User:Blissyu2
Hi. Many people know me as one of the eye witnesses to Australia's greatest ever controversy, known as the Port Arthur massacre. Before I saw it happening with my own eyes, I was a skeptic when it came to conspiracy theories. Since then, I have tried to analyse other conspiracy theories to see if there is something to it. What I have discovered, more often than not, is that there are 3 competing stories in most cases that involve a well-publicised conspiracy theory: the first story, which we hear as the event unfolds, is the true story, which eventually becomes buried and forgotten about after the "investigation" has run its course. The second story that we usually hear is the scarcely believable official story, full with holes galore, which naturally leads us to a much more believable story, which later on becomes known as the conspiracy theory, but this conspiracy theory ultimately has a fatal flaw. So we are left with two unbelievable stories, and, when left with two that don't make any sense, most of us tend to believe the one that is less absurd, which, most of the time at least, is the official story. But what we forget is that there was a third story going on, one which doesn't have the complexity and absurdity of either of the two most widely known stories, and, most of the time, not only is the official story a lie, but the main conspiracy theory is too. This work is being done by spy agencies the world over. My own Australian spy agency are pretty bad at doing it, and most of the public can figure it out most of the time, but in other more powerful countries they have smarter spy agencies who are better at fooling people. From a distance I have studied dozens of controversial cases, and I can clearly identify in most of them what the 3 stories are, and where the well-placed lies came in. In the better conspiracy theories, the facts actually add up with what obviously happened, but the conclusion doesn't, as they make an illogical leap of faith, and that is why these conspiracy theories aren't believed. I closely followed the work of Wikileaks and Edward Snowden, as well as Wikiscanner.
With regards to Wikipedia, I was banned for improving the Port Arthur massacre page, which, before my intervention, had 3 lines and was completely nonsensical, and to this day most of the useful content on that page was written by me (though the lies that are told there were not). But my official ban was for legal threats, a laughable occasion indeed, as my user page, in which I proved that one of the people that harassed me over the content of the page was engaging in cyber bullying and harassment, was taken down because the guy who harassed me threatened to kill me over it, using his IP address, only to pretend that it was me secretly threatening him! Ha ha ha. Oh, Wikipedia, how you jest. My ban expired after a year, but then it was extended to indefinite based on my being the owner and one of the founding members of Wikipedia Review. I was eventually hacked out of that site, with the hackers pretending that I had never had anything to do with it. I have proof though! Wikipedia claim that I exposed real life identities of their administrators and therefore will never be allowed back.
My criticism of Wikipedia is in relation to their history and political articles. I think that they are actually really good in writing about comics, cartoons, TV shows, books, movies, music, and celebrities of various kinds. They stuff it up occasionally but it is generally pretty good, and I support Wikipedia continuing to host those articles. Their science-related articles leave a lot to be desired but at least they are trying, and if someone who knows what they are doing does try to fix them then occasionally they let them. At least with purely factual scientific articles they are reasonable. But their historical articles are horrendous. Not just bad, but so bad that no student should ever even look at them, even briefly.
The worst example of an article on Wikipedia that I saw during my time analysing them for Wikipedia Review was the article on George W Bush, then the US president. We could actually see different secret agency staff fighting for what kinds of lies they should be telling. People who acted like actual secret agents were editing in different dishonest manners, forcing Wikipedia's administrators to get involved, making legal threats galore, and so forth. Eventually, large sections of it were oversighted, in what was admitted to be an order from a US agency, probably NSA. But it wasn't just that article that we saw that. Articles on Osama bin Laden, [[Al Qaeda] and even Afghanistan were full to the brim with people arguing over just how deep their lies about it should be. Do they stop short of mentioning that Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA? Or do they go the whole hog and admit that he wasn't in Afghanistan when 9/11 took place and that was not the true reason they were there? Lies upon lies upon lies.
It is clear, whenever you look at any historical or political article, that the main people controlling the article are not interested in truth. They want to tell lies. They are only arguing about how deep the lies should be. Should they hint at what they want the public to believe is true or just out and out tell the lies?
When you look at actual historical literature, bias is always there. I can read an article by Osama bin Laden himself about why Al Qaeda was formed, and it is more useful than anything on Wikipedia. Sure, I know that he is incredibly biased and is probably going to be lying his head off about large sections of it, but I also know what his bias is and I can account for it. Indeed, if I read something by Osama bin Laden and something by a US General involved in capturing him, I could combine the two and get a pretty accurate description of Al Qaeda. If I want to, I can add in a few more points of view, perhaps from a member of the Taliban, maybe from someone from ISIS, maybe even from a British general, and finally from someone who was in the CIA when they trained Osama bin Laden. All those people are biased, and they are all going to lie to me, but they are also all experts. And that's what you do. Bias is not the problem when looking at historical documents: not knowing what they are talking about is the problem.
What Wikipedia claim to do is to get a bunch of people who have no idea what they are talking about to edit historical documents. The result of this is an absolute chaotic mess, of people who gullibly believe whatever the side they favour is telling them. But then, secretly, they do get experts come in, but they are, more often than not, experts who have a vested interest in lying about it.
Wikipedia has no conspiracy theories. About Pearl Harbor, they write the conspiracy theory but mention it in a weasly way, as if to say that it is a theory that nobody has ever taken seriously - even though it is proven as a guaranteed 100% fact that Japan did not bomb as a surprise attack.
The Port Arthur massacre article, in spite of over 90% of the contributors trying to advocate to include as much about the opposition to the official story as possible, doesn't mention any of the opposition. It is not even listed in Wikipedia's conspiracy theory page. But just have a look on Google. Over 90% of the world refutes the official explanation. That warrants a bit more of a discussion than 3 lines of weasel words.
As for what really happened at Port Arthur, I have never advocated the official conspiracy theory, as it makes a poor conclusion, that it was about gun control. Gun control was never a problem in Australia. Since the laws came in, our murder rate has been the same, as has our armed robbery rate, but our "gun crime" rate has gone down significantly. What else is gun crime, you might ask? Suicides. As of 1996, 70% of gun-related deaths were suicides. Most people in Australia used guns to hunt animals, not to kill other people. Today, only 20% of gun-related deaths are suicides. The suicide rate is still the same, just that people prefer to jump in front of trains more. So the people that made the gun law reform claim that they helped us all out, but the people trying to catch those trains that are always late because of just how many suicides there are now are not all that happy. People still murder other people, just that nowadays it is usually done with knives or poison. Oh, we haven't had another mass murder either, but we only ever had 1. Not counting the Port Arthur massacre, we never had any mass murder with more than 10 people dying. It was an enormous step up.
Oh and it was described at the time of the event as terrorism, police treated it as terrorism, and, right up until the media surprised everyone by claiming that a disabled man did it all by himself, officially all because automatic weapons are just that easy to use, before that everyone thought it was terrorism. Tourism terrorism, to be precise. By local Tasmanians. What level of involvement the guy they blamed it on, Martin Bryant, had, is difficult to say. I have always maintained that he was definitely involved, since he was caught at the siege. But I know he wasn't the gunman at Port Arthur. No eye witness ever identified him. No photograph showed him. No video showed him. And there were plenty of eye witnesses, photos and videos of the murders themselves. What I can't say for certain is that he was willingly involved. It is possible that he was just talked into it, to "do it for your country". He wasn't a very bright person, so it is possible that he agreed to take the fall, thinking he was doing it for the greater good. Who convinced him to take the fall, whether it was police, secret service, or the terrorist group that actually did it, that part is the debatable part. The rest of what happened is all pretty obvious and every version of the conspiracy theory agrees with it, and I do too. Someone else killed everyone. The facts are undeniable on those parts. The only question is why Martin Bryant was the only one there at the end. My belief is that most likely he was a part of the terrorist gang and willingly took the fall. I do not, however, believe that he really understood what he was doing when he agreed to do it. I believe that he should have been sentenced to around 40 years in a psychiatric hospital, in compulsory confinement. I don't think he should have gone to jail.
I tend to revolve most everything around Port Arthur just because I am something of an expert on that topic. I don't like to contribute on topics that I am not an expert on, so don't expect me to add huge texts on things that I don't know much about.
