Groups search result 3 for port arthur bryant joe |
>===== Original Message From "Ridge" <yeahbaby@optushome.com.au> =====
>"Brian Ross" <brian_ross_665@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>news:3A984619@MailAndNews.com...
>> At least, unlike Noel, I do not attempt to claim knowledge I don't
>possese.
>
>So why are you so staunchly arguing that their was no conspiracy?
Because the knowledge I _do_ have suggests that there was no conspiracy.
>If you have no knowledge just say you don't agree and leave it at that.
I do. Noel on the otherhand, like most conspiracists builds bloody great
bricks without anything other than conjecture.
>The reply by Duane at the bottom of Page 419 basically sums up my thoughts.
>The URL is: http://www.publicdebate.com.au/is/246/f419.html
>All you seem to be doing is confusing the issue and leading people around in
>circles.
Duane was wrong. I led people into thinking skeptically about what was
claimed by the conspiracists.
>> Selective quoting of course makes the skeptical side appear far worse than
>> it
>> is. I'd suggest you read the entire 400+ pages and as I suggested, follow
>> Andrew's arguments in particular.
>
>I will in good time, but for now why don't you just come up with some
>credible replies to questions raised by Vialls and it will all be put to
>rest, won't it?
I did. I questioned the claim that Bryant was not capable of the supposed
"accuracy" displayed by him at Port Arthur. In reality, he didn't have to
be
accurate, the type of weapon and the type of round fired in the conditions
of
the Broad Arrow Cafe ensured that he would achieve multiple hits and
kill/wound large numbers.
>But so far you're not convincing anybody. ;-)
I managed to scare Noel and Vialls though, to the point where both spat the
dummy rather than allow themselves to be exposed as fantasists.
>Noel failed to convince. Joe Vialls
>> himself left in a fit of pique. The Port Arthur conspiracy is a theory and
>> a
>> very badly put together one at that.
Still very true.
©2001 Google