Pan Am 103: Unaccompanied bag from Malta: Evidence?

[Caustic Logic]

You need to option-click on the link to force it to download instead of displaying in a browser window -- ouch! Right-click or control-click will give you a contextual menu with a choice to "download" or "save linked file", depending on the browser.

HTH.

Pretty sure that's the second thing I did and downloaded a txt file full of gibberish as well. I'll find it or not, not much use to have my own copies anyway unless I'm going to import and edit them into my own video, which I'd do except the time/benefit/possible trouble ratio isn't quite right.

 

[Klimax]

Pretty sure that's the second thing I did and downloaded a txt file full of gibberish as well. I'll find it or not, not much use to have my own copies anyway unless I'm going to import and edit them into my own video, which I'd do except the time/benefit/possible trouble ratio isn't quite right.

Strange,it works here. I can temporarily put it on my FTP server,so it should always download correctly.
(But it has awfull quality...)

 

[Caustic Logic]

Strange,it works here. I can temporarily put it on my FTP server,so it should always download correctly.
(But it has awfull quality...)

You are the unchallenged royal sovereign of downloading and uploading things. All I probably have to do is reset my crackers or what it is, but I seen it already. I'm letting it go...

So on Fhimah and his "Taggs," the folks at Dispatches readthe diaryi in question and found the counter-claim seemed borne out: he was talking about taking some sample tags to a new printer on Malta, presumably an english speaking one.

On another issue, what the records of the airport show - another correction to what's above - somehow I didn't see Koca's paperwork clearly listing "206" as the "Intestell," so that's why no one else had made a deal about his final station left blank. It wasn't, and it does link up pretty well with Erac's printout. You can call it ambiguous all you want, but I'll be darned if 206 at 1304-1310-16 is pretty close to 206 at 1307. Either one of these is false, or there's a pretty major time error, or greater uncertainty about how many things were going on at 206, or we have a pretty compelling possible link.

On that, I have my doubts about the authenticity of the half touching 103A. I just finished a blog post about it: the main thing I've latched on, since I just noticed it and find it interesting, is how she's given different stories about how she got this paper:

VERSION ONE: GATHERING EVIDENCE
...
Having “realised that PA103A had departed during her period on duty,” the Court summarized therein, Erac “was interested in the amount of baggage on the Frankfurt flight, and on the following morning she decided to take a printout of the information as to baggage held on the computer.” She was looking for "any useful information," but "did not at once identify any.” She could not likely know what this data did or didn’t say without other data sources, and she did not hand it over to those who could put it in context, so its vital clues lingered unrealized.

...Paul Foot...:
“This was printed out on the day after the Lockerbie bombing by Bogomir Erac, who was in charge of the software for the baggage system at Frankfurt. She recovered the print-out in case it revealed anything interesting about the luggage loaded on to flight 103A to Heathrow, which linked to the separate and doomed flight 103.”
... Richard Marquise; “more for curiosity than anything else, she kept it in her desk for about three weeks. She was later asked by her supervisor to look for baggage records in the computer, but they were purged every week.” ...

A week should have been plenty time to retrieve thiis valuable info, or for the airport to realize they could keep a copy for thos flight or this day, IN CASE anyone came asking. The supervisor only asks two weeks after it was all erased, except the luck copy that breaks the case... hmmm....

VERSION TWO: OUT OF MEMORY
The Conspiracy Files. 2008 ... “We usually destroyed all the printouts. And I was just about ready to do that with this one,” the “diligent” Mrs. Erac told the camera ... Had she simply forgotten that she had specifically printed this one for factual reference? But of course she didn’t clear out this deadwood; “on the spur of the moment, I just picked it up and put it on the table,” perhaps remembering why it existed. She then decided to hold onto it for sentimental reasons “in memory of the people who were on the plane." With moist eyes scanning towards Gott in Himmel she recalls this, “and then I threw it in my locker.”

In this version, it wasn’t until much later that she changed gears on the issue; “the weeks went by and to Bogomira’s surprise, no one came to ask for the printout,” the video’s narration runs. “Realizing it could be useful, she eventually went to her supervisor.” Having reversed the initiative for the meeting from that reported above, Erac next has the supervisor protesting “but the baggage list doesn’t exist anymore!” When she handed it over, “he was very, very surprised.”

I'd be as surprised if the truth is much like what we've been told here. Either time. So is this just fading memory? I suspect so. Memory of actual events though, or of which story she told before?

I have one big question I'd like to pose to any experts here: precisely which records tracking the baggage were these that got deleted, in both bits and pulp? Because some records - like the Koca and Schreiner logs showing where KM180's bags went, had no strange back story. They were simply kept because that's what logs are for. Why the different policy re: what was loaded to PA103A?

ETA: Rolfe did already say above:

Mrs. Erac's story is very peculiar. She says on the BBC programme that she was about to destroy the printout, but then kept it "in memory of the people that had died on that flight". Other places she's credited with having realised it might have evidental value, and keeping it for that reason on her own initiative. However, nobody seems to have even tried to retain or acquire these reconrds in an official capacity, and she went on holiday and didn't volunteer the information until much later.

So after looking at a few sources and discovering these patterns myself, this is an excellent summation of the main problems. These points scream to me plant, backdated, cover-up, etc., more than ambiguous, out-of-synch, uncertain. But then, the screaming option isn't always the right one.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not sure who it is who thinks that Lockerbie is near the coast, but it isn't. It's quite a way inland. I think that's important, because it shows how very far off-beam anyone was who was trrying to lose the evidence in Davy Jones's Locker.

Rolfe.

ETA: It's not all that far from the Solway Firth, I suppose, but as the plane was flying, it would have been over land for a good long way past Lockerbie before it crossed the coastline.

 

[Rolfe]

One point which is worth emphasising here is the role of baggage container AVE4041. It was established quite quickly that this was the container the bomb suitcase had been in - I think the first bits of the container were brought in on Christmas Eve. It was then possible to determine the source of the bags that had gone into that container.

Bedford's evidence was obviously crucial here, though I'm not sure when it was taken, or what hard-copy records existed of which baggage container held what. Anyway, it was established that no luggage checked in by passengers who began their journeys at Heathrow had been in that container. That seems to me to the the source of the very early claims that "the suitcase almost certainly did not originate at Heathrow". I imagine that was a big relief to the investigators. The Brits didn't much like the idea that the principal airport of the UK might have let something like that past its security.

Bedford testified that he had put about five interline bags into AVE4041 earlier in the afternoon, before PA103A landed from Frankfurt. These were cases belonging to people who were transferring on to PA103 at Heathrow from earlier flights operated by airlines other than Pan Am. I don't know which airports these originated from.

Then we have the saga of the "Bedford suitcase", or rather suitcases, because there were two. They materialised inside the container while he was on his break, and one of them was a brown Samsonite hardshell - the only positive sighting of a brown Samsonite hardshell in the entire story apart from the actual bomb suitcase. Kamboj said he had put them there after x-raying them - or that was what Bedford said, but Kamboj (initially at least) denied any memory of this.

After that, the container was taken out to where PA103A had just landed, and filled up with bags from that plane.

So I see why they were concentrating on Frankfurt, because most of the bags in AVE4041 were from Frankfurt. Another thing that got them concentrating on Frankfurt was that the pattern of damage to the baggage container suggested that the bomb suitcase had not been on the floor of the container, but most probably in the second layer from the bottom. It was assumed that the first bags loaded, the interline ones and the two mystery items, would have been on the bottom layer.

And for another thing, the activities of Jibril's group in Frankfurt were known about, and the connection was seen as irresistible in the early stages. Except, were they remembering that with the technology Jibril had been using, anything loaded at Frankfurt would have exploded over France?

Nevertheless, there were these few bags interlined at Heathrow, and the two mystery suitcases, one of which matched the description of the bomb suitcase. They seem to have been dismissed on the grounds that as they were loaded first, they would have been on the bottom layer, and the explosion was one layer up. However, the initial position of the "Bedford suitcase" placed it very near the position of the explosion, and the question was asked, why hadn't it been identified in the wreckage? The other cases surrounding the bomb suitcase were identified from the pattern of damage, and their owners known.

At this point the judges seem to have handwaved the whole thing away. Well, maybe the cases were rearranged in the container when the Frankfurt baggage was being loaded, ended up at the other end from the bomb suitcase, and as it suffered no blast damage, simply didn't come to the attention of the investigators.



Wait a minute! First, the Bedford suitcase couldn't have been the exploding one, because it was in the bottom layer, and the explosion was one layer up. But second, maybe the suitcases were rearranged while the PA103A baggage was being transferred.



One thing that struck me was that John Bedford described how he loaded the interline baggage. He put the cases on their spines, with the handles pointing inwards. He said that was his usual practice. However, all other discussion about the container seems to have been assuming that the cases were all laid flat.

I've never seen this discussed, but the implication that the interline bags must have been rearranged by the handlers dealing with PA103A seem inescapable. If the cases would eventually lie flat, why didn't Bedford lay them that way to start with? No idea, but he didn't. (OK, maybe it was to allow the tags to be checked more easily if necessary, as these would be round the handles.) They must have been laid flat at a later stage, presumably when the Frankfurt baggage was being added.

So which is more likley? That the brown Samsonite hardshell "Bedford" suitcase was taken right to the other end of the container, maybe several layers up, and another very similar brown Samsonite hardshell from Frankfurt (which just happened to contain 450g of Semtex) was placed very close to where it had been, but on the second layer - or that the Bedford suitcase was laid down pretty much where it had been all along, but on top of one of the Frankfurt bags, when the container was being packed and the interline cases positioned flat instead of on their spines?

But everybody seems awfully keen on handwaving this away, and instead finding reasons to believe the bomb came through from Frankfurt.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Interesting stuff above, Rolfe. I haven't looked at the evidence and stories from Heathrow much, and now it's Friday, which means no time today. It adds to the questions worth considering, on top of the Frankfurt ones. We have paperwork showing KM180 arrives, not destroyed. We have papers showing its luggage taken to 206, on file. And the data showing where 103A's luggage came from, destroyed, purged, only the one unofficial copy from Erac' locker and on her word as to how it was printed. If Frankfurt is a distraction, as may be, this is part of the suspicion inducement, cause it looks suspicious.

 

[Rolfe]

It's not that surprising that Frankfurt would routinely dump its luggage transfer computer records, in 1988. Compare the post below (different thread), which completey fizzled out when it was pointed out that this happened in the 1980s.

Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data

"In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space."

As we all know, a couple of USB flash drives would have busted the storage budget wide open LOL. What do you think - incompetence, or destroying inconvenient data?

We're so used to gigabytes and terabytes of storage space, we forget what it was like in the dark ages. And this was ephemeral trivia, not research data. Paper (which is quite possibly all they had at Luqa in 1988) would have had a better chance of surviving, as it's cheap and not really reusable. The computer system at Frankfurt wouldn't have been designed to keep data, and it would be dumped to reuse the storage discs.

That's not the unlikely bit. The rest of it is the unlikely bit.

Were printouts made routinely, for all flights? And Mrs. Erac simply kept this one when she realised its connotations? That behaviour isn't all that unlikely, actually. It was her personal connection to the tragedy. (I've still got the lab report I wrote on the blood sample from the Thames whale!) So she might have kept it without thinking much about evidential value.

Or were the records not normally printed out at all? Obviously the facility existed to do a printout, so it must have been something that was done from time to time, but maybe only in special circumstances, maybe trying to trace lost bags. So maybe Mrs. Erac made the printout specifically because of the fate of PA103, but again for sentimental reasons. It's still quite feasible. People do these things.

This would at least explain why she sat on the thing for so long. If she hadn't been thinking about its evidential value, she wouldn't necessarily have gone running to the bosses at once, or even thought much about it when nobody came looking for it. She hersalf may not really remember whether she printed it off or just saved an existing printout, it's been 20 years for goodness sake.

She might also not remember her motivation. But note that the version we have from her own lips is the "in memory of" version. I wonder whether the other versions were assumptions? I mean, if you were writing this up, and hadn't heard a reason stated, you'd be pretty likely to assume she'd kept it as possible evidence. Even Paul Foot, who's usually very accurate, might have assumed that.

What I'm really saying is that if she was actually thinking about evidence, then it's very difficult to understand why she didn't volunteer the information sooner. However, if it was just a sentimental moment, the keeping of a memento that connected her to a huge international event, maybe not so much.

The harder part to understand is the attitude of the Frankfurt authorities. Possibly. Maid of the Seas went down on the evening of 21st December. The first bit of blast-damaged baggage container was found on 24th December - three days gone already. How long did it take them to figure out that that container was mainly filled by bags from Frankfurt? Might have taken another 4 days to make that connection - especially at Christmas, with staff who might need to be questioned possibly on holiday. So it could easily have been a week before the spotlight began to shine directly on Frankfurt.

Before then, was there any blanket instruction to any airport that might have sent a feeder flight in the general direction of Heathrow on 21st December to save all records? Maybe there should have been, but I've not heard of anything. Failing that, it would require an local initiative to secure the evidence. You'd think any airport management might have had that much sense. Especially if they knew that the principal feeder flight had indeed taken off from their turf. On the other hand, I can imagine some management types who might prefer just to keep quiet. Who really wants evidence to be found that their security let a bomb through?

So I could sort of believe Bogomira's story. She's not thinking about evidence, just about a memento. She went off on holiday. Did she half-forget she had it? Supervisor is asked about luggage records, but after the crucial seven days. Oh dear, very sorry officer, we don't keep these records. Secretly quite relieved, because he doesn't really want his airport dragged into this mess any deeper than it already is, and he'd prefer nobody got the chance to trawl the data just in case. So he doesn't go and ask any of his staff to check if anything still exists.

But the printout is lying in Bogomira's locker, and she comes across it, and belatedly, the penny drops. The Lockerbie disaster has been big big news, and looks like being bigger. By this time newspapers were talking about the PFLP-GC in this context, and hence about Frankfurt. She realises this might be real evidence, and takes it to her supervisor. OK, it just about flies.

I still find the lax attitude to securing and acquiring the Frankfurt baggage records on the part of the investigation team very surprising. And the idea that nobody at the airport was concerned enough to assist the investigation by making sure these records were retained is also a bit of a stretch.

I also find the fact that the Frankfurt police sat on the printout for a while before passing it on to the Lockerbie enquiry to be very strange. Maybe the strangest thing of all about this. This was the time when the investigation was mainly pursuing a case against Jibril's group, based in Frankfurt, and the Frankfurt police knew that. Why not hand this evidence over quickly?

However, is the "it was planted!" theory any less strange? I'm not sure. This was a computer printout, the raw data for which no longer existed. And yet, the printout exists, though hidden. Are we proposing that Bogomira never saved it at all, but (presumably at the instigation of someone involved in the Lockerbie enquiry) volunteered weeks or months later to recreate a completely convincing printout, but incorporating this one extra bag record? I'd say it's impossible. The printout had a lot of information on it, and that was inevitably going to be checked against other records. If you look at the chunk of Paul Foot I posted above, you'll see reference to other flights, and other stray bags, all apparently taken from that printout, and cross-referenced to the hand-written worksheets. I don't see how it could have been fabricated convincingly.

Or do we believe Bogomira did save the printout, for evidence or for sentiment, and was persuaded somehow to falsify it before she handed it in? Why and how, for goodness sake! Or did it all happen just as she said, but somebody else (again, someone with detailed knowledge of the Frankfurt baggage system) managed to interpolate an extra bag record at a later stage? Again, who and how? Re-type all the data, add a line, then make a new printout so similar to the original that Bogomira doesn't notice the switch? And anyway, this doesn't answer any of the anomalies. We still have Bogomira saving and concealing a printout, and the authorities not pursuing the information as hard as we'd have thought they should. We've just added an extra layer of improbability.

Sorry, I'm struggling. Trying to construct a narrative to make that printout fishy is harder than making the timer fragment planted, by a fair bit. It's a weird sequence of events, but it's not that incredible if you factor in a sentimental Bogomira and a few managers who don't want to look too hard for evidence that might implicate their place of business in a huge security lapse. I'd want to see a narrative that explains how the printout could be faked or manipulated, that's at least as internally consistent as that, before I went down that particular rabbit hole.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

This is the interesting part of all this. I'm damn sure Megrahi didn't smuggle that suitcase on to KA180 at Malta, and neither did anyone else. Once you realise that, the whole investigation opens up. Where did it enter the system? Who put it there? How did they circumvent security? What sort of a device was it?

Did the bomb have any connection at all to the other weirdness surrounding that flight like dead CIA officers and American officials searching the ground, and evidence being interfered with and stuff being removed and possibly a missing body, and a drug-smuggling operation and heroin found on the ground and needles (or flechettes) all over the place, and people cancelling off the flight and Pik Botha getting there early enough to catch PA101 but Bernt Carlsson being delayed so that he caught PA103?

I have, right now, no idea.

What I can see, though, is a lot of misdirection. Most of it called Bollier and de Braeckeleer, but not all.

It's a classic twoofer tactic to look at an anomaly, or a coincidence, or something that in hindsight seems a bit strange, and insist that there's something sinister behind it. Right now, over in 9/11, a couple of twoofers are insisting that because Atta's bag didn't catch his connecting flight with him (a flight he had to sprint to catch), and so was found at the airport with lots of interesting contents, it's all "too convenient", and must point to fabricated evidence.

Uh, no. To make a case for fabricated evidence, you have to show a narrative that includes the how, why, when and who of that fabrication, which is internally consistent and at least as credible as the Official Version you're trying to question. I can't do that with Bogomira's printout. It's an odd story, but reasonably credible when you get down to details and motivations. Trying to figure out a way that printout could have been fabricated doesn't yield anything close to that credible. In fact, it dosn't yield anything credible at all, as far as I can see.

This is good. The more baseless speculation and doubt we can put to bed, the more we know which bits of the evidence we can rely on. And the more reliable evidence we have, the easier it will be to spot the real weak spots. Just as realising that Longtabber was full of it and there was no reason to question the Official Story as regards the bomb suitcase and its position made it easier to figure out what the bomb could have been, realising that Bogomira is probably on the level makes it easier to figure out where the mystery baggage item fits in, and gives us confidence that the printout evidence can be relied on when figuring out what, if anything, actually did happen at Frankfurt.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Here, if anyone wants something a bit more meaty than countering RedIbis on luggage transfers.

Bollier's web site has a directory of images, here.

http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/jpg/

It seems to include a number of diagrams claiming that the mystery baggage item at Frankfurt was actually an unaccompanied bag belonging to an airline pilot that was routed from Berlin-Tegel on to PA103A.

Here's the Erac printout.

http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/jpg/shed-1.jpg

And here are the diagrams claiming that the bag belonged to John Hubbard, pilot.

http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/jpg/gate.jpg
http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/jpg/gate44-41.gif
http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/jpg/gate44.gif
http://www.mebocom-defilee.ch/jpg/pa637.jpg

I have no idea how he worked that out or even where he got half his material from. I'm inclined to take this with a huge health warning, because we've seen him come out with wild claims that are complete rubbish, on absolutely nothing but a wild hunch. However, exploring his claims usually seems to get us somewhere, and make things clearer, even if the end result doesn't substantiate what he was suggesting.

It's way past my bed time, but if anyone else wants to have a go at this, feel free.

(I do suspect, though, that if the identity of that bag could be proved in this way, this would be part of the appeal, and yet there has been not a syllable leaked to that effect.)

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Sorry I know it's rude to run ahead of past point, but the line is so long, sorry... quickly, awesome stuff! Trial-related primary source images... data... I will get back to it. But before I forget how I've got it in me brain now

We have handwritten standard log book entry stuff for the bags coming in and where they're routed to. numbers written in columns, signatures, 0s that could be 6s, stuff to look at and learn from. But on the other end, where stuff is loaded to leave the Airport all around the world, they don't have people keeping the same logs? It's important to know what they have and where WITHIN the airport something's going, but once its put on a plane, sorry sir, your bag could have been routed to a dozend different gates, a hundred different flights, to anywhere around half the world. ??? They rely instead on a system purged every week, with printouts either done only on a whim or routine but quickly destroyed? And this fast-moving, ephemeral, crucial system (at least in this case) wasn't even asked after until it should have all been emptied?

I went onto other points there, but the main thig is the alleged difference in records keeping. I've heard it said they focused on where luggage was going to, or somethig, but can anyone help me see how this WAS ther policy, or how it would make sense?

In short. I want to see the interline writer's sheet or equivalent, signed, for gate B044, 1523-ish time frame, when PA102A was loaded. Or a darn good reason this does not exist. I know I'll look dumb if it's well-known and I'm fuming about it but oh well.

ETA: And I'm not fuming at you obv, Rolfe, even though it is almost you and me talking here.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Rolfe has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space.

Well, scratch that then. You got some hard choices to make now, or no more PMs.

So i checked the list of images - mostly half the alphabet (??) but found copies of the actual paperwork I was referring to above. These are listed as shed 1, shed 34, and worksheet. shed 34 demo seems to be a re-working of worksheet. Some of the links were labeled gate 44, and I gulped hard before cliicking. These are made-up diagram pictures, not original documents. So AFAIK my questions above still stand. Wasn't someone there keeping a log?

The interesting graphic here lists 111 pcs baggage loaded to 103A, including ten unaccompanied bags, with origins indicated, and NONE from KM180. I wonder where they got this data?

However, is the "it was planted!" theory any less strange? I'm not sure. This was a computer printout, the raw data for which no longer existed. And yet, the printout exists, though hidden. Are we proposing that Bogomira never saved it at all, but (presumably at the instigation of someone involved in the Lockerbie enquiry) volunteered weeks or months later to recreate a completely convincing printout, but incorporating this one extra bag record? I'd say it's impossible. The printout had a lot of information on it, and that was inevitably going to be checked against other records. If you look at the chunk of Paul Foot I posted above, you'll see reference to other flights, and other stray bags, all apparently taken from that printout, and cross-referenced to the hand-written worksheets. I don't see how it could have been fabricated convincingly.
...

Sorry, I'm struggling. Trying to construct a narrative to make that printout fishy is harder than making the timer fragment planted, by a fair bit. It's a weird sequence of events, but it's not that incredible if you factor in a sentimental Bogomira and a few managers who don't want to look too hard for evidence that might implicate their place of business in a huge security lapse. I'd want to see a narrative that explains how the printout could be faked or manipulated, that's at least as internally consistent as that, before I went down that particular rabbit hole.

I don't have a narrative handy that covers everything, but my first thought was this was just a piece of paper with numbers printed on it. Perhaps the real records were saved and then the system wiped. I'm thinking Bogomira, maybe the supervisor, one probably the main contact, the other an accomplice. Maybe a meeting on the night of the 21st with some national security attache at the embassy to set it up? Then the system is blanked, and the airpot is so embarrassed at this lapse they make up some story about this being routine. Gate 44's paperwork is disappeared, leaving NO RECORD until a few months have passed, and an analyst has had time to find the point that will fit with the other data and give them a plausible (but not too perfect) link to a Maltese Flight. It's printed up. Someone in the police seeds this in with a backstory of delays. That they admit to waiting months smells of taking some blame and some heat off the Airport people, sharing the load as it were.

These are just some possible connective tissue I'm thinking of as I go. My CT mode is finally in 4^th gear on this. It may not make sense, upon closer inspection of the intricacies, but I'm just ignorant enough to see it all too clearly for now.

In the process: first hard links to what happened are removed from view. This could cover up almost anything. Later, once you've decided where you want the uprooted blame to go (Libya was app. decided by mid-89) you can get this rolling. If you do it sloppy enough, it can be picked apart for years until it's ready to die and allow round two to commence. There is little love these days for Iran and Syria.

 

[Klimax]

This is the interesting part of all this. I'm damn sure Megrahi didn't smuggle that suitcase on to KA180 at Malta, and neither did anyone else.

Sorry,but how the hell you can dismiss it OUTRIGHT??? This is just and only your opinion and not a fact. That is fail of a post.

Airports have various security and some were easier to penetrate then others. We have poster (IIRC in original thread) who said that security was quite bad.

So far nobody had proved that Malta was not an entry point. Evidence against Megrahi maybe weak,but counterevidence is lacking as well maybe even more.

You need far more work to be done to say something like this,just to say OT is not correct.

However what I would think is possible,that terrorists missed actual target.(It was here already mentioned) It would fit quite well into whole thing...

(I am computer maniac,student of IT. I have small knowledge of said event and associated CT.)

I think you have jumped the shark.(If I used correct phrase...)

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry,but how the hell you can dismiss it OUTRIGHT??? This is just and only your opinion and not a fact. That is fail of a post.

Airports have various security and some were easier to penetrate then others. We have poster (IIRC in original thread) who said that security was quite bad.

So far nobody had proved that Malta was not an entry point. Evidence against Megrahi maybe weak,but counterevidence is lacking as well maybe even more.

You need far more work to be done to say something like this,just to say OT is not correct.

However what I would think is possible,that terrorists missed actual target.(It was here already mentioned) It would fit quite well into whole thing...

(I am computer maniac,student of IT. I have small knowledge of said event and associated CT.)

I think you have jumped the shark.(If I used correct phrase...)

If you note what I said, I said "I'm damn sure". That's the conclusion I've come to from looking at the evidence. It doesn't mean I couldn't be persuaded otherwise, by someone who has access to evidence I haven't seen, or has a plausible theory that didn't occur to me. However, at the moment it's my default position. You're entirely free to disagree with me, and attempt to persuade me otherwise.

There was a poster who said that security for hand luggage was lax. That doesn't surprise me in the 1980s, when most of the security concern was to guard against unaccompanied bags. We hadn't seen the suicide bombers on planes at that time.

However, the PA103 story requires an unaccompanied suitcase in the hold of KA180. The evidence presented in court revealed nothing indicative of an unccompanied bag on that flight. It revealed no evident mechanism whereby Megrahi could have got one on. And it revealed that security for checked baggage was tight, and would have been difficult to penetrate. And it's an incontrovertible fact that the prosecution tried its damndest to crack that aspect of the case. It failed.

This is in contrast to some pretty solid evidence of a big hole in the security at Heathrow, and of a very suspicious bag exactly where it oughtn't to have been, and evidence of bags flying all over the place at Frankfurt with a clear opportunity for something to be put through a coding station there as if it had come from a connecting flight.

The court themselves said, in the verdict, that they had no clue how the bag had got on at Luqa, but on the basis of the Frankfurt baggage records (which we're now examining) they declared that, somehow, it must have happened.

Can you do better than the court?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, scratch that then. You got some hard choices to make now, or no more PMs.

OK, I cleared a space!

So i checked the list of images - mostly half the alphabet (??) but found copies of the actual paperwork I was referring to above. These are listed as shed 1, shed 34, and worksheet. shed 34 demo seems to be a re-working of worksheet. Some of the links were labeled gate 44, and I gulped hard before cliicking. These are made-up diagram pictures, not original documents. So AFAIK my questions above still stand. Wasn't someone there keeping a log?

The interesting graphic here lists 111 pcs baggage loaded to 103A, including ten unaccompanied bags, with origins indicated, and NONE from KM180. I wonder where they got this data?

Me too. I don't even know right now where he got the name John Hubbard. Did Mr. Hubbard report a vanished bag after the crash? Or does Bollier hypothesise that it was spotted as mis-routed and re-routed correctly? This is complete news to me. Given that Megrahi's advocate seems to have gone over that printout with a fine tooth comb and he didn't mention any of this, I'm sceptical. It's interesting, but I also recall that this is Bollier talking, and Bollier is the source of It's Brown!! There are saw-marks on the edge! Feraday changed a label from 1990 to 1989! The polaroid originally showed the Toshiba fragment, not the timer fragment! and so on, including the Lumpert story which lacks any corroborating evidence.

I'd still like to know where he got his data.

I don't have a narrative handy that covers everything, but my first thought was this was just a piece of paper with numbers printed on it. Perhaps the real records were saved and then the system wiped. I'm thinking Bogomira, maybe the supervisor, one probably the main contact, the other an accomplice. Maybe a meeting on the night of the 21st with some national security attache at the embassy to set it up? Then the system is blanked, and the airpot is so embarrassed at this lapse they make up some story about this being routine. Gate 44's paperwork is disappeared, leaving NO RECORD until a few months have passed, and an analyst has had time to find the point that will fit with the other data and give them a plausible (but not too perfect) link to a Maltese Flight. It's printed up. Someone in the police seeds this in with a backstory of delays. That they admit to waiting months smells of taking some blame and some heat off the Airport people, sharing the load as it were.

These are just some possible connective tissue I'm thinking of as I go. My CT mode is finally in 4^th gear on this. It may not make sense, upon closer inspection of the intricacies, but I'm just ignorant enough to see it all too clearly for now.

In the process: first hard links to what happened are removed from view. This could cover up almost anything. Later, once you've decided where you want the uprooted blame to go (Libya was app. decided by mid-89) you can get this rolling. If you do it sloppy enough, it can be picked apart for years until it's ready to die and allow round two to commence. There is little love these days for Iran and Syria.

This is a bit twoofer-ish for me. It's a piece of paper with some numbers on it, but it seems to be true that it's impossible to make sense of it without other data. Once everything is put together, the routes become clearer. You couldn't just make up random numbers, they'd have to correlate with the other stuff - which does seem to have been kept. Or you'd have to forge these handwritten worksheets as well. This is sounding pretty improbable to me.

I acknowledge there is evidence of stuff happening on the ground in Scotland on the night of the 21st. The probable reason for that is the CIA officers on the plane, and not wanting the contents of their luggage to fall into the wrong hands. But that's a lot different from deciding to manipulate evidence to show what they wanted it to show at that stage. Seems highly unlikely to me.

If you're going to suggest any sort of manipulation here, I can think of only one plausible scenario. The records were purged, for some reason nobody saved the data. However, the hand-written work records were saved because the paper was still there. Then somebody decided that they wanted to implicate Malta, because the clothes in the suitcase had come from there. So they managed to fabricate a plausible printout, working backwards from the handwritten records, including a bag to PA103A from the station dealing with KA180, smack in the middle of the relevant period.

Then they needed someone to give it provenance, and somehow blackmailed or bribed Bogomira to say she'd saved the printout. Maybe they even got her to produce the fake printout, using her specialist knowledge. Sounds quite far-fetched to me, not least because of the risk Bogomira would go straight to the newspapers with the story. Unless someone had something pretty heavy to blackmail her with.

It's fiction. It's a lot less likely than the Offical Version. Not least because while I can understand the investigators leaping on an apparent Malta connection when they thought they saw one in front of them, it's a lot less easy to see what might be gained from manufacturing a false Malta connection at that stage.

It's an odd story. That's the trouble with this incident, it's swarming with odd stories. But they're not all going to be false, in the end. Strange coincidence or not, I'm on balance inclined to believe Bogomira.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Me too. I don't even know right now where he got the name John Hubbard. ...
I'd still like to know where he got his data.

Don't hold your breath waiting to find that out.

This is a bit twoofer-ish for me.

It's a bit out there for me too. I do like visiting twooferland, so long as I'm not forced to stay too long. But actually, just remember this is not dice-rolling grade chances we're dealing with here, where there are set odds and limited variables, and something is either likely or not. The unlikely can be become entirely likely, probable, real, if the will and means exist. It's all in the risks and payoffs, and these can be calculated and managed.

It's a piece of paper with some numbers on it, but it seems to be true that it's impossible to make sense of it without other data. Once everything is put together, the routes become clearer. You couldn't just make up random numbers, they'd have to correlate with the other stuff - which does seem to have been kept. Or you'd have to forge these handwritten worksheets as well. This is sounding pretty improbable to me.

In my tentative narrative, they (whoever exactly that is) would have the full real data and would seek to change almost nothing about it before releasin it as evidence. Two things could be done this way, with no one else able to verify or ID the changes: shift blame away from where it really lies, and to put it where they wanted it to go.

I acknowledge there is evidence of stuff happening on the ground in Scotland on the night of the 21st. The probable reason for that is the CIA officers on the plane, and not wanting the contents of their luggage to fall into the wrong hands. But that's a lot different from deciding to manipulate evidence to show what they wanted it to show at that stage. Seems highly unlikely to me.

Agreed that's a lot to ask for just hours, unless of course they knew ahead of time... :
BUT, to know they wanted Franfurt's baggage records offline before pesky uncontrolled German police looked at it, that could be decided only on suspicions, as a precaution. So far that's all I've alleged for the first day.

If you're going to suggest any sort of manipulation here, I can think of only one plausible scenario. The records were purged, for some reason nobody saved the data. However, the hand-written work records were saved because the paper was still there. Then somebody decided that they wanted to implicate Malta, because the clothes in the suitcase had come from there. So they managed to fabricate a plausible printout, working backwards from the handwritten records, including a bag to PA103A from the station dealing with KA180, smack in the middle of the relevant period.

Then they needed someone to give it provenance, and somehow blackmailed or bribed Bogomira to say she'd saved the printout. Maybe they even got her to produce the fake printout, using her specialist knowledge. Sounds quite far-fetched to me, not least because of the risk Bogomira would go straight to the newspapers with the story. Unless someone had something pretty heavy to blackmail her with.

On the reason: it's just official policy, remember? It took a week to do it and no one came to look or anything in that time.
On working backwards: this part makes your version less plausible than mine, in that regard.
On provenance: Odd they also selected a programer responsible for the data system itself, the kind of person who COULD, of all people, blank the home system while slipping you a disc, when some lower clerk could as easily have done. Some random pleeb who happens to work near these papers could as easily be believed as stashing a keepsake copy without understanding its value as evidence to hand over right away.
On blackmail: Punishments and rewards, emphasis on the latter, should have been used. Along with assurances that the Libyans really were guilty, they just covered up this link and a fake story was needed to prosecution the real terrorists. This would fall flat of course if she was the one who snagged the data for them and cleared the drive herself.

The big danger in this scenario is she might make her own copy of the discs(s) for later blackmail of her own. Who can really say what rules even apply in such a game?

It's fiction. It's a lot less likely than the Offical Version. Not least because while I can understand the investigators leaping on an apparent Malta connection when they thought they saw one in front of them, it's a lot less easy to see what might be gained from manufacturing a false Malta connection at that stage.

What stage? I don't know when this data really was known to whom, but somehow I suspect it was on paper as we've seen it before handed to SCOTBOM in August. By that time the Mebo chip was being looked at and photographed, no turning back there short of never finalizing an ID. Whatever oteher substantial clues. And since the US was already War Gaming Iraq conflict scenarios and snubbing its diplomats, threatening sanctions, etc. by 1989 and we already have the high-politics "who besides the PFLPGC/Syria/Iran COULD we blame?" Even back in 89, Libya would figure high, right?

It's an odd story. That's the trouble with this incident, it's swarming with odd stories. But they're not all going to be false, in the end. Strange coincidence or not, I'm on balance inclined to believe Bogomira.

And I'm just agnostic but suspicious on her story, and it's given us a great pro-con dynamic. Very useful.

 

[Caustic Logic]

This is the interesting part of all this. I'm damn sure Megrahi didn't smuggle that suitcase on to KA180 at Malta, and neither did anyone else.

Sorry,but how the hell you can dismiss it OUTRIGHT??? This is just and only your opinion and not a fact. That is fail of a post.

As a non-native English speaker I'll cut you some slack here. FYI "I'm damn sure" is a statement of personal belief, as is basically everything anyone states as fact. She stated her belief, which has been well illustrated elsewhere as being entirely supported as a sane belief. Like "that is a fail of a post." A statement of belief that I, for one, don't buy. Therefore not fact. Even if you say it as such.

Now that I've confused you, thanks for popping in here, chum!

Airports have various security and some were easier to penetrate then others. We have poster (IIRC in original thread) who said that security was quite bad.

So far nobody had proved that Malta was not an entry point. Evidence against Megrahi maybe weak,but counterevidence is lacking as well maybe even more.

I agree and have gone on record here that the arguments against Malta ingestion are inconclusive, and perhaps specious. But... There is case made, with specifics of how things were counted and verified, and how small and controlled operations were, as evidence against the bag going on there, and certainly no proof to the contrary. You can't make a good decision based on 'some airports have bad security' and a faint reliance on the official story as a baseline. This will just bias you to presume security at Malta HAD to be bad, since the bag came from there, and so on. This wouls make you like an averaage news consumer, or as some say, a "sheeple," or singular "sheeperson," "sherson," or "peep."

I'm only being a little smart-ass here. Nothing personal.

However what I would think is possible,that terrorists missed actual target.(It was here already mentioned) It would fit quite well into whole thing...

I don't know about the wrong plane story. It appealed to me for a moment because it was new. Then I realized it had problems and didn't answer any questions or add much to anything. I'd have to go back to it, maybe I didn't grasp it right.

I think you have jumped the shark.(If I used correct phrase...)

In this context, I take that would mean the CTs were running out of steam/appeal/ideas and start resorting to increasingly bold and absurd claims just to stir momentary attention. As usually a sign of fading popularity/currency, it's clearly not applicable in this case

(types me, based on my beliefs)

But seriously, don't let me chase you off! There are just no people here trying to counter these beliefs, which should scare you off, but please don't let it! Actually, here you could take Rolfe's side and help tear up this planted printout theory I'm proposing. Could be fun.

 

[Klimax]

As a non-native English speaker I'll cut you some slack here. FYI "I'm damn sure" is a statement of personal belief, as is basically everything anyone states as fact. She stated her belief, which has been well illustrated elsewhere as being entirely supported as a sane belief. Like "that is a fail of a post." A statement of belief that I, for one, don't buy. Therefore not fact. Even if you say it as such.

Now that I've confused you, thanks for popping in here, chum!

Good clarification,not confusion. It originaly looked to me too Cter...(and I am sure you have seen too many CTs as well)

I just lack based upon discussion such believe. (But my own impression of go v is quite different - simply too incopetent to do this,but you'd need to watch Czech rep to see why...)

I agree and have gone on record here that the arguments against Malta ingestion are inconclusive, and perhaps specious. But... There is case made, with specifics of how things were counted and verified, and how small and controlled operations were, as evidence against the bag going on there, and certainly no proof to the contrary. You can't make a good decision based on 'some airports have bad security' and a faint reliance on the official story as a baseline. This will just bias you to presume security at Malta HAD to be bad, since the bag came from there, and so on. This wouls make you like an averaage news consumer, or as some say, a "sheeple," or singular "sheeperson," "sherson," or "peep."

I used reverse from what you posted in quote.(Some reported that they had interesting experience at the time of event,so it made some sense that terrorists used that airport. As for bag-handling I saw interesting thread in 911CT section,something about Atta's late baggage.

And you are correct that had I used easy way "Gov reported they had this breach,so they must have bad security",I would fall into logical error.

I don't know about the wrong plane story. It appealed to me for a moment because it was new. Then I realized it had problems and didn't answer any questions or add much to anything. I'd have to go back to it, maybe I didn't grasp it right.

It made sense to me as the set time would make sense there.(It would be by that time far over water even if delayed and had american soldiers - good target)

In this context, I take that would mean the CTs were running out of steam/appeal/ideas and start resorting to increasingly bold and absurd claims just to stir momentary attention. As usually a sign of fading popularity/currency, it's clearly not applicable in this case

(types me, based on my beliefs)

But seriously, don't let me chase you off! There are just no people here trying to counter these beliefs, which should scare you off, but please don't let it! Actually, here you could take Rolfe's side and help tear up this planted printout theory I'm proposing. Could be fun.

And unfortunately I have little aplicable experience,so I usually read and watch for any broken logic.(And misunderstood Rolfe's post.)
You'll see me around when I can provide some info.

As for planted printout.:If they had other airports data,conspiracy would grow too big.(Aka 911CT)

Anyway to make at least partial conclusion we'd need how good was security at other involved airports and what were their procedures about bags like this..

Second my another theory is that two groups colaborated - like Jibril and Lebanon,which could make certain strange things explainable. Like malta's shopper,Frankfurt's issue with breakin,...

Last:I waste too much time already and I got too many things to do,so I usually reserve reading to train and then some quick posts(they can be quite large). i know some things about electronics(but no match to Dan O.) and quite a lot of about computers(and I am improving),so I doubt I'll be able to add much.

Klimax out.

 

[GlennB]

So far nobody had proved that Malta was not an entry point.

From a purely legal point of view it would be the prosecution that needs to prove that Malta was the entry point. This they failed to do. Meanwhile there is strong evidence that Malta wasn't the point of 'ingestion' (posts passim in a number of threads).

 

[Klimax]

From a purely legal point of view it would be the prosecution that needs to prove that Malta was the entry point. This they failed to do. Meanwhile there is strong evidence that Malta wasn't the point of 'ingestion' (posts passim in a number of threads).

I suppose the thing is,that there are two possible entry points. But how does the security differ? i suspect that malta wasn't that much source of problems,so they might not be under such pressure to guard against entry of explosives in bags and if they were not at that time known for problems,then other airports would skip luggages from it. So far however too much "might",unless somebody from airports,preffererebly of that time does input.

I'll quickly return to theory of two groups/two bags. One signed in malta would have electronic timer(and/or any other trigger) and small,low powered radio transmitter. Second bag somehow entering second airport(Frankfurt) has reciever and bomb itself.

If Longtabber is right (his experties is at this time however suspect)then this could explain survival of fragment and possible casing and since reciever would be in direct contact with semtex,it would be destroyed or too small pieces would remain. IIRC it could acount for some more discrepancies.

But what I don't recall and cannot check right now,how strong were transmitters at that time for given power and how well would get signal to reciever.(It must not trigger on false signals and pick up correct signal with unkown strength,unless perp would place bag close enough to transmitter and could guarantee that it is in planned distance)

 

[Caustic Logic]

I suppose the thing is,that there are two possible entry points.

All we can really say is the bomb was loaded onto Maid of the Seas at Heathrow (unless it was on there before, who knows). Before that it could have many entry points. AFAIK the only reason to suspect it came in on the feeder from Frankfurt is the paper suggesting a bag from Air Malta KM180, plus the Maltese clothes. So just on the official line, we have Luqa, Frankfurt, AND Heathrow as possible entry points. Aside from Luqa via Frankfurt we have elsewhere via Frankfurt and elsewhere via elsewhere, depending how many other flights fed into PA103.

But how does the security differ? ... So far however too much "might",unless somebody from airports,preffererebly of that time does input.

Exactly. All I can say is all are theoretically impermeable. I've heard of more breaches for Heathrow and Frankfurt than at Luqa, but then I've read more revisionist stuff dedicated to denying the official story. Until we can know more about a chaotic and shifting thing like security in these airports at this time, we can't say for sure.

i suspect that malta wasn't that much source of problems,so they might not be under such pressure to guard against entry of explosives in bags and if they were not at that time known for problems,then other airports would skip luggages from it.

Depends. It's a small airport but one that connects North Africa, especially Libya, with Europe, so it might have extra reason to be vigilant. But then again, that might have seemed more a theoretical problem than a practical one, so again who can say?

I'll quickly return to theory of two groups/two bags. One signed in malta would have electronic timer(and/or any other trigger) and small,low powered radio transmitter. Second bag somehow entering second airport(Frankfurt) has reciever and bomb itself.

If Longtabber is right (his experties is at this time however suspect)then this could explain survival of fragment and possible casing and since reciever would be in direct contact with semtex,it would be destroyed or too small pieces would remain. IIRC it could acount for some more discrepancies.

But what I don't recall and cannot check right now,how strong were transmitters at that time for given power and how well would get signal to reciever.(It must not trigger on false signals and pick up correct signal with unkown strength,unless perp would place bag close enough to transmitter and could guarantee that it is in planned distance)

Interesting theory. Again, the kind that's appealing for novelty, but I'm not enthused somehow, and don't have time to go over it for logic and such. I wish I had more time for all of this, to do it better. But this is life and I'm lucky to have any time afforded me.