Port Arthur 10 years on

I can't say I know a lot about Port Arthur, or Martin Bryant. I visited at Port Arthur a few years ago. I'm not a shooter, and don't own a gun.

So, I'm starting from a point of knowing stick about stick.

When this thread started I read these two sites.
http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/JoeVialls.html
http://www.shootersnews.addr.com/snportarthur.html

The problem I have with this stuff is that the people who've made these sites are choosing only to question what they want to.

Everybody is terribly keen to quote the number of shots fired to the number of people killed to the quality of his aim. They take this as gospel truth.

Why?

If the government or someone conspired, why didn't they lie about all of this stuff.

If we are going to question the representation of events we need to question all of it. How do we know that he fired 29 bullets in the cafe - or whatever the number was - how do we know that the victims were killed with head shots, and so on. After all, if you can lie about one bit of it, lying about another bit of it isn't that hard.

And when you think about it, tampering with a crime scene and forensic reports wouldn't be that difficult in the scheme of a cover up on this scale.

There are other examples I could use, the Joe Vialls was full him choosing to accept some 'facts' and rejecting others.

My 2c.

Cheers
Simon https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

It was a great shame as I think of Tassie as my second home

Get yourself the book about port arther 10 years on its a fantastic read ( so the wife has told me )

Adam :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamo
I think that anyone who thinks that this is a conspiracy is a complete looney and up there with the folks who think Sept 11 and the moon landings were hoaxes.

---

Pt Arthur, no conspiracy there. What happened, DID happen.. No doubt about it.

September 11 - Also happened, thats blatantly clear...

Moon Landings.... Hmmmmm :wink:

Now theres an interesting debate. One which is technically arguable from both sides. But heres some food for thought.

1. The radiation near the moon would require shielding approx 6+" thick.
The lunar modules had 3 thin sheets of "aluminium" basically.
How come they didnt get dangerously ill?

2. Light in space comes from 1 main point.. "Sol" so how is it the photographs taken on the moon exhibit multiple light sources 'ala studio'

3. How come NASA cant build a ship capable of going to the moon now?
They falter on that issue quite regularly.

But my favourite.....

WHO CARES :!: Really?

Cheers
Mike

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tombraider+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tombraider)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Jamo
I think that anyone who thinks that this is a conspiracy is a complete looney and up there with the folks who think Sept 11 and the moon landings were hoaxes.

---

Pt Arthur, no conspiracy there. What happened, DID happen.. No doubt about it.

September 11 - Also happened, thats blatantly clear...

Moon Landings.... Hmmmmm :wink:

Now theres an interesting debate. One which is technically arguable from both sides. But heres some food for thought.

1. The radiation near the moon would require shielding approx 6+" thick.
The lunar modules had 3 thin sheets of "aluminium" basically.
How come they didnt get dangerously ill?[/b][/quote]

6" of what?

I think the foil was made of gold, not aluminum. I think also that if you plan the mission correctly you use the shadow of the earth to block out a significant part of the solar radiation for the trip out and back. Then your exposure to radiation is limited. The worst exposure would be when out on the moon, and that wasn't for very long.

We walk around all day protected from solar radiation with only an atmosphere, a t-shirt and some sunscreen. So maybe they just used a whole lot of 30+. https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>2. Light in space comes from 1 main point.. "Sol" so how is it the photographs taken on the moon exhibit multiple light sources 'ala studio'[/b][/quote]

Spotties.

Or, the moon has no atmosphere, or very little, to stop stuff hitting it, the earth is about six times larger than the moon. Just imagine what it's like when you've got a full earth up in the sky. https://www.aulro.com/afvb/


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>3. How come NASA cant build a ship capable of going to the moon now?
They falter on that issue quite regularly.

But my favourite.....

WHO CARES :!: Really?

Cheers
Mike[/b][/quote]

And I think the last two cancel each other out.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Cheers
Simon

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>years before this the Howard grubbement signd a document in the UN to disarm the civil populance without any disscusion at all ............ [/b][/quote]

The Howard Government was only elected to office in March 1996 :?:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Moon Landings.... Hmmmmm
[/b][/quote]

This one should dispel any concerns in relation to the moon landing, especially from a photgraphic perspective.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/moonhoax.htm

Interesting reading.....

Considering optical technology available now, they should be able to confirm this one day anyway....

Its all a good conspiracy theory anyhow, and people love a good conspiracy!

Me, my life goes on regardless, closest to the moon I get... Aeroplane!

Cheers
Mike

The biggest indicator to whether the moon landings were real or not (and they were) is the Russians.

If they could have proven that they were a hoax, then they would have immediately. The cold war as at it's peak and they would have given anything to prove the yanks had lied. They didn't! They accepted the moon landings were real.

The light problem is easy. The lunar surface is very reflective (which is why the moon is very bright in the sky). It is also has a peculiar charateristic of being able to reflect light back in the direction from which it came. Hence mutliple light 'sources' and multiple shadows.

As for radiation, a lot of space radiation consists of alpha particles which can be stopped by normal window glass. Also, NASA timed the landing to minimise the risk of a solar flare. This was a risk that paid off. If a flare had erupted, then the Astronauts would have been fried!

Now, if you want a more detailed astrophysics lesson, I can give it, but I have to go.

I think Elvis is at the front door! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamo
I think Elvis is at the front door! :wink:

---

As long as it isnt Dennis Rodman https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Cheers
Mike

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tombraider

As long as it isnt Dennis Rodman https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

Cheers
Mike

---

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
Wasn't it Buz who whacked him?