Before Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook, there was Australia’s Port Arthur Massacre

Andrew S. MacGregor, an experienced military and law enforcement officer, speaks with James Tracy on his research of the April 28, 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Born in 1947 in Yarraville, Melbourne, Australia, Mr. MacGregor served in the Citizens Military Forces of the Victoria Scottish Regiment and as Senior Constable with the Victoria Police.

Since 1998 MacGregor has conducted extensive research on the Port Arthur incident and other Australian ‘lone-nut’ shootings. MacGregor argues that such events are directly related to international UN-directed gun control measures.

MacGregor began delving into the Port Arthur massacre at the behest of Wendy Scurr, a nurse and eyewitness at the event who attended to the wounded. “Here I am, sitting at my desk at night, transcribing the whole of the police transcript. We had some witness statements.” Through Freedom of Information requests he and others revisiting the case obtained more. “We also were able to get some that had been hidden, like the witness statement of Sargent Michael Charles Dyson, and we could prove that that was written months after and it was completely bogus.”

As MacGregor and Tracy discuss, Australian political leaders were dismayed that Tazmania and South Australia were reluctant to throw their support behind proposed gun control laws. “There will never be uniform gun laws in Australia until we see a massacre in Tazmania,” New South Whales premier Barry Unsworth declared several years before the Port Arthur event.

There’d just been two massacres in Melbourne, Victoria … After those two incidents the Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke  then called a special meeting of the police ministers. There was also another meeting presided over by] Hawke of state premiers. There were two states, South Australia and Tazmania, that were not prepared to concede their interest in firearms to the federal government. It was at that stage that Barry Unsworth made his quote. That occurred in December 1987. Barry Unsworth went to an election poll in March 1988 and suffered the biggest defeat that any political party suffered in New South Whales. He was absolutely routed.

Because of this the gun control agenda was then moved from a political issue to a health issue. And I think you’ll find in America they’ve learned from Australia, and they’ll list it as a health issue and not a political issue.

MacGregor sees several similarities in the prelude to the Port Arthur massacre and recent events in the US such as Sandy Hook, yet his analysis has led him to conclude that Sandy Hook was in fact a drill.

When I first started looking at the various reports coming out, there was an excellent from “Idaho Picker.”A couple of policemen were chasing somebody else up through the scrub. It was taken from a helicopter, and he was arrested and carted off and placed in the front seat of a police car. My knowledge of policing in America [suggests] the criminal never goes in the front. He’s always placed in the backseat of the vehicle … You never, never place a criminal in the front seat of a police vehicle … A local newspaper said a couple of days later that the person arrested was an off duty policeman. But he wasn’t off duty. He couldn’t have been off duty.

As MacGregor observes, “You read everything and what you realize is that it was an actual police exercise that took place at a vacant school, and definitely not the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Once you start having a look at everything proper [and] you assess everything that was going on, you realize that the whole Sandy Hook massacre was simply a police exercise.”

“The other really interesting thing  that was actually taken of the real Sandy Hook Elementary [School]. It had been [closed] due to asbestos. The school was dilapidated and it was nothing like the so-called Sandy Hook massacre.”


Another tip-off that Sandy Hook was a contrived event involved the poor on-camera performance of Connecticut Coroner H. Wayne Carver Jr. “He was being interviewed, with police in the background, being asked certain questions, and he hummed and he hawed and he deferred. In the background you’ve got all of the policemen, all in uniform, some of them looking very stern as they looked on.”

Then MacGregor recognized how “a couple of them are winking and smirking. I said, ‘What the hell’s going on?’ I had never, never known policemen to smirk when they’ve just had twenty kids killed. It’s horrific if it had been factual to have policemen smirking.

“The reason they’re smirking,” MacGregor continues, “is because Dr. Carver hasn’t learned how to lie. He can’t lie that well. So the questions he’s finds too difficult he passed on; the police can answer. He made certain comments, such as most of the kinds being shot three to eleven times … You don’t kill children or people by shooting them with a semi-automatic three-to-eleven times. [What he’s describing] is a fully automatic.”

MacGregor’s research indicates that the Port Arthur massacre was largely a botched job in terms of coordinating the actual shooter. This is suggested by the numerous Western intelligence agents mistakenly killed during the event. “There was a major scuff up at the Port Arthur massacre. The gunman was supposed to get on a ferry there that took people out to the Isle of the Dead–this cemetery that’s stuck out in the middle of Long Bay. He was then to retreat by the ferry to Seascape cottage and set the ferry on fire to burn the evidence. The waters at Port Arthur are very cold and rather deep, and any survivors that jumped out and got into the water would have died of hypothermia.”

There was also a “trauma seminar” taking place at the Royal Hobart Hospital, attended by over two dozen trauma specialists from throughout Australia. “They were specifically waiting for all of the survivors to be brought in. There were one or two busloads of American tourists–about 70 odd American tourists, old age pensioners, people enjoying the latter part of [their lives]–they were set up to be the target of this massacre, and the massacre had to take place at 1:30[PM].” Yet a fortnight prior to the Port Arthur massacre the schedule for the ferry from Port Arthur to the Isle of the Dead shifted from summer to winter.

Marin Bryant, the alleged shooter in the event, was in fact lured to the scene after having been told that he would be playing a role in a terrorist drill, MacGregor points out. Indeed, rather than a fair adjudicated court proceeding Bryant was unfairly tried in the court of Australian and world public opinion by Rupert Murdoch-controlled news media. “He never had a trial. It was only a sentencing report. They never even gave him a trial. He’s still never be released from jail, except for in a wooden box.”

Leave a Reply

13 thought on “Deception Down Under”
  1. […] Before Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and Sandy Hook, there was Australia’s Port Arthur Massacre Andrew S. MacGregor, an experienced military and law enforcement officer, speaks with James Tracy on his research of the April 28, 1996 Port Arthur massacre. Born in 1947 in Yarraville, Melbourne, Australia, Mr. MacGregor served in the Citizens Military Forces of the Victoria Scottish Regiment and as Senior Constable with the Victoria Police. Since 1998 MacGregor has conducted extensive research on the Port Arthur incident and other Australian ‘lone-nut’ shootings. MacGregor argues that such events are directly related to international UN-directed More… […]

  2. Thank you for this interview.
    The Port Arthur Massacre has received far less attention in the US than it deserves. It was perhaps the largest in terms of casualties of all the crazy gunmen killings, and the most politically effective.
    Also, in a way it is the “grand-daddy” of the current run of lone psycho shootings intended to introduce gun control. It set the basic template for such shootings:
    – mentally-handicapped young male loner with easy access to guns, who has a grudge.
    – alleged assailant is a patsy induced to come to the scene (which he thinks is a drill) by an intelligence officer
    – intelligence and/or police have been observing and cultivating the patsy for some time
    – automatic or semi-automatic weapons
    – kills and/or wounds lots of innocents who are not from the area of the shooting (so as not to antagonize the locals)
    – police and/or military exercises occurring around the same time to muddy the waters
    – police lured away from the crime area
    – look-alike real assailant, who is a professional assassin
    – witness and evidence tampering, and planting false evidence, to clean up the story
    – mass media sensationalizes the event, demonizes lax gun laws, and doesn’t question the official account
    – patsy assailant doesn’t get a trial and is either killed or isolated completely

    Of course, as Andrew points out, the operation was botched, and the authorities left too many loose threads and several insiders may have been killed. The plan was probably a bit too elaborate, since it involved two major scenes (the seaside hotel and the Port Arthur cafeteria, then back to the seaside hotel) and other shootings along the way. Too many people were killed, rather than just wounded. There were too many surviving witnesses. And the shooter was too efficient (e.g. killing 12 people in 15 seconds), which indicates a professional assassin. The shooter used the wrong hand. And so on.

    Intelligence forces have since learned some basic lessons:
    – keep the story as simple as possible and make the incident brief
    – minimize information about the assailant
    – make the patsy assailant look as deranged as possible (rather than a blond tall male surfer-type)
    – reduce the number of witnesses as far as possible
    – complete police lockdown afterwards
    – reduce the number of killings (or have fake victims) and have lots of gunfire
    – try to have the assailant kill himself, or get killed during capture
    – better to have many small shootings rather than one large one

    I have a question for Andrew. I believe his interpretation of events is mostly correct, but I wonder about his assertion that intelligence agents were on the scene at the cafeteria. If as he says the shooting was not supposed to take place in the cafeteria (“No, not here..”) but on the ferry or somewhere else, then why were the agents in the cafeteria at all? Logically they should have been in the parking lot or ferry landing or park entrance.
    Also, I have read parts of Joe Vialls’ essay on the PAM and found them generally very good (apart from the suggestion that Israeli intel were involved.) Do you have some objection to him?

  3. Port Arthur and Dunblaine were the models behind the design for Sandy Hook. It is so overwhelmingly obvious to me I can’t believe everyone on the planet cannot see that.

    Both Port Arthur and Dunblaine resulted in the political impetus to garner support for semi automatic gun bans and confiscations.

    After Sandy Hook the immediate response from New York Democrat legislators was a proposed confiscation. Political exploitation emerged immediately to assault gun rights and ownership. Mark Barden and Lilian Bittman made coordinated planned media comments with CNN proposing gun bans and then the entire Sandy Hook False Flag was turned into a movement claiming to support reductions in gun violence.

    Yet despite that FBI data supports that ALL RIFLES of any kind with ANY magazine capacity comprise statistically insignificant amounts of gun homicides or suicides the politicians made all of the proposed legislation about defining and banning those guns.

    Fortunately I believe people are waking up

    Just look at this blatant PROPAGANDA PIECE from Lilian Bittman and Anderson Cooper. Notice that the letter presented to Anderson Cooper was prepared in advance by CNN to be projected on TV.

  4. What follows is my attempt to take a deeper look at the parallels between the Port Arthur Massacre and the Sandy Hook School Shooting. Bill’s and Bob’s comments above are quite correct in their claim that the PAM was the archetype for the SHS, yet I think they don’t go far enough. The parallels are many and I think they include the biggest and most important one: the faked deaths of all the victims in both cases.

    The first red flags that I came across while looking into this were the “eyewitness” testimony of Wendy Scurr, and the “investigation” of the above interviewed Andrew MacGregor contained in this long you tube video.
    Both of these people are clearly reading from a script. While this is not in itself proof of anything, it does raise the question of why these two are evidently afraid to speak off the cuff about their experiences.

    Scurr’s account goes into horrific detail about the shooting, telling us how she instructed someone to use their fingers to scoop the blood from the mouth of a victim so that he would not suffocate on his own blood. Her vivid tale is intended to leave little doubt that the deadly shootings occurred. Her biggest complaint seems to be that the authorities left a door locked, trapping many victims. She then claims that the authorities falsified the time frame of the shootings in the Broad Arrow Cafe, reducing it to a mere 90 seconds, when she recalls nearly five minutes of shooting. This was done, she claims, in order to hide the embarrassing fact that the locked door caused extra deaths. This trivial complaint hardly seems worth all the fuss, and does very little to challenge the “facts” of the case.

    MacGregor too makes a big deal out of the locked door, acting as if this were proof of a conspiracy. It isn’t. “Oh, but they locked it so that there would be more victims” you might argue. Then why did the shooter leave several people alive inside the cafe if the intent was to maximize the number of victims? To provide “eyewitnesses” perhaps?

    All in all it is very difficult to fathom exactly why MacGregor is so skeptical of the government’s case. If you listen to his entire presentation he starts to sound clownish, like a character actor playing Sherlock Holmes, without any real case to make. He tells us ominously that the guns found at Sea Scape had suffered breach explosions which rendered them forensically useless. When someone in the audience asks whether Bryant or anyone else was injured by these breech explosions he gets confused, and ducks the question. He is clearly uncomfortable with this unscripted portion of his talk.

    Another piece of evidence that I found were these two videos, supposedly made by the police, of the crime scene.

    While they might look real on first inspection, we should remember that scenes like this are filmed all the time in Hollywood. They have lots of practice. In this case the focus is very poor, so we have a hard time verifying what we are looking at. What struck me as fake here is that so many of the victims were still seated at their tables. Twenty people were supposedly killed inside the cafe, and others injured, yet no one had time to bolt for the door? Why isn’t there a big pile of bodies right in front of the front door, and outside it? Remember, Scurr has claimed that the shooting took nearly five minutes. Also, the walls of the room are conspicuously free of blood splatter (sorry) which would have been quite evident had 19 of the victims been shot in the head, as was claimed.

    Another little oddity in these videos is the presentation of the two guns used in the attack, which look pristine. At least one of these was supposed to have been blown up at the Sea Scape cottage.

    Yet another problem with the narrative can be found in the scene with the little hatchback car. (minute six) A young couple was supposedly stopped by Bryant at gun point after which he pulled the man out of the car and forced him into the trunk of a BMW which he had commandeered. This would have taken many seconds. Then Bryant went back to the hatchback to shoot the female passenger. She should have had plenty of time to get out of the car and run, or start the car and drive off. Instead she sat in the car for fifteen or twenty seconds while a man with a long gun forced her boyfriend into the trunk of his car, came back over to her car and shot her. I don’t believe it.

    While MacGregor and many others point to a series of anomalies in the official narrative: the 10 supervisors of the Port Arthur site having been sent to a distant conference that day, the two local policemen having been sent on a wild goose chase by a prank call, the large mortuary wagon purchased before the event then sold right after it, he never questions the authenticity of the shootings. This is a form of misdirection. The conspiracy angle was built into this event from the beginning, and is intentional. It murks up the water without getting us anywhere, much as the escaping shooters did at Sandy Hook. Gist for conspiracy theories that lead nowhere, and bore the inquisitive public.

    Finally, here is a short list of the parallels between the PAM and the SHS:
    Mentally deficient motiveless shooters wielding AR15s
    Wildly excessive quantities of ammo and guns brought to the scene
    Impossible wounded to kill ratio
    Superhuman shooting skill in both cases
    Alleged disappearing gunmen spawning conspiracy theories
    Newspaper photos with heightened “crazy eyes”
    Children among the victims
    Controlled crime scene
    Immediate attempts to pass gun control legislation
    DNA testing of both perpetrators recommended (proven hoax)
    Former police officials leading the way for conspiracy theorists (MacGregor and Halbig)

    Some odd coincidences

    Both perpetrators from”Newtown”
    Piles of Teddy Bears at Bryant’s house and at Gene Rosen’s house

    Given all of the above parallels and coincidences I think it highly likely that both events were planned by the same entity. Why have real deaths in one and fake deaths in the other. Far easier to control the whole situation by faking all the deaths, and not have to cope with the unpredictability of having a real shooter. Far easier to get officials to go along with the ploy. I am quite convinced that the Port Arthur Massacre can be placed alongside Sandy Hook, Aurora, and probably Columbine as another hoax-fraud mass shooting where no one died.

  5. Is there a new Boston hoax? I’m wondering. On Thursday night last (Oct. 6), it was alleged that a female standing near the track at a red line train, Downtown Crossing (Washington stop), with a friend, in a big crowd at the station, threw herself or fell into the path of a train coming into the station. The emphasis was on the size of the crowd, and later pictures showed a big crowd many stops away in Harvard Square, unable to board the subway line affected. Normally people are put on buses when the line breaks down.

    It is Saturday, and there is a parallel running story of the woman’s having dropped her cell phone, and a young man stepping forward, putting his foot on the phone, and stealing it. The story has switched from one of horror and suicide, to hunting for this man using his surveillance photos.

    But what I am seeing is once again the contradictory stories about the size of the crowd at the scene. Because one thing is certain: that guy doesn’t have much company around him when he takes the phone. Nor has the name of the victim/suicide been released at this point anywhere. It’s turned into another kind of “crowd-sourcing” man hunt, with the public piling on to say how despicable he must be to do such a hard-hearted act. Yet in the context of the event, it makes little sense. The subway doors were alleged never to have been opened until police arrived. The crowds also waiting to board were absent, except for a few feet of people standing around somewhat off-camera, not leaving the station. It just looks – well, staged, once again.

  6. Wow, I am surprised that no one here wants to weigh in on this subject.The Port Arthur Massacre is a totally relevant parallel to the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings. Or is it already too far down the memory hole?

    Here is another problem with the above linked police video. None of the “dead bodies” show any sign of medical intervention. No one seems to have been rolled over to check their pulse, check their eyes, or have pressure applied to any wound. They have all been left just as they fell, like it was a scene from a gangster movie. Why is there no medical waste anywhere, no discarded gloves, and no bloody footprints of medical personnel. As was the case with Sandy Hook, we are supposed to believe that all these dead people were just too dead to bother saving. There were supposedly many people on the scene, so why has no one moved any of the bodies AT ALL. Because it is all hollywood fakery is the answer.

  7. Christo, I think the reason no-one chimes in, is because very few know anything but the most superficial stuff about it. We simply cannot argue for or against fakery in this case because we don’t know anything. I’ve been trying to find the latest about Port Arthur, but most of the older stuff has been erased if it was ever on the internet to begin with.

    But, I do see a rather large discrepancy, compared to Sandy Hook. In the Sandy Hook incidence not even the parents are supposed to have seen the victims, only the coroner and the few police officers that apparently had to be compensated because they were so traumatised. In the Port Arthus story, there seems to be many, many eye witnesses, like the fiancé that couldn’t call the parents-in-law, The person that first turned over the guy shot in the neck so he didn’t drown, Scurr’s co-workers, people that managed to flee from the café. All these people must be available for interviews. Reportedly some of them have stated their concern with not being called to testify and tell what they knew.

    I seriously doubt that the whole Port Arthur shooting was faked. It was probably botched, and was supposed to have occurred somewhere else, like the ferry or the dock. But several stories have probably been offered to make it impossible to tell which is true. The fact that spooks were there (in the café) and were shot instead of being planted witnesses, seems to be standard fare, actually. They are the best “extras” in any staged event because they have a lot of vested interests. Were they innocent bystanders if they were there for the occasion, albeit a slightly different occasion? It can be a good way to get rid of people who know too much, like the brothers Tsarnaiev, and scare others into silence.

    There have been may sentiments floated lately that “Nobody died, nobody got hurt” because it was all a hoax. I’m not so sure. Like the Ottawa shooting. Many say that Cirillo is off on a sunny island somewhere, sippin’ marguerites. Maybe for the first few months, while they need the relatives cooperation for the media. But later, when they have the parents tangled up enough in the lies and bribery, poof goes the actor. Maybe in another event, but these persons in the know are liabilities, and best got rid of.

Leave a Reply