Port Arthur... Not all it seems

I tend to put the seminar involving senior officials on that day down to coincidence. Could they have done anything to prevent it if they'd been on site?

As to the only 2 armed police officers in the area being elsewhere at the time, that isn't unusual either as they have to cover quite a large area. Again - how effective would they have been against the type of weapon used by the shooter?

Someone carrying a bag there wouldn't even raise an eyebrow or any close attention as it was a popular picnic destination. What if there was something (like a clothing article) draped over a protruding barrel?

The supposed conspiracy gets too complicated with too many people in the know to keep such a monstrous plot quiet. Like suggesting the killer had radio communication to tell him it was all clear to proceed with pulling an M4 out of his bag and start shooting. Then leaving a trail of destruction back to the cottage where he swapped the bolt into an AR15 so the spent shell markings from the cafe would match that weapon which was subsequently damaged in the fire, then staging a faked siege with police before miraculously escaping and leaving MB there to take the blame for it all.

I do agree that the lack of full coronial enquiries into the deaths does nothing to quell all the speculation. It is desperately needed with no doubt and the trail gets colder the longer it's left.

The police snipers were under a cloud at that time with the ongoing enquiry into the Joe Gilewicz incident in 1991 where a Vietnam veteran was shot dead during an armed siege in southern Tasmania. That enquiry didn't actually end until 9 years after the incident.

I thought all Australian police have always been armed?

As for gun control ... why would ANYONE willingly turn in their guns? That really baffles me. The 2nd Amendment here in our Constitution is the very key to liberty and without it will will have no rights.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
I thought all Australian police have always been armed?

Yes that's right but this is a sparsely populated island (about 500000 total population) so outside the main centres you'll find the bare minimum of officers covering relatively huge areas. They're weren't exactly armed with military assault rifles though, special SWAT type teams can be dispatched from the main centres if required but that takes time to organise.

I must add that I'm not trying to be a debunker (well maybe I am) but that's the beauty of an open forum where we are free to discuss these issues as long as we respect each others views.

That day is very clear in my memory

I almost took my own family there that fateful day but decided there were some important jobs at home to get done and heard the news on the radio that afternoon. That doesn't imply I was forewarned or involved - just fortunate I think.

There are so many questions that really need definitive answers and it seems they won't be forthcoming - perfect atmosphere for all sorts of theories to develop.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I tend to put the seminar involving senior officials on that day down to coincidence. Could they have done anything to prevent it if they'd been on site?

A fair response. It could have been coincidence. As to whether they could have prevented it from going down. No. But I do think they could have assisted the police investigation, had they been there. I believe as staff they would have taken more notice of what was happening, perhaps even a clear ID of Bryant as the shooter? This is assuming one of the senior staff survived.

As to the only 2 armed police officers in the area being elsewhere at the time, that isn't unusual either as they have to cover quite a large area. Again - how effective would they have been against the type of weapon used by the shooter?

The fact is not that the 2 police officers were elsewhere, but that they were sent there by an anonymous phone call, to a destination some 30 minutes from where the shootings took place. A few minutes after the officers radio'd that they were on scene, the shooting started. Another coincidence? Thats 2 already. And we havent even begun to look at the facts.

where he swapped the bolt into an AR15 so the spent shell markings from the cafe would match that weapon which was subsequently damaged in the fire

Here I may be wrong. But to my knowledge (i cant be bothered checking) there was never such a match. The weapon could not be fired because a round had been exploded in the chamber. Of both weapons. Another military tactic, much like reloading after 29 shots so a live round is still in chamber and ready to fire.

That day is very clear in my memory

Im sure it is, but like you said, you werent there.

There are so many questions that really need definitive answers

Which is what we are all trying to do.

it seems they won't be forthcoming - perfect atmosphere for all sorts of theories to develop.

Are you saying we should stop asking because it's too hard? We will get nowhere that way.

CT

I just want to say that I dont think this topic is receiving the attention it deserves.

I know there is a strong Aussie following here on ATS. I think we should be looking into this "massacre" a lot harder than we have been.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
I just want to say that I dont think this topic is receiving the attention it deserves.

I know there is a strong Aussie following here on ATS. I think we should be looking into this "massacre" a lot harder than we have been.

I agree whole heartedly mate.

Your right mate, alot of people should be looking into it alot more.

One of the things that I beleive is abit "fishy" about the whole incident is that the Federal Government had new laws and regulations written up and ready to go through parliament just before this incident took place.

Somewhat "too" convinient if you ask me.

Get new laws written up and ready to go and then wait for the "staged" incident to get the public on your side in regards to new gun control legislation.

No new law has ever been passed so quickly before.

I still think its all abit "fishy"

reply to post by Melbourne_Militia


Another "fishy" fact:

One 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.

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 the 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

Source

Check the link to see the advertisement. Read for yourself how it is promoted as being used as "the disaster vehicle in the Port Arthur Massacre."

Just perfect for anyone doing a movie or writing a book on the subject. Disgusting if you ask me.

But anyway, this 22-body morgue truck seems to have been purchased for a purpose, dont you think.

CT

Yet another fishy fact

Following the massacre shortly after 2.30pm when medivac helicopters were ferrying the wounded to Hobart Hospital a SUSPICIOUS BLACK VAN appeared outside the Broad Arrow Cafe where the bulk of the shooting had occurred.

It should be noted the Tasmanian Police didn't arrive until 7.00pm that night and the Cafe crime scene was not sealed off

Source

Check the source link to see a photo of this really sus looking black van.

CT

Hi mates, I am quite new here and sheesh.

I think I just took the Red pill and woke up with a whackin headache.

Some of the stuff on ATS has changed my life and made me physically vomit and I have freaked out.

I new a lot already but now I feel like " It's really real !"

cheers ppl and WD gg'z

peace

Absolutely, it was done solely to disarm the populace of Australia.
Well done Howard, may you sleep easy....

Americans, dont let them take the 2nd amendment, even if it means revolution. Although we are in a different country we are with you in spirit and in battle.

I won't speak to the key parts of this thread as, to be fair, I haven't read every single allegation and would rather comment when I'm better read.

I will say this...I think one of my chief frustrations, and no doubt that of many others, is that because Martin Bryant pleaded 'guilty' via his lawyer straight up, the Australian public were denied any kind of true insight into what transpired that day - consequently creating fertile ground for speculation about whether or not he committed the crime, or was some kind of unfortunate patsy.

Add to that the demonisation of his character during the brief trial through subtle things like photoshopping the whites of Bryant's eyes to give a 'crazed' look...it reinforced the notion he was completely mad and no further analysis of his motivations was necessary.

A couple of years ago his lawyer made some noises about trying to get his case files publicly released to give people a better understanding of Martin's intellect. To my knowledge the files remain confidential.

What's worse, the media have been barred from contact with him, so even if he wanted to speak out - at the very least to provide some closure for living victims and relatives of the dead - he can't.

His lawyer doesn't believe he's insane, just odd, with an intellect comparable to that of a young child. So why can't the rest of us find that out for ourselves?

Octopussassin
www.nuganhand.wordpress.com

What was the motive?

reply to post by starviego

What was the motive?

It made it easier to pass legislation disarming the nation. Now the only weapons you will find will be double-barrel shotguns and single action rifles. Legal ones anyway.

Of course the criminals still manage to get their hands on whatever they need.

CT

'Spiracy Theorist:

I meant the official motive. That one is always a lot more hilarious.

reply to post by starviego

I meant the official motive. That one is always a lot more hilarious.

Many will recall how the MEDIA reported after the massacre the Cafe Gunman talked about WASPS and Japs while sitting on the decking of the Cafe before he went inside and commenced shooting.

The interference was this WASPS was an abreviation of White Anglo Saxon Protestants -a phrased mainly used in America being racial slang. It was portaryed as the lunacy of Martin Bryant and MOTIVE for the massacre - that he supposidly hated them - hence the reason for the massacre.

So the media reports that it was a racially motivated shooting. But check the source link to see a scan of a statement made to police by one of the witnesses.

I also believe he may have been shooing wasps away with his arms Source

So... what do you think?

CT

[edit on 3/9/2008 by Conspiracy Theorist]

I think the official motive was that Bryant was a nutcase who just hated everybody, though of course that is not a motive either, even if true(and there wasn't much evidence to that effect). Point being, without a motive the crime cannot be considered to be solved.

reply to post by Conspiracy Theorist


I would have to agree that alot is fishy about the shootings but i can tell you that i worked for a major Transport company in the north west of oz for a few years and out of the blue we got a call from some government department asking us how many dead people we could fit into a refrigerated truck


(One 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.)

My point is that this so called Morgue truck could have been a every day refrigerated truck, but by putting the word Morgue in the report sounds better and would give the family some peace.

I have looked on the net and can not find a picture of the truck,im sure it would be on one of the news crews films but i have not had any luck finding it

reply to post by duffster


Check the source link on that post. there is a pic of the morgue truck

CT