Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Port Arthur Massacre - 15 Points to Inside Job
Topic Started: Feb 29 2008, 07:13 AM (2,033 Views)
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Just in case you guys haven't seen this and sorry if you have, but I think this topic is also vital as we lost our guns and means of protecting ourselves due to the Port Arthur Massacre. So here are 15 points as to why it was an inside job. Might be worth distributing to friends. Got it off the Prisonplanet.tv forum. Referenced to another site down the bottom.

You probably believe that Martin Bryant, acting alone, carried out the Port Arthur massacre on Sunday 28th April 1996. If so, can you reconcile the following facts with the official story?

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?

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?

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?

4. Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman. A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock-marked or acned face. Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck.

Of all the witnesses that saw the shooter, only one knew Martin Bryant from before.
That was Jim Laycock, the former owner of the Broad Arrow Caf�.
He not only knew Bryant, but also where he used sit in the Broad Arrow and what he used to drink and the conversations he used to have with his daughter.
So what did Laycock say about his identification of the shooter? "I did not recognize the male (shooter) as Martin Bryant".


5. Illegal Photo. On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed an old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page. This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses. When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the old photo instead of what the gunman had worn. The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law.

6. Mrs Wendy Scurr, nurse, tour guide and Ambulance Officer, rang the police at 1.32 pm to report the shooting. She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours. Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana, where they had a barbecue? The police who arrived by boats were a stone's throw away from the main crime scene, the cafe, and they too failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this meant to increase the trauma of the survivors?

7. Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30pm while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?

8. Same Question - Different Answer. At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where the Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture, the first question came from Mr Ian McNiven. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Cafe. Sargent Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say "I have here Graham Collyer's police statement...", Sgt Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building.

When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at a seminar, he replied truthfully - "There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the cafe."

9. Yet a police video tape exists which proves that the police had an excellent opportunity to get DNA samples and finger prints of the gunman. The video briefly shows the blue sports bag on a cafe table. The gunman had carried his 3 rifles in this bag and left it right next to his drinking glass, his Solo soft drink can, knife, fork, plate, video cameras, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints?

10. According to the official story, Bryant first killed David and Sally Martin at Seascape Cottage in the morning, then went on to Port Arthur. Yet two policemen have reported seeing a naked woman with black hair, screaming and running from one building to another at Seascape well into the afternoon. If Sally Martin was dead, who was this woman?

11. Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage. While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the 'siege' and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as 'coughs' but an electronic analysis of one of the 'coughs' shows that it was an SKK shot.

12. Two More Very Handy Seminars. On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.

13. Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart. They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning. How handy to have 700 scribblers churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!

14. "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania" said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning?

15. "If we don't get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they'll take all our guns off us", said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer in May 1996. Who is the "THEY" who would order the removal of our guns? Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than our own leaders?

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


Original Thread & author
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Q
Member Avatar
A Higher Evolution
I posted this on LCF2, but it never attracted any interest.

When you read the police interview of Martin Bryant, it is totally clear that he has no idea what the charges are, or even that anyone has died.

You have this gguy with the emotional development of a 13yo, who is left-handed and can't shoot bottles off a fence, suddenly transformed into a right-handed every-shot-a-head-shot from the waist mercenary who has a shoot-to-kill ratio that has never been matched by any other "mad man with a gun".

The security footage of "Bryant" running from the scene has watercraft in the background that were not present on the day of the shooting.

I am amazed that this just hasn't caught on. The public are too fucking apathetic. We need to find out who was the hired mercenary who donned a long, curly, white wig in impersonation of Bryant and mercilessly shot 35 people through the head.

Maybe now that we've gotten rid of our right-right-right wing government and now have a left-right-right wing government, we may manage to get this case re-opened.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
istherehope

just a few more (as if what you've posted isn't already a clear indication of inside job)

- the three shots you were talking about, are they the "beirut triple" the shooter apparently did : i.e. three shots to take out a moving car; 1 sighting shot (which hit) one to take out the driver and one the engine? apparently this legally retarded guy with an IQ of 66 somehow managed to excel in counter-terrorist tactics.

- he also managed to get an inverted killed to wounded ratio of 1.6 killed for every wounded: try to find a more accurate shooter in ANY mass shooting in history. again, IQ 66, no particular shooting skill noted beforehand

- this included killing or wounding 31 people with his first 29 shots (29 because he left one in the gun while he changed the clip, pretty smart for a retarded guy). the first dozen or two (cant remember exact number, but I think it was 21) of these were headshots, all within about 30 seconds. all shooting from the hip, a technique martin had never been known to try. yes I said 31 from 29 bullets: 2 people got hit by ricochets and the guy didn't miss once!

- Even though he seemed to be the most accurate mass shooter in history, he later shot off hundreds of rounds from the cottage without hitting a single person, even though he was surrounded by cops (and probably reporters etc).


-cafe back door (emergency escape) was mysteriously locked (it was not normally kept locked as this is illegal, being an emergency exit and all. so no one could escape that way.

-One of the guns used had apparently been handed in to the police for DESTRUCTION in a previous gun amnesty in Victoria!.... bet they didn't expect the guy to recognize it when they chose their inside job weapon.

- the rifles apparently belonging to bryant that where found in the fire all had mysteriously exploded barrels, meaning they couldnt be ballistically matched to the bullets fired on the day. Normally if this happens (due to a bullet jamming and exploding in the gun) the firer loses a finger or gets burns and residue on there hands. bryant had neither

- no fingerprints found on rifles

- guns were found missing required components, and these (metal) components were never found despite police picking apart the buildings for forensic evidence. This means the guns found were UNFIRABLE, and therefore not the weapons involved or the real shooter disabled them and left bryant in there to take the blame with some useless pieces of metal

-when bryant came out he said 'I'm the hostage", was apparently very groggy, and had no burns on his hands, arms front or face, which you might expect from someone fighting his way out of a burning building. Instead he had a burn on his back, as you might expect from someone unconscious on the floor who is awoken by a burning object falling on them

-bryants mother was in the police station at the time they were negotiating with the "shooter". she was brought in before they had any idea that bryant was involved, on another issue (cant remember the details, and was not asked to speak to her son after they "found out" who was on the line. perhaps because she would have told them thats not her sons voice?



- (cant remember this one properly, something like this) the guy they tried to pin selling the weapons to bryant on denied selling one or more of the guns to him, while admitting selling other guns to him. this made no sense unless true as he was already in the shit for admiting selling guns to the guy illegally. he said he was warned to just admit it or he would be ruiend, he wouldnt back down and ended up losing his business etc. as I said theres more to this but i cant remember the details.

- bryants money (he inherited money from a rich old lady he had befriended when younger) was locked away BEFORE trial (innocent untillproven guilty anyone? anyone? beuller?), meaning he could not hire a good lawyer or mount a decent defence. I think he ended up with a court appointed one, but the case ever went to trial because: he was held for quite a while and finally told his mother wouldnt speak to him ever again unless he plead guilty

- Anti gun laws were IN EFFECT 2 weeks after the shooting. you read that right, laws were apparently planned, drafted, debated, approved and passed though government in 2 weeks. I wonder if they already had them ready beforehand.....


-read this a while back: apparently some anti gun law crusader lady was in australia at the time, helped get the gun laws in place afterwards, then went accross to england just in time for some dodgy (inside job) school shootings and subsequent law changes there. Sorry for being so vague, I might try to find the article on it if anyone is interested.


much more but those are the ones I remember.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Q
Member Avatar
A Higher Evolution
Bryant could not have a fair trial. The news was Australia-wide (at least), and the media had already found him guilty--Never "alleged" killer, never "suspected" killer, "confirmed" killer. After all that how could they find a single juror who could claim lack of bias from the media?

When people's lives are used to cement political power, do we really want that power in place?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JimBob
Trolls R Us
Lin Kuei
Feb 29 2008, 07:13 AM
Just in case you guys haven't seen this and sorry if you have, but I think this topic is also vital as we lost our guns and means of protecting ourselves due to the Port Arthur Massacre. So here are 15 points as to why it was an inside job. Might be worth distributing to friends. Got it off the Prisonplanet.tv forum. Referenced to another site down the bottom.
How often did the senior managers of Port Arthur leave for seminars? Other than being gone the day of the killings, what else is suspicious?

Were the police required to be on station at all times? How often did they have to leave to support other communities? I read that Bryant’s IQ was determined to be 79.

It is possible that the mortuary truck was disposed of by people who no longer considered it cost effective? Were there any other large disasters that required it? Was it more cost efficient than a smaller truck?

What is an SKK rifle? Did you mean an SKS?

Thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JimBob
Trolls R Us
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Feb 29 2008, 07:31 AM
You have this gguy with the emotional development of a 13yo, who is left-handed and can't shoot bottles off a fence, suddenly transformed into a right-handed every-shot-a-head-shot from the waist mercenary who has a shoot-to-kill ratio that has never been matched by any other "mad man with a gun".
Weren't most of the victims killed at close range? I read that he missed many of the people who wre running or far away. Wasn't Bryant caught on a tourist's video camera shooting his rifle?

Edited by JimBob, Mar 1 2008, 02:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

JimBob
Mar 1 2008, 02:33 PM
What is an SKK rifle? Did you mean an SKS?

I did not write the thread, it was quoted from another forum, and the typo was also copied & pasted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Q
Member Avatar
A Higher Evolution
JimBob
Mar 1 2008, 02:36 PM
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Feb 29 2008, 07:31 AM
You have this gguy with the emotional development of a 13yo, who is left-handed and can't shoot bottles off a fence, suddenly transformed into a right-handed every-shot-a-head-shot from the waist mercenary who has a shoot-to-kill ratio that has never been matched by any other "mad man with a gun".
Weren't most of the victims killed at close range? I read that he missed many of the people who wre running or far away. Wasn't Bryant caught on a tourist's video camera shooting his rifle?

I have done weapons training. Standard training is "aim for the center of seen mass". Head shots from the waist are not Australian training and even if you were only six feet away, I wouldn't even try for a head shot from the waist. Even doing some advanced stuff and firing a pistol from the waist through the bottom of the holster, you're still aiming for the "center of seen mass".

I was trained by the guy who wrote the stuff for the Police Training, and he taught us all the bits that the police had deleted. So apart from being out of date, I can claim to be better trained in small fire-arms than a policeman. I have no training in long-arms but the same aiming rule applies. I don't believe even our military are trained to the standard required to achieve the shot to kill ratio reported at Port Arthur.

This was a highly trained killer/assassin, not some depressed kid with nothing better to do. Personally, I believe the weapon(s) used must have been fitted with laser sighting.

There are also reports from people who were trying to ring 000 (911), and being told "No, there's nothing happening down there," while it was going on! "Yeah, right! You tell me there's nothing going on when I'm in a phone box dodging bullets!"

This incident was Manna from Heaven for jackboot johnnie howard. I don't think he was complicit in it. I think, like gwb, he just followed the script he was given. Oops, I'm forgetting. Gwb couldn't even do that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

Here is a video of a talk given by first medic on the scene Wendy Scurr. She phoned police, as well as looked after the dead and dying. Strange that her experience is at odds with the official story, while the government and Courts want to know nothing of it. Precisely because of this she has spoken out. be warned, it's not for the faint hearted.
part 1
part 2
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JimBob
Trolls R Us
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Mar 2 2008, 06:21 AM
I have done weapons training. Standard training is "aim for the center of seen mass". Head shots from the waist are not Australian training and even if you were only six feet away, I wouldn't even try for a head shot from the waist. Even doing some advanced stuff and firing a pistol from the waist through the bottom of the holster, you're still aiming for the "center of seen mass".

I was trained by the guy who wrote the stuff for the Police Training, and he taught us all the bits that the police had deleted. So apart from being out of date, I can claim to be better trained in small fire-arms than a policeman. I have no training in long-arms but the same aiming rule applies. I don't believe even our military are trained to the standard required to achieve the shot to kill ratio reported at Port Arthur.

This was a highly trained killer/assassin, not some depressed kid with nothing better to do. Personally, I believe the weapon(s) used must have been fitted with laser sighting.
I have also had weapons training; the substandard training given to submariners in the US Navy. We were also trained to aim for center mass. I gained much experience in the use of rifles shotguns and pistols on my own in the USA. I think that if I walked into a small room filled with defenseless targets, I would have no problem achieving a high hit to miss ratio and maybe even some head shots, as terrible as it sounds.

The question is, who trained Bryant to aim for center mass, or not to aim for center mass? Did he receive any training at all besides point and shoot?. What shots did he make that showed a high degree of training? Keep in mind that he hit most of the people who were close to him and missed many of the ones that were far away, as far as I know.

While I support efforts to make gun control less oppressive in Australia as well as my home in the USA, one has to be careful when presenting evidence or making statements that support a CT that someone else was behind tragedies such as this. If a person presents faulty evidence, it is called "dancing in the blood of the victims". It can turn the fence sitters against you.

The last thing I would use on a moving target is a laser sight. I can not lead a moving target with one unless I am lucky enough to encounter one moving next to a wall. The few times I have used a laser sight, it slowed me down because the gun recoil moved the dot a lot and it took more time to find the dot again than it did to settle open sights or a scope back on target. I'm sure there are many who are better with laser sights than I am, but I think they suck in most situations, especially in daylight or a lighted room.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
istherehope

JimBob
Mar 4 2008, 10:28 PM
Did he receive any training at all besides point and shoot?. What shots did he make that showed a high degree of training? Keep in mind that he hit most of the people who were close to him and missed many of the ones that were far away, as far as I know.


What shots?: (quotes are from 'http://www.2012.com.au/DPP_deadly.html")

"At 1.30 p.m. on Sunday 28 April 1996, an unknown professional combat shooter opened fire in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Tasmania. In less than a minute 20 people lay dead, 19 of them killed with single shots to the head fired from the right hip of the fast-moving shooter." Not to mention another 11 injured, all with only 29 Bullets! thats right, 31 hits with 29 bullets from the hip wth the wrong hand. can you seriously be trying to argue that this is not truly exceptionally skilled shooting? Not to mention the "beirut triple' a technique designed to stop speeding car bombers, which bryant appaerently successfully used to take out a moving vehicle at a distance with three shots: one sighting, one hit the driver and one for the engine.

actually I just found the below website, perhaps you should have a read. interestingly they claim that Vialls (who suppplied the above information) may have been a disinfo plant, mainly since he agrees with the OFFICIAL story that the 31 deaths/injuries occurred within 90 seconds, apparently created (from the govs perspective) to bolster the case that full auto's need to be banned , 'look how fast they can kill'... This is apparently in conflict with quite a few witness statements, I wont go into it any further, just read the site:
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snportarthur.html.

either way, I really have no doubts about this one being a setup, and find it hard to think that anyone else could believe it was anything but that, if they truly looked into it with an open mind, though it helps that i had already been convinced of 9/11 being a inside job psyop, among many others, so can recognize many of the give away MO elements.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
istherehope

Found another quote from the Vialls guy, which shows the shooter(s)' skill even better.

"On 28 April 1996 at Port Arthur in Australia, some of the best combat shooters in the world used a total of only 64 bullets to kill 35 people, wound 22 more, and cripple two cars. The first 19 victims in the Broad Arrow Cafe each died from a single 5.56-mm bullet to the head, all fired in less than 20 seconds from the right hip of a fast-moving combat shooter. This awesome display of marksmanship was blamed on an intellectually impaired young man called Martin Bryant, who had no shooting or military experience at all." --Joe Vialls

NOTES:
- 64 bullets, at least 60 hits ( I know one of the cars was hit at least twice) including the first 19 being all headshots. if thats not incredible, I dont know what is.

- Im not sure on the 20 second figure, the official timeline says he shot off 29 bullets (31 hits, 19 or 22 of which were kills, cant remember) changed a clip and left the cafe all within 90 seconds, however witnesses state he was in the cafe for more like 4-5 minutes. Possible reason for this deliberate discrepancy (I see no other explanation why police would ignore witness statements other than some deliberate purpose) by the authorities is to emphasize how bad semi-auto weapons are, and how banning them might have slowed him down enough to save lives. My thoughts would be, given that the emergency exit was mysteriously jammed shut, and assuming for a minute the witnesses AREN'T lying (why would they?), the slower methodical murdering of whoever this asshole was could have been stopped short by one other person with a gun and good aim... but thats a discussion for another thread.

- apparently bryant had shot an air rifle before and shot at least once with a shotgun, not sure if he'd tried his rifles he owned, so the "no shooting experience' is not entirely accurate, but certainly he had very limited experience and no particular aptitude, and as far as is known, had not tried either shooting from the hip or shooting with his wrong hand (he was a lefty).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
istherehope

by the way Lin, check out that shooternews site, its incredibly detailed
cheers
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jasonc

This is a good topic. Thanks. And thanks Jim Bob for offering other sides. Nothing worse than not asking questions, throwing up other facts that may not be liked by all here.
Edited by jasonc, Mar 5 2008, 10:01 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lin Kuei
Member Avatar

istherehope
Mar 5 2008, 09:23 AM
by the way Lin, check out that shooternews site, its incredibly detailed
cheers
Yeah it's always been a favorite for PA info.

I really encourage people to watch the presentation I posted above given by Wendy Scurr, first medic on the scene. Her (and others') accounts vary so much from the official story it's no wonder the establishment want nothing to do with her - even though she was in the thick of it throughout the shooting and following - why did the cops take 5-6 hours to arrive?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
SPreston
Member Avatar
Patriotic American
Lin Kuei
Mar 1 2008, 03:11 PM
JimBob
Mar 1 2008, 02:33 PM
What is an SKK rifle? Did you mean an SKS?

I did not write the thread, it was quoted from another forum, and the typo was also copied & pasted.
SKKs or Type 84 are Chinese designs of the SKS with a 30 rd banana clip. :cigar:

Chinese SKK or type 84
 
In Australia, the Chinese SKS rifle (along with small numbers of Russian SKS rifles) was very popular with recreational hunters and target shooters during the late 1980's and early 1990's before semi-automatic rifles were banned from legal ownership in 1996. Since the introduction of the 1996 gun bans in Australia, the Mosin-Nagant series of bolt-action rifles and carbines have now filled the void the Chinese SKS had created when it was banned from legal ownership. The Type 84's variants were sold by crate loads, known as SKK's they were full sized SKS's with 30rd AK magazines.

In the early 1990s, the Chinese SKS rapidly became the "poor man's deer rifle" in some Southern areas of the United States due to its low price, lower even than such old favorites in that role as the Marlin 336. Importation of the Chinese SKS into the USA was banned in 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKS
Edited by SPreston, Mar 5 2008, 02:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JimBob
Trolls R Us
Type 84 SKS with AK mag, I guess I have heard of it after all. Thanks.

The best shooters I have ever seen were civilians, and they were truly impressive. The only highly trained military shooters I have seen were those I have watched on TV. I do not know how it is in Australia, but in the USA, the military does not have a monopoly on good shooters. To claim that a shooting scene was the result of a professional shooter based merely on the hit to miss ratio is dubious.

The links provided have too much information to digest in a day. I will comment on it later. Thanks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic »
Add Reply