"and if so, would not your conspiracy be a theory only,
without substantiation, and therefore label you a conspiracy theorist?"
Hamish the Inquisitor
In my investigation of what transpired in the lead up and aftermath of the Port Arthur Massacre, it became obvious that much of the interference with the legal and judicial process was due to a door within that part of the Broad Arrow Café precinct known as the Gift Shop. There was evidence of Federal Government involvement, but that was mainly circumstantial and would never suffice to convict a body within our present judicial system.
Our political system is using the age-old weapon of ignoring the subject, knowing that other topics will eventually emerge and replace the questions asked by a concerned constituency. The Tasmanian Government adopted a similar stance when it faced these problems and formed a committee to look into the matter, and then had four different reports into that matter, by which time, they were then able to say that that problem was in the past, and we must now start to look forward. Did they do anything constructive in relation to that matter? Of course not. That was what the committee and the reports were for. To make it look as though they were doing something, when in fact they were not. It is called a smokescreen.
However, once the information about this book was put on the web by my friend, Noel McDonald, things changed. Noel frequented a debate forum within the Internet that raised questions in relation to Port Arthur and Martin Bryant. I have always refused to join in such discussion groups as I felt they used up too much energy, and frequently interfered with the time allotted for my other work. I also believed that it had been designed with that in mind. It is another form of a committee. You can talk a lot, but little gets done.
So it was to my surprise that I received an Email from "….. ….." otherwise known as 'Hamish'. It read:
I note from Noel McDonald's web page you are following the conspiracy theorist's line as your title would imply. I would believe being a link on Noel McDonald's page would make you simpatico to his off beat mental meanderings.
I am in the process of preparing a web site to expose Joe Viall's book. Joe Vialls knows about this production and would appear has made a huge price reduction to clear stock. We have researched Viall's "hard evidence" and facts and found them nothing but a creation from his fertile mind to promote a conspiracy. We have six people working on producing content for this web site and our aim is a crusade without any political overtones to correct the damage incurred by J Vialls. If you are following J Vialls line then I think it is fair to warn you your book will also be in our sights.
I suggest you visit the forum site at http://www.publicdebate.com.au/ and witness for yourself how Joe Vialls and Noel McDonald have self destructed in the light of evidence and logic. Joe Vialls produced chapters which include a litany of lies, conjectures, false scenarios and hypotheses and distributing to a restricted readership who embraced the conspiracy objects of the book on face value. His failing was when the general public were able to debate his book on this Australian debating forum. Joe Vialls and his mignons were exposed.
We will be anxiously looking forward to reading your effort.
Yours faithfully, Hamish
PS: If you are genuine in your book we can arrange for your book to be reviewed and possibly debated on TV. Joe Vialls avoided such promotion with good reason."
This is an anonymous letter. Whoever 'Hamish' is, he is part of a group of people, who have problems with Noel McDonald and his thinking and debating ability. However it is not yet illegal in this country to have your own thoughts or beliefs, and to voice them. Noel McDonald has always been extremely methodical with his research and presentation. He does not 'meander'.
Joe Vialls works have been out now for over three years, and yet these anonymous spooks are only now setting up a web page to attack his work, and "Joe Vialls knows about this production". It has been my belief for some time that Joe Vialls' work has been designed for such a specific purpose. If a 'Royal Commission' focused only on Joe Vialls' work, then when his work crumbled under proper scrutiny, so would the entire matter relating to Port Arthur. It is not a nice thought.
"I think it fair to warn you your book will also be in our sights" is a threat. Nothing more, nothing less. Hamish is now dictating to me how I must think, and what I am permitted to say.
When Hamish says, "His failing was when the general public were able to debate his book on this Australian debating forum" there must be some wonder. The Australian public have no real knowledge regarding the Port Arthur Massacre, so how could they debate it? The little I had read from various participants such as 'Hamish the Inquisitor', Brian Ross who wrote under his real name and a nom de plume 'Tomas de Torquemada' a Spanish monk and Grand Inquisitor of the 15th century, was not constructive, but destructive without the presentation of any actual evidence to base their opinions on, and more in the vein of what my Italian friends would call 'merde'.
These persons exhibited a desire to turn the world back to the 15th Century, where the 'Church' and the aristocracy had absolute power over the known world. A time when the masses were taught that the world was flat, something like a level playing field, even though an Arab gentleman had demonstrated that the world was round, and had calculated the diameter of the world, and the distance between the Earth and the Sun before the birth of Christ.
I replied to Hamish with:
Are you threatening me? You are an ignoramus. Go back to your self-flagellation and whip yourself into your glorious 'Dark Ages' where freedom of thought and of speech are sinful and illegal.
You have '6' people working on setting up a web page? You must all be intellectuals. How many of you does it take to change a light bulb? 60?
You are going to attack Joe Vialls' creations? Go for it! With his service in NATO and MI6, I'd say Joe knows how to look after himself, and is capable of doing his job satisfactorily.
You say Joe Vialls and Noel McDonald have self-destructed in light of evidence and logic? Have you graduated from Kindergarten yet "Mien Herr"? You have no evidence, no logic and no intelligence.
Hey, you did get one thing right. Joe Vialls and his false scenarios. You're almost as smart as Bart Simpson.
And if I'm genuine in my book, you can arrange for it to be reviewed and possibly debated on T.V.? WOW! Would that be channel 2 or channel 9 with their contracts with CNN? That statement says you're government intelligence officers.
You've failed the test Hamish!
Please don't bother me again!!
Hamish is not a gentleman, and ignored my request. Within a couple of hours I had received a reply from him
From: "...... ......." Subject: Re: Deception and Terrorism at Port Arthur Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:18:20 GMT
My Dear Andrew:
"Are you threatening me? You are an ignoramus. Go back to your self-flagellation and whip yourself into your glorious 'Dark Ages' where freedom of thought and of speech are sinful and illegal."
We can't criticise what we haven't seen but after reading a few "excerpts" I am anxious to obtain a copy to be fully informed. Calm down on your other points. Why are all conspiracy theorists emotional and sensitive? I can see now where Noel McDonald obtains his whacky PA "evidence" and opinions from now.
"You have '6' people working on setting up a web page? You must all be intellectuals. How many of you does it take to change a light bulb? 60?"
Nope. We have specialised contributions. Legal, ballistics, armaments, forensic, psychiatric and an investigative journalist Very intellectual I would agree. At least you have admitted to your shortcomings on your opening page and your investigative prowess can be faulted in the few excerpts you have produced together with your abject bias.
"You are going to attack Joe Vialls' creations? Go for it! With his service in NATO and MI6, I'd say Joe knows how to look after himself, and is capable of doing his job satisfactorily."
Certainly NATO and MI6 are not in the background of the one Mr. Joe Vialls we have been researching. Actually he has a very dark background which he has understandably kept mysterious. And he certainly was not brainwashed by the US in India has he claims on a web site. Stay tuned for some stunning revelations. A 110% overboard conspiracy theorist, yes.
"You say Joe Vialls and Noel McDonald have self-destructed in light of evidence and logic? Have you graduated from Kindergarten yet "Mien Herr"? You have no evidence, no logic and no intelligence!"
When the going got tough on his own website forum, Joe closed it down claiming a false cyber attack. When he could not respond to fact and logic on the Public Debate he left in a huff claiming he had better interests on the other side of the world ie his "role" in assisting the defence of his cherished Libyans at Lockerbie. Poor Noel is out of his depth on the Forum and is being severely mauled with his irrational explanations every day by Andrew, Observer, Brian Ross, yours truly and every other casual poster and is threatening to quit, again. The evidence, logic and its related baggage appears to be seriously lacking on his side of the debate.
"Hey, you did get one thing right. Joe Vialls and his false scenarios. You're almost as smart as Bart Simpson."
At least we agree somewhere. But try telling that to Noel. He believes Vialls walks on water.
"And if I'm genuine in my book, you can arrange for it to be reviewed and possibly debated on T.V.? WOW! Would that be channel 2 or channel 9 with their contracts with CNN? That statement says you're government Intelligence officers."
If you genuinely believe and can support your findings why not bring them on mainstream? Don't hide in right wing publications dealing with conspiracies and rampant paranoia. Strange isn't it, I notice when Noel is taking a beating he points the accusing finger at his opponent and names him as an ASIO agent. Must be a trait of the conspiracy theorists.
"You've failed the test Hamish!
Please don't bother me again!!"
If I failed any initiation rites into your world I am not disappointed :) You will definitely hear from us again whether you are receptive or not.
Edit: Please note, 'Hamish' did not deny that he was an 'Intelligence Officer'.
However, I did not stop at simply replying to Hamish, but forwarded his Email letter on to other persons involved in seeking the truth. One of those was a Sydney barrister, Terry Shulze, who I have only spoken to over the telephone. He immediately forwarded on some of his own work for 'Hamish' to consider
From: Terry Shulze Subject: Port Arthur Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:32:10 +1000 Hello,
I have just recently been made aware of your web page. You have indicated that the "Port Arthur" massacre has been a subject of much interest in recent weeks. Further, that Joe Vialis works are bogus - I would agree. I expect that Mr. Vialis maybe a nutter or a misinformation artist. His alleged "research" is so flawed that any person with a bit of desire to obtain information can refute his "research". That should set off alarm bells with any thinking person.
I have written an article on "gun control" in Australia. It is not directly related to "Port Arthur", but is non the less an important aspect of the gun control "debate". I would be pleased if you were to analyse it and to determine its' flaws.
Regards Terry Shulze GUNRUNNER.doc
Hamish replied to Terry
NP Terry. Thought you would have upgraded yourself to Philip Street by now. Recognised the name as soon as I received the mail. Wondered why this guy would want an opinion. Very incongruous. At least you can see a semblance of conviction on our side to have the actual facts drawn out into the public (internet) arena as opposed to the heavily biased and twisted logic of the conspiracy theorists.
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 08:22:25 +1000
...... ....... wrote:
Quick "critique" on your PA section. I am a professional. My time does not come cheap. I can issue a quote for the balance of your report. Hamish
'Hamish' then sent me this Email, which demonstrates an even stronger desire to curtail an individual's freedom, this time the freedom of association.
From: "...... ......." Subject: No involvement in firearms? Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 02:26:53 GMT
Quote "He has no involvement with firearms, or with any firearm body" unquote
My first and only mention of the website using this mail address was to you. Yet within the same day I receive a mail from a Mr. Terry Schulze, a barrister who specialises in firearm litigation, author of criticisms on Australian gun control and with close associations with SSAA. As a US citizen he actively supports the NRA anti gun control lobby also. Mr Schulze mentioned the website and was obviously probing on your behalf. He was known to us so a few scraps were thrown his way.
Shame on you now you are exposed for your lack of independence. You will be mentioned for this transgression in our despatches and criticisms.
PS: I read through your excerpts. Noel McDonald has produced on the forum every point you have raised and has suffered in the light of overwhelming fact and logic. The twisted minds of conspiracy theorists who cannot break out of their circular logic.
I again passed the Email on to the Sydney barrister, Terry Shulze, who forwarded this reply to 'Hamish'.
From: Terry Shulze To: "...... ......." Subject: Your web page Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 18:16:32 +1000
Sorry, when MacGregor sent me an email you sent him, I thought you were running the forum on the web page.
MacGregor only contacted me for the first time about 3 weeks ago when he had read the "Gun Runner" article. I can't say we are "pals", I've never met the man. I have simply been responding to emails - if that's the criteria for being a pal then another person on the forum Joanne Eisen has been communicating with me even longer - we must be great pals. Oh yeah, now that you and I are communicating, we must be new pals.
MacGregor sent me the latest email you sent him. I have forwarded it on to all my friends so they see how important I have become (sorry Hamish, it was a bit rich though!) However, your intelligence on me is somewhat flawed. I am not in contact with the NRA, never have been. My association with the SSAA is the same as the majority of the membership, I am a member (since 1991), not a office holder. I did give a speech to them one time, so maybe that increases my "links" to them - kinda like my email to you is "linking" me to "Hamish". The quote from my advertisement in the SSAA journal is advertising (it would be dumb to advertise in a shooting magazine that I am a specialist in whip-lash cases - which I was at one time with the GIO). I also do other legal work.
I don't know why the demonizing is going on. If you are just trying to get to the truth, you can do it without all that extra emotion. I have sent you a couple of articles now. The analysis of the Firearms Act is old news. Since the review is now complete, I intend to write an article on it. If you would like me to forward the new article when it is finished, just tell me, I'll put you on the mailing address.
MacGregor has asked me to send to him the emails I have sent to you, in the interest of keeping an open communication with everyone, I intend to do that. Especially now since we are now all "pals".
Let me know if you do get your web page up and running, I would like to visit it. From the tone of the emails it would appear to be some expose' on the conspiracy theorists. Since you have indicated that I am a "fellow conspiracy theorist", I might get a mention on your page. If so, I might be able to clarify a few things by communicating with the page, which would be a lot more helpful than wild allegations about supporting the NRA.
Hamish replied to Terry Shulze:
Subject: Re: Your web page Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 22:00:24 GMT
"I am not in contact with the NRA, never have been."
I would then suggest you take control over your "gun runner" article as to who uses it and how it is introduced in the USA with reference to you.
"My association with the SSAA is the same as the majority of the membership, I am a member (since 1991), not a office holder. I did give a speech to them one time, so maybe that increases my "links" to them"
My use of the word "association" would be on the soft side then.
"I don't know why the demonizing is going on. If you are just trying to get to the truth, you can do it without all that extra emotion."
I considered my response to McGregor was restrained considering the vindictive he was hissing my way. Terry, start bringing your bias under control.
"Since you have indicated that I am a "fellow conspiracy theorist", I might get a mention on your page."
You appear rational and not in the league of the conspiracy theorist devotees that make themselves known. However, your "Port Arthur" chapter of your article left a lot to be desired when you were selective in the "facts" and now admit you had not investigated the facts. And your finality for the reader to draw a conclusion -
"Then we had "Port Arthur". Wow, what a coincidence. Was that a lucky break for international gun control or what?"
Doesn't your PA article allude to a conspiracy or am I misconstruing? And if so, would not your conspiracy be a theory only without substantiation and therefore label you a conspiracy theorist?
I stand corrected if I am wrong.
With all the interest you are garnering in our website maybe we should embrace commercialism and make it a subscription service :)
Regards (maybe we may meet over the bar table one day)
What 'Hamish has hinted at in his passing remark to the Sydney barrister, Mr Terry Shulze, is that he, 'Hamish' is also a member of the Bar, a legalist. His language suggests that he is well educated, and he has a way with words. What is frightening though is that a person so well educated is opposed to a citizen's freedoms, being of speech, of thought and of association. Please note that I, a humble retired policeman am a whacky conspiracy theorist, while the educated barrister is not. This of course is not discrimination against the masses, is it?
The clues though that are given out by 'Hamish' are undeniable. Parts of what 'Hamish' cited of Mr Terry Shulze emanates from his Police Special Branch dossier. Who had control of the New South Wales Special Branch? Well, according to an article in the Melbourne Herald Sun printed on the 25th October 1997, the various State Police Special Branches were controlled by the Protective Security Coordination Centre (PSCC), the very same people who run SAC-PAV.
So when 'Hamish' states, "Recognised the name as soon as I saw it" he informs us of some interesting facts. He doesn't know the person, but he recognises the name. Therefore, he has been involved with the name previously, and not casually. It is thus very likely that 'Hamish' is a member of the PSCC. Forget about ASIO, they had 'subversion' removed from their charter by the previous Labor Federal Government, and thus cannot openly move against the so-called conspiracy theorists. The PSCC have taken over that portfolio.
It may be argued that 'Hamish' could very well be a member of some other group such as the Coalition for gun control. However, these people would not have access to confidential government files, such as Police Special Branch material, unless they were part of that body which controlled the various Police Special Branches.
There are other clues in the letters I received from 'Hamish'. In his reply to my one and only retort to him he stated, "We can't criticise what we haven't seen, but after reading a few excerpts, I am anxious to obtain a copy to be fully informed."
However, 'Hamish' goes to great lengths to attack this work that he hasn't read, but would like to so as to be fully informed. With remarks such as, "the twisted minds of conspiracy theorists who cannot break out of their circular logic", "together with your abject bias", "your investigative prowess can be faulted", "don't hide in right-wing publications dealing with conspiracies and rampant paranoia", "I considered my response to McGregor was restrained considering the vindictive he was hissing my way," et cetera.
In any courtroom joust there are two means of winning the debate, or argument. The first is to attack the evidence, by finding a flaw in it and then proceed to corrupt the evidence in its entirety. However, if there is no flaw to attack, then the person giving that evidence is attacked. This is precisely what 'Hamish' has done. Having no evidence to attack, he has attacked the witness.
But 'Hamish' has made one assertion. He has stated to the Sydney barrister, Terry Shulze, "And if so, would not your conspiracy be a theory only, without substantiation, and therefore label you a conspiracy theorist?" The reader would have noted that the majority of my work is based on 'Official Documents" with support from some media reports. These documents and media reports are items of substance, and thus substantiation. In 'Hamish's' own words, I am no longer a 'conspiracy theorist. My work is factual. That is where the danger lies to him and his masters.
There was another problem with Hamish, and that was his insistence that I should visit the site at http://www.publicdebate.com.au/. I was aware that my friend Noel McDonald was a contributor within the debate, and that his opponents were Brian Ross, Tomas de Torquemada, Andrew, Hamish and Observer. It was also quite apparent that they all used similar styles of attack when dealing with the Martin Bryant, Port Arthur Massacre debate, and that was simply to attack the messenger. So it was a surprise for Noel to receive an anonymous Email from a 'Toby Esterhaze' (Toby Esterhase is a character from the author John Le Carré), which read;
From: Toby Esterhaze Subject: I have some information for you
Noel, I've been following your little "debate" with Brian Ross on the www.publicdebate.com.au site over Port Arthur. I have to tell you that I was actually involved in what happened at Port Arthur as an operative of an intelligence agency which took part in the massacre there. Since then I have agonised over what happened and its aftermath on the Australian public. Basically, both you and Brian are right. You, because there was an intelligence operation to bring about the Port Arthur massacre. Brian, because Bryant was in fact the perpetrator. I have decided that its time to reveal what I know about those sorry events. I have decided after a lot of hard thinking to break my oath of silence and tell you about it as you appear to be much more aware of what is really happening in our society than many others that I know of. Essentially what happened was that Bryant was chosen, because of his low intelligence to become what you call the "patsy" (we just called him the target). Through feeding him various drugs, such as Prozac and other mind altering substances and then feeding his paranoia we were able to manipulate him. We installed in his home tiny speakers which were linked to a system by which we could make it appear as if he was hearing "voices" which in turn told him to do various things. The result was that we created essentially a paranoid, delusional individual who was a time bomb, just waiting to go off. We then steered him to a compliant gun dealer who sold him the weapons which were then used at Port Arthur.
There was no "other gunman" Noel. In reality, we gave Bryant more than sufficient training, which we then had him "forget" had occurred, under the influence of the mind manipulation techniques that we used. The result was the creation of an instinctive killing machine who because of his low mental age was unable to really account for his actions after the event.
Now, as you might guess, "Toby Esterhaze" is not my real name and I am utilising this anonymous email system to make sure that there is no record of my having sent this to you. I'd recommend that you delete it _immediately_ after reading this message. Do not keep a record of it, do not print it out. While I don't believe you are necessarily under suspicion by anybody (most intelligence community people would simply write you off as a "crackpot") its better to be safe than sorry in this game. If you desire to contact me to get more information you can email me at this address.
This anonymous Email is intriguing. Who would have scripted such an Email? What was the purpose of sending such an Email? Brian Ross, who was mentioned in the Email, coyly admitted to Noel that he also received an Email. This is not a 'crank' letter. There is too much work in it to be that of someone simply stirring the debate. And it is the http://www.publicdebate.com.au/ site that is mentioned. Why mention the website, when it is the only site for this particular debate between these two persons? This is very specific, and Noel already knows which site he is having his debate on.
Things though became more interesting. When my friend Noel finally decided that he had had enough of the behaviour on this particular public debate forum, he notified them of his intention to no longer participate in their activities, only to receive another anonymous Email
From: George Smiley Subject: A clue you might have missed.
Noel, you appear to have missed the most obvious place where the Assassin could have hidden. In the Emergency Management Australia Seminar Papers, its mentioned that the Seascape Cottages had a large, underground water tank, underneath them. This was where the assassin hid, using an aqualung to breath underwater when the police geve it only a perfunctory, initial search on that first day. He left the tank after the area had quietened down and then swum/waded along the nearby water inlet to be picked up at a later time, hiding on the side of the inlet until dark. Think about it.
By the way, don't let the bastards win on the publicdebate webboard. They are wrong and you are right. Keep the good work up. We need more inquiring minds like your's which won't take no for an answer.
Noel replied to this anonymous Email with:
Thanks for the interest and the suggestion, I had thought of the tank, but in summation I feel that the team 3/4 terrorists simply walked out overland, they only had to create a temporary diversion to attract attention to one side of Seascape while they walked away on the other side, maybe there is helpful anti infra red clothing? I don't know. But their escape is certainly something where I don't have the answers let alone proof. You are keen having a copy of the EMA papers, what else have you acquired?
Noel then received this reply.
From: George Smiley
Subject: Re: [Re: A clue you might have missed.]
A great deal. I have several things I have acquired over the years. I have a wig and a sports bag. I also have a magazine for an AR-15, partially loaded with some very interesting ammunition.
Infra-red protective clothing doesn't exist, Noel so I wouldn't be looking for any. Starlight scopes don't work in the infra-red.
At this stage, Noel decided that there was no value in continuing to acknowledge the anonymous Emails. However there are two things that stand out from these experiences that seemed to originate from the association with the public debate forum. Other participants who took to questioning various aspects regarding Port Arthur received similar treatment to Noel, from, as one person labelled them the 'government head kickers'.
The first aspect is that it is these people who continually push the name Joe Vialls, even after Mr Vialls has refused to participate any further. As stated to me, they are preparing to open a website simply to attack his work, but it has never eventuated. Why?
The second aspect, is that the anonymous Emails mention the website http://www.publicdebate.com.au/. What is the connection?
There are links that demonstrate 'Hamish' is almost certainly a member of the PSCC. This would mean that the names linked with Hamish would also be linked with the PSCC. Now most of these characters emanate from the http://www.publicdebate.com.au/ site. Thus this site must also be considered linked to the PSCC. Again, the phoney attacks on Joe Vialls also emanate from the same source. However when we consider the old adage of you are either with us or against us, in the same context as the Republic debate where we were only permitted to be republicans or monarchists, then Joe Vialls' standing becomes extremely questionable.
What was also interesting about 'Hamish' is that when we did a study of the details of his and other email details, we found some had originated from the same source as 'Hamish'. The first of these was a person going by the name of 'Geoffrey Pearson' who called himself a 'Forensic Linguistics expert', and was also making contributions on the http://www.publicdebate.com.au/ site.
Another set of emails that originated from the same source was that of 'Justine' with the email address of 'XXX'. 'Justine' claimed to be a burns specialist with intimate knowledge of the staff at the burns unit at the Royal Hobart Hospital. She also claimed that her partner was a 'silk' and then cleared up the matter by saying that he was a senior barrister in a company. 'Justine' or rather 'Hamish' was so determined to receive a copy of my work that he gave me the address of "Avenue 8 Administration Trust, P.O. Box 394, Roseville, N.S.W. 2069.
Thus when 'Hamish' wrote in his second email letter, 'I am anxious to obtain a copy to be fully informed", he was being quite truthful. He went to a lot of lengths to obtain part of my work, but did not receive a full version.
It was after these attempts that the 'Parson' emerged. The Parson rang me one evening, and used the name of the small newspaper editor, that I knew. A quick call and the newspaper editor verified the name as legitimate. We spoke on the telephone for over an hour, and he gave me his address so that I could send him a copy of my work. The address was in the Melbourne suburb of Moonee Ponds. Shortly after the alarm bells started ringing. The Parson had then rang Wendy Scurr, and again spoke to her for over an hour, and requested copies of videotapes and other evidence that we had gathered. The Parson then rang Noel McDonald, and again requested information. After ten minutes, Noel had had enough and terminated the conversation. The address was then visited, but whoever was home refused to answer the door. The radio was playing, and the kitchen window was open, which certainly denoted that a person was inside the residence.
A note was left requesting that the 'Parson' ring me on the Sunday evening, but the call was made on the Monday when I was not at home. When I did return home and found the message on the answering machine, I returned the call, to be answered by a woman calling herself 'Joan', and I had only just missed the 'Parson". It was not his address but hers, and she was only the drop for the Parson, and another long conversation followed. Yes, Joan had been home when I called, but didn't feel like answering the doorbell. At the end of the conversation, it was quite apparent that Joan was the female equivalent of the Parson, and there was no real information that was gleamed from either person.
To talk for such a long time without divulging any information about yourself is an art used by both con artists and the intelligence field. 'Hamish' now has the full copy of my works, except for this and a few other late additions, and of course the videotapes.
Why would the Australian Intelligence be so persistent in their endeavours to obtain a copy of my work? Why the 'sting operation' at http://www.publicdebate.com.au/ unless there was some involvement at Port Arthur? It has always been difficult to prove whether or not there would have been an involvement prior to the Port Arthur Massacre. The proof comes only afterwards in the mopping up operations.
Andrew S. MacGregor
Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.