Search results for port arthur

Clear evidence that Australia’s Port Arthur Massacre in 1996 was pre-planned

I have written about this before, and I am revisiting it because it is receiving renewed coverage:

A paper written and presented in 1997 by Stephen Parry entitled ‘Port Arthur Massacre – AFDA National Embalming Team – Detailed Report’, that appears in a little-known book entitled ‘PORT ARTHUR SEMINAR PAPERS: A record of the Port Arthur Seminar’, 11-12 March, 1997, Melbourne, Victoria (ISBN 0642271364) clearly shows the incident that rocked a nation was planned.

In his 16 page, disturbing 1997 paper, Senator Parry stated in the following passage :

“I was particularly impressed by the quick response and initiatives by some of the team members in packaging and collecting equipment.

The response time and the amount of equipment quickly relocated was fantastic. One firm in particular, Nelson Brothers, had organised for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident. These two containers were the envy of all embalmers and worked extremely well.

I would suggest that design specifications may be available from this firm for any future considerations by other firms.” (highlighted by CN)

Parry reveals the funeral services company of Nelson Brothers in Melbourne, Victoria, had undertaken preparations prior to the shooting.

End of quote.

The average Australian is completely oblivious to this travesty, continuing to believe that the patsy, Martin Bryant, a (still) young man of very low IQ, perpetrated this complex mass murder event, just as they are oblivious to the level of control that is exercised over their country and themselves.

Stephen Parry is now an Australian Senator. Nice reward for a job well done. Of course, the MSM will never touch this story. They’ve been complicit from the very beginning, it would appear.


Check out the extraordinary new, life-changing technology at

Startling new information proves Port Arthur massacre was planned by government

The revelations about the 1996 Port Arthur false flag massacre to take guns form the Australian public are hotting up:

In 1988 NSW Premier, Barry Unsworth said, It will take a massacre in Tasmania before we will be able to introduce gun laws. In March 1996 , less than a month before the massacre at Port Arthur, “the Gun Coalition’s Tasmanian coordinator Mr. Rowland Brown, wrote to the Hobart Mercury newspaper warning of a Dunblane-style massacre in Tasmania unless the gun laws were changed” (SOURCE: The Australian Newspaper, 29 th April 1996).

(Sound like PNAC’s “New Pearl Harbor” before 9/11 to anyone? – Richard)

A senator has refused to comment about allegations he had prior knowledge of the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 when 35 innocent people were killed in a precision shooting operation.

Another 23 men, women and children were wounded by a trained and methodical gunman with long blond hair.

Revelations by Austrian-based author and researcher, Keith Noble, that Senator Stephen Parry had prior knowledge of the shootings, have not been refuted.

Parry at the time was a qualified embalmer and a former member of Tasmania Police who led a team of embalmers which handled the bodies in 1996.

An Australian, Mr Noble is leading a campaign to free accused shooter Martin Bryant from Risdon Gaol in Tasmania.

A paper written and presented in 1997 by Stephen Parry entitled ‘Port Arthur Massacre – AFDA National Embalming Team – Detailed Report’, that appears in a little-known book entitled ‘PORT ARTHUR SEMINAR PAPERS: A record of the Port Arthur Seminar’, 11-12 March, 1997, Melbourne, Victoria (ISBN 0642271364) clearly shows the incident that rocked a nation was planned.

In his 16 page, disturbing 1997 paper, Senator Parry stated in the following passage :

“I was particularly impressed by the quick response and initiatives by some of the team members in packaging and collecting equipment.

The response time and the amount of equipment quickly relocated was fantastic. One firm in particular, Nelson Brothers, had organised for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident. These two containers were the envy of all embalmers and worked extremely well.

I would suggest that design specifications may be available from this firm for any future considerations by other firms.” (highlighted by CN)

Parry reveals the funeral services company of Nelson Brothers in Melbourne, Victoria, had undertaken preparations prior to the shooting.

According to Wikipedia:

“Parry was born on 31 October 1960 in Burnie, Tasmania, to William Stephen Parry and Patricia Dawn Evans. He was educated at Burnie’s Marist Regional College after which he enrolled at the Tasmanian Police Academy in Hobart.

Parry was employed as an officer with the Tasmanian Police from 1977 to 1986, and was promoted to Detective in 1983. After leaving the police force, he completed a certificate in Mortuary Science at the Australian College of Funeral Service, and was a funeral director from 1986 to 2004, becoming president of the Australian Funeral Directors Association. Parry was also president of the Burnie Chamber of Commerce and Industry from 2000 to 2004, and a director of the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry from 2000 to 2005.”

In 2004, Parry was elected to the Australian Senate for the State of Tasmania as a member of the Liberal Party.

Senator Parry was eminently qualified to lead the embalming team and as such his published comments would have to be accurate.

On February 26 he was emailed a ‘Show Cause’ notice by Keith Noble who accused the Senate Leader of having prior knowledge of the tragedy.

As of going to print Mr Noble says he has had no acknowledgement or reply from senator Parry.

Cairns News emailed senator Parry’s office with a copy of the notice but he had not responded at the time of going to print.

In furthering his moves to get Bryant out of gaol, Mr Noble told Cairns News there is an abundance of available evidence that the Tasmania Police refuse to acknowledge, clearly indicating Bryant is innocent.

“There was no trial, no coronial inquest, no public enquiry, no royal commission,” Mr Noble said.

“The story pushed by authorities that a trial would have been upsetting is the way the State has kept its crimes concealed from the public.

“John Howard was the worst Prime Minister Australia has ever had, and he encouraged the Liberal Party in Tasmania not to give innocent Martin a trial.

“Howard, who is also a qualified lawyer, spoke out to have Martin denied his legal rights and he never had proper legal representation and was kept in isolation for over six months.

“His lawyer at the time John Avery, who was convicted in 2008 for misappropriating and stealing $512,000, forced Martin to change his not guilty plea.

“He is another person who played the game after the official incident at Port Arthur. This is the depth to which the legal system in Tasmania has been taken over by corrupt lawyers, which includes that other pair of mongrels who wrongly prosecuted and convicted innocent Martin, Damian Bugg and William Cox.”

Mr Noble said the incident at Port Arthur was a premeditated, planned, and professionally perpetrated act of psycho-terror undertaken by the State to coerce the public into accepting firearm legislation.

“Martin Bryant is the patsy,” he said.

End of quote.

Will this break into the MSM? I doubt it without some serious effort by enough people who want the truth brought forth.

In case you missed it, it’s part of the global plan to disarm the public.

Clear evidence that the 1996 Port Arthur massacre was a false flag event to justify gun confiscation

I have referred previously to evidence that the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in which a reported 20 people were killed in execution style in minutes by Martin Bryant, a young man with an IQ of 60 and with no weapons training might not have been all on the up and up. Now, I know that if you’ve been reading these posts for a while, you might find that suggestion a little unexpected…

It’s clear there is a growing group of people that are recognizing this stitch-up for what it was – a false flag event to justify the rapidly introduced legislation to take guns out of the Australian public’s hands. A single event like this could succeed in Australia, where years of events are being shown to be required to pull off the same outcome in the United States, and if you’ve spent any time in Texas you will know it remains an unlikely outcome.

The Port Arthur exposure was given a significant boost yesterday with the Richie Allen interview of Keith Allan Noble. Noble has recently released a book entitled Mass Murder: Martin Bryant Case Re-Examined, in which he examines the tawdry tale:

The Martin Bryant (Port Arthur Massacre) case is the worst injustice that has ever been perpetrated in Australia. Thirty-five deaths, but NO coronial inquest, NO trial, and NO full and public inquiry. Martin, who has the intellectual age of a 10-year-old boy, was set up, misused and abused, then betrayed by the legal profession, then imprisoned for life by some POS who called himself Justice. There is not a shred of hard evidence that Martin planned and conducted the whole tragedy. He does not have the mental capacity. Evidence was faked and eye-witnesses have stated in writing that he was not the gunman and that he was elsewhere when the carnage commenced. It is a gross official cover-up. Martin Bryant is innocent. In this controversial book, Dr Keith Allan Noble re-examined the case from Australia’s Port Arthur Massacre.

End of quote.

Just those few words tell you enough. But when you listen to this interview, describing the equipment that was built in preparation, including a high capacity embalming machine and how Stephen Parry, currently the President of Australia’s Senate, was in the thick of it all.

And this song WISH I KNEW HOW TO BE FREE was written and recorded by Cherri Bonney in support of Martin Bryant.

To my Aussie friends in particular, I say get informed, get angry and do what you can to expose this. It is another dangling thread which, if pulled on, can help to defrock the mirage we live inside.

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham

I find this trial to be an outstanding example of how our world actually works, but those who deny it are completely blind to it, even when they may be otherwise highly principled and well researched. Such is the nature of belief. Indeed, if such an individual understood that 9/11 was in inside job, they would almost certainly struggle to accept – more likely simply deny – the abundant evidence of Israeli involvement in those events.

There are many articles on the ‘net that discuss this current Canadian trial, and I find this one is a good starting point:

The Law
Section 319 of Canada’s criminal code is an extraordinary law by most western standards. It reads, in relevant part: “(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The statute does not define hatred, but does provide 4 statutory defenses.

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

It is important to understand that the prosecution (the Crown), with all of its resources, need only prove ‘hate,’ and then the only available defenses are affirmative, meaning that the burden of proof switches to the defense.

This week I attended some of the extraordinary trial of Arthur Topham in the Supreme Court (the highest provincial trial court) in Quesnel, British Columbia. As a lawyer, the differences in procedure between American and Canadian courts were of interest to me. Ahead of the trial, I read a little about the Canadian legal system and found that on paper the differences appeared minor. I don’t know if the huge differences in practice that I observed in this trial has to do with the way trials are usually conducted in Canada, the understandable loosening of formality in a court in a small town and/or the nature of the trial.

The Background

The history of Mr. Topham’s travails can be found here.

It is sufficient to understand that this trial follows eight years of harassment. Mr. Topham has already had to close his successful remodeling business. This is a criminal trial, and Mr. Topham could go to prison for two years. Mr. Topham and his wife live on a remote property on which they maintain a chicken coop, grow vegetables and engage in other rural activities. But it is clear that Mrs. Topham could not live there alone. These are not wealthy people. Mrs. Topham told me that she is not a political person, but she loves and supports her husband and believes in free speech. The defendant and his wife have exhibited bravery, courtesy and calm to a degree that is awe inspiring.

The police arrested Mr. Topham for ‘hate’ after they received complaints from various Jewish people who found his writing hateful. Although the police clearly knew where he lived, they arrested Topham as he and his wife were driving, leaving his wife stranded and Mr. Topham in jail. While jailed, Mr. Topham’s house was searched and his computers, shotguns and other items were taken. (Shotguns are essential in an area where grizzlies often decide to take up residence on the porch.)

The Trial

I understand that before I arrived, the Crown presented the arresting and investigating officers. Clearly the officers are not qualified to establish ‘hate,’ so how does the Crown do this? There is no victim to present, no one whose injuries the jury must assess, instead it is to the jury to decide if ‘hate’ is present, no injury need be shown.

The Crown chose to use an expert witness to show hate, and qualified Len Rudner as an expert in Judaism and anti-Semitism. Mr. Rudner’s biography indicates that he is a ‘professional Jew,’ in that he has been employed for the last 15 years by the Canadian Jewish Congress and its successor organization, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). Prior to this trial, Rudner has attempted to force Mr. Topham’s internet service provider to shut down his web site, and has lodged civil complaints against Mr. Topham.

The crown used its questioning of Rudner to introduce what it considered to be the most damaging articles on Topham’s site, Radical Free Press (RFP). These included a list of books and articles, all of which are easily accessible on the internet and/or for sale at

Most of these publications accuse Jews of some pretty nasty politics. What at first appeared to be the Crown’s most damning evidence was a picture of a stereotyped Jew holding puppets that were Canadian politicians. On cross examination, it was hard for Mr. Rudner to counter what a careful viewing showed to be a clear political statement. I think the shocking picture of the Jew served to make the statement more powerful. But is it the job of the court to evaluate the strength of a political cartoon?

Without going to the truth of the matters presented, I am troubled that Mr. Topham is on trial for reprinting sources that are widely available in Canada. Again, on cross examination, Mr. Rudner had to admit that this was so. A quick google search for “the protocols of the Elders of Zion,” reveals hundreds of sources that display the protocols in full.

The procedure, at least in this court, was that all objections had to be heard outside the presence of the jury. This meant that each objection forced the jury to leave the room (not the judge and the lawyers) thus making an objection, even for the record, was a cumbersome and time consuming process.

In one of these interminable objection interludes, the Crown stated that ‘free speech is not on trial here.” Shockingly, Judge Butler echoed her sentiments. Legal fictions (such as that all lawyers are capable of providing an adequate defense) are generally employed to allow the system to work. In this case, the legal fiction went to the charge itself. Mr. Topham is on trial for writing and for publishing articles that presumably reflect his beliefs. What else is free speech if not that?

End of quote.

I’m sure you get the drift.

This is how our world works – deny it if you will.

I commend the rest of the article to you.

New Zealand: The Unravelling of an Israeli Mass Murder?

Thank you, Gordon.

As usual, Duff peels the onion of the NZ mass murder to reveal the detailed intelligence story behind it, confirming an Israeli shooter, almost certainly Mossad. It’s their stock in trade.

This video shares a similar story, albeit with the less thoroughly informed view that Gordon brings.

As I said a few days ago, this is clearly NZ’s Port Arthur moment. Even the press has used these words.

I was chatting with a friend about this yesterday, and he swung the conversation to a discussion about gun removal from the public.

There are diverse views on this subject. I mentioned that Switzerland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world and a very low rate of homicide using guns. So, there is no correlation in truth between the two.

But the real point, for me, is those who run our world set up these events, package the story emotionally in the press along with the words of the politicians, and it’s all over. And who better to push it through than a woman PM who is a young mother, carefully packaged up in tears and an unwavering commitment to new gun controls.

Simple. It’s how it’s done, and it’s the same game that gets countries to go to war with each other. Over and over and over again. And who guides all of this. I’ll let you guess, though you could start by reading “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”.


Check out the extraordinary new, life-changing technology 

The New Zealand mass shooting event a Mossad hit job?

It is early days, but I have a strong sense that this is the NZ equivalent of Australia’s 1996 Port Arthur massacre  pinned on a guy who did not have the IQ to contemplate such an event, and the evidence is abundant of multiple shooters and a set-up.
It was all it took to get the guns out of the hands of Australians. You need a much more dedicated and detailed plan in the US, as we are seeing.
So, expect to see the legislation roll out and the demands that the average Joe/Jill in NZ hand in his/her guns.
And my view is supported by the editor’s line on this VT article – This event has ‘Mossad hit team’ written all over it rather than the usual lone shooter scenario of the official theory. Ian
Little in our world is as it seems on the surface.
Check out the extraordinary new, life-changing technology at

West Virginia Lawmakers Override Veto: Permitless Carry ‘Becomes Law In 90 Days’

As I’ve said, it’s not so easy to disarm the American public as it was Australians with the 1996 false flag Port Arthur massacre.

Gunman hunted after deadly assault on US disability centre

US police say a suspected gunman is still at large but two others have been “dealt with” after at least 14 people were killed in a shooting attack at a disability centre near Los Angeles.

Understand that these shootings – real or fake but nevertheless false flags – will stop when the guns have been taken from the public as a result of public clamouring for it to be done. It took one event in Australia, the Port Arthur Massacre (for which there clear evidence the “crazed lone gunman” story is just that). The US is a very different beast and so we have this ongoing campaign.

Of course, this is not about getting rid of guns, just those held by the gullible public. Criminals always manage to get them, or haven’t you noticed? And, of course, the police and the military get to keep theirs – for our protection, of course…

ISIL “creates” Australia’s 9/11 moment

As my Aussie friends and family are in the middle of what seems to be imminent threats of beheadings by these dangerous ISIL “agents”, they/you may find it difficult to believe what I am about to say. As I’ve said before, beliefs, combined with fear, are powerful drivers and almost impossible to see beyond.

As I’ve pointed out previously, every war in the last 100 years and perhaps the last 200 have been triggered by a false flag event. Documented beyond question. Moreover, 9/11 was without doubt a false flag event. We could begin with the fact that Osama bin Laden was either dead or dying from the complications arising from Marfan Syndrome at the time of the 9/11 event, having been a valuable US asset as the leader of the Mujahedeen fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. A nice piece of recycling, in my view. Never let a good asset go to waste, even if he is dead. And don’t mistake that piece of Obama re-election theatre where bin Laden was supposedly eliminated in 2011 as having anything to do with the truth. We are all trapped inside this global movie theatre and not many have yet begun to look for the exits.

In my view, sitting outside of it as it unfolds (currently in the United States), the application of the Hegelian Dialectic (“problem, reaction, solution”) is in full flight at the moment in Australia, to justify the removal of further freedoms and the ramping up of the police state.

Problem – ISIL agents are threatening to behead Australians for no reason other than they are Australians.

Reaction – They must be stopped at all costs. Government – the people must be protected.

Solution – Draconian new legislation that includes the pursuit and probable imprisonment of journalists without trial and imprisonment for life for those who go to the wrong country without good reason (excuse me if I have the exact details a little wonky since I haven’t yet read the fine print).

For me, this is reminiscent of the way the Patriot Act was rammed through in the United States almost before the dust had settled at Ground Zero, and Susan Lindauer’s experience and subsequent book “Extreme Prejudice” illustrate powerfully what this legislation means to the average American who gets on the wrong side of this machine. Except in Susan they picked the wrong target. She didn’t lie down quietly and take the drugs they wanted to force on her.

And we have this beautiful reinforcement of the Problem with 800 police deployed in New South Wales and Queensland, broadcast on live television, leading to the arrest of princely number of one or two suspects. This episode of Q&A discusses some of the issues rather well, in my view, revealing the Muslim perspective as well as the justifications by the requisite Federal Government minister. I found it interesting that even the eloquent Muslims who could smell a rat, stopped short of suggesting that the police might in any way be accomplices in this obvious piece of theatre.

Then we have the statements by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, such as reduction in freedom necessary to save lives from terrorism threat and Security may come before some freedoms. Then we have the Melbourne attack, to which Abbott says Melbourne attack is proof people are ‘capable of extreme acts’ in Australia. Powerful Reaction-fuelling events and statements.

And the Solution will just sail through Parliament. The Opposition will support it and the public will feel a great sense of relief that big Tony and his Government mates are protecting us all from these nasty ISIL extremists who will clearly stop at nothing. These irrational beheaders of people. I mean, we’ve seen it on television. It must be true. Let’s forget the evidence that ISIL  was created by the US or those whose interests they serve, just as the War on Terror was before it – not to mention the Cold War, the Vietnam War… Anyone spot a pattern?

And so it goes. As I said, the Opposition will support it because they  are, in fact, on the same side. They are all puppets of those behind the scenes. Most of the time, life goes on apparently calmly, with the political foes bickering over irrelevancies, and Joe Public chooses sides – when they are really the opposite sides of the same face and in these critical moments of great change, they line up in unison and Joe Public thanks them for saving him/her. As Ghis Lanctôt says, whilst we are behaving like sheep, we need a shepherd, provided by Government. Unsurprisingly, Abbott’s approval rating has gone up since his strong action in the face of this “threat”, just as John Howard’s did at the time of the introduction of gun controls. People have been so well conditioned. Except the shepherd is actually a wolf.

I find it interesting that similar actions, though less graphically justified, are being undertaken in the other “five eyes” countries – New Zealand, Canada and the U.K. And one of the features of these legislative changes is to encode into law the right to collect every piece of detail about us all and to prosecute journalists who might reveal material from a future Edward Snowden. It has been challenging enough for Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras in the current legislative situation to bring forth Snowden’s revelations about the NSA, and this and WikiLeaks-related actions see Laura, Jacob Appelbaum and Sarah Harrison residing in Berlin, outside the clutches of the United States and the U.K., and Greenwald living in Brazil and being very  careful about when and how he returns to the United States. The noose around their necks is being tightened and any collection of data is simply for your protection and well supported by new legislation.

And there is the naïve belief amongst Australians that such things could not happen in their safe and protected country. As I said, it is evident in the way the panellists shied away from fingering the police in the Q&A episode mentioned above.

But it has happened in the past, and several times. For example, I have referred previously to the evidence that Martin Bryant was mind controlled and did not act alone in the Port Arthur massacre of 1996. A lone, relatively untrained gunman could not have created that level and pattern of carnage. And what was the solution? Removing most of the guns from the hands of Australians. One such event was enough in Australia, whereas in the United States it is requiring a whole series of false flag events to build up to the point where the Government feels it is in a position to face down the gun advocates. There is also the evidence that the CIA was behind the dismissal of Gough Whitlam as Australia’s Prime Minister in 1975. I also shared with you the testimony of Toos Nijenhuis, which included her description of time spent in a purpose-built ritualistic torture facility in Melbourne. Innocent and shielded little Australia. Such naivety.

Wake up, my friends, to what is being done to us. It is a classic example of the Hegelian Dialectic at work, and it gets used over and over again. At some point, perhaps, as Ghis Lanctôt advocates, we will withdraw our permission from these goons and remember who and what we are.

At least disconnect your gaze from the movie and see what is actually going on. It is a beginning.

Was Ivan Lopez, the Fort Hood Shooter, mind controlled?

My starting point when looking at an event like this is to look behind the public story being put out.

So what data do we have?

Firstly we know there is an ongoing campaign to remove guns from the hands of the American public. It is one of several threads in play in the Sandy Hook and Boston marathon false flag events and, in my view, underpins all of the growing spate of shootings in the United States.

Returning briefly to my post on this yesterday, I’m not yet convinced that this was part of what unfolded here, though it may be a piece of the puzzle and it has been strengthened today by evidence that there was recruiting conducted on Craig’s List for people to participate in such an event, though the timing is off by a couple of weeks.

What particularly has my attention is Lopez’s reported ongoing mental health issues, his use of psychiatric drugs and perhaps most significantly, those who spoke with him earlier in the day found him to be perfectly normal, and his behaviour and actions were completely out of character with him conducting this shooting. Moreover, if you examine the footage of his actions, they were not the actions of a man acting in a crazed manner. You can see and hear all of this in this CNN snippet.

The use of mind control is far more widespread in the world, and in the United States in particular, than the public has a clue about, and Lopez’s circumstances and behaviours are classic. The man is behaving perfectly normally and rationally, and then perhaps in response to a word or phrase or hand signal or phone call tone, a pre-programmed “alter” is triggered that calmly conducts the shooting, including his own suicide.

Add to this his recent private purchase of the handgun used in the shooting and we have the pieces in place to create another brick in the house being built to remove guns from the hands of the American public.

Understand that I’m not a gun advocate, but the public needs to be able to protect themselves from the growing domestic army that does not have the public’s interest at heart.

The behaviour and circumstances of Ivan Lopez took me back to the Port Arthur, Tasmania massacre that I have referred to previously, supposedly conducted by Martin Bryant acting alone (which was clearly not possible). The massacre was used to remove guns from the hands of the public in Australia. One event like this was enough in Australia, but not in the United States. Moreover, the profile for Lopez and Bryant are very similar from a mental health perspective.

So we shall see how this unfolds.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By :
Follow by Email