Welcome to Wikispooks!
We're glad you came. There's lots to do.
The Community portal is probably the best place to start for new users. To add a Wikispooks search facility to your browser, go here. If you've got a topic you're itching to write about, just dive in. If you're not sure where to start, you can introduce yourself by editing either this page or your user page. Robin (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2015 (IST)
I know very little about the Port Arthur Massacre myself, but I've just restructured your work on that page in the hope that it will help you assemble the evidence. I agree with you that factual and well referenced is a good pattern to stick to. Some conjecture is acceptable where it is logical and clearly marked as such. Gradual laying out of the evidence (possibly over a range of pages) is a good first step. Robin (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2015 (IST)
- Thanks Robin. Yeah it is a bit hard to know where to start with it. With there being the most comprehensive suppression order in Australian history in place, there is a lot of evidence that simply isn't available for legal reasons, so it is a bit hard to know whether I should be referring to that stuff or just sticking to guessing. The suppression order only lasts for 30 years though, so come 2026 you will be seeing a lot of it released. Blissyu2 (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2015 (IST)
Suppression of evidence
- It's hardly the only one to have suppression of evidence in it. Soon after this, there was an event known as the Bodies in the Barrel murders, where people were killed so as to get their welfare cheques, including some of the original murderers being killed by some of the later murderers! That one had major suppression orders about large sections of the evidence, but, as far as I know, there is absolutely no conspiracy theory about it. I have certainly never heard of one. So having a suppression order does not equal a conspiracy theory.
- If I recall, the rationale for the suppression orders being so enormous was because of the claimed motive for the Port Arthur massacre, which was that Martin Bryant wanted publicity. To deal with that desire for publicity, there was an outright ban on all publications about any of it without having explicit permission from a judge over it. There have been about 10 books written about it, but, as you may guess, they all push the official line. There is no book that has ever been published about it that in any way disputes the official story. The reason is simple: you can go to jail if you publish anything without their permission.
- There is, however, a fair degree of freedom with what can be put on the internet about this. You can't put it in a printed newspaper, but you can put it on the internet.
- But you still can't say everything. I happen to know the name and identity of the person who did it, but I am not allowed to say it or risk criminal prosecution. I can, however, have theories. Blissyu2 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2015 (IST)
- No I am not familiar with Sibel Edmonds, but thanks for the heads up. But as you say you can say pretty much everything that there is to say based on publicly available information, without violating the terms of the suppression order. Guessing is okay, divulging information that isn't made public is not okay. So I can say, for example, that there were thousands of people that were upset about people from overseas stealing their jobs and the impact on the tourist industry, I can say that police and media at the time treated it as a terrorist attack by anti-tourism terrorists (like what are seen in Egypt and around the world) and that all versions of the story agree that it was a terrorist attack, but don't focus on that element of it. I then don't have to say that it definitely was a terrorist attack, nor the name of the terrorist organisation or the names of the people involved. It is a fair bit of hard work gathering all of the facts though. Even still, over time it can be done, I think. Blissyu2 (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2015 (IST)
- So anyway the issue is that the suppression order is not easily available. While its existence was spoken about on TV, I can't find a direct link to it anywhere on the internet. It is pretty obvious that it exists, but I'd greatly prefer it if there was proof of it. I don't want to say it exists if there is no proof of it. The Bodies in the Barrel suppression order, in comparison, is available.
- By the way, as a side note, I came across this photo from the Boston Marathon bombing discussion yesterday: http://imgur.com/r/POLITIC/WT3TIX5 . It seems to blame the whole thing on Craft International, led by the guy from American Sniper, Chris Kyle. Why they did it, though, remains a mystery. Of note, Chris Kyle died 2 months before the Boston Marathon bombing. That is kind of in line with my theory as to what happened, which is that it was a regular criminal attack by persons unknown and they simply blamed Muslims and pretended it was terrorism in line of the anti-Muslim rhetoric that justifies war in the Middle East. The guys who did it may have just been crazy guys from Craft International who did it for their own crazy reasons. That's basically what happened in the Sydney Siege, though at least in that case nobody is disputing who did it. There are significant question marks as to whether that Russian boy did the Boston marathon bombing. Blissyu2 (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2015 (IST)