More research and evidence has emerged on this curious case – interesting reading .. the original post is here
Port Arthur Massacre
There is reason to think the Port Arthur massacre was planned as early 1987 when, after a specially called Premier’s meeting in Hobart in December 1987, the New South Wales Labour Premier, Mr. Barry Unsworth stated, “there would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania”
On Sunday, 28 April 1996, at a sleepy little tourist location known as Port Arthur, something went down that will long live in memory of Australia’s collective psyche. An unknown professional combat shooter opened fire in the Broad Arrow Cafe at Port Arthur in Tasmania. In less than a minute 20 people lay dead, 19 of them killed with single shots to the head, fired from the right hip of the fast-moving shooter.
The awesome display of combat marksmanship was blamed on intellectually impaired Martin Bryant, who was held in illegal strict solitary confinement for more than 120 days, until he was “ready” to plead guilty. There was no trial. Within a matter of weeks legislation was passed to removed semi-automatic weapons from the Australian population and a gun buy-back proceeded. It is now illegal to own any semi-automatic gun in Australia.
The Port Arthur Massacre has come to be known in conspiracy circles as a “psyop”. The definition of a psyop is a psychological operation or an event designed to drum up public support for some piece of legislation that would be otherwise be unpopular and probably be defeated.
It is one of the signs of a propaganda campaign when the media continuously plays up scenes that are designed to appeal to gut level instincts to soften people up for the solution to be offered.
The media were totally oriented around sensationalising the distress and trauma, played the scenes over and over, always cutting to updates on any developments and in effect the public were bombarded continuously day in and day out for weeks over the issue. At the same time a long list of facts or discrepancies were overlooked. Any calls for a royal commission fell on deaf ears, the media were later instructed not to talk about the subject anymore and the files have been closed for 30 years.
The Port Arthur massacre occurred on 28 April there was legislation prepared by mid May with plans for a national buyback of automatic and semi-automatic rifles.
Unexplained discrepancies
1 Whoever was on the trigger that fateful day demonstrated professional skills equal to some of the best special forces shooters in the world.
His critical error lay in killing too many people too quickly while injuring far too few, thereby exposing himself for what he was: a highly trained combat shooter probably ranked among the top 20 such specialists in the western world.
2 There was lack of forensic evidence at Port Arthur. There were no tests to matched Martin Bryant’s guns and no fingerprint comparisons from the Broad Arrow Cafe.
3 Both the guns Martin Bryant supposedly used were damaged to the point where forensic tests to match cartridges to guns weren’t possible. The damage to the guns could have occurred in either of two ways.
(1) A cartridge blowing up in the breach which would mean the user would have a damaged hand which Martin Bryant didn’t have.
(2) Deliberate use of explosives remotely detonated, which is a trick learned by special forces to avoid make positive identification impossible. This must have been done somewhere other than where the guns were found at Seascape because, despite a thorough search of the area, some gun parts were never found. The guns shown to media were a reconstructed version with missing pieces supplied from police weapons archives, a fact which was never mentioned in the mass media.
4 No legally valid eye witnesses to the massacre. Out of the few survivors of the massacre who were able to identify the shooter, non were called on to identify Martin Bryant as the shooter. It was explained that these people had been put through enough trauma and their evidence would not be required.
5 Martin Bryant was left handed, the shooter was right handed.
6 Police decoyed away from scene just before shooting began on a “first time in history since records began” hoaxed call to pick up some heroin which turned out to be soap power.
7 Descriptions of the shooter didn’t match. Eye witnesses to the shooting describe the shooter as being around 20 with golden blonde hair a few inches below his shoulders which was straight, with rat tails and a heavily pock-marked face.
Martin Bryant was 29, had whitish blonde, slightly curly hair which was just above shoulder length and a clear complexion.
8 Martin Bryant had an IQ of 66 (average IQ 90-110), making it hard to believe that he could have planned and executed the massacre with any degree of efficiency.
9 A refrigerated hearse large enough to hold 22 people was bought before the operation which was considered strange. After the massacre it was disposed of.
10 Martin Bryant underwent trial by media, assumed guilty, human rights abused.
11 Is it significant that no Jews nor Freemacs nor Politicians and their relatives ‘were amongst the deads’?
12 Faked “first time ever” video showed overcast sky when the actual massacre happened when the sky was clear.
To this day efforts are still being made to prevent anybody getting a photo of Martin Bryant to compare with the video.
13 The very fact that his back was on fire when he exited Seascape Cottage, and the fact that he came out unarmed, and that he said “Don’t shoot, I am the hostage”, should have received immense scrutiny.
14 ASIO were on the scene too quickly making it look like they had fore knowledge. How soon was ASIO on the scene after the incident? What is meant by ‘ASIO screened out some people’?
15 What Hobart logs of departure were falsified? enroute Melbourne CTR logs, Bankstown secondary arrival log falsified?
Various airport departure and arrival logs were falsified which points to a well co-ordinated escape strategy for the actual shooter and his accomplice.
16 30 year embargo on evidence
Martin Bryant had two guns – a Colt AR-15 and a Belgian FN-FAL.
There was an overnight siege at Seascape cottage where two gunmen kept police under fire. The next morning the building came alight and Martin Bryant came out of the building saying not to shoot that he was the hostage.
When Both Martin Bryant’s weapons were recovered after the Seascape fire, it was discovered that both had damage to barrels, breech, and receiver, making “individual characteristic” matches with bullets and cartridge cases from the various crime scenes impossible to match.
“Sergeant Dutton’s eighteen-page article on “ballistics” includes many photographs, but not one of them shows individual characteristics matching the bullets and cases at Port Arthur with the weapons at Seascape. Without individual characteristic matches, the weapons are no more valuable than scrap iron, and absolutely useless as evidence against Martin Bryant.”
The AR-15 was found in the house after the fire and the FN-FAL was was recovered from the roof of an outhouse some distance from the main building.
Both guns damaged
Both the guns were damaged, one with a bent barrel and the other with the type of damage that either comes from an exploded cartridge in the breech, or being deliberately blown out.
“Special Forces typically know how to destroy enemy artillery pieces behind the lines. A sizeable chunk of C3 plastic explosive is strategically placed inside the breech of the artillery piece and then later detonated, destroying the breech and rendering the weapon useless.”
In cases where a faulty cartridge causes a gun to explode it does serious damage to the hand of the person using the weapon. Yet Martin Bryant had no damage to his hands.
“The type of damage the guns displayed is consistent with a “faulty cartridge” exploding in the breech. However, in such cases the resulting explosion usually amputates a finger or two, and shreds the skin on the rest of the hand. In addition there is very significant marking of the flesh by firearms discharge residue (FDR), caused by microscopic particles of burned or unburned propellant impregnating the flesh at high velocity. When Bryant was taken into custody he had no injuries or serious burns to his hands, and no trace of FDR despite severe burns to his back and left-hand side caused by the Seascape fire.”
Pieces of both guns had missing pieces
“Despite being terminally damaged, nearly all of the AR-15 components were located close to the weapon in Seascape, though the pistol grip was missing and was never found. However, the FN-FAL lacked a major component called the “return spring tube assembly” (without which the gun won’t fire), plus its butt plate and magazine. These are all large items impossible to miss in thorough forensic searches of crime scenes. The forensic teams went over every crime scene with a fine-tooth comb several times, leaving no stone or even a blade of grass unturned.”
Both guns reconstructed from police spare parts
Both the two guns Martin owned were damaged at Seascape, yet turned up later in police evidence complete and undamaged. The weapons on display were in near new condition because the Tasmanian Police reconstructed them with spare parts from the NSW Police firearms library – a fact which didn’t receive media coverage.
Guns weren’t damaged at Seascape
There were pieces missing from both guns which weren’t found at Seascape. Therefore they must have been damaged at another location and the pieces planted at Seascape.
“Evidently both guns had been carefully “damaged” at a location a considerable distance away from either Port Arthur or Seascape, before the mass murder took place. Martin Bryant was completely contained by SOG personnel throughout the entire period in the same Seascape compound as both crippled weapons. The guns were probably dumped at Seascape as stage props long before any of the shooting started, ready to be collected and identified by the local constabulary the following morning.”
Seascape Seige lasted throughout the night
Martin Bryant said he was the hostage, yet there were two people firing from Seascape. How did these two other people escape from Seascape?
“The siege lasted throughout the night and finally ending with Seascape being caught on fire and Martin Bryant coming out yelling, “don’t shoot, I’m the hostage”.
“Who was doing the shooting – Martin Bryant or the unknown person who supposedly set the house on fire when Martin fell asleep?”
What was Bryant shooting with?
What was Bryant firing at the police with if both guns were destroyed?
Why would somebody damage the guns to make positive identification impossible? Obviously to cover the fact they weren’t the same.
Therefore the conclusion must be that it was a setup and Martin Bryant was the patsy.
Are we to believe that a bunch of planners sat round a table and arranged the premeditated murders of 35 Australians?
Unfortunately the answer is – Y E S !!
The initial reaction of most readers to the reality that Martin Bryant killed no-one at Port Arthur but was deliberately set up as a patsy is a combination of horror and complete disbelief.
All of the hard evidence at Port Arthur bears the distinctive trademark of a planned “psyop”, meaning an operation designed to psychologically manipulate the belief mechanisms of a group of people or a nation for geopolitical or military reasons.
Because of their illegal nature, psyops are never formally ordered by governments, but are discreetly arranged through multinational corporations and others. Some psyops ordered during the last forty years are known to have been carried out by independent contractors hired from a small specialist group, staffed mostly by retired members of American and Israeli special forces.
Patsies are normally used as decoys, deliberately inserted into the psyop to deflect attention away from the specialist group, allowing the latter time to extract safely from the operational area while the patsy takes the blame, But the planners leave tell-tale signs and occasionally make critical mistakes.
It is a little-known fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was proved a patsy when a New Zealand newspaper printed a story about his guilt several hours before he was accused of the crime in Dallas. The planners put the decoy story on the news wires too early, forgetting the crucial time difference would allow the New Zealand paper to print the story long before Oswald was even accused. It was a single planning error, but one that proved in absolute scientific terms that Lee Harvey Oswald was deliberately set up as a patsy.
As part one of this report proved, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher’s murder in London during 1984 was a psyop where the intended patsies were four million Libyans. The operation was successful and resulted in Tripoli being bombed by an ‘outraged’ President Reagan in 1986.
The next blatant psyop was Lockerbie, when on 21 December 1988 Pan American flight 103 exploded in mid-air killing all 259 passengers and crew. Although very recent scientific evidence not yet in the public domain proves conclusively that the Libyans could not have been responsible, they were nonetheless blamed for the atrocity. The principal affect of those two psyops on the Libyans were sanctions designed to prevent them updating defensive weapon systems capable of protecting their resource-rich nation.
Since 1984 Libyan defence capabilities have steadily declined, leaving its people and resources increasingly vulnerable to external attack and thus possible conquest. By a strange coincidence Australia is also a resource-rich nation, with overall reserves more than twenty times as valuable as those in Libya, but with only half the defence capability. In some ways this was not an insurmountable problem until 1996 because unlike Libya this nation has always had huge numbers of sporting shooters traditionally used in time of war to both train and supplement our miniscule armed forces. Not any more.
Since the psyop at Port Arthur more than 400,000 reserve forearms have been pulped instead of stored by the Federal Government, leaving our nation and people terribly exposed to just about anyone interested in taking over the natural resources jewel in the southern hemisphere crown. To hell with multinational global ambitions. This is Australia and we need to restore our reserve capability in order to keep this country the way it is. The first thing we have to do is prove once and for all time that Martin Bryant was used as a patsy to cover the objective of the Port Arthur psyop, which effectively undermined our national security.
Only drug decoy in history
The only personnel available to stop or interrupt the slaughter were two policemen, one stationed in Nubeena 11 kilometres from the Port Arthur site, (map) and the other at Dunalley, a small town to the north with a swing bridge capable of isolating the Tasman Peninsula from the rest of Tasmania.
Shortly before the massacre both policemen were sent to the coal mines near Saltwater River, an isolated location on the extreme western side of the Tasman Peninsula, in response to an anonymous caller reporting a large stash of heroin. On arrival they found only glass jars full of soap powder, and reported this via the police radio net.
A harmless time consuming prank perhaps?
No. Reliable sources in Hobart state that this was the only drugs decoy ever attempted on the Tasman Peninsula since police records began, and meaningfully point out that leaving glass jars of fresh soap powder was a very professional touch that backfired.
Why would anyone assume the soap powder was heroin and place an emergency call to the police without checking the contents first?
And why did the caller insist on anonymity?
Graeme Scurr makes the valid point that it would be hard to select a more suitable remote location if specifically decoying the two policemen away from the Port Arthur historic site and Dunalley.
A single glance at a map of the Tasman Peninsula proves his observation to be absolutely correct.
Source – http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/port_arthur.htm