On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:10:33 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Allegedly Syrian terrorists, under contract from the Iranian government
(in revenge for the Iranian Airbus shot down by the US Navy). The bomb

All considered around the time of the original investigation.

Almost certainly, the US and British governments know exactly what
happened, but it would be too embarrassing to admit it.

Yeah , its a cover up! Where are Mulder and Scully when you need them?

See www.lockerbietruth.com

Well , if its on a website it must be true.

As for the families, they don't believe the dubious conviction either:
news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp

That would be *some* of the families. In fact a rather small minority.

B2003

wrote in message
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:10:33 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Allegedly Syrian terrorists, under contract from the Iranian
government (in revenge for the Iranian Airbus shot down by the US
Navy). The bomb

All considered around the time of the original investigation.

Almost certainly, the US and British governments know exactly what
happened, but it would be too embarrassing to admit it.

Yeah , its a cover up! Where are Mulder and Scully when you need them?

See www.lockerbietruth.com

Well , if its on a website it must be true.

As for the families, they don't believe the dubious conviction
either:
news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp

That would be *some* of the families. In fact a rather small minority.

I never realised that you were such a friend of the Establishment, who
believed every word that emanated from it.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:38:32 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
As for the families, they don't believe the dubious conviction
either:

news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp

That would be *some* of the families. In fact a rather small minority.

I never realised that you were such a friend of the Establishment, who
believed every word that emanated from it.

I find it easier to believe that a group of judges weighed up the evidence
and based a conviction on that than there being an almighty international
conspiracy of silence with so called "experts" popping up out of the
woodwork after the fact to make a name for themselves.

Until proven otherwise I'm going to continue to mentally pigeonhole the
megrahi-is-innocent crowd with the same kind of loons who think Kennedy was
assasinated by the CIA, David Kelly was done in by MI5 and that the moon
landings were a hoax. All these axe grinding groups have apparent "evidence"
to back up their claims until you look at it closely and realise what a
load of confused circumstantial nonsense it really is.

B2003

wrote in message
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:38:32 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
As for the families, they don't believe the dubious conviction
either:

news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp

That would be *some* of the families. In fact a rather small
minority.

I never realised that you were such a friend of the Establishment,
who believed every word that emanated from it.

I find it easier to believe that a group of judges weighed up the
evidence and based a conviction on that than there being an almighty
international conspiracy of silence with so called "experts" popping
up out of the woodwork after the fact to make a name for themselves.

Until proven otherwise I'm going to continue to mentally pigeonhole
the megrahi-is-innocent crowd with the same kind of loons who think
Kennedy was assasinated by the CIA, David Kelly was done in by MI5
and that the moon landings were a hoax. All these axe grinding groups
have apparent "evidence" to back up their claims until you look at it
closely and realise what a load of confused circumstantial nonsense
it really is.

Yes, fully agreed about all those cases, and many other similar ones
(eg, 911 was all a US/Israeli setup), but Lockerbie is different. Just
do some research.

It was certainly a terrorist attack, just done by a different bunch of
terrorists to those set up for it in the juryless kangaroo court in a
former US airbase. And don't suggest that British justice always
convicts the right people for terrorist attacks -- all too often, the
wrong ones ended up in jail. Note that it's not just a bunch of
certified fruitcakes who question this dodgy conviction. For example,
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/-L...all.5658865.jp
and
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...SS&attr=797084

In article , says...
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:38:32 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
As for the families, they don't believe the dubious conviction
either:

news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp

That would be *some* of the families. In fact a rather small minority.

I never realised that you were such a friend of the Establishment, who
believed every word that emanated from it.

I find it easier to believe that a group of judges weighed up the evidence

Depending upon how you choose your evidence, you can show that the sun orbits
the earth, the earth is about 4000 years old and Ronnie Hazlehurst wrote a
hit song for S-Club 7.

--
Halmyre

This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your
head clean off.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:23:24 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
wrong ones ended up in jail. Note that it's not just a bunch of
certified fruitcakes who question this dodgy conviction. For example,
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/-L...all.5658865.jp
and
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...#cid=OTC-RSS&a
tr=797084

I'll have a look but problem is its easy for people to make assertions that
sound plausible. A lot harder to back them up with hard facts.

B2003

wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 15:38:32 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
As for the families, they don't believe the dubious conviction
either:

news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Lockerbie-Al-Megrahi-release-welcomed.5574557.jp

That would be *some* of the families. In fact a rather small
minority.

I never realised that you were such a friend of the Establishment,
who believed every word that emanated from it.

I find it easier to believe that a group of judges weighed up the
evidence and based a conviction on that than there being an almighty
international conspiracy of silence with so called "experts" popping
up out of the woodwork after the fact to make a name for themselves.

Until proven otherwise I'm going to continue to mentally pigeonhole
the megrahi-is-innocent crowd with the same kind of loons who think
Kennedy was assasinated by the CIA, David Kelly was done in by MI5
and that the moon landings were a hoax. All these axe grinding groups
have apparent "evidence" to back up their claims until you look at it
closely and realise what a load of confused circumstantial nonsense
it really is.

I don't think you can quite tar Dr Jim Squires with that brush. He probably
knows more about the Lockerbie disaster than anyone else, having lost his
daughter in it, and having followed every nuance of the matter from day one.
He is convinced 100% that Megrahi was innocent, and I for one think he's
hardly likely to be wrong.

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:23:40 +0100
"Norman Wells" wrote:
I don't think you can quite tar Dr Jim Squires with that brush. He probably
knows more about the Lockerbie disaster than anyone else, having lost his
daughter in it, and having followed every nuance of the matter from day one.
He is convinced 100% that Megrahi was innocent, and I for one think he's
hardly likely to be wrong.

With all due respect to the man - having a death in the family doesn't
turn you an expert into what caused the death. He may well have followed
the case in detail but unless he's privvy to confidential intelligence
documents that other members of the press and public are not then he has
no greater insight than anyone else - just opinion.

B2003

On Oct 9, 10:08*am, wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote:
I don't think you can quite tar Dr Jim Squires with that brush. *He probably
knows more about the Lockerbie disaster than anyone else, having lost his
daughter in it, and having followed every nuance of the matter from day one.
He is convinced 100% that Megrahi was innocent, and I for one think he's
hardly likely to be wrong.

With all due respect to the man - having a death in the family doesn't
turn you an expert into what caused the death. He may well have followed
the case in detail but unless he's privvy to confidential intelligence
documents that other members of the press and public are not then he has
no greater insight than anyone else - just opinion.

No, the point is that he's spent years of his life researching the
documents, whereas you, most members of the press, and most members of
the public have not. In the same way, someone with a PhD in mediaeval
history will have a greater insight into mediaeval history than most
people, even though the documents they've studied are all available to
anyone who wants to see them.

--
John Band
john at johnband dotorg
www.johnband.org

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 03:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
John B wrote:
On Oct 9, 10:08=A0am, wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote:
I don't think you can quite tar Dr Jim Squires with that brush. =A0He pr=
obably
knows more about the Lockerbie disaster than anyone else, having lost hi=
s
daughter in it, and having followed every nuance of the matter from day =
one.
He is convinced 100% that Megrahi was innocent, and I for one think he's
hardly likely to be wrong.

With all due respect to the man - having a death in the family doesn't
turn you an expert into what caused the death. He may well have followed
the case in detail but unless he's privvy to confidential intelligence
documents that other members of the press and public are not then he has
no greater insight than anyone else - just opinion.

No, the point is that he's spent years of his life researching the
documents, whereas you, most members of the press, and most members of

I doubt he has a greater insight than the people who wrote the documents
in the first place and I'm pretty sure the judges in the trial did more than
just skim them.

B2003