Conspiracy Theory Martin Bryant and Port Arthur - Conspiracy or Cheddar?

[Pie in the Sky]

No I'm surprised that someone with a hit ratio of 29/30 or 1.66 kills to hits would miss every one of 250 shots.

The first ratio is unbelievably good, even at close range, especially for someone with that IQ. I'm just curious that if he had just gone on a massacre with such great accuracy that he couldn't at least hit a dozen officers. 30-50 shots yeah maybe, but 250 shots? That's a hell of a lot to just be randomly shooting somewhere without hitting anything.

Yeah it's a tougher task obviously, but I would have thought someone who could gun down that many people in a short amount of time with that accuracy could take out a few cops.

As I said, I'm not a conspiracy nut, I'm just intrigued by this story because there are so many questions that can't be definitively answered, that's all.

In the cafe he was picking off sitting targets at point blank range, at the seaview he was firing wildly at police taking cover at a distance. The situations aren't really comparable.

 

[PHX]

It's very odd that a female kindergarten teacher and middle-aged woman would purchase and own such weapons.

I don't find it odd.

She was a single mother living at home.

Probably got them for self-defense "just in case".

 

[Sanders]

http://www.whale.to/b/viallspam.html

Good read. Raises many points against Bryant being the killer.

Just out of curiosity how do you know whether these facts are actually true at all, let alone the inferences drawn from them?

 

[Sanders]

This is a massive oversimplification of the events and I honestly can't be stuffed spending the next two days filling in the picture for the uninformed.

Just give me a tin foil hat and go about your life in ignorant bliss.

The thought police puppet masters must be stopped, only you can save us.

Please help!

 

[Sanders]

http://www.itwillpass.com/nwo_port_arthur_massacre_CORONIAL_INQUIRY.shtml

This is great it alleges a number of circumstances to support its case, but it provides no evidence that they are true:

For example;

1. On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast,for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers. Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence?

Were they? Where is the evidence this isn't made up?

2. Also just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder. This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Cafe in time to be of any use. Had a policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula. Did Bryant, IQ 66, organise this decoy?

Evidence that this happened?

3. Big Mortuary Truck. Before the massacre, a specially-built 22 person capacity mortuary truck was built. It attracted some derision at the time, but its effective use at Port Arthur was unquestioned. After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose. Without the foresight of Port Arthur, why build it? When it had proven its worth, why get rid of it? Another coincidence?

Without going into the irrelevancy - who says this is true?

Etc etc

There are a lot of claimed facts that are just as likely made up, and even if they weren't don't form a coherent argument.

Fairly insulting to have it put forward as evidence

 

[Sanders]

Not sure if already posted, but this is an excellent bit of research....

Was Martin Bryant Framed?

Hmmm...

About the Author:
Carl Wernerhoff is the pseudonym for a Sydney-based conspiracy researcher with a particular interest in the history of political assassinations and orchestrated tragedies such as the Port Arthur and Columbine massacres. He has a PhD in History and currently works as a teacher. He recently released an e-book, What's Going On? A Critical Study of the Port Arthur Massacre. It can be downloaded (free of charge) from http://www.ourmedia.org/user/95839.
Carl Wernerhoff can be contacted by email at cwernerhoff@yahoo.com.

Sounds very credible

 

[Exe Gesis]

And what do you have Sanders to refute or contend anything that is credible? Easy to sit pat on a 'closed' case and say "evidence please or it didn't happen" when evidence is being highlighted.

 

[Sanders]

And what do you have Sanders to refute or contend anything that is credible? Easy to sit pat on a 'closed' case and say "evidence please or it didn't happen" when evidence is being highlighted.

No evidence has been highlighted or provided. A link to some random nobodies blog full of unsubstantiated claims is not evidence.

I have nothing to refute nor do I need to.

Given the tin foil hats want to argue a counter-factual its telling they want to shift the burden of proof for their own loony ideas

 

[Exe Gesis]

No evidence has been highlighted or provided. A link to some random nobodies blog full of unsubstantiated claims is not evidence.

I have nothing to refute nor do I need to.

Given the tin foil hats want to argue a counter-factual its telling they want to shift the burden of proof for their own loony ideas

Typical 'cop out' stance. You position yourself where you don't think, aren't required to provide any evidence from credible sources yourself, and can sit there pretending any evidence that is presented to you is 'not credible' "just cos."

In that article I linked, there is evidence presented....pictures of the guns at the crime scene, transcripts of the police interviews, officially documented eye witness reports, etc.....it's just the journalist using that evidence to highlight the fallacies and flaws.

That is where your "lalala" stance is shown up and mocked every time you post those 'sitting pat' posts like above.

 

[Sanders]

Typical 'cop out' stance. You position yourself where you don't think, aren't required to provide any evidence from credible sources yourself, and can sit there pretending any evidence that is presented to you is 'not credible' "just cos."

I obviously don't need to present evidence for or against your position.

Nor do you really believe I do

The real question is: do you have any evidence for YOUR position; and the answer is no.

And it ends there.

In that article I linked, there is evidence presented....pictures of the guns at the crime scene, transcripts of the police interviews, officially documented eye witness reports, etc.....it's just the journalist using that evidence to highlight the fallacies and flaws.

Its not an article & he's not a journalist. Nor more than your posting is, or you are.

i actually don't have a problem with loony tin foil hats, but it is funny when they (you) expect to be taken seriously on the back of nothing.

No. I won't take you and your mates blog seriously, but equally that shouldn't stop you. Have fun

That is where your "lalala" stance is shown up and mocked every time you post those 'sitting pat' posts like above.

do you actually have anything real to debate?

I can't see anything.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Anyone who thinks Martin Bryant is the real killer needs their head examined. Clearly illustrative of people who don't research at all and just believe whatever they're told in the media, because they don't have time or care about the truth.

The bigger morons are the ones that suggest you must be a heartless bastard and show no respect for the deceased because you dare to question the assembled evidence.

Governments rise and fall on the emotional manipulation of these Pavlovian bovines.

 

[Max zero]

Talk to the hand mate.

Do you have any facts you can source or reference?

Of course he can't. This is GG we are talking about.

 

[Donners]

I don't find it odd.

She was a single mother living at home.

Probably got them for self-defense "just in case".

That would explain a single handgun, not a set of high-powered firearms.

Unfortunately, the gun culture there is such that a grossly excessive collection like that is not abnormal at all.

 

[PHX]

That would explain a single handgun, not a set of high-powered firearms.

Unfortunately, the gun culture there is such that a grossly excessive collection like that is not abnormal at all.

I thought that may be considered the norm in some cases, but it appears she did enjoy her gun collection.

At craft beer tastings on Tuesday evenings, he recalled, she liked to talk about her gun collection.
"She had several different guns," he said. "I don't know how many. She would go target shooting with her kids."
Law enforcement officials said they believed that the guns were acquired lawfully and registered.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/shoo...-enthusiast-20121216-2bh68.html#ixzz2FCWdonWq

 

[Exe Gesis]

Yeah, it looks like, as more info surfaces, that she was a gun collector.

Btw, I apologize to anyone who felt my posts in this topic were insensitive etc. My bad for invoking suspicions/fears of a false flag. I was following along as the event was happening, there was much contradictory info and suspicious reports, and aspects to the story, that one like me, who always questions first, was concerned if this was another case like some of the recent ones that happened, which ARE/WERE still suspicious and evolving.

I put this currently in the 'genuine nut' basket, but remain vigilant in case anything might surface in future that is deemed suspicious requiring further analysis.

But, apologies...for the time being.

 

[Sanders]

The bigger morons are the ones that suggest you must be a heartless bastard and show no respect for the deceased because you dare to question the assembled evidence.

Governments rise and fall on the emotional manipulation of these Pavlovian bovines.

I dunno, maybe you are as smart as you keep telling everyone, but in this thread you haven't been able to present an argument, refer to evidence & critically show the link between the two.

A smart guy probably realises he needs to do these things to get his point across?

In the absence of these things feel free to start afresh and do so now

 

[mantis]

I dunno, maybe you are as smart as you keep telling everyone, but in this thread you haven't been able to present an argument, refer to evidence & critically show the link between the two.

A smart guy probably realises he needs to do these things to get his point across?

In the absence of these things feel free to start afresh and do so now

Go to the thread on the SRP board, he said that his mother knew her son was nuts for 2 years & tried to get him committed.

When I asked him why then, did his mother have guns lying around that he get hold of, all I got was abuse & of course no answer to the question.

 

[PHX]

How do we know she was a gun collector?

She had multiple high powered weapons registered in her name? She took her sons to the firing range for target practice? Would say thats a pretty big sign she was a gun collector/enthusiast.

 

[Heisenberg_]

She had multiple high powered weapons registered in her name? She took her sons to the firing range for target practice? Would say thats a pretty big sign she was a gun collector/enthusiast.

Apparently she was a doomsday prepper which is why she had such high power weapons.

 

[Sanders]

Go to the thread on the SRP board, he said that his mother knew her son was nuts for 2 years & tried to get him committed.

When I asked him why then, did his mother have guns lying around that he get hold of, all I got was abuse & of course no answer to the question.

Perhaps Martin Bryant isn't the only one with a tenuous grip on reality then?

 

[Damp Squarie]

so it's impossible for an idiot to aim a gun at a crowded place and pull a trigger?

The recent Sandy Hook incident as reignited my interest in this "closed" case.
The idiot in question was lefthanded (shooter was r/handed I think) using a rifle FFS...
..............................................................................................
From the book Deadly Deception at Port Arthur by the late Joe Vialls.

"Brigadier Ted Sarong DSO OBE, the former head of Australian Forces in Vietnam and one of the world's leading experts on counter-terrorist techniques and their application. In an interview with Frank Robson in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 April 1999, Brigadier Serong makes it plain that Martin Bryant could not have been responsible for the mass murder at Port Arthur.

"There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance" he says. "Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am". He continues "Whoever did it had skills way beyond anything that could reasonably be expected of this chap Bryant ... if it was someone of only average skills, there would have been many less killed and many more wounded.

It was the astonishing proportion of killed to wounded that made me open my eyes first off."

Brigadier Serong believes more than one person was involved and directly infers that the mass murder at Port Arthur was a terrorist action designed to undermine Australian national security. "It was part of a deliberate attempt to disarm the population, but I don't believe John Howard or his Government were involved. Howard is being led down a track. He doesn't know where it's leading, and he doesn't much care..."
.............................................................................................
...and this from the mentally challenged person

"In this his ultimate demonstration of combat shooting skill the shooter fired one sighting shot at a fast-moving target of unknown speed from an unsupported free-standing firing position, the most difficult of all; instantly and accurately compensated for vehicle speed and weapon recoil with the same blinding speed as the computer gun sight of an F14 Tomcat, then disabled both driver and vehicle with shots two and three.
"This man might have been an indispensable asset stopping speeding car-bombers in Beirut, but his professional skills were far too conspicuous for Port Arthur."

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Brigadier Serong believes more than one person was involved and directly infers that the mass murder at Port Arthur was a terrorist action designed to undermine Australian national security.

"It was part of a deliberate attempt to disarm the population, but I don't believe John Howard or his Government were involved. Howard is being led down a track. He doesn't know where it's leading, and he doesn't much care..."

I can entertain this.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Watching this documentary on Columbine, in context with Port Arthur's shot-kill rate, these two kids who were well-trained in firearms, especially look at the library part of the shooting spree, they fire a huge amount of rounds, and at point blank, and injure far more than they kill. Even on the outside, when the event started, kids standing around, point blank, far more injuries than murders. Ridiculous to believe that an untrained Bryant was able to kill so many with precision single-round head shots.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Another good video demonstrating suspicions with the Virginia Tech Massacre, the extremely high level of training required etc, that ties in with Port Arthur....

 

[The Sultan]

@ topjars. I am right handed with every thing I do, yet when I use a rifle I hold it to my left shoulder, find I can hold gun steadier with my dominate (right) hand....