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 conspiracy

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 06:42 AM
OK first let me just say i live in hobart where this happened and alot of people have strong feelings about this topic. I dont want to upset anyone. I just want to find out if this is a conspiracy or Martin Bryant did commit this horrible attack on this community. i also dont know if you have already done this topic? i did a search and found nothing.

This is a conspiracy forum so heres the conspiracy.

Just after noon on 28th April 1996, an unknown marksman opened fire on diners in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Australia. In less than 20 minutes at this and five other crime scenes, the marksman killed 35, injured 22, and crippled two cars with only 64 shots. Nineteen of the first twenty dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe died from single shots to the head, all fired by the unknown marksman from his right hip. This staggering display of marksman- ship was blamed on left-handed and intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, who had no shooting experience, or military training of any kind. From the time of his arrest, remand prisoner Martin Bryant was illegally held in strict solitary confinement and denied access to media of any kind until his police interrogation on 4th July 1996. When he refused to admit to the Port Arthur Massacre at interrogation, he was once more placed back in illegal solitary confinement. Eventually in desperation during November 1996, Martin Bryant pleaded "guilty" 72 times, thereby allowing the authorities to avoid a humiliating trial at which they could present no hard evidence of guilt. Intellectually impaired Martin Bryant was convicted by a hysterical media pack, then forced to plead guilty by prison officials illegally enforcing solitary confinement.
The media also put a photo on the front page of the Mercury tasmanias no1 news paper so Martin Bryant would be linked to the shooting forever.(taken from following link)

Port Arthur massacre conspiracy

Port Arthur inquiry rejected

gun law conspiracy

go down eight paragraphs to the whump bit

another site on the conspiracy

[edit on 15-8-2004 by Die Trying]

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 07:24 AM
I heard the same thing way back in 1997. His marksmanship was far beyond what an amateurn could possibly accomplish. Also. the eyewitnesses said he was shooting right handed and he was left handed.
It is definately worth thinking about, but I can't see the Australian Government sanctioning something like this; maybe a third party with an ulterior motive.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 07:30 AM
the massacre we had to have? For what? To allow a clamping down on gun laws. Its a big call.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 07:57 AM
Not such a big call - why did Australia's Barry Unsworth then say back in 1987, or was ity 1988, that Australia would never have gun control until there was a massacre in Tasmania?

There must have been more than one shooter involved in this - there are far too many anomalies in this incident, & it's not just my opinion either. Take a look at the "kill rate" - something like 20 deaths in the cafe from only 22 bullets - even a skilled marksman could not achieve such a total.

Please have a proper look at the links provided by Die Trying, starrting from the beginning at
It's a lot of reading, & there are links to the Tavistock Institute as well, burt that's another story in itself.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 08:22 AM
No dis', DT but some of those links are from clearly biased sources...

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
and some 'forum'.

Now from,

At around 2.00 PM Bryant entered the "Broad Arrow Cafe", ordered and ate a light lunch, and then removed his rifles from his bag and commenced firing. Bryant rapidly fired 29 rounds, resulting in the death of 22 people. Bryant then moved to the car park and commenced firing at random, with several more fatalities as a result. Leaving the carpark, Bryant walked up the hill to the Park entrance, where, at point blank range, he murdered a mother and her two small children who were trying to escape.
Bryant then went to a petrol station, held-up a BMW at gunpoint, murdered the four occupants and drove the car back to the guesthouse. Police surrounded the guesthouse within an hour, and an 18-hour standoff ensued (the police being unaware that the owners were already dead, not being held hostage).
Bryant was captured the following afternoon when he set fire to the guesthouse (apparently believing he could escape in the confusion of the fire).
Bryant initially pleaded not guilty to the 35 murders but after the prosecution began presenting evidence, changed his plea to guilty

the deaths of 35 people, and the serious injury to 37 more

35+37=72 bullets

Also, I.Q. tests are not proof ALL behaviour, case in point "idiot savant"

Etymology: French, literally, learned idiot
1 : a person affected with a mental disability (as autism or mental retardation) who exhibits exceptional skill or brilliance in some limited field (as mathematics or music) -- called also savant
2 : a person who is highly knowledgeable about one subject but knows little about anything else

DT, I quote you/your post

killed 35, injured 22, and crippled two cars with only 64 shots.

November 1996, Martin Bryant pleaded "guilty" 72 times

WHAT a coincedence...not!

I repeat, 35+37=72 bullets.

I agree with Romeo, that theory is a VERY big call

[edit on 15-8-2004 by sanctum]

[edit on 15-8-2004 by sanctum]

[edit on 15-8-2004 by sanctum]

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 08:54 AM
Martin Bryant changed his plea after receiving a visit from his mother. And remember, his IQ had been measured at 66 - very intellectually retarded.

I'd like someone to read through the evidence presented on the Joe Viallis site RIGHT THROUGH, & explain the anomalies therein, including the timeframe anomalies as noted by Wendy Scurr, who was never called as a witness. Also this bit -

" The shooter in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur demonstrated all of the qualities of a trained counter-terrorist marksman but made no amateur mistakes. Always in motion and point shooting from the right hip with devastating accuracy, he killed twenty of the occupants with single shots to the head and wounded twelve more, firing a total of only 29 rounds. Using known techniques reported by witnesses, he ensured his own safety from attack by turning on the spot and staying outside grappling range. It was an awesome display of expertise, even by special forces standards. That he was point shooting from the hip is beyond question. "

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 09:21 AM
Hi Bastet

He had a drivers license, which req' a multiple choice written test and a
driving test, and he had a semi-auto gun license. So certain people can
get 'through the system', whilst being disturbed in a very sinister way.


posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 09:32 AM
That still doesn't explain the incredible level of marksmanship in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Also Martin Bryant is left-handed. Have ytou read right through the Joe Viallis site?

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 10:31 AM
What would I do if someone entered a Cafe/Diner who I didn't know, but seemed to appear
to be a 'local', nothing...after all i'm half-way through my fish 'n chips.

I'm looking for a's known that Bryant removed the sports bag from the Volvo
that had the semi-auto rifle', but before he entered the Broad Arrow Cafe he had a short
conversation with a Caucasian tourist, THIS is from my memory...words to the effect of
"There's not many gooks here today"

Then Bryant entered the Broad Arrow Cafe.

And no dis' to all posters, but sadly most of those links are advertisments for books, dvd etc.


posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 11:33 AM
After Bryant was surrounded by the police, he shot at them about a hundred times, with not one of these rounds coming close to his target. It seems there that within the next couple of hours he lost all his marksmanship skills.
Also the guns were destroyed in the fire, but the police showed 2 guns to the press which can't have been the guns he used, even of they were the same make, which of course can be debated further.
As soon as the massacre happened one of he major papers ( I'm not sure which one, SMH etc ), got into some hot water for publishing a picture of him the next day. What they had done is doctor his eyes to make him look more insane.
Anyway it's interesting.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 12:09 PM

Originally posted by mad scientist
After Bryant was surrounded by the police, he shot at them about a hundred times

You got that right mad scientist,

200 "police" on the perimeter, choppers going beserk (airspace) about 1-2 media and 1-2 police helo'
buzzing a killer who runs out with his shirt on fire...

[edit on 15-8-2004 by sanctum]

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 12:45 PM

the massacre we had to have? For what? To allow a clamping down on gun laws. Its a big call.

It was a big move taking our guns. It wouldn't be possible to take them without the massacre. Who had the most to gain?

Can I remind you of Nero burning Rome, Hitler torching the Reichstag, the CIA demolishing the Twin Towers. These make Port Arthur seem quite small.

On April 28, 1996, twenty-eight-year-old Martin Bryant entered the Broad Arrow cafeteria in Port Arthur, in the Australian state of Tasmania. After eating lunch, he remarked to a patron, "There are a lot of WASPS, not a lot of Japs." He then picked up his bag and walked toward the entrance, where he took out a military-style semi-automatic rifle. Within 15 seconds, he had slaughtered 12 people and injured several more.

Does someone with an IQ of 66 (66?) even know the term WASP?

There's a huge cloud of fishy stank about the whole thing. Again, who gained from the massacre? Those that wanted to take the means of uprising away from the people. The same people who capitalised on a terrorist act in the USA (there had been terrorism before this, and many more destructive, than the Twin Towers, in other countries) to introduce Anti-Terrorism laws in Australia, much worse than England's or the USA itself's PATRIOT act.

I can't see the Australian Government sanctioning something like this; maybe a third party with an ulterior motive.

The One Nation party, a smaller, third party (recently dragged through the mud enough to destroy what were a quite popular party), did call for an enquiry into the massacre, but it was rejected by the majors. (which are left-hand puppet, right-hand puppet, two-party WWF entertainment, like Democrat/Republican of USA, and Conservative/Labor of UK).

I direct you to this article:

Provided by another third party, the Citizens Electoral Council (which has already been called to be banned by that defaming group called, ironically, the Anti-Defamation Commission), this article shines some more light on the subject.

[edit on 15/8/04 by stoneskull]

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by stoneskull
There's a huge cloud of fishy stank about the whole thing. Again, who gained from the massacre? Those that wanted to take the means of uprising away from the people.
[edit on 15/8/04 by stoneskull]

The "means"?

Better be careful, what you say.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 01:53 PM

Better be careful, what you say.

I am.

I'm not saying there is an uprising in the near-future, but if (it's an if) we were to experience a fascist and/or totalitarian military-style leadership, we wouldn't even be able to form a people's militia to take back our country.

Remember, politicians are the public's servants, not the public's masters.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 02:01 PM
Hey stoneskull,
How's the weather at Nimbin?


posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 02:49 PM
Dunno mate, haven't been there in years, and didn't spend much time there at all when I visited (couldn't stand the place - too many freaks). The weather around that area is usually pretty nice all year round, so I'd say it'd be warmer than Melbourne, anyways.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 04:50 PM
Thank you for that link, stoneskull - but I wonder if anyone will even consider the length of Tavistock Institute tentacles in this case, as also evidenced with Sydney's infamous Chelmsford Hospital & its patients who died during "deep sleep treatment". But Chelmsford, & its possible Tavistocfk links, is of course another story.

There are so many conspiracy theories on 9/11 - & that a number of these are based on the possibility that the WTC disasters were in some way created by the - take your pick - the CIA, elements of the US Gov't itself, Israel erc. There's even a ATS Research Project devoted to investigating these 9/11 conspiracy theories & the anomalies within those tragic events in which thousands of people died, many of them US citizens.

Yet the idea that there could be any kind of conspiracy linked to the Port Arthur massacre seems to strike some posters here as too far-fetched for words. It is far from beyond the realms of possibility IMO to suspect that a well-orchestrated psyop event took place. And you do NOT have to buy a book or CD-ROM to line anyone's pocket - at least you could examine the anomalies, as in the link provided by stoneskull -

1969, Dax left his prestigious, highly influential position in Melbourne to go to the isolated state of Tasmania, an island of some 300,000 people......

Something of great interest must have been taking place in Tasmania, because two of Tavistock's leading international operatives, the Melbourne-based Dr. Alan Stoller, a past president of the World Federation of Mental Health and a close associate of John Rawlings Rees and of Dax, and Dr. John Bowlby, went to Tasmania for extended visits in 1971 and 1972, respectively.

A profile was already being built on Bryant during his overseas trips [trips taken by a mentally retarded man] . From

On another occasion Bryant was arrested on entry to Australia on “information received”, and taken to Melbourne Hospital for an internal examination on the suspicion of drug trafficking. He was found innocent of any offence and released. On a third occasion there was an alleged “incident” in Hereford, England, which was reported to the police because Hereford is the home of the British Special Air Service (SAS). Once again Bryant was completely innocent of any wrong doing, but by then the international computers were building a very convincing legend indeed.

There are so many holes in the "official" record of events. And one of the most telling comes from an expert -

The guy had military training'

Beyond all these and other run-ins with the police, which curiously never resulted in anything, still another anomaly is the obvious planning and skill which went into the commission of the mass murder itself — well beyond the capabilities of someone diagnosed as "borderline intellectually disabled," in the lowest 1-2% of Australia's population, and unable to manage his own affairs. After reading Mullen's psychiatric evaluation, one of Australia's senior counter-terror experts, who had himself investigated the case, observed to this news service on the subject of Bryant ostensibly having learned all he knew about weaponry and tactics from "survival magazines": "If this guy had weapons and survival skills from magazines, then that conflicts with his learning difficulties — how could he understand the books in the first place? Any decent lawyer would have a field day with this report. They could pick it to pieces. For a start, Bryant worked out the military aspects of the shooting. Most soldiers couldn't do that on their own, but Bryant did. What's more, he outsmarted the police by doubling back to the Seascape — that's not a low IQ. Then, look at the planning of the assault, the equipment required, the weapons stash, the most effective weapons to use, how much ammunition to take with him, how to use the weaponry, planning an escape route, creating havoc in multiple areas to keep the authorities guessing, and so on. Now, how could he have learned all that from books, with such a low IQ and poor reading skills? This guy had military training.

[ ]

In another thread here [on the NWO forums], there is a topic regarding "Leaving the US", in which various members postulated on which countries they would move to in the event of, or prior to, a "NWO takeover". Australia was recommended in a couple of posts, Those who believe in severe gun control would possibly find Oz a suitable country. However, there is absolutely "no right to bear arms" here since the laws passed in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre - that's what it achieved in one fell swopp.

[edit on 15/8/04 by Bastet]

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 11:07 PM
Bastet, if these "conspiracy" events were in fact perpetrated by government organisations (of whatever flavour) seeking to expedite future goals of the government (or some elite within the govt I guess) then it should be possible, within limits, to predict future ops. Clearly the timing would be difficult, but, you know, things like "abc is a big issue the govt needs to resolve. Assuming human life is expendable, what's the quickest way to resolve it.
eg there's too many doleblugers around Margaret river surfing all day....we need a shark attack...that sort of thing. Before you know it, its all a conspiracy.

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 11:19 PM
ouch. Port Arthur massacre was an FBI op to harden gun control prior to Australias eventual assimilation into the US. Why does that almost sound believable?

posted on Aug, 15 2004 @ 11:43 PM
Well Romeo, why don't you just examine the evidence presented on those links. & make up your own mind about the possibilities? You're drawing a long bow about the "dole-bludgers" at Margaret River, so I take it that you would never countenance the idea of 9/11 being anything but the official story.

I've cut/pasted a few of the Martin Bryant anomalies with regard to the Port Arthur massacre, yet you haven't commented on any of those.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in