Agent Of Disinformation - Joe Vialls

Details That Point to a Coverup At Port Arthur ---------------------------- Email: editor@shootersnews.addr.com

Shortly after Wendy Scurr and others sensed something shonky about the massacre and started collecting evidence in 1997 a fellow by the name of JOE VIALLS appeared out of the blue on the scene claiming to be an independent investigative journalist and conned Wendy into handing over a great deal of the material that had been gathered. Joe quickly put it into a small book containing what evidence he wanted to use the thrust of which points to unknown international groups having perpetrated the massacre. The trouble with his book he has deliberately not used a great deal of the material.

He does not mention the morgue truck or anything else that points to locals being involved the massacre. Why is this one must ask when there is so much evidence ? It can be demonstrated he in fact has tried to discredit the reliability of key evidence - much of which is discussed on this website.

EXAMPLE: Joe's famous missing boat in the background claim. Many of you will have seen the picture where Joe claims the VIDEO OF THE GUNMAN AT THE VOLVO is a fake because of the halo at the edges and that this was "electronic pasting" of 2 videos together and the white fishing boat was not in the spot it appears in the video. This claim is false because that halo is in fact a light effect caused by the video camera having been on extreme zoom - the interface zone between the close objects and the nearest visible far out objects - it is caused largely by the angle of the camera and the fact it is above the level of the water in the bay. The boat was there but further out in the bay. The question must be asked why would someone want to discredit this video ? The answer must be this video contains something true that those behind the massacre don't want us to notice. This site believes that thing was the wig on the gunman - the hair length and the gap in the back. Those behind the massacre did not expect a tourist on the site would have been game to film the gunman in action and subsequently they have had to try and discredit the video's credibility.

If you look at Joe's picture you see the gunman standing there and the gap in the hair and most people would think the gap is where his face would be and its is a shaddow making the face not visible - this is what the editor of this site thought when he first saw it - but no, its the back of his head. Nowhere did Joe point this fact out because he was trying to say this video was a fake.

While Joe is entitled to his views and may not have enough technical expertise it raises questions about his agenda.

EXAMPLE # 2: Joe persists in sticking to the 90 SECONDS IN THE CAFE lie claiming only a professional anti-terrorist gunman could have done it and only those type of guys are in the Middle East. In recently published articles he cites an Isreali group. This is despite the fact Wendy who was there has told him it was not 90 seconds but 5 minutes yet Joe still pushes this line. This 90 second claim follows and supports the official government line.

Some of these claims of Joe have been reportedly exposed as false by several media groups but the question is did Joe intend they be in order to discredit the whole assertion that Martin Bryant did not plan and execute the massacre thereby destroying the whole "conspiracy theory" notion ?

Amongst these false claims Joe has mixed in some true facts like the running man video on Ray Martin's program. This type of approach - mix the good with the bad to discredit it - is one of the classic techniques used by those in the intelligence community to engage in disinformation to discredit a line of thought.

Joe has tried this same debunking with other suspect incidents - the London Libyian Embassy shooting of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher - so he has a history of this type of thing. Joe states he is a former British SAS Officer but fails to tell us the SAS is integrally linked to intelligence and law enforcement organizations like MI6 and the Special Branch - of whom have been caught out fabricating evidence and other forms of unacceptable behaviour in the past.

Apart from this Joe often doesn't respond to queries from people who have bought his book and has been quite evasive regards talking on the phone. His latest releases bleat about things indicated on this site but he offers no explanation for them or for evidence of his own claims of middle eastern gunmen.

Accordingly the question must be asked just who is Joe Vialls and what is he really putting out this material for ? Was Joe sent to discredit those who do not swallow the official line on this incident by putting out this type of material ? If you had done this massacre and people were on to you wouldn't you send someone to put out a red herring to put people onto the wrong trail ?

MORE INFO - Joe in fact has a large number of websites on the net - so many the its hard to keep track of them -and one must ask why. In one of those sites he says "...it is now time for the authorities to stop pussyfooting around, and get on with a serious counter-terrorist investigation.". This statement coupled with his claiming international terrorists were behind Port Arthur is in effect pushing a case for more investigative powers for the same people this website believes comitted the massacre - persons linked to ASIO and the Tasmanian Police Service. Followers of Joe Vialls need to wake up to where he is attempting to lead them. Everyone knows police in Australia cannot be trusted in investigating themselves. Port Arthur is in fact an example of where these govt. agencies have in fact criminally abused the powers they were given and not only does it justify not giving them anymore powers but removing most of the powers they already have.

Return to Port Arthur Links Page