As soon as Australia found out about the horrors committed at Port Arthur in 1996, whispers started that something was amiss about the official account of how Martin Bryant killed 35 people.
These conspiracy theories that someone else was responsible or helped carry out the massacre are patently untrue.
Bryant, who was known for killing animals and riddling their bodies with bullets, was the one who fired indiscriminately into a cafe, gift shop, a car and a bus at point blank range with an AR-15. There is no credible evidence that suggests otherwise.
While just one in 10 Australians believe that the Port Arthur shooting was orchestrated to restrict gun laws according to recent research, tens of thousands of Australians have come together in online groups dedicated to disbelieving what happened. The conspiracy theory has found new life in other conspiracy and extreme online communities.
Sign up to WebCam, Cam's fortnightly newsletter for FREE.
Sanitised versions of these theories, couched as questions, have even made their way into the mouths of elected officials and are cited as reasons to push back against Australia’s strong gun laws.
New home on social media
Like with many other pre-internet conspiracy theories, Port Arthur “truthers” have found a new home on social media platforms.
There are multiple active Facebook groups with thousands of members who continue to doubt what happened on April 28, 1996.
These range from groups who call for an inquiry into what happened to those who outright believe that the event was a “false flag” event carried out by some third party.
Most of these groups have been created in the past few years and often see big spikes in growth around the anniversary of the mass shooting.
One group, with more than 10,000 members, has added more than 600 in the last week.
On YouTube, there are dozens of videos that claim to offer different accounts of the massacre with thousands of views.
A 2014 video of an interview with a retired Victorian police officer who names third parties as responsible for the shooting has more than 110,000 views. The video’s comments section is filled with recent comments discussing the video.
Alt-tech website Bitchute — a video platform loved by Neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists for its non-existent moderation — is also filled with Port Arthur denialist videos.
Port Arthur denialism making headways
This conspiracy theory has been finding new audiences in other conspiracy communities, facilitated by shared mistrust of the government and a desire to see alternative explanations for mainstream events.
Popular Australian QAnon believers, anti-vaxxers and anti-fluoride Facebook pages have all dabbled in Port Arthur denialist content.
It’s not just conspiracy communities, either. Posts and memes questioning the massacre are finding their way into far-right online spaces.
Popular Facebook groups and pages with tens of thousands of followers — such as Stand Up For Australia – Melbourne, Drain the Swamp Australia, and A Different View — which deal in culture war and anti-left content (often straying into xenophobia, racism and sexism) have all posted content that questions whether the shooting was a set-up.
One type of space that has been ripe for this kind of content has been online shooting communities.
Bristling with frustration over the resulting gun reforms implemented by Howard just days after the shootings, communities such as Gun Owners of Australia (10,800 members) and Australian Gun Rights are rife with people who are skeptical or full-blown denialists.
In these groups, the denialism serves a purpose: the official narrative of what happened in Port Arthur was used to justify laws that they consider draconian. Casting doubt on the mass shooting undermines the justification for these restrictions.
While some members of groups push back, discussions of Port Arthur in these largely grounded, rational groups quickly descends into outright conspiracy.
Public figures lend credence
Most mainstream political figures are unequivocal about the mass shooting. The subsequent reforms have remained largely sacrosanct in Australian political culture. Even Australian conservative politicians have for the most part remained committed to gun control compared with their US counterparts.
But there are some who have stoked conspiracy claims. One Nation’s Pauline Hanson — no stranger to conspiracy — was famously caught on secret camera doubting what happened at Port Arthur.
“Haven’t you heard that? Have a look at it. It was said on the floor of Parliament. I’ve read a lot and I have read the book on it, Port Arthur. A lot of questions there,” she said.
Another One Nation state candidate similarly posited that the whole shooting was “fabricated”.
Former Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm has repeatedly called for an inquiry into the massacre during his term in Parliament.
Even this week, the gun rights advocate doubled down on his questions. “It’s time we had answers. The victims deserve it,” he tweeted.
Leave a comment
If you want to head off the drift of American conspiracy theorists to Australian media sites, don’t bother attempting such on Rupert’s Sky Noise After Dark – Outrage Central . He’s found a new audience and intends to mine them as long as they remain sufficiently gullible.
2GB/Fairfax aren’t all that helpful either.
It’s the modus operandi globally for nativist conservative governments endeavouring to form coalitions, in case of US (Central Europe conspiracies thrive), to pass unpalatable radical right libertarian socioeconomic policies by promoting white nationalism and Christianity to ageing electorates with a propensity for belief (often with hollowed out media).
Conspiracy theories are leveraged in sociopolitical narratives as an added bonus or bait to the coalition elements above (for a younger less religious audience), deflect from substantive issues, possibly most important, is to remove grounded context and confuse voters (climate science has been nobbled by pseudo science conspiracies).
Deny? As crazy as Bryant.
The one problem I have always had about this massacre is that Bryant was the perpetrator. He is extremely low IQ, so much so he borders on the idiotic. He also could not shoot to save himself prior to the massacre but on the day of the massacre the shooter was observed firing with lethal accuracy a rifle from the hip while running, a feat only reserved for the best shots in the land, something which Bryant was not.
Hey RW! It was reported that Bryant was a frequent shooter, often hunting animals, and that while many of his bullets were sprayed, he was able to ambush people at close range meaning there was little need for aim.
Inconvenient facts again getting in the way of conspiracy theories…….
Watching American style conspiracy theories grow in Australia is most concerning. As is the NRA’s interest in Australia & our laws. There are many powerful enemies pushing their agendas at present, & plenty of gullible Australians like RW & KeithT lapping them up.
Cam. You seem like a nice guy. But 25 people of the 35 killed at Port Arthur were all head-shots. Did you know this? Hardly the work of a simpleton like Bryant but more the work of a professionally seriously well trained operative. Things are never what they seem and the further you dig on this the more horrified you will be. Are you aware that there has never even been a coroners report. Be like Bourke and Wills. Dig.
That’s pretty much what Brigadier Ted Sarong said at the time.
Cam Wilson says Bryant fired “indiscriminately” – yet he killed 35. That just doesn’t happen.
Some of the skeptics are guilty of cherry-picking, elevating half-truths to canonical status, romanticising and ignoring incontrovertible facts. Yet, strip these away and there are still puzzling gaps in the official account.
No, Sarong who was well retired by then (died 2002) and not there at the scene was not only accused of promoting a conspiracy theory, but by claiming there was another shooter, without evidence.
There are NO puzzling gaps in the official account. So tired of people pretending there was some sort of conspiracy. This is promoted by the American NRA & their counterparts in Australia. They are sponsored by the gun manufacturers. Educate yourself. Adding fuel to conspiracy theories is hurtful to the survivors.
So which is it you belong to? Far right or gun groups? Who drives your conspiracy?
NRA is Nil magnum.
There, some ancient language, especially for you.
Anders Brevik’s massacre of youth on the Norwegian Island a decade ago (first blamed on or assumed to be a Moslem terrorist inc. media/BBC) was also subject to conspiracy theories, and others disputing how one person with a gun can do such harm against so many others.
Common basic issue with these theories is that those who promote them were not there at the incident, while inquiries do manage to synthesise many eye witness accounts, who were there (while inquiries in other less contentious subjects are not questioned).
Classic form of cognitive dissonance, with some narcissism and surprise, trying to explain such massacres by seemingly middle class white guys who look like many normal Australians or humans, while if Moslem there would be no doubts?
I would suggest that people with low & extremely low IQs are more like to believe conspiracy theories like the one you appear to be hinting at. .
Argumentum ad hominem. Pathetic.
Old men speaking Latin no longer fool me. Its NOT a sign of intelligence to attempt to communicate in dead languages.
Your reply is pathetic. I would say this in Latin if I thought you really spoke this ancient language. But I suspect you use this language the same way other irrelevant people from the past do in an attempt to intimidate. Really pathetic..
Its a fact. Not an ad hominem. You fail to comprehend my comment. I say you hint at a conspiracy, I do not say you have a low IQ, but if this is what you think, thats fine by me.
Your statements are an indication of your IQ and all are free to interpret them as they will. No more needs to be said.
He was in a building about the size of a one bedroom unit, it’s not like he was a sniper picking people off from a ridge… You don’t need to be an expert marksman to do what he did.
Banning the widespread use of firearms was the only decent thing he ever did in all his time in public life in government, and all his perceved sins have been airbruhed from history and he has been elevated to Santhood.Hail Saint John Winston Howard.
Refer to Andrew Mcgregor and Keith Allan Noble for info
Google them