The New World Order is now in panic mode as its financial infrastructure is cut off!!
The New World Order is now in panic mode as its financial infrastructure is cut off
Part 5 – The connections between Port Arthur Massacre, Tasmania, Australia and Sandy Nook USA
In Part 4 I talked about a guy by the name of Joe Vialls who appears to be Ari Ben Menashe an ex Israeli operative who may have also worked for ASIO in Australia. Joe Vialls (author of Deadly Deception at Port Arthur) has always stated that the Port Arthur Massacre was a Mossad operation.
His paperwork did show him as living in Perth, Western Australia (45 Merlin Drive, Carine, Western Australia, 6062) but no doubt he his covertly carrying out his dirty work in some other part of the world by now.
If this same Ari Ben Menashe is the same guy who moved to Canada then Australia certainly should have arrested him based on his most colourful past…..it would appear that he was involved in illegal arms deals and certainly did work in intelligence in Israel…………however, we have no way of knowing and if we could prove this then that would entail another series of articles covering a very broad spectrum.
To continue……..His investigations in the Port Arthur Massacre goes well beyond that of an investigative journalist and therefore I would tend to agree with Andrew S. MacGregor (author of Deceit & Terrorism-The Massacre at Port Arthur) that Joe Vialls or Ari Ben Menashe is for sure an intelligence operative with first hand involvement or knowledge in this tragic event.
Rather than spend too much time explaining this massacre again I will let you read Joe Vialls (Ari Ben Menashe) own account of that day and I am sure by the time you have worked through this web of deceit you will agree that his knowledge goes far beyond that of an ordinary outsider seeking the truth…….he must surely have been there to gain the knowledge base that comes out in his article……..I will let you decide.
Here’s that article:
THE PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE CONSPIRACY
by Joe Vialls1. MARTIN BRYANT – THE OTHER STORY
NY SHOOTINGS ADD WEIGHT TO VIALLS INVESTIGATIONS
At 12.40AM on the 4th Feb 1999 in New York City, four plain clothes police officers accidently shot an unarmed black man on the stoop of his building as he reached for his wallet. The police mistook the man’s action as reaching for a gun and fired 41 shots from a distance of about 12 ft (3 meters) with 9mm semiautomatic pistols each holding 16 bullets in the magazine. The man, Amadou Diallo, died from gunshot wounds after being hit only 19 times.
If the NY Police are such lousy shots perhaps they should try to find the real Port Arthur shooter to give them some lessons. Read why Martin Bryant couldn’t have been the shooter at Port Arthur.
“Throughout history – it has been true that the lone assassin has been behind many mass killings. But in recent times he has also been not so alone…….governments and intelligence agencies have been known to prey on and use simple and sometimes ill people to massacre innocent victims in order to gain greater control of the masses. Investigative journalist Joe Vaills has painstakingly put together the evidence that the young man, Martin Bryant, did not, if at all, act alone during the murderous rampage at Tasmania’s Port Arthur……in fact according to the video evidence, this was physically impossible.”The Strategy
The following is the entire works of Joe Vialls, an independent investigator with thirty years direct experience of international military and oil field operations. I have been given written permission by Mr Vialls to publish this unedited information on this site in the interests of justice. However if you are not a fair minded person and refuse to believe anything but what you have already read in the pulp fiction tabloids then my advice is to click onto another page now because what follows is not a fiction story, these are facts based on scientific investigations from which you can draw your own conclusions, as I have. If you have any further queries on this investigation please contact the author direct –
45 Merlin Drive,
Western Australia, 6062
BRYANT – PROFESSIONAL OR PATSY
In early 1984, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher was murdered while on duty outside the Libyan Embassy in London. From the moment she was shot, the media misled the British public into believing that Fletcher had been shot by the Libyans, who were subsequently expelled from the country in a fanfare of negative publicity.
It was not until 1995 that this author managed to prove by entirely scientific means that WPC Fletcher could not have been shot from the Libyan Embassy at all, but was shot from the top floor of a nearby building staffed by American multinational personnel.
Was the massacre in Port Arthur a completely spontaneous act carried out by a single nut-case with unbelievable efficiency, or was it a repeat of Yvonne Fletcher’s callous murder, deliberately designed to distort public perception and direct maximum hatred against a particular group of people? All of the available hard scientific evidence suggests that it was.
When investigating cases like Yvonne Fletcher’s murder or the massacre at Port Arthur it is critically important to adhere to scientific proof and avoid eyewitness accounts and media hype like the Black Plague. Eyewitnesses do not lie intentionally, but as any honest psychologist will tell you the accuracy of their testimony is limited by many factors including stress, suggestive police interrogators, and peer pressure.
The more controversial the case the higher the need for absolute scientific proof, because if the investigation reaches a conclusion which conflicts with the officially accepted story, the media will attempt to trash the credibility of the investigator himself, who in these two cases happens to be me. For four years while investigating the murder of Yvonne Fletcher I was gently harassed, visited by members of British Intelligence from London, cordially invited to sign the Official Secrets Act, then threatened when I refused to comply.
Some readers might wonder why I am including so much detail about a murder in London when this story is supposed to be about Port Arthur. Well, it is about Port Arthur, but there are a number of disturbing similarities between the two cases, especially in terms of media behavior at the time of each atrocity, and the use of faked video footage to reinforce the official story of the day. So please bear with me for a few paragraphs.
In 1992 when I first decided to investigate WPC Fletcher’s murder, the most serious obstacle I encountered was the British media, who for nearly a decade had knowingly nurtured a lie so horrific that it almost defeats the imagination. Yvonne Fletcher, they claimed, was murdered by a low velocity bullet fired from the Libyan Embassy located behind her on her left-hand side, with the gunman firing downwards from a first floor window at an angle of fifteen degrees. As any amateur can confirm, that means the bullet entered the left side of WPC Fletcher’s back at a shallow angle of fifteen degrees and then continued through her body tissue towards the right- hand side of her body. Right? Wrong… The bullet entered WPC Fletcher’s upper right back at sixty degrees then sliced down through her rib cage, turning her vital organs into a bloody pulp before exiting her body below the left rib cage.
With Yvonne Fletcher’s exact position recorded by a television camera when the shots were fired there was no room for doubt. It was an absolute scientific impossibility for that shot to have been fired from the Libyan Embassy, and the steep angle of entry of the bullet limited the firing point to one floor of only one building: the top floor of Enserch House, an American multinational building staffed by personnel with documented links to the American CIA. Without the critical video footage from the television camera I would never have been able to prove how she was killed or by who, but fortunately for me the footage still existed in 1992, and television cameras are inanimate objects incapable of lying. If proof appears to exist on video there are only two possibilities: the scientific truth, or deliberately faked video footage shown to the public for special effects or in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Interestingly and with profound implications for Port Arthur, fake video footage was put to air by the BBC “for the first time ever” many months after Yvonne Fletcher’s murder, in what appeared to be an attempt to cement the lies and calculated deceptions about her death forever in the minds of the British public. The public failed to ask why this apparently critical footage had not been presented at the coronial inquest into Yvonne Fletcher’s death: which it was not, but fell hook, line and sinker for the blurred images and sound track, which apparently recorded eleven sub-machine gun shots being fired from the Libyan Embassy. The amateur footage run by the BBC in 1985 was given to one of its reporters by a member of the Metropolitan police force.
During 1995 I used the immutable laws of astronomy and physics to prove the amateur footage a total fake. Analysis of the angle and position of the sun’s shadow falling across the front of the Libyan Embassy was checked using astro-navigation techniques and direct reference to the Greenwich Observatory, Britain’s foremost authority on times and dates derived from the sun- line, a technique used for centuries to tell the time with great accuracy using garden sun-dials. Unfortunately for the BBC who broadcast the amateur footage “for the first time ever”, absolute science proved the sun-line on the amateur footage incorrect for 10.19 am on the 17th April 1984, the time and date on which Yvonne Fletcher was murdered. Indeed, the scientific evaluation proved the amateur footage was not even filmed on the same day Yvonne Fletcher was shot. Those who created that fake footage and then broadcast it were not engaged in a mere media re-interpretation of events, but were accessories after the fact to the murder of an unarmed English policewoman doing her duty on a London street.
After four long years of research and investigation designed to expose the real truth of what happened that day, and after as consultant to the responsible film-maker, Britain’s Channel Four aired part of my scientific proof in a special edition of “Dispatches” , its flagship current affairs program, on the 10th April 1996. Unfortunately, three months earlier the film-maker became incredibly agitated about my absolute scientific proof from Greenwich that the amateur footage was faked, removed me from the production process of a film based on my own copyright story, barred me from the film credits and then incorporated the fake footage as a legitimate part of the film, minus the incriminating sun-line, which proved in absolute scientific terms that what British television was putting to air for a second time since 1985 was totally false and deliberately misleading!
It became swiftly apparent, that although the media was prepared to throw tiny scraps of truth to the public, gross deceptions, especially those generated by erstwhile colleagues in the form of fake video footage designed to manipulate public opinion, were strictly off limits. So it is on the subject of fake video footage and its potential for incredible impact on the viewing public that we finally turn to Port Arthur. Some readers may by now be shifting uneasily in their seats, racking their brains and wondering exactly when and where it was that they were also suddenly shown amateur footage “for the first time ever” on television in Australia. It was on a Wednesday in October 1996, the night before Martin Bryant was due to be sentenced for his alleged role in the Port Arthur massacre.
Many months after the massacre took place, but only hours before the Tasmanian judge was due to make a decision that would effect Martin Bryant for the rest of his life, an Australian TV network suddenly presented the public (and of course the judge) with dramatic amateur video footage shown “for the first time ever”. The reporter told us the man on the video was Martin Bryant on the day of the massacre, going about his business of slaughtering the good people of Tasmania, caught on camera by interested amateur photographers who seemed unmoved by the dangers of high-velocity bullets. Unlike most of the other survivors, these folk did not run away, but hunkered down like battle-hardened war correspondents coverings the end of World War II from an unprotected thoroughfare in the middle of Berlin. They were also very discreet the day after the massacre, when the world’s tabloid media descended on Port Arthur like a pack of ravenous dogs, snapping and growling for any picture they could get hold of in order to meet their respective deadlines in London and New York.
At that point in time the “amateur footage” was worth half a million bucks no questions asked, for this was a world media event and no-one had any pictures. Perhaps the amateur photographers had no need for huge amounts of cash, or perhaps at that early stage their footage had not yet been fully prepared, which was certainly the case after Yvonne Fletcher’s murder in London. The amateur footage run by the Australian network in October 1996 was given to one of its reporters by a member of the Tasmanian police force.
There are so many irregularities on this supposedly genuine video footage, which was accepted as evidence against Martin Bryant in the Tasmanian court, that only a few of the more obvious will be included in this story to help drive the message home. The rest have been carefully collated, and it will give me considerable pleasure to detail each and every one of them personally before a properly convened Royal Commission. If a Royal Commission is not called to fully investigate the methodology used in the massacre, and if Martin Bryant is not called to give evidence, then the people of Australia had best get used to the fact that what little remains of our representative democracy died with the thirty five innocent civilians who were ruthlessly and needlessly murdered at Port Arthur on 28 April 1996.
Most readers will remember that at the time of the massacre there were a few clouds in the sky but the sun was shining and casting shadows on the buildings, as shown by the footage from some of the genuine video cameras recording at the correct time, indicated by the timing clocks displayed in the corner of the video footage itself. One or two of these genuine amateur video cameras recorded the sounds of several shots, complete with multiple echoes, proving that the shots in question were being fired outside rather than in an enclosed space such as the Broad Arrow Cafe. But the video footage allegedly showing Martin Bryant running down the road was filmed under an overcast sky, which was the first indicator that something was terribly wrong with this so-called evidence. Who the hell changed the weather at point-blank notice?
Because he is running directly away from the Broad Arrow Cafe with a bulky package under his arm the assumption is that the package contains a Colt AR15, the weapon known to have killed 20 victims in the cafe at a rate of one every five seconds. Problem! Scaled against the man’s height and surrounding objects the package he is carrying is a maximum of 22inches long, a full ten inches too short for the Colt AR15 which measures 32 inches with its butt fully retracted, and more than ten inches too short for either of the other two weapons claimed to have been found in his car; a Belgian FN 7.62-mm Paratrooper and a combat shotgun. So who is this man running down the road, and why is he not carrying any of the weapons allegedly used in the massacre?
At this stage it would be nice to be able to determine whether or not the man really is Bryant, by comparing an accurate right hand profile of Bryant with the video itself. Unfortunately Bryant is the least photographed man in the world today and all attempts to get hold of a photograph of him have failed. For a while I toyed with the idea of asking Martin Bryant’s lawyer to get one for me, but then he too had his camera and film confiscated by prison officials. One wonders why the Australian authorities are so anxious that no pictures of Bryant be allowed outside (or even in) the prison. They would do no obvious harm, whether the man is Bryant or not, a few frames on this sequence make a mockery of any suggestion the prized footage presented to the Tasmanian court was meaningful evidence against Martin Bryant. What they show is a blonde man still running down the road towards the coach park clutching his package, while in the upper left corner of the same frames three men can be clearly seen standing directly outside the entrance of the Broad Arrow Cafe, out of which the blonde man has just run after murdering 20 citizens. One man is standing to the left of the entrance casually leaning on the balustrade with one hand; the second is standing casually on the right smoking a cigarette, and the third is standing directly in front of the door filming the running blonde man with a video camera. To suggest this in any way incriminates Bryant is not only ridiculous, but also quite impossible with the blonde man allegedly in the middle of a massive killing spree.
Just these points alone prove in scientific terms one of two entirely critical scenarios. If the blonde man is Martin Bryant but unarmed, what is he doing role-playing with three men directly in front of the Broad Arrow Cafe?
It is scientifically impossible for the three men not to be involved, so this option proves beyond doubt that Martin Bryant did not act alone, but was manipulated or directed at the crime scene by others whose identities are not yet known. If the blonde man is not Martin Bryant then the only alternative is that a team of unknown men carried out the massacres and then set up a reconstruction on film using a blonde look-alike, to ensure that Martin Bryant would later be convicted. In absolute scientific terms there are no other explanations at all, no matter how much the media might wriggle and squirm in its attempts to ensure the pathetic “Lone Nut” legend remains intact.
If sufficiently panicked, the police might claim that Martin Bryant was merely helping them with a reconstruction to assist with their future inquiries, which was filmed and then accidentally released to the Australian television network. But he couldn’t have, could he? Martin Bryant was badly burnt at Seascape and spent weeks afterwards heavily sedated in Hobart Hospital under armed guard. Of course he may have been induced to help with a reconstruction before the massacre started, but it seems unlikely the police would be prepared to discuss such a blood curdling possibility. Science can be frighteningly efficient at times because, believe it or believe it not, science has just proved in absolute terms right in front of your startled eyes using court evidence that Martin Bryant could not, under any circumstances have acted alone, and may possibly not have acted at all, other than in an orchestrated ‘Patsy’ role.
Which one is true depends on which of the two alternative scenarios detailed above are correct, but there are absolutely no other scientific life-rafts for the sinking media to grab hold of. Remember this is not unsubstantiated hearsay evidence from frightened eyewitnesses used by the media to hype up its mythical version of events. It is absolute scientific proof which cannot be questioned or refuted. Most readers like a story to have a beginning, a middle, and a coherent end. Science can and has provided an accurate outline of the first two but it cannot provide the third.
As an investigator I insist on dealing only with hard facts because it is the only way to avoid being swept along by the avalanche of compulsive lies put out by the media on a daily basis, and there are no hard facts available to answer the question “For God’s sake why?” In any criminal investigation it is opportunity, motive and method. Just about anyone had the opportunity to attack those civilians in a remote spot like Port Arthur on a Sunday without fear of being caught or punished in any way. Where method is concerned any expert combat shooter could have killed 20 unarmed civilians at five second spacings and wrought havoc in the general area, although the words “expert combat shooter” should be noted with care.
Though Australia has tens of thousands of skilled sporting shooters it has very few combat veterans, and even fewer special forces personnel trained to kill large numbers of people quickly in an enclosed space like the Broad Arrow Cafe, which is roughly the same size as mock-up rooms used for practicing the rescue of hostages being held in confined spaces by armed terrorists. It is hard to kill quickly under such circumstances for a number of unpleasant reasons, including the fact that shot people tend to fall against other people, shielding the latter from subsequent bullets. Targets therefore have to be shot in a careful sequence with split-second timing to maximise kill rates. Whoever was on the trigger in Tasmania managed a kill rate well above that required of a fully trained soldier, an impossible task for a man with Martin Bryant’s mid-sixties IQ and his total lack of military training, which is an interesting but largely unimportant observation because we have already proved in absolute scientific terms that Bryant could not have acted alone. That leaves us looking for the motive, which is impossible to determine with any certainty, though it is reasonable to cross link this to Yvonne Fletcher’s pre-meditated murder in London purely in terms of cause and effect.
The effect of Yvonne Fletcher’s savage and very public murder caused public hatred to be directed against the Libyans, who were subsequently deported en-masse from Britain despite the fact they were in no way responsible for her death. The only visible cause and effect that can be laid at the door of the Port Arthur massacre is that the effect of the obscene action caused public hatred to be directed against Australian sporting shooters, who like the Libyans were innocent of any crime at all. Directly linked to this was a massive funded campaign to disarm the Australian people in spite of significant external threats to our national security. If this was indeed the motive, Australia and its people have been violated in the worst possible way by sworn enemies of our great nation, with likely long term consequences too awesome to contemplate.
It is just not right to simply accept the status quo as it exists today in Port Arthur, because to do so implies that Australians have thrown in the towel and admitted defeat on the strength of a single savage action in our smallest State.
The only way to avenge our dead in Port Arthur is to force a Royal Commission on the matter and drag witnesses kicking and screaming into the dock, including certain members of the Tasmanian police force. Failing that, funding should be sought for an independent investigation leading in turn to a book providing the real facts about the chain of events at Port Arthur, a copy of which should be provided for every home across the land.
All Australians must be made aware of the real and shocking circumstances in which their fellow citizens died, because knowledge is the only weapon we can use to guard against future lethal charades on Australian territory. Realistically it would probably take years to find the massive sum needed for such a wide-ranging initiative but there is a positive need for action now, if only to put the Prime Minister on the back foot and convince him there is no longer any need to wear ‘boron carbide body armour’ when attending public meetings. Perhaps the independent Honourable Member for Oxley could find the time to ask the Prime Minister a few meaningful questions in Parliament?
2. MARTIN BRYANT – THE OTHER STORY – PART TWO
“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 free- standing 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 gunsight of 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.”
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 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 defense 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 defense 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. 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 tool 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 programs 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 of 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 over-all body target areas, 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 metamorphasized 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 most 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 barrel of 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 cage 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 shot 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 Cafe 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 ear protectors or combat communications headphones. Readers are cautioned not to try proving this point themselves if they value their ear-drums 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-wounded ratio. Overall the massacre produced 35 dead and 22 injured for a final killed-to-wounded 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 McDonalds and other random massacres. Instead there were only 22, the trademark of a highly trained combat shooter. It is only when accurately analyzed 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 free- standing 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 gunsight of 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 the 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 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 lineups, 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-wounded 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 pole of white-hot debris, which of course included the charred and twisted remains of the Cold 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 shooter 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 an 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 30th 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 love 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 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 almost certainly 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.
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 item “Port Arthur – What Next?” printed alongside this report.
Many years ago Oscar Wilds said “Literature always anticipates life. It does not copy it, but moulds it to its purpose.” In 1988 Australian newspapers reported New South Wales politician Barry Unsworth’s claim that there would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania.
I will continue with the Joe Vialls story in Part 6 and at some stage eventually arrive back at the Sandy Nook Massacre to show just how closely connected these two massacre are.
Peter Eyre – Broadcaster – Investigative Journalist – Middle East Consultant – Polital Analysis – 12/1/2013