This is a true copy of KC2000 forum SBC News and Views page 9

 

Fitzy
Advanced Member
 



Australia
156 Posts
Posted - 23/08/2010 :  22:00:03  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Max,

You sound like someone who has lost 10 quid and found sixpence. Not only do I find your sarcasm and rage unimpressive towards Bill, you have now started on Bob. The SBC site is not new to Bob and like Bill, he’s entitled to his opinion, as everyone on this forum is.

Maybe you would be so gracious as to supply the forum with a map of your own, pointing out your thoughts on the matter. Bill has put all his cards on the table and of course is up for scrutiny, but let us scrutinize in a civilized manner.

Fitzy.
 

Edited by - Fitzy on 23/08/2010 22:02:41

 
kellycountry2000
Forum Admin
 



Australia
754 Posts
Posted - 26/08/2010 :  18:09:56  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Max, we would all like to see your map please, i would be happy to host your map, please email it to me.

KC2000
Go to Top of Page
poorflour
Senior Member
 



25 Posts
Posted - 28/08/2010 :  10:45:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote

quote:

I will gladly show you and anyone else the true site at SBC



Max I would like to see your map thank you.
Go to Top of Page
alan
Senior Member
 



26 Posts
Posted - 28/08/2010 :  14:05:12  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Yippie Max, you sure have put your foot into it this time, you have no choice but to spill your guts or be embarrassed for the rest of your life for shooting your mouth off over this one, so where is your police camp, we are all dying to find out.
Go to Top of Page
bill denheld
Advanced Member
 



Australia
138 Posts
Posted - 05/09/2010 :  12:23:33  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit bill denheld's Homepage  Edit Reply  Reply with Quote  Delete Reply
Where's Max ? I think he has gone for a 'Tosca'

Anyway, here is something interesting while we wait for Max to show us his map.
Carla made me aware of a fireplace remains drawn in the Australasian Sketcher of 16 Nov 1878.

The centre fold picture 'red circled' , notice the Axe in the stump behind which a large tree patricianly hides the ruined remains of a hut fireplace structure.

This again proves Glenn's identification of the fireplace as in Burman Photo1, but now also seen in a drawing that we thought was modeled on the
Burman Photo2 version. This means the artist drew what he saw while there quite accurately.
Also with this revelation, we can be confident the spear grasses he drew to the right were in fact on the lower background slope.
Bill


http://ironicon.com.au/twohuts/images/sketcherdoublepagefireplacenov1878.jpg
 

 


 
max
Senior Member
 



21 Posts
Posted - 05/09/2010 :  18:09:57  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Note A. Our tent was pitched near the north east corner of the clearing, which was partly caused by human agency. The entrance to the tent facing east
Note B. Sergt. Kennedy had selected a clear place near an old burnt hut as the most suitable for our camping ground.
Logs Standing at the tent entrance and facing the creek, there was upon the left front a felled tree (BLACK STAR)
Compass
Logs (felled trees) lay nearly east and west, about midway this log was crossed by another which lay nearly due north and south.
Advance from the south I was standing with my face to the fire (RED STAR) and my back to the rushes looking down the creek. Suddenly and without warning I heard some voices crying out bail up hold up your hands, on turning round I saw four men standing in the rushes.
Slope. Observe base of trees in the background (Blue star) proof slope is visible in the Burman photo and lays to the east opposite end from the tent. “Still stands today”
Tent to creek
The entrance to the tent was facing east and also the creek which was about 70 yards distant.
We cannot accept the version that has been put to us * Creek 56 metres / yards from the tent * Creeks original course moved/ altered 20 yards up a slope. “A slope cannot hold water running N-S it goes against the law of gravity” 70 yards distant... “I’m happy to agree the distance may be off by a few yards but no more. So could had it been 65, 68, 72 yards distant from the tent? We’ll never know”
Ruins of an old hut “Pitched tent” near an old burnt hut
Camp fire We built this fire at the intersection of two logs. Lonigan working on the north side or outside and I in the tent or inside
http://photo-hosting.winsoftmagic.com/1/uxdhweekoa.jpg
http://photo-hosting.winsoftmagic.com/1/ybl44z6eoy.jpg

bill "TOSCA" please explain?

I quoted this passage from one of bills earlier postings
I will gladly show you and anyone else the true site at SBC, the place where Constable Lonigan was shot dead i in fact did not mean me myself showing you.

see you at stringybark bill
max

Edited by - max on 05/09/2010 18:14:24
Go to Top of Page
robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member
 



Australia
111 Posts
Posted - 05/09/2010 :  23:38:33  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Max you are absolutely incorrect in your very first sentence. On page 16 of McIntyre's manuscripts he says that they pitched their tent near the north west of the clearing not the north east as you say. Back to the drawing board or please get your facts straight before making your case. The other facts of the tent facing east a distance of 70 yards and to the front left were the logs are correct. If McIntyre is correct this means the logs are to the north of the clearing and not to the south. I actually disagree with everyone saying that the man standing represents Kennedy but I believe he represents one of the gang members coming from the south. I may be totally incorrect but I still am not convinced the photos are taken to the south, I believe they face ne or nw depending on which side the slope actually is. I am still not convinced the sun isn't behind the chap sitting on the log and as poorflour gives the evidence of the trees tending to also go that way. It is all a matter of ones opinion and although I still prefer the 2 fireplaces site, I can't agree on the directions that the photos were taken.
Go to Top of Page
robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member
 



Australia
111 Posts
Posted - 06/09/2010 :  00:11:21  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Max I also forgot to point out that on the same page McIntyre also says to the right of the tent or the south of the clearing "that the clearing to the south was clear of timber" and thus also is why I believe the ground on which the man standing is to the south and not to the north.
Go to Top of Page
bill denheld
Advanced Member
 



Australia
139 Posts
Posted - 08/09/2010 :  11:30:19  Show Profile  Email Poster  Visit bill denheld's Homepage  Edit Reply  Reply with Quote  Delete Reply
MAX, are you showing your age ?
During the 1970's a TV campaign for a Chocolate Bar 'Tosca' created a lot of laughs. The adds followed the line ' Where is Max? - reply - ' He's gone for a Tosca.' - suggesting Max had disappeared because he did not want to share his Tosca.

Max, this is a debate that requires an element of courtesy. I am always prepared to offer that but you use a diminutive attitude towards me.

Your STARS - In the Burman image you use (from Glenn) , if you overlap the two Burman images 1 and 2, you will see the steep slope is only on one picture because where you place the Blue star (in the middle of the photo) up in the trees, this is looking UP the creek Valley where there is no Slope.

Max, One fundamental error in your scenario is your tent position. If you place it like you have facing the two main logs in the Burman photo, you would have the seated figure facing South, - when we know from McIntyre they faced North.

In my posted image (above) showing the Spear Grasses on the right ( your Rushes), they ARE on the Slope area of the Burman photo as the artist depicted. ~ Then in your scenario the rushes would be on the other side of the SBC on the east side, and you know the Kelly party came from the South. So your scenario took place east of the creek when it should be looking south or up the creek, not down.

Your Kelly tree location with the Burman photo view looking N.East is totally broken and has been well covered in my document at www.ironicon.com.au see under TwoHuts at SBC, Investigation page and my conclusion SBC the Authentic location document.

In your posting you cite McIntyre in a loose manner. You say Mc standing near ' Red Star' with his back to the 'Rushes' , and if your rushes are on the slope 'Blue Star' then this would be on the East bank across the creek, in other words Mc would be facing the camera ( would he not ? )

Again, your error, you fail to see that the Burman view IS the place where Constable Lonigan was shot dead. McIntyre said he was on the Inner of the log angles, and Lonigan was on the Outer of the log angles when shot. Hence the Burman view is where Lonigan was shot and fell to the ground on the outer. The Burman photo logs angle is the outer.

The seated and standing man are ON THE NORTH SIDE of the logs - where Lonigan was shot. Standing man ( Kennedy) came from the North West as McIntyre said and as the Burman photo figures indicate.

To help understand the scenario, I follow Poorflour's initiative of the blue line images also showing the site plan of the site at the Two Huts.

Max, I would be delighted to meet you at SBC, But do bring a box of 'Toscas' ( or similar) so we can all share them around and nobody needs to disappear.
Bill



http://ironicon.com.au/twohuts/images/burmanphotomodelplan.jpg

Please notice McIntyre = M1, M2 Lonigan = L1, L2 Kelly = EK 2-3 and Fireplace rocks all on scale grid of 3 Metres or Ten feet.
While the Green and Pink arrays may not be the exact included angles, all the elements of the Burman photos are relative to each other.
Contrary to the seated man in the photo, Notice M3 where Mc sat when EK told him to. Remember Mc said he had the tent with one of the men inside to his back when the other troopers returned. Lonigan's body L2, was also moved out of sight prior to troopers return.

 
Glenn Standing
Senior Member
 



Australia
31 Posts
Posted - 08/09/2010 :  18:45:49  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Don't let them rattle you Maxi.

The Kelly tree location with the Burman photo view looking N.East is not broken at all. It remains the most logical location.

It is to be remembered that the Kelly tree is some 23yrds from the creek. With a good slope behind to the right. The slope is visible in both Burman images.

As far as "Toscas" go I could name a few but you certainly are not one.
Go to Top of Page
Glenn Standing
Senior Member
 



Australia
31 Posts
Posted - 08/09/2010 :  18:58:56  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
By the way Bill,
your Hut2 fireplace position is still not correct. As I have proven previously.
Go to Top of Page
Thomas McIntyre
Senior Member
 



33 Posts
Posted - 09/09/2010 :  18:48:58  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Well, after attending to matters both judicial and private I now return to the task of critical and analytical analysis of the supposition argued by Mr Denheld in regard to the position of our camp site at the Wombat.

But first to Mr. Max.
I see Mr Standing has offered his opinion and it is certainly one I endorse.
Don’t be put off Mr Max you are yet another in what I believe to be an ever increasing squad not sharing the analysis of Mr Denheld’s.
I would just offer this for present. If you have indeed read my first draft of my story (the one now retained within the walls of the Victoria State library) at page 15 you will have got the North east reference which was used therein.
I spotted this error of transcription and it was immediately corrected to read the North West corner as I continued over much time to make newer updated manuscripts - a slow laborious job with only a typewriter and pencil at my disposal over many years to get the work to a final, and hopefully a publishable state (alas this did not eventuate although I did try).

Now for matters in general
I wonder why an axe is shown in the sketch to which Mr Denheld draws our attention?
I would suggest it is just an artist’s jape as he did not attend at the scene ever and by inclusion of the axe is signifying this to the observant reader.
Or perhaps we should all now spend the next millennium attempting to find it in the photographs of Mr Burman?

Whilst I continue to assemble more material of relevance to this matter I will not be too active within this topic, but I will be in due time.
Your humble correspondent
Thomas
 
Go to Top of Page
Fitzy
Advanced Member
 



Australia
161 Posts
Posted - 10/09/2010 :  10:36:12  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
G’day Max,

Thanks for posting your version, as that now gives us something to study and digest.

“Gone for a Tosca” was a common saying back in the early 70’s when the commercial for that wafer and chocolate bar was sold and it was not a derogatory term. There was a sting of commercials and ‘George’ was always going missing and when someone would ask, “Where’s George?”, the reply was always, “He’s gone for a Tosca”, as he was addicted to them.

Fitzy.
 
Go to Top of Page
robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member
 



Australia
116 Posts
Posted - 11/09/2010 :  11:45:18  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Max in regards to your markings on the Burman photo on your posting on the 5/9/2010 I would like you to confirm some of these questions. First of all you show the Kellys to the right hand side of the photo BEHIND the standing man. You show south also behind the standing figure, would that be correct? If this is so I agree with you. I know this completely contradicts both Bill and Glenn as they say the standing figure is to the North. Glenn points out on the markings on the Burman photo on the 1/8/2010 that the slope is to the west and he shows where roughly the current road exists. You show on your markings with the blue star that you say it is to the east and I have to admit that I agree with you again. Also thanks Max for providing your markings and opinion of the orientation of photo.

Also the imposter McIntyre states that he agrees with Glenn, although he hasn't declared fully yet where his slope is east or west. It appears the opinions of everyone is greatly divided not only on the shootout location but also the orientation of the photos. This is a good thing because I am sure we are all trying to get the correct location. I am very keen to hear what poorflour thinks as I believe the evidence of the leaning trees on his or her posting also on the 1/8/2010 is also very important to the orientation.

I know I am not going to be too popular in asking this question but here goes anyrate. To those of the near Kelly tree site advocates, why havn't these members provided photographic evidence to prove their points as Bill has done to prove his case? When I next visit SBC with my new camera I am going to take stacks of photos of the relative sites and will gladly share with all our members, God willing.
Go to Top of Page
Glenn Standing
Senior Member
 



Australia
31 Posts
Posted - 11/09/2010 :  13:19:41  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Hello Robert,

I think I should clarify a few things.

Please refer to my posting on the 6/7/10.

I believe and have always believed that the standing figure is to the South facing North.

The slope being to the East. Near the Kelly tree location.


My posting on the 1/8/10 is in reference to the scenario that Bill has put forward at the two hut site. The slope would then have to be on the West or road side.

I agree with Max.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Glenn
 
Go to Top of Page
robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member
 



Australia
116 Posts
Posted - 11/09/2010 :  14:23:54  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Glenn the 3rd picture on your post on the 1/8/2010 i32tinypic.com/287p4ep.jpg shows what I said previously.According to the markings north is where the man is standing and south is behind the logs.So does this mean that the Burman photo shown with these markings on it is not your work.That is why I am confused because that is exactly what is shown on it under your posting as you can see.If the markings on the post are not yours,do you know whose markings they are?That is the reason why I said that Max and you do not agree on the slope being east or west.It also shows on it the slope being marked to the west and the close proximity to the current road.I have always thought that the standing man represents one of the gang coming from the south and not Sgt Kennedy returning from the north.I believe the man is being presented as shooting at the police not the Sgt shooting at the gang..On the north and south orientation of the photo we agree for once.I hope you can understand the confusion of those particular markings on that photo post under your name.
Regards Bob


http://i32.tinypic.com/287p4ep.jpg kc2000
Go to Top of Page
Glenn Standing
Senior Member
 



Australia
31 Posts
Posted - 11/09/2010 :  16:04:03  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Hi Bob,

Are yes I understand your confusion. The image posted on the 1/8/2010 i32tinypic.com/287p4ep.jpg is my interpretation of Bill's scenario at the two hut site. The co ordinates NSEW have been taken using the current location and position of the Hut 1 fireplace. This faces approx.10deg Nth of East. Towards the creek. Bill has suggested that the (Hut1) fireplace is near the standing mans feet. The two posts being the side of the hut. By following this suggestion I came up with what would be the co ordinates. The Southerly direction indicated has been taken using what would be the end of Hut1. The slope would therefore have to be on the West (Road side) It also demonstrates that the current Hut 2 fireplace position does not match the Burman images. Bill & I have different views & cannot agree.

On my posting 29/6/10 is a photo showing a reasonably good slope behind the Kelly tree. The Kelly tree is some 23yrds in front of the creek. I believe the camp was to the right and slightly back towards the road from this image.

Regards,
Glenn
 
Go to Top of Page
max
Senior Member
 



22 Posts
Posted - 11/09/2010 :  19:03:48  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Correction NW!
Dear Lord excuse me for the typo error. In which I’m sure we’re all guilty of!

I draw your attention to the attached link
http://photo-hosting.winsoftmagic.com/1/uxdhweekoa.jpg note tent {A} is marked to the west of Stringybark creek. Need I say more! Billy I ask you to please revise your work and put forward the absolute truth for the issue at hand.
Billy thank you for the explanation. During the 70’s I lived and worked in Europe hence my being naive to the term “tosca.” Billy, this debate or in fact any debate requires an element of courtesy. Which I am also prepared to offer you. Be warned though, your diminutive attitude towards me and particularly other forum members past and present will not be tolerated.
I’m prepared to call a cease fire and pursue this debate in a respectable fashion. (Marcus pull out your chair)

Bill we share a difference of opinion for and against. On this note I must highlight that not much more could be said or done to prove or disprove the debate. A thorough investigation is in order and to be handled by the proper authorities. An archaeological investigation will eventually settle this debate.
Glenn, alias McIntyre, Fitz, I/we appreciate your comments and sincerely look forward to the pleasure of your company at Stringybark. Bob, I also value your input in which you also share similar views as that of Bill.

I will now be asking a series of questions as this debate progresses.

Bill, Bob and others willing to have their say feel free join in.

Do we accept and acknowledge that there is a slope on the east bank of Stringybark creek nearby the present day Kelly tree?
Please answer simply with a yes or no!
Go to Top of Page
robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member
 



Australia
116 Posts
Posted - 11/09/2010 :  19:57:39  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Thank you Glenn for explaining the markings on the photo in question. As you can see I do not agree with Bill on the orientation of the photo but I still prefer the 2 huts fireplace site to the Kelly tree or south of it. The photo that you placed on the forum I haven't seen as I was in Victoria at the time and 3 does not work at Neerim. I see now that the mention of the west slope and the SBC road has now been removed and now am sure others will not fall into the same trap as I did.

I have asked Bruce if he could show a photo of the Kelly tree looking east straight across the creek a little north or to the left of your photo Glenn. This photo was taken by my daughter in law in Dec2007 before the framework went up. The 4 people shown in my photo crossed the creek about 10 metres to the right of the Kelly tree and onto the forked tree and the Ian Jones site. I sent the photo to kellycountry2000@gmail.com and I hope this is the correct email address Bruce?

I know I am repeating what I have said before but I will repeat it again for those that didn't read my previous post a few months back. I have crossed the creek behind the tree several times and yes Max there is a slope there Bill, myself and others do not deny that fact. I simply believe that the slope at that part of the creek is simply not steep enough as in the Burman photos and no evidence of fireplaces. In my photo to the left of the tree you can just see the base of some trees on the slope that you mentioned and it is no way near steep enough. To the south of the tree the slope does not get much higher until you get to th 2 fireplace site and the slope that Bill thinks it is.

We will get the correct site with a lot of luck and I think that day maybe getting closer. It is not a contest between us all but just seeking the truth.

tree picture
Go to Top of Page
kellycountry2000
Forum Admin
 



Australia
757 Posts
Posted - 13/09/2010 :  12:30:02  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Glen has indicated on the Burman picture where he thinks todays Kelly tree would be??

This is just a small pic, you need to click and download the full size picture to read the writing
Kelly tree pic



Here is a cropped version



click this link to get full size picture

http://i56.tinypic.com/2qbujxt.jpg



Does anybody have a wide angle picture of the kelly tree area taken from across the road ?
Go to Top of Page
Fitzy
Advanced Member
 



Australia
161 Posts
Posted - 16/09/2010 :  10:02:11  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
G’day Gang,

Does anyone know if there is an official interpretation/explanation of the Burman photos? As they were taken as evidence, there should be some documentation explaining orientation and whom the figures represent (especially the one standing), and where the creek is situated. I’ve read many interpretations, though none of historical fact. Going by McIntyre’s many versions, the standing figure is in the direction the Kelly Gang advanced from. He also states that he was looking “down” the creek for his comrades’ return. As the creek flows from north to south, Mc.Intyre would have to have been facing north in the direction the creek flowed. I have been trying to locate such a document and if it exists (which it should), is proving very elusive to find.

Fitzy.
 
Go to Top of Page
duncs
Senior Member
 



Australia
23 Posts
Posted - 16/09/2010 :  11:33:37  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Hi,
Does anyone have the facility to blow the Burman photos up to the point where we can see the buttons on the jackets of the standing or sitting man? Whilst the standing man has his right arm extended and the crouching man behind the log is holding the rifle normally, suggesting that they are both right handed, the buttoning of the jackets would establish conclusively whether or not these photographs are printed the right way round. I'm not sure if this has been investigated previously, but think it would be helpful in orienting the photographs.
Cheers,
duncs
Go to Top of Page
robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member
 



Australia
116 Posts
Posted - 16/09/2010 :  12:09:03  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Fitzy ,unfortunately when I visited the 2 fireplaces I didn't try and find where the creek was located. I wish to blazes I did but we will all find out in October. I am sure other members on the forum will know where it is located. I would like to throw out another question to all members. I believe the 2 Burman photos show that the slope shown actually meets and rises from the flat piece of ground in the forefront of the photos. Between the 2 burnt posts it shows 3 or 4 trunks of trees which seem to be at the end of the clearing and at the beginning of the slope. I also believe that the log facing east and west nearly reaches the end of the slope.
Max and others say that the tree is 23 yards from the creek and I do not doubt that and his preferred site is slightly south of the tree and a bit more west towards the road. I believe that if you take a photo from that position in my opinion the slope would be too far away and that you would have to go down towards the creek and up the other side to reach the slope. The Burman Photos just do not show that fact and that is just my opinion in arguing my case. At the 2 huts site there is a slope rising from the flat piece of ground but as I said previously am unsure of the creek, it would probably be to the left.
Go to Top of Page
Glenn Standing
Senior Member
 



Australia
31 Posts
Posted - 16/09/2010 :  14:14:28  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Hi Duncs,
I have been using some blown up prints of the images. For what it is worth the buttons on the vest of standing man are on his left side. The same man also carries a revolver on his left side.

Cheers,
Glenn

 
Go to Top of Page
Fitzy
Advanced Member
 



Australia
161 Posts
Posted - 16/09/2010 :  17:51:50  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
G’day Duncs,

You’ve raised a good question.

Glenn, I’m not sure what you mean. The buttons on the standing man are on the left side, but if his vest was open, the buttons would be on his right and button holes on his left, meaning the photo has not been reversed. Is this what you mean? That is the way I see it and if you look at the close-up photo just above these postings, the bloke sitting on the log also appears to be buttoned up the same way, going by the creases in his clothing. My opinion is the photo is correct and has not been reversed.

Fitzy.
 
Stringybark Creek News and Views  
Go to -
Page1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14,         Previous Page | Next Page