|
Author |
Topic |
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
147 Posts
|
 Posted - 02/10/2010 :
01:29:09 
|
Joe, You ask,
30/09/2010 " How did this square/area come into equation?" If
you read the site descriptions, Herald, "Scene of the Murders" "
about ten acres in Extent" , police camped in North west corner
of the cleared 10 acres, the report says there was this little
hill from which you could overlook the tent, it describes this
little hill or "slope' hid the advancing men - as they
approached from the " across' the creek" One Hectare is 2.2
acres. 1 hectare is 100 x 100 metres.
Given that the police camped near the two huts site and the only
little hill slope along SBC, then it goes that the cleared ten
acres must have been to the south and the east if the two huts
site, and that as described McIntyre's mention of an acre or two
cleared as the horse paddock being right next to the permanent
spring / creek water supply, the very reason the two huts were
built there too.
Bill
|
 |
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
147 Posts
|
Posted - 02/10/2010 :
02:13:12
|
Hello Fitsy,- on
the previous page 10 at 29/09/2010
You wrote that you believed Ned would not refer to SBC as a
Spring or then a creek ? Bill Stewart a first generation Kelly
historian (now deceased of Mansfield, ) told me SBC was a
spring. I mentioned this earlier somewhere in this thread,
apparently further up the Creek water just comes out of the
ground where as a little further up there is none. When you
think about it, any settler would rather fancy a permanent clear
water spring. Most likely the reason the people that cleared the
10 acres here chose this part of the creek closest to the water
source AND to be included in his land claim.
Likewise the builders of the two huts by early accounts preceded
the former occupation by quite some time. I know Sheila does not
agree with me but I do ' believe', ( and I believe too Sheila)
that the two huts belonged to two sheep farmers Heaps and Grice
the first lease holders of FernHills ( some 30.000 acres. This
is borne out by a written letter owned by a lady descendant of
Ewan Tolmie. This lady has given me a transcript copy stating
the southern boundary was in dispute and defined by Hollands
Creek in one part and a wedge of land adjoining (claimed by
another lease holder) was and near where Messrs Heaps and Grice
had built two huts in 1848. Sheila has a map showing Shepherds
Camp but I estimate this being 15 miles north and closer to
Benalla but still on FernHills Station. At that time, 1848 I
assume the closest town from SBC would have been Mansfield if
coming from Melbourne, But Benalla is 60 miles north from SBC,
so it stands to reason the first occupiers would chose a place
to make camp closest to Mansfield.
If we start with 1878 and go back in time, prospectors
Broomfield, Reynolds and Lynch worked the creek for gold 15
months before, when Broomfield's a new hut was burnt down in
June /July 1877
Records only tell us they 'occupied' the two huts - but did they
build them? Not likely as miners would not waste their time
building Shingle huts unless it was worth their while. Sheila
likes to believe they were miners huts, but mining did not start
there according to Sheila's book 'Heritage on my Doorstep' till
1869.
So if miners had built the huts there, by 1877 they would only
have been 8 years old, yet when the police party were camped
nearby they were both ruined but one still standing. If they
were dating from 1848, they would have been 21 years old, and in
that moist bush environment they certainly would have been well
decayed if not past their use by date or ruined. And with three
prospectors crammed in together it would only be natural for the
huts to be upgraded accordingly.
The fact two posts still stood ( failed to burn) when Burman
photographed the site indicates the post were of green
unburnable wood., meaning this was probably Broomfield's new
built hut. In another part of my Two huts webpage it is proposed
Broomfield's hut was on the other side of the creek on the east
bank, but I can tell you when metal detecting there was no hut
there that could be detected.
Regarding the two site descriptions, we had better stick to the
earliest reports - Herald and Argus newspapers Oct 1878 rather
than McIntyre's manuscript 1879 to 1902. I agree with Alan,
McIntyre had problems with orientation, but not because he was
confused, rather because he went more by memory and the Burman
photos as his reference of the place.
Fitsy, In my earlier posting page 10 with the Google Earth image
of SBC I quote Kelvyn Gill's Pseudonym Thomas McIntyre for
posting the " Scene of the Murders" See page4 this thread 20/07
2010.
Regarding the police tent pitched on the northern slope. I read
this simply as on the northern side of the slope ( Herald) As
before said McIntyre used his memory and the Burman photo only.
He simply got his orientation 180 degrees out. This means all
his descriptions are squewed. See his map where he M3 sits on a
log he has the other logs on his right, where as in the Burman
photo the logs are on his left. He would have identified the
seated figure as representing himself, and he identifies the
Burman photo with the one post as the place where Constable
Lonigan was shot. On his map Lonigan's shot spot is on the north
side of his drawn logs. So you can see he is 180 degrees arse
about as Alan puts it. As far as the photo goes the creek /
spring is on the left, and Mc's map the creek is on the right. (
because Mc said so, Kelly was on his right on the creek side. Mc
marks these positions)
Bill
|
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
147 Posts
|
Posted - 02/10/2010 :
02:18:42
|
Hello Bruce, re
your last posting page10 , Thanks for the scale maps with what
10 acres would look like.
I found a reference to that red dot hut as marked on the east
bank. It was drawn on a Parish plan of land owned by Charlie
Beasley. It is roughly marked and cannot be scaled but it is
between SBC and Equinox Creek (where Sheila lived.)
Also, there is no knowing the shape of the clearing but am sure
people those days had a way to determine acreage simply by
stepping out distances and multiplying by a factor. All we can be
sure of the 10 acres included Mc's one or two acres.
Bill
|
|
|
Thomas McIntyre
Senior Member
34 Posts
|
Posted - 03/10/2010 :
00:32:30
|
To those who who do not
agree with BILDID (depicted in the puerile cartoon of recent
times) I have these last words.
I thank Mr Denheld for providing a “diagram map” at Page 10 of his
February 2010 paper “Stringybark Creek, the authentic location”
wherein he indicates it has been submitted to a number of
authorities for consideration (Page 1).
Please take careful assessment of the cross section across the top
of this diagram map.
Two hills are noted – “Red Hill” and “White Hill”. Now of course a
hill must have a slope (or more)!
Well, I can now say to those questioning the location of our camp
that YES, the Herald’s special reporter who visited the scene with
Mr Burman and two others got the scene details pretty right (apart
from his guess as to the extent of the clearing!)
The special reporter:
“This was a cleared space, of about ten
acres in extent, on a gentle slope, rising gradually, and on the
further side having a northerly and easterly aspect. The site
until recently was occupied by a prospector’s hut. A small race
has been cut along the side of the hill, and the Stringy Bark
Creek, for some little distance up and down from this spot, has
been prospected. About six months ago the party who occupied the
hut fell out, and it was burned down. One of them was tried for
arson, but was acquitted. The site has been partly cleared as a
paddock for a horse, but no fencing was erected. The place was an
excellent one for the camping ground of a party who were not
expecting to be attacked. For a party assailed by enemies,
however, no worse spot could be chosen. The police tent was
pitched on the northern slope of the hill and faced that
direction. At the rear of the tent, the slope goes gradually up to
the summit, receding again to the creek, which winds partially
round it. Across the creek, at the back of the little hill, was a
fallen gum-tree, over six feet high at the butt end, and behind
which twenty men could find shelter. This tree can be reached from
the scrub which covers the country in the direction of the King
River. At the top of the slope and overlooking the police tent,
was a clump of scrub and sword-grass, some sixty feet in
circumference, and in which a dozen men could readily conceal
themselves. Standing a few feet in front of this clump of scrub
but still overlooking the police tent, are two bunches of
sword-grass, four feet six inches high, and presenting a covering
surface of some six feet. It was from behind these bunches of
sword-grass that Kelly and his confederates called on the police
to surrender. Having reached the gum-tree from the bush , the hill
hid their approach to the clump of scrub mentioned, the distance
being about 20 paces.”
Our tent was on the northern side of the White Hill, and behind
the tent the slope continued gradually to the apex of the “little
hill” (his words, not mine), then falling away gradually in a
southern and easterly direction (A declivity) upon which a water
course flowed which emanated from the seasonal spring some small
distance to the west with the water discharge flowing down along
the apex and south side of the “White Hill” to reach the
Stringybark Creek (Yes a CREEK!, not as Mr Denheld perseveres in
trying to label a spring). This watercourse also provided the
necessary wet ground for the spear grass to flourish and which the
reporter also correctly described.
NOW I cannot recall if I previously provided the following extract
from the Herald’s Special reporter of 5 November, so I include it
here as it very precisely explains who the FOUR were that rode out
to our camp site (and it also explains that the “military-looking
artist” left Mansfield as a photograph would do him just fine!! –
Mr Denheld please note as you seem to want to claim that the
drawings of the Australasian Sketcher were done in situ).
The report:
“It is difficult for people at a distance to
fully understand the scare which the recent tragedy at Mansfield
has caused among a number of the residents in that district. Every
drunken loafer who is in his cups and talks wildly is at once put
down as a friend of the Kellys on the look-out for information.
The probability or otherwise of the gang attacking Mansfield is
freely discussed. It is with great difficulty that a guide to the
scene of the murder can be obtained. An Artist from one of the
Melbourne Illustrated papers was anxious to visit the scene, but
found great trouble in procuring any person to show him the way to
the scene. The more so, as one half-drunk individual, on the day
of Kennedy’s funeral remarked that the artist looked like a poll
officer. This gentleman and myself, however were determined to
visit the scene even had we to be our own guides. The weather,
however, was so fearfully bitter that it was quite impossible to
set out. At this stage an enterprising Melbourne photographer, Mr
Burman, arrived at Mansfield, and, as a photograph of the scene
would suit him equally well, the military-looking artist left
Mansfield. The knight of the camera, after some hunting about and
invoking the aid of one of the principal residents of the
district, found a man who knew the country and who was willing to
supply horses and run the risk of a bullet for a given sum. This
man was engaged. Meanwhile a number of the search party who had
gone out to look for Kennedy’s body, came into the hotel, and
after some persuasion, induced Mr Burman to promise that if they
visited the scene of the murder he would photograph them. Horses
were sent for, and twenty-five men undertook to be in the saddle
at six a.m. next morning. After the exhilarating effects of the
whisky had been slept off, however, the discretion of the members
of the party overcame their vanity, and even the inducement of a “potograph,”
as they called it, was not sufficient to take them to “Murderer’s
Gully,” as it is now named. Just as we were preparing for the
start, Ned Monk, of the Wombat Creek saw-mill, came into the
township, and at once consented to house us for the night and take
us to the scene on the morrow. Some demur was made, not by Monk,
to my appearance, as, dressed in a white macintosh coat, with
patent leather leggings, and riding a big grey horse, which once
belonged to the Government, and still bore conspicuously on his
shoulder the Crown brand, it was considered probable that I would
be taken as a police officer, and if met by the Kellys the party,
would be all shot. However, all difficulties were at last
overcome, and four of us (ominous number) started.
As Mr Denheld now seems to place much credence on this reporter’s
story let it be clear that NO artist went to the camp site.
And so Mr Denheld to respond to your numerous requests that I
explain the TRUE location of our camp site you will see that I
have done just that.
History won’t be moved.
But future history will correctly refer to the place of our camp
site and I will be working to do just that.
I thank those who have, and continue to record their observations
and views in this place as it will be providing much useful
material for the relevant authorities in their deliberations.
|
|
Fitzy
Advanced Member
Australia
169 Posts
|
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 15:46:39
|
G’day Bill,
Bill Stewart, the first generation Kelly historian you mention,
was either wrong, misinformed or misinterpreted if he claimed the
Stringybark Creek was a spring. It could start as a spring, but
once it starts flowing, the terminology changes. Ned (or anyone
from the bush), would not refer to the same stretch of water as
two different things. As you say, further up the creek is a spring
in the true definition of the word, so maybe this is where the
police camped. Yes, a settler would build near a spring for fresh
water, but not downstream where it becomes a creek and could be
fouled by livestock or runoff from rain. As I pointed out about
the shingle hut, that “shingle” would refer to the roof, not the
walls, or hut as a whole. Quite often clues are hidden in the
terminology used and that’s where I take a different line with my
researching. As there is nothing concrete on the actual site (mass
acceptance), and many varying views, there has to be something
that has been missed and possible many clues still to be realized.
For all I know at present, this spring could be very close to the
two huts site or some distance off and yet to be determined. It
would appear that even though Bill Stewart was from Mansfield, he
wasn’t able to pinpoint the exact spot either.
Fitzy
|
|
|
|
Joe.D
Advanced Member
Australia
772 Posts
|
Posted - 03/10/2010 :
19:54:22
|
Hi Bill,
Ignoring the fact that McIntyre being the only ground witness,you
prefer to accept the written word of the media.......with all the
rubbish they’ve printed about Ned during his outlawry days and
afterwards....obviously for the purpose of selling more papers!!
I’m somewhat disappointed that the media in this case has more
credibility than that of the sole survivor of SBC.
I personally don’t believe you have correctly translated the
article in question......Referring to the yellow outline &
some other discrepancies......more on this at a later stage.
These are my thoughts & this is all I have to say for now.
Joe.D
|
|
Fellow traveller
Average Member
15 Posts
|
Posted - 06/10/2010 :
12:37:57
|
thought the members of our
forum might be interested in the public lecture that I have been
asked to give on November 11th, marking the 130th anniversary of
the execution of Ned Kelly.
Details are posted on the Main Kelly forum page, but it is at 6 pm
on Thursday, 11th November, in the Public Lecture Theatre in the
Old Arts Building at the University of Melbourne.
topic: Ned Kelly, John Barry and the role of social activisim in
criminal justice reform.
Peter Norden, AO, Vice Chancellor's Fellow.
Details:; Tamsin Courtney 03 8344 8985 |
|
|
|
Sheila Hutchinson
Advanced Member
Australia
75 Posts
|
Posted - 06/10/2010 :
12:38:24
|
Hi Bill,
If the Heaps and Grice huts were in this area there is a
possibility they were near the old stock yard on the creek known
as Stockyard Creek.
This creek is on the west side of the Camping Ground at the
Toombullup School site.
(Old Stock yard: see 1885 map on page 158 Heritage and History)
The township of Mansfield wasn’t gazetted until February
8th 1861
My posting 25/9/2010 'I have always thought the two huts site was
most likely occupied by miners post 1878'
Relating to the Stringybark Creek mining application 26th October
1888 of Jas Turnbull and others (The Javee G.M.C)
For the first six months 2 men; subsequently when in full work 4
men. These miners could have been the ones who built the two huts
!
Bye for now Sheila
|
|
|
|
kellycountry2000
Forum Admin
Australia
765 Posts
|
Posted - 06/10/2010 : 19:34:39
|
I am hosting 3 pictures for
Glen please stand by
you will have to look at the large picture to read details
pic1
Link to large picture
http://i51.tinypic.com/f41m4z.jpg
|
|
|
|
kellycountry2000
Forum Admin
Australia
765 Posts
|
|
kellycountry2000
Forum Admin
Australia
765 Posts
|
Posted - 06/10/2010 :
20:51:11
|
Picture 3
To rely on the bases of trees alone to measure the height of the
slope
can be unreliable as often they are obscured by undergrowth.
Therefore a comparison has been made by using a clearly visible
part of
the slope as a comparative guide.
Measurements can be compared by using the same markings and
positions on
the burled tree.
It can be misleading to use just the Burman 1 image alone as a
guide
when both Burman images should be used.
Both images were taken using the same camera lens.
The height of the slope is relatively the same in both images.
Glen
link to large pic
http://i54.tinypic.com/nmhq1z.jpg
|
|
|
|
Glenn Standing
Senior Member
Australia
34 Posts
|
Posted - 10/10/2010 : 16:50:12
|
|
Bill, can we put the two hut
site to bed now please? |
|
|
|
Joe.D
Advanced Member
Australia
775 Posts
|
Posted - 10/10/2010 :
20:23:04
|
Hi All,
I've had this link saved amongst a heap of other stuff for
sometime time & have recently come across it.... RE: our very own
Sheila Hutchinson being interv, by the ABC Goulburn Murry
SEE BELOW.....
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2008/06/27/2287545.htm
Joe.D |
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
150 Posts
|
Posted - 12/10/2010 :
22:25:09
|
Hello Glenn, you ask (
10/10/2010 )
quote:
" Bill, can we put the two hut site to bed now please? "
Glenn, I don't understand what you mean by that ?
Your previous posting 4 pictures by Kellycountry on your behalf ,
I was waiting for some explanation from you ?
You show four images, - two of which - Burman photo1 and a scene
from the Beautiful Mansfield promotion booklet of the area and the
shooting tragedy with red arrows and lines all over it?
Glenn, by your posting I read it that you like to compare these
two photos as the same place !
My comments. Firstly, you point to a 'sap Burl' high up on the
tree in Burman1, then you point to a mark high up in another tree
in the Mansfield photo. I have been a collector of Eucalyptus tree
Burls since 1990's and to my knowledge a burl only ever gets
bigger as it gets older. A burl is a sap bleeding defence the tree
uses to defend itself against a insect boring infestation and the
tree is trying to repair the boring. The tree continues this
process as it grows and ages. The burly markings high up on that
tree trunk in the Mansfield photo which looks more like leafy
growth than a burl, and certainly not much of a burl to me, and
then cannot be the same tree if the burl got smaller in the
intervening 19 years since the Mansfield photo was taken in 1897.
I also see that one tree has quite a lean to it while the other
does not, all this indicates the two photos are not of the the
same place.
You then go on to say
quote:
" it can be misleading to use just the Burman 1 image alone
as a guide"
if determining the height of the slope.
Glenn, we know both Burman photos are the same scene, different
position, but one shows the slope better behind the Burl tree.
There is no point using an obscured slope image if a better one
exists as in Burman2 photo. All we can do is see the slope for
what it is and it has at least a minimum height compared to the
adjacent countryside, but the slope could be higher than shown.
There is no problem with the height of the slope. Those two
smallish trees that indicate the upper most portion of that slope
can determine the slope as being at least that high if not higher.
The slope portion of Burman1 photo represents about 1/3rd of the
picture height, where as Burman2 image the slope represents about
1/5th of the picture. But that is because one image is using for
example a 35 mm lens and the other is a 50 mm lens. I understand
what you are suggesting, that if we were to take a picture at the
Kelly tree site looking across the creek to that slope on the
other side it may appear about 1/5 the proportion of the photo
height. However, that may be possible if we could get far enough
back and still place the logs and the two posts in proportion in
the foreground as in the Burman photo2, and that is where your
argument falls apart. The meagre slope would be too far away at
this location.
Glenn you then state
quote:
" Both images were taken using the same camera lens"
Burman must have had a remarkable lens in 1878 if he could take
both images with the same lens . If we carefully observe the two
Burman images, one is pin sharp all over while the other is
blurred on the edges. One is a wide view with an aspect ratio of 1
to 1.6 and the other is 1 to 1.4. So this indicates he had two
cameras with him as the lens does not dictate aspect ratio, the
camera does. The images were not taken with the same lens.
What do you mean to put the two huts to bed ?
Bill
|
|
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
150 Posts
|
|
Glenn Standing
Senior Member
Australia
35 Posts
|
|
Thomas McIntyre
Senior Member
35 Posts
|
Posted - 13/10/2010 :
22:22:23
|
Mr Standing, you beat me to
the finish line by a nose, so some of my comment below has been
far more elegantly explained by you but I will leave my words
anyway.
Well, I simply cannot let some of Mr Denheld’s rubbish, recently
expounded by him, go without a few comments.
Mr Denheld it seems you are unable to ascertain that the “red
arrows” and lines” to which you refer to recently are
highlighting not one coincident point in the two photographs but a
number of them – tree structures and markings as well as what can
be described as two logs lying on the ground and which offer a
pretty compelling pattern of similarity in the two photographs.
Seems only a blind man, or perhaps a man who simply choses to try
and dismiss such evidence as merely a flight of fancy !! could
make such a laughable comment as you have.
Good on you Mr Standing, your work is of a most compelling case.
There is no doubt that you have by diligent analysis been able to
demonstrate these coincident features, but I fear you waste your
time in doing so as nothing you say or so elegantly demonstrate
(as you have also with your earlier layouts of the “two
fireplaces”) will make any difference to Mr Denheld’s views.
So, while expounding on this topic let me ask you Mr Denheld, in
reference to another of Mr Standing’s posts wherein he provides
his latest map of the site layout with fireplaces shown and upon
which you add this comment – “However your fireplace is also
wrong because in the Burman photo there is evidence of fireplace
debri (sic) in front of the standing man, hiding his boots.”
(Your post of 22 September).
Really Mr Denheld, then is this debri (perhaps you mean debris?)
one of the two formed fireplaces you located and if not then can
it be implied that there was in fact a third fireplace at the site
or if not then how in what miraculous way did this debris become
one of the two fireplaces that exist today?
Oh, and another claim of yours that must be challenged:
In your reply to Mr Joe D of 12 October you say “Hall was the
special reporter the Melbourne papers make mention of”
Well if this is so (and you offer no information to substantiate
this claim) why oh why is the report in the Herald of 5 November
so different to Hall’s descriptive words just a few months later
in his 'The Kelly Gang or the Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges”
wherein at page 38 (McDonald, page 23) Hall says:
“The spot where they established their halt was a small
clearing on a rise alongside of the creek, near the ruins of two
small-huts, one of which was burnt down, and had been the
temporary residence of three prospectors, named Reynolds,
Bromfield, and Lynch, who worked the creek for a short time with
indifferent success.
The level space, though pretty well cleared, is surrounded by
thick, heavy timber and scrub, and on the right hand side has a
patch of very tall spear or sword-grass, which affords a
jungle-like cover. In front of the tent, and between it and the
creek, were two fallen trees, the ends being crossed at a right
angle; there were also some stumps of trees that had been felled
in the clearing”
Now I invite all who follow this saga to diligently compare what
Hall says here against what Mr Denheld claims is also Hall’s
report in the Herald of the 5 November (it is at my post made on
the 3rd October).
Mr Denheld you claim Hall’s work as a primary source then why do
you not attribute the Herald report also as a primary source if
you are so sure it was Hall?
Perhaps it would seem we can’t rely on the press if indeed it was
(and I am sure it wasn’t!) Hall’s words in both!!
And thank you for your Google aerial view with the Beaut Mansfield
photo from the booklet imposed which you have also recently
posted. It gives proof positive as to the location of the camp
site; and it is certainly not where you place the red circle!
To those attending the ‘show and tell” to be held soon at the
Wombat, I do hope you consider with critical analysis and
observation the “Denheld non-preferred” location vis-à-vis the
material you are able to access throughout this forum.
A fine cheerio for now,
Again, I remain your humble servant
Thomas N. McIntyre
|
Edited by - Thomas McIntyre on 13/10/2010 23:36:41 |
|
Thomas McIntyre
Senior Member
36 Posts
|
Posted - 20/10/2010 :
00:16:11
|
Well, well Mr Denheld.
You have at last shown your true colours with the recent postings
you have made, both in this topic and the other about a show and
tell day occurring next weekend.
You seem simply unable to control yourself from belittling others
as the words you include in the other place show; and I quote: “and
the quite un necessary debacle about identifying the true site at
SBC that suited a few to have provided little substantive evidence
for their claims.”
The white flag it seems has been hoisted high by you.
And, as your only response is to produce TWO pathetic, childish,
and visually sarcastic, cartoons it seems you are bereft of any
plausible rebuttal to the obvious points of coincidence
highlighted by Mr Standing which can be seen with a careful and
studious viewing of the photographs,
as well as many other points raised in this forum over the
previous few months to which you provided ridiculous comment or
simply ignored.
As you have included me in both cartoons then I must make a little
more blah blah for the consideration of the readers who have been
following this topic with interest and making contributions to
this matter, which you now ensure has descended into farce.
Congratulations.
Well, yes the proof will be (and is) in the eating but not a
pathetic pudding as you show in the first of your pathetic
cartoons; but one of my very tasty dampers it will be. As you
should know a good bushman can make a d ——n good damper, and my
mates always told me how b ——y good it was.
Now, as you have obviously turned to the inane and kiddie like way
of cartoons, I too will not be bothering you too much from now
(but will have more for the readers consideration in time for the
coming weekend).
But before I retire I must reflect on some of your earlier words.
“Well well what’s new, the eternal knockers are at it again.”
(9 June).
Seems there are quite a few of us in this category who I prefer to
acknowledge as those who test and examine and question ALL of the
matters available.
You turn a deft hand with your way with words to belittle those
who do not share your judgment.
“Photos do not lie.” (24 June).
Good news indeed for Mr Standing, and others. Coincident features
there certainly are in the photographs.
“By the tone of Glenn’s posting he appears quite rattled, but I
thought the objective of this research collaboration was to find
the truth”. (1 July).
Seems the rattling should refer to you, and on a still night I can
be sure it is heard from your fireplace site.
“Mr Gill, Lets not mix fiction with facts” (16 August).
I have no doubt that Mr Gill (of whom I am aware), would not do
so, and as for me I certainly don’t. But you have demonstrated you
make some ‘porkies’ (as an earlier forum contributor used in
another context) by words which you would hope convey a fact when
it is purely conjecture or without factual basis.
“Historical truth is very important but denial of truth by
people who look but don’t want to see is a total waste of time. I
am telling you and everyone else the two huts site is the site
where Lonigan was killed.” (21 August).
Oh dear, seems the pot is calling the kettle black!
And I’m telling you that it is not the site!
“There seems to be a lot of believing going on with this debate.”
(25 September).
It is better to be a believer based on an examination and
consideration of ALL the evidence.
“Burman must have had a remarkable lens in 1878 if he could
take both images with the same lens . . . .So this indicates he
had two cameras with him. . . . The images were not taken with the
same lens” (12 October).
No, Mr Burman had just one camera and lens with a fixed focal
length. So Depth of field (concerned with the nearest and furthest
parts of the image which can be rendered sharp at a given focusing
setting) and placement of the camera – as Burman did by moving his
camera position, as you depict Mr Denheld in your site drawings,
result in his two photographs.
“For those that like to ‘believe’ in the Kelly tree site.”
(12 October).
First. As this was accompanied by your “please see this 360
panorama of the area” I would ask you, where is the panorama
you would no doubt have made of your site? , and
Second. The site is not accurately described by you – it is NOT at
the Kelly tree but some distance to the south and would be more
accurately described as placed on the ‘Northern rise of the White
Hill, in close proximity to the spring.’
Oh, And on a matter that I referred to some days back to the words
used by Mr Hall to describe the camp site and the significant
difference to the description published in the Herald of 5
November.
I think it is of interest that the preface Hall has included
concludes with ‘THE AUTHORS’ and a date of MELBOURNE, 22nd
February, 1879.
Note “THE AUTHORS” would imply more than one person, and there is
no absolute statement that Hall was one of them. He is shown as
the publisher, proprietor, “Mansfield Guardian.
You also in reply to Mr Joe D (12 October), say that “A recent
publication copy of Hall’s book by Brian McDonald mentions this
point” by which you are referring to your comment “Hall was
the special reporter the Melbourne papers make mention of.”
Well, I don’t agree. As I show above more than one person was
involved in the Hall book, so why could not one or more of these
unknown people have been the conveyors of information to the
Melbourne papers?
And, finally I point out that with the recent heavy and continuous
rain in the colony and certainly in the Wombat, I am sure you will
be able to distinguish between a creek and a spring when you are
next in the locality.
Do make sure you attempt to locate the spring – the one which was
close by our camp of course, as you will not be able to show
anyone a spring near your spot.
Thomas McIntyre
|
|
bill denheld
Advanced Member
Australia
156 Posts
|
Posted - 20/10/2010 :
15:30:47
|
Thank you Mr Kelvyn Gill.
Talk about playing silly games pretending to be poor old 'dead' Mr
McIntyre.
If you were serious about this debate you would have provided your
paper CSI@SBC March 2010 for all to read. Instead you and others
have been on a kill Bill exercise ending with ridiculas
propositions no sane reader would accept.
From your above posting I quote one paragraph -
quote:
Quotation from Bill's posting - “For those that like to
‘believe’ in the Kelly tree site.” (12 October).
First. As this was accompanied by your “please see this 360
panorama of the area”
I would ask you, where is the panorama you would no doubt
have made of your site? , and
Second. The site is not accurately described by you – it is NOT
at the Kelly tree but some distance to the south and would be
more accurately described as placed on the ‘Northern rise of
the White Hill, in close proximity to the spring.’
You ask " where is the panorama you would no doubt have made of
your site?" My panorama of the Two Huts site was posted 29/ 07
/ 2010 on page 5 this thread, but here it is again -
http://www.ironicon.com.au/twohutspano/twohutspano.html
You Quote "Northern rise of the White Hill" , rather the
two huts is adjacent to the Red hill that can be seen in the very
distance road rising with text " South near two huts site" in the
panorama taken from the top of your car. See my posting 12/10/2010
but here is the link again, see it for yourself.
http://www.ironicon.com.au/nearkellytree/nearkellytree.html
Then to answer you about GW Hall being the special reporter -
from Brian Mc's publication -
Quote from Page 4 - Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges' regarding
Hall - " Hall knew all the characters - the police and the
Kellys - intimately. As you read his account you realise he spoke
to them all, and as chapters 24 and 25 reveal, it appears he even
visited the Kelly hideout for a personal interview with the gang.
Page 5 Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges' " In 1878 Hall left
Melbourne and became proprietor - editor of the Mansfield
Guardian. Here in a latter part of October 1878, Hall became
involved in reporting on the "Mansfield Tragedy." He was right
among the action. He was able to conduct interviews with the
people involved and those associated with them. He would have
heard the gossip and innuendo as well as the facts and minute
details"
We can glean that when a Herald or Argus newspaper mentions their
special reporter at Mansfield , Hall is the man.
|
|
Thomas McIntyre
Senior Member
38 Posts
|
Posted - 22/10/2010 :
22:38:56
|
Gee, Mr Denheld, You are a
card indeed.
“If you were serious about this debate you would have provided
your paper CSI@SBC March 2010 for all to read. Instead you and
others have been on a kill Bill exercise ending with ridiculas
propositions no sane reader would accept.”
Sorry, Mr Denheld but it is not my paper to do as you suggest!
And as to ridiculas [sic] propositions I would just say that any
sane reader will no doubt take into consideration ALL
of the information provided over the past few months, and not
simply be brow-beaten into an acceptance that you have got it
right.
Oh and your emotive clap-trap that I and others have been on a
“kill Bill exercise” is utter manure! BUT I have certainly been
interested to get your views on much material that you simply
ignore as it does not fit with your obsessive position about the
two fireplaces.
I do hope, and would be pretty confident the authorities, with
whom the resolution of the correct camp site location is within
their ambit to consider and resolve, will take into account your
utterances (or lack of response) to the matters raised by me and
others within this forum.
I look forward to the time when, as you have previously said on
the 18 July, “And if I am proven wrong I will gladly concede to
that.”
Now, of course I do have two matters to finish with:
“You Quote "Northern rise of the White Hill" , rather the two
huts is adjacent to the Red hill that can be seen in the very
distance road rising with text " South near two huts site" in the
panorama taken from the top of your car. See my posting 12/10/2010”
I assume you are making this comment in regard to my description
of 3 October in which I say:
Our tent was on the northern side of the White Hill, and behind
the tent the slope continued gradually to the apex of the “little
hill” (his words, not mine), then falling away gradually in a
southern and easterly direction (A declivity) upon which a water
course flowed which emanated from the seasonal spring some small
distance to the west with the water discharge flowing
down along the apex and south side of the “White Hill” to reach
the Stringybark Creek.
YES, Mr Denheld I meant the White Hill and not the red hill which
is adjacent to your two fireplaces.
Our camp was as I have described – on the northern slope of
the White Hill.
“Page 5 Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges' " In 1878 Hall left
Melbourne and became proprietor - editor of the Mansfield
Guardian. Here in a latter part of October 1878, Hall became
involved in reporting on the "Mansfield Tragedy." He was right
among the action. He was able to conduct interviews with the
people involved and those associated with them. He would have
heard the gossip and innuendo as well as the facts and minute
details"
Well, Mr Hall must have been busy in the short time he was in
Mansfield before the murders, and afterwards to the time of the
preface dated 22 February, 1879 in his publication.
Again I am sure the sane readers will be interested in the
following gleaned from the Mansfield Guardian of September 7,
1878:
“We have the pleasure in announcing that the future career of
the Mansfield Guardian will be under the control of Mr G. Wilson
Hall, who has resigned the important post of manager and secretary
to the Melbourne Typographical Society, an appointment held by
him, for the purpose of casting in his lot with us. As proprietor
and editor of this journal, Mr Hall will commence his labours with
its next issue . . .”
So it would be a reasonable proposition would it not that he did
in fact rely upon THE AUTHORS for much, if not all, the content of
his publication. So you see Mr Denheld I do not agree with Mr
McDonald’s words in this instance.
And I conclude with an apology. It is at times hard to find within
this topic particular reference or comment and I certainly missed
your words with a pointer to your panorama.
Au Revoir (but with a watching eye)
Your irritant
Thomas McIntyre
|
|
|
