Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Finding "new Lockerbie suspects"

In May 2009, former British ambassador in Tripoli Sir Richard Dalton commented on the request for the repatriation of the Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who was convicted of carrying out the December 1988 Lockerbie bombing and who is in a Scottish jail suffering from terminal cancer: "A decision by the Scottish authorities to keep Megrahi would not seriously derail Britain’s relations with Libya, but there would be consequences. Among them is the possibility that a successful appeal by Megrahi would plunge Britain, the US and Libya once again into the fraught environment of an international investigation to find new Lockerbie suspects." Such an international investigation could do a lot worse than start here with this article on Wikipedia!---PJHaseldine (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this post can be construed a discussion to improve the article... Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I anticipate the article as it stands could be useful for any future international investigation. Improvements to the article can be expected to assist further in that regard.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

I propose that the introduction be updated and revised as follows. Since I am precluded by my edit ban from editing this article, I should be grateful if another editor could do the honours. Thank you in anticipation.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Martinevans123 for re-reverting my self-revert.
Socrates2008 subsequently edited out what he calls original research on the basis that "the supplied citation mentions nothing about alternate theories being considered or reopening the case".In fact, that citation quotes Sir Richard Dalton as follows: "A decision by the Scottish authorities to keep Megrahi would not seriously derail Britain’s relations with Libya, but there would be consequences. Among them is the possibility that a successful appeal by Megrahi would plunge Britain, the US and Libya once again into the fraught environment of an international investigation to find new Lockerbie suspects."
I dispute that my formulation: "If the appeal court were to overturn Megrahi's conviction when it reconvenes in July 2009, the prospect of a new investigation would open up and alternative theories of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing could be examined.[1]", goes beyond the citation or amounts to OR. If other editors agree, they may wish to undo Socrates' edit.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree — with Socrates. It's beyond the citation. New suspects does not imply new (or alternative) theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Article scope

I'm struggling to see how information about the appeal process is relevant to this article, whose scope covers alternate/conspiracy theories. Details of Megrahi's appeal should go into the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial article, surely? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The appeal process is relevant because, until yesterday, the article's introduction read as follows:
"Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories suggest that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, a Libyan agent who was convicted on 270 counts of murder for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, may be innocent or that other parties may be guilty. Once it became clear that a deliberate explosion had downed the aircraft, various people started to put forward theories as to who may have planted the device. Subsequently, after the investigation and court case had been concluded, further theories emerged asserting that the conviction was wrongful or that Libya had been framed."
This long drawn out appeal, which might now be decided in a matter of weeks, demonstrates that the "court case" is clearly not concluded. This fact needs to be mentioned in the introduction, which it now is, so that the article can go on to elaborate upon all the alternate/conspiracy theories.
I agree with Socrates2008 that the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial article should be updated in greater detail concerning the appeal process.---PJHaseldine (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Introduction rewritten

I've boldy rewritten the lead of this article so that it covers the content of the article (rather than presenting new information), per WP:LEAD. Comments welcome. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit completely revising the article's introduction, which effectively prevents the undoing of your earlier edit. Ideally, I would have preferred both edits to have been reverted but here are my initial comments about your revision: no sources (3 previously); no dates (bombing, trial etc); and insufficient wikification. This is my 'improved version':
"Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories suggest a number of alternative explanations for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on 21 December 1988. Some of the theories preceded the official investigation by Scottish police and the FBI; others arose through a different interpretation of evidence presented at Libyan agent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's 2000/2001 trial; yet others have been developed independently by individuals and organisations outside the official investigation.[2]
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) was the first suspect, in light of a threat it issued against U.S. and Israeli interests before the bombing. The state of Iran was also in the frame very early, with its motive thought to be revenge for the July 1988 shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 by USS Vincennes. In his 1994 film The Maltese Double Cross, Allan Francovich suggested that rogue CIA agents were implicated in a plot that involved them turning a blind eye to a drug running operation in return for intelligence. Evidence presented at Megrahi's trial, together with concerns about the reliability of his conviction, spawned a theory that Libya was framed.[3] Abu Nidal allegedly confessed to the bombing before his death, thereby triggering another theory, while Joe Vialls put forward his own explanation that relied on the bomb being detonated remotely. Finally, in December 1989, Patrick Haseldine suggested that the bombing was an assassination by South Africa's apartheid government of United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson.[4]"---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like user:Martinevans123 has already edited in your requested changes - no objections with any of them. However could I request that you keep the discussion about this article on this page. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

CIA drug smuggling theory

According to this New York Times article of 12 September 1997, Lester Coleman admitted in court that he had lied about the CIA drug smuggling theory. The article reads:

A former drug informer told a Federal court yesterday that he lied when he claimed that a secret drug sting enabled terrorists to evade airport security in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988.

The informer, Lester Coleman, pleaded guilty to five counts of perjury. Mr. Coleman said he lied for a variety of reasons: to obtain money, to evade pending Federal charges that he filed a false passport application, to enhance his status as a consultant on international security and terrorism and to get back at the United States Drug Enforcement Administration for dismissing him.

Mr. Coleman said his testimony, originally submitted in civil litigation brought on behalf of the families of passengers killed in the bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, was fabricated. His false affidavit was subsequently filed in support of Pan American World Airways's claim that the United States, rather than Pan Am's lax security, was to blame for the air disaster. Pan Am's claim against the United States was ultimately dismissed by the court and a jury returned a verdict finding that Pan Am engaged in willful misconduct in allowing an unaccompanied suitcase containing the plastic explosive onto the plane.

Mr. Coleman faced up to five years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine on each of the five counts to which he pleaded guilty yesterday. In a plea agreement, however, the Government agreed to a sentence of time served, which was five months, and six months' home confinement under electronic monitoring, according to court documents.

The CIA drug smuggling theory needs to be revised accordingly. I am prevented by my edit ban so should be grateful if another editor would oblige.---PJHaseldine (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

John Ashton in the June 9, 1996 edition of The Mail on Sunday

This could be a useful on-line source:

  • John Ashton (June 9, 1996). "US Government Still on Ropes Over Lockerbie". The Mail on Sunday. London. Retrieved 7 August 2010.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Iranian motive

The section on the possible Iranian motive consists of a quote from Margaret Thatcher's memoirs about Libya.

84.203.76.155 (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


Question about title

A Google books search on the title should explain why it's the title: [1] Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Radio detonation theory deleted

I'm disappointed by how out of date much of the material on this page is. Theories are included that are fanciful and far-fetched, whereas more recent developments are not. As a Lockerbie expert I'm at least as much to blame as anyone else - I only plead that it is a huge subject and the thought of getting involved in pointless edit wars dissuades me from participating much.

The radio detonation theory is old and very easy to discredit. None of the assumptions made by Vialls is substantiated from the evidence given in court as detailed in the trial transcripts. In fact two radio frequencies were open at the time of the explosion, one communicating with "Scottish" sector and monitored by the pilot and one communicating with "Shanwick" and monitored by the co-pilot. Both had been open for several minutes before the detonation, with conversation back and forward on both. Both were normal VHF frequencies in the middle of the range usually used for ATC communication. At the time of the explosion both frequencies were set to transmit to the plane. The Scottish frequency was silent with the pilot merely monitoring for course instructions, while the controller at the Shanwick station was in the middle of dictating the plane's route out over the Atlantic to the co-pilot. Nothing new happened either at the time of the explosion or just before it.

Vialls is also wrong about the location of the explosion. The photographs of the recovered baggage container and the luggage that was inside it show beyond any doubt whatsoever that the explosion happened inside baggage container AVE4041, and hence inside a piece of luggage in the container. The prosecution allegation that this piece of luggage was a brown Samsonite hardshell suitcase is absolutely borne out by all the forensic evidence.

I'm against leaving this section in and debunking it, because the theory is simply not notable, hasn't figured in serious discussion of the case for a long time, and the amount of space that would be taken up by expounding it and then tearing it to shreds is unjustifiable. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Tend to agree. While there is plenty of stuff in the blogosphere, I have found only passing mentions of his theory in a couple of serious sources. Unless or until there is a suitable source which comprehensively deals with his claims, they should probably be left out. --Hillbillyholiday talk 01:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ John Thorne (2009-05-15). "Libya bid to transfer Lockerbie bomber". The National. Retrieved 2009-05-24.
  2. ^ Patrick Barkham (1999-04-07). "Lockerbie conspiracies: from A to Z". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-05-25.
  3. ^ Paul Foot (2004-03-31). "Lockerbie's dirty secret". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-05-25.
  4. ^ Patrick Haseldine (1989-12-07). "Finger of suspicion". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-05-25.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pan_Am_Flight_103_conspiracy_theories/Archive_5&oldid=1145919505"