quote:

---

Mc’s references say the Gang came out of the spear grass from the direction of the creek, so why these references to spear grass on the slope puzzle me.
 

---

quote:

---

" G'day Fitzy

What may seem to be a veiled reference to a certain geographical locational or feature such as spear grass is fully understood by Bill or Glen as they know the SBC
area like the back of their hand , you would be surprised as the the amount of resources that has been expended by many people on this police camp site,
I would hate to think what the time and money added up to on this quest and hobby, for some of us it has become nothing to think of the 6 hour drive up and back
and only spend 5 minutes there making a measurement and driving home again.

Fitzy please gather up all the info on the Police camp site you can find, actually go up to SBC and report back your findings as we are all very interested in your
conclusion, why should we be the only ones loosing sleep and suffering the stress of this ongoing problem, please join in.
 

---

But then sometime later you add these Para's-
 

quote:

---

" From his own website "Now read Bill's conclusion for identifying the authentic site." and "Please click on the image to see Bill's definitive document to
establish the authentic location." and "If anyone has anything they wish to add to this article or if they wish to correct or confirm anything, please feel
free to contact this site, as we are all on a journey to find the truth! "

Mcintyre is a conundrum , At the recent talk by the FBI trained police expert he stated that Mc could be believed up to a point then he falls apart,
Mc gives very specific details which have caused us all a great angst when we have tried to apply his info to the very ground at SBC.
 

---

Bruce, are you making these statements on behalf of someone I recognize ? as the words don't seem to be your style ?
However this raises the point that attention is being focused on my document while the opponent's document has not even been tabled.
By all means pick my document to bits but at the end of the day either accept or reject and tell the forum why its wrong.

To understand my document you will need to -
First, accept my reconstruction log model of Burman photos as correct, (see my PDF document pages 14 and 15), you will see the logs are more like a back to front y.
Second, if you want to stick religiously to McIntyre's map orientation with his L shaped logs, please see he was all mixed up, see pages 17,18,19
Third, forget Mc's measurements from the creek to and fro. Would Mc have have had a tape measure with him? they are only estimates that sound official.
Forth, the Burman photos are looking South. And that Mc thinks his logs are those in the Burman photo facing the viewer looking south.
Fifth, accept the value of a Viewer Scope to identify a site by looking through the outline of the Burman image.
Sixth, that the 1884/5 parish maps showing locations are basically wrong, one map shows the hut at 804m mark, the other at 645 m mark.
Seventh, that Glenn's identification of a fireplace in the Burman photo pulls the Burman photos to the Two huts site at SBC.

If you can not agree to all these above 7 points, then my research documents at www.ironicon.com.au cannot be understood..

Then 03/07/2010 KC2000- Bruce writes
 

quote:

---

" Bill with your grids and things do you see the log with the dotted lines how higher than the mans feet do you think the log is and the dotted line in the
back ground how far away do you think the back ground is, and no its not a trick question
hmmmm i just observed the sapling/log is about level with the mans head

---

By my calculations the saplings are laying not more than 10 metres behind the seated figure. See map below. It would apear the ground gently rises, but I think it is
more likely to be fairly level ground and because the camera is higher than the ground it will give the impression the ground rises when it is not.
But how far is the background ?? say 35 to 40 metres.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then on the same day
Glenn wrote 03/072010

quote:

---

" The basis of Bill’s conclusions seems to rely heavily on both the fireplaces & the slope. I have issues with both of these.

---

No Glenn, my document was out in Feb 2010, and only relied upon the slope as hard evidence and with the two huts as Primary source material.
It was not until mid May that you told me about the fireplace identified in Burman1 photo.
Since then I identified the strong possibility the second fireplace was also in view, Burman2 photo.

After you challenged me about the log angle to the two posts, you wrote -

quote:

---

" I do agree with Bill’s the scaled layout demonstrating the angles of the two main logs.

If we may use this scaled layout and place the (Hut 1) fireplace in the location and angle as Bill is suggesting the layout does not make sense.
The direction the (Hut 1) fireplace faces 10deg North of East almost due East and the creek. This being the case the log angles also change.
We no longer have almost due North /South log. In addition the location of the second fireplace would not fit the Burman images.
I cannot yet see how the fireplaces fit the Burman images."

---

Glenn, if as Mc said one log was East West, the other nearly N,S, and as we have now established the two posts are about 35 degrees to the log, we have had to turn
the whole Burman scene clockwise to line things up with the fireplaces orientation. With this done, we now see the east west log is turned to West NW and East SE
This does not mean anything has changed in reality, who said everything had to be on a perfect grid. McIntyre thought his left log lay east west when it was not actually so.

Glenn, you have identified one of the fireplaces in the Burman photo, this to me was a break through. You should accept this as a mile stone towards identifying the correct site, yet you
dither about relatively petty issues because you want the site to be somewhere else.

Later I identified the second fireplace in Burman2 photo, and now if you look at my scale layout picture below, it all fits.-
I do remember you telling me you believed my photo reconstruction models were close to reality. If you accept Burman's photo logs do not form an L but rather a Y,
why then can't you dis regard Mc's L configuration. I have demonstrated " L " right angled logs never existed . McIntyre used the Burman photos to construct his map, ( for Ned's trial)
McIntyre within days of the shootings gave his information to an artist with the Sydney Mail who created what could be the closest pictorial image of the scene -see my Document page 27.
I know your group has tried to poo poo pictorial illustrations of the SBC event but this one closely matches the two huts site and should not be ignored.
The text read it was drawn with Mc's endorsement. Notice where the tent is in relation to the logs and the swamp. This swamp cuts across north of the two huts site quite close to the road.

And while we are at page 27, note your other posting,
Glenn wrote - 03/07/2010,
 

quote:

---

Bill, Thank you. I am pleased that we can now agree that there is in fact a good slope near the Kelly tree.

---

Glenn, my second para on page 27 reads,

quote:

---

" At SBC there are many places a slope on the other side of the creek can look steep as near the Kelly tree, but the view angles are all wrong.

---

quote:

---

What makes you think my measurements or positions do not add up ? What measurements or positions?

Please explain,Bill

---

There is your invitation, So thats what i have been doing in plain english,

the purple star is the beginning of the east west log
thanks for your estimates of what I asked about

 

quote:

---

I understand you want to plot the 70 yards from the creek when I have suggested it may only have been 56 yards.

---

I made another map with 56 yards, and that still shows the cross point of the logs above where you say they where, now you want me to move the creek twenty mts, I made another map (not shown here) and the cross point is still above where you say they where




 

quote:

---

Bruce, are you making these statements on behalf of someone I recognize ? as the words don't seem to be your style ?

---

quote:

---

"Wasn't Mr Thomas McIntyre the only witness who was present at the Police camp ?
If so then what he mostly writes about the location of the camp and where the tent and logs where should be believed.
If his verbal description is not the same as Mr Burman's photograph then one has to question the photograph, was it fabricated for the court.
There is a big difference in a person judging something that is 100 meters away and then only calling it 20 meters, what would Mr Thomas McIntyre
have to gain with not making his description accurate ? The Wang school girls rule"

---

quote:

---

" Once I get used to all this new technology I will be making some more comments and posing questions to those who are trying to
unravel the true story of the time and place."

 

---

My question to you was, ' by the court evidence suggesting your map of the place does not fit Mr Burman's photos'. My dear fellow, are you avoiding the question ?
However you answer Mr Ros . but refer to the issue at hand as a post script PS, -

quote:

---

" In my depositions I mention the remains of A HUT not two ! as some now use to try and establish where the camp was.
 

---

Mr McIntyre you refer to me as ' SOME ' , rather impertinent don't you think ?

Mr McIntyre your memory is defunct , but WE know what you reported to your superiors and to the press just after your scramble back to town so long ago.

quote:

---

[BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH ] FROM OUR SPECIAL REPORTER MANSFIELD, MONDAY NIGHT
From the account given by Constable M'Intyre, it appears that the Mansfield party started on Friday, equipped with revolvers, one Spencer rifle, and a double barrelled gun,
lent by a resident of the township. They had a tent and a fortnights provisions. They reached Stringy-bark Creek, 20 miles from here, on Friday evening, and camped on an open
space on the Creek. It was the site of some old diggings.
They pitched the tent near the ruins of two huts.

---