Martin Bryant Coronial inquest

[happyhunter]

.

[adam]

I've found that many people misunderstand conspiracies, and the way the media has presented it in the past - you're considered a looney if you are a skeptic or suspicious of a conspiracy / coverup.

Yet - in the real world - conspiracies are committed every day. It's not just Hollywood. Conspiracies are just 2 or more people planning something in secret (or with intent to cover up) with an intentional outcome. In business and in government.

But if you start talking about a conspiracy - many people will discredit you straight away as being a looney.

It's made it so that the Western world is perfectly situated for people wanting to commit high level conspiracies. So difficult to be exposed. Both people and the media wanting to cut down anyone's credibility who would dare to propose such a thing.

Once again - people's desire for their ideologies to be believed, or wanting to bury their head in the sand rather than objectively seeking out the truth is making this world a very strange and scarey place...

[<<Genesis93>>]

To 'conspire' is generally accepted to mean that 2 people work together for nefarious ends..... but any 2 elements could work together, even 2 humans or multiple groups of humans....to 'conspire' does not however necessarily means for nefarious reasons...

While 'conspiracy theory' is without question accepted to mean that anything stated before the description of conspiracy theory is BullS$it.

Thats the whole reason for the use of the 'theory' word in there..... its a 'theory'....not fact. Someone came up with it.

The Word sounds Italian/latin; con - spiro / con - spirare which is directly translated to 'with breath', if thats the origin it would make sense if it referred to people planning by 'breath' as in speaking together about a matter.. (might be wrong, but its plausible )

In reality, conspiracy is what our system is built on, people and/or corporation conspire on a daily basis, companies conspire behind closed doors to 'play the system' or the government...theres no question. Conspiracy may be positive or not... most likely not though in this environment.

The term 'conspiracy theory' it has been said was first used by the CIA in the 60's to discredit people who raise to the attention such conspiracies that forces wish to be denied - by denigrating and discrediting those who bring them to light;

He's a "conspiracy theorist" today means that the person is a tin-foil hatting wearing lunatic who is obviously making S#$T up.... so don't believe him.... anyway... Kim Kardashians got her stuff out again over there >>.

But hang on.....HARP is an actual program that has consumed hundreds of Billions of dollars and is without a doubt used to alter the various layers of the atmosphere along with the associated weather patterns.... look over there << Whats his name has shacked up with thingo and their naked romp video is online!!!

[Rocker]

+1

150 to go.

[Title_II]

OK, it sounds like a lot of people don't believe the official story. What is the sane version of what we think happened?

He's the wrong guy, there were more people, the government did it?

Or, on the lesser side, it happened, but the government is lying about the details. Not sure what that would accomplish because something very terrbile happened regardless of the finer points, so lying about the details wouldn't change much IMO.

Or, they just bumbled it and got a lot of it wrong. In which case, as above, not sure how much of a difference the details would make.

I'm not being critical. Just expressing my lack of understanding about the situation. I read the story, I know that's why they banned most firearms in Australia. I'm just out of the loop on the thing. OK, too many headshots made, too many hits with too little ammo. What do we think happened and what is the difference that it makes?

[happyhunter]

.

[Title_II]

OK, it sounds like a lot of people don't believe the official story. What is the sane version of what we think happened?

He's the wrong guy, there were more people, the government did it?

Or, on the lesser side, it happened, but the government is lying about the details. Not sure what that would accomplish because something very terrbile happened regardless of the finer points, so lying about the details wouldn't change much IMO.

Or, they just bumbled it and got a lot of it wrong. In which case, as above, not sure how much of a difference the details would make.

I'm not being critical. Just expressing my lack of understanding about the situation. I read the story, I know that's why they banned most firearms in Australia. I'm just out of the loop on the thing. OK, too many headshots made, too many hits with too little ammo. What do we think happened and what is the difference that it makes?

The markmanship of the shooter at Port Arthur is unmatched compared to other massacres, ie, the ratio of wounded to dead. Statistically the P.A massacre stands out from massacres where similar weapons were used.

The other problem some people have is there has never been a trial so evidence was never tested in court. Conspiracy theories aside, without a court case or inquest there can be no acceptable conclusion.

So what happened does not actually matter, it's just an issue of wanting procedure completed?

Again, NOT criticising. I'm not the slightest bit skeptical there could be problems with the story, I don't know what's going on. I'm trying to understand what this is about. Shooting too well means what? A lot of people died either way. What am I missing? There is something here I am missing and that's what I'm trying to get at.

[bigfellascott]

OK, it sounds like a lot of people don't believe the official story. What is the sane version of what we think happened?

He's the wrong guy, there were more people, the government did it?

Or, on the lesser side, it happened, but the government is lying about the details. Not sure what that would accomplish because something very terrbile happened regardless of the finer points, so lying about the details wouldn't change much IMO.

Or, they just bumbled it and got a lot of it wrong. In which case, as above, not sure how much of a difference the details would make.

I'm not being critical. Just expressing my lack of understanding about the situation. I read the story, I know that's why they banned most firearms in Australia. I'm just out of the loop on the thing. OK, too many headshots made, too many hits with too little ammo. What do we think happened and what is the difference that it makes?

The markmanship of the shooter at Port Arthur is unmatched compared to other massacres, ie, the ratio of wounded to dead. Statistically the P.A massacre stands out from massacres where similar weapons were used.

The other problem some people have is there has never been a trial so evidence was never tested in court. Conspiracy theories aside, without a court case or inquest there can be no acceptable conclusion.

So what happened does not actually matter, it's just an issue of wanting procedure completed?

Again, NOT criticising. I'm not the slightest bit skeptical there could be problems with the story, I don't know what's going on. I'm trying to understand what this is about. Shooting too well means what? A lot of people died either way. What am I missing? There is something here I am missing and that's what I'm trying to get at.

I think the question we all have is how can someone with such limited intellectual capacity could shoot like a marksman and why the correct legal process was completely ignored,

There apparently was a police officer who befriended Bryant who was a highly trained Marksman (make of that what you will),

[Title_II]

OK, so we think it might completely be bunk (other than the dying). I'm starting to understand.

[bigfellascott]

OK, so we think it might completely be bunk (other than the dying). I'm starting to understand.

Well that's the theory but who really knows what happened. There are certainly more questions that answers that's for sure.

[Title_II]

That's what I wanted to know. So I could understand what is going on. Thanks.

[David Brown]

I will try to sum up the concerns we have down here, and I am not sure what to believe myself. The above mentioned facts as we know them suggest remarkable achievement yet a less than average person did it? No following of due process always triggers a cover up theory. They have a perpetrator to satisfy the media/populations thirst for justice, and he is not smart enough to come out fighting or work with a defence team. Too many "unreal" circumstances for it to be likely and a feeling it was rigged by the government to shock and aww the people into willingly accepting harsh restrictive laws about to be thrust upon them, even many shooters.

Out of all the left of field claims I would add if this is a cover up, I would never put it past a foreign government doing it, with or without Australian knowledge or help. Ask yourself which world government would have sufficient ability to implant a suitable warrior and get them out, while setting up a known to be intellectually deficient scapegoat? And given it was 1996 and this aligned with a political agenda that may well be getting talked about a lot in that country again?

Think about that, get a result in another country and then use it as an example of what to do in your own. Sounds crazy but plausible, but when you look at the details of their murdering and corrupt past, they two individuals, are both very determined, driven and seemed to not be divorced despite a litany of proven infidelity issues on both sides ……………just saying'

If it is a staged event it could be even more than most imagine.

[happyhunter]

.

[<<Genesis93>>]

So there was an agenda. The Australian governments WERE / are conspiring to change the aus firearm environment absolutely . ... whether RED or BLUE or GREEN.....they want all guns gone from the hands of honest Joe.

The is absolutely no doubt our govt was involed either directly or indirectly.... title, here we use the word 'bush' or 'forest' in place of woods, and we are down under so let just say there was a 'southforest' operation on that fateful day in 1996......

Note: australia is a driving force in the united nations disarmament push, our treasonous b@#$/&ds of leaders our always the first to propose or draft those communist resolutions "oh, its not about taking YOUR guns.... its the criminals and terrorist..." of course it is as I check me facebook status and return to my surreal slumber...

[Gwion]

I have heard so many versions of conspiracy stories:

- There was a foreign black ops team in the cafe and it was a hit and so covered up by massacring the rest of the diners.
- Staged as an excuse to force waiting legislation through.
- Martin Bryant wasn't 'smart enough' to shoot that well.
- He wasn't strong enough to lug all that gear around.

etc. etc.

Three questions here:
a/ Have you ever been to Port Arthur or stopped at THE Cafe?
If so, you would be wondering what the hell is so strategically important to ANY intelligence operation. You would also understand that 30something people in that cafe would be like shooting fish in a barrel... quite literally.

b/ Ever heard of an IDIOT SAVANT?
Some people can just pick something up and do it easily, even when they can't tie their own shoe laces!

c/ Have you ever actually SPOKEN to some one who was there that day?
I have and the mere mention of conspiracy theories had her a little in-sensed, to be frank. She put it forward that everyone crouched down behind what ever/whoever they could, trying to get what ever cover was available. AS a result, everyone's head/neck/chest was at HIP LEVEL and they were lined up behind each other; all within less than 10m of the shooter. Ever held a rifle at hip level to a sick sheep on the ground, standing with the muzzle about A FOOT from the sheep? It's not hard to hit them in the head, in fact you'd likely miss and get them in the neck if you were more like two meters away; still, with a 308 or even 223, it would likely be pretty instantly fatal. It does NOT take marksmanship.

Now. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some sort of due process in order to determine the FACTS, or that it is impossible that MB was not the shooter. All i'm saying is that his low IQ is not a solid argument for his inability to perform the heinous deed and that the likelyhood of any international spy ring being interested in the cafe in Port Arthur (or anywhere in Tasmania, for that matter) is kind of absurd.

[David Brown]

I have heard so many versions of conspiracy stories:

- There was a foreign black ops team in the cafe and it was a hit and so covered up by massacring the rest of the diners.
- Staged as an excuse to force waiting legislation through.
- Martin Bryant wasn't 'smart enough' to shoot that well.
- He wasn't strong enough to lug all that gear around.

etc. etc.

Three questions here:
a/ Have you ever been to Port Arthur or stopped at THE Cafe?
If so, you would be wondering what the hell is so strategically important to ANY intelligence operation. You would also understand that 30something people in that cafe would be like shooting fish in a barrel... quite literally.

b/ Ever heard of an IDIOT SAVANT?
Some people can just pick something up and do it easily, even when they can't tie their own shoe laces!

c/ Have you ever actually SPOKEN to some one who was there that day?
I have and the mere mention of conspiracy theories had her a little in-sensed, to be frank. She put it forward that everyone crouched down behind what ever/whoever they could, trying to get what ever cover was available. AS a result, everyone's head/neck/chest was at HIP LEVEL and they were lined up behind each other; all within less than 10m of the shooter. Ever held a rifle at hip level to a sick sheep on the ground, standing with the muzzle about A FOOT from the sheep? It's not hard to hit them in the head, in fact you'd likely miss and get them in the neck if you were more like two meters away; still, with a 308 or even 223, it would likely be pretty instantly fatal. It does NOT take marksmanship.

Now. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some sort of due process in order to determine the FACTS, or that it is impossible that MB was not the shooter. All i'm saying is that his low IQ is not a solid argument for his inability to perform the heinous deed and that the likelyhood of any international spy ring being interested in the cafe in Port Arthur (or anywhere in Tasmania, for that matter) is kind of absurd.

Yep, agreed. I used to think that way. BUT….in the back of my mind I can also see the concerns over why so many due process routes were not taken. Even if MB did the whole thing.

And yes I have been there and I concur fish in a barrel is about right.

[southeast varmiter]

The truth will never come out.
I wasn't there on the day, but two people very close to me were and contacted me that night.
It infuriates me to this day.

[on_one_wheel]

I doubt that there was any conspiracy unfolding that day but I do believe that if Martin decided to run people down with a car that day then we all would be catching the bus now and the public transportat system would be a very profitable business.

[Gwion]

Also, he did plead guilty and confess, hence the need for a trial by jury was avoided.

An inquest into other subvertions of due process is still in order even though a lot of what people come out with, particularly what the author of this petition has dribbled, is simply unfounded nonsense. This is why i wouldn't attach my name to such a proposal; as by doing so I would be declaring that i support these ill thought out ideas.

[The Warrigal]

There has never been any doubt in my mind that Martin Bryant is guilty as charged.

However none of that is any excuse for not observing every due process of law!

Close to a million people besides the relatives of the deceased were adversely affected by the Governments over reaction to the PAM incident.

And a dangerous legal precedent has been set!

People are entitled to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and let the cards fall where they may.

I see no other means by which wild speculation can be ended in a matter of this type.

[ebr love]

- There was a foreign black ops team in the cafe and it was a hit and so covered up by massacring the rest of the diners.

lol.

That's definitely the most tinfoil hat one I've heard.

[adam]

If there is a conspiracy one thing I am sure of is that no one will ever be certain as to the facts.

Big conspirators do not cover up - because when some larger things are done - it's impossible to hide completely. What they do is distort. Mix lies in with the truth, and saturate it, and have fall guys...

It doesn't matter if people know - just make sure there's enough false evidence, etc that the tracks are covered up so no one will ever be sure of what really happened, and have enough pawns there to take the slack - no one knows what parts are truth, and what parts are lies.

I'd be tempted to say - if there is a conspiracy everyone who's been named so far (Johnny Howard, Tas Police, etc) wouldn't be the head behind it. Because they're too public. They'd just be pawns that were used (either knowingly or otherwise). Puppets...

The history of the Manhatten Project is a very interesting study and shows what can be done.

[pajamatime]

Just putting this out their but is it possible that maybe there are those that seek to make such a notion as nutters as possible by making such a disastrous looking petition. But then there is the possibility that they could even backfire. I wouldn't say her updates are wrong but the way she has written them does not come across as serious? it almost looks like its a smear piece if you know what I mean lol

but just make sure you go through all the updates and actually click through and study what shes put up. Don't just look at it and think cray cray tin foil woah! such an abundance of information!

[Title_II]

The truth will never come out.
I wasn't there on the day, but two people very close to me were and contacted me that night.
It infuriates me to this day.

Apparently they told you something not disclosed in the public story? What did they say?

[bigfellascott]

The truth will never come out.
I wasn't there on the day, but two people very close to me were and contacted me that night.
It infuriates me to this day.

What was it that infuriated you?

[bigfellascott]

Anyone know why they made a Morgue truck with such a large body capacity (only one ever made apparently) and it was sent to Tassie for some reason a year or so earlier.

[Gwion]

Anyone know why they made a Morgue truck with such a large body capacity (only one ever made apparently) and it was sent to Tassie for some reason a year or so earlier.

Maybe because Tassie is the 2nd most violent, crime riddled state in Australia, after NT; per capita, that is!
???
Just offering possibilities.

[happyhunter]

.

[Norton]

60 minutes had an interview with his mother a number of years ago, but IIRC there was no interview with Martin himself.

Because he was locked in a special looney bin.

Not the kind of place you get day trips from.

[<<Genesis93>>]

The media would never want to interview MB, and the authorities would NEVER allow an interview. Neither the media nor the authorities want to know what he has to say.... all the prestitutes want is super long zoom pictures of him ....to update us on the 'overweight condition' of the 'monster'