tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post1675405671064930367..comments2024-03-15T06:02:30.623+00:00Comments on The Lockerbie Case: John Ashton and Steven Raeburn respond to Magnus LinklaterRobert Blackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03606456028430261555noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-50448631097351239572016-01-23T12:44:05.001+00:002016-01-23T12:44:05.001+00:00Magnus Linklater versus Steven Raeburn. That i'...Magnus Linklater versus Steven Raeburn. That i'd love to see. All my money would be on Steven. Linklater is part of the problem. Just following orders from above. Go get him Steven you'll beat that "placeman"hands down.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08941540274712417938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-41280181720165733082012-08-15T14:56:52.977+01:002012-08-15T14:56:52.977+01:00Er, because the evidence that a bomb had exploded ...Er, because the evidence that a bomb had exploded was scattered all over the landscape and being brought in piecemeal by the search parties?<br /><br />Finding out who actually planted the IED/bomb, and how and where, is quite a challenging task. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that they got it wrong. They did get it wrong, actually.<br /><br />The evidence that there was an IED/bomb in a suitcase in baggage container AVE4041, near the bottom on the front left-hand side, was and is incontrovertible. The first bits of it were brought in to the investigation headquarters on 24th December, that's just three days after the crash. That's when they realised it was a terrorist incident and not an accident.<br /><br />Next you'll be saying it must have been an accident becuse the AAIB investigated it. Maybe murder victims shouldn't be taken to A&E?Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-50130791495557067642012-08-15T01:18:53.704+01:002012-08-15T01:18:53.704+01:00I also spoke to Sir Teddy Taylor and he said he to...I also spoke to Sir Teddy Taylor and he said he too had not considered the non-bomb explanation. Again this was odd, because the most common causes should be considered, if only to be discounted.<br /><br />I believe the reason for this acceptance of the official line is because we trust our own government and because the bomb explanation was an easy sell, in view of the on-going conflict in the Middle-East.<br /><br />It is only recently after the lies about Iraq WMDs that this trust has taken a severe blow.<br /><br />But Rolfe your right, why lie, why not just tell the truth that it was an accident, which is how both Madeleine Albright and Sir Malcolm Rifkind have described it.<br /><br />Perhaps they hoped the issue would just fade away! But it’s the old problem of the cover-up being worse than the lie.<br /><br />But if they lie about who did it, why not about what caused it?<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-29736685599917075142012-08-14T16:59:16.498+01:002012-08-14T16:59:16.498+01:00Most accidents are due to pilot error or mechanica...<i>Most accidents are due to pilot error or mechanical/design faults and seldom due to bombs.</i><br /><br />Which is of course true. Does that mean we can safely conclude that no plane has ever been brought down by a bomb? Don't be silly.<br /><br />The craziest conspiracy theory of the lot is the one that says that when faced with a pretty run-of-the-mill aviation accident, a huge organisation was assembled encompassing everyone from humble evidence-gatherers right through all the ranks of the police and the AAIB and the forensics experts, all to promote the scenario that it was a terrorist attack.<br /><br />And all these people submitted false reports and a hell of a lot of them stood up and lied in court under oath. And nobody ever broke ranks, and it was all covered up.<br /><br />Why? To conceal an ordinary accident, and pretend to the public that it had been a terrorist attack. <br /><br />Never mind the shedload of evidence that there WAS a bomb/IED on that plane, why on earth would anyone in authority prefer a terrorist incident to an accident? It's senseless.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-70596826529124558482012-08-14T14:02:19.503+01:002012-08-14T14:02:19.503+01:00Most accidents are due to pilot error or mechanica...Most accidents are due to pilot error or mechanical/design faults and seldom due to bombs.<br /> <br />And yet when I contacted Magnus Linklater many years ago and questioned whether there really was a bomb, he replied it was the first time he had heard and presumably considered that explanation.<br /><br />You would expect a News Editor of a distinguished paper to have a far more enquiring mind and not simply rely on official reports and guidance from the CIA.<br /><br />Perhaps he is not really puzzled by events at the Edinburgh Book Festival, but simply echoing his Master’s voice in defence of Murdoch’s business interests in America?<br /><br />He could prove the contrary by taking up Steven Raeburn’s challenge and by supporting a public inquiry!<br />Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15213240619989073000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1073021351804532798.post-81544802873528026842012-08-13T17:57:18.779+01:002012-08-13T17:57:18.779+01:00The odd thing about the "timer" fragment...The odd thing about the "timer" fragment, if it was a CIA plant, is why the non-standard tinning? If you're going to plant something you know will be subjected to a full battery of forensics tests, why slip up like that?<br /><br />The pure tin tinning is unusual enough to have been remarked on by the Scottish investigators quite early in the process. As the control samples were normal, why make the fake unusual?<br /><br />I have no idea what that fragment was and I have no idea whether or not it fell from the sky. All we really know is that it wasn't what the prosecution said it was, and the forensics guy lied about it in court.<br /><br />I have no idea what the CIA were up to either. The Frankfurt cops were an incompetent joke. The British cops were scarcely more impressive, and were studiously ignoring what appeared to be the lead of the century (Bedford's evidence) for no readily apparent reason. The CIA? I don't know what they were doing behind the scenes and I don't imagine they're going to tell us.Rolfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17849975010197698907noreply@blogger.com