It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian's false flag anti gun massacre - 20 years ago

page: 1
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 05:58 AM
link   
20 years ago a 29 year old bloke with an intellectual age of a 13 year old, and who had been placed into financial administration by the Tasmanian supreme court was the patsy for the killing of 37 people.

This bloke had no military training and no weapons training but was able to kill 20 people with 19 bullets, all head and neck while shooting from the hip. He eventually pleaded guilty so he could have a TV in his cell.

His lawyers who were barristers, were hostile counsel, working for the prosecution whose task was to get Martin Bryant to plead guilty so no colonial inquiry or trial would take place.

No forensic evidence was ever collected from the biggest crime scene in Australia's history. A vehicle driven by actual shooter was left out over night at the scene which caused the due to get into the car via a broken window and obliterate all the DNA.

The first victim lent over a table and said to the other half, there are TWO blokes staring at me. The other half lent forward to see out the door. At that instant he got grazed and she died.

Scroll down and open Keith Noble’s Ebook.

Link to pdf book


edit on 8-6-2016 by Azureblue because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
but was able to kill 20 people with 19 bullets,


Not true at all. Also it is not hard to shoot people in the head when the muzzle is a few inches away.


Within fifteen seconds, he had fired seventeen shots, killing twelve people and wounding ten. Bryant then walked to the other side of the shop and fired 12 more times, killing another eight people while wounding two. He then changed magazines before fleeing, shooting at people in the car park and from his yellow Volvo 244 sedan as he drove away; four were killed and an additional six were injured. Bryant drove three hundred metres down the road, to where a woman and her two children were walking. He stopped and fired two shots, killing the woman and the child she was carrying. The older child fled, but Bryant followed her and killed her with a single shot. He then stole a gold-coloured BMW by killing all four of its occupants. A short distance down the road he stopped beside a couple in a white Toyota and, drawing his weapon, ordered the male occupant into the boot of the BMW. After shutting the boot, he fired two shots into the windscreen of the Toyota, killing the female driver. He returned to the guest house, set the stolen car alight and took his hostage inside with the Martins' corpses. The police soon arrived and tried to negotiate with Bryant for many hours before the battery in the phone he was using died, ending communication. Bryant's only demand was to be transported in an army helicopter to an airport. Sometime during the negotiations, Bryant killed his hostage.

edit on 8-6-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce

Nor is getting head shots all that hard when one is shooting at a bunch of folks sitting down. Hence why somebody hiding under a table got shot in the ass.

So much fail here.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: hellobruce




Within fifteen seconds, he had fired seventeen shots, killing twelve people and wounding ten. Bryant then walked to the other side of the shop and fired 12 more times, killing another eight people while wounding two.


So he killed 20 people and wounded 12 in 29 shots and all in how many seconds ?......that is pretty damn good marksmanship is it not ?



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




Nor is getting head shots all that hard when one is shooting at a bunch of folks sitting down.


Are you picturing a video game where people being shot just sit there and wait for their turn for a head shot ?



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No I'm picturing the Port Arthur massacre, where people thought somebody was letting off firecrackers or that it was a reenactment. What are you picturing?

Are you familiar with it? Are you familiar with shooting? I ask because it's somewhat perplexing as to why you think managing to kill a bunch of people, most of whom are within a dozen feet and sitting down (ergo stationary) is good marksmanship. Oddly enough, when he carried on shooting at folks who were moving, suddenly he wasn't popping everybody in the melon anymore.
edit on 8-6-2016 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




Are you familiar with it? Are you familiar with shooting? I ask because it's somewhat perplexing as to why you think managing to kill a bunch of people, most of whom are within a dozen feet, is good marksmanship.


Do you think these people just sat there and waited their turn,his first 17 shots killed 12 people they were mostly head shots!!!....i am perplexed at you reasoning considering it is acceptable for your compradres with badges over there in the US of A seem to take 20 shots (or so) to hit the target in the leg ?

So yeah it was damn good markmanship ...especially considering this guy had some sort of mental issue and a lack of training
edit on 8-6-2016 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
This bloke had no military training and no weapons training but was able to kill 20 people with 19 bullets, all head and neck while shooting from the hip. He eventually pleaded guilty so he could have a TV in his cell.


Why is having no military training significant? If you are adept with firearms, you are adept with firearms, even when using assault rifles.

The facts of this case are well documented, as is the events leading to it. It was a terrible tragedy for those effected by a young mans capability to kill lots of people, regardless of his mental age and health at the time. There are a number of conspiracy theories they he did not do it, and all that, but he did because testimony in court (from witnesses) pointed fingers at him.

The impact of the incident tightened Australia's gun laws, but fail to see how this was a false flag.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Asked and answered, with two explanations provided as to why at least some people weren't running for the hills.

Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right. Or right, period.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

No but it helps me when understand the incomprehensible



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

I'm sorry the mechanics of close range shooting in a crowded room with a high powered weapon are so incomprehensible to you. I can't really dumb it down any more than it already has been.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right. Or right, period.


while that may be true, being louder than everyone else usually does make you more right. Just ask my Grandson.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
....testimony in court (from witnesses) pointed fingers at him.


Could you post some examples?



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 07:51 AM
link   
He used to shoot rabbits and sell them door to door as a kid. Common practice in Australia in the past and Tasmania tends to be a bit behind the times. He probably got pretty good at shooting from an early age. People are bigger, slower moving targets.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

edit on 8-6-2016 by harold223 because: spelling



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I took the liberty of briefly scanning the book being referenced in the article which the original post quotes. Within that book I've found myriad quotations from various individuals of relevance, especially prominent government officials. I copied several of those quotes into Google, and found those quotes only to exist in links referencing the book. The author doesn't cite his sources, nor do there appear to be any sources.

The author also wrote at least three fallacious statements:

NOBODY witnessed Martin Bryant at the Port Arthur Historic Site or its immediate environs on Sunday, 28th of April 1996. People at that location at the time say they saw Martin Bryant. And officials say he was there. But there is NO hard evidence Martin Bryant was inside the Broad Arrow Café, or at the parking lot, or on the road leading to the tollbooth, or at the tollbooth, or at the Port Arthur general store, or along the highway. Saying Martin Bryant was there because people saw him there is nonsense.

This event could not have been the work of one individual no matter how intelligent he/she is.

At no time have the police made any reference to Bryant being deafened or concussed by multiple discharges that I have seen. If Bryant was the shooter and was without ear protection he would have been suffering from ear pain and disorientation when he left the café.
Wordpress

While I'm extremely distrusting of the establishment, and am convinced of things which would make the average consirpiracy theorist cringe, I see nothing here but irrational arguments and unproven points. For example, witness testimony is excellent evidence. In general, if many people claim that someone did a thing, there's a fantastic chance that they in fact did it. It's absolutely possible for one person to kill thirty five individuals in a day, including via the reported circumstances. That's not a theory, that's a fact. Lonewolf shooters have repeatedly performed similar acts, achieving similar results. Finally, just because the police never referenced concussion or disorientation doesn't mean that he wasn't the shooter. It's an irrelevant detail that was probably at no time discussed. Besides, I think you'll find that concussion and disorientation wasn't remarked upon in reports of other shooter incidents either.

While there may very well be a conspiracy here, I don't see it, and the author didn't do an adequate job of proving it. However, one of the individuals currently debunking the thread, Shamrock6, has written a tag under his name which identifies him as "Shill Supreme." As such, I can only conclude that Bryant is in fact innocent, and also George W Bush as actually Tony Blair in disguise.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: hellobruce

Nor is getting head shots all that hard when one is shooting at a bunch of folks sitting down. Hence why somebody hiding under a table got shot in the ass.

So much fail here.

I don't know about you, but had I been one of those people sitting down, at some point I would've noticed the gunfire and exploding heads. I would've probably stopped being a sitting target, and would've suddenly been a running, dodging, weaving and concealing target. Twenty headshots back-to-back, in the same room, at the same time, would be an unheard of feat.

They wouldn't have imprisoned that man. They would've drafted him into the military.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No I'm picturing the Port Arthur massacre, where people thought somebody was letting off firecrackers or that it was a reenactment. What are you picturing?

Are you familiar with it? Are you familiar with shooting? I ask because it's somewhat perplexing as to why you think managing to kill a bunch of people, most of whom are within a dozen feet and sitting down (ergo stationary) is good marksmanship. Oddly enough, when he carried on shooting at folks who were moving, suddenly he wasn't popping everybody in the melon anymore.

Twenty heads exploding, blood splattering, and bodies dropping to the floor wasn't enough to convince these people that something was wrong? I personally only need to be slapped in the face by brains and skull fragments once, and I'll be instantly highly motivated to leave the room.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: starviego
Could you post some examples?


No, not off hand. I suggest you track down the Court transcript, which I have seen in the past. Because there is an industry of conspiracy over this mass murderer, there are various copies in circulation.

Try searching something like "The Queen v Martin Bryant".



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi




but he did because testimony in court (from witnesses) pointed fingers at him.


While other witnesses like the owner of the cafe that knew who Bryant was weren't brought up as witnesses because they claim it wasn't Bryant that did the shooting.




There are a number of conspiracy theories they he did not do it


Yes, many things seem strange.

The coroner van, prior to the massacre Tasmania didn't have a coroners van that could hold so many bodies, a new one was build a few months before the massacre to hold numerous bodies.

Witnesses saying the shooter wasn't Bryant, others saying there were 2 people.

The stand off that ended the siege where Bryant was captured, listening to the tapes that the police made of the negotiator trying to get Bryant to give up can make one suspect that there was another person in the house shooting at the police while Bryant was speaking to the negotiator, things Bryant said to the negotiator makes one question.


Things Bryant said and later went back on like He wasn't even in the area but Buying weed Kms away when the shooting started.

The gun buy back scheme that was passed very shortly after which was said to be written up due to the massacre had a few people baffled as its claimed that such legislation would take quite some time longer to write up.

The changing of Bryant's lawyer, His Mother having doubts. Sealed court Documents, the claims of a highly skilled Israeli soldier coming into the country prior and leaving soon after, there are quite a few reasons conspiracy theories have popped up about incident.

A few have done extensive research into the shootings, what happened before, during and what happened after during the court case which is quite eye opening and does make one wonder if there some foul play going on people behind the scenes.

I tend to lean on the side that many things weren't right, Bryant might have done the killings even though I am lead to believe he didn't but was a patsy, however if he did there are still many other things which don't sit right about the before and after, especially how the court case was handled from things I have read.

I think the book the OP linked to will cover all the things I mention in my post more comprehensively + many more things that would make one suspect something wasnt right with what is the official narrative



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
This is the Court transcript

"https://web.archive.org/web/20010508013225/www.shootersnews.addr.com..."

The problem with conspiracy nuts is that they will take documents, such as the court transcript, and over-analyse small parts to build an alternative position.

The fact is that I was not there. I have never been shot at, nor used an assault rifle. I challenge conspiracy by looking to known facts. This transcript details witness testimony that Bryant was killing people. If the witnesses are lying (etc) then it's one massively complex conspiracy that has stood the test of time!
edit on 8/6/2016 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
19
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join