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.


Port Arthur Massacre Setup - False flag to ban guns in Aus

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:15 AM
Here is some information from investigative journalist Joe Vialls

Alleged Port Arthur gunman Martin Bryant. Photo on the left was used by the media to convince you of Martin Bryant's "guilt". Photo on right taken from a different angle, shows identical three men on balcony of the Broad Arrow Cafe, and the man alleged to be Martin Bryant running down towards the bus park at Port Arthur in the presence of a police helicopter.
This frame was shot at 2.45 p.m., more than an hour after the mass murder was over! This damning photographic evidence by itself proves Martin Bryant was deliberately set-up, wrongly accused and wrongly convicted. Remember, a camera cannot lie.
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.
It is now up to the Australian Federal Government and people to track down those responsible for ordering and funding this loathsome terrorist attack against Australians on Commonwealth soil.


check this out too "And that explains rather simply just how Joe knew that the Port Arthur Massacre was in fact a Mossad covert operation, because he ran it."

who knows

[edit on 1/11/09 by dallas18]

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:45 AM
reply to post by Pilgrum

Thanks for the insight mate, always good to have different perspectives shared with conspiracy topics. Do you remember if the following footage was aired by the media?

Originally posted by dallas18
Here is an interesting video, the youtube description:

What we have here is a team already onsite with a camera mounted on a tripod and pre-aimed at the Cafe. Listen also to the comments, "thats a shotgun"...hmm not # someone is shooting a gun here! They are not surprised, and why should they be, no doubt they were actaully WAITING to capture the event! And seeing as they recorded the start, one must assume that they kept the camera rolling and got the entire thing!
If so it was NEVER recorded as being available by the DPP in Court who bemoaned the lack of actual footage. One can only draw the conclusion that this footage actually existing would be very hard to explain. Incidentally, the man running from the Cafe is NOT the gunman who is still inside shooting.

Another video from same people

In these two videos, you can both hear 'that's a shotgun'. In the second, when the person is running away, a woman says it. And she says, 'see that person running there'.It kind of looks like the person running to the bus is carrying a shot gun?

Here is a photo of the same person (it appears), running to a police helicopter

And another image of him running away

This photo was used by the media to convince us of his guilt. It was shot at 2:45 PM an hour after the shootings.

? Is that the footage they were talking about here? If it is why does it appear he is running to the helicopter?

Many months after the massacre took place, but only hours before the Tasmanian judge was due to make a decision that would effect Martin Bryant for the rest of his life, an Australian TV network suddenly presented the public (and of course the judge) with dramatic amateur video footage shown "for the first time ever"

I was too young to have been aware of all this when it happened, so it would be great to hear some fellow Australians express what happened with media coverage and political debate regarding gun controls and this event around this time.

[edit on 1/11/09 by dallas18]

Who doctored video footage of a running man adding the soundtrack of shots from another video and presented this as Bryant ( prior to his trial ) which was also used at his trial as evidence which was shown on Channel 9's Ray Martin Current Affair Program ? Was it Channel 9 who did it and if so was it at Ray Martin's own instruction ? ( For Overseas readers Ray Martin was a TV Current Affairs Host with thoroughly anti-gun views ). Was it the DDP or the Tasmanian Police ?

The only media allowed near the scene was a Tasmanian WIN TV crew filming from a great distance who managed to film the capture of Martin Bryant stumbling clothes on fire from Seascape on the morning of the 29th April. Why were they given exclusive treatment - was it because they were part of this deception which was later evidence by them providing fabricated video footage to the CURRENT AFFAIR TV program ? It should be noted Easton told the Senate Inquiry there was "total containment" of the media - this was not true - the WIN TV filming proves that. And that answer was in relation to Senator Quirke's question asking whether ANY media were allowed within viewing distance of Seascape.

[edit on 1/11/09 by dallas18]

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:19 AM
reply to post by dallas18

I seem to recall seeing that 2nd picture on the news but not the video. If the video is genuine and it was handed in to police as evidence then it wouldn't have been publicly aired until after the trial (long time). Bryant was long gone from there before the police chopper would have arrived as the chopper is normally based at Cambridge airport which is very near Hobart airport some distance out of Hobart - maybe 10-15 minutes drive with sirens from Liverpool St to the runway. He would have made it back to Seascape by then in that hour

Should add my thoughts on the suggestion of a 'false flag' operation - it's somewhat unusual that he was taken in alive IE wouldn't it have been simpler if he'd been shot in that final siege?.

[edit on 1/11/2009 by Pilgrum]

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:08 AM
There is plenty of information at this web site which I have just come across. The author of the website appears to be the same person who uploaded the above 2 footage videos, and claims to have 20 hours of video. He has done some in depth research and there is some great information there which is very hard to come across. He has also written a book about this subject. Worth checking out!

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:12 AM
OP...have you done a search before starting this thread?

there have been many threads already documenting many of yuor facts listed and more -

Port Arthur....not all it seems

Ozzie Guns

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:02 AM
Australia is a small country as opposed to America where people have a higher voice of oppinion due to its vast population size. And it has to be noted that Australia is a commonwealth country and as a result it tends to have a similar relationship as Britain in terms of evaluating and actioning laws in institution.

Population of Australia: approx 20,000,000
Tasmania, Australian island: approx 497,312

Given the nature of this sad event, it was easier to impose strict laws on a circumstance of such massacre in Tasmania at that time, as majority of people did not have firearms and only those that did it was considered a minority. As a result it was easier to pass the legislation. And any one living in
Australia would agree how easily the laws tend to perpetuate across states.

[edit on 11/1/2009 by krystalice]

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:42 AM
it's a tired old saying but goddamn is it true:

guns don't kill people, people do.

What the hell is the point of making gun laws tougher when the people who break these laws don't care anyway?

I'd like to see that guy (or the real people who did it) try that in an area where you can carry a concealed weapon. Definitely a different story.

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by piddles

Give a killer a gun he has an objective.

Give a lunatic a gun he has none.

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 12:33 PM
Give a killer a gun and he will kill, give a killer a crosbow he will kill, give a killer a spear he will kill, give a killer a knife he will kill, give a killer a chair and he will kill.

there are billions of weapons worldwide, the only restriction is that of the killers imagination.

A gun is useful as a weapon and presents the pinacle of weapons, if these tourist A) had a weapon and B) weren't such pacifist they would have had a fighting chance.

A group of killers with bows and arrows could inflict the same ammont of masacre, hell knifes kill just as easy, they are easilly concealed and a masacre against unarmed citizens is quite possible

The real atrocity is that these ozzie's have their rights taken because of one lunatic, I would have encouraged the ozzie's to conceal carry pistols to prevent this!

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 02:13 PM
Thank you.

Thank you thank you thank you thank you!
I'm so happy to see that I'm not crazy! You've reiterated what I've been saying ever since the incident in port arthur.
I find it interesting that the police response time was far below average, given how far away the cop shop is from the site. I find it strangely unnerving that none of the local police were willing to answer any of my questions when I informally interviewed them about the incident.
I studied videos of Bryant when he was interviewed by A Current Affair (or it may have been Today Tonight, I can't remember), and he (despite being doped up beyond belief) had the classic signs of an Illuminati scapegoat/manchurian candidate.

I love it when someone else brings up some home-grown conspiracy theories... it shows me that the underworld scumbags (that we commonly call 'the Illuminati', but I just prefer to call the underworld/Zhentil Keep/mafia) have their hands dirty from all over the world, not just america and europe.

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:22 PM
I didn't really follow any of your links Dallas- have probably seen them before-

but for the person who said Bryant didn't have any experience with guns- he did- not saying he was a skilled marksman but he did have experience with guns.

Bryant had a really low iq- he was mentally challenged.

I know a guy in mental health who worked with him (in mental health after the shooting) and he says there's no way no how Bryant could have done that- I believe him because even though I'm not close to this guy people I know are and I trust them- I do know he's a straight shooter and he wouldn't just make stuff up- that is his professional opinion and he's been in the industry for a long time.

I'm just not sure where the conspiracy lies- Australia wasn't that armed to begin with- and we can still have guns- seems a pretty extreme thing to do to pass stricter laws re gun control but then I don't know where our laws were headed at that time.

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:17 PM

* Did you know that there is no forensic evidence to show that Martin Bryant was at Port Arthur on the massacre? (Although he later arrived at Seascape)
* There is not one fingerprint, or smear of saliva, or hair, or DNA, or footprint of Martin Byant.
* If you dare to ask for evidence that the gunman was Martin Bryant, then be careful - one man has already been threatened with arrest for asking a forensic question at a Forensics Conference!
* As for the witnesses? When given 30 photographs from which to pick the gunman, some of the witnesses already had an image of Bryant in their minds because THE MERCURY kindly printed a large photo on the front page. One witness actually said she recognised him by his jumper - which she saw on the Mercury photo - we know the gunman had not worn a jumper!!
* Why wasn't THE MERCURY prosecuted for obstructing the course of justice?

A lot more information is available here, including 'Is the Prime Minister Mr John Howard a criminal'?

[edit on 1/11/09 by dallas18]

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 05:30 PM

Originally posted by nrky
I studied videos of Bryant when he was interviewed by A Current Affair (or it may have been Today Tonight, I can't remember), and he (despite being doped up beyond belief) had the classic signs of an Illuminati scapegoat/manchurian candidate.

indeed, i think he could have easily been manipulated. i find it interesting that on the post about the israeli connection, there is claims to have 2 arabs befriend martin shortly before the event? it would be interesting to see where that came from, as there is a picture of them on that site. after watching recordings from this on that 3 part video, where there is the gun shot heard in the background whilst martin is talking, and martin saying that 'theyre not dead?' after hearing something happened, it looks more and more like there was other shooter(s) and that martin didn't do any thing. given his mental capacity he could have easily been manipulated by the experts who pulled this off

there is so many questions its amazing that they got away with this deception, just like 911 in a way, i suppose

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:55 PM
Pretty fascinating. I don't typically believe in consipiracies but this particular incident seems rife with too many inconsistencies. Very strange indeed.

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 07:03 PM
Had an Army buddy tell me about this years ago, Brant was claimed to be shooting wildly from the hip...Not a real effective way of hitting a target...

from memory and don't quote me here but he also went on to say there were shell casings of a rife/s that he never had and there were a higher than expected head shot wounds that was more on par with a sharp shooter/s

If you were to mention this to mainstream you would be in the same category of Elvis lives and works at a hamburger roadhouse.

But this and many of the things the Howard goverment was involved in was to say it ...more than a little dodgy.

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:13 PM
I wonder if all the American high school shootings are an attempt to replicate the reaction of Australia to this incident. I susspect they will continue till guns are banned there too. Or it could just be kids playing cod 4 too much.

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:20 PM
reply to post by TiM3LoRd

Ya i have thought this too. arent the us govt trying to get rid of your gun rights? . obviously the US population is far greater than australia's, so there would need to be a lot of 'massacres' to take place for it to be considered a real problem, cause a shock reaction and to demand the solution. something similar to mumbai i would imagine would be neccessary.. you guys have a right to arms though, dont let them take it away!

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:14 AM
reply to post by Kryties

Not that I agree necessarily with current gun laws but surely the point is that it would be difficult to slit the throats of 20 odd people in a cafe one by one, as opposed to shooting with a semi-automatic weapon.

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:26 AM
It's strange that in cases of terrorism there seems to be no limit to the "interview techniques" able to be applied to a suspect.

Yet in these types of cases in general the "suspect" invariably doesn't even take the witness stand.

Seriously, if Bryant or his legal team wish to mount a case then why not offer to take part in hypnotic regression or drug induced q & a and for the sake of truth why can't authorities demand it ?

5th amendment / right to silence aside (and why do these not apply in cases of terrorism) surely nowadays there is a reasonable foolproof medical method of obtaining murder suspects direct testimony.

If there was, I would vote for allowance of it's use in controlled circumstances. Anyone else ?

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:33 AM
Australia is culturally a very different place to America.

One way to definitely lose an election in America.
Make gun confiscation an election issue, propose jail terms for gun owners..
Vote for me, I will take your guns away, hehehe.
How to win an election in America, increase SHOOTERS RIGHTS.

In Australia, gun ownership is a totally dead issue politically
It would be politically suicidal to suggest more guns in the community would be a good thing in Australia.

So you see the politicians in both the US and Australia give us what we want so we will vote them in.

While Australians marvel at the high level of death and violence in America from gunshot wounds, we certainly don't wish to see that happen here.

And yes, our crime rate has increased since we banned guns.

But statistically the crime rate in the US has increased FAR MORE than it has here over exactly the same period.

If you love your guns, stay in the US and keep the hell away from our peaceful country.

If you have a love of weaponry, deadly force, war, death and violence, go and live in America. You can get all you want of it there.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in