Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: agenda21nwo on June 19, 2014, 02:49:05 AM
-
http://www.truthology.org.au/index.php/posts/430-the-port-arthur-massacre-false-flag
-
-
-
really sad a gullible public could no see what a scam it was
Thanks for posting this
-
He supposedly has an IQ of 66 yet hit 19 of 20 shots at close range with a high powered firearm.
He pled not guilty so they delayed the trial until he pled guilty.
Australia is as corrupt as any nation, the heads of state think they are smarter than anyone. Couldn't get away with this now with video's on every phone.
-
Let me give you an example of the people you are trying to fool in Australia.
Vince Basile. Rest my case.
-
Is this Kobe's dad?
-
I wouldn't say innocent
As he admitted to that whole guy in the BMW as hostage situation
But certainly a strange turn of events prior to, during and after the massacre.
-
I wouldn't say innocent
As he admitted to that whole guy in the BMW as hostage situation
But certainly a strange turn of events prior to, during and after the massacre.
He never admited to the hostage situation that "actually occurred" - he admitted to a hostage situation at a different location with different people, who "never existed." Police never could work out who these mystery people were - and no one fitting their description was harmed or missing. It is as if he was "prompted" or coerced or was "playing a role".
-
Brigadier Ted Serong, former head of Australian forces in Vietnam, was just as impressed. In 1999, Serong—who explained that his eyes had first been opened by the "astonishing proportion of killed to wounded"—told Melbourne newspaper the Age:
"There was an almost satanic accuracy to that shooting performance. Whoever did it is better than I am, and there are not too many people around here better than I am."
http://www.whale.to/b/wernerhoff.html
-
Martin Bryant, an intellectually impaired registered invalid with no training in the use of high powered assault weapons, could not under any circumstances have achieved or maintained the incredibly high and consistent killed-to-injured ratio and kill-rate which were bench marks of the port Arthur massacre. Whoever was on the trigger that fateful day demonstrated professional skills equal to some of the best special forces shooters in the world, His critical error lay in killing too many people too quickly while injuring far too few, thereby exposing himself for what he was: a highly trained combat shooter probably ranked among the top twenty such specialists in the western world.
Over the years television viewers have been subjected to such a barrage of Rambo-style television programs that most now believe every time Sylvester Stallone points a gun and pulls the trigger, twenty bad guys immediately fall down dead from lethal shots to the head or heart. Unfortunately this Hollywood media rubbish is hopelessly misleading and in no way reflects the difficulties involved in killing large numbers of people quickly, regardless of whether those people are armed or not, and regardless of the ranges involved. For a number of reasons explained later, killing efficiently at close range in crowded and confined spaces presents the shooter with far more complex targeting problems than those associated with conventional open-air combat scenarios.
Media claims that those killed in the Broad Arrow Cafe were shot at point- blank range where 'Bryant' could not possibly have missed are complete rubbish. Point- blank range is where the muzzle of the weapon is held against the body of the target, In the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter fired at an average range of twelve feet, where a tiny aim-off error of three degrees is enough to ensure that a bullet completely misses a target the size of a human head.
Readers are invited to prove to themselves just how small an error that is, by laying two twelve-foot long pieces of string flat on the floor alongside of each other, with the far ends four inches apart. That helps put things into perspective, doesn't it?
Scientific terms such as killed- to-injured ratio and kill-rate are enough to bore most readers to death, but in order to fully comprehend the enormity of the media lies about the massacre, and expose the planned nature of the operation it is essential information. The killed-to-injured ratio is used to calculate reliably how many injured survivors should be expected for every person killed for a given number of rounds fired. Even assault rounds as powerful as those fired by the Colt AR15 can only ensure a one-shot kill if the target is hit in the head, a six by six inch target: or in the heart, a ten by ten inch target. Together these areas form between one fifth and one seventh of the over-all body target areas, so for every person killed there will be between five and seven injured, expressed as "1 to 5" and "1 to 7".
The records show that a total of 32 people were shot in the Broad Arrow Cafe, so at best we would expect 4 dead and 28 injured, or at worst 6 dead and 26 injured. These are very reliable military figures based on hard science, but the actual figures in the Broad Arrow Cafe were 20 dead and 12 injured - an incredible inverted ratio of 1.66 to 1, or nearly two dead for every one injured.
Special forces train continuously for months on end to achieve a ratio as high as this, which lies far beyond the abilities of regular soldiers, and is an absolute scientific impossibility for an intellectually impaired registered invalid.
http://www.whale.to/b/viallspam.html#MARTIN_BRYANT_-_THE_OTHER_STORY_-_PART_TWO_
-
More then likely a role played scenario workshoped by his Travistock therapist in the lead up to the tragedy. ???
Martin had spent a lot of time under "treatment"
He is locked in jail never to be released all with out a trial ???
Australia is a little play set for the shadow government to play act out little scenarios.
Without Port Arther you Americanos would have had no Devnver Colarado and some of the more obvious staged the current your government seems so hell bent on putting on.
Does anyone actually think these events are real & random ???
In short you know how all this ends.
Say goodby to your guns America.
You will be told it is for your own good and safety.
The New price for freedom.
Obama laughs and prepares your shackles.
Whoosshhh
.
.
.
-
The replacement lawyer who "got Martin to confess" was himself later imprisoned for 4 years for fraud.
Jail term for Martin Bryant lawyer
The Australian
September 20, 2008 12:00AM
THE Tasmanian lawyer who represented mass killer Martin Bryant has been jailed for four years for stealing more than $500,000 from his clients and law firm over a five-year period.
John William Avery, 60, who had pleaded guilty to 130 counts of stealing between December 2001 and March 2006, was sentenced to four years' jail in the Tasmanian Supreme Court yesterday. He will serve two years and three months before he is eligible for parole.
The court was told Avery stole from sick, grieving and injured clients to finance his high life.
Chief Justice Ewan Crawford said Avery had been a lawyer for more than 30 years and "was well-regarded by his clients for his caring and friendly nature".
AAP
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/jail-term-for-bryant-lawyer/story-e6frg6ox-1111117535694
-
Brigadier Ted Serong, former head of Australian forces in Vietnam, was just as impressed. In 1999, Serong—who explained that his eyes had first been opened by the "astonishing proportion of killed to wounded"—told Melbourne newspaper the Age:
http://www.whale.to/b/wernerhoff.html
What a fucking bullshit. Shooting unarmed people inside the hall of the restaurant doesn't require any specials skills. Why it would? People are in one room, and you have a semi automatic rifle, and lot of ammunition. Only complete idiots could use arguments like that. And why do you idiots talk about this like there isn't any evidence what so ever? Do you want me to explain why? You gather your information from the foil hat morons web sites, which never can give you the truth, because it is against their agenda. They do not handle the truth at all, they're dealing with nothing but the bullshit. That's why you clearly doesn't understand that there was people left alive in that restaurant, there were eyewitnesses, there were evidence, security cameras, etc. etc. which clearly point out who to blame. Once again, you do not have any evidence at all to prove your claims, you have only that bullshit. Those videos doesn't provide anything real, not anything which person with normal intelligence even could call as evidence. False flag my ass, you got false positive when they tested you for pre school to find out if you have a brains at all ;D
-
What a fucking bullshit. Shooting unarmed people inside the hall of the restaurant doesn't require any specials skills. Why it would? People are in one room, and you have a semi automatic rifle, and lot of ammunition. Only complete idiots could use arguments like that. And why do you idiots talk about this like there isn't any evidence what so ever? Do you want me to explain why? You gather your information from the foil hat morons web sites, which never can give you the truth, because it is against their agenda. They do not handle the truth at all, they're dealing with nothing but the bullshit. That's why you clearly doesn't understand that there was people left alive in that restaurant, there were eyewitnesses, there were evidence, security cameras, etc. etc. which clearly point out who to blame. Once again, you do not have any evidence at all to prove your claims, you have only that bullshit. Those videos doesn't provide anything real, not anything which person with normal intelligence even could call as evidence. False flag my ass, you got false positive when they tested you for pre school to find out if you have a brains at all ;D
Yes what would the highest ranking Australian Soldier in Vietnam know? I am sure you are much more knowledgeable than him ::)
-
This is an amazing interview/speech.
This woman was a first responder and in the thick of it from start to end.
A MUST WATCH.
-
Yes what would the highest ranking Australian Soldier in Vietnam know? I am sure you are much more knowledgeable than him ::)
What couldn't complete idiot say for the money? 1. What the fuck Australian did in Vietnam? 2. What the fuck he knows about the shooting armless people behind closed doors...or do he? Is this what they teach in Australian army? Gather opposites in one small room before you shoot them? I at least have been in the army, in fact in the same army who kick the living shit out from the the Russians at the winter war, so I know something about the matter. I got my first gun 1974 and I have been shooting ever sense, so I know something about guns also. How about you, you foil hat brat? Fighting you way trough the pre school already?
Your silly statement is pending about the fact, that every fucking interview in the shitty newspapers tells absolute truth, but in the real life what you read is opinion of the individual. Do this one fucking ex soldier some how overrule all the eyewitnesses? No way in hell. If there is dozens of living people who say, that Bryant shoot at them, you can bet your balls it is a fact. There is eyewitnesses, security tapes and tons of concrete evidence, guns, bullets, fingerprints etc., and then there is bunch of foil hat loony's, who deny all this to wind up some shitty conspiracy theory. How a human can be so fucking stupid, that he believes that kind of foil hat crap? Stupidity can't cover it, you have to be insane ;D
-
He supposedly has an IQ of 66 yet hit 19 of 20 shots at close range with a high powered firearm.
He pled not guilty so they delayed the trial until he pled guilty.
Australia is as corrupt as any nation, the heads of state think they are smarter than anyone. Couldn't get away with this now with video's on every phone.
Are you aware IQ tests rarely involve shooting a weapon?
-
What couldn't complete idiot say for the money? 1. What the fuck Australian did in Vietnam? 2. What the fuck he knows about the shooting armless people behind closed doors...or do he? Is this what they teach in Australian army? Gather opposites in one small room before you shoot them? I at least have been in the army, in fact in the same army who kick the living shit out from the the Russians at the winter war, so I know something about the matter. I got my first gun 1974 and I have been shooting ever sense, so I know something about guns also. How about you, you foil hat brat? Fighting you way trough the pre school already?
Your silly statement is pending about the fact, that every fucking interview in the shitty newspapers tells absolute truth, but in the real life what you read is opinion of the individual. Do this one fucking ex soldier some how overrule all the eyewitnesses? No way in hell. If there is dozens of living people who say, that Bryant shoot at them, you can bet your balls it is a fact. There is eyewitnesses, security tapes and tons of concrete evidence, guns, bullets, fingerprints etc., and then there is bunch of foil hat loony's, who deny all this to wind up some shitty conspiracy theory. How a human can be so fucking stupid, that he believes that kind of foil hat crap? Stupidity can't cover it, you have to be insane ;D
It was an interview with the Age newspaper, no money changed hands.
You really are very stupid.
-
The guy fired over 250 rounds that day and there were tourists who filmed him walking around shooting at people.
This is the dumbest CT ever.
-
I saw this thread and thought "huh? what'd Monica Brant do?"
-
The guy fired over 250 rounds that day and there were tourists who filmed him walking around shooting at people.
This is the dumbest CT ever.
But they let him plead Not Guilty right? I mean when do the Police decide the victims families have been through enough and there shouldn't be a trial?
-
The guy fired over 250 rounds that day and there were tourists who filmed him walking around shooting at people.
This is the dumbest CT ever.
More lies. Show us this video buddy? You can't because the only video is blurry and he cannot be identified at all. YOU ARE ONE DUMB FELLOW SPOUTING OFF CRAP YOU CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO BACK UP.
-
It was an interview with the Age newspaper, no money changed hands.
You really are very stupid.
You believe that interview of an potential idiot proves more than eyewitnesses, evidence, security tapes etc. and I am very stupid? Maybe, but I do not believe that kind of crap, so at least I am sane, which we can't say about you ;D
-
You believe that interview of an potential idiot proves more than eyewitnesses, evidence, security tapes etc. and I am very stupid? Maybe, but I do not believe that kind of crap, so at least I am sane, which we can't say about you ;D
You are the only "potential idiot". Highest ranking Australian soldier in the Vietnam war. You do know about the Vietnam war now don't you....
-
More lies. Show us this video buddy? You can't because the only video is blurry and he cannot be identified at all. YOU ARE ONE DUMB FELLOW SPOUTING OFF CRAP YOU CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO BACK UP.
Your main problem is that you are just a child, and you believe fairytales. There was plenty of shots, there was security etc. videos, there were witnesses, evidence and that is 100% fact. What you have choose to believe is conspiracy theory, which all are made by idiots. Their theory is based on one single thing, and that is denying reality. If you deny reality, everything will be possible, but nothing is true. For example, let's pick one random thing about this story, and you prove it with real and concrete evidence: prove that no one of the eyewitnesses identify Bryant as a shooter. It shouldn't be too much to ask, so let see how you prove it? ;D
-
You are the only "potential idiot". Highest ranking Australian soldier in the Vietnam war. You do know about the Vietnam war now don't you....
What he is or isn't doesn't change the fact, that his statement doesn't change reality. You just prove how stupid you are by believing it will. No matter what that wanker say, there is still tons of evidence, plenty on witnesses etc. and you can't do anything about it. I feel sorry for your parents, because they are feeding one fucking imbecile as their child.
-
Bryant was hardly a great shot. Once he was outside the cramped cafe he didn't hit anybody that wasn't within a few metres.
There are dozens of survivors who positively identified him as the shooter.
There is zero doubt Bryant ended up in a burning building with 3 bodies, 2 of whom were well known as the enemies of his father and who Bryant openly hated.
-
I trained the special operations cop that arrested his after he came out of the burning building. They probably would have shot him but there was a news chopper above and he was nude from memory. Definitely him, I remember my mate saying they dragged across the scrub by his feet. In the original arrest pictures you could see the marks on his face from being dragged across the ground.
I like conspiracy theories as much as anyone but this one is bullshit.
-
Not exactly hard to shoot people in this tight space. First 3 were shot from behind most of the rest were cowering under tables.
-
I trained the special operations cop that arrested his after he came out of the burning building. They probably would have shot him but there was a news chopper above and he was nude from memory. Definitely him, I remember my mate saying they dragged across the scrub by his feet. In the original arrest pictures you could see the marks on his face from being dragged across the ground.
I like conspiracy theories as much as anyone but this one all of them are bullshit.
Correct that for you. I used to think that conspiracy theories are fun, because they prove people endless ability to break all the records of stupidity. By overwhelming amount of those foil hat morons I find them just annoying these days. It is just too hard to understand that these drooling morons are living among us and all what they do in their life, is copy-paste those lies from site to site. And this ape like behavior and imitation they call "thinking with their own brains" ;D
-
I trained the special operations cop that arrested his after he came out of the burning building. They probably would have shot him but there was a news chopper above and he was nude from memory. Definitely him, I remember my mate saying they dragged across the scrub by his feet. In the original arrest pictures you could see the marks on his face from being dragged across the ground.
I like conspiracy theories as much as anyone but this one is bullshit.
Er... you do realize the building they arrested him at was not the site of the mass killing?
-
Not exactly hard to shoot people in this tight space. First 3 were shot from behind most of the rest were cowering under tables.
Actually, it's HARDER to have such a high kill vs injured rate in such tight quarters. The kill to injured rate was 1.66 (k) to 1 (i), wheras in most cases the rate is 1 to 5 thru 1 to 7.
-
Actually, it's HARDER to have such a high kill vs injured rate in such tight quarters. The kill to injured rate was 1.66 (k) to 1 (i), wheras in most cases the rate is 1 to 5 thru 1 to 7.
Only complete moron can say something like that. Stupidity doesn't cover that, you just prove you are insane. Stop that nitpicking and bullshit, and show me one concrete evidence to back up this conspiracy theory. Just one, if you can. Pretty please.. as long you remember, that claims doesn't prove anything. You have to admit that your task would be lot easier, if instead of all that insane bullshit you could show some counterevidence, but you can't, because there is none.
-
Only complete moron can say something like that. Stupidity doesn't cover that, you just prove you are insane. Stop that nitpicking and bullshit, and show me one concrete evidence to back up this conspiracy theory. Just one, if you can. Pretty please.. as long you remember, that claims doesn't prove anything. You have to admit that your task would be lot easier, if instead of all that insane bullshit you could show some counterevidence, but you can't, because there is none.
I have already provide you with a statement from an expert. You want to debunk this as "stupid", but YOU cannot even read a thread properly ::)
-
Actually, it's HARDER to have such a high kill vs injured rate in such tight quarters. The kill to injured rate was 1.66 (k) to 1 (i), wheras in most cases the rate is 1 to 5 thru 1 to 7.
Yeah, they have enough data on single armed gunmen versus unarmed bystanders in little cafes to make valid predictions.... They would need dozens of examples to make any valid mathematical assumptions.
What a load of bullshit you are spouting.
-
Yeah, they have enough data on single armed gunmen versus unarmed bystanders in little cafes to make valid predictions.... They would need dozens of examples to make any valid mathematical assumptions.
What a load of bullshit you are spouting.
Of course they have data. Special forces train for close quarter shooting.
What a load of bs you spout.
-
Yeah, they have enough data on single armed gunmen versus unarmed bystanders in little cafes to make valid predictions.... They would need dozens of examples to make any valid mathematical assumptions.
What a load of bullshit you are spouting.
Here you go genius ::)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/01/05/fbi-firearms-training/1811053/
http://www.pointshooting.com/1aquals.htm
-
you fellas do not know Tasmanian people, they are all nutjobs.
-
I have already provide you with a statement from an expert. You want to debunk this as "stupid", but YOU cannot even read a thread properly ::)
An expert? A statement?? And that proves exactly what? NOTHING. Nothing more but the fact, that your so called self-proclaimed expert have a opinion about the matter. What he claim in his statement is 100% pure bullshit, and it doesn't prove anything. You fucking mental midget, think with your own brains: if there is dozens of eyewitnesses who testify that Bryant shot at them, how in hell that statement of an "has been" soldier will change that fact? Facts are facts, no matter if imbeciles like you believe them or not ;D
-
Here you go genius ::)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/01/05/fbi-firearms-training/1811053/
http://www.pointshooting.com/1aquals.htm
Ok. What you childishly try to prove by these "not even in same ball park" links, is the fact that close quarter shooting is more difficult than long distance shooting? That could be a fact, if you would talk about the same thing like rest of us. You see, we talk how Bryant shot bunch of people in the wide open restaurant hall, and you try to prove how difficult it is to shoot inside the apartment buildings etc. Point what you try to make is that it is easier to shot bunch of people in the wide open space, than for example, inside the cargo container. Just ask yourself, what about Columbine, and all other school shootings, restaurant and movie theatre shootings. It is proven plenty of times that lonely gunman can make hell of a mess, so why don't you just shut the fuck up?
-
An expert? A statement?? And that proves exactly what? NOTHING. Nothing more but the fact, that your so called self-proclaimed expert have a opinion about the matter. What he claim in his statement is 100% pure bullshit, and it doesn't prove anything. You fucking mental midget, think with your own brains: if there is dozens of eyewitnesses who testify that Bryant shot at them, how in hell that statement of an "has been" soldier will change that fact? Facts are facts, no matter if imbeciles like you believe them or not ;D
The woman in the video was there and said it wasn't him.
The guy was apparently too stupid to stand trial but could murder 34 people. It's bullshit.
and to TD, no-one was saying he wasn't the one pulled out of the house. They are saying he wasn't the shooter in the cafe.
-
The police took over 1000 witness statements in preparation for the trial.
There are dozens and dozens of witnesses who indentified him as the shooter.
The house he was found in contained two bodies of people he killed there the morning of the shooting and who were enemies of his family. Not to mention another body of a man he took hostage on the way back to the house from the mass shooting site.
Bryant expected to be shot by police when he came out of the house and their professionalism in not doing so is commendable.
Bryant confessed to the crimes and his motivations for them to Dr Mullens who assessed him in preparation for trial.
-
The woman in the video was there and said it wasn't him.
The guy was apparently too stupid to stand trial but could murder 34 people. It's bullshit.
and to TD, no-one was saying he wasn't the one pulled out of the house. They are saying he wasn't the shooter in the cafe.
So you have one who say he wasn't, and dozens who say he was the shooter, and this one who has different opinion is absolute truth? You may need to think that all over again, because in real life it doesn't go that way. It is always what you can prove, and can not. What you can not prove, is that there would be someone else who did the shootings. And please explain why they pick this Bryant-moron to be their scapegoat, while he is this kind of autistic imbecile and useless as shooter? All the used guns were his, he was seen buying cartridges used in the shooting, there was receipts for guns and ammo etc. endless pile of evidence pointing to Bryant, and not single evidence pointing any other shooter. This fucking moron take the hostages, and you, drooling idiot are saying that they can't identify Bryant? How fucking stupid man can be? What morons like you are thinking? He shot 35 people, but HE WOUNDED 37, and all of those 37 are blind, stupid and incapable to identify who the fuck shot at them?
-
The police took over 1000 witness statements in preparation for the trial.
There are dozens and dozens of witnesses who indentified him as the shooter.
The house he was found in contained two bodies of people he killed there the morning of the shooting and who were enemies of his family. Not to mention another body of a man he took hostage on the way back to the house from the mass shooting site.
Bryant expected to be shot by police when he came out of the house and their professionalism in not doing so is commendable.
Bryant confessed to the crimes and his motivations for them to Dr Mullens who assessed him in preparation for trial.
And only controversy about the whole matter were simple: Is this mentally handicapped moron Bryant sane enough to go to prison, or would some mental institute be better place for him. Mass murderers doesn't need a better place, so he is in jail. This piece of shit has try to make suicide at least eight times in jail, so at least he has something to do during those long long years ahead..
-
So you have one who say he wasn't, and dozens who say he was the shooter, and this one who has different opinion is absolute truth? You may need to think that all over again, because in real life it doesn't go that way. It is always what you can prove, and can not. What you can not prove, is that there would be someone else who did the shootings. And please explain why they pick this Bryant-moron to be their scapegoat, while he is this kind of autistic imbecile and useless as shooter? All the used guns were his, he was seen buying cartridges used in the shooting, there was receipts for guns and ammo etc. endless pile of evidence pointing to Bryant, and not single evidence pointing any other shooter. This fucking moron take the hostages, and you, drooling idiot are saying that they can't identify Bryant? How fucking stupid man can be? What morons like you are thinking? He shot 35 people, but HE WOUNDED 37, and all of those 37 are blind, stupid and incapable to identify who the fuck shot at them?
I'm sorry bro. I'll be a good little civilian from now on ok and what Rupert and The Prime Minister tell me i'll regurgitate like i am smart.
-
I'm sorry bro. I'll be a good little civilian from now on ok and what Rupert and The Prime Minister tell me i'll regurgitate like i am smart.
So, in the lack of evidence about the matter, you decide to prove that you are a complete idiot. How nice and usual among the foil hat morons ;D
-
The woman in the video was there and said it wasn't him.
The guy was apparently too stupid to stand trial but could murder 34 people. It's bullshit.
and to TD, no-one was saying he wasn't the one pulled out of the house. They are saying he wasn't the shooter in the cafe.
Thank God SOME PEOPLE have brains.
No wonder the world is so screwed up with all these opinionated retards! They don't even have the brains to watch the video they are trying to repudiate!
-
1. On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast,for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers. Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence?
2. Also just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder. This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Cafe in time to be of any use. Had a policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula. Did Bryant, IQ 66, organise this decoy?
3. Big Mortuary Truck. Before the massacre, a specially-built 22 person capacity mortuary truck was built. It attracted some derision at the time, but its effective use at Port Arthur was unquestioned. After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose. Without the foresight of Port Arthur, why build it? When it had proven its worth, why get rid of it? Another coincidence?
4. Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman. A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock-marked or acned face. Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck.
5. Illegal Photo. On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed an old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page. This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses. When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the old photo instead of what the gunman had worn. The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law.
6. Mrs Wendy Scurr, nurse, tour guide and Ambulance Officer, rang the police at 1.32 pm to report the shooting. She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours. Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana, where they had a barbecue? The police who arrived by boats were a stone's throw away from the main crime scene, the cafe, and they too failed to come in to see what was going on. Was this meant to increase the trauma of the survivors?
7. Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30pm while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?
8. Same Question - Different Answer. At a recent Forensics Seminar in Queensland where the Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture, the first question came from Mr Ian McNiven. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Cafe. Sargent Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say "I have here Graham Collyer's police statement...", Sgt Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building.
When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at a seminar, he replied truthfully - "There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the cafe."
9. Yet a police video tape exists which proves that the police had an excellent opportunity to get DNA samples and finger prints of the gunman. The video briefly shows the blue sports bag on a cafe table. The gunman had carried his 3 rifles in this bag and left it right next to his drinking glass, his Solo soft drink can, knife, fork, plate, video cameras, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints?
10. According to the official story, Bryant first killed David and Sally Martin at Seascape Cottage in the morning, then went on to Port Arthur. Yet two policemen have reported seeing a naked woman with black hair, screaming and running from one building to another at Seascape well into the afternoon. If Sally Martin was dead, who was this woman?
11. Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage. While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the 'siege' and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as 'coughs' but an electronic analysis of one of the 'coughs' shows that it was an SKK shot.
12. Two More Very Handy Seminars. On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims.
13. Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart. They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning. How handy to have 700 scribblers churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!
14. "There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania" said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December, 1987 at a conference in Hobart. Prophecy or Planning?
15. "If we don't get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they'll take all our guns off us", said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer in May 1996. Who is the "THEY" who would order the removal of our guns? Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than our own leaders?
16. No Respect for the Law. Our laws demand that a Coronial Inquiry must take place (a) when foreign nationals are killed (b) when anyone dies in a fire. Prime Minister John Howard acted illegally when he ordered the Coronial Inquiry to be abandoned.
http://www.itwillpass.com/nwo_port_arthur_massacre_CORONIAL_INQUIRY.shtml
-
When he went to trail he pled not guilty. They wouldn't hold the trial. They made him plead Guilty by having his mother influence him.
Who the fuck ID'd him? He killed everyone around him and anyone who survived was running for their lives.
Ropo can say whatever he likes. I don't believe in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 or anything else. But this is just ridiculous.
As for the USA gun crimes, that's a combination of availability, others doing it and prescription drugs which have now been administered since early childhood so the Pharmaceutical companies can make more money. Get em hooked as a child, have them for life.
-
The police took over 1000 witness statements in preparation for the trial.
There are dozens and dozens of witnesses who indentified him as the shooter.
The house he was found in contained two bodies of people he killed there the morning of the shooting and who were enemies of his family. Not to mention another body of a man he took hostage on the way back to the house from the mass shooting site.
Bryant expected to be shot by police when he came out of the house and their professionalism in not doing so is commendable.
Bryant confessed to the crimes and his motivations for them to Dr Mullens who assessed him in preparation for trial.
So why did he plead Not Guilty first.
-
So why did he plead Not Guilty first.
For 5 months, while in Solitary Confinement. Pretty amazing willpower for a child's IQ.
Sounds more like terror and abuse tactics doesn't it? We keep you locked up till you confess!!!
-
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Martin-Bryant-is-Innocent/139621069383740
-
if anyone believes that bryant didnt do this, they are morons.. period.
people were interviewed at the scene and all identified him as the only assailant.
not just one, but many. i suppose they are all in on it?
like the hundreds of people who all kept quiet during the filming of the fake moon landing?, and the well kept secrecy in the twin tower attack.
australia is no where near as corrupt as most places..its always been an honest country.
(mind you, this current government is doing its own bit for corruption).
still, its never been corrupt about things like this... ever..
-
Your main problem is that you are just a child, and you believe fairytales. There was plenty of shots, there was security etc. videos, there were witnesses, evidence and that is 100% fact. What you have choose to believe is conspiracy theory, which all are made by idiots. Their theory is based on one single thing, and that is denying reality. If you deny reality, everything will be possible, but nothing is true. For example, let's pick one random thing about this story, and you prove it with real and concrete evidence: prove that no one of the eyewitnesses identify Bryant as a shooter. It shouldn't be too much to ask, so let see how you prove it? ;D
^this... correct on all counts.
the main problem with conspiracy theories is that they rely on a whole load of people to keep their mouths shut... we all know that its pretty easy to get people talking, especially when there's the chance of making some cash...
and for a story that big, there'd be cash. in fact people make shit up to try to get the cash.
-
if anyone believes that bryant didnt do this, they are morons.. period.
people were interviewed at the scene and all identified him as the only assailant.
What you typed is an absolute lie.
Not sure if that is intentional, or because you are ignorant.
-
What you typed is an absolute lie.
Not sure if that is intentional, or because you are ignorant.
ok genius, why then were these people killed?
if bryant didnt do it, who did and why?
you have now set the bar dumber than i ever thought possible...
-
ok genius, why then were these people killed?
if bryant didnt do it, who did and why?
More stupidity from you.
Errr, somebody else...?
Why? Use your pea brain and I'm sure you can manage a few possibilities.
-
The mother of Australia’s worst mass murderer says she regrets asking her son to plead guilty and that she’ll always love him unconditionally.
The guilty plea by Port Arthur killer Martin Bryant meant a lot of questions went unanswered, his mother Carleen Bryant said.
“I regret asking him to plead guilty, which denied him the chance to answer a lot of questions,” Ms Bryant told New Idea.
According to the magazine, Ms Bryant questions how someone of her son’s intellectual limitations could have organised the massacre but claims she doesn’t want to spark debate about his guilt or innocence.
“There are conspiracy theories that Martin was not, and could not, have been the gunman,” Ms Bryant said.
“These would have been addressed with DNA, witness statements and fingerprints, to prove it one way or another.”
On April 28, 1996, then 28-year-old Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded another 21 in a shooting spree at Tasmania’s Port Arthur historic site.
Bryant was subsequently given 35 life sentences without the possibility of parole.
Ms Bryant has rarely given interviews but in 2006 told The Bulletin magazine that one of her deepest regrets was agreeing to persuade her son to plead guilty.
Her latest interview with New Idea, on sale on Monday, comes ahead of the release of her book My Story.
Ms Bryant sees her 43-year-old son once a fortnight at the psychiatric section of Hobart’s Risdon Prison and talks to him regularly on the phone.
She says medication has made him dangerously obese.
“The world does not need to remember Martin but he is my son, and I will always love him unconditionally,” she told the magazine, which released portions of the interview.
Bryant was born on May 7, 1967, the oldest of two children to Maurice and Carleen Bryant.
The Tasmanian Supreme Court heard in 1996 that he had the mental capacity of an 11-year-old.
Ms Bryant said her son had been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome.
“From a very young age, Martin had social and intellectual difficulties, a very low IQ,” she told New Idea.
“He was a misfit and could not make friends or concentrate at school.
“We made sure Martin always had the best treatment and advice but no one ever really knew what was wrong with him. It was heartbreaking.”
http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/martin-bryants-mother-i-regret-asking-him-to-plead-guilty-which-denied-him-the-chance-to-answer-a-lot-of-questions/
-
When he went to trail he pled not guilty. They wouldn't hold the trial. They made him plead Guilty by having his mother influence him.
Who the fuck ID'd him? He killed everyone around him and anyone who survived was running for their lives.
Ropo can say whatever he likes. I don't believe in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 or anything else. But this is just ridiculous.
As for the USA gun crimes, that's a combination of availability, others doing it and prescription drugs which have now been administered since early childhood so the Pharmaceutical companies can make more money. Get em hooked as a child, have them for life.
Hey assclown, let me repeat the facts for you: HE WOUNDED 37, and all of those 37 are blind, stupid and incapable to identify who the fuck shot at them? When you fucking idiots learn that facts are facts, and claims from the foil hat morons are NOTHING BUT LIES? How fucking hard it is to you to understand, that you can't just say that the evidence is false, YOU HAVE TO FUCKING PROVE IT BY CONCRETE EVIDENCE . And that, dear child, you and the rest of the foil hat gang can't do. It is simple as that. That's why it is quite easy to debug any conspiracy theory: STUPID FOIL HAT CLAIMS LAC ANY EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER.
-
Hey assclown, let me repeat the facts for you: HE WOUNDED 37, and all of those 37 are blind, stupid and incapable to identify who the fuck shot at them? When you fucking idiots learn that facts are facts, and claims from the foil hat morons are NOTHING BUT LIES? How fucking hard it is to you to understand, that you can't just say that the evidence is false, YOU HAVE TO FUCKING PROVE IT BY CONCRETE EVIDENCE . And that, dear child, you and the rest of the foil hat gang can't do. It is simple as that. That's why it is quite easy to debug any conspiracy theory: STUPID FOIL HAT CLAIMS LAC ANY EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER.
Did you watch the women's video who was there and said it wasn't him? Nope lets just discount it.
Believe what you want. Australia Police and Politicians are complete fucking corrupt liars.
-
Hey assclown, let me repeat the facts for you: HE WOUNDED 37, and all of those 37 are blind, stupid and incapable to identify who the fuck shot at them? When you fucking idiots learn that facts are facts, and claims from the foil hat morons are NOTHING BUT LIES? How fucking hard it is to you to understand, that you can't just say that the evidence is false, YOU HAVE TO FUCKING PROVE IT BY CONCRETE EVIDENCE . And that, dear child, you and the rest of the foil hat gang can't do. It is simple as that. That's why it is quite easy to debug any conspiracy theory: STUPID FOIL HAT CLAIMS LAC ANY EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER.
Ropo, you can't argue with these conspiracy theory idiots. You make sense, they do not, but they can't see it.
-
Did you watch the women's video who was there and said it wasn't him? Nope lets just discount it.
Believe what you want. Australia Police and Politicians are complete fucking corrupt liars.
I don't believe what I want, I believe what has been proved by the evidence, no matter if it pleases me or not. That is something you morons should learn, because facts are facts. I haven't watch that video, because I don't watch foil hat crap for one simple reason. There was dozens of witness who ID that Bryant nut job. Anything what one silly bitch says on any fucking video doesn't change that fact. Reality doesn't work this way: "I have this one new witness, and her overrule all those 123 previous eyewitnesses". You seem to think that everything what you read from the internet, is true, so read this slowly and carefully: YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON. That has to be a fact, because you read it from internet ;D
-
I don't believe what I want, I believe what has been proved by the evidence, no matter if it pleases me or not. That is something you morons should learn, because facts are facts. I haven't watch that video, because I don't watch foil hat crap for one simple reason. There was dozens of witness who ID that Bryant nut job. Anything what one silly bitch says on any fucking video doesn't change that fact. Reality doesn't work this way: "I have this one new witness, and her overrule all those 123 previous eyewitnesses". You seem to think that everything what you read from the internet, is true, so read this slowly and carefully: YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON. That has to be a fact, because you read it from internet ;D
ONE SILLY BITCH...
WOW - the first responder who did more that day than the police. Way to go big man..
-
There was dozens of witness who ID that Bryant nut job.
Keep talking yourself into a hole and showing yourself for the fool that you are.
Bryant identified as the gunman?
In terms of the allegation that the witnesses have identified Bryant as the man they saw shooting at the PAHS, the most serious difficulties are raised by Jim Laycock in his statement. Laycock is of outstanding importance in this case, as he is the one and only witness who observed the gunman in the act and actually knew Bryant. In his police statement, Laycock—who, as noted earlier, got a good enough look at the man to be able to estimate his age ("low twenties")—said that he "did not recognise the male as Martin Bryant". He stated only that he saw "a blonde [sic] headed person" shoot Zoe Hall and take Glenn Pears captive.
Another witness, Yannis Kateros, said he had never seen the gunman before. Yet Kateros had lived at Port Arthur since 1991, and, according to Laycock, Bryant had visited the PAHS on about a dozen occasions in the five-year period between about 1991 and 1995.
At least two other witnesses have also stated that Bryant was not the gunman. These are PAHS Information Centre employee Wendy Scurr, who, according to one report, saw the gunman inside the centre immediately prior to the attack, and Vietnam War veteran John Godfrey, who was waiting outside the centre when the shooting commenced. Godfrey viewed the gunman twice. He saw him drive by and saw him put a bag into the boot of his car. "In my opinion the picture I saw in the newspapers was not the same person," he stated in his police statement taken on 7 June 1996. Wendy Scurr has changed her mind on the subject; she no longer believes that Bryant was the man she saw that day.
The mythical "dozens" of witnesses
So when people tell me that everyone knows that Bryant "did it" because people saw him doing it, I tend to wonder which witnesses they can possibly be referring to. To my knowledge, the only witnesses who positively identified Bryant as the gunman were Linda White and Michael Wanders, both persons whose statements were taken a full month after the shooting, after they had been exposed to plenty of media coverage about the case.
On 27 May 1996, White viewed the 14 May police photoboard and decided: "Photograph no. 5 in this folder [i.e., Bryant] is the male who shot us near Port Arthur." However, White's only reason for selecting photo no. 5 seems to have been because of the fact that, in this photo, Bryant appeared to be wearing a top that was "very similar" to that worn by the gunman. "It could even be the same top," she said.
Unfortunately, White's statement is of no value whatsoever. An identification can scarcely be based upon an item of clothing, which can obviously be worn by another person. (Indeed, someone seeking to impersonate Bryant would have taken care to acquire an item of his clothing, or at least a very similar item.) What's more, no previous witness recalled the gunman wearing the same top as that worn by Bryant in photo no. five. White was clearly basing her identification entirely upon a photo she had seen in the media.
As for Michael Wanders, in his statement taken the same day as White's, he picked Bryant out from the police photoboard as "the person who shot at Linda and I on 28/4/96". Unfortunately, Wanders's identification is also of no value. On 28 April 1996, he told the police: "I would not be able to identify the person who shot at us." In his statement a month later, he admitted that he hadn't been able to "get a good enough look at the male to see how old he was or what he was wearing". His statement suggests that, really, all he had seen was a male with long blond hair. Yet, somehow, his original statement did not deter him from picking Bryant out from the police photoboard a month later as the man who had shot at him. It is hard to credit the positive identification of Bryant a month after the attack by a witness who, on the day of the attack itself, told the police explicitly that he would not be able to identify the gunman.
White's and Wanders's statements prove one thing: not that Bryant perpetrated the shootings, but that the laws prohibiting media organisations from publishing photos of accused persons before they have been tried are sensible ones which ought always to be rigorously enforced.
http://www.whale.to/b/wernerhoff.html
-
More of ropos "hard evidence" LOL
Lack of Bryant's fingerprints or DNA at Port Arthur
Martin Bryant is adamant that he never visited the PAHS on the day of the massacre. Most Australians—if they knew of this denial at all—would probably dismiss it as a lie. A fact that should deeply unsettle them is that neither Bryant's fingerprints nor his DNA has ever been found at the PAHS. This much has effectively been conceded by Sergeant Gerard Dutton, officer in charge of the Ballistics Section of Tasmania Police, in an article he wrote about the case which was published in the December 1998 Australian Police Journal.
There is no good reason why no evidence of this kind exists. An obvious source of fingerprints and DNA would have been the food tray (with a can of Solo soft drink, a plastic Schweppes cup, food items and eating utensils) that Rebecca McKenna saw the gunman eating from immediately prior to the shooting. We know that the tray was recovered by the police, because it is shown in a police training video that turned up in a second-hand shop in September 2004. Although the tray would have contained fingerprints, thumb prints, palm prints, saliva, sweat, skin and possibly hair from the shooter, there is no evidence that it yielded anything that came from Martin Bryant.
http://www.whale.to/b/wernerhoff.html
-
ONE SILLY BITCH...
WOW - the first responder who did more that day than the police. Way to go big man..
So please explain how this bitch on the video could prove that all other evidence, all other witnesses etc. are wrong. 1 witness vs. tons of evidence, security tapes, eyewitnesses, etc.? It will never happen. How fucking stupid you are? You are believing foil hat crap, which not include any evidence at all. You can copy/paste whole internet to here, but nothing but real evidence doesn't chance these facts: Bryant was found guilty by the witnesses and the evidence.
-
Keep talking yourself into a hole and showing yourself for the fool that you are.
Bryant identified as the gunman?
The mythical "dozens" of witnesses
http://www.whale.to/b/wernerhoff.html
And you prove what? That you are able to find claims from the foil hat web-pages? You must be genius..
-
I don't believe what I want, I believe what has been proved by the evidence, no matter if it pleases me or not. That is something you morons should learn, because facts are facts. I haven't watch that video, because I don't watch foil hat crap for one simple reason. There was dozens of witness who ID that Bryant nut job. Anything what one silly bitch says on any fucking video doesn't change that fact. Reality doesn't work this way: "I have this one new witness, and her overrule all those 123 previous eyewitnesses". You seem to think that everything what you read from the internet, is true, so read this slowly and carefully: YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON. That has to be a fact, because you read it from internet ;D
You weren't there so the information you are getting is either from the Internet or Media outlets. Of which in Australia are fucking hopeless. They report news just to try and win ratings so run with anything they can.
'Oh Shaphelle says it wasn't her bag'
'Her Mom says it wasn't her boyfriend, oh no wait it is her boyfriend'
I don't believe any bullshit conspiracies. What i do believe is someone who has been identified as having an IQ of 66 cannot do what he is supposed to have done. Someone did it, and they stuck it on a poor sap who is too stupid to know better. He's clearly not smart enough to plan out what happened.
'Bryant was found guilty by the Witnesses and the Evidence'
Actually he wasn't. He pled Not Guility, they pressured him to change it to Guilty, this is a fact his mom went in to make him change.
Being found Guilty implies he pled Not Guilty at a Mention and it went to a hearing where Witnesses took the stand and evidence was shown. The case never took place because the Police and Politicians said the witnesses and families of those killed had been through enough and a trial would be too much more for them. You are looking like a dumbshit here making statements that clearly arn't true because you are saying there was a trial when there wasn't.
-
tons of evidence, security tapes, eyewitnesses, etc.?
Name the dozens of witnesses you keep referencing.
YOU CAN'T.
-
You weren't there so the information you are getting is either from the Internet or Media outlets. Of which in Australia are fucking hopeless. They report news just to try and win ratings so run with anything they can.
Australian newspaper, BEFORE it went to trial. Unbelievable.
(http://southeastasianews.org/portarthur/images/Face%20of%20a%20Killer.jpg)
-
Australian newspaper, BEFORE it went to trial. Unbelievable.
There was no trial. He pleaded not guilty, and they locked him in solitary for 5 months, until they got him to plead guilty.
-
There was no trial. He pleaded not guilty, and they locked him in solitary for 5 months, until they got him to plead guilty.
Is this what they mean by "kangaroo court"?
-
You weren't there so the information you are getting is either from the Internet or Media outlets. Of which in Australia are fucking hopeless. They report news just to try and win ratings so run with anything they can.
'Oh Shaphelle says it wasn't her bag'
'Her Mom says it wasn't her boyfriend, oh no wait it is her boyfriend'
I don't believe any bullshit conspiracies. What i do believe is someone who has been identified as having an IQ of 66 cannot do what he is supposed to have done. Someone did it, and they stuck it on a poor sap who is too stupid to know better. He's clearly not smart enough to plan out what happened.
'Bryant was found guilty by the Witnesses and the Evidence'
Actually he wasn't. He pled Not Guility, they pressured him to change it to Guilty, this is a fact his mom went in to make him change.
Being found Guilty implies he pled Not Guilty at a Mention and it went to a hearing where Witnesses took the stand and evidence was shown. The case never took place because the Police and Politicians said the witnesses and families of those killed had been through enough and a trial would be too much more for them. You are looking like a dumbshit here making statements that clearly arn't true because you are saying there was a trial when there wasn't.
And how you got your information? God spoke to you and tell you the facts of the matter? You wasn't there, you didn't see it, were you even born yet?
Have you any evidence that he didn't do it? Nope. Have you an alibi for him? Nope. Is there any evidence about another man, who could have done it? Nope. Guns were his own, he bought the cartridges etc. so what do you need? There is still those 37 people which he shot and wounded, there is still those photos and security tapes, and witnesses. Maybe there was some mishaps about the arrest etc. but do that make him innocent? No, it doesn't. If there was no trial because he plead guilty, do that mean that there isn't any evidence? Or do it mean that there was tons of evidence, which were never needed because he plead guilty? If there wasn't a trial, where do you present your evidence? In the internet? ;D
And do you know what? I do not research these cases week by week, day after day, 24/7 because I don't have time for this shit. I do my research as I write comments to your nonsense, as I have always done. I don't to need read foil hat crap day after day, because I have common sense, and I know that truth is what one can prove, and you can't prove shit. Case closed..
-
And how you got your information? God spoke to you and tell you the facts of the matter? You wasn't there, you didn't see it, were you even born yet?
Have you any evidence that he didn't do it? Nope. Have you an alibi for him? Nope. Is there any evidence about another man, who could have done it? Nope. Guns were his own, he bought the cartridges etc. so what do you need? There is still those 37 people which he shot and wounded, there is still those photos and security tapes, and witnesses. Maybe there was some mishaps about the arrest etc. but do that make him innocent? No, it doesn't. If there was no trial because he plead guilty, do that mean that there isn't any evidence? Or do it mean that there was tons of evidence, which were never needed because he plead guilty? If there wasn't a trial, where do you present your evidence? In the internet? ;D
And do you know what? I do not research these cases week by week, day after day, 24/7 because I don't have time for this shit. I do my research as I write comments to your nonsense, as I have always done. I don't to need read foil hat crap day after day, because I have common sense, and I know that truth is what one can prove, and you can't prove shit. Case closed..
That's a back peddle and a half. You said he was found guilty by Witnesses and Evidence when i showed that was impossible to have happened. In fact Witness statements don't mean a lot unless they go to court and say it in front of a judge. If they don't turn up then the statement doesn't mean anything. You are still not addressing his IQ. Or that how many people lived in Port Arthur then, it's a tiny town in the middle of nowhere everyone would have known him and just his hair would have stood out.
When, in history, has someone been stuck in jail for 5 months after pleading Not Guilty with no Hearing? Have you seen how many Politicians have lost their jobs in NSW in the past few months due to corruption?
Read this champ. I'm not saying this guy is innocent by any means as he was there but this is why there is no death penalty in Australia anymore, due to so much outcry over the last man killed by hanging. The Police based this guy's Guilty plea on saying when he was alone with them in the car after the arrest he confessed yet he never confessed any other time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Ryan
-
yeah right - you now need an IQ of 151 at least to shoot and kill people, otherwise you just can't do it - it's impossible ::)
-
Clicked the OP link thinking it was the Jennifer Lawrence facial video
Came all over my self anyway
-
yeah right - you now need an IQ of 151 at least to shoot and kill people, otherwise you just can't do it - it's impossible ::)
He holds the record for the most kills by a single person - possibly the Asian guy a few years ago at the University in the USA is higher now. Plenty of people at a University campus, not so many at Port Arthur. No, i don't think someone with an IQ of 66 can do this and plan it out how he did.
None of you read the whole story you pick one thing and exaggerate it out how you like to try and make out it's bullshit.
If it's THAT obvious it's him and he's that stupid, why the fuck did he plead Not Guilty until they made his mother make him plead Guilty. It must be obvious it's him right, i mean he planned to shoot all those people in his home town in front of everyone and then just plead Not Guilty to get off.
-
Port Arthur is a popular tourist attraction - on the right day there will be people. I just don't buy that big IQ equals more kills. Would you say you need a big IQ to get through a first person shooter? If you practice enough you'll be a good shot regardless of your IQ.
-
That's a back peddle and a half. You said he was found guilty by Witnesses and Evidence when i showed that was impossible to have happened. In fact Witness statements don't mean a lot unless they go to court and say it in front of a judge. If they don't turn up then the statement doesn't mean anything. You are still not addressing his IQ. Or that how many people lived in Port Arthur then, it's a tiny town in the middle of nowhere everyone would have known him and just his hair would have stood out.
Yes it is, and these fools would be swallowed it 100% because they doesn't know fuck about this case, because they got their information from foil hat sources. So what? What I mainly do is that I show how little they really know and understand by throwing then a mix of facts and complete bullshit, and watch laughing while they try to argue that bullshit.
When, in history, has someone been stuck in jail for 5 months after pleading Not Guilty with no Hearing? Have you seen how many Politicians have lost their jobs in NSW in the past few months due to corruption?
So What? What is the truth? Were he in custody, or did his mental examination take that time? Two different things. And where the claim about those five month is coming? Killings take place at 28th of April, and he was sentenced at 22th at November. Where they should kept him at that time? Maybe in jail, like they do with criminals? Why they would hear him, while they have straight forward case with tons of evidence? Have you never even think about that? His mom tell him to plead guilty because of shame if he doesn't, because there was no way in hell to win in court. Where is the conspiracy?
Read this champ. I'm not saying this guy is innocent by any means as he was there but this is why there is no death penalty in Australia anymore, due to so much outcry over the last man killed by hanging. The Police based this guy's Guilty plea on saying when he was alone with them in the car after the arrest he confessed yet he never confessed any other time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Ryan
What do you need to know about Ryan case? Guilty as hell, defended by the idiot. He shot a running man in the chest, and his lawyer try to make it seem like he has shot standing man, because he want to make it look like the trajectory would be wrong. What is the truth? If you sprint to catch escaping criminal etc., you do not run your torso at upright and straight posture, like you are when you are standing. You run slightly bending over, so bullet to the chest get just the trajectory which has seen here. That is the key point. Ryan is only one with rifle at the position where you can shot Hodson in the chest, so it is clear that he did it. Did I simplify this enough for you? ;D
-
He holds the record for the most kills by a single person - possibly the Asian guy a few years ago at the University in the USA is higher now. Plenty of people at a University campus, not so many at Port Arthur. No, i don't think someone with an IQ of 66 can do this and plan it out how he did.
None of you read the whole story you pick one thing and exaggerate it out how you like to try and make out it's bullshit.
If it's THAT obvious it's him and he's that stupid, why the fuck did he plead Not Guilty until they made his mother make him plead Guilty. It must be obvious it's him right, i mean he planned to shoot all those people in his home town in front of everyone and then just plead Not Guilty to get off.
And here you are, arguing about it with an IQ of 52? Well, IF we put aside all the evidence, all the facts of the matter and truth, and start to solve this just by the feelings, I feel that you are incompetent even to write about this case, because you are an idiot ::)
If we realize that these low IQ people has been living among us for ever, and in the real life you doesn't even realize how fucking dumb they are before you meet them in the getbig, you start to see things differently. IQ of average American is 92, which is quite low compared to Japanese, but quite high compared to African people. While you meet people in the streets, in the shops etc. do you realize that Asian people are smarter than you, and African people are not? No, you don't. You think that you are smarter than anybody, because you are just a child. Killing doesn't need high IQ, we used to do that even we were living in the caves. How he plan it out? He have the guns, he bought the cartridges, and went out shooting people. He didn't have a plan at all, he just went to places where were people and start to shoot them. What kind of plan is that? Plan of the moron ;D