Author Topic: Martin Bryant Innocent?  (Read 17188 times)

Ropo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #25 on: June 25, 2014, 10:39:55 AM »
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

Ropo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #26 on: June 25, 2014, 10:46:07 AM »
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. 

jwb

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5810
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #27 on: June 25, 2014, 12:44:05 PM »
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.

Tony Doherty

  • Expert
  • Getbig IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 1582
  • Pro Promoter
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #28 on: June 25, 2014, 01:51:44 PM »
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.

jwb

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5810
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2014, 02:18:49 PM »
Not exactly hard to shoot people in this tight space. First 3 were shot from behind most of the rest were cowering under tables.

Ropo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2014, 12:38:37 AM »
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

agenda21nwo

  • Guest
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2014, 09:37:10 PM »
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? 

agenda21nwo

  • Guest
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2014, 09:42:57 PM »
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.




Ropo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2014, 12:45:41 AM »
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.

agenda21nwo

  • Guest
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2014, 01:09:25 AM »
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  ::)

jwb

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5810
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2014, 01:37:19 AM »
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.


agenda21nwo

  • Guest
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2014, 03:33:14 AM »
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.

agenda21nwo

  • Guest
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2014, 03:37:25 AM »
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

O.Z.

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1440
  • Team Swimmers
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2014, 03:42:11 AM »
you fellas do not know Tasmanian people, they are all nutjobs.


Ropo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2014, 03:57:02 AM »
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

Ropo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2014, 04:12:54 AM »
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? 

The Grim Lifter

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3810
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2014, 05:00:36 AM »
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.

jwb

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5810
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2014, 01:00:16 PM »
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.

Ropo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #43 on: June 29, 2014, 12:27:04 AM »
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?

Ropo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #44 on: June 29, 2014, 12:36:10 AM »
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..

The Grim Lifter

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3810
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #45 on: June 29, 2014, 05:51:53 AM »
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.

Ropo

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2895
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #46 on: June 29, 2014, 08:32:33 AM »
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

agenda21nwo

  • Guest
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2014, 04:36:38 AM »
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!

agenda21nwo

  • Guest
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2014, 04:55:06 AM »
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

The Grim Lifter

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3810
Re: Martin Bryant Innocent?
« Reply #49 on: July 02, 2014, 05:05:15 AM »
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.