The FACTS about Port Arthur
Noel Mc Donald
as freely available in the public domain.
The Court document is the main reference for Port Arthur, it is the
"evidence" by which an innocent man has been convicted for a crime it
was impossible for him to commit.
The Court transcript devotes pages 191-195 to explain the numerous
deletions from the police interview, the "defence" did not even
challenge the deletions or the substitution of the audio of the video
with a seperate tape, a procedure that should have been laughed out of
court.
The interrogation has clearly omitted the parts that would have proved
that Bryant did not do the job, especially the parts that would have
proved the presence of the Terrorist Team at Seascape, this is clearly
evident in other snippets of information that have been released.
Too few people have opinions on this matter without doing the homework
first, while one and all expect hard nosed denial freaks like Brian
Ross to excel in this area, it is nice to think that other people will
do research before giving an opinion!
Brian
If anybody is interested in an alternative, realistic hypothesis to the
bullshit that Noel and Vialls push, continually in their efforts to find
mind-control laser satellites and black helicopters with death rays,
please read on. This was originally published on the Public Debate
website (http://www.publicdebate.com.au) as part of the ongoing denial
of reality compaign by Noel about the Port Arthur massacre. You will
note that unlike either, it makes clear use of open source material and
provides references for checking. Noel has essentially conceded tat
this is a far more realistic version of events than the bullshit claimed
by either himself or Vials by his continued refusal to debate the points
raised. Please read on:
----------------------------------------------
As part of an ongoing debate in the Public Debate webboard, on the topic
of Port Arthur I recently did some research on the topic of whether or
not the main claim of conspiracist theorist, Joe Vialls that Martin
Bryant was incapable of achieving the number of deaths that he did, in
the Broadarrow Cafe and therefore it must have been done by someone
else, perhaps a professional assassin as part of some complex conspiracy
whose outcome was the disarming of the Australian population so some
mysterious power could then take over our vast nation and mineral
wealth.
The result has been this paper which I've researched from the available
sources. I have decided to post it here to aus.politics so that others
might be aware of the finding which propose an alternative and more
realistic explanation to those of Joe Vialls.
As part of the Emergency Services' followup to the massacre, it was
proposed that a conference be held so that the lessons learnt from the
massacre and how the disaster was managed could be passed onto other
members of the emergency service community. The result was Emergency
Management Australia's conference on the Port Arthur Massacre and the
consequent papers which were issued as a consequence of that conference
which was held nearly a year after the massacre in 1997.
On the Public Debate Webboard, a great deal has been made of those
papers by one of the main defenders of the conspiracy theories
surrounding Port Arthur, Noel McDonald. However, it appears that after
procuring a copy of this document that he's been only telling half the
story. Either because it does not concur with his predisposition towards
believing in conspiracies or because he has failed to read it with a
critical eye towards his own claims and those by Joe Vialls.
I've spent most of the last week or so in my spare time perusing this
document and discovered a great deal of very interesting and valuable
information. I have also consulted several reference works in the
Defence Academy library and corresponded with an old friend who is both
a keen, established, sporting shooter and also employed by the ADF as a
professional small-arms tester and ballistics expert (often consulting
for the Victorian Police Force as well). Lets start out by examining
first, the claim that Bryant was "phenomenally accurate" in his
shooting. That it was impossible for such a person as Bryant who was
intellectually handicapped. Indeed, Vialls makes the point, continually
that,
Where method is concerned any expert combat shooter could have
killed 20 unarmed civilians in less than thirty seconds, 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 held in confined spaces by armed terrorists. It is
hard to kill quickly under such circumstances for a number of
unpleasant practical reasons, including the fact that shot
people tend to fall against other people, shielding the latter
from subsequent bullets. Targets must therefore be shot in a
careful sequence with split-second timing to maximize 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 Martin
Bryant was incapable of doing the job
[http://vialls.homestead.com/portarthur/bryant2.htm]
And that is is impossible for someone like 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 benchmarks of the Port Arthur massacre.
[http://vialls.homestead.com/portarthur/bryant1.htm]
According, again to Vialls, Byrant was able to in the Broad Arrow Cafe,
cause, "20 dead and 12 injured - an incredible inverted ratio of 1.66 to
1, or nearly two dead for every one injured."[ibid] compared to what he
claims is the norm, which, "at best we would
expect 4 dead and 28 injured, or at worst 6 dead and 26 injured"[ibid]
based upon his use of the comparative areas of the head, versus the rest
of the body.
Now, lets examine what the EMA conference proceedings had to report on
the number of people killed in the Broadarrow Cafe, where most of the
deaths occurred. Bryant is claimed to have shot, "people with 29 shots
being fired, the first 18 in about 15 seconds. From these 20 people were
killed and a further 12 wounded."[p.5, EMA, Port Arthur Papers]
Furthermore, it had this to add about the nature of the wounds suffered
by the victims at Port Arthur:
The fatal injuries were predominantly high calibre gunshot
wounds to the head, chest, or both, mostly at very short
range. The critical injuries were all high calibre gunshot
wounds to the upper body (chest, neck, jaw, head and shoulder)
and other injuries included gunshot wounds to peripheries
limbs and legs) and penetrating fragment injuries.
[p.34, EMA, Port Arthur Seminar Papers]
To this can be added, according to the "Forensic Overview" of the
Conference Papers that, "the pattern of injuries was variable, some
being of single shot through and through type, others being complex with
several injuries being complicated intermediate targets and primary and
secondary woundings." [p.99, Ibid]
>From my past military and technical training this indicates to me not a
case of considerable marksmanship but rather one of incredibly low
accuracy on the part of Martin Bryant. We have more people hit than the
number of shots which were actually fired in the Broadarrow Cafe. This
would tend to indicate that bullets actually penetrated and struck other
victims on their exit from the original victim's body. This is further
supported by this comment about the power of the rounds used by Bryant:
The power of the weapons was such that one bullet fired at a car,
pierced the metal pillar between the driver and passengers windows,
killed the woman and exited through the other side of the vehicle.[ibid]
Furthermore, because of the nature and position of most of the injuries,
as described above, it becomes evident that Bryant was either firing,
not from the hip but the shoulder or the victims were in fact seated.
Considering the other evidence available that most of the victims were
in fact eating in and around the Cafe, we can I think almost completely
discard the former of the two hypotheses and safely assume that the
majority of his victims were actually seated at the time they were shot.
In addition it becomes more certain that essentially each round killed
or injured more than one person, if we remember that the M-193 round,
which the Colt AR-15 fires is known to be quite prone to "tumble" or yaw
once it strikes a target composed of soft-tissue as most of the human
body is, which means once it exits, it will not necessarily be
travelling in a straight line.[Fackler, M.L., "Wounding Patterns of
Military Rifle Bullets", International Defence Review, 1/1989, Vol.22]
Indeed, if it were possible to plot exactly where the victims died and
where Bryant was standing when he openned fire, it would be likely that
you could trace the path of each round through each victim in turn and
it would not necessarily have been in a straight line.
The result is that instead, as Vialls and Noel claim, Bryant was
carefully aiming each round, resulting in phenomenal accuracy, he more
than likely was doing what we used to refer to in the Army as "spray and
pray" - pulling the trigger as fast as he could (remember this is only a
semi-automatic weapon) and simply pointing it in the general direction
of his target. Because that target was a densely packed throng of people
in a small confined space he managed to hit far more than he actually
aimed for (if he aimed at all) and in the process achieved a higher
"kill ratio" than he would normally have been expected to. It can be
fairly safely assumed that most in the target area were also seated (at
least initially) and that Bryant standing and firing from the hip,
produced a disproportionate number of head wounds, all of which resulted
in death, whilst the peripheral wounds necessarily did not.
This supposition is even further supported by the report in the EMA
Conference Papers from the "Port Arthur Historic Site Management
Authority Response" report. It makes the point that the lone security
guard on duty at Port Arthur that day stated that, upon hearing "unusual
noises" from the Cafe, he had seen "dust rising from the external rock
walls," (the dust being created by the shooting occurring within the
Caf‚) [p.39, EMA, Port Arthur Seminar Papers]. Of course this is
something which would not be occurring if the bullets remained lodged in
the victim's bodies. Vialls attempts to suggest this would be the norm
in such an incident when he claims, "that shot people tend to fall
against other people, shielding the latter from subsequent bullets"
[http://vialls.homestead.com/portarthur/bryant2.htm ]. This is something
which is clearly untrue when you realise that at the close ranges in the
Broadarrow Cafe, the bullets would have penetrated one or more people
before being slowed enough to become lodged in a body. This is
particularly true when you consider just how insubstantial a barrier the
skull makes to such a round penetrating it. It is this
"over-penetration", if you like, that makes the use of the such
high-velocity military rounds unattractive to most police forces as they
cannot guarantee that when they hit, say a criminal, the round will not
travel beyond for significant distances and perhaps hit an innocent
bystander as well.
Once these factors are taken into account, the rest of Vialls' claims,
with regards to Port Arthur about the "impossibility" of someone like
Bryant being able to achieve what happened there, start to fall to
pieces even further. He claims that Bryant would have had real problems
controlling a weapon as powerful as the AR-15. In reality, the AR-15 is
in fact a very easily controlled weapon, its recoil forces are quite
low, particularly as it can only be fired semi-automatic, being only in
the order of 5.0 Ft.Lb/0.69 Kg.M of kinetic energy,.[p.28, Dugelby,
T.B., Modern Military Bullpup Rifles, Toronto, 1984] versus the quoted
fully loaded weight for the AR-15 (with 20 round magazine) of 7.2
lbs/3.2 kg [p.4, FM-23-9 Field Manual, Rifle, 5.56mm, M16a1] which means
as the weapon's own mass will absorb a great deal of that recoil energy,
the weapon is easily corrected between each shot by even a slightly
built individual like Bryant. Considering that Bryant in his transcript
suggested that he found the shotgun he had, had "too much power"
[http://vialls.homestead.com/portarthur/interrogation.htm ], no doubt in
reference to its quite hefty recoil and having decided not to use it in
the massacre, its no wonder he chose the AR-15.
As he was apparently left-handed, its also no wonder he chose to fire
the weapon from the right hip, rather than from the left shoulder. , The
AR-15, which like most firearms ejects to the right through an ejection
port on the right side of the body of the weapon would have resulted in
empty shell cases flying past his face - something which Noel claims he
found alarming in regard to the shotgun when he test fired it and which
would have been equally alarming from the AR-15. There is the
possibility that Bryant, by firing from the right, rather than the left
hip (which would have been even more difficult because of the location
of the ejection port on the AR-15) would have found it quite easy to
control the muzzle climb of the weapon. When firing from the hip, the
trigger hand plays little in actual control of the weapon, in reality
its the opposite hand, located on the foregrip which controls the aiming
of the weapon and this was his <?PC850(147)>master hand<?PC850(148)> ie
left hand..
Now taking these factors into account, Vialls' claim that,
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.[http://vialls.homestead.com/portarthur/bryant2.htm ],
Is shown to be rather fanciful thinking on his part. No matter how many
victims "shielded" other victims, the rounds would have been more than
likely capable of penetrating them and going beyond into the next body.
As to the reaction of times of the victims, that is a complete unknown.
Some would, no doubt have reacted instinctively and moved, others would
more than likely have simply, as Vialls' suggests, turned their heads.
Even so, they would have been hit as Bryant sprayed the room with rounds
from his rifle. Furthermore, as Fackler points out in his article in
International Defence Review on wound mechanics, the M-193 has been
found to be quite prone to fragmenting after it strikes its target due
to the high torsional stresses placed upon it, causing considerable
secondary damage inside the wound.[p.61, Fackler, M.L., 1989] It is
possible that this behaviour is repeated in the case of head wounds,
after the round has exited the skull, increasing the likelihood of other
victims being struck by high-velocity, secondary projectiles as well as
the primary projectile of each round, thereby possibly increasing the
number of casualties from a single round.[personal correspondence
between the author and Greg Shepherd] This is exactly in line with what
the forensic report in the Port Arthur Seminar Papers suggested from the
nature of the wounds. It is quite probable as I have suggested that many
of the victims were struck by the same bullet, or the secondary
fragments from the rounds, which would account for the high number of
head and neck/chest wounds which were reported.
This is exactly in line with what the foresenic report in the Port
Arthur Seminar Papers suggested from the nature of the wounds, when it
stated:
The critical injuries were all high calibre gunshot wounds to
the upper body (chest, neck, jaw, head and shoulder) and other
injuries mcluded gunshot wounds to peripheries limbs and legs)
AND PENETRATING FRAGMENT INJURIES.[emphasis added, p.99, EMA,
1997]
This view is further enhanced when one considers the initial reaction of
the Ambulance officers who attended the cafe who, "were quite convinced
for some time that Bryant had used a shotgun in the broad Arrow [sic]
Cafe due to the significant number of `peppering' they noted. This later
turned out to be bony fragments from other victims."[p.34, ibid.]
It is quite probable as I have suggested that many of the victims were
struck by the same bullet, or the secondary fragments from the rounds,
which would account for the high number of head, neck/chest and
secondary wounds which were reported. Vialls and Noel, on the otherhand
seem to be assuming that every injury or fatality was caused by an
individual bullet, which as we have seen may not necessarily be the
case.
If we assume a probable time dilation effect for Bryant being "hyped up"
by a sudden infusion of adrenaline. It is then quite possible for him to
have been able to fire, correct his aim and fire again before many of
the diners had fully started to react to what was happening around them.
As the cloud of sprayed brains, bullet and bone fragments and blood
filled the air, splattering the diners, they would have become more
confused, possibly placing even more of them in the line of fire of the
weapon.
Vialls' comments on the matter of the AR-15, " recoiling upwards through
about five degrees of arc as it cycled another round into the breech,
throwing the muzzle off target" applies when a weapon of similar power
such as this is fired on full-automatic. Unfortunately for Vialls, the
weapon in question is an AR-15 not an M-16 - the AR-15 cannot fire in
such a mode without substantial modifications which Bryant had neither
the knowledge nor the ability to undertake. As the weapon's trigger has
to be pulled after each shot, he would have been more than able to
correct the aim of the weapon instinctively. As I have shown, the recoil
forces for the AR-15 are within quite acceptable limits for most people
to control, while even someone of Bryant's limited intellectual capacity
would be able to correct his aim.
In using "military science" it appears that Vialls has in fact attempted
to contrive a rather impossible explanation, in order to fit his
preconceived notions on the matter, which centre on his conspiracy
theories. Logic, research and a knowledge of weapons use have shown in
this paper that there is an entirely reasonable and whats more rational
explanation of what happened at the Broadarrow Caf‚. Indeed, Vialls'
claims over this incident are not universally supported within the
shooting community in Australia. In an article in The Age newspaper on
the topic of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Port Arthur
Massacre,
The Queensland president of the Firearms Association of
Australia, gunshop owner Mr Ron Owen, describes Mr Viall's
theories as ``fairyland stuff''. While questioning the Howard
Government's motives and planning for the gun law changes, Mr
Owen said the Viall theory did not equate with his knowledge
of firearms.
``As a ballistics expert he'd make a good car washer,'' Mr
Owen said.
[http://www.theage.com.au/daily/980830/news/news18.html]
I would, after having made this investigation have to concur with him on
that opinion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Dugelby, T.B., Modern Military Bullpup Rifles, Collector Grade
Publications, Toronto, 1984
Emergency Management Australia, Port Arthur Seminar Papers, Hobart,
1997.
Fackler, M.L., "Wounding Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets,
International Defence Review, 1/1989, Vol.22.
Forbes, M., "A conspiracy of crackpots", The Age, 30 August 1998,
http://www.theage.com.au/daily/980830/news/news18.html
Sheppard, G., Personal correspondance, Armament Engineering Unit
Army Engineering Agency, Australian Defence Forces.
US Army, FM-23-9 Field Manual, Rifle, 5.56mm, M16a1.
Vialls, J., Port Arthur Massacre,
http://vialls.homestead.com/portarthur.html
--
"The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the
complete disappearance of the black race and the swift submergence of
their progeny in the white." - Dr. Cecil Cook,
Northern Territory's Chief Protector of Aborigines (1927-1939)
Noel Mc Donald
>Noel Mc Donald wrote:
>> =
>
>> There are a lot of threads on this topic, some seem to doubt the facts
>> as freely available in the public domain.
>> =
>
>> The Court document is the main reference for Port Arthur, it is the
>> "evidence" by which an innocent man has been convicted for a crime it
>> was impossible for him to commit.
>> =
>
>> The Court transcript devotes pages 191-195 to explain the numerous
>> deletions from the police interview, the "defence" did not even
>> challenge the deletions or the substitution of the audio of the video
>> with a seperate tape, a procedure that should have been laughed out of
>> court.
>> =
>
>> The interrogation has clearly omitted the parts that would have proved
>> that Bryant did not do the job, especially the parts that would have
>> proved the presence of the Terrorist Team at Seascape, this is clearly
>> evident in other snippets of information that have been released.
>> =
>
>> Too few people have opinions on this matter without doing the homework
>> first, while one and all expect hard nosed denial freaks like Brian
>> Ross to excel in this area, it is nice to think that other people will
>> do research before giving an opinion!
>
>
>If anybody is interested in an alternative, realistic hypothesis to the
>bullshit that Noel and Vialls push, continually in their efforts to find
>mind-control laser satellites and black helicopters with death rays,
>please read on.
<SNIPPED THE REST OF THE WAFFLING OPINION>
Anyone reading the Brian Ross version would fall off their chair
laughing at the first paragraph here, I thought the thread was about
FACTS, not about Brian fantasies of "mind control laser satellites and
black helicopters with death rays"....GROW UP Brian.
Noel
Brian
>
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:02:02 +1000, Brian <br...@apex.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Noel Mc Donald wrote:
> >> =
> >
> >> as freely available in the public domain.
> >
> >> The Court document is the main reference for Port Arthur, it is the
> >> "evidence" by which an innocent man has been convicted for a crime it
> >> was impossible for him to commit.
> >
> >> The Court transcript devotes pages 191-195 to explain the numerous
> >> deletions from the police interview, the "defence" did not even
> >> challenge the deletions or the substitution of the audio of the video
> >> with a seperate tape, a procedure that should have been laughed out of
> >> court.
> >
> >> The interrogation has clearly omitted the parts that would have proved
> >> that Bryant did not do the job, especially the parts that would have
> >> proved the presence of the Terrorist Team at Seascape, this is clearly
> >> evident in other snippets of information that have been released.
> >
> >> Too few people have opinions on this matter without doing the homework
> >> first, while one and all expect hard nosed denial freaks like Brian
> >> Ross to excel in this area, it is nice to think that other people will
> >> do research before giving an opinion!
> >
> >
> >If anybody is interested in an alternative, realistic hypothesis to the
> >bullshit that Noel and Vialls push, continually in their efforts to find
> >mind-control laser satellites and black helicopters with death rays,
> >please read on.
>
> Anyone reading the Brian Ross version would fall off their chair
> laughing at the first paragraph here, I thought the thread was about
> FACTS, not about Brian fantasies of "mind control laser satellites and
> black helicopters with death rays"....GROW UP Brian.
>
> Noel
Noel, you don't have facts, you have a hypothesis. I'd suggest you
figure out the difference.
I also have a hypothesis, based around sound scientific research. My
hypothesis has largely been confirmed by the Tasmanian Police Foresenics
Section. Your's, Noel has been confirmed by whom? Another conspiracy
theorist in Joe Vialls? Sorry, doesn't count. Try again.
Noel Mc Donald
chance Brian.
How do you explain the fact that Bryant's Volvo was backed up to the
front door at Seascape as reported by Mr Copping just after midday?
And the drivers door was wide open also.
This is a very crucial matter Brian, possibly you will shrug it off
with some quip, I do realise that you do not have the resources that I
do, but try and give it some analysis before I give you my
explanation.
Noel
Brian
Noel, I have no idea, nor do I care. Why do you continally avoid the
points I raise about Bryants "phenomenal accuracy" in the Broadarrow
Cafe?
Why do you avoid the points raised in the Psychiatric assesement of
Bryant, which make it clear that he had premeditated the massacre?
Why have you dropped your claims that ASIO were involved either in the
massacre itself or conspired to cover it up afterwards?
Why do you avoid the point that the SOG observers utilising their night
scopes were only able to identify one person firing during the night
from the Seascape cottage?
Why do you keep avoiding discussion of the supposed motive of these
"terrorists" of your's?
Everytime you've been pressed at Public Debate, you've avoided those
points.
Now we have "Joe Vialls" going into paranoid mode there over his website
being knocked off the top spot on a privately run search engine! Talk
about lunatic's territory!
Noel Mc Donald
>Noel Mc Donald wrote:
>>
>> If you can refrain from straying off topic, I will give you another
>> chance Brian.
>>
>> How do you explain the fact that Bryant's Volvo was backed up to the
>> front door at Seascape as reported by Mr Copping just after midday?
>> And the drivers door was wide open also.
>>
>> This is a very crucial matter Brian, possibly you will shrug it off
>> with some quip, I do realise that you do not have the resources that I
>> do, but try and give it some analysis before I give you my
>> explanation.
>
>Noel, I have no idea, nor do I care. Why do you continally avoid the
>points I raise about Bryants "phenomenal accuracy" in the Broadarrow
>Cafe?
More proof of your ignorance Brian, the Volvo reversed into Seascape
is one of the MAJOR events in the lead up to the massacre, proves you
do not any nouse, nor an enquiring mind.
As to Bryant's phenomenal accuracy, if you read the interrogation you
will learn that he NEVER was very good at accuracy, further, he was
never at Port Arthur, and you cannot prove he was, just as the
prosecution could not Brian.
>
>Why do you avoid the points raised in the Psychiatric assesement of
>Bryant, which make it clear that he had premeditated the massacre?
Merely someone's opinion, if I could choose all the questions I could
probably make YOU to be the killer.
>
>Why have you dropped your claims that ASIO were involved either in the
>massacre itself or conspired to cover it up afterwards?
Not very important, it is on public record that they DID attend, I
have never said they took part or tried to cover it up, I do however
think that the Tas police have made sure that people know that ASIO
had there involvementat PA.
>
>Why do you avoid the point that the SOG observers utilising their night
>scopes were only able to identify one person firing during the night
>from the Seascape cottage?
So what, just on dusk was the time they observed TWO gunmen.
>
>Why do you keep avoiding discussion of the supposed motive of these
>"terrorists" of your's?
Because I only deal in facts Brian, do you want me to assume what
these terrorists have in their minds, next you will want me to tell
all what YOU are thinking, wouldn't be much of an answer :-)
>
>Everytime you've been pressed at Public Debate, you've avoided those
>points.
>
And what have you done with my ONE question about the Volvo at
Seascape if you have not AVOIDED it.
Noel
Peter Mackay
> If anybody is interested in an alternative, realistic hypothesis to the
> bullshit that Noel and Vialls push, continually in their efforts to find
> mind-control laser satellites and black helicopters with death rays,
> please read on.
Thanks, Brian. I found your work interesting. I hadn't tied in the
evidence of the security guard before. It seems to me that the puffs of
dust he saw coming from the exterior walls of the Broad Arrow caused by
bullet strikes within, might also indicate ricochets, which would add to
the deaths and injuries.
As you point out, these are fairly high powered rounds, and they wouldn't
stop after just one skull. The rounds themselves would have flattened and
fragmented as they passed through bone and bounced off the walls -- it is
actually surprising that there weren't *more* casualties including Bryant
himself.
All through that day, Bryant didn't manage to hit anybody that was more
than a few paces away. He didn't hit anybody whilst he was holed up in
Seascape, for instance. He was no marksman.
--
Cheers! Peter Mackay
peter....@bigpond.com
personal opinion only
Brian
>
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 13:12:49 +1000, Brian <br...@apex.net.au> wrote:
>
> >Noel Mc Donald wrote:
> >>
> >> If you can refrain from straying off topic, I will give you another
> >> chance Brian.
> >>
> >> How do you explain the fact that Bryant's Volvo was backed up to the
> >> front door at Seascape as reported by Mr Copping just after midday?
> >> And the drivers door was wide open also.
> >>
> >> This is a very crucial matter Brian, possibly you will shrug it off
> >> with some quip, I do realise that you do not have the resources that I
> >> do, but try and give it some analysis before I give you my
> >> explanation.
> >
> >Noel, I have no idea, nor do I care. Why do you continally avoid the
> >points I raise about Bryants "phenomenal accuracy" in the Broadarrow
> >Cafe?
> More proof of your ignorance Brian, the Volvo reversed into Seascape
> is one of the MAJOR events in the lead up to the massacre, proves you
> do not any nouse, nor an enquiring mind.
Funny, the Police and most of the public thought the shooting of 35
people was the major event of the massacre. Who cares what Bryant did,
before the massacre, now that the psychriatric assesement has been
released which shows he premedidated the act, Noel?
> As to Bryant's phenomenal accuracy, if you read the interrogation you
> will learn that he NEVER was very good at accuracy, further, he was
> never at Port Arthur, and you cannot prove he was, just as the
> prosecution could not Brian.
Noel, I rather think the point is, as I've shown in my hypothesis is
that Bryant didn't have to be particularly accurate. Something the
Foresenics Section of the Tasmanian Police have now confirmed. As soon
as I produced evidence which supported my hypothesis over your own and
showed that you had no evidence to support your claims that Bryant was
"phenomenally accurate", you clammed up on the issue. In particular, I
refer to you claims about the Dutton article which when I finally found,
were shown to in fact be quite false. I wonder why, Noel?
> >Why do you avoid the points raised in the Psychiatric assesement of
> >Bryant, which make it clear that he had premeditated the massacre?
> Merely someone's opinion, if I could choose all the questions I could
> probably make YOU to be the killer.
The opinion of a trained, professional psychriatrist who was hired to
analyse Bryant and his mind, Noel. I'll take his opinion over your's
any time. As to making me to be the killer, isn't that rather like your
claims that I was an ASIO agent? Just a load of codswallop, like all
your "theories" on this subject.
> >Why have you dropped your claims that ASIO were involved either in the
> >massacre itself or conspired to cover it up afterwards?
> Not very important, it is on public record that they DID attend, I
> have never said they took part or tried to cover it up, I do however
> think that the Tas police have made sure that people know that ASIO
> had there involvementat PA.
This is not what you initially claimed on the Public Debate website,
Noel where you said:
"Why ASIO?
Posted: December 17, 1999
By: Noel Mc Donald
Brian: In good time I will expand on the two gunmen.
For now I am more interested in the how and why of the
presence of ASIO at Port Arthur. Why also is there a
30 year embargo on all evidence, what could there be
to warrant a bit of public scrutiny.
As I'm sure you know Brian, ASIO do not have an
interest in domestic matters, their forte is terrorism
is it not? So, what were they doing there, and why did
they not prevent the massacre, which people on site
were ASIO agents? Under the circumstances of such a
tragedy, do you not think that the relatives of the
victims, and the survivors, deserve an explanation of
the ASIO involvement?"
From there, you launched into a complicated and tortured effort to try
and tie ASIO in, only to have it demolished by your own guru, Joe
Vialls!
It is just symptomatic of your approach, Noel. You take a completely
innocent fact and try and tie it into your grand conspiracy theories.
<shakes head>
> >Why do you avoid the point that the SOG observers utilising their night
> >scopes were only able to identify one person firing during the night
> >from the Seascape cottage?
> So what, just on dusk was the time they observed TWO gunmen.
Did they? In fact, they observed *_NO_* "gunmen", Noel, otherwise
they'd have shot them. They were able to see a person who appeared at
the windows occasionally but the shots themselves were ired from well
within the rooms. From information conveyed to me from Greg Shepherd,
he makes it clear that his friends within the Victorian SOG were unable
to actually identify whether the person who appeared at the window could
have been the one firing or not. Even if they had, apparently their
nightscopes were so in accurate that they'd have missed the broadside of
a barn, showing stationary objects as in fact moving.
However, you wouldn't know that, now would you? In your world, all
equipment works perfectly and all people react perfectly to any given
situation, don't they, Noel?
> >Why do you keep avoiding discussion of the supposed motive of these
> >"terrorists" of your's?
> Because I only deal in facts Brian, do you want me to assume what
> these terrorists have in their minds, next you will want me to tell
> all what YOU are thinking, wouldn't be much of an answer :-)
As I keep proving, Noel, you don't deal in facts. You deal in your own
deranged fantasies, Noel.
By trying to claim that it was in fact some mysterious group of
"terrorists" who were responsible for Port Arthur and then avoiding the
motive issue, you render your hypothesis of terrorists as being rather
silly. Remember, terrorists stage strikes to gain publicity for their
political cause. They don't do it purely for terror's sake and no one
has been willing to claim how the killing of 35 people in an obscure
Tasmanian tourist attraction would further any political cause, Noel.
> >Everytime you've been pressed at Public Debate, you've avoided those
> >points.
>
> And what have you done with my ONE question about the Volvo at
> Seascape if you have not AVOIDED it.
I've acknowledged it, Noel, I have shown how immaterial it is, to the
major points. How accurate was Bryant again?
Noel Mc Donald
has a closed mind, you may think that you are being clever Brian, but
your ignorance does yourself a great disservice by denying reality
from your fantasy existence.
Fortunately the world does not revolve around Brian Ross, your
ignorance at understanding reality is simply amazing.
Old fashioned nouse is something you will never achieve.
How childish to state the obvious that the slaughter of 35 innocent
people was the major issue, no wonder people consider you a jerk
Brian.
Noel
Rolie Baldock
many lies by politicians, bureaucrats and even scientists that they
are cynical. Treat all reports with the same scepticism. Both wealth
and power corrupt, is the common belief.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:02:02 +1000, Brian <br...@apex.net.au> wrote:
>Noel Mc Donald wrote:
>> =
>
>> There are a lot of threads on this topic, some seem to doubt the facts
>> as freely available in the public domain.
>> =
>
>> The Court document is the main reference for Port Arthur, it is the
>> "evidence" by which an innocent man has been convicted for a crime it
>> was impossible for him to commit.
>> =
>
>> The Court transcript devotes pages 191-195 to explain the numerous
>> deletions from the police interview, the "defence" did not even
>> challenge the deletions or the substitution of the audio of the video
>> with a seperate tape, a procedure that should have been laughed out of
>> court.
>> =
>
>> The interrogation has clearly omitted the parts that would have proved
>> that Bryant did not do the job, especially the parts that would have
>> proved the presence of the Terrorist Team at Seascape, this is clearly
>> evident in other snippets of information that have been released.
>> =
>Caf=82) [p.39, EMA, Port Arthur Seminar Papers]. Of course this is
>explanation of what happened at the Broadarrow Caf=82. Indeed, Vialls'
>-- =
>
>"The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the
>complete disappearance of the black race and the swift submergence of
>their progeny in the white." - Dr. Cecil Cook, =
>
> Northern Territory's Chief Protector of Aborigines (1927-1939)
--Rolie Baldock. email: <berd_kalamunda@'nospam'techemail.com>
Peter Mackay
> It is an absolute waste of energy attempting debate with someone that
> has a closed mind, you may think that you are being clever Brian, but
> your ignorance does yourself a great disservice by denying reality
> from your fantasy existence.
Whilst I might generally agree with you, Noel, I think the shoe is in the
other mouth in this case.
Brian has argued the facts of the matter, using checkable sources, and
has done so dispassionately and objectively. The crucial point is that he
killed and wounded more people inside the Broad Arrow Cafe than he fired
shots. What does your "super marksman" theory say about that?
> Fortunately the world does not revolve around Brian Ross, your
> ignorance at understanding reality is simply amazing.
> Old fashioned nouse is something you will never achieve.
>
> How childish to state the obvious that the slaughter of 35 innocent
> people was the major issue, no wonder people consider you a jerk
> Brian.
Whilst I might not agree with Brian's political opinions in most cases, I
find your defence of one of the more bizarre political fantasies to come
our way ever since Harold Holt was abducted by the Chinese to make you a
pretty good candidate for jerk of the year. The only thing saving you is
that several other jerks also share your views.
The fact is that Martin Bryant was rich, stupid, and lived a rich and
bizarre fantasy life. He bought a couple of military rifles under the
counter and lived out a fantasy, most probably trying to surpass the
"record" of the assassin of Dunblane a few weeks earlier. He pleaded
guilty and undoubtedly draws some sort of sick satisfaction for all of
the notoriety he caused worldwide.
Whilst I can't condone this in any way, I can at least understand that a
person like him might do such a thing, much as Lee Oswald killed JFK. The
bizarre conspiracy theories proposed by people with an axe to grind are
just so far-fetched that in order to make an attempt to believe them, we
find ourselves literally grasping at shadows. Patterns of leaves on the
grassy knoll turn into black helicopters, and a lunch break on a
tourist's video is seen as evidence of a massive conspiracy involving
almost every official from the Prime Minister down.
Go back to the Chinese submarine, Noel -- at least that one is
entertaining rather than sickening.
Noel Mc Donald
<peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
>In article <390a106d...@news.webaxs.net>, no...@webaxs.net says...
>> It is an absolute waste of energy attempting debate with someone that
>> has a closed mind, you may think that you are being clever Brian, but
>> your ignorance does yourself a great disservice by denying reality
>> from your fantasy existence.
>
>Whilst I might generally agree with you, Noel, I think the shoe is in the
>other mouth in this case.
>
>Brian has argued the facts of the matter, using checkable sources, and
>has done so dispassionately and objectively. The crucial point is that he
>killed and wounded more people inside the Broad Arrow Cafe than he fired
>shots. What does your "super marksman" theory say about that?
Wrong Peter, if you had viewed the continual OPINIONS of Brian on the
Public Debate board, you would realise that it was me that was
supplying the facts, Brian admittedly did not have the resources on
hand, he was pulling the facts out of his bum!
And you tell me Peter whether you are doing the same thing, what about
giving me some facts rather than opinion, suppose you tell me how many
shots were fired according to what source, and how many killed and how
many wounded in the cafe, then I will tell you whether you have your
facts right or not.
>> Fortunately the world does not revolve around Brian Ross, your
>> ignorance at understanding reality is simply amazing.
>> Old fashioned nouse is something you will never achieve.
>>
>> How childish to state the obvious that the slaughter of 35 innocent
>> people was the major issue, no wonder people consider you a jerk
>> Brian.
>
>Whilst I might not agree with Brian's political opinions in most cases, I
>find your defence of one of the more bizarre political fantasies to come
>our way ever since Harold Holt was abducted by the Chinese to make you a
>pretty good candidate for jerk of the year. The only thing saving you is
>that several other jerks also share your views.
But Peter, you have not yet heard my views, do you mean my general
views that Bryant is innocent?
That is only an opinion until you hear the argument that supports that
opinion.
>
>The fact is that Martin Bryant was rich, stupid, and lived a rich and
>bizarre fantasy life. He bought a couple of military rifles under the
>counter and lived out a fantasy, most probably trying to surpass the
>"record" of the assassin of Dunblane a few weeks earlier. He pleaded
>guilty and undoubtedly draws some sort of sick satisfaction for all of
>the notoriety he caused worldwide.
You possibly do not realise Peter that the DPP failed to prove that
Bryant was at Port Arthur, and that they failed to prove that the
murder weapon was Bryants gun, the AR15 in fact was connected to the
Victorian SOG, there is NO connection with Bryant.
Perhaps you are confused with Bryant's AR10, which was still at the
gun shop awaiting repair.
Noel
Peter Mackay
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 12:00:03 +1000, Peter Mackay
> <peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <390a106d...@news.webaxs.net>, no...@webaxs.net says...
> >> It is an absolute waste of energy attempting debate with someone that
> >> has a closed mind, you may think that you are being clever Brian, but
> >> your ignorance does yourself a great disservice by denying reality
> >> from your fantasy existence.
> >
> >Whilst I might generally agree with you, Noel, I think the shoe is in the
> >other mouth in this case.
> >
> >Brian has argued the facts of the matter, using checkable sources, and
> >has done so dispassionately and objectively. The crucial point is that he
> >killed and wounded more people inside the Broad Arrow Cafe than he fired
> >shots. What does your "super marksman" theory say about that?
>
> Wrong Peter, if you had viewed the continual OPINIONS of Brian on the
> Public Debate board,
I have. I generally don't agree with his opinions.
> you would realise that it was me that was
> supplying the facts, Brian admittedly did not have the resources on
> hand, he was pulling the facts out of his bum!
It looks like he's got the goods on what happened. He provided checkable
sources for all of his material. You might not agree with the conclusion,
but you wouldn't, would you?
>
> And you tell me Peter whether you are doing the same thing, what about
> giving me some facts rather than opinion, suppose you tell me how many
> shots were fired according to what source, and how many killed and how
> many wounded in the cafe, then I will tell you whether you have your
> facts right or not.
Brian did all this. But since you ask:
***BEGIN QUOTE
Subject: Re: The FACTS about Port Arthur
From: Brian <br...@apex.net.au>
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:02:02 +1000
Noel Mc Donald wrote:
> =
> There are a lot of threads on this topic, some seem to doubt the facts
> as freely available in the public domain.
> =
> The Court document is the main reference for Port Arthur, it is the
> "evidence" by which an innocent man has been convicted for a crime it
> was impossible for him to commit.
> =
> The Court transcript devotes pages 191-195 to explain the numerous
> deletions from the police interview, the "defence" did not even
> challenge the deletions or the substitution of the audio of the video
> with a seperate tape, a procedure that should have been laughed out of
> court.
> =
> The interrogation has clearly omitted the parts that would have proved
> that Bryant did not do the job, especially the parts that would have
> proved the presence of the Terrorist Team at Seascape, this is clearly
> evident in other snippets of information that have been released.
> =
----------------------------------------------
Caf=82) [p.39, EMA, Port Arthur Seminar Papers]. Of course this is
explanation of what happened at the Broadarrow Caf=82. Indeed, Vialls'
BIBLIOGRAPHY
***END QUOTE
>
> >> Fortunately the world does not revolve around Brian Ross, your
> >> ignorance at understanding reality is simply amazing.
> >> Old fashioned nouse is something you will never achieve.
> >>
> >> How childish to state the obvious that the slaughter of 35 innocent
> >> people was the major issue, no wonder people consider you a jerk
> >> Brian.
> >
> >Whilst I might not agree with Brian's political opinions in most cases, I
> >find your defence of one of the more bizarre political fantasies to come
> >our way ever since Harold Holt was abducted by the Chinese to make you a
> >pretty good candidate for jerk of the year. The only thing saving you is
> >that several other jerks also share your views.
>
> But Peter, you have not yet heard my views, do you mean my general
> views that Bryant is innocent?
I'm sorry -- I've kept track of what you've had to say here and on other
sites. If you believe what you say, you are a first class idiot.
> That is only an opinion until you hear the argument that supports that
> opinion.
>
> >
> >The fact is that Martin Bryant was rich, stupid, and lived a rich and
> >bizarre fantasy life. He bought a couple of military rifles under the
> >counter and lived out a fantasy, most probably trying to surpass the
> >"record" of the assassin of Dunblane a few weeks earlier. He pleaded
> >guilty and undoubtedly draws some sort of sick satisfaction for all of
> >the notoriety he caused worldwide.
>
> You possibly do not realise Peter that the DPP failed to prove that
> Bryant was at Port Arthur,
He pleaded guilty, you goose! There was no trial, so the DPP didn't have
to prove anything. But there were more than enough survivors to identify
Bryant if required.
> and that they failed to prove that the
> murder weapon was Bryants gun, the AR15 in fact was connected to the
> Victorian SOG, there is NO connection with Bryant.
He said they were his weapons. He used two rifles, BTW -- his gun was not
used in the massacre.
> Perhaps you are confused with Bryant's AR10, which was still at the
> gun shop awaiting repair.
No. Try addressing the points raised by Brian. Why don't you do that?
Noel Mc Donald
<peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
<snipped all the opinion and non official claptrap>
Nice try Peter, but try using the official source material, not what
Brian Ross has discovered or his interpretation of the EMA papers.
Especially his stupid OPINION that says the gunman could achieve that
killrate by "spraying" the bullers around.
That crappy opininion PROVES that none of the official info has been
sourced.
Noel
ps don't bother quoting info that is just opinion, stick to what is on
public record.
rexion...@my-deja.com
no...@webaxs.net (Noel Mc Donald) wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 13:11:32 +1000, Peter Mackay
> <peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
> <snipped all the opinion and non official claptrap>
>
> Nice try Peter, but try using the official source material, not what
> Brian Ross has discovered or his interpretation of the EMA papers.
Yea, Bro! Stick to the fishal dox what sez it all a big fit up!
>
> Especially his stupid OPINION that says the gunman could achieve that
> killrate by "spraying" the bullers around.
> That crappy opininion PROVES that none of the official info has been
> sourced.
And it be my OPINION that Martin Bryant be INNOCENT!!!!
Travesty of JUSTICE.
ex-SAS trooper AIRDROPPED IN to shoot em up.
>
> Noel
> ps don't bother quoting info that is just opinion, stick to what is on
> public record.
Right ON! You got the dox!
And it be the PUBLIC RECORD that Martin Bryant be INNOCENT!!!!
Travesty of JUSTICE.
ex-SAS trooper AIRDROPPED IN to shoot em up.
Yo Bro!
Doctor Rammer Doc Doc
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Noel Mc Donald
>>
>> Especially his stupid OPINION that says the gunman could achieve that
>> killrate by "spraying" the bullers around.
>> That crappy opininion PROVES that none of the official info has been
>> sourced.
The comment below has no connection with the above opinion.
>
>And just where in "the official source material" does it say that Bryant
>was innocent, or that some sort of super-marksmen was brought in to do
>the job?
What a silly biased comment, how could the official line suggest his
innocence when the DPP, and the defence both had the same goal,
Bryant's conviction.
Equally absurd is the idiotic super-marksmen comment, I would have
thought that you would be a fair intelligent person Peter, your bias
is making you look rather bad.
Incidentally, the official line does explain the presence of more than
one gunman, and did you ever think that the gunmen at Seascape would
NOT have wanted to injure a Policeman!
And Peter, you seem to have read even less than Brian, you obviously
have very little in the way of resources, guess it doesn't stop you
from having an uneducated opinion either!
Noel
>
>Isn't that just your OPINION?
>>
>> Noel
>> ps don't bother quoting info that is just opinion, stick to what is on
>> public record.
>
>Why don't you follow your own advice?
Peter Mackay
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 13:11:32 +1000, Peter Mackay
> <peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
> <snipped all the opinion and non official claptrap>
Nice debating tactic! Let's just see what you snipped, shall we?
The crucial point is the very last line: "Try addressing the points
raised by Brian. Why don't you do that?"
Why don't you, Noel?
<unsnip>
in article <390b696e...@news.webaxs.net>, no...@webaxs.net says...
----------------------------------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
used in the massacre.
<end unsnip>
>
> Nice try Peter, but try using the official source material, not what
> Brian Ross has discovered or his interpretation of the EMA papers.
Brian looks to have used valid sources.
>
> Especially his stupid OPINION that says the gunman could achieve that
> killrate by "spraying" the bullers around.
> That crappy opininion PROVES that none of the official info has been
> sourced.
And just where in "the official source material" does it say that Bryant
was innocent, or that some sort of super-marksmen was brought in to do
the job?
Isn't that just your OPINION?
>
> Noel
> ps don't bother quoting info that is just opinion, stick to what is on
> public record.
Why don't you follow your own advice?
--
Peter Mackay
>
> >>
> >> Especially his stupid OPINION that says the gunman could achieve that
> >> killrate by "spraying" the bullers around.
> >> That crappy opininion PROVES that none of the official info has been
> >> sourced.
>
> >
> >was innocent, or that some sort of super-marksmen was brought in to do
> >the job?
> innocence when the DPP, and the defence both had the same goal,
> Bryant's conviction.
So what official sources come out and state the conclusions you have
reached? None.
All we have is your opinion.
And when, precisely, are you going to address the points raised by Brian?
If you can't do so, then you have zero credibility.
Kylie Lovett
on that day.....
This man should be shot, for what he has done....
Kylie
--
Brian
>
> It is an absolute waste of energy attempting debate with someone that
> has a closed mind, you may think that you are being clever Brian, but
> your ignorance does yourself a great disservice by denying reality
> from your fantasy existence.
> ignorance at understanding reality is simply amazing.
> Old fashioned nouse is something you will never achieve.
>
> How childish to state the obvious that the slaughter of 35 innocent
> people was the major issue, no wonder people consider you a jerk
> Brian.
Appears, as usual I hit a nerve, Noel by dragging you, kicking and
screaming back to the real point of any investigation of the Port Arthur
Massacre. You would prefer to concentrate on the minor and
inconsequential in your efforts to shore up your wild fantasies about
Bryant rather than actually look at a _realistic_ hypothesis, which
shows your own ideas are way out in la-la-land, Noel.
Brian
>
> The problem with all this analysis is that the citizens have seen so
> many lies by politicians, bureaucrats and even scientists that they
> are cynical. Treat all reports with the same scepticism. Both wealth
> and power corrupt, is the common belief.
Then, perhaps you should note, that unlike Vialls and Noel, I provide
clear and checkable references to all the points I make. This
hypothesis has in fact been, since I made that original posting,
confirmed by the Tasmanian Police Foresenic Section indirectly. This
appear to be far more in the realms of possibility than the
conspiracicists' theories about black helicopters and mind-control laser
satellites. Rolie.
If you don't believe me, check the references yourself. Compare them to
what Vialls' claims but provides no references for. Which do you think
is the more believable?
--
"The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the
complete disappearance of the black race and the swift submergence of
their progeny in the white." - Dr. Cecil Cook,
Brian
>
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 13:11:32 +1000, Peter Mackay
> <peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
> <snipped all the opinion and non official claptrap>
>
> Brian Ross has discovered or his interpretation of the EMA papers.
>
> killrate by "spraying" the bullers around.
> That crappy opininion PROVES that none of the official info has been
> sourced.
Noel, my sources are on record, I have placed them there in the debate.
Walk into any reputably libary around the world and you should be able
to find them. You, on the otherhand, like Vialls, like to play your
cards very close to your chest. Never quite revealling exactly what
little gems of information you believe you've dug up unless you know it
will further your lunatic conspiracy theories.
Now, Noel, until you start actually *_THINKING_*_CRITICALLY_*, you're
going to accept each and every little piece of bullshit which you're fed
by the likes of Toby Easterhaze.
> ps don't bother quoting info that is just opinion, stick to what is on
> public record.
Are you claiming now that the points I've made about the wounding
characterististics of the M-193 round are not a matter of public record,
Noel? What about the recoil of the AR-15/M-16 rifle, versus its weight,
Noel? The sitting position of the majority of the victims in the
Broadarrow Cafe? The list goes on, Noel. That even Peter Mackay, one
of my most implacable banes on the net can actually see that the
hypothesis I've pitted against your's is more believable than your's,
despite his personal animosity for me, should indicate to even you,
Noel, that something is not quite right in the state of Denmark as far
as your own hypothesis is concerned!
Except for you, its just "business as usual". Your mind reverts to the
well-established and hard working ruts its occupied for so long that you
cannot accept a new idea when challenged by it.
Noel Mc Donald
over into a number of forums is that of credibilty, people like Brian
and Peter are what I would term mainstream political analysts that
will never disagree with the line that the "can't do any wrong"
Government, whereas I have been proving the Government line wrong for
some years now in the Political Arena.
In this area I have an enviable record that few have achieved, my
credibility has been recognised by Journalists and Editors, every
letter to the papers has thus far been published, a number have even
been featured, some in the Herald-Sun, despite being what I am sure
Brian would call, "of a conspiratorial nature".
Even my Website has recieved official government recognition in the
political field, so if my research and writing have been so on the
ball for so long, how can people like Brian suddenly disagree with the
truth on one matter only, that of Port Arthur being a total mishmash
of lies and deception.
I have had a lot of feedback from some noted people in contact with
different groups of technical people around Australia, and the cynical
doubt raised by blinkered biased bastions of conservative opinion of
the like of Brian and Peter are NOT shared by a great many people that
have some expereince and knowledge in such matters as PA.
This topic of PA railroading an innocent patsy is being doubted by
Brian Ross who knows so little about Australian Politics, of which he
like to have his say, that he does not know ANYTHING about the NIEO,
the main instrument of Australia'a recession, HAHA.
Noel
Brian
>
> One factor that has not been brought into this discussion which spills
> over into a number of forums is that of credibilty, people like Brian
> and Peter are what I would term mainstream political analysts that
> will never disagree with the line that the "can't do any wrong"
> Government, whereas I have been proving the Government line wrong for
> some years now in the Political Arena.
Noel. Noel. Noel, you just kill me. You really bloody do. You assume
that simply because we disbelieve that someone like Bryant is capable of
committing the massacre at Port Arthur that therefore we believe the
government can never commit any wrong?
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, what a leap of logic. Its like your "terrorist team", Noel.
Perhaps I should recount how you once believed that a _submarine_ had
been used to spirit your mysterious "terrorist team" or assassin away
from the Seascape cottages, after the building had been set alight?
Unfortunately, the building had been under rather intense observation
the preceeding 24 hours, which rather destroyed that lunatic claim, now
hadn't, Noel?
There is, in case you haven't noticed it, rather a world of difference
between believing a lone, nut gunman was capable of committing a large
scale massacre and that the government of Australia is infallible. Its
time you learnt it, I think.
> In this area I have an enviable record that few have achieved, my
> credibility has been recognised by Journalists and Editors, every
> letter to the papers has thus far been published, a number have even
> been featured, some in the Herald-Sun, despite being what I am sure
> Brian would call, "of a conspiratorial nature".
If you are so credible, Noel, how come I've never seen one (1) of your
letters to the editor, published in any of the mainstream broadsheets?
Perhaps you'd like to provide a list of them, so that they can be
checked? If "Journalists" beat a path to your door, as you imply, why
have none of the lunatic conspiracies that you promote, ever been shown
to be true? Talk about having a self-inflated sense of oneself, Noel.
> Even my Website has recieved official government recognition in the
> political field, so if my research and writing have been so on the
> ball for so long, how can people like Brian suddenly disagree with the
> truth on one matter only, that of Port Arthur being a total mishmash
> of lies and deception.
What "official government recognition" is this, Noel? Provide proof
please. Could it be that its for Psychiatric trials?
> I have had a lot of feedback from some noted people in contact with
> different groups of technical people around Australia, and the cynical
> doubt raised by blinkered biased bastions of conservative opinion of
> the like of Brian and Peter are NOT shared by a great many people that
> have some expereince and knowledge in such matters as PA.
*YAWN*, been blowing, or perhaps I should suggest, playing with your own
trumpet for long? ;-)
> This topic of PA railroading an innocent patsy is being doubted by
> Brian Ross who knows so little about Australian Politics, of which he
> like to have his say, that he does not know ANYTHING about the NIEO,
> the main instrument of Australia'a recession, HAHA.
Noel, for a person who claims he "knows it all", you are going to have
learn one main important lesson. Here, people don't give a flying fuck
about what happens to you outside of aus.politics. Inside aus.politics,
its your knowledge _and_ your ability to debate which is important.
Here, no mercy is shown. This is not nicknamed the "shark pool" for
nothing.
This far, all you've revealed about yourself is that you like to blow
your own horn and big note yourself. You have, thus far, just as in
Public Debate, refused to debate the points I keep raising. All that
indicates to my fellow aus.politics debators is that you are unable to.
Time to wake up, smell the coffee and start to debate, Noel.
Peter Mackay
> Noel Mc Donald wrote:
> >
> > One factor that has not been brought into this discussion which spills
> > over into a number of forums is that of credibilty, people like Brian
> > and Peter are what I would term mainstream political analysts that
> > will never disagree with the line that the "can't do any wrong"
> > Government, whereas I have been proving the Government line wrong for
> > some years now in the Political Arena.
>
> Noel. Noel. Noel, you just kill me. You really bloody do. You assume
> that simply because we disbelieve that someone like Bryant is capable of
> committing the massacre at Port Arthur that therefore we believe the
> government can never commit any wrong?
>
> ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Noel's logic is peccable.
>
> Wow, what a leap of logic. Its like your "terrorist team", Noel.
> Perhaps I should recount how you once believed that a _submarine_ had
> been used to spirit your mysterious "terrorist team" or assassin away
> from the Seascape cottages, after the building had been set alight?
This would be a Chinese submarine, Comrade Holt commanding?
> Unfortunately, the building had been under rather intense observation
> the preceeding 24 hours, which rather destroyed that lunatic claim, now
> hadn't, Noel?
>
> There is, in case you haven't noticed it, rather a world of difference
> between believing a lone, nut gunman was capable of committing a large
> scale massacre and that the government of Australia is infallible. Its
> time you learnt it, I think.
>
> > In this area I have an enviable record that few have achieved, my
> > credibility has been recognised by Journalists and Editors, every
> > letter to the papers has thus far been published, a number have even
> > been featured, some in the Herald-Sun, despite being what I am sure
> > Brian would call, "of a conspiratorial nature".
>
> If you are so credible, Noel, how come I've never seen one (1) of your
> letters to the editor, published in any of the mainstream broadsheets?
> Perhaps you'd like to provide a list of them, so that they can be
> checked? If "Journalists" beat a path to your door, as you imply, why
> have none of the lunatic conspiracies that you promote, ever been shown
> to be true? Talk about having a self-inflated sense of oneself, Noel.
Tony Pitt puts out some far right wing rag, I understand. I'd be
surprised if it was still going, considering the predictions he was
making about the Y2K end of the world.
Noel Mc Donald
<peter....@bigpond.com> wrote:
>In article <39118567...@apex.net.au>, br...@apex.net.au says...
>> Peter Mackay wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <3911178A...@apex.net.au>, br...@apex.net.au says...
>> > > Noel Mc Donald wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> > > Wow, what a leap of logic. Its like your "terrorist team", Noel.
>> > > Perhaps I should recount how you once believed that a _submarine_ had
>> > > been used to spirit your mysterious "terrorist team" or assassin away
>> > > from the Seascape cottages, after the building had been set alight?
I Believe what I said was that the Team could have escaped by water
with SCUBA gear, not a submarine silly, or they could have simply
walked through the bush.
>> >
>> > This would be a Chinese submarine, Comrade Holt commanding?
>>
>> No idea. I actually thought it was that yellow one...
>
>It was on a magical mystery tour. Like Surcouf, it had a watertight
>hangar for the black helicopter, which explains why the police didn't see
>the ex-SAS terrorist being extracted.
>>
>> However, before other readers think I am being too harsh on poor Noel, I
>> should suggest that they read up on some of Noel's more, shall we say,
>> "interesting" utterances?
>>
>> He believes that NASA faked the moon landings.
Yes, that is my belief.
>
>Yup, once those rockets go out of eyeshot, who can tell where they went?
>Apart from radar and tracking the radio transmissions and all of that. I
>suppose Apollo 13 was a desperate attempt to build up dramatic tension.
>
>You'd think NASA would have learnt from their stunning success and made
>some of these Mars probes look a bit more successful instead of failing
>embarrassingly. Maybe they should shift the Jet Propulsion Lab down the
>road from Pasadena to Hollywood?
>>
>> We have been visited by Aliens from outerspace.
Of course, that is fact!
>
>Hang on. He probably speaks from personal experience. I'd give him the
>benefit of the doubt on this one.
>>
>> He believes the Biltberger/illuminati/NWO/etc. Conspiracy controls world
>> events.
Of course they play a major part.
>
>I've got a set of cards that demonstrates this in a way a child could
>understand. It all fits together...
>>
>> He promotes Hollow Earth theories on his webpage.
Eh, which page would that be, I do NOT believe in that one, where on
my site is that one???
>
>Something's round and hollow, but it's a little closer to his shoulders
>than the Earth.
>>
>> He believes the Australian constitution is invalid.
Easily proven, yes it is invalid.
>
>Some of the extremities are a bit old and tired, but it is hardly an
>invalid. A very healthy constitution indeed. Don't tell me -- he voted to
>keep it just the way it is?
>>
>> And thats just a few of the juicier ones.
>
>I'm not at all surprised. I can guess what his position on JFK is, too...
>
>A bit like shooting ducks in a barrel, however. The poor chap probably
>believes in all this nonsense, and a wise person would leave him to shout
>on his street corner.
>
>Then again, the prospect of kicking him while he's down has its
>attractions.
Brian
>
> In article <3911178A...@apex.net.au>, br...@apex.net.au says...
> > Noel Mc Donald wrote:
[snip]
> > Wow, what a leap of logic. Its like your "terrorist team", Noel.
> > Perhaps I should recount how you once believed that a _submarine_ had
> > been used to spirit your mysterious "terrorist team" or assassin away
> > from the Seascape cottages, after the building had been set alight?
>
> This would be a Chinese submarine, Comrade Holt commanding?
No idea. I actually thought it was that yellow one...
However, before other readers think I am being too harsh on poor Noel, I
should suggest that they read up on some of Noel's more, shall we say,
"interesting" utterances?
He believes that NASA faked the moon landings.
We have been visited by Aliens from outerspace.
He believes the Biltberger/illuminati/NWO/etc. Conspiracy controls world
events.
He promotes Hollow Earth theories on his webpage.
He believes the Australian constitution is invalid.
And thats just a few of the juicier ones.
[snip]
> > > In this area I have an enviable record that few have achieved, my
> > > credibility has been recognised by Journalists and Editors, every
> > > letter to the papers has thus far been published, a number have even
> > > been featured, some in the Herald-Sun, despite being what I am sure
> > > Brian would call, "of a conspiratorial nature".
> >
> > If you are so credible, Noel, how come I've never seen one (1) of your
> > letters to the editor, published in any of the mainstream broadsheets?
> > Perhaps you'd like to provide a list of them, so that they can be
> > checked? If "Journalists" beat a path to your door, as you imply, why
> > have none of the lunatic conspiracies that you promote, ever been shown
> > to be true? Talk about having a self-inflated sense of oneself, Noel.
>
> Tony Pitt puts out some far right wing rag, I understand. I'd be
> surprised if it was still going, considering the predictions he was
> making about the Y2K end of the world.
Last time I checked, he's still on the web, Peter. Still spewing the
same right-wing lunatic crap he always has. No embarassment over his
predictions being wrong though...
Noel can claim to have had letters published but unless he provides
references, why should we believe him?
Peter Mackay
> >
> > In article <3911178A...@apex.net.au>, br...@apex.net.au says...
> > > Noel Mc Donald wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > > Wow, what a leap of logic. Its like your "terrorist team", Noel.
> > > Perhaps I should recount how you once believed that a _submarine_ had
> > > been used to spirit your mysterious "terrorist team" or assassin away
> > > from the Seascape cottages, after the building had been set alight?
> >
> > This would be a Chinese submarine, Comrade Holt commanding?
>
> No idea. I actually thought it was that yellow one...
It was on a magical mystery tour. Like Surcouf, it had a watertight
hangar for the black helicopter, which explains why the police didn't see
the ex-SAS terrorist being extracted.
>
> However, before other readers think I am being too harsh on poor Noel, I
> should suggest that they read up on some of Noel's more, shall we say,
> "interesting" utterances?
>
> He believes that NASA faked the moon landings.
Yup, once those rockets go out of eyeshot, who can tell where they went?
Apart from radar and tracking the radio transmissions and all of that. I
suppose Apollo 13 was a desperate attempt to build up dramatic tension.
You'd think NASA would have learnt from their stunning success and made
some of these Mars probes look a bit more successful instead of failing
embarrassingly. Maybe they should shift the Jet Propulsion Lab down the
road from Pasadena to Hollywood?
>
> We have been visited by Aliens from outerspace.
Hang on. He probably speaks from personal experience. I'd give him the
benefit of the doubt on this one.
>
> He believes the Biltberger/illuminati/NWO/etc. Conspiracy controls world
> events.
I've got a set of cards that demonstrates this in a way a child could
understand. It all fits together...
>
> He promotes Hollow Earth theories on his webpage.
Something's round and hollow, but it's a little closer to his shoulders
than the Earth.
>
> He believes the Australian constitution is invalid.
Some of the extremities are a bit old and tired, but it is hardly an
invalid. A very healthy constitution indeed. Don't tell me -- he voted to
keep it just the way it is?
>
> And thats just a few of the juicier ones.
I'm not at all surprised. I can guess what his position on JFK is, too...
Brian
> In article <39118567...@apex.net.au>, br...@apex.net.au says...
> > Peter Mackay wrote:
> > > In article <3911178A...@apex.net.au>, br...@apex.net.au says...
> > > > Noel Mc Donald wrote:
[snip]
> > > > Wow, what a leap of logic. Its like your "terrorist team", Noel.
> > > > Perhaps I should recount how you once believed that a _submarine_ had
> > > > been used to spirit your mysterious "terrorist team" or assassin away
> > > > from the Seascape cottages, after the building had been set alight?
> > >
> > > This would be a Chinese submarine, Comrade Holt commanding?
> >
> > No idea. I actually thought it was that yellow one...
>
> It was on a magical mystery tour. Like Surcouf, it had a watertight
> hangar for the black helicopter, which explains why the police didn't see
> the ex-SAS terrorist being extracted.
Yes, when they were all told, "hide your eyes", they of course obeyed
the command, whilst the chopper swooped in for that fast extraction,
Peter. ;-)
> > However, before other readers think I am being too harsh on poor Noel, I
> > should suggest that they read up on some of Noel's more, shall we say,
> > "interesting" utterances?
> >
> > He believes that NASA faked the moon landings.
>
> Yup, once those rockets go out of eyeshot, who can tell where they went?
> Apart from radar and tracking the radio transmissions and all of that. I
> suppose Apollo 13 was a desperate attempt to build up dramatic tension.
A rogue script-writer perhaps? Perhaps NASA knew they had to distract
the population from Vietnam?
> You'd think NASA would have learnt from their stunning success and made
> some of these Mars probes look a bit more successful instead of failing
> embarrassingly. Maybe they should shift the Jet Propulsion Lab down the
> road from Pasadena to Hollywood?
Spielberg and Lucas could both bid on the contract. Personally I'd
prefer a Ridley Scott version. We'd be rid of those trite all-American
Astronauts with their annoyingly _nice_ lives.
> > We have been visited by Aliens from outerspace.
>
> Hang on. He probably speaks from personal experience. I'd give him the
> benefit of the doubt on this one
I want to know if he's experienced an abuduction? Perhaps they sent
back the wrong one? ;-)
> > He believes the Biltberger/illuminati/NWO/etc. Conspiracy controls world
> > events.
>
> I've got a set of cards that demonstrates this in a way a child could
> understand. It all fits together...
Twas the Servants of Cthulu, I maintain! They are the ones in _real_
control of the world! ;-)
> > He promotes Hollow Earth theories on his webpage.
>
> Something's round and hollow, but it's a little closer to his shoulders
> than the Earth.
If you knock his head, do you get an echo?
> > He believes the Australian constitution is invalid.
>
> Some of the extremities are a bit old and tired, but it is hardly an
> invalid. A very healthy constitution indeed. Don't tell me -- he voted to
> keep it just the way it is?
Of course he did, despite believing its invalid! Its the usual bullshit
that it was made invalid by the Treaty of Versailles, Peter.
> > And thats just a few of the juicier ones.
>
> I'm not at all surprised. I can guess what his position on JFK is, too...
Funny you should bring that up, Peter. Noel follows the Vialls' line
that the JFK conspiracy was a case of a "patsy" being used to coverup a
grand conspiracy. His proof of this is the claim that a "New Zealand,
Christchurch newspaper" published revelations, including that Oswald was
responsible for the assassination _before_ it had happened.
When I've challenged Noel on this to cite the reference to the
newspaper, he refused to. However, today, on the Public Debate Website,
another poster finally dredged it up. It appears the claim is based on
claims published in the book by L. Fletcher Prouty, JFK (New York, NY:
Birch Lane Press, 1992). If you read the website though, at
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty2.txt, one finds a very different story
indeed!
I'll be interested to see what his comments are in reply!
> A bit like shooting ducks in a barrel, however. The poor chap probably
> believes in all this nonsense, and a wise person would leave him to shout
> on his street corner.
I wouldn't mind it if he was doing it on a street corner. Everybody
could see and percieve him as the loon he actually he is. Problem is,
on the internet, no one knows your a dog, Peter, as you're well aware.
Noel plays on people's credibility by posting half-truths and factoids,
which on the surface appear quite truthful but if dig into are soon
shown to be bullshit.
Scott Hillard
Brian <br...@apex.net.au> wrote in message
news:391755EF...@apex.net.au...
> > > He believes that NASA faked the moon landings.
> > Yup, once those rockets go out of eyeshot, who can tell where they went?
> > Apart from radar and tracking the radio transmissions and all of that. I
> > suppose Apollo 13 was a desperate attempt to build up dramatic tension.
> A rogue script-writer perhaps? Perhaps NASA knew they had to distract
> the population from Vietnam?
Actually, there is some (limited) factual basis for those assertions.
There's a series of photos from one of the final missions (where the
commander was distinguished by a red helmet, rather than the all-white model
used my Armstrong and Aldrin) that are quite obviously faked. The shadows
are all wrong, betraying several light sources.
Whoops.
The obvious explaination is that the boys were either up to something secret
so the shots had to be substituted, or there was a SNAFU with the camera
gear or film, and nobody at NASA wanted to own up to the public.
What should be of greater concern to the conspiracy nutters is the fact that
Freemasons own the moon. Buzz Aldrin claimed it in the name of the Grand
Lodge of Texas, and carved a whopping great square and compass logo into the
dust up there.
Brian
>
> Brian <br...@apex.net.au> wrote in message
> news:391755EF...@apex.net.au...
> > > > He believes that NASA faked the moon landings.
>
> > > Yup, once those rockets go out of eyeshot, who can tell where they went?
> > > Apart from radar and tracking the radio transmissions and all of that. I
> > > suppose Apollo 13 was a desperate attempt to build up dramatic tension.
>
> > A rogue script-writer perhaps? Perhaps NASA knew they had to distract
> > the population from Vietnam?
>
> Actually, there is some (limited) factual basis for those assertions.
> There's a series of photos from one of the final missions (where the
> commander was distinguished by a red helmet, rather than the all-white model
> used my Armstrong and Aldrin) that are quite obviously faked. The shadows
> are all wrong, betraying several light sources.
Actually, Scott, NASA admits that it has used composite photos. Nothing
unusual in that, for dramatic effect. Noel's claims however, go far
beyond that to claiming that the entire moon missions were faked. Makes
me wonder why the Soviets didn't leap in and publicise that no
spacecraft actually went to the moon, or that the signals were not
coming from, considering their massive surviellance effort following the
US space program.
> Whoops.
>
> The obvious explaination is that the boys were either up to something secret
> so the shots had to be substituted, or there was a SNAFU with the camera
> gear or film, and nobody at NASA wanted to own up to the public.
Wrong. Simple explanations are always the best, Scott. Its more than
likely a composite shot.
> What should be of greater concern to the conspiracy nutters is the fact that
> Freemasons own the moon. Buzz Aldrin claimed it in the name of the Grand
> Lodge of Texas, and carved a whopping great square and compass logo into the
> dust up there.
Yeah, sure. Why do you have keep dragging Perry and James into this all
the time, Scott?
Scott Hillard
> Scott Hillard wrote:
> > What should be of greater concern to the conspiracy nutters is the fact
that
> > Freemasons own the moon. Buzz Aldrin claimed it in the name of the
Grand
> > Lodge of Texas, and carved a whopping great square and compass logo into
the
> > dust up there.
> Yeah, sure.
From the horses mouth......
> "The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the
> complete disappearance of the black race and the swift submergence of
> their progeny in the white." - Dr. Cecil Cook,
> Northern Territory's Chief Protector of Aborigines (1927-1939)
Well, he had a point.... 3:-)
Brian
>
> Brian <br...@apex.net.au> wrote in message
> news:391806A7...@apex.net.au...
> > Scott Hillard wrote:
>
> > > What should be of greater concern to the conspiracy nutters is the fact
> that
> > > Freemasons own the moon. Buzz Aldrin claimed it in the name of the
> Grand
> > > Lodge of Texas, and carved a whopping great square and compass logo into
> the
> > > dust up there.
>
> > Yeah, sure.
>
> From the horses mouth......
Back to your old tricks of quoting out of context, again, Scott?
> > "The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the
> > complete disappearance of the black race and the swift submergence of
> > their progeny in the white." - Dr. Cecil Cook,
> > Northern Territory's Chief Protector of Aborigines (1927-1939)
>
> Well, he had a point.... 3:-)
And that point was _what_ exactly, Scott?
--
John Beaderstadt
> More to the point, one must ask why would the Yanks go to such enormous
> expense in a massive conspiracy that could, as Brian notes, be easily
> exposed by the Soviets, who were bitter rivals at the time.
For that matter, what about America's present "bitter rivals"? Why is the "evidence"
of American fraud only in the hands of private individuals and not in the hands of
less-than-friendly nations, and/or why are these private individuals the only ones
willing to expose America? I wonder if any of the conspiracy theorists would care to
address why Castro, say, hasn't stuck it to America on this issue? In 30 years, he's
been unable to get his hands on any of the material that floats so freely around the
world?
--
"I tried to imagine the easiest way God could have done it."
--Albert Einstein
Peter Mackay
NASA has vast amounts of photographic and other material on-line. Perhaps
instead of just talking about dodgy photos, we could actually look at
some?
More to the point, one must ask why would the Yanks go to such enormous
expense in a massive conspiracy that could, as Brian notes, be easily
exposed by the Soviets, who were bitter rivals at the time.
--