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: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 08:52 AM
reply to post by Pilgrum

Nothing substantiated but..

WASP = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

More info on this term

There were quite a number of Americans at the Broad Arrow on that day and the term is generally considered to have negative connotations.

So, its not something you would expect a white Australian to use in deregatory terms, but would not be unusual to hear muttered by someone with a middle-eastern background, as a racial slur, particularly if that same person was about to mass murder those same people.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Nonchalant]

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 09:17 AM
reply to post by Nonchalant

Then that term applies to about half the population in Tas. I know for a fact that the european wasps (the stinging insects) were a real problem here and still are.

Fact sheet on these serious pests here

posted on Jul, 14 2008 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by Pilgrum

He may have been referring to insects, however eyewitnesses who overheard the remarks also note he made reference to 'Japs' as well (there were a number of Asian tourists at the site though not as many as normal). So he was either talking about insects one second & 'race' the next, or both references were made in the same context ie to do with 'race' which is the more likely scenario.

Interestingly, Tasmanian police first became aware of Bryant as the suspect after they found his passport in the glovebox of his Volvo sedan. How convenient. Now I dont know about you but I consider my passport highly sensitive personal information, & I never leave it lying around in my car.

Anyone see any similarities here with 9/11?

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Nonchalant]

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 08:49 AM
Spend a summer & early autumn here in Tas and you'll see why the winged type wasps are almost as common a conversation topic as the weather. Get stung by one and you'll never forget the occasion, stung by more than one and it could be fatal.

As for the passport, there's no reason for him to be carrying it at home and my guess is it was right where he put it (& forgotten) after the last time he needed to be carrying it. He could have been connected with his car just as easily via a quick rego check in the absence of a passport or other ID.

If he was set up, why didn't a marksman silence him as soon as he came out of the burning building? It would have saved a lot of trouble and legal expense. The answer to that, in my opinion, is that the police were still in damage control after the earlier Joe Gilewicz affair where a vietnam veteran was shot dead by a police marksman during an armed siege. More info here. The way the Port Arthur event went doesn't suggest any police involvement at any level apart from apprehending the suspect just as they should.

I believe events like Hoddle St Massacre were the reason that tighter gun control legislation was already drawn up by 1996.

[edit on 15/7/2008 by Pilgrum]

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by Pilgrum

He wasnt shot because a TV crew managed to film the event (even though the media was supposed to be barred from entering the area oddly enough). It wouldnt have looked too good for police shooting an unarmed man, exiting the building on fire.

The more I look into this the more I believe this was a psyop that didnt exactly go according to plan.

Apparently there were an unusually high number of people with intelligence links (quite possibly directly involved in the operation) at Port Arthur on that day. Some with international links. 7 of them were indiscriminately killed by the gunman in the cafe, when in actual fact the shooting was originally intended to occur on the ferry (which was late that day due to a change in schedule as a result of daylight saving 2 weeks earlier). The gunman (being a professional & unconcerned with ultimate location) began firing when he saw a yellow volvo enter the carpark (which was his signal to begin the operation).

As for the wasps, Im of the opinion now it was insects he was referring to (after reading a statement to police by an eyewitness).

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Nonchalant]

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:31 AM
Alright around the time of the port Arthur massacre I was 11.

2 months before the massacre took place me and my family went there for the day.

Let me tell you about the reason we didn't eat outside, yes thats right European Wasps landing on food and in beverages.

So yes there was quite a problem with wasps outside Board Arrow cafe.

Now I don't even think it was raciest remark, clearly the Wasps were a annoyance and he has muttered that, I have never ever heard anyone in Tasmania use the term Wasp for a racial slur.

This is coming from someone who lives in Tasmania and who has read all the transcripts and what not.

To me I still don't believe it happened here in Tasmania its just outages.

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:17 AM
I read everything I could find about this case about a year ago.

In my opinion the official story just doesn't add up. I mean Martin Bryant killed the first 20 people with 19 shots if I remember correctly. So all headshots and even 2 kills with one bullet. He did this with an AR15 standard assault rifle in a very cramped space. If you compare this to similar shootings in the US, then something is very wrong here. His KDR was insane and I would even say impossible for someone with his gun experience. I think a professional marksman would be hard pressed to produce similar results.

Futhermore the shooter was seen by atleast 2 people who knew Martin Bryant. They signed written statements stating the shooter was NOT Martin Bryant.

When hiding in the cottage Martin Bryant fired noumerous shots at the police, hitting nobody. Where did his elite marksman skills suddenly go? There are also strange audio recordings where Bryant is talking to the negotiator and you can clearly hear a shot being fired from upstairs in the cottage. According to the official story Bryant was the only one alive in the cottage. During these telephone conversations Bryant speaks of a second person he is with in the cottage. He even tells the negotiator to pull back the Special Forces that are moving in for a charge at the cottage. How did he know this? He didn't have any night vision equipment.

So in my opinion there are a lot of things wrong with the official story. But I don't think we will ever find out the truth...

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by Fastwalker81

Yea during one of the voice recordings he answers the phone and says hes in the kitchen making sandwiches, then in the next breath says he has just become aware an SOG operative is outside in the bushes with an infra-red scope.

Now what I would like to know is, being nighttime, how he knew this if hes downstairs in the kitchen making sandwiches when the only way he could know this is if he was upstairs where he would have had a decent view of the homes surroundings.

I find it really interesting also his reference to them shooting their 'main man' if they didnt back off. So he was their man man (their patsy) or there was someone else in the house (which there had to be for someone to fire that gunshot while he was on the call). According to the media that was there the police, and by their own accounts, never fired a shot during the whole seige..

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:28 AM
This is the evidence that actually throws the hole fact that Bryant did it all off.

I don't even believe those words he was speaking were his own words, when he mentioned the sniper.

posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 03:42 AM
Port Arthur was done to basically disarm Australia.

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 10:14 AM
You all think there were two shooters...

There was a four man team aiding Mr Bryant that day.
Two on the Port Arthur Grounds (Firing from cover)
and Two more at the house ( 1 man in the house + 1 man in rear cover).

Also some items you would'nt know

The man on the nearby roof.....that was seen.....but not in the report.

S.O.G teams at the rear of the house where told to fall back just before the house caught fire and Mr Bryant came ran out on fire............ What happend in the time the S.O.G left the rear of the house and Mr Bryant came ran out......two words......Diversional extraction.

Expended 9MM Para cases were found to the east of the house……hmmm….why is there no mention of these in any of the reports and the police dog team that was fired upon from the east.

Also the altercation that acured at the police command post after the siege, between members of the S.O.G team and 3 unknown men (whom I believe are A.I.S.O )

The FN-FAL was destroy by the fire it was found on the ROOF of outhouse with its bolt removed and the barrel bent to some degee......

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:44 AM
I'm not going to outright discount the possibility of this being a conspiracy or perhaps simply a cover up (I'll explain that in a moment). But first off, I'll point out that I believe that the official version is the most likely version of events.

As for my cover-up comment; basically this is a scenario that it seems none of you covered. You all seem to be taking the angle that this was directly linked to the tightening of firearm legislation. But you're discounting the possibility that this was an unintended / irrelevant conseqeuence of some other 'conspiracy'. Perhaps what happened was some other form of crime, an assassination gone wrong or the like or some form of espionage operation that ended with a requirement to kill witnesses in a hurry. This has happened before, and perhaps this was just that ... not saying that I have any evidence for this but there is not always a direct link between a governments reaction and an event. Sometimes, its just that you have an especially pragmatic politician around at the time of an event who seizes on an opportunity eg. John Howard.

But back to why I believe the official version of events; basically no one here has offered any evidence that is not circumstantial and much of the supposed evidence that it wasn't Bryant at the cafe is more or less based on incorrect or exaggerated assumptions.

For example I've seen it often repeated that because he fired from the hip and with his right hand and killed many people with headshots that he must've been a marksman. He was firing at point blank range a lot of the time, in fact 2 people he killed after he started firing were still sitting down facing away from him and the barrel was mere inches from them. They had thought the early shots were just a prank and even said something to this effect just before being shot.

A lot of people in the cafe were either not shot or injured, including some by bullet fragments. Many others were wounded and not shot in the head. More still were not shot by headshots. It was actually about half that were shot in the head, predominantly at point blank range, after either freezing up or not having a chance to try to run.

Afterwards, even as he exited the cafe, he missed frequently at short ranges comparatively for a military marksman. An entire group of people just across the road were missed, some people running to some trees were missed. Many of the people he shot afterwards were actually sitting in cars he'd approached and again, only shot in the head at point blank range.

It actually sounds to me you guys have gotten a lot of your information from fringe NRA groups after the shooting, many of whom actually reported the events entirely erroniously. Sure, he was rather accurate in the cafe, and sure, there were a lot of headshots but there are a lot of headshots in massacres generally; think about lining up a bunch of people and executing them.

Now for some dot point stuff:

* I have seen no source that describes him as left handed that I can trust
* It is not strange to fire a weapon with your left hand when it ejects shells to the right
* This is because the hot shells would hit you
* Shooting from the hip is NOT the way professional shooters do it
* It is the way gunmen in movies do it, particularly dodgy American action movies
* This indicates a non-professional
* The contention that he knew how much ammunition he needed is false, he had far more then he needed
* He left ammunition and a shotgun in his car, not a mistake I imagine a professional making
* When he fired at passing cars he failed to kill the passengers
* Doubling back is not evidence of planning unless there is evidence he intended to evade police in this manner
* Police being called to an accident is not evidence of manipulation, but evidence of an accident occuring
* A coroner having a truck doesn't mean they expect murders, it means they have a truck
* Said truck was around for 4 years, about as long as government in Australia maintains a vehicle
* A truck being replaced by an ex-army truck temporarily indicates only that a second hand vehicle was purchased
* Saying he was in the kitchen making a sandwich does not mean he was in the kitchen making a sandwich
* He was on a cordless phone, which police only realised later, maybe it was a ruse
* Being of low IQ does not equate to poor performance in all areas of intelligence
* It can mean you're just bad at IQ tests and in particular say short term memory or grammar
* The claim has been made here that only 2 witnesses from the cafe were allowed to speak and did not identify Bryant but I've read multiple media testimonies, from injured people who saw him shoot people across a table at point blank range that did not question his guilt but were close enough to comment on his emotion; enjoyment
* No one has actually provided a source to show how many shots he actually did fire ... that is still hosted somewhere ... eg. is reliable and still online.
* Considering he brought a sports bag full of ammunition, I'm going to assume he fired a lot

Counter-points that haven't been raised:

* His g/f had no knowledge of his ownership of firearms
* He actually did not have a firearms licence, yet still purchased weapons
* This was possible, but I'm not sure if it was legal
* He did not purchase left handed weapons, assuming he was actually left handed
* could just re-affirm his lack of practical firearm knowledge / idiocy

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 10:10 PM
This year Bryants mother goes on 60 minutes to talk about some of the facts. She regrets convincing her son the plead guilty.

60 minute interview

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 04:29 AM
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
The morgue trucOne of the strangest co-incidences about the Port Arthur incident is the fact the Tasmanian authorities had at their disposal a special refrigerated morgue truck capable of carrying 22 bodies. ( A picture of this truck is below ).

Why this is strange derives from 4 facts. The State of Tasmania had prior to the incident on average 6 murders per year - and they did not all occur on t...he same day, place or time - that works out to one murder every 2 months - so why would such a truck be needed ? No other State in Australia had one like it. These facts are compounded by the fact the truck was acquired and specially built shortly before ( June 1995 ) the Port Arthur massacre and sold 2 years later ( see fax copy of advertisement offering for sale below k...

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in