It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Port Arthur Massacre and Martin Bryant

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 08:19 PM
I have recently read on ATS about the story of The Port Arthur Massacre conspiracy:

This prompted me to do more research and I read these pages:

“We are going to see a mass shooting in Tasmania...unless we get national gun control laws.”
-- Roland Brown, Chairman of the Coalition for Gun Control, uttered on "A Current Affair with Ray Martin", March 1996

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, Australia. In less than a minute 20 people lay dead, 19 of them killed with single high-velocity shots to the head fired from the right hip of the fast-moving shooter.

In less than thirty minutes at six separate crime scenes, 35 people were shot dead, another 22 wounded, and two cars stopped with a total of only 64 bullets. A moving Daihatsu 4WD driven by Linda White was crippled by a “Beirut Triple”, normally reserved for dead-blocking Islamic terrorists driving primed car bombs around the Lebanon.

One sighting shot, a second to disable the driver, and a third to stop the engine before the primed car bomb can hit its target and explode. Very few people know of this technique, and only a handful of experts can master it with only three bullets.

This awesome display of combat marksmanship was blamed on an intellectually impaired young man called Martin Bryant, who had no shooting or military experience at all. As the book "Deadly Deception at Port Arthur" proves in absolute scientific terms, Bryant killed no-one at Port Arthur.
Joe Vialls. See footnote at the end of this article.

On Sunday afternoon, April 28, 1996 “lone nut assassin” Martin Bryant opened fire on tourists at the Broad Arrow Cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania. Before Bryant left the Broad Arrow ninety seconds later, 20 people lay dead and 13 others lay injured. Nineteen of the twenty deaths were the result of a gunshot wound to the head. By the time Bryant was finally apprehended, the body count was 35 dead, and 18 seriously wounded.

Twelve days after Bryant's shooting spree, massive new restrictions were imposed on the civilian possession and use of firearms - restrictions specifically designed to reduce the number of lawfully owned guns in the hands of Australians. It was a scenario all too familiar to American gun-owners. A high-profile shooting occurs and new laws are demanded - laws designed to render civilian firearm possession all the more difficult.

With Port Arthur, however, many Australians believe that the firearm-prohibitionists weren't willing to leave anything to chance. Fuelling the fires of suspicion, major discrepancies in the official accounts of what transpired at Port Arthur surfaced in the years that followed and charges of cover-up and conspiracy were levelled against the Australian government. Even if the exact details may never be known with certainty, some light may be shed on the answers by examining the question of whether Martin Bryant was capable of acting alone.

Twenty eight year old Martin Bryant had an IQ of 66 and was considered incompetent by the state at the time of the shootings. In February 1984, a psychiatric assessment was undertaken for the purpose of determining Bryant's eligibility for a Dept. of Social Security Invalid pension. It was granted because of Bryant's mental deficiencies, that he been unable to hold a job and was incapable of managing his own affairs. In addition to his pension, he had been left a legacy of over one million dollars.

I can't understand how a governemt can get away with this injustice. I'm sure alot of you will agree its unlikey a intectually imparied man could be as accurate as the killer was. Most of the people would be moving if they had seen him killing the first person, and to get off 19 head shots on moving targets would take professional skill.

My second link even has Proof(though I'm not sure how credible the site

I think it was an attempt to get the Tasmanian government to agree with gun laws.

Martin Bryant was considered Guilty until proven innocent, instead of the other way around.

To quote starviego:

Originally posted by starviego
What little I have read of the Port Arthur massacre has convinced me it was another obvious set-up. The strange thing is how the public buys into it. Free Martin Bryant!!

I hope most of you agree.

[edit on 11-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 11:08 PM
This is interesting as I always here about the incident from family and teachers, as I live in Australia, so now I'll say this to them.

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:25 PM
I thought this would have gotten more replies.

Hey Nventual, Did this get alot of publicity in Australia, or is it just old news?

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:30 PM
This is old news.

Martin Bryant, whatever his level of diminished responsibility, was guilty as charged.

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:01 PM
There was kill to wound ratio that indicates that the killings were done by some one in the military or other profession. Not done by someone who had only shot a BB gun.


posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:19 PM
This is a broader range of conspiracy theories about Port Arthur:;jsessionid=5ve78ruehzn5?tname=port-arthur-theories&curtab=2222_1&hl=martin&hl=bryant&sbid=lc04b

The police transcripts and audiotapes of Bryant on the day are probably the most interesting parts.

Bryant entered a guilty plea and there was no trial.

There is little consciousness of any of the conspiracy theories concerning Martin Bryant amongst the many Australians that I know.

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:50 PM

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

The police transcripts and audiotapes of Bryant on the day are probably the most interesting parts.

He didn't own a gun I thought, or have any shooting experience.

Bryant entered a guilty plea and there was no trial.

He first entered a not guilty plea, was held illegally, and then rentered a guilty plea.

There is little consciousness of any of the conspiracy theories concerning Martin Bryant amongst the many Australians that I know.

Had no motive but yet he mercilessly slaughtered 35 people and injured 18 more. He had no shooting experience, but yet he could preform the Beirut Triple. Only a fee experts can master it with 3 bullets.
The Governemnt suddenly get's exactly what it wanted( National Gun Laws) after the massacre.

I agree with:

That a government agent had performed the killings, with the co-operation of police and government officials, and had fled Seascape when the house was set alight.

from your website Masked Avatar.

I thought this was clearly a conspiracy.

[edit on 12-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 10:02 PM
No, not my website, just something that offered more on the conspiracy theories and the points made to attempt to substantiate them. What is presented there is a collection of assertions, not all factual.

Martin Bryant owned at least three guns and had plenty of shooting experience.

People will read what they read, selectively, but there was no need for any kind of staged massacre to enact tighter gun laws. Australia is not the wild west.

Can I ask: what is the motive for massacring 35 people? How does the word "motive" fit with something of this scale, in the opinion of ATS members?

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 10:53 PM
Ok i think i will just clear this thread up, i live in australia and remember the port arthur massacare very well. Martin Bryant acted alone, yes he had no real motive but he had been diagnosed with schizophrena and he surposedly spent pretty much all of his time alone at home according to neigbours. He tried to commit suicide in jail aswell.
Secondly, we dont care about having guns. So when the new law came in agaisnt anyone holding any semi-auto or auto firearm, everyone really didnt care. Except for two groups of people the farmers, and the gun collectors. A friends dad of mine had to give in some of his rare guns, and only got a quater of the valued price of the gun from the government.
But overall most citizens really dont question the law, we just think to ourselves why do you need a automatic weapon? If only to kill alot of people? So we thought ok we will just let the nuts be able to kill 2-3 people insted of 20-30.

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 03:55 AM

Originally posted by wang
Ok i think i will just clear this thread up, i live in australia ..........................

Not so....your clearing up is the just the "media stuff" everyone could hear in the news. Lots of strange things have happend at this event. It also came in a period where globaly simmular shootings have happend (i.e. Germany) where stronger gun control came also into place.
I'm as well a gun owner in australia and can see a reason for gun restrictions but it makes no sense when people can buy guns on the black market. And those who own guns illigally might do damage and can not be controlled.

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 05:29 AM
You said a mouth full snowman when you brought into play "Black Market"

Make anything illegal and there will be a Black Market for it and the government will look the other way. So what has the government really accomplished for the safety of it's citizens?

In a Black Market situation it is the criminal that controls the streets not the citizen. OR, the citizen must become a criminal to protect his family and self. This gives the government more reason and opportunity to legislate more control of the people.

I feel sorry for the people of Australia.


posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:13 PM
it was a pretty heavy thing when it happened, and I do remember that there were a few consiracy theories that were squashed reallyn quickly, and i din't really think to look into it too much as it all really did fit well at the time, and really our media isn't so seamless as to not leave gaps.. usually you can tell when things are 1 sided.

I think the difference between here and the US are great, and I don't think the government was involved. How could they have made mryant go so nuts?


posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I agree with:

That a government agent had performed the killings, with the co-operation of police and government officials, and had fled Seascape when the house was set alight.

I said I agreed with this theory, not that they made Bryant go nuts.

I thought I'd try to find some more info and I got a couple of links(All reliable sources):

I think the evidence doesn't add up. He doesn't fit the profile at ALL, no motive and he changed his plea.

[edit on 14-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 06:05 AM
I was in Tasmania at the time this happened (in fact I was listening to a police scanner when it was going down).

I never really thought of it as a conspiracy, but after looking into the theories a bit more I am starting to wonder - the main thing that smells a bit off is the fact that Bryant managed a perfect bullet to kill ratio in the broad arrow cafe, what was it ? 20 head shots from 20 bullets, shot from the hip??? I have read this on quite a few websites and I find it hard to believe that a moron halfwit could acheive this kind of acuracy...

Also the "Beirut Triple" was a bit suspect as well - and what of the diversionary phone call that sent all local police miles away just before the massacre? Someone called saying there was a heroin stash on a remote area of the island - the police found jars of "fake" heroin there... Strange.

Now I have heard a few posters to this thread saying basically; "nothing to see here, move along". I suggest that they have a quick look at the info on the internet about this before making up their minds.


posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:29 PM
Very enlightening. As I said previously there are usually big holes where the government are invilved in shading dealings, and although I didn't go into reading with that intent, I actually found a few big hoels in the scenario...

Definitely mroe to what happened... I would be interested to find out more about this...

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:54 PM
the whole thing dont add up in my opinion......i can hardly get past the level of skill with an auto weapon that was brother is in the parra's and reckons there are only a few guys in his whole outfit who could pull such a thing in a killhouse (counter terror/urban wf training building) let alone in real life, whilst poor people's heads explode feet from you....he reckons whoever did it has killed alot of people in the past and spent a fair whack of time on a two way range.......who ever did it was not in the midst of a psychotic episode, they were cold, calm and detatched.....and in possesion of a thousand yard stare.......its the only way to finnish such a gruesome task so quickly and efficiently...........

and is there a better pattsy than a mentally impaired schitzophrenic?.......

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 02:05 AM
Do not want to sound whack... ha ha
But I've heard a theory going around there is a group of troops from Israle who preform tasks for Goverment agencys, Port Arthur as just another mission for them. I also heared that the some type of incident has happend in the US.

I have no proof, only speculation from a friend who told me this. He also reads into CTheorys, I'm sure if you look you might be able to find some info on the net.

posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 06:45 PM
I thought it would be important to find out more about Bryant and so I searched some more. I think it's interesting to note Bryant owned over 200 teddy bears.

I also found an interesting theory on Martin Bryants burns. He would have to be laying face down in the building(probably unconcious due to 3rd degree burns) to recieve burns on his back and arm.

OJ had means, motive, and opportunity, he got off. Blakes aliby was that he went into the restaurant to get his gun, he got off. I thought you had to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. I certainly have alot of doubt about Martin Bryant's guilt.

100th Post

P.S. I do not support anything these links link to (Rotten), and thanks for the replies keep'em coming.

[edit on 17-6-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:02 AM
This has to be australia's biggest cover up to date. I have a close mate that lives in port arthur and he told me days before hand that there where several coroners vans out the front of his place. Then in the weeks to come we lost all gun rigths. Plus they build him a custom made prision JUST FOR HIM ? I guess they did not want this dirty little secret to get loose.

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:20 AM
At the time of the Port Arthur massacre I was on the other side of the country.

I always look for the motive in a news story.

The one thing that sticks in my mind, is the report that Bryant had been stripped of the control of the inheritance he had been recently enjoying. The control of the assetts from the legacy of an older woman who lived with him before she died in a car accident. The courts had placed the control of these assets in a trust fund due to his "immaturity." Fools! His only salvation. A million dollars or more.

To a minority person the "theft" of his new found ability to interact with the world in a secure finacial manner, must have beeen a devastating loss and a source of unbearable rage.

Pure rage in an intellectually handicapped person could possibly fester into something we could never associate with the manifestation of that rage.

I agree that the statistics of the massacre seem astounding technically.

But I know 11 year olds who can kill far more accurately with nothing but a keyboard and a mouse. Give them the same amount of time as Martin Bryant had with firearms-yes he did own and play with real ones- and you must be able to imagine the possibility. We play with guns here too.

Motive. Everyone says "why was he angry/" The same as usual. I love the conspiracy theories. However, it only works without motive. Damn, I have had limited firearm experience and I can assure you that I am a crack shot
and if someone took my well earned, new found wealth away because I enjoyed it...guesss what. I'd be angry.

But I may be wrong. Perhaps he wasnt angry and just a Patsy with no anger.
I mean, you wouldnt be angry?....Roaring Chicken

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in