WAS MARTIN BRYANT REALLY A ``LONE NUT'' ASSASSIN?..Pt.2.

Copyright Joe Vialls 17/04/97 45 Merlin Drive Carine, WA 6020 All Rights Reserved

Exclusive to The Strategy



Part one of this report proved in absolute scientific terms that Martin Bryant
could not have acted alone at Port Arthur and hinted strongly that he may not
have acted at all, other than in an orchestrated `patsy' role. Part two uses
military science to prove that Bryant could not have been responsible for the
murders at Port Arthur or on the Arthur Highway, though he may have fired 250
wild shots from Seascape during the siege, every one of which failed to hit a
target; a dramatic and strikingly obvious reversal? of the real shooter's
devastating performance at Port Arthur during the afternoon of 28 April 1996
. The initial reaction of most readers to the reality that Martin Bryant killed
no-one at Port Arthur but was deliberately set up as a patsy is a combination
of horror and complete disbelief. Are we to believe that a bunch of planners
sat round a table and arranged the premeditated murders of 35 Australians?
Unfortunately the answer is yes. All of the hard evidence at Port Arthur bears
the distinctive trademark of a planned ``psyop'', meaning an operation
designed to psychologically manipulate the belief mechanisms of a group of
people or a nation for geopolitical or military reasons.

Because of their illegal nature psyops are never formally ordered by
governments, but are discreetly arranged through multinational corporations
and others. Some psyops ordered during the last forty years are known to have
been carried out by independent contractors hired from a small specialist
group, staffed mostly by retired members of American and Israeli special
forces.

Patsies are normally used as decoys, deliberately inserted into the psyop to
deflect attention away from the specialist group, allowing the latter time to
extract safely from the operational area while the patsy takes the blame. But
the planners leave tell-tale signs and occasionally make critical mistakes. It
is a little-known fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was proved a patsy when a New
Zealand newspaper printed a story about his guilt several hours before he was
accused of the crime in Dallas. The planners put the decoy story on the news
wires too early, forgetting the crucial time difference would allow the New
Zealand paper to print the story long before Oswald was even accused. It was a
single planning error, but one that proved in absolute scientific terms that
Lee Harvey Oswald was deliberately set up as a patsy.

As part one of this report proved, policewoman Yvonne Fletcher's murder in
London during 1984 was a psyop where the intended patsies were four million
Libyans. The operation was successful and resulted in Tripoli being bombed by
an `outraged' President Reagan in 1986. The next blatant psyop was Lockerbie,
when on 21 December 1988 Pan American flight 103 exploded in mid-air killing
all 259 passengers and crew. Although very recent scientific evidence not yet
in the public domain proves conclusively that the Libyans could not have been
responsible, they were nonetheless blamed for the atrocity. The principal
affect of those two psyops on the Libyans were sanctions designed to prevent
them updating defensive weapon systems capable of protecting their
resource-rich nation. Since 1984 Libyan defence capabilities have steadily
declined, leaving its people and resources increasingly vulnerable to external
attack and thus possible conquest.

By a strange coincidence Australia is also a resource-rich nation, with
overall reserves more than twenty times as valuable as those in Libya, but
with only half the defence capability. In some ways this was not an
insurmountable problem until 1996 because unlike Libya this nation has always
had huge numbers of sporting shooters traditionally used in time of war to
both train and supplement our miniscule armed forces. Not any more. Since the
psyop at Port Arthur more than 400,000 reserve firearms have been pulped
instead of stored by the Federal Government, leaving our nation and people
terribly exposed to just about anyone interested in taking over the natural
resources jewel in the southern hemisphere crown.

To hell with multinational global ambitions. This is Australia and we need to
restore our reserve capability in order to keep this country the way it is.
The first thing we have to do is prove once and for all time that Martin
Bryant was used as a patsy to cover the objective of the Port Arthur psyop,
which effectively undermined our national security. In fact I am going to
prove that now but doubt the Federal Government will be interested in the hard
scientific facts, or in correcting the multiple gross errors made immediately
after the massacre took place. The harsh and unpalatable truth about Port
Arthur will have to be forced on the Australian Government by the Australian
people.

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 programmes 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 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 overall body target area, 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.

Media apologists desperately trying to protect their obscene ``lone nut''
legend will scream foul at this point and claim that flukes happen. No they do
not. About seven months ago a trained Israeli soldier went beserk in Hebron
and fired a complete thirty-shot magazine of ammunition from an identical Colt
AR15 into a crowd of Palestinians at the same range. His thirty high velocity
bullets injured nine and killed no-one at all. This Israeli example helps to
drive home the absolute lunacy of crafted media insinuations that Martin
Bryant was a registered invalid who suddenly metamorphasized into the lethal
equivalent of a fully trained and highly disciplined US Navy
`SEAL'.

Next we come to the klll-rate which refers to the speed at which people are
killed, thereby reflecting the skill, co-ordination, and accuracy of the
shooter. It is accepted by all the authorities in Tasmania that immediately
after the shooter entered the Broad Arrow Cafe he killed his first 12 victims
in 15 seconds, a claim apparently opposed by some sporting shooters in
Tasmania because of the seemingly impossible speed and lethal efficiency. This
is a very reasonable objection so long as those shooters remain media-fixated
on Martin Bryant, but there is nothing impossible about such a high kill-rate
at the hands of a top special forces shooter operating at peak efficiency.
The first thing special forces do when entering an enclosed area containing
superior numbers is lay down very fast accurate fire designed to kill as many
hostiles as possible, thus gaining absolute control of the area in record time
and minimizing the risk of injury to themselves; and because hostiles
frequently wear body armour protecting the heart area, special forces are
trained to aim instinctively for the smaller head target. Following these
unpublished protocols precisely, the shooter at Port Arthur gained absolute
control of the Broad Arrow Cafe in fifteen seconds flat, killing most of his
victims with a single shot to the head.

To even suggest that Martin Bryant, whose proven weapons handling experience
was limited to a single-shot Webley Osprey air rifle could have caused this
carnage is absurd. 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 barrel of 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 shot 12 moving
and partially obscured targets at the rate of one every 1.25 seconds. Nor did
he trip over any obstructions, indicating that this professional shooter's
face was seen in the Broad Arrow Cafe by staff some time earlier, during his
final reconnaissance when he studied the layout to ensure no hiccups occurred
during the operation. There were no hiccups. Ninety seconds after entering the
Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter departed, leaving thirty two Australians and
others lying on the floor, twenty of them dead.

All of these hard scientific facts were deliberately excluded by the frenzied
media pack and not one attempt was made to establish the real identity of the
shooter. Long blonde hair did not prove that the shooter was Martin Bryant,
and the media somehow forgot to remind the Australian public that long wigs
are the most common form of basic disguise ever used. In the Broad Arrow a
long wig would also have been necessary to conceal the ear protection worn by
the shooter. Firing more than thirty high velocity AR15 rounds in that hollow
confined space produced as much concussive blast as a pair of stun grenades;
sufficient concussion to severely impair the shooter's spatial orientation
(and thus aim) unless wearing ear protectors or combat communications
headphones. Readers are cautioned not to try proving this point themselves if
they value their eardrums and long-term hearing ability.

Official accounts are hazy about what happened next, but it is confirmed that
most of those killed thereafter were shot with the Belgian FN, a heavier
assault weapon which has a completely different weight and balance from the
Colt AR15 and fires a round producing more than twice the recoil. But despite
switching between weapons with very different handling characteristics, and
shifting from close to intermediate range, the shooter constantly maintained
an awesome inverted killed-to-injured ratio. Overall the massacre produced 35
dead and 22 injured for a final killed-to-injured ratio of 1.60 to 1, almost
identical to the 1.66 to 1 ratio in the Broad Arrow Cafe. To say the shooter
was consistent would be the understatement of the year.

In layman terms, in an average shooting the 35 people who were killed at Port
Arthur should have been accompanied by between 175 and 245 injured survivors;
very similar ratios to the American MacDonalds and other random massacres.
Instead there were only 22, the trademark of a highly trained combat shooter.
It is only when accurately analyzed in this cold scientific way that the
monstrous nature of the media story can be exposed for what it really is: a
creative lie every bit as loathsome as that fashioned by the British media
when WPC Yvonne Fletcher was shot in the back from an American multinational
building during 1984, but where the media grovelled obsequiously in front of
powerful international patrons and lobbies and conspired to pervert the course
of justice by blaming the Libyans instead of the Americans.

The professional shooter in Tasmania presented us with a final display of his
unquestioned prowess when tourist Linda White and her boyfriend Mick
approached Seascape Cottage on the Port Arthur road in a small four-wheel
drive vehicle, shortly after the massacre in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Both saw
the shooter aim and Linda White felt the wind of the first round as it passed
her cheek and shattered the driver's window next to her head. The shooter
corrected his aim and the second round hit Linda White in the arm, just to the
right of the heart target area. The third round killed the engine and stopped
the vehicle.

In this his ultimate demonstration of combat shooting skill the shooter fired
one sighting shot at a fast-moving target of unknown speed from an unsupported
free-standing firing position, the most difficult of all; instantly and
accurately compensated for vehicle speed and weapon recoil with the same
blinding speed as the computer gunsight on an F14 Tomcat, then disabled both
driver and vehicle with shots two and three. This man might have been an
indispensable asset stopping speeding car-bombers in Beirut, but his
professional skills were far too conspicuous for Port Arthur.

In the view of this author these were the last shots fired by the professional
before he (or they) smoothly extracted from the Tasman Peninsula and then from
Australia, leaving patsy Martin Bryant down the track at Seascape holding the
baby.

The trail to Seascape Cottage had been meticulously laid. In Martin Bryant's
car at the tollbooth was a combat shotgun, a bag of ammo for the Belgian FN
and, very conveniently, Martin Bryant's passport. Then there was Linda White's
disabled four wheel drive on the Arthur Highway and a stolen BMW burning in
the grounds of Seascape to mark the way, and just in case all these clues were
not enough for the Tasmanian Police, an anonymous caller to police
headquarters in Hobart advised the authorities that the man holed up in
Seascape was probably Martin Bryant. Short of erecting a pink neon sign
reading ``THIS WAY TO THE PATSY -'' the professional or professionals seem to
have thought of everything.

There were no eyewitnesses who could positively identify Martin Bryant at Port
Arthur because an Australian newspaper circulated his photograph nationwide,
thereby totally corrupting any and all police lineups, photo boards, or
controlled shopping mall parades.

All the eyewitnesses could legally claim was a ``tall man with long blonde
hair'', which was no impediment to the media who tried and convicted Martin
Bryant in less than two days, in one of the most blatant and disgusting
displays of media abuse ever seen.

So Bryant the patsy was firmly in place and Seascape was swiftly surrounded by
armed police from Tasmania and Victoria, most of whom must have been very
puzzled as the siege continued through the night. If we are to believe media
reports (difficult, I know) Martin Bryant fired 250 rounds during the siege
period but hit nothing at all, which is exactly what one would expect of
someone whose prior experience was limited to a Webley Osprey air rifle.
If the professional shooter had fired 250 rounds from Seascape Cottage during
the siege, his awesome killed-to-injured ratio would have resulted in a police
funeral cortege stretching from the Tasman Peninsula to Hobart.
It is beyond doubt that many of the armed police noticed Bryant's wild
undisciplined performance at Seascape bore absolutely no resemblance at all to
that of the deadly shooter at Port Arthur, and some must have told their
senior officers about it, though it seems they were ignored or simply told to
shut up. The media had its man, the feeding frenzy was in full swing and the
police were not going to be allowed to spoil a lucrative politically-correct
story by telling the truth.

Unfortunately media versions of events had some flaws so basic that to mention
them on national television was an insult to the intelligence of every
Australian citizen. We were told in most reports that Bryant had three
weapons, one of which, the Daewoo combat shotgun, was left in the boot of his
Volvo near the tollbooth. The reports tell us that Martin Bryant then took the
Colt AR15 and Belgian FN assault rifles down to Seascape with him and used
them along with other weapons found in the house to fire those 250 shots at
the police during the siege. Oh, really?

Bryant's last telephone conversation with the police was around 9 pm on 28
April and his next contact was when he stumbled out of a fiercely burning
Seascape Cottage unarmed and with his back on fire at 8.37 am the following
morning. Police confirmed that Bryant came out unarmed, and also confirmed
that by then the fire, exacerbated by exploding ammunition, was burning so
fiercely that they were completely incapable of approaching the building to
see if anyone else was still alive. Seascape rapidly became an inferno as the
entire structure collapsed on the ground in a pile of white-hot debris, which
of course included the charred and twisted remains of the Colt AR15 and
Belgian FN assault rifles allegedly fired from inside the building by Martin
Bryant, destroyed not only by the searing heat but also by the exploding
ammunition.

So how can it be that on a Channel 9 programme shown in November 1996 a
Tasmanian police officer was able to show all Australians two immaculate
assault weapons allegedly used by Bryant at Port Arthur. Where did the police
obtain those pristine weapons we were shown on national television? The real
shooter probably left them lying neatly on the ground near Seascape and the
patsy, before departing at speed for the Devonport ferry terminal.

In order to present even a shell of a case against Martin Bryant the
prosecution needed valid identification by witnesses, but all eyewitness
statements were corrupt. In addition they needed the weapons used in the
massacre ballistically cross-matched to bullets found in the victims at Port
Arthur, either in Martin Bryant's possession or bearing his fingerprints. They
had neither.
Nor were Bryant's fingerprints found at the Broad Arrow Cafe where he is
alleged to have eaten lunch immediately before the massacre.

In an unprecedented move, fully-edited fake video footage obtained direct from
America was entered as evidence in an Australian court against Australian
citizen Martin Bryant. In short there is no case for Bryant to answer with
regard to Port Arthur, though he must still explain why he was at Seascape or,
more to the point perhaps, tell us who talked him into going there when he
did.

Bryant did admit to taking the BMW but from a different location, and without
knowing why, and possibly setting fire to it later at Seascape, but vehemently
denied any involvement at Port Arthur.

His limited confession fits the known hard scientific facts exactly, and for
many months after his arrest despite the severe disadvantage of his
intellectual impairment, Bryant kept to his story in the face of tremendous
pressure from police interrogators and psychiatrists to admit the enormity of
his alleged crimes. He continued to refuse to do so and at the formal hearing
on 30 September 1996 pleaded not guilty to all seventy two charges.
At that precise point in time the prosecution knew it had a very serious
problem. Martin Bryant was refusing to roll over and there was absolutely no
hard evidence at all linking him to the murders at Port Arthur, a fact that
would very quickly become obvious if the case was allowed to proceed to trial
in front of twelve alert Tasmanian jurors. About the only thing that might
save the day was a false confession of the kind beaten out of the Birmingham
Six and the Guildford Four by the British police, but by then Bryant was in
prison where his screams might attract attention. With the media pack outside
its doors baying for blood, government had to do something but had few
options. Perhaps heavy pressure could be exerted on a third party to extract a
confession from Bryant?

Shortly afterwards, according to Tasmanian reporter Mike Bingham, Martin
Bryant's mother Carleen, unable to face the stress of a public trial, paid a
visit to Bryant at Risdon Prison and told him that if he did not plead guilty,
she and his (Bryant's) younger sister Lindy would commit suicide and he would
never see them again. Bingham later wrote that he doubted this was the reason
for Martin Bryant then changing his plea to guilty on all charges, but who
does Bingham think he is kidding apart from himself?

Bryant's mum and sister were probably the only people in the world who would
still talk to him, and he had just been told that if he didn't plead guilty
they wouldn't be talking to him ever again, and furthermore he would also be
directly responsible for their deaths. Carleen Bryant's threat achieved in
days what the police interrogators and psychiatrists had failed to achieve in
months.

Martin Bryant loved his mum and sister and wanted to see both of them again,
something that would only happen if he could stop them committing suicide.
Clearly Martin Bryant pleaded guilty to save the lives of his mum and his
sister.

If Bingham's claim is correct applying such enormous psychological pressure
was mental cruelty, every bit as coercive as the physical abuse handed out to
the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four by the British police. But because
Martin Bryant was a registered invalid with impaired intellectual functions,
the way that psychological blackmail was used to force a false confession out
of him was almost certainly as illegal as the physical methods used by the
British police, leaving the way open for Bryant to withdraw his false
confession and lodge an appeal.

Just like Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, Martin Bryant was a perfect patsy. Both
had lively imaginations but few friends, and to a large degree both lacked
credibility because of their inability to defend themselves eloquently in
front of the media. Lee Harvey Oswald very quickly became a dead patsy
incapable of saying anything at all, and it is highly likely the same fate was
planned for Martin Bryant. If Seascape had been located in California or
Texas, Martin Bryant would unquestionably have been shot dead the split-second
he left the building. It was only the iron discipline exercised by the
Tasmanian and Victorian police special operations groups at the scene which
allowed Martin Bryant to be taken into custody alive. All of those armed
officers deserve the highest praise for their restraint in what must have been
perceived as an extremely dangerous situation.

It is beyond doubt that those who planned the psyop are uneasy about Martin
Bryant's continued existence and would sleep better at night if he should
suddenly drop down dead. With this in mind, any good-natured crims enjoying an
extended sabbatical in Risdon prison who read this report are asked to keep an
eye on Martin Bryant and do what they can to ensure that he doesn't
accidentally commit `suicide' or slip on a bar of soap and break his neck. No
need to go over the top by ordering huge buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken,
but a cheerful wave or a friendly smile now and then might be enough to let
him know that you know he didn't kill those women and children at Port Arthur,
and that at some time soon all Australians are going to need whatever help he
can provide in tracking down the ruthless professionals who cold-bloodedly
murdered 35 unarmed Australian citizens, in what will eventually be recorded
by historians as one of the most obscene psyops conducted anywhere in the
world.

Reversing the psyop illusion will not be a walk in the park, but a battle for
truth in broadcasting, where another creative media illusion like that put to
air after the massacre at Port Arthur will immediately result in equally
creative prison sentences for the magicians who reverse the truth on
television for eighteen million Australians. It is a battle we must win
for the sake of our children and for their children in turn, and if in the end
we are forced to take legal action against government in order to obtain
justice, then we must find the funds to do so.

Logic indicates that a limited number of Australian citizens or residents
colluded in the massacre, if only in terms of forward reconnaissance and
setting Martin Bryant up for the professionals.

We need to find out who they were and we need to find out who funded the
psyop. The Federal Police must be asked to investigate the subversive groups
who used huge lobby power immediately after the psyop to undermine our
national security. The 400,000 reserve weapons pulped were fully-funded by the
taxpayer and should at the very least have been placed in military reserve
stock for use in time of national emergency. Once greased, such weapons need
no maintenance and we had plenty of secure storage space for them. There are
no excuses for lobbyists and politicians who wittingly undermine Australian
national security.

This is far from the end of the story but it is all that I will be publishing
until an intensive independent investigation into the massacre is carried out
in Tasmania. There are at least eight other gross errors surrounding the mass
murder, any one of which has the potential to savagely damage government, and
another thirty lesser points, but each and every one must be verified in
absolute privacy. If my investigation into Yvonne Fletcher's murder in London
taught me anything at all, it was simply that the premature release of
critical information serves only to allow time for media apologists to think
up highly creative ways of minimizing its impact on the public.

If the Federal Government is to be forced into action, it must be presented
with a case so complete and so utterly damning that immediate action will be
its only recourse short of being thrown out of office by a large bunch of very
angry Australians. Anyone wishing to pursue the matter beyond this point
should read the item ``Port Arthur - What Next?'' printed alongside this
report.

Many years ago Oscar Wilde said ``Literature always anticipates life. It does
not copy it, but moulds it to its purpose.'' In 1988 Australian newspapers
reported New South Wales politician Barry Unsworth's claim that there would be
no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania.

The author is an independent investigator with thirty years direct experience
of international military and oilfield operations.




Return to First Page

This page available for sponsorship, please E-Mail the editor for details