by shamelessly attempting to meddle in the affairs of another sovereign country. Your non-existent knowledge of Data Protection Law in the UK was highlighted by me and you ridiculed me in response by claiming the United States had a right to access what it liked because "Americans died". Professor Black very eloquently pointed out to you how wrong you were on that score.

    Those senators are, reportedly, about to issue a general appeal to individuals in the UK with information about Megrahi to get it to them by illegal means because they cannot get access to it themselves under our laws. They are inviting UK people to break laws in order to get it for them.

    What would you think if another separate sovereign country made a similar invitation to all US citizens Bunntamas to pass, illegally, intelligence on any matter about which that other country wanted information? I'm guessing here Bunntamas but I think you would expect your government in the United States to take that country to task immediately. (I suspect tho you'd probably skip the diplomatic path and just want to nuke 'em!) But you'd be outraged yes? Well that's why I'm outraged that your senators are behaving in the way they are. Because they are one hundred per cent in the wrong.

  73. Dear Jo G,

    Why do we just allow Bunntamas to stew.

    We won't convince him, and we know that at bottom we are right.

    If it would help,I would put name, address NHS number NI number and the rest here.

    Mine are all out there on the web, so the CIA knows.

  74. Charles thank you for that.