Is anyone watching this stuff. Wasp files.

[fussy]

Well, the good news is, it's nearly 30 years, so the embargo will be up and soon all the evidence will be produced for us to see in the cold light of day.

Just kidding, they'll find an excuse not to release it.

Hey, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear", right? That's what they keep telling us.

You are out of the loop mate.. The files were meant to be released next year in 2026 but 3 years ago they added on another 70 years. making it 100 years total. So in 2096 they will be released when everybody is long dead and the event is forgotten.

It was announced when they converted all the evidence into digital format. Only the Tasmanian police commissioner has authority to see the files before the release date.

Yes, a touch or irony/sarcasm in my comment...

Meanwhile, here's our chance:
It's been nearly 30 years, so tell your local LNP candidart that if they want the voters to come back to them (they do), simply advocate to lift the PA files embargo.
Make it not about guns, but gov accountability.
Political mileage can be made by apologising to stolen generations for stuff that happened before your time, so the LNO can throw John Howard under a bus and say, "New Improved LNP, Stalin is dead, trust us..."
Drop a line to your local member +/- LNP candidate.

Be prepared for a phone call from the WL branch...

[alexjones]

I had no idea that tin foil hats could restrict blood flow to the brain.
Are you people serious.
"The gubberment sent a crack team of commandos to PA for the assassination of innocent people so they could restrict semi automatic rifles"
What the f*** are you all smoking?
We have no rights to firearms, they can ban anything they like with a stroke of the pen.

Yeah that’s one of the more loony ones out there. Our own soldiers are not going to shoot our civilians, children included. Not what they signed up for.
Unfortunately I think the really loony tunes stuff means whenever people do question the official version it’s easy to dismiss them as someone who buys into all that.
Much falls into the possible but highly unlikely category. But some questions still remain I think.
And this additional 75 year cover up isn’t really helpful in debunking the theories. It does suggest there’s something to hide.

And to your second question. I’m smoking something that will apparently harm my child during pregnancy and there’s a photo of some bloke with Aids on the packet.

You know Australian soldiers are humans right? Humans do things for money. The Australian soldier as the collective would not but the INDIVIDUAL would.

We know they would because it is documented that they have done many underworld contracts for money.

[Wapiti]

I don't believe any of it. I think that channel is whacko city.
Just like anything in the media, it's all narrative distorted. Bryant shot innocent people, simple, and we were punished by politicians who act however they see popular sentiment for their own benefit.
And personal fears.

You don't believe any of it? So you believe all the questions about the case have answers. Ok.

You realise the maker of the series Paul Moder just wants answers to the unanswered questions right?

He wants the evidence files released to answer these questions.

He has said before Bryant could be guilty but release the files to answer all the abnormalities with the case.

No mate I just don't believe any of this.

I also think, no matter what evil evidence files are released whether than tomorrow, or in 70 years, people will say it was modified, made up or changed to hide some imagined conspiracy.

And on the eyewitness reports, two people who see traumatic events (let alone more like at PA) very often and quite expectedly can have completely different views of what they saw with their own eyes, even from the same advantage points. Quite often we hear about this from violent occurrences when people are brought into ED's or when police attend to take statements.

Plus, add to that people just making stuff up because they are life-long conspiracy theorists, and the gullible people who will believe anything to find a reason for it all.

All of this just divides people and drives agenda. None of it benefits a firearms owner.

[MG5150]

Even assuming one of the headshed in SAS was behind it all I can't imagine a way to orchestrate a pair of helicopters colliding on command, unless one of the pilots was happy to sacrifice himself, and a bunch of his mates for the coverup.

You shoot down both helicopters and tell the public it was a crash...

[Wapiti]

You blokes have to be kidding....

[womble]

The Jews shot down the helicopters with space lazers

[Oldbloke]

I had no idea that tin foil hats could restrict blood flow to the brain.
Are you people serious.
"The gubberment sent a crack team of commandos to PA for the assassination of innocent people so they could restrict semi automatic rifles"
What the f*** are you all smoking?
We have no rights to firearms, they can ban anything they like with a stroke of the pen.

I'm with you.

20200327_171929.jpg (38.48 KiB) Viewed 1605 times

[womble]

[bladeracer]

Even assuming one of the headshed in SAS was behind it all I can't imagine a way to orchestrate a pair of helicopters colliding on command, unless one of the pilots was happy to sacrifice himself, and a bunch of his mates for the coverup.

You shoot down both helicopters and tell the public it was a crash...

And do that much damage to our elite forces? Just nonsense. If one of the troopers had to be kept silent there were far simpler ways of doing it during a live-fire night training exercise. If you're suggesting a larger contingent of the men on those choppers were involved that had to be kept silent, I can't buy that at all.

[Wapiti]

20200327_171929.jpg

[/quote]

Dreamworld city. Elite forces. Deliberate accidents. My mates in the SAS told me. FMD.

C'mon guys.

[Oldbloke]

Some of the posts have gone from, silly, to just plain stupid.

[straightshooter]

We have no rights to firearms, they can ban anything they like with a stroke of the pen.

Well the reality is we don't have any "rights" whatsoever, we only have privileges granted to us by the state.
Anything can be banned, forbidden or criminalised.
Anything that was once extralegal can be made illegal.
Anything that was once illegal can be made legal.
Each state will have in it's constitution words similar to a clause in the NSW constitution which will effectively say the state can pass a law for any purpose whatsoever.

[No1_49er]

On the 28th April 1996 (yes, nearly 30 years ago) it is alleged that Martin Bryant killed 35 people and injured many more.
There was, eventually, a plea of guilt to the charge(s).
No trial; no further scrutiny or presentation of evidence, no ability to cross-examine.

There is something truly wrong that so many politicians, of any flavour, can sit (on their hands) in the parliament and NOT ask questions, and demand answers, about the Port Arthur killings.
Yet they unquestionably allow that the "evidence" be locked away in the Tasmania Archive & Heritage Office for 100 years. Even more troubling is that ONLY the Police Commissioner can view it. Police Commissioners come and go, yet nobody has got the balls to demand or question any of the "evidence".
Perhaps the Commissioner, his predecessor, and successors, are culpable in a perversion of the course of justice?

A result of the tragedy?
JWH rolled out the National Firearms Agreement, to the tune of roughly half a billion dollars paid for by a levy (tax) on the good citizens of Australia. And in no time at all, new f/a legislation saw to the trashing of hundreds of thousands of firearms, some of which had significant historical value. But political agendas rode roughshod over any argument against such action.
Is it beginning to sound familiar; Bondi??
Or, for that matter, the more recent event in Christchurch, NZ. Legislation waiting to go. How convenient.

It's almost as though the new legislation has already been written and just needs the ideal opportunity to introduce it. Nothing to see here - move along.

That same dirt bag, JWH, was apparently so fearful at the anti gun-grab rally that he "needed" to have body armour under his suit. Yet he cuddled up to an Olympian shooter who had brought some glory to the Australian shooting fraternity. Disgusting POS.

As has been pointed out, many times, the Townsville helicopter crash apparently warranted two commissions of enquiry. Port Arthur, crickets.
What, or who, is being protected?

Six weeks before P.A., on 13th March, Thomas Hamilton killed 18 children, and himself, in Dunblane, Scotland.
Similarly, after the huge enquiry, the "evidence" was deemed to be too troubling for the eyes of us mere mortals and was locked away. Who, or what, was being protected?
It is known that the suitability of Hamilton to hold a f/a licence had been brought into question, but no action was taken.
It has also been suggested that he was an acquaintance of the Chief Constable; hence the "reason" for no action.
As a result of that tragedy, ALL handguns were banned; you can't even transit through the likes of Heathrow Airport en-route to a competition with a handgun. They're simply not allowed onto UK soil under any circumstance. Inanimate objects are so unpredictable in their behaviour that they simply can't be allowed.

I had the acquaintance of a gunsmith/armourer, now deceased, who had responsibility for a significant amount of maintenance, and training, for Victoria Police. That person often told me of a conversation he had had in which it was said that "something is going to happen in Tasmania". Note - is going to happen!
A planned event?
Nothing to see here - move along. It's all conspiracy theories.

OK, if that be so, release the evidence and prove it to be otherwise.

There can be no such thing as a consensus of opinion - good research demands that we continue to ask questions. And keep asking until you are satisfied, in the same way as Paul Moder continues to do.

[alexjones]

There was, eventually, a plea of guilt to the charge(s).
No trial; no further scrutiny or presentation of evidence, no ability to cross-examine.

The part you got wrong is that there was no trial. There was a trial. But because he pled guilty the evidence did not have to be provided and cross examined.

[No1_49er]

There was, eventually, a plea of guilt to the charge(s).
No trial; no further scrutiny or presentation of evidence, no ability to cross-examine.

The part you got wrong is that there was no trial. There was a trial. But because he pled guilty the evidence did not have to be provided and cross examined.

A trial is a judicial examination and determination of issues between parties by a judge with or without a jury. (OED)
A trial tests the evidence.
There was no public trial for Bryant, as he entered a guilty plea.
This means that the evidence and arguments typically presented in a trial were not publicly aired. None of the evidence has been tested, or seen the light of day. Sunshine is a very good disinfectant.

[MG5150]

Who on this site said the government sent commandos?

One of the theories is that some SAS soldiers were sent down to do the shooting. Then a few weeks later a whole team of SAS were killed in a helicopter crash and that it was a cover up to tie up all the loose ends.

The Bondi incident was two shooters and they only managed to kill 14 people between them. Granted Martin had semi-automatic weapons and bigger magazines, it's hard to believe a man with his IQ had the marksmanship skills to kill 35 people (including a few double kills) all on his own without additional gun men.

PS. Wasp Files are going on a hiatus for an indefintie period while he tried to get a movie going.

[No1_49er]

Take a bit of time and watch this https://youtu.be/YIdMPD7_S70?si=XFG4swFAP-Xmal2z
Of course, it's all conspiracy theory.

[alexjones]

There was, eventually, a plea of guilt to the charge(s).
No trial; no further scrutiny or presentation of evidence, no ability to cross-examine.

The part you got wrong is that there was no trial. There was a trial. But because he pled guilty the evidence did not have to be provided and cross examined.

A trial is a judicial examination and determination of issues between parties by a judge with or without a jury. (OED)
A trial tests the evidence.
There was no public trial for Bryant, as he entered a guilty plea.
This means that the evidence and arguments typically presented in a trial were not publicly aired. None of the evidence has been tested, or seen the light of day. Sunshine is a very good disinfectant.

Thats just semantics. A trial is going to court and going through the due process of judicial proceedings.

I have a lot of questions about that day and afterwards but I think we can all agree he had his day in court.

[alexjones]

The Bondi incident was two shooters and they only managed to kill 14 people between them. Granted Martin had semi-automatic weapons and bigger magazines, it's hard to believe a man with his IQ had the marksmanship skills to kill 35 people (including a few double kills) all on his own without additional gun men.

Martin(or who ever was the shooter) killed all of the victims from a couple feet away. Everyone in the cafe, the people at the bus, the kids near the tree( barrel was literally on the skin) and the women at the servo. He took long range shots and hit nothing.

The bondi shooters actually were shooting with some range.

[alexjones]

A lot of people in the cafe were frozen in fear, stayed seated, tried to hide under tables or behind the infamous locked fire escape door in the gift shop.

[No1_49er]

There was, eventually, a plea of guilt to the charge(s).
No trial; no further scrutiny or presentation of evidence, no ability to cross-examine.

The part you got wrong is that there was no trial. There was a trial. But because he pled guilty the evidence did not have to be provided and cross examined.

A trial is a judicial examination and determination of issues between parties by a judge with or without a jury. (OED)
A trial tests the evidence.
There was no public trial for Bryant, as he entered a guilty plea.
This means that the evidence and arguments typically presented in a trial were not publicly aired. None of the evidence has been tested, or seen the light of day. Sunshine is a very good disinfectant.

Thats just semantics. A trial is going to court and going through the due process of judicial proceedings.

I have a lot of questions about that day and afterwards but I think we can all agree he had his day in court.

That, too, is semantics.
Oh, yeh. He had his day in court.
But there was never any evidence nor the testing of same.
With such shenanigans, there most assuredly are a lot of (unanswered) questions.

[alexjones]

That, too, is semantics.
Oh, yeh. He had his day in court.
But there was never any evidence nor the testing of same.
With such shenanigans, there most assuredly are a lot of (unanswered) questions.

Its not semantics, thats just the way the law works. The prosecutor does not have to prove anything if you agree to the charges.

I agree to what I am charged with so no need to waste the courts time and tax payers money evaluating evidence. Thats what an admission of guilt means.

[No1_49er]

There was, eventually, a plea of guilt to the charge(s).
No trial; no further scrutiny or presentation of evidence, no ability to cross-examine.

The part you got wrong is that there was no trial. There was a trial. But because he pled guilty the evidence did not have to be provided and cross examined.

You said it - "there was a trial".
No, there was NOT a trial. There were judicial proceedings. He pleaded guilty, in which case no evidence was presented.
Again - a trial tests the evidence which, fortuitously for somebody, has been locked away for 100 years.
You should be really happy that the judicial system is so open and transparent.
But your own questions can NEVER be answered.

[alexjones]

There was, eventually, a plea of guilt to the charge(s).
No trial; no further scrutiny or presentation of evidence, no ability to cross-examine.

The part you got wrong is that there was no trial. There was a trial. But because he pled guilty the evidence did not have to be provided and cross examined.

You said it - "there was a trial".
No, there was NOT a trial. There were judicial proceedings. He pleaded guilty, in which case no evidence was presented.
Again - a trial tests the evidence which, fortuitously for somebody, has been locked away for 100 years.
You should be really happy that the judicial system is so open and transparent.
But your own questions can NEVER be answered.

You are splitting hairs mate. I am inclined to believe Martin probably did not do it but the “no trial argument” I think is a dead end.

I see a lot of people saying he was wronged for not having a trial but the law does not operate like that. I am not saying you do but some people I have seen actually think he was just arrested and put in jail for life with no as you say “judicial proceedings”.

There are a lot more important questions to ask.