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

Silver Shadow
I agree with some of what you are saying but can't help but feel helpless to an over powerful Government here in Australia. They seem to ram laws through without proper public consultation and referendums and we keep having to go back to vote on referendums the Government wanted in like Daylight saving here in the west.

The gun laws are strict and for a good reason, I am a member of a Gun Club here in W.A and we get all kind of whack jobs coming to join just so they get a glock. Not really interested in target shooting or competition just want a pistol that fires fast and looks and sounds cool.

Luckily the Cops sort out the chaff from the hay and normally if they can't get a Police clearance form they cant get in....I wouldn't want it any other way.

reply to post by mazzroth

---

Mazroth, serious hunters, and genuine competitive shooters and people that need guns for their day job have no trouble at all meeting all the requirements in Australia to own weapons.

But just wanting to own a gun,is not sufficient reason to be allowed to keep one..

I believe the vast majority of Australians feel that the fewer weapons there are that can be misused by idiots, out in the general community, the safer everyone here feels.

There certainly WAS a lot of public debate and discussion, it went on for years, before any gun bans were actually introduced.
And the public mood here does not seem to have changed in the slightest.

The opposition political party (either one) would jump at a chance to use shooters rights as some sort of lever to discredit the sitting government, and gain some political mileage, if that view ever became popular..

But the public attitude has held very firm indeed on the laws here severely restricting gun ownership.
And I cannot see that ever changing.

"Sigh" The gun laws here are over the top, Im 80% percent of the way to obtaining my Rifle and Pistol License, passed a stupid test thats just common sense stuff. I agree that the firearms should be kept in a gunsafe though to stop the everyday wannbe.

Another annoying thing with the pistol class, after obtaining my lisence I cant purchase a pistol for 6 months as in this period I have to attend at least 3 competition shots by scabbing use of someone elses gun. This I hate as I im not a fan of lending my stuff unless I trust them, in saying that I expect the same in return.

What makes this more frustration a lad I know laughed at me for all the paper work im going through when he said he can go down the road and buy one on the quiet side whenever he wants.

Also legally im not allowed to bring a pistol if I go pig hunting, I think it would be handy to have a semi auto sidearm when transversing dense scrub. The only place the pistol can go is to the gun club, gun smith or home.

With the armed hold ups and gun related offences in Australia hands up if you think more than 1% of these are carried out buy a licensed person. I certainly dont believe so.

/rant

I trust the previous few posts have been sufficient to show non-Oz viewers that firearms have not been outlawed here and that the population has not been disarmed. Sure, the upgraded laws relating to firearms seem excessively restrictive and the penalties for possession of a banned weapon or unlicensed possession of even a permissable weapon appear severe (like 10 years imprisonment in the case of a banned weapon) but, on the whole, the people here are not against this level of control and society is all the better for it. The real benefits of this reduction of weapons in public hands will take a long time to be fully realised.

Anyone in Oz with a valid need for a firearm can still get one provided they satisfy the requirements.

dallas18, good thread. I don't know if I would trust that source too much.

John Howard was PM of the Liberal party, but he was FAR from a liberal. The liberal party is actually a politically conservative party! (Their economic policies are really what is considered "liberal" in the political sense). Just look at their policies. That's not to say that he was not under the influence of the Global Elite, but come on, claiming he was a "liberal" is kind of dishonest.

[edit on 3/11/2009 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Pilgrum

---

hi Pilgrum,
you seem very keen to rubbish the idea of a false flag... why is that?

you said IQ is irrelevant to shooting people in a cafe? trying to put it nicely but: do a little research please, when an act shows quite high levels of planning and thought going into it, and insanely high amounts of skill, blaming it on a mentally disabled guy is ridiculous. eg:

The shooter shot off all but one bullet in his magazine(!) in quick succession

scoring more 'hits' than bullets fired (managed to kill or wound more people than the bullets he fired(!!!!) because two(I think) of the bullets went through someone and hit someone else),

the majority being headshots scored one after the other(!!!),

shooting ' from the hip' (meaning he/she didnt even raise the gun to aim, just held it at waist height and had enough skill to still basically never miss.

He had deliberately not fired the last bullet, so it stayed in the gun, ready to fire, while he changed the magazine!!! DOES THIS SOUND LIKE THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF a person of IQ 60?

he also managed to not leave any fingerprints and sabotaged at least one gun so ballistics matching couldnt be (and wasnt) done..

other examples of EXTREME skill and EXPERT 'special forces style' training shown:

- the inverted killed to wounded ratio (more killed than wounded, find me another mass shooting where this happened? even in cases of complete gun nuts, with lots of shooting experience opening up in crowded spaces, has never happened.)

- taking out the moving car with a 'beirut triple': sighting shot, shot through the engine and shot through the driver. this is an anti car bomber tactic from the middle east. (did this happen twice? some one mentioned two cars being taken out)

- many more but that will do for that. this is not the work of a guy with iq 60. psychopath? yes, but a smart one.

examples of extremely suspicious coincidences, one of which would be suspicous, this many being down right hard evidence of high level planning:

- unexplained massive hearse purchase/sale. excelent for getting bodies safely away so they dont lay about provoking unwanted questions.

-police decoy drug cache, The shooting started within 5 minutes (!!!)of the officers radioing in to say they were safely all the way on the other side of the peninsula. no other examples of fake drug caches had been found before and no explanation was ever given that I know of.

- staff conference thing, first and last time organised, no clear objective/purpose

- 'lucky' nearby location of many 'gunshot wound' trained medical people and huge amounts of media people due to 'convenient' conferences

- 'mass shooting in tasmania' pre-knowledge gun laws comment

- Gun laws IN EFFECT in 2 weeks !!! HAD to have been already drafted (not so suspicious by itself but to be expected if a false flag)

other evidence:

- the fact that the shooter(s) basically didnt miss at the cafe, yet fired off hundreds of bullets without hitting a thing at the siege, if it was the same shooter and they had been trying to kill the surrounding forces, there wouldn't be a cop alive in the area (ok slight exaggeration but you get the point)

- The guns found missing vital components or damaged making them completely useless, components never found !!, damage to one gun caused by an exploding bullet that should have blown of MB's fingers, or at least left some damage. none found, no gunshot residue found on him. it was convenient that the barrel was damaged so no bullet matching could occur, because:
- MB's guns were not matched to bullets via ballistics

- MB stumbled out, burns on his back not his forearms as you would expect from someone shielding himself from fire, more indicative of someone knocked out and awoken by fire on his back. very 'out of it' claimed he was the hostage!!

- police have his mum in a police station before MB is a suspect(!), yet DONT later get her to talk to her son on the phone to try to talk him out of the seige (cos it wasnt him talking and she would know?)

- witnesses DONT identify martin bryant, real shooter was probably wearing a wig to match MB but different facial features/skin tone

-MB DOESNT 'confess' for a LONG time, apparently (this may not be true, cant remember where I read it) untill he is told (untruthfully by those holding him) his mum wont ever talk to him again unless he does...

- laws changed to freeze his money/assets before trial (ie while he is still 'innocent') so that he cannot pay for a good lawyer. much shenanigans with his first lawyer dropping the case and neither lawyers doing anything to free him even though there are so many illegal/irregular things/counter evidence in this case any half skilled lawyer would have had a field day getting him free.

- all the conflicts between the witnesses stories and the official story

seriously I could keep listing this stuff for many more pages, and each point deserves a big writeup/investigation, yet you try and say that all is normal here? this is one of the most obvious false flags I've ever seen (aussie here btw, I remember this when I was younger). I wouldn't doubt one or two of these things might be just 'lucky' coincidences or mistakes, but the majority aren't, and there is NO WAY they are all just coincidences.

reply to post by diablomonic

---

I'm not rubbishing the idea of a false flag - I simply see no support for that suggestion.

Much of the points you make come from Joe Viallis, the same person who tried to make a case that the Asian tsunami was a false flag carried out by the US using an underwater nuclear weapon to further the NWO cause. You'll need a massive amount of salt to digest anything from that source.

Martin Bryant perhaps is no creative genius but he had enough faculties to use a weapon.

If it was a grand deception for the purpose of disarming the Australian public it's been a failure because the people were allowed to keep weapons and can still purchase new ones. The new gun control laws were already basically drafted in the wake of the Hoddle St Massacre in Melbourne.

Where Bryant's IQ would seriously let him down is in any attempt to lie convincingly about the event. Yet, if it was all choreographed, he was allowed to be captured alive? Doesn't exactly add up.

A week before the massacre , emergency services

performed an exercise at Pt. Arthur [reported on TV news]

involving 35 casualties .




the whole thing reeks of NWO twang

Come on... NO support?

rubbish the source... cos that changes the facts...??? most of these are 'established' official 'facts' (in quotes because witness statements do not always line up with the 'facts') or taken from mainstream news sources. just because a guy you don't trust collected them doesn't change the truth.



the OFFICIAL story is that:

within the first 15 seconds he had killed 12 and wounded 10 more. mostly head/neck shots, and within the next minute or so he killed another 8 and wounded 2 more, SO thats 20 dead and 12 wounded, with a total of only 29 rounds fired, all in under 2 minutes!!! thats not using a weapon, that is world class mastery of it!

it is official that it took many hours for any police to arrive (bar the two ones who arrived after coming back from the 'drug' cache

the hearse is real, the conferences are real, the weapons were not empirically matched to bryant, witnesses do dispute key aspects of the case, including whether the shooter was bryant. etc etc. So exactly which of these facts are you disputing? no doubt you can probably find one where I'm mistaken, misled or where the evidence is ambigous, but that leaves all the rest, and does nothing to shake my confidence that this is a psy op, plain as day.

gun control laws (from a conspiracy perspective) are there to make it easy to control/oppress populations, not to remove all guns. Allowing only those who have been 'vetted' to own guns, and then only guns which are not much good against millitary forces* achieves exactly that. The sort of people that would rebel against the oppression are less likely to pass vetting, and even if they did, the government would know what they were up against in trying to disarm them due to gun registration, and gun safe laws etc mean the gun is unlikely to be 'handy' for quick self defence (and especially not away from the home).

*sure a well trained person could still do damage, but it's a LOT harder and tips the odds hugely one way

as to the pre drafting of laws, as I said, that was one of my caveats: that it is not proof of anything because of course at least one of the anti gun groups would have something drafted just in case. It is just 'convenient' that everything was quite so ready to go and that the media pushed the issue so hard that no opposition was allowed time to spring up and argue against it(if someone else in the cafe had had a gun, maybe we wouldnt be having this conversation)

it is interesting that mass shootings by 'lone gunmen' with no clear motive and confusion and mystery in the 'storyline' (*) are a fairly recent phenomonen and only seem to re-occur where tighter gun laws are 'needed', then move on to the next place they are needed(**) (and will probably keep occuring in america till they get what they want or they are found out)



(*) there have been many shootings around the world where events don't quite add up the way we are told they do. Sure the occasional real copycat shooting has most likely occured, but a lot of them seem to be contrived psy ops, and all are exploited to their maximum potential by anti gun groups.

(**) is this the gun laws actually working? maybe, maybe not. I question why such shootings happen in the first place, seeming to start in 1987 with the hungerford massacre (and of course subsequent gun law changes). What possesses someone to just start shooting people with no real motive? is the line "they are crazy" just an easy cop out because, in most people's paradigms, the alternative "psy op" is to unlikely, too hard too accept; and yet, psy ops are a proven fact, all throughout history, yet these sorts of pointless killings by lone gunmen are not....



martin bryants testimony IS very interesting. He DID NOT confess to the crimes for a LONG time (given the pressure on him etc). My opinion is they needed a scapegoat and given the obviousness of their psy op to anyone looking into it, they needed a way to 'settle the masses' quickly once the goal was achieved. having him die on scene/too quick(*) would not allow the confession (which I think they probably expected sooner) and would make people wonder about things a little more... given accounts of more than one shooter. After getting a confession, 35 lifetime conviction and anti gun laws, most people just went back to sleep so to speak.
(*) eg jfk. by killing oswald, the controversy has never died down. had they got a legal confession and executing him officially... things may have been a little quieter, they learned their lesson.

reply to post by radarloveguy

---

really? amazing. Would love the source for that, that clinches it right there.

I don't think this has much to do with gun laws.

The gun laws are a bit of a sideline. I think the more important objective for those who perpetrated this obviously hoaxed lone-gunman massacre was the further militarisation of law enforcement bodies. Lifting bans on firearms, creating more para-military "anti terrorist" infrastucture and strengthening that which already exist. The government now has open slather in these respects. Much more important for those that rule.

Oh, and quickly, there WAS an exercise involving emergency personnel going on up until the day of the shooting(I don't have the source handy...on disk somewhere). Some people involved actually didn't respond to their pagers that day because they were exhausted and thought it was only a drill.

This is one of the most obvious set-ups in history and it must be said that allot of dis-information has come from people like Joe Vialls et al. He actively tried to discredit actual credible witnesses who knew the official story was a lie.

There is allot of reading to do on this subject. You will have to search for it. I don't have the links at hand.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by mrwiffler]

Diablomonic,

you are right on track with your info on most points. Joe Vialls is a great source of facts as long as you know he is a saboteur and cross reference all of his details. He's very convincing but if you were to site him as a reference in an official context, in court maybe, you would be forced to see the genius of his work...you would be laughed at. That is how it works. Horrible stuff.

As a side note, these operations are multi-pronged. They serve many objectives. I think one objective may have been killing specific "tourists"...maybe there were important people on the tourist list. Maybe not officially important but secretly important. Not figures of state but people who knew too much. Maybe, maybe not.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by mrwiffler]

This is one conspiracy that unsettles me. I have never believed the evidence against Bryant is solid and there seems to be more ambiguity than anything else. Glad to see this covered on ATS.

Nexus Magazine Australia published a fantastic 3 Part article on the Port Arthur Massacre. Thankfully for those who may not have purchased the magazines at the time, Nexus have made it available in PDF Format... for free! (Thanks Duncan)

I highly suggest everyone participating in this thread read it! It's compelling to say the least!

Links:

The Port Arthur Massacre: Was Martin Bryant Framed? Part 1/3

The Port Arthur Massacre: Was Martin Bryant Framed? Part 2/3

The Port Arthur Massacre: Was Martin Bryant Framed? Part 3/3

Enjoy!

IRM

[edit on 4/11/09 by InfaRedMan]

reply to post by InfaRedMan

---

THANK YOU... those were awesome!

the old double cross, yet another apparent nwo tactic. You would think that those involved in these things would figure it out and be a bit wary... :/

like the dozens of people who died on 9/11 with likely ties to the organisation/planning of the event.

reply to post by diablomonic

---

Yes - no support at all from me or the bulk of the population.

It's a little awkward coming into a conspiracy forum and saying there's no conspiracy but someone has to do it or else you'd all be just sitting around in a circle nodding in agreement to each other.

Eliminate any and all elements of a conspiracy sourced by Joe Vialls and you've pretty much warped out of the conspiracy zone as far as Port Arthur is concerned. Much of his other work rates even lower on the credibility scale and while it's an interesting read, you do need to keep reminding yourself that it's fiction produced by an 'internet investigative journalist'. Problem is it's been compounded by others building their own theory variations on that shaky foundation like the 'mind control' theory etc although I do see perhaps some merit in the possibility of him having an MPD problem which would explain the behaviour variations he exhibited throughout the event.

Bryant didn't need any special skills to hit his targets in the cafe as the size of the place meant the muzzle of his rifle was just about in their faces already, much as it pains me to imagine what those people went through as he killed and maimed them indiscriminately. His marksmanship outside the cafe was less than spectacular.

reply to post by Pilgrum

---

ok, I'll bite:
do you have some insight into this beyond the normal research? have you read those three pdf's linked a few posts back? very interesting reading, and it is beyond me how anyone who reads them, knowing that at least the vast majority of that info is easily verified from witnesses/official sources/mainstream sources, could not see some support for a conspiracy. if you really think there is no support, you must have either not read what ive read, or have some other source of info (been involved or know people that were in some way perhaps) that completely cancels all this information (not really possible) or just have your blinders on (not wanting to be offensive with that, not sure which situation applies but I certainly used to have 'blinders on' once upon a time). you cant just say 'any info from vialls is bad' because it is a logical fallacy, an ad hom argument. The info I mention is from OTHER sources: witness statements, news articles etc. Vialls COLLECTED some of it, embellished some of it and made some misleading theories on what it means, but the original information is there, and dismissing it out of hand is not an option.

eg:
are you telling me you DONT think they bought/sold the giant hearse? that the coincidental conferences and exercises DIDN'T run? that they DID match the weapons to the bullets and to MB? that they DID find who sold him the ammunition etc? that he DID confess before 7 months of what amounts to psychological abuse and brainwashing was put on him? which of the dozens of things mentioned in this thread do you not believe? please name some so I can either show you where they are sourced from or be more informed myself about whats not proven in this case.

One could argue that you are trying to promote the idea of a conspiracy before any facts have been presented. Granted this is a conspiracy-orientated website, but still you are accusing the person of doing what you are attempting to do in reverse. You must understand that this is still considered a conspiracy because the vast majority of people living in Australia believe the official explanation of events.

I believe there was a conspiracy in this whole Port Arthur Massacre event. I just do not believe the videos in this thread are very ground breaking or that the people speaking present anything concrete. I admire her courage, but Wendy Scurr's speech does not suggest much besides her and others having been exposed to terrible experiences and the incompetence of police. Can anyone tell me why she mentioned near the beginning that she saw and nodded at a young, blonde-haired man before heading toward her work complex? I found that very strange that she would mention it and not elaborate.

I find Andrew's video more problematic. Especially when a question comes from the audience about discrepancies in the timeline that he and others such as Wendy have suggested. Andrew seems stunned by the question and does not answer it properly. The MC quickly intervenes and just brushes it away as if it was not asked. Why was this done? Andrew does not answer the majority of questions he is asked. He simply states facts that appear to support his explanation of the events.

The other problem I have with the theory presented in this video is the idea of police incompetence. On one hand, it is said that training exercises of a similar nature were being run prior to the massacre. Then it is said that a 20-22 person hearse was bought before the massacre. Lots of preparation to deal with such an event, yet on the day the police were so incompetent? How does that make sense? What was the point in having all those training exercises?

I am sorry ...
the same army buddy that told me of this stuff many years ago also made it very clear to me that there is no way hip shots even if in close range will be effective in a kill. Unless your the terminator in a movie.

He also went onto inform me of the military training on marksmanship...
Wild shooting even in a prone position while aiming still has a high chance of NOT hitting anything even from close range.
if you ever get a chance try this experiment.. line up some cans/ pumpkin what ever on a high fence - head height... then go for a run have a half a dozen redbulls and coffees and then start from a 20-30 m distance, and see how close you have to go before you manage to get a hit shooting from your hip wildly.

Trust me you wont get many single headshot kills.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by 297GT]

[edit on 5-11-2009 by 297GT]

reply to post by diablomonic

---

The 'giant hearse' was actually owned by a contractor who successfully tendered to provide the service to the government here in July 1994 for 'Mortuary Ambulance Services to the Magistrates Court' by 'Southern Mortuary Ambulance Service'. The latest contract was awarded in 2007 for 5 years. The large refrigerated vehicle was in their possession prior to July 1994 and actually made to their design. The vehicle was sold in September 1999, over 5 years later. I'm not sure what they replaced that vehicle with or even if it was updated but, for anyone interested, I have their address here in Hobart and also their office in Launceston as their contract is to provide a statewide service. Perhaps a fleet of smaller vehicles in a variety of locations is considered more practical these days than a single large vehicle that could be required to go anywhere in the state at short notice.

The 30 shot magazine and the 'commando' tactic of keeping 1 round in the breech while changing magazines - who inspected the magazine to confirm he had 30 rounds to begin with? what if it had 29?

The 'Beirut Triple' - he fired at a vehicle with a high powered rifle managing to hit the driver in the arm and disabled the vehicle when one shot severed the throttle cable - was he aiming for the throttle cable or simply got lucky? There's another vehicle he stopped but not certain of the circumstances with that one.

Weapons damaged by rounds exploded in the breach/magazine - that's to be expected if the loaded weapon is caught in a burning building I'd think.

Ammunition source - well pretty much anywhere here in those days, any gunshop or even the trading post with no need to ID yourself. Can't exactly blame his supplier(s) whoever they were for not coming forward either.

Forensic psychiatrist Prof Paul Mullen of Monash Uni assessed MB very early in the piece and said MB asked him something like 'have I got the record?'. That could be in 1 of Mr Mullen's books but uncertain whether it can be substantiated.

As for Mr Vialls and his theories, you might have guessed I have little time for them which can pretty much all be summed up by blaming all major events on CIA/NWO/Mossad secret undercover operatives.

W'ere nearly halfway to the end of the 30 year 'sealing' of the court evidence so soon enough we'll have it but prepare to be terribly disappointed in what it reveals and why it was 'sealed' is all I can say.

reply to post by 297GT

---

I know what you're saying but the shootings in the cafe were not done from a 20m distance, not even 2m distance for the majority IE point blank range with the victims within arm's reach of the muzzle. His accuracy when outside was not anything special.

Something I'm not clear on is what happened to his video camera as that could explain his 'night-vision' at Seascape if he still had it with him there.