Australia's Port Arthur Massacre
Government and Media Lies Exposed
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/4/psyop.htm
April 28th, 2006 (reprint)
Part one of this report proved in absolute scientific terms that
Martin Bryant could not have acted alone at Port Arthur and hinted strongly
that he may not have acted at all, other than in an orchestrated 'patsy'
role. Part two uses military science to prove that Bryant could not have
been responsible for the murders at Port Arthur or on the Arthur Highway,
though he may have fired 250 wild shots from Seascape during the siege,
every one of which failed to hit a target; a dramatic and strikingly obvious
reversal of the real shooter's devastating performance at Port Arthur during
the afternoon of 28 April 1996.
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. 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 yes. 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 telltale 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 used 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 midair 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 effects 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 minuscule armed forces. Not any more.
Since the psyop at Port Arthur more than 400,000 reserve firearms 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. In fact I am
going to prove that now but doubt the Federal Government will be interested
in the hard scientific facts, or in correcting the multiple gross errors
made immediately after the massacre took place. The harsh and unpalatable
truth about Port Arthur will have to be forced on the Australian Government
by the Australian people.
Martin Bryant, an intellectually impaired registered invalid with no
training in the use of high powered assault weapons, could not under any
circumstances have achieved or maintained the incredibly high and consistent
killed-to-injured ratio and kill-rate which were bench marks of the Port
Arthur massacre. 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 twenty such specialists
in the western world.
Over the years television viewers have been subjected to such a
barrage of Rambo-style television programmes that most now believe every
time Sylvester Stallone points a gun and pulls the trigger, twenty bad guys
immediately fall down dead from lethal shots to the head or heart.
Unfortunately this Hollywood media rubbish is hopelessly misleading and in
no way reflects the difficulties involved in killing large numbers of people
quickly, regardless of whether those people are armed or not, and regardless
of the ranges involved. For a number of reasons explained later, killing
efficiently at close range in crowded and confined spaces presents the
shooter with far more complex targeting problems than those associated with
conventional open-air combat scenarios.
Media claims that those killed in the Broad Arrow Cafe were shot at
point-blank range where 'Bryant' could not possibly have missed are complete
rubbish. Point-blank range is where the muzzle of the weapon is held against
the body of the target. In the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter fired at an
average range of twelve feet, where a tiny aim-off error of three degrees is
enough to ensure that a bullet completely misses a target the size of a
human head. Readers are invited to prove to themselves just how small an
error that is, by laying two twelve-foot long pieces of string flat on the
floor alongside each other, with the far ends four inches apart. That helps
put things into perspective, doesn't it?
Scientific terms such as killed-to-injured ratio and kill-rate are
enough to bore most readers to death, but in order to fully comprehend the
enormity of the media lies about the massacre, and expose the planned nature
of the operation it is essential information. The killed-to-injured ratio is
used to calculate reliably how many injured survivors should be expected for
every person killed for a given number of rounds fired. Even assault rounds
as powerful as those fired by the Colt AR15 can only ensure a one-shot kill
if the target is hit in the head, a six by six inch target; or in the heart,
a ten by ten inch target. Together these areas form between one fifth and
one seventh of the overall body target area, so for every person killed
there will be between five and seven injured, expressed as "1 to 5" and "1
to 7".
The records show that a total of 32 people were shot in the Broad
Arrow Cafe, so at best we would expect 4 dead and 28 injured, or at worst 6
dead and 26 injured. These are very reliable military figures based on hard
science, but the actual figures in the Broad Arrow Cafe were 20 dead and 12
injured - an incredible inverted ratio of 1.66 to 1, or nearly two dead for
every one injured. Special forces train continuously for months on end to
achieve a ratio as high as this, which lies far beyond the abilities of
regular soldiers, and is an absolute scientific impossibility for an
intellectually impaired registered invalid.
Media apologists desperately trying to protect their obscene "lone
nut" legend will scream foul at this point and claim that flukes happen. No
they do not. About seven months ago a trained Israeli soldier went beserk in
Hebron and fired a complete thirty-shot magazine of ammunition from an
identical Colt AR15 into a crowd of Palestinians at the same range. His
thirty high velocity bullets injured nine and killed no-one at all. This
Israeli example helps to drive home the absolute lunacy of crafted media
insinuations that Martin Bryant was a registered invalid who suddenly
metamorphosed into the lethal equivalent of a fully trained and highly
disciplined US Navy SEAL.
Next we come to the kill-rate which refers to the speed at which
people are killed, thereby reflecting the skill, co-ordination, and accuracy
of the shooter. It is accepted by all the authorities in Tasmania that
immediately after the shooter entered the Broad Arrow Cafe he killed his
first 12 victims in 15 seconds, a claim apparently opposed by some sporting
shooters in Tasmania because of the seemingly impossible speed and lethal
efficiency. This is a very reasonable objection so long as those shooters
remain media-fixated on Martin Bryant, but there is nothing impossible about
such a high kill-rate at the hands of a top special forces shooter operating
at peak efficiency.
The first thing special forces do when entering an enclosed area
containing superior numbers is lay down very fast accurate fire designed to
kill as many hostiles as possible, thus gaining absolute control of the area
in record time and minimizing the risk of injury to themselves; and because
hostiles frequently wear body armour protecting the heart area, special
forces are trained to aim instinctively for the smaller head target.
Following these unpublished protocols precisely, the shooter at Port Arthur
gained absolute control of the Broad Arrow Cafe in fifteen seconds flat,
killing all of his victims with a single shot to the head.
To even suggest that Martin Bryant, whose proven weapons handling
experience was limited to a single-shot Webley Osprey air rifle could have
caused this carnage is absurd. When the shooter entered the Broad Arrow Cafe
full of people sitting at tables and fired the first shot, everyone inside
reacted instinctively to the huge muzzle blast (noise) of the AR15, but each
reacted in a different way, some just turning their heads while others moved
physically, temporarily obscuring yet more diners and shielding them from
the line of fire. At the same time the AR15 was recoiling upwards through
about five degrees of arc as it cycled another round into the breech,
throwing the muzzle off target.
In a millisecond the cafe was full of targets moving in at least ten
different directions while the muzzle of the AR15 was still recoiling
upwards from the first shot. But despite the enormous difficulties and the
complex target trigonometry involved, the shooter controlled the recoil and
killed 12 moving and partially obscured targets at the rate of one every
1.25 seconds. Nor did he trip over any obstructions, indicating that this
professional shooter's face was seen in the Broad Arrow Cafe by staff some
time earlier, during his final reconnaissance when he studied the layout to
ensure no hiccups occurred during the operation. There were no hiccups.
Ninety seconds after entering the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter departed,
leaving thirty two Australians and others lying on the floor, twenty of them
dead.
All of these hard scientific facts were deliberately excluded by the
frenzied media pack and not one attempt was made to establish the real
identity of the shooter. Long blonde hair did not prove that the shooter was
Martin Bryant, and the media somehow forgot to remind the Australian public
that long wigs are the most common form of basic disguise ever used. In the
Broad Arrow a long wig would also have been necessary to conceal the ear
protection worn by the shooter. Firing more than thirty high velocity AR15
rounds in that hollow confined space produced as much concussive blast as a
pair of stun grenades; sufficient concussion to severely impair the
shooter's
spatial orientation (and thus aim) unless wearing special ear protectors or
combat communications earphones. Readers are cautioned not to try proving
this point themselves if they value their eardrums and long-term hearing
ability.
Official accounts are hazy about what happened next, but it is
confirmed that most of those killed thereafter were shot with the Belgian
FN, a heavier assault weapon which has a completely different weight and
balance from the Colt AR15 and fires a round producing more than twice the
recoil. But despite switching between weapons with very different handling
characteristics, and shifting from close to intermediate range, the shooter
constantly maintained an awesome inverted killed-to-injured ratio. Overall
the massacre produced 35 dead and 22 injured for a final killed-to-injured
ratio of 1.60 to 1, almost identical to the 1.66 to 1 ratio in the Broad
Arrow Cafe. To say the shooter was consistent would be the understatement of
the year.
In layman terms, in an average shooting the 35 people who were killed
at Port Arthur should have been accompanied by between 175 and 245 injured
survivors; very similar ratios to the American MacDonalds and other random
massacres. Instead there were only 22, the trademark of a highly trained
combat shooter. It is only when accurately analysed in this cold scientific
way that the monstrous nature of the media story can be exposed for what it
really is: a creative lie every bit as loathsome as that fashioned by the
British media when WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot in the back from an American
multinational building during 1984, but where the media grovelled
obsequiously in front of powerful international patrons and lobbies and
conspired to pervert the course of justice by blaming the Libyans instead of
the Americans.
The professional shooter in Tasmania presented us with a final display
of his unquestioned prowess when tourist Linda White and her boyfriend Mick
approached Seascape Cottage on the Port Arthur road in a small four-wheel
drive vehicle, shortly after the massacre in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Both saw
the shooter aim and Linda White felt the wind of the first round as it
passed her cheek and shattered the driver's window next to her head. The
shooter corrected his aim and the second round hit Linda White in the arm,
just to the right of the heart target area. The third round killed the
engine and stopped the vehicle.
In this his ultimate demonstration of combat shooting skill the
shooter fired one sighting shot at a fast-moving target of unknown speed
from an unsupported freestanding firing position, the most difficult of all;
instantly and accurately compensated for vehicle speed and weapon recoil
with the same blinding speed as the computer gun sight on an F14 Tomcat,
then disabled both driver and vehicle with shots two and three. This man
might have been an indispensable asset stopping speeding car-bombers in
Beirut, but his professional skills were far too conspicuous for Port
Arthur.
In the view of this author these were the last shots fired by the
professional before he (or they) smoothly extracted from the Tasman
Peninsula and then from Australia, leaving patsy Martin Bryant down the
track at Seascape holding the baby.
The trail to Seascape Cottage had been meticulously laid. In Martin
Bryant's car at the tollbooth was a combat shotgun, a bag of ammo for the
Belgian FN and, very conveniently, Martin Bryant's passport. Then there was
Linda White's disabled four wheel drive on the Arthur Highway and a stolen
BMW burning in the grounds of Seascape to mark the way, and just in case all
these clues were not enough for the Tasmanian Police, an anonymous caller to
police headquarters in Hobart advised the authorities that the man holed up
in Seascape was probably Martin Bryant. Short of erecting a pink neon sign
reading "THIS WAY TO THE PATSY ->" the professional or professionals seem to
have thought of everything.
There were no eyewitnesses who could positively identify Martin Bryant
at Port Arthur because an Australian newspaper circulated his photograph
nationwide, thereby totally corrupting any and all police line-ups, photo
boards, or controlled shopping mall parades.
All the eyewitnesses could legally claim was a "tall man with long
blonde hair", which was no impediment to the media who tried and convicted
Martin Bryant in less than two days, in one of the most blatant and
disgusting displays of media abuse ever seen.
So Bryant the patsy was firmly in place and Seascape was swiftly
surrounded by armed police from Tasmania and Victoria, most of whom must
have been very puzzled as the siege continued through the night. If we are
to believe media reports (difficult, I know) Martin Bryant fired 250 rounds
during the siege period but hit nothing at all, which is exactly what one
would expect of someone whose prior experience was limited to a Webley
Osprey air rifle.
If the professional shooter had fired 250 rounds from Seascape Cottage
during the siege, his awesome killed-to-injured ratio would have resulted in
a police funeral cortege stretching from the Tasman Peninsula to Hobart.
It is beyond doubt that many of the armed police noticed Bryant's wild
undisciplined performance at Seascape bore absolutely no resemblance at all
to that of the deadly shooter at Port Arthur, and some must have told their
senior officers about it, though it seems they were ignored or simply told
to shut up. The media had its man, the feeding frenzy was in full swing and
the police were not going to be allowed to spoil a lucrative
politically-correct story by telling the truth.
Unfortunately media versions of events had some flaws so basic that to
mention them on national television was an insult to the intelligence of
every Australian citizen. We were told in most reports that Bryant had three
weapons, one of which, the Daewoo combat shotgun, was left in the boot of
his Volvo near the tollbooth. The reports tell us that Martin Bryant then
took the Colt AR15 and Belgian FN assault rifles down to Seascape with him
and used them along with other weapons found in the house to fire those 250
shots at the police during the siege. Oh, really?
Bryant's last telephone conversation with the police was around 9 pm
on 28 April and his next contact was when he stumbled out of a fiercely
burning Seascape Cottage unarmed and with his back on fire at 8.37 am the
following morning. Police confirmed that Bryant came out unarmed, and also
confirmed that by then the fire, exacerbated by exploding ammunition, was
burning so fiercely that they were completely incapable of approaching the
building to see if anyone else was still alive. Seascape rapidly became an
inferno as the entire structure collapsed on the ground in a pile of
white-hot debris, which of course included the charred and twisted remains
of the Colt AR15 and Belgian FN assault rifles allegedly fired from inside
the building by Martin Bryant, destroyed not only by the searing heat but
also by the exploding ammunition.
So how can it be that on a Channel 9 programme shown in November 1996
a Tasmanian police officer was able to show all Australians two immaculate
assault weapons allegedly used by Bryant at Port Arthur. Where did the
police obtain those pristine weapons we were shown on national television?
The real shoot er probably left them lying neatly on the ground near
Seascape and the patsy, before departing at speed for the Devonport ferry
terminal.
In order to present even a shell of a case against Martin Bryant the
prosecution needed valid identification by witnesses, but all eyewitness
statements were corrupt. In addition they needed the weapons used in the
massacre ballistically cross-matched to bullets found in the victims at Port
Arthur, either in Martin Bryant's possession or bearing his fingerprints.
They had neither. Nor were Bryant's fingerprints found at the Broad Arrow
Cafe where he is alleged to have eaten lunch immediately before the
massacre. In an unprecedented move, fully-edited fake video footage obtained
direct from America was entered as evidence in an Australian court against
Australian citizen Martin Bryant. In short there is no case for Bryant to
answer with regard to Port Arthur, though he must still explain why he was
at Seascape or, more to the point perhaps, tell us who talked him into going
there when he did.
Bryant did admit to taking the BMW but from a different location, and
without knowing why, and possibly setting fire to it later at Seascape, but
vehemently denied any involvement at Port Arthur. His limited confession
fits the known hard scientific facts exactly, and for many months after his
arrest despite the severe disadvantage of his intellectual impairment,
Bryant kept to his story in the face of tremendous pressure from police
interrogators and psychiatrists to admit the enormity of his alleged crimes.
He continued to refuse to do so and at the formal hearing on 30 September
1996 pleaded not guilty to all seventy two charges.
At that precise point in time the prosecution knew it had a very
serious problem. Martin Bryant was refusing to roll over and there was
absolutely no hard evidence at all linking him to the murders at Port
Arthur, a fact that would very quickly become obvious if the case was
allowed to proceed to trial in front of twelve alert Tasmanian jurors. About
the only thing that might save the day was a false confession of the kind
beaten out of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four by the British
police, but by then Bryant was in prison where his screams might attract
attention. With the media pack outside its doors baying for blood,
government had to do something but had few options. Perhaps heavy pressure
could be exerted on a third party to extract a confession from Bryant?
Shortly afterwards, according to Tasmanian reporter Mike Bingham,
Martin Bryant's mother Carleen, unable to face the stress of a public trial,
paid a visit to Bryant at Risdon Prison and told him that if he did not
plead guilty, she and his (Bryant's) younger sister Lindy would commit
suicide and he would never see them again. Bingham later wrote that he
doubted this was the reason for Martin Bryant then changing his plea to
guilty on all charges, but who does Bingham think he is kidding apart from
himself?
Bryant's mum and sister were probably the only people in the world who
would still talk to him, and he had just been told that if he didn't plead
guilty they wouldn't be talking to him ever again, and furthermore he would
also be directly responsible for their deaths. Carleen Bryant's threat
achieved in days what the police interrogators and psychiatrists had failed
to achieve in months. Martin Bryant loved his mum and sister and wanted to
see both of them again, something that would only happen if he could stop
them committing suicide. Clearly Martin Bryant pleaded guilty to save the
lives of his mum and his sister.
If Bingham's claim is correct applying such enormous psychological
pressure was mental cruelty, every bit as coercive as the physical abuse
handed out to the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four by the British police.
But because Martin Bryant was a registered invalid with impaired
intellectual functions, the way that psychological blackmail was used to
force a false confession out of him was as illegal as the physical methods
used by the British police, leaving the way open for Bryant to withdraw his
false confession and lodge an appeal against his sentence.
Just like Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, Martin Bryant was a perfect
patsy. Both had lively imaginations but few friends, and to a large degree
both lacked credibility because of their inability to defend themselves
eloquently in front of the media. Lee Harvey Oswald very quickly became a
dead patsy incapable of saying anything at all, and it is highly likely the
same fate was planned for Martin Bryant. If Seascape had been located in
California or Texas, Martin Bryant would unquestionably have been shot dead
the split-second he left the building. It was only the iron discipline
exercised by the Tasmanian and Victorian police special operations groups at
the scene which allowed Martin Bryant to be taken into custody alive. All of
those armed officers deserve the highest praise for their restraint in what
must have been perceived as an extremely dangerous situation.
It is beyond doubt that those who planned the psyop are uneasy about
Martin Bryant's continued existence and would sleep better at night if he
should suddenly drop down dead. With this in mind, any good-natured crims
enjoying an extended sabbatical in Risdon prison who read this report are
asked to keep an eye on Martin Bryant and do what they can to ensure that he
doesn't accidentally commit 'suicide' or slip on a bar of soap and break his
neck. No need to go over the top by ordering huge buckets of Kentucky Fried
Chicken, but a cheerful wave or a friendly smile now and then might be
enough to let him know that you know he didn't kill those women and children
at Port Arthur, and that at some time soon all Australians are going to need
whatever help he can provide in tracking down the ruthless professionals who
cold-bloodedly murdered 35 unarmed Australian citizens, in what will
eventually be recorded by historians as one of the most obscene psyops
conducted anywhere in the world.
Reversing the psyop illusion will not be a walk in the park, but a
battle for truth in broadcasting, where another creative media illusion like
that put to air after the massacre at Port Arthur will immediately result in
equally creative prison sentences for the magicians who reverse the truth on
television for eighteen million Australians. It is a battle we must win for
the sake of our children and for their children in turn, and if in the end
we are forced to take legal action against government in order to obtain
justice, then we must find the funds to do so.
Logic indicates that a limited number of Australian citizens or
residents colluded in the massacre, if only in terms of forward
reconnaissance and setting Martin Bryant up for the professionals. We need
to find out who they were and we need to find out who funded the psyop. The
Federal Police must be asked to investigate the subversive groups who used
huge lobby power immediately after the psyop to undermine our national
security. The 400,000 reserve weapons pulped were fully-funded by the
taxpayer and should at the very least have been placed in military reserve
stock for use in time of national emergency. Once greased, such weapons need
no maintenance and we had plenty of secure storage space for them. There are
no excuses for lobbyists and politicians who wittingly undermine Australian
national security.
This is far from the end of the story but it is all that I will be
publishing until an intensive independent investigation into the massacre is
carried out in Tasmania. There are at least eight other gross errors
surrounding the mass murder, any one of which has the potential to savagely
damage government, and another thirty lesser points, but each and every one
must be verified in absolute privacy. If my investigation into Yvonne
Fletcher's murder in London taught me anything at all, it was simply that
the premature release of critical information serves only to allow time for
media apologists to think up highly creative ways of minimizing its impact
on the public.
If the Federal Government is to be forced into action, it must be
presented with a case so complete and so utterly damning that immediate
action will be its only recourse short of being thrown out of office by a
large bunch of very angry Australians. Anyone wishing to pursue the matter
beyond this point should read the next item "Port Arthur -- What Next?"
Many years ago Oscar Wilde said "Literature always anticipates life.
It does not copy it, but moulds it to its purpose." In December 1987
Australian newspapers reported New South Wales politician (Premier) Barry
Unsworth's claim that "there would be no uniform gun laws in Australia
until there was a massacre somewhere in Tasmania."
[ed. Spoken at a special meeting in Hobart, Reported by the Sun Herald
edition of 5 May 1996." ...]
--
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/anti_multiculture/index.html
Unite Against Multiculturalism!
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up the Traitors!"
|