Dialog on Lockerbie theories

[Ambrosia]

[MST-timers] It was set to blow up over land and be found.

No it was set to blow up at a specific time into the flight. (if it was used at all) Incompetence on the part of the bombers is the most likely reason it exploded over land.

The flight paths used to get from London to NY by transatlantic flights vary daily depending on a number of variables, it just so happened that this particular flight was assigned this particular route this particular time. Other flight paths used more often would have had 103 over the open ocean at time of detonation.

Those are both news to me. I'm mildly stumped at the moment. Anyone?

All toshiba bom-beat radios of a certain type were sold in Libya, similar to the radio found to have contained the IED. Only not the same, they had different coloured cases and IIRC (not at the right PC so dont have all my notes) the prosecution fudged this fact at the trial. Not sure about the 86 official I suspect what he refers to is in his book.

 

[Rolfe]

They should ask why Libyan officials were trying to find MST-13 timers in December 1988.

Uh, were they? Who says? Didn't they have the entire print run in the first place?

Even ignoring the huge big questions over the provenance of the timer fragment allegedly found at Lockerbie, that is beyond tenuous - especially when specifically considering Megrahi's alleged involvement. Was this point even raised in court?

It was a senior Libyan official who had ordered the majority of all the Toshiba radios similar to that which carried the bomb. This official also talked in 1986 about putting a bag on a British or American flight from Malta. Ask why?

Ask first, who says and how do they know. Loose talk by "a senior Libyan official" in 1986 doesn't immediately prove Abdelbaset al-Megrahi personally smuggled a bomb past Luqa security in December 1988. As circumstantial evidence goes, it barely registers - certainly not in comparison to the circumstantial evidence against Jibril et al. The provenance of the radio-cassette players was raised at Camp Zeist, but I don't recall its being anything like as clear-cut as Marquise relates.

It was strange that of all the people in the world, Mr. Megrahi was in Malta the same day the clothing was purchased and was there the same day the bomb left on its fateful journey.

Coincidences abound in this case, Richard. Of all the people in the world, Abu Talb had a huge stash (in Sweden) of clothing purchased in Malta. Of all the days in the year, the day John Bedford saw a mysterious bronze Samsonite suitcase going on to the relevant baggage container at Heathrow was the day the bronze Samsonite bomb suitcase exploded in that container. And so on.

In fact, the day Megrahi was in Malta before the bombing is very unlikely to have been the day the clothes were bought. The day they were probably bought, he wasn't there. And Megrahi had to be somewhere on the morning of 21st December, as did we all. For lots of people, not just him, that somewhere was Luqa airport. That only starts to mean something if you can prove there was an unaccompanied bag on KM180 and he had an opportunity to put it there.

If the bomb was put on board at Heathrow, and there is a damn sight more evidence for that than there is for the Luqa fantasy, then being at Luqa is a positive alibi.

Ask why Mr. Megrahi had opened a “front” business in Zurich, at the premises of the man who had given the Libyan officials the MST-13 timers.

Why? Show me evidence he ever had such a timer in his possession, show me evidence he ever handled explosives or was involved in constructing a bomb, and I might be a bit more interested. Tenuous coincidences do not a conviction make.

Ask why Mr. Megrahi came to Malta from Tripoli on the evening of December 20, 1988, in a false name and only stayed long enough to get a night’s sleep.

I could ask, but I very much doubt anyone would tell me. Whatever Megrahi was up to on that trip, neither he nor Gadaffi is telling. Sanctions-busting? Who knows? You wouldn't care to blame him for 9/11 and the London Tube bombings and Eniskillen as well on the evidence you're advancing?

This is in the same vein as the recent assertions that Megrahi was "a seriously bad man" (in the context of the Swiss bank account). Maybe he was. I don't know. There are many seriously bad men in the world. And on any goven day, a fair few of them will be up to some nefarious deeds. Showing that your suspect was probably engaged in something underhand at about the right time is hardly enough to prove guilt.

Richard Marquise has convinced himself that all the little coincidences that tie Megrahi to Lockerbie build up like Lego blocks into an irrefutable case for guilt, while all the little coincidences pointing elsewhere are only little coincidences than roll about like marbles rather than fitting together to make a case.

I wouldn't give anyone a parking ticket on the strength of that lot.

Rolfe.

 

[theprestige]

From the OJ Simpson thread.

Note that I don't agree with the verdict in the Megrahi case out of some explicit or implicit sense of obligation to agree with court verdicts.

Indeed, post you quoted was the most recent in an exchange that began when somebody else said that they believed they were required to say that OJ is not guilty, because that's what the courts said. I disagree with that argument.

Also note that I don't object to the idea of disagreeing with the court's ruling in the Megrahi case. I think it's a fine thing you and CL are doing, even if your results so far haven't done much to personally excite me about the possibility that the court's ruling was wrong. But then, I was never particularly excited about the possibility of the court's ruling being right.

And while I'm not particularly excited about the tone of your arguments, I do find it interesting in its own right. There's this implication that the only legitimate responses to your work are either acceptance of your conclusions or successful debunking of them. There's also this implication that one cannot have an opinion on the matter unless one takes it as seriously as you do.

It's this tone that, for a few minutes each day, as I take a brief respite from the ten thousand things in my life that I do take seriously, that that I find mildly fascinating.

I also admit that I'm curious to see what-all you dig up, and whether or not it ever ultimately leads to a conclusive debunking of the mainstream viewpoint. So, um, keep up the good work, and good luck!

 

[Rolfe]

Do you expect Caustic Logic, Ambrosia, Buncrana, myself and others to re-post in this thread everything we've posted so far in other threads on the subject? Because, frankly, I don't think that's going to happen.

Do you expect the entire complex web of coincidence, happenstance, various theories and so on to be laid out in this very thread for your edification? Because I don't think that's going to happen either.

What do you consider the "mainstream" viewpoint? Bearing in mind that most of the commentary available in print, in documentaries and on the net takes the view that the court verdict was perverse.

What do you think of the strength of the evidence that an unaccompanied bag was carried on KM180?

What do you think of the strength of the evidence that Megrahi bought certain clothes from Tony Gauci on 7th December 1988?

Have you any idea of the actual evidence in either case?

You see, it's your tone I find strange. You know nothing about the evidence. You claim to care less. You have no intention of examining the evidence either. You don't even bother to comment on the small parts of it that have appeared in this thread.

And yet you still bother to visit the thread, apparently for no other purpose than to heckle.

Rolfe.

 

[Ambrosia]

I also admit that I'm curious to see what-all you dig up,

A good chunk of the digging has already happened.

I recommend reading this thread from this post onwards, it's about 400 or so posts of reading and will likely only take a "few minutes" out of your day.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5021567#post5021567

 

[Caustic Logic]

At least he does step in and sort of engage why he's not saying more, which most others don't even bother to do. It's really not a big deal to most people - just one of the worst terrorist attacks ever, 270 dead, and the matter is resolved, meaning there was a resolution, of some kind, reached.

Can I ask, theprestige, have you ever found the issue interesting enough to feel anger about Megrahi's release? Or was that too in the realm of "none of my concern"? That's a good gauge - if you have anger, then you care, and if you care you should learn a little to be more sure you're aiming your concern properly.

And while I'm not particularly excited about the tone of your arguments, I do find it interesting in its own right. There's this implication that the only legitimate responses to your work are either acceptance of your conclusions or successful debunking of them. There's also this implication that one cannot have an opinion on the matter unless one takes it as seriously as you do.

One cannot be correct, or arguing from a sound footing unless they either acknowledge the inconvenient (non-lego) facts we pressent, or explain why they can't also stack up in a wall that's worthy of calling a case. Because it comes down to a choice of walls, and it was a political choice.

You don't have to take it any perticular degree of serious. But for anyone reading this, I'm reminding you could and should if feasible, and if you just really don't want to learn, you might ask why or at least feel guilty for not even doing that.

On the tone of our discussion, I'm sure it does come across aggressive and nerdy at the same time, overwhelming and almost cult-ish maybe. Oh well, sorry. Everyone else seem like drugged sheep, until you tell them some bad news about "the Lockerbie bomber" going home, then they seethe with opinion, and clamor over each other to shout it the loudest. But try to get someone questioning and it's just "the Great Oz has spoken and Megrahi is guilty, and oh, it's not even interesting."

Or silence, usually.

 

[Caustic Logic]

No it was set to blow up at a specific time into the flight. (if it was used at all) Incompetence on the part of the bombers is the most likely reason it exploded over land.

Well of course the timer is just hypothetical anyway. They'd have us believe the MST-13 was (incompetently?) set to blow either just after or just before leaving the mainland, depending on departure profile, rather than way out over the ocean. Another problem with the official story, if not fatal. Material from the explosion spread out first and wider, and winds were inbound off the ocean. On almost any route their cover could be easily blown. You have to presume they're pretty stupid, and adding meetings to get MORE MST-13s just days before you've planned this adds ????

All toshiba bom-beat radios of a certain type were sold in Libya, similar to the radio found to have contained the IED. Only not the same, they had different coloured cases and IIRC (not at the right PC so dont have all my notes) the prosecution fudged this fact at the trial. Not sure about the 86 official I suspect what he refers to is in his book.

Was the case white? Somehow Feraday had convinced himself the radio had a white case, but then shifted gears and said it was black. It was debris found in the info plate from container 4041 that he said indicated white, IIRC.

Thanks you and Rolfe and others for excellent posts here. But at the moment this thread has left me feeling fatigued. It's great to put the E in JREF, but it was never called the JREEEEEEEEEEEF anyway. Finally time to use this smiley?

A trip to the rendering plant may be more useful.
Happy approximate New Year, all!

 

[Caustic Logic]

Ooops, apologies. I did not intend to make that seem like a New Year's Resolution suggestion. The timing was coincidental (or so it seems).

But yeah, I'm getting the vibe of the room and it's chilly enough. No one's been reading, they hate us for debunking the official story for once, and I admit it's got to be uncomfortable and squirmy for people. They shut down. They're a little like deer who stare into headlights. They get run over and its little wonder we hardly ever see the same deer come back twice (unless they start driving trucks like we got). The occasional dreadful thumps were just getting to me, don't know if I could handle herds anyway, and the empty road now is comforting - the deer got smart and learned to stay away. They graze peacefully in fields of pre-debunked woo.

Unfortunately, it's now a boring road too. Is that a catch 22? Anyway, dialog isn't working too well.

 

[GlennB]

Caustic - did you get any explanation as to why your raising the issue in Politics resulted in the thread being moved to CT ?

I sometimes post on 9/11 "Truth" forums, where (as a "Truth" critic) I am relegated to the local Critics ghetto. Raising the Lockerbie issue outside this CT forum on JREF is beginning to give me a similar feeling.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Caustic - did you get any explanation as to why your raising the issue in Politics resulted in the thread being moved to CT ?

I sometimes post on 9/11 "Truth" forums, where (as a "Truth" critic) I am relegated to the local Critics ghetto. Raising the Lockerbie issue outside this CT forum on JREF is beginning to give me a similar feeling.

Good question. I wouldn't accuse anyone, or the forum at large, of the kind of petty info-management required to make a bogus-discussion forum keep going. I'm guessing a moderator had a knee-jerk reaction seeing more of 'that Lockerbie stuff' ranging out bounds, due to an emotional impulse and the several posts saying just that. "wrong forum, you're arguing a conspiracy theory."

Fact is it touches on a few different things and could arguably go in different forums, but it was a political question, I think. That's why I put it there. How did you form your opinion on guilt in this major world event? What makes something like Magrahi's guilt historically real to you? Something to get angry over and be all certain of?

Pretty much it seems it was the fact there was an investigation and a trial, and these must've been fair. Evidence isn't political, it's science and law. Or so you'd presume. And I haven't proven the evidence was political. So doubting t isn't, it's "paranoid" or whatever, who cares? no one (that I was asking) has anything much to add in either forum.

And besides, it came put seeming more like asking for debunks, and debunking the "official story" in detail, so it gets the CT flavor. Subconscious influence, mass hysteria, Lord of the Flies stuff. "Scenario fulfillment."

My word, stalking the JREF forum begging to get debunked with actual facts and then getting bored when people stop even listening to the pleas? It's sad on so many levels. But that's alright, I know when to quit. This level is beat, depressingly easy. Next level now...

 

[yodaluver28]

To be honest I think part of the reason for the responses, Caustic Logic, is the attitude that you and the others who are so keen on this topic are presenting with. You admit that you have no idea what the hell happened and have no clue who committed the crime, yet you have the nerve to suggest that people don't want to discuss it because you've so soundly shaken their entire worldview that they're now reduced to deer caught in headlights and that's why nobody wants to discuss Lockerbie or contemplate a universe where their precious "official story" has been debunked.

Prove something! Anything. Then people might be more interested in talking about it.

Yes, the implications of Lockerbie are/were huge but the facts of this case are tedious and guilt virtually unprovable one way or another at this point and that's why it will never be a popular topic of discussion. It doesn't make people who don't want to discuss it stupid or scared of what they might find out. The Lockerbie controversy requires an incredible amount of research and study into the most obscure issues just to get up to speed and it's incredibly frustrating and thankless task because the more you study this subject, the less you really know about anything. 9/11 does get alot of talk because it happened more recently but mostly because the debunking generally involves basic scientific principles that most of us understand and can discuss or simple fact-checking.

Lockerbie also has another factor making it less than compelling and that is that the possibly "innocent" parties are probably nothing of the kind. Even if they didn't take part in the Lockerbie attack, they are still almost certainly terrorists, co-conspirators, and/or state supporters of several other attacks against innocent people and are probably acquainted with the actual guilty party itself.

If Iran is responsible instead of Libya, which is by far the most likely alternative explanation IMO, I want it known and them punished severely but I'm not gonna hold my breath that anyone will ever be able to prove it.

 

[GlennB]

Prove something! Anything. Then people might be more interested in talking about it.

And yet the Amanda Knox thread runs to 1700+ posts.

But the real pain, yodaluver, is the regular suggestion - hinted at in your post - that recognition that the Megrahi case represents a major miscarriage of justice requires 'us' to point out who actually did do it. There are many well-known cases where the convicted criminal is absolved without the real criminal ever being identified, and no such case has ever required identification of the real culprit to justify interest in debating the issue.

And this is where the political aspect of the whole discussion is highlighted. It appears to me, for one, that many are afraid to confront the issues because it would say rather too much about the cynical nature of politics than can comfortably be entertained. Therefore it must be swept under the carpet, and therefore the 'take your evidence to the cops, kid' snipe which merely acts as a cheap and rather nasty alternative to debate.

 

[Ambrosia]

Good question. I'm guessing a moderator had a knee-jerk reaction seeing more of 'that Lockerbie stuff'

I'm guessing it had more to do with the snarky posts that wound up in several politics threads at the same time, along with the general drift of this thread away from anything much political, tho I might be wrong.

To be honest I think part of the reason for the responses, Caustic Logic, is the attitude that you and the others who are so keen on this topic are presenting with.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it is very frustrating for there not to be much dialogue on this topic given the general level of traffic in the CT forum.

You admit that you have no idea what the hell happened and have no clue who committed the crime

I admit that I can't prove what happened, the weight of evidence such as it is points to Iran and the PFLP-GC, with the bomb being loaded at Heathrow.

Evidence also suggests that the FBI were using these flights as a "controlled delivery" network for shipping heroin in an operation totally unconnected to the bombings.

Prove something! Anything. Then people might be more interested in talking about it.

Therein lies a problem, while there is some evidence to point to conclusions like those above, there's nowhere near enough evidence to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lockerbie also has another factor making it less than compelling and that is that the possibly "innocent" parties are probably nothing of the kind. Even if they didn't take part in the Lockerbie attack, they are still almost certainly terrorists, co-conspirators, and/or state supporters of several other attacks against innocent people and are probably acquainted with the actual guilty party itself.

While I'd agree that Megrahi is no angel, he is no more guilty imo of being a "terrorist" than some members of the armed forces are in the UK or America. Are members of the CIA/DIA/AIA/MI5 etc terrorists simply because they work for intelligence servces?

Are the soldiers who fired missiles at Libya killing civilians in the 1986 raid terrorists? - How about the captain of the USS Vincennes?

Armed conflict is replete with examples where the lines are blurred, one nations hero is another nations butcher, generally speaking our view of incidents like these is coloured because the media is biased.

If Iran is responsible instead of Libya, which is by far the most likely alternative explanation IMO, I want it known and them punished severely but I'm not gonna hold my breath that anyone will ever be able to prove it.

I won't be holding my breath either, but I am going to put a chunk more time into this to see what evidence is out there and if anything can be proved.

 

[Caustic Logic]

To be honest I think part of the reason for the responses, Caustic Logic, is the attitude that you and the others who are so keen on this topic are presenting with.

The provocative attitude, when I use it, is to scare up debate, since there wasn't any before the attitude. It didn't work satisfactorily. What was the reason before when people were just ignoring? Now that I'm pushing it, the excuse is you're ignoring because I'm pushy?

You admit that you have no idea what the hell happened and have no clue who committed the crime,

Inaccurate portrayal. We don't KNOW, haven't PROVEN but we've got the same good idea you acknowledge at the end of your post.

yet you have the nerve to suggest that people don't want to discuss it because you've so soundly shaken their entire worldview that they're now reduced to deer caught in headlights

Yeah that was hyperbole and attitude.

Prove something! Anything. Then people might be more interested in talking about it.

Okay, there we go. Prove. Proof. That's an easy word to toss out, and I'm not even sure you know just what you'd consider proof. By normal definitions, it's a stupid thing to ask for. In fact, there's only one case anyone has done with this whole issue that could be called proof, and that was the trial. A legal judgment was made, Megrahi found legally guilty, and there are still many reasons to consider it fatally flawed and that the real killers went free.

So with that benchmark, once I have gotten a criminal investigation and court trial of higher magnitude to reerse the ruling and find some PFLPGC agents and iranian gov. people found guilty, then you'll be willing to discuss whether Megrahi was framed?

I'm not meaning to pose your argument as a straw man. But I'll need you to explain the difference for me before I light it up.

Yes, the implications of Lockerbie are/were huge but the facts of this case are tedious and guilt virtually unprovable one way or another at this point and that's why it will never be a popular topic of discussion.

Wrong. Richard Marquise and a lot of others would gladly dispell the highlighted part for you. In the popular mind, in America at least, a story just on anger over release of he "Lockerbie Bomber" has 1,041 comments, app. 99% seething with anger and absolute certainty that a guilty man was sent home to die comfort.
http://content.usatoday.com/community/comments.aspx?id=36083666.story&p=3

But it's true, people bringing up questions about the conviction, or unpopular ideas of what actually happened, do tend to get the cold shoulder. That avenue is one most people don't want to talk about.

It doesn't make people who don't want to discuss it stupid or scared of what they might find out. The Lockerbie controversy requires an incredible amount of research and study into the most obscure issues just to get up to speed and it's incredibly frustrating and thankless task because the more you study this subject, the less you really know about anything.

And Gravy or Mike W didn't already do the work. No one has, except the people whose job it is to do so. There are in fact large questions and credible questioners, and it's a field ripe for de-bunking, begging for it, and still no one has stepped up? It's so haaaard... whiners. Look at Rolfe here, or me, or Ambrosia, Buncrana, Glenn B... isn't it strange how one mindset makes learning tolerable, almost irresistable, and another makes i apparently impossible?

Hmmm?

9/11 does get alot of talk because it happened more recently but mostly because the debunking generally involves basic scientific principles that most of us understand and can discuss or simple fact-checking.

Yes, the easy stuff. We're good at what we do, and do what we're good at. It's a recipe for happiness. I'm happy with what I've been learning. Rolfe, how about you? Anyone else feeling regret over studying this stuff and just getting too confused?

Lockerbie also has another factor making it less than compelling and that is that the possibly "innocent" parties are probably nothing of the kind. Even if they didn't take part in the Lockerbie attack,

Stop there. It's a small if and it's all we need. You do NOT jail people for the Lockerbie attack, and sanction and strangle a whole nation, and get away with it, because someone was a baaad dude of some sort. Megrahi may not be a saint, I don't care. I will state as fact to me He was framed for Lockerbie and until I see some relevant detailed debunks I and many others will keep... speaking up ... and stuff. The evidence against Libya, BTW, is the evidence against Megrahi. (primarily anyway - there's some circumstantial "chatter")

If Iran is responsible instead of Libya, which is by far the most likely alternative explanation IMO, I want it known and them punished severely but I'm not gonna hold my breath that anyone will ever be able to prove it.

I'm a little confused on just what "they" have been or are saying about Iran's involvement. It seems to have been hinted at first, then dropped in the middle (sanctions and trial period - Libya alone for their own reasons) and lately we're getting some reminders maybe the Libyans were doing it for Iran after all. That would make it make more sense, except that the Libyan evidence is all the same made-up junk we've already dismissed.

Thanks for the comments. They were useful.

 

[tsig]

It's so haaaard... whiners. Look at Rolfe here, or me, or Ambrosia, Buncrana, Glenn B... isn't it strange how one mindset makes learning tolerable, almost irresistable, and another makes i apparently impossible?

This statement seems to be the heart of your problem.

Calling people whiners and closed minded because they won't agree with you is not a very good way to establish a dialogue.

Why is this so important to you? You sound just like any other true believer with an agenda. That's why you got the reception that you did.

Why should anyone else join you in speculating about motivations of people you have never met and facts you can never be sure of?

 

[GlennB]

Why is this so important to you? You sound just like any other true believer with an agenda.

I can only answer for myself here. It's because the Megrahi trial and verdict were such grotesque parodies of 'justice' that they make me very angry.

If people don't feel inclined to look into the case then I can fully understand that and respect the fact that they have no interest. They are fully entitled to stay out of it just as I stay out of religious debate elsewhere here.

If, however, they voice disagreement then they need to have reasons. What we're seeing is dismissal of reasonable attempts to discuss the issue by labelling it as 'conspiracy theory' which apparently justifies hand-waving it away. Which is about as non-sceptical as it gets.

 

[Caustic Logic]

What Gelnn B. said, in the most recent two posts, plus:

This statement seems to be the heart of your problem.

Calling people whiners and closed minded because they won't agree with you is not a very good way to establish a dialogue.

Yeah, and coincidentally, I've given up on having a dialog here. So that worked out fine.

Why is this so important to you? You sound just like any other true believer with an agenda. That's why you got the reception that you did.

Lessee - a man and nation framed for a massive heinous crime committed by someone else, begging to be exposed and corrected, me armed with only words trying to establish channels to justice with those words that others (if possible) can follow with legal moves. Or just to annoy you. Take your pick.

Why should anyone else join you in speculating about motivations of people you have never met and facts you can never be sure of?

That's a good question. Somehow my brand of skepticism has left me pretty well used to never being 100% sure of most things. But other people do feel safer leavin the gray areas to the people in charge. They have no compunction making absolute decisions for you. Then you too can be certain who the good guys and bad guys are, who to cheer and who to boo. They even provide the cue music in case you forget! I'm envious...

 

[tsig]

W
That's a good question. Somehow my brand of skepticism has left me pretty well used to never being 100% sure of most things. But other people do feel safer leavin the gray areas to the people in charge. They have no compunction making absolute decisions for you. Then you too can be certain who the good guys and bad guys are, who to cheer and who to boo. They even provide the cue music in case you forget! I'm envious...

Same stuff I read from all true believers.

Look you're the one converted so you condemn all others who don't share your fervor as blind government stooges. Did it occur to you that some of us think life is too short to right every wrong and climb every mountain?

I wish you luck with your windmills but I hope you excuse me for not participating.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Same stuff I read from all true believers.

Look you're the one converted so you condemn all others who don't share your fervor as blind government stooges. Did it occur to you that some of us think life is too short to right every wrong and climb every mountain?

I wish you luck with your windmills but I hope you excuse me for not participating.

Spoken like a true "blind government stooge." Maybe some other "true believer" can muster a more constructive attitude, but for me, as tsig says, life is too short. Out.

 

[Mr.D]

A bit late to the party again, but here's my $0.02.

I began reading the Lockerbie threads probably like most Americans do on the topic - believing that Megrahi, having been found guilty by a western court, was if not "THE" bomber then certainly involved enough in the plot to justify his incarceration until death. If asked to explain why I probably would have pointed out in the absence of knowledge of the case that the most reasonable stance (but not a strong one) is to default to what I perceive to be the generally accepted 'correct' answer (which would be in this case, the legal verdict).

It was much to my surprise then, that upon beginning to read some of Rolfe's posts on the subject, that the prosecution's case really wasn't very strong at all, and in some parts fairly suspect. I'm thus forced to agree with Caustic Logic in the OP that it is genuinely curious how this topic has been received by the forum members.

Perhaps this forum is more Ameri-centric than I thought and the comparative lack of mainstream coverage of the investigation in the US is a primary reason?

The postings generally been well written and sourced and the tone of the threads are far more inviting and inquisitive rather than confrontational and accusatory than what's happening over in the 9/11 subforum. If you want to label the "Is Megrahi a scapegoat" the "CT side," than I'm afraid its the "debunkers" that have engaged in hit-and-run posts and unreasonable demands .

Anyway, I have found the "Lockerbie" threads to be fascinating reading and I hope you guys don't give up on the topic too soon, even though I have a hunch that the public at large will never have enough information for the definitive story to be told.