Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Martin Bryant - The Other Story

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Ljiljan, Apr 10, 2009.

  1. http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/bryant.html

    This is the story of a person who has researched the Port Arthur Massacre extensively, and believes that Martin Bryant was completely set up by a (not necessarily ours) government agency.

    He analyses just about everything except the media reports, to justify his claims that it was the killings of a professional sharp shooter rather than an "intellectually impaired registered invalid".

    Nowhere do I state that this is my opinion of what happened. Yes i was 8 years old when this occurred (thank you smee), and I missed the shockwave that this caused. No offense is meant by adding this, it is there for people to read if they feel inclined. nothing else.
  2. This has come up before a few years ago.
    Why don't you talk to the family of the victims and the actual witnesses before reading that drivel?
    Particularly talk to the father of Allanah and Madeleine Mikac, aged 6 and 3, who were chased around a tree before they were shot down in cold blood along with their mother.
  3. smee can YOU lock this insulting drivel????
  4. dont attack me mate, i posted it for those interested because it came up in another topic. if your not interested you dont have to read it. As for locking it i dont think it really goes beyond the T and C's
  5. it may not, but it's in very bad taste, given the subject matter, and the continuing tragedy this mongrel visited on the lives of hundreds of people....

    and it wasn't someone else who brought this stupid conspiracy theory up in the other thread, it was you!!!
  6. I wouldn't lock it even if I was the mod in this section as no T&C has been breached but I did say this came up a few years ago and it got very heated emotional.
    Best to use some judgement before posting irresponsibly as there are many here from Tassie and I personally have spoken to witnesses.
    If you ever make your way down to Port Arthur don't bring it up with the locals as they are still horrified with what happened and any mention of that website will only result in the removal of vital body organs.

    statements like
    "Read for yourself, decide for yourself. Enjoy."
    "evidence is compelling" which you brought up in the other thread are very insensitive coming from someone who would have been less that 10 years old when it all went down.
  7. Fair enough. I was insensitive.
    Sorry for offense caused to anyone. Statement will be edited appropriately
  8. Why not just stop it? it's not just your comments that are insensitive, but your raising of the matter at all!!!!
  9. I was not far from there when this atrocity happened. I saw first hand the devastation this caused to peoples lives both in the Community of Port Arthur and Tasmania in general. Please pull this thread immediately.
  10. I guess that depends on how one decides what is offensive. I'd reckon this garbage would be worth consideration for a lock.
  11. Does it personally offend you for the Port Arthur Massacre to be a topic of discussion, or do you believe it is otherwise in poor taste?

    Is the problem discussing it at all, or the questioning the 'facts' of the event?
  12. I don't see what all the hoo-ha is about.

    Unless you were there and saw Martin Bryant point a gun in your direction and then witnessed him actually doing all of the killing then how can you categorically state that the "other story" is completely false?

    What happened was atrocious, sure, but Governments have done some pretty bad shit in years gone by, I wasn't there so will keep an open mind.

    What is it with all the "lock this thread" calls?

    Don't read it if it's offensive to you, skip the thread and treat it in the manner that you deem it deserves and move on.
  13. +1

    We have the power of choice, I'm exercising mine and the OP gave everyone the chance to exercise theirs. Irrespective of the deeply sensitive nature of the topic and its moral ambiguity, censoring based on personal opinion is going to lead to inconsistency's. I'd like to express my opinion and encourage others to ignore this sort of crap and be wary of those that post such things
  14. I don't think this thread should be censored. We are a free people of free minds, and whilst some individuals are incapable of making decisions for themselves informed or otherwise, I do not think we should all be lumped into this category.

    My Grandfather Witnessed the Nuclear explosion at Hiroshima, Was it necessary? Who knows there is plenty of literature around for you to read and decide yourself. If you want to. If you do not then don't look it up.

    Port Arthur was a terrible tragedy. It is in my opinion at least, to put the Victims families, friends, and colleagues through any sort of emotional or physical stress, poor taste. But without the ability to approach all individual "beliefs" or "ideas" of how something happen can we consider ourselves well informed or at the least "unbiased"? Maybe Today Tonight will run another story on this and we will all be told the "Truth", at least from the reporters, and the producers stand point.

    I'll decide if I chose to read the link, I'll decide for myself if there is any basis in what is written.

    You can tell me all you want to, but in the End, it is I who will decide what is pertinent to myself. That is what I consider my most basic human right.

    Be an individual. Decide if you want to read it, if not don't click. It is a rather simple thing to do.

    I am with Vic, leave this thread as is until such time as the T&C is breached.

    After reading through what was posted, I can confirm that I am highly sceptical. All written "fact's"(As per the writers belief) with only worded support. Pictures, supporting his ascertations would of gone a long way to support his statement's, and I find the lack of them quite a puzzling deficeincy. Failing that even links to the places where he sources his absolutes for comparison would of been helpfull. Not sold on his story, but I'll keep an open mind, I don't mind a good story. Now Lets Call it "Jason Bourne - Goes to australia", as that is sort of how it reads to me.
  15. #15 mcbigg, Apr 11, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    Most of the doubt in the articles I read seemed highly based around the opinions that he (a man of relatively low IQ) could not possibly have been that good a shooter (shooting from the hip) or strategist to pull of the kills like he did.

    Let me put this out there:

    If i remember correctly, he had aspergers, a form of autism.

    Some autistic people have what is known as 'savant'. This is where they possess a skill or talent in one very specific area, such as piano playing: [media=youtube]7nIcPTm0dmo[/media] or drawing pictures from memory: [media=youtube]ckqDX2XpdyY[/media] or sculpting: [media=youtube]lkDMaJ-wZmQ[/media].

    I know it's a massive stretch and I've not heard of any evidence to back this up, but is it possible, just possible, that Martin Bryant was some kind of savant when it came to shooting?

    Just a thought.
  16. There's generations of "relatively low IQ" country types who are a decent shot when out rabbiting. Much like some footballers, or "our Cathy", you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to be good at something, merely practice.

    As for the incident, I was old enough to remember the shockwave, the unnecessary gun buyback, and watching the old Winchester .22 semi getting it's barrel bent.

    Older, we travelled to the historic site during a tour of Tassie, with signs in the visitors centre asking tourists to not ask staff members about what happened, due to some still working there. looking at the stripped and gutted broad "arrow cafe building" (prior to being demolished), with bullet holes still in the bare masonry.

    The person who believes that is some kind of coverup and conspiracy is a very sad, sad individual.
  17. When the 9/11 conspiracies were being discussed on NR a couple of years ago, I opined that for a conspiracy to have validity, there has to be a reason for the conspiracy. So what's the reason here?

    A right wing politician, with considerable support from a coalition partner who's main electorate are passionate about their rights and needs to own firearms is not the sort to want to disarm the populace.

    Why, when the same massacres occur in other countries there is no cry of conspiracy from people here?
  18. Autistic savant is extremely rare. It also typically affects autistics who have a particularly high IQ (also very rare). Martin Bryant is no savant.

    Asperger's syndrome is a term that is usually used to people with low to average IQ (roughly b/w 50-100) who are on the mildly affected end of Autistic Spectrum Disporder. They are mostly high enough functioning to fit in with society at a normal level though they do usually appear 'odd' to most due to poor social and communication skills. You can often spot Aspergers by an odd gait, formalised speach and a typical autistic traits such as obessively talking about one specific topic and failure to observe social ettiqute such as allowing the other person to comment or not changing the topic if the other person becomes obviously bored or disinterested (most of us have met and possibly work for people like this).

    Where ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder) becomes relevant in MB's case is the lack of imagionative skill possesed by autistic people. They have a delay in ability to imagion and therefore predict unknown events (mild in asperger's but still apparent). Unable (or at least impaired) to predict coming events, social movements or change, they will gravitate towards structure. Routine behaviour provides stucture to their lives thus reducing the need to predict and similarly, mechanical machines/devises are common obessions because the action and reaction/cause and effect are always the same and thus provide order and a way to relax the mind (a mind that has to work much harder than most in a world that is difficult to understand). Given the weapons that Martin had available him, it is likely that guns were his obsession of choice (a stim or escape mechanism for him). Due to their predicability he would have been easily able to understand how they work and probably (due to his obessive nature) had an equal or better understanding of them than most professional soldiers. This applies equally for his understanding of how to efficiently use them to kill. His lack of social awareness or empathy for others that is typical of autism would have allowed him to carry out his acts in a very "matter of fact" and efficient manner without felling guilt or empathy for his victims. Combine all that with the fact that he was shooting at civilians, women and children who have no training nor the weapons with which to defend themselves and Martin's kill rate comes as no surprise to anyone.
  19. I've seen some of this stuff before, following on from the 9/11 conspiracy videos etc. I agree that the ascertions made in the article are tenuous and rely on flimsy or non-existant evidence. It's not an academic critique by any means, despite the constant use of the word "scientific" to describe entirely non-scientific assertions. The circumstances of the massacre are difficult to comprehend becasue it was such an exceptional event, and as such 'alternative' explanations are, by comparison, more plausible than they would otherwise be. That said, an international psyop to disarm Australia's sporting shooters might be pushing it just a tad. So, until this guy or someone else can come up with some actual evidence to support his claims, I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

    As to the reaction to the OP I don't think it was offensive, hurtful or insensitive to the victims or families - no-one is debating the fact the people caught up in the tradgedy that occured that day were anything other than innocent victims, the questions are purely about the how and the why. Did the people who jumped up to condemn the OP not bother to follow the link and find out what they were protesting?

    If you don't want to read about it, don't. If you don't want to believe what is written, don't. Simple. I believe it is an important part of our democratic society that people can research and question the "official" version of events and are in turn open to examination and critique from others. That is what breeds a healthy, open, diverse academic culture that in turn enriches and strengthens society as a whole.

    In short - build a bridge...
  20. The OP did edit his original statements which is what people jumped on him.
    He did not contravene any of the T&C's but even your assertions that the victims of the families would not be offended by the website is ludicrous and I can tell you that first hand.
    The OP had every right to post the link but this is a repeat and he should have been aware of the sensitivities and reopening of old wounds.
    In short tact and sensitivity are great tools.