Dialog on Lockerbie theories

[tsig]

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.

.

It wasn't the topic but the attitude of some of the proponents.

Just in the last few posts I have been thoroughly lambasted as a blind government stooge and not having an open mind because I have no interest in the bombing.

Calling names and insisting that others are obligated to debunk your favorite obsession are not ways to convince anyone to participate in your thread.

 

[Rolfe]

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.

I'm not sure what you think those you label "true believers" actually believe in the context of Lockerbie. I don't believe there was anything close to sufficient evidence to convict Megrahi "beyond reasonable doubt", and on the balance of probabilities I don't think he did it. Where's the "true believer" here? As for the rest, I'm deeply curious to know what the likely story actually is. There are many suggestions, some more plausible than others, and it's instructive to look at what evidence there is and where it might actually point, if not at Megrahi.

The attitude in this forum is indeed strange. While of course one wouldn't expect everyone to want to participate in such threads, it's very odd how few people seem at all interested in the subject. The absence of people prepared to defend the "official story" with rational argument is even stranger - especially given some of the other preoccupations one sees around here.

Caustic Logic makes a very good point. If someone starts a thread condemning the Scottish government for releasing Megrahi, it will garner hundreds of comments from posters quite content to accept the thesis that Megrahi's guilt is a foregone conclusion. Mention that Megrahi quite probably didn't do it, and the only reaction is anger towards the person who expressed that opinion.

This doesn't suggest lack of interest. It's the sheer number of posters whose interest extends no further than accepting the official story and bad-mouthing anyone who points out that that story isn't as clear-cut as some people seem to think, that is remarkable.

I'd have thought that at least a few of these people would have been prepared to come forward and support their position with rational argument based on the avaliable evidence - bit no. I do think this is strange.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It has been suggested that the principle sources for the doubts surrounding the Megrahi verdict be referenced, to allow easier appreciation of what we're talking about.

The court verdict itself.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf

Consider the complete absence of evidence regarding how the bomb suitcase was (allegedly) smuggled past security at Luqa. In fact, the evidence that there was no unaccompanied bag on KA180 was pretty solid, however the judges seem to have concluded, "well, he must have slipped it through somehow".

In contrast, consider the concrete evidence that a suitcase answering to the description of the bomb suitcase was indeed seen at Heathrow airport, in pretty much the right position, before the connecting flight PA103A had landed. The judges apparently handwaved this away too, saying that maybe that suitcase was moved somewhere else before the bomb suitcase was (allegedly) loaded.

I cannot understand that reasoning. I was kind of hoping that some of the people who believe the verdict to be correct would explain what I'm missing.

Another important point to consider is the strength or otherwise of the identification evidence provided by Tony Gauci. The weakness of this evidence was the main plank of the SCCRC report as published, and appeared to constitute the main grounds for appeal. (There were other grounds, however these were kept secret.)

The SCCRC press release
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=293

Two expert witness reports dissecting Gauci's evidence in detail
http://www.megrahimystory.net/downloads/VMA%20report%20al%20Megrahi%20vs%20%20HMA%2019-12-2008.pdf?
http://www.megrahimystory.net/downloads/Professor Steve Clark's report 18 12 08.pdf?

There are other questionable aspects, including the strange evidence from Frankfurt airport and how certain it really is that baggage tray 8849 (whatever it contained) came off KA180, and what the CIA was playing at, presenting Abdul Majid Giaka as a credible witness. However, the first three points I highlighted are probably the most straightforward and uncontentious.

Also worth referencing are the two reports published by the official UN observer to the trial.
http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm
http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-appeal_report.htm

I would be really grateful for any contribution from someone who believes in Megrahi's guilt, as to how they view these particular points.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Rolfe: Welcome back. That was a cogent and sober analysis there.

Mr. D. thanks a ton for taking interest in the case. You crossed "the divide" and can certainly see that with the same world, same facts raining down, the waters flowing down to one flood plain are completely different from the other side's. I was wondering how difficult "the journey" was for you. I for one am hard-wired to see conspiracy/etc. so it wasn't difficult for me to come around, but I imagine for most people starting out more invested in the official story it's difficult to even start up that slope.

And I'm not through with the discussion, in this forum or elsewhere. I just tired of hammering away in this particular thread. And it seems to be doing well for my absence.

 

[varwoche]

Wow, instead of just saying "I dont know" or just not answering, you gotta insult the guy. Right out of the guitar center training manual

Bingo.

I'll say it again:

If you have definitive proof he is innocent, or was framed, then do something with it. Take it to an investigative journalist, or someone who can get it some exposure. Take it to the authorities. Take it somewhere.

Realizing that "just asking questions" is a classic CT dodge, in fact I have no problem at all with people who are asking genuine questions / exploring possibilities. Now, maybe Caustic Logic is a disingenuous conspiratorial quack (in which case you're faster on the uptake than me). Still, I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Do you generally demand that posters, yourself included, must be able to "definitively prove" something before discussing it? I bet not -- that would be goofy.

eta: Yikes, I overlooked pages 2-3. Pardon me if this ground has been covered.