bill
New Member

 

Post by bill on Mar 8, 2014 at 6:57pm

Dee,
The place where Kelvyn and Glenn stand ANYone would pitch a tent.

Perhaps before the road went through the flat area may have been a little further back as there is road fill that has intruded the flat area, and over the past 60 years there may have been a bit of road bank run off to cause a slightly unlevel surface, but where they stand is flat enough to pitch a tent.

There are some who say the area at the two huts is not big enough.
On page 7 - 3 March on this thread I demonstrated to Poorflower that the Burman photo camera was only 50 cm above the ground to take in the footprint of the hut site shown with Kelvyn and Glenn Standing at the tent. If anyone wishes to, take a picture of your back yard from head height and then one at knee height. You will soon see the knee height picture looks like you have a gigantic back yard, yet walk into it with your eyes open and you say- Oh its not as big as I thought. That’s exactly what these neigh Sayers need to appreciate. I can't put it simpler than that.
I will show you a picture of the two huts site taken from the road slightly looking down - compared to the photo in the Beautiful Mansfield booklet circa -1897* to 1906. The B&W booklet was in print for 9 years or 18 years after the event. Going by the mounds seen, I believe the Mansfield photo was taken at the two huts site looking east but stand to be corrected. * I have photocopy dated.

Bill

www.ironicon.com.au/images/twohutsmansfieldscene.jpg



PS, Brain, who you say you are, my hand is extended to you. When do we meet at SBC ?
You tell me. I have never been impressed with your biased views as posted if you were the honourable person you say you are, as then you would never attack me for my convictions as you keep doing. I was always interested to meet you being a stone mason as I remember you telling us years ago. As you know I am interested in architecture too. Brian, life is too short, keep an open mind. Why not give me a ring. 

For full size image -
www.ironicon.com.au/images/twohutsmansfieldscene.jpg

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 8:11pm

Hi Bill,

I still maintain that the hut location above is now shown on the opposite side of the fireplace to this image. www.ironicon.com.au/images/twohutssouthslopefromroad.jpg



In addition the tent location you now indicate does not match your conclusions and can only repeat what I wrote previously.

Within the findings and conclusions -Stringybark Creek The Authentic Location

From page 29
Quote: 2. “That the police tent was pitched on the rise slightly West of the road with a commanding view overlooking the numerous logs that the police had used as a beacon bon fire far enough from the tent.” Unquote

This would place the tent on the far side of SBC road. So the location shown above does not match the conclusions.

Quote: 3. “That the police tent was pitched behind a ruined hut but one still standing maybe slanted over and dilapidated ready to fall “ Unquote

Please correct me if you think I am mistaken but the hut behind which you show the tent pitched above (Hut X) was Broomfield's hut - the one (2 Burnt posts in the Burman image) burnt down 15 months prior to the event.
The fireplace stones of which you have said can be seen scattered near the standing mans feet in the Burman image.

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 10:15pm

Bill, I found your Java moving panorama (on another site) illuminating. Among other things, it showed the two hut posts drawn in.

Glenn, I'm struggling with your posts. Above, you say "This would place the tent on the far side of SBC road. So the location shown above does not match the conclusions"

Imprecise statements like "far side of the SBC road" have got me scratching my head - and how can we find what conclusions don't match what?
 

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 10:59pm

Hello Horrie,

Have you fully and carefully read the findings and conclusions within -Stringybark Creek The Authentic Location?

It can be difficult to follow but by making notes of all that is mentioned about huts, which hut is which and who built them is to put it politely - very confusing. (Re my 2nd post. Page 1. Feb. 18)
Then compare them to the diagrams shown.

The tent location illustrated above (P 10) has the tent some distance further down on the Eastern side (creek side) of SBC road. West side of the road is above the road (On the far side of road) The road is directly behind the tent location within the image some distance further back out of view.

There is good reason why I am pursuing this subject. So please don't take it as me nit picking.

Re the SBC forum. I did successfully try to view this forum on another computer. I am surprised and sorry that you are unable to view this subject.

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 8, 2014 at 11:37pm

Nobody has mentioned the famous, invented brand-new leather body straps claimed by Ian Jones to have been taken by the police party to SBC.

There was no sign of them when the bodies of Lonigan and Scanlan were recovered. Their 10 x 8 foot tent and bedclothes had been burnt, and their pockets turned out. But no leather body straps.

Glenn, my view is that most of the discussion about the huts is guesswork. At Bill's site, they were gone when Burman took his photos. On his site, Bill discovered fireplaces of two huts and evidence of post holes. Who erected them and when is kind of superfluous when they were all but gone when the Mansfield Police Murders took place.

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 9, 2014 at 12:15am

Glenn, I've gone back to your post. Thank you for being polite and cordial.

My better-half thinks I have a very extravagent and expensive Kelly library. It includes a numbered copy of the Police Royal Commission facsimile edition which cost hundreds two decades ago. However, the online material has got me stuffed. You do confuse me when mentioning online publications without citations. You are familiar with all this material. I am not. I guess this is why I wish you CSI guys could post easily digestible illustrative stuff so I can see at a glance what you are saying.

Good Night!

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 9, 2014 at 10:21am

Hi Bill,

Re pic above.

Within -Stringybark Creek The Authentic Location Page 25

Quote : "Image right, this scene was taken across what is now the picnic ground looking east from a 1897 booklet ‘Beautiful Mansfield’ photo title “Police Camp, Wombat Ranges. Scene of Kelly Outrage” [10]
                      
                                                                                                               GLENN refers to this image below


I find it interesting that you have now changed your view on this?
 

Dee
Administrator

Post by Dee on Mar 9, 2014 at 2:28pm

Horrie I think the "leather straps" deserves a thread of its own. Ive been thinking of writing something about that after watching the Sunrise Interview with Derryn Hinch and a Kelly Sympathiser who mentioned them in his restatement of the so called "self defence argument".

bill
New Member

Post by bill on Mar 9, 2014 at 2:48pm

Glenn,
Regarding the composite Mansfield and Huts site picture

You wrote;
Hi Bill, I still maintain that the hut location above is now shown on the opposite side of the fireplace to this image.
In addition the tent location you now indicate does not match your conclusions and can only repeat what I wrote previously.

You then refer point 2 below from my document-

Quote: 2. from Page 29 ,
That the police tent was pitched on the rise slightly west of the road, with a commanding view overlooking the numerous logs that the police had used as a beacon bon fire far enough from the tent.

Yes Glenn this is in error, I never corrected this and is my oversight, thanks.
I think this scenario was due to my acceptance the tent was pitched 70 yards from the creek, hence it could only have been way over the road to the west, and much the same problem you have down near your Kelly tree site. Linton had the tent pitched about 7-8 metres west of the road bank, that you later moved the tent onto the road position.

In addition, I admit I have made another error you pointed out where I had marked the first fireplace (from the road with an X too far north). However, careful examination of the original images revealed the fireplaces either side of the figure. I have also lined in the foot print where the tent may have been pitched.

See amended image- www.ironicon.com.au/images/twohutssouthslopefromroad.jpg


Then, you refer to Quote 3, page 29 from my document-
" That the police tent was pitched behind a ruined hut but one still standing maybe slanted over and dilapidated ready to fall, and that north of the logs there had been another hut that was burnt down as was reported in the press of the time."

Glenn, I can turn it around and around as you wish, but all we know is 'they pitched their tent near the ruins of two small huts'. Also they pitched the tent behind an old hut. Whether it was completely ruined or just ruined who knows.

If the hut north of the logs ( to which you refer) was more ruined than the other or visa versa does it make any difference ? Not really. All we are interested in is identifying the correct site where the police had camped and where the police were shot.

In your last posting,
Page 25 of my document;
Quote : "Image right, this scene was taken across what is now the picnic ground looking east from a 1897 booklet ‘Beautiful Mansfield’ photo title “Police Camp, Wombat Ranges. Scene of Kelly Outrage” [10]

Yes, that above quote may well be correct, and it may also have also been taken at the two huts ? I did say " I stand to be corrected" -
And the text imbedded in the image reads,
Quote " Apart from not being able to see the skyline, there is no reason why this ( photo) could not have been the site where the Mansfield booklet photo was taken. What is the mound besides the squatting figure? " 

I may have changed my mind as you infer, its simply there are several locations where this photo could have been taken. Just because I wrote (as you quote) that the photo was taken across what is today's picnic ground does not mean it has to be there, (and I may change the text for this in my document) but it could well have been taken there considering the conflicting Parish plans of 1884 and 1885, each with a different location 'Where the police were shot by the Kelly's'. As before mentioned on another page of this forum, these two sites are 160 metres apart. (not counting the two huts site which is ANOTHER 200 m up the creek)

Glenn, in your teams CSI@SBC the Report, on page 62 - 64 there are images of those two parish plans 1884 and 1885. The CSI team has blindly accepted these two parish plans showing the same locations yet they are 160 metres apart? How can your CSI report not make mention of this discrepancy? -Especially IF you had engaged 'Absolute Surveying Pty Ltd' to help you all put together a trustworthy document. All the CSI report says is that these maps confirm the camp site was on the western bank of the creek. Even McIntyre said that siting on that log with Kelly on his right being on the creek side while they faced north, etc. No issue.

I am not even a surveyor but from the blown up images of the maps courtesy of Sheila and Fay, www.ironicon.com.au/validlinks.htm I was able to calculate from the original surveyors notes the discrepancy. It was all simple arithmetic, yet none of your group bothered to question these discrepancies because apparently ' it did not suit your blind faith in Linton's location'. If it does not help the cause - then don't mention it. That's the motto for the CSI teams report. This is very sloppy research indeed and the reason why the CSI team can't show you much of their site, because there is nothing they can hang their hat on.

Readers should be made aware, it was I, using the poor photocopy of that first map of 1884, noting a hut site with 'Police shot by the Kellys' on it. Using the scale off the map, I was able to plot this hut site on the ground with nothing more than my car Speedo. I marked a tree at 804 metres from the junction of SBC and Ryans creeks. The CSI team engaged surveyors and got 802.2 metres. But was there ever a hut there? Not by my metal detecting the site back in 1985 and again in 2003.

So, what about the two huts site? Right from the start of land occupancy the original surveyor was only plotting creeks, hills rivers, no fence lines or roads because there weren't any, and he must have just pencilled in a little sqr marked 'hut' somewhere along the named creek with a notation 'Police Killed By the Kellys'. Maybe there was an old 1890s miners humpy there that has left no conclusive trace there today?

When the first land owner took up the lease of about 300 acres lines were drawn on that first map, now showing the marked hut, but there was no hut there. Then a year later he complained to the lands department about having to clear goldmining areas, and he had another survey done, this time the next surveyor marked another site 160 m further North. Why would he do that if the other (804m mark) had a hut on it? It all goes to show the land owner must have wanted to have notoriety having the Kelly /police encounter on their land, while all along the real camp site lay within the undergrowth some 200 m further south on crown land outside the southern boundary.

All this can be read in my document
www.ironicon.com.au/stringybark_ck_the_authentic_location.pdf  

And Glenn, yes I will make those corrections and thank you for pointing those out.

Bill 

 

Last Edit: Mar 9, 2014 at 3:44pm by bill: Just typos and the and that

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 9, 2014 at 3:27pm

Dee, yes a 'Leather Straps' thread would be great. They were never heard of again. I missed the Sunrise segment, but it is surprising how often they keep popping up condemning the police at SBC.

While looking up something else, I came across a 2012 article about the MacFarlane book and quoting CSI member Gary Dean. We haven't heard from him yet in this Forum:

"The archival documents he [Mr McFarlane] read are mostly police reports, which would obviously be biased, he says.

"Mr Dean says some documents referred to in the book were 'dubious'. "You have to study all the sources, including newspapers, magazines, letters, unpublished manuscripts, books and, most importantly, oral history.

It struck me as strange then, and still does today, how much Gary Dean knew about the 'dubious' sources for MacFarlane's book - which had not yet been published.

I very much doubt Mr Dean would have been given an advance copy.

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 9, 2014 at 4:28pm

Bill,

Thank you for your in depth reply. Appreciate it.

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 9, 2014 at 5:35pm

A few words from Thomas McIntyre.

During the Beechworth preliminary trial of Ned Kelly. Amongst the descriptions etc to Mr Gaunston. McIntyre says the following:

"I don’t think I told a reporter that Scanlon was shot when making for a tree,
I was annoyed at the reporters – they would suggest questions to me and take anything for an answer.
I thought too much was published too about the whole matter, too much was published of his (Kelly’s) deeds. There was too much published injurious to a fair trial of these men.”


11th August 1880. Thomas McIntyre completes a 46 page statement before W.Foster P.M.
Part of which reads:
"Within a few days after arriving at the Richmond depot. I made written notes of everything that I could recollect. ………. I kept those notes and did not send a written statement to any one till after the arrest of the accused”


Thomas McIntyre would later recall that:
Kelly on his removal from the court expressed his surprise at the completeness of my evidence but qualified this remark immediately afterwards by stating “But the – has had nothing else to think about during the last two years”
In the events like those described in my evidence, however, I think that minds of most men are abnormally keen and the incidents connected therewith get indelibly photographed upon the brain.

Dee
Administrator

Post by Dee on Mar 9, 2014 at 6:15pm

Glenn those are incredibly interesting posts.

McIntyre is often ridiculed and called a liar because of variations in his accounts but that first two quotes you post shows he was concerned that the gang got a fair trial , quite a remarkable thing given how close he came to being murdered by them. The trouble he had with the Media is no different today!

The third quote is also interesting because it reflects what most of us still believe, that events get burned indelibly and accurately into our memories, and memory can be relied on. In fact what modern research has shown, and its fascinating stuff - to me anyway - is that memory is very plastic, is remodelled by emotion at the time such as fear, and by subsequent events including interrogations where innocent questions can introduce ideas that might later be incorporated in the memory which can then end up being completely wrong even when sincerely believed. I am sure this phenomenon accounts for any discrepancies people may wish to find between his various statements, and there is no need to ascribe them to something sinister on McIntyre's part.

Thanks for posting those thought provoking quotes - please put a few more up!

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 10, 2014 at 10:09am

Thomas McIntyre

"Standing at the tent entrance and facing the creek there was upon the left front a felled tree nearly 4ft in diameter, at the thickest part.It lay nearly east and west.
About midway this log was joined by another which lay due north and south and terminated where it joined the other.
These two logs thus formed two right angles, the point of junction being about 25 yards from the tent."

Re pic. Page 13. Post on the 22/11/2010 www.ironicon.com.au/newforum/sbcnewsandviews10.htm

Re pic. End of page 2. Huts @sbc stringybarkcreek.forumotion.com
 

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 10, 2014 at 10:18am

Bill,

Would you like some time to reposition the tent location on your scaled map, layouts and diagrams?

If we compare the tent location in the amended image above - www.ironicon.com.au/images/twohutssouthslopefromroad.jpg to the scaled map on page 36 within -Stringybark Creek The Authentic Location

Would I be correct in saying that the positioning the tent tent would now be located on or just behind the 20 M (mark) left of the E/W log (4) and fireplace (2) ?

Thanks,
Glenn

bill
New Member

Post by bill on Mar 10, 2014 at 2:43pm

Glenn,
You propose for me to change my map -

"Would I be correct in saying that the positioning the tent tent would now be located on or just behind the 20 M (mark) left of the E/W log (4) and fireplace (2) ?

The tent location as I have it on the map on my Document page 36 shows the tent by the 3m scale of the grid at around 23 yards or 20 metres. For all intentions, the position fits McIntyre's description of the East-West log being to the left of the tent entrance.

Why do you now want me to move the tent position on the map?

On my amended panorama view www.ironicon.com.au/images/twohutssouthslopefromroad.jpg


You can see where the tent would have been pitched. The footprint is just a guide for you because you seemed to have had a problem seeing this location in relationship to the previously 'incorrect position of the fireplace' now amended.

So why should I make any changes to the tent position?
Remember I had you and Kelvyn standing there.

Thanks,
Bill

Last Edit: Mar 10, 2014 at 7:22pm by bill: Highlight quote

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 10, 2014 at 4:00pm

Hi Bill,

Yes, I think it would be best corrected.

Re scaled map Page 36. The tent was previously shown to be in the South West corner of the clearing (Slope side) facing East. Now it would be in the North West corner of the clearing. (Non slope side)

Have no problem with the tent being 23 yards from the fire. (As before) So the tent can be rotated on an arc to near the 20 M (mark) left of the E/W log (4) and fireplace (2) facing South East. (according the scaled map) With the logs in the same position.

The tent as shown in the amended panorama view www.ironicon.com.au/images/twohutssouthslopefromroad.jpg faces towards the South East and the creek. SBC road runs almost due N/S

This would place the tent on the left of the log and fireplace according to the scaled map. Can we agree on this?

Thanks,
Glenn

Kelvyn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 10, 2014 at 4:44pm

Geez a couple of days away and then back to this continuing CRUD and CRAP from DENHELD:
Quote: “Brian you are nothing more than a pseudo for either Glenn or Kelvyn, We can pick it a mile off.”
IT’S IN CAPitals BILL SO YOU CAN CLEARLY ABSORB THE FOLLOWING:
YOU HAVE TRIED BEFORE TO PICK AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU HAVE MADE A COMPLETE ASS OF YOURSELF EVERYTIME. BRIAN IS NOT REPEAT NOT ME AND IT IS CERTAINLY NOT GLENN AS HE IS CLEARLY IDENTIFYING HIMSELF IN HIS MANY EXCELLENT POSTINGS. U
THEN YOU CONTRADICT – AT LEAST HAVE TWO BOB (THATS 20 CENTS IN TODAY’S SCHECKELS) EACH WAY WITH THE FOLLOW UP
QUOTE: “If you are a real person with an open mind why not just give me a ring today so we can have a chat”.
TIME YOU GREW UP AND STOPPED WITH YOUR SILLY PSEUDO GAME.
Notice Kelvyn does not mention he was wrong about the tramway along SBC.
The track he refered to was infact the Bridle track on the western bank of the creek leading up to the two huts and beyond.
GO GET AND READ EVANS’ RESEARCH MATERIAL AS THAT IS the PRIMARY SOURCE

The map-
Quote- " the latter two would be included by McIntyre around ten years later in his very detailed to scale diagram now on permanent display at the Victoria Police Museum, and reproduced in both the CSI Team’s report and my book.
YES AN ERROR IN SENTENCE CONSTRUCTION BY ME (NOT A SPELLING error)
From this an artist produced the sketch shown by W Denheld."
THE CORRECT WORDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN:
From this rough sketch an artist produced the sketch shown by W Denheld."
Oh boy, this must be the joke of the decade. Kelvyn, I don't know where you get your information from, perhaps from your own book?
WHICH I DOUBT YOU WOULD HAVE READ AS IF YOU HAD YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT YOUR QUESTION IS BASELESS.
that the The" Sydney Mail" sketch shown on my map of SBC - -was first published on 16 Nov 1878 - just 3 weeks after the event which makes it Primary Source material- and NOT AT ALL- ten years after the event as you falsely claim.
TEN YEARS = MCINTYRE’S DETAILED SCALE DIAGRAM WITH LOGS AND TENT AND POSITION OF THE POLICE AT FOUR SEPARATE MOMENTS IN THE OVERALL SAGA SO NIT5PICKING ABOUT THE POSITION SHOWN OF THE POLICE IS AGAIN YET ANOTHER FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO DEFLECT FROM THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DETAILED DIAGRAM. WE TRIED TO ‘EXPLAIN’ THAT THE DIAGRAM ONLY GIVES FOUR-MOMENTS- IN- TIME TO YOU BUT AS WAS THE CASE IT WENT THROUGH TO THE KEEPER.

Quote “The CSI@SBC report does not even show this 'Sydney Mail sketch' or the SBC wide scene in the 'Australasian Sketcher', or the 'News Illustrated front cover', why not ? Because it does not help their cause for the Kelly tree site.
What is the value of a SBC report that excludes important Primary Source sketch material drawn at that time when state of the art photogrphic cameras were only just beginning to replace the artists work. Sketches had to be an accurate depiction of any scene”.
OH GET OVER IT BILL: THE TEAM DID NOT PLACE ANY ARTIST IMPRESSION INTO THE REPORT AS IMPRESSIONS ARE NOT SUBSTANTIVE (NOR PRIMARY AS YOU WANT SUCH MATERIAL TO BE CONSIDERED AS) EVIDENCE – THE TEAM DID HOWEVER INCLUDE ALL CURRENTLY KNOWN PHOTOGRAPHS RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION.
WHAT IS THE AXE, OR IS IT A TOMAHAWK DOING IN THE LOG BILL? YOU KNOW IT IS CLEARLY SEEN IN THE AUSTRALASIAN SKETCHER ARTIST’S IMPRESSION.
(NO DOUBT THE ARTISTS’ IMPRESSIONS OF EVENTS SUCH AS THE SINKING OF THE TITANIC WOULD ALSO MEET YOUR “PRIMARY” CONDITION.)
“Readers, please note this sketch does not sit well with the CSI Kelly tree scenario.
I will tell you why they want to ignore it,-
1, Because CSI team only want to use McIntyre's base map instead of a combination of all primary source materials. They blindly follow Linton Briggs's scenario.
REFER TO ABOVE- THE TEAM HAS UTILISED FAR MORE SUBSTANTIVE (PRIMARY) MATERIAL THAN YOU WITH YOUR DOGMATIC MYOPIC APPROACH TO INVESTIGATING AND NOT ACCEPTING IRREFUTABLE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE.
2, They want the Burman photo to be looking North East -FROM near the Tent in the Sydney Mail sketch, yet the sketch' clearly shows the direction the Kellys are shooting the police - to the North, and from where the police came back to camp, this orientates the sketch. The view of the sketch is looking WEST.
WE DON’T WANT ANYTHING BILL OUR WORK STANDS WITHOUT A ‘WANT’ AND IT IS YOU WHO SEEM TO ‘WANT DESPERATELY’ TO HAVE YOUR POSITION VALIDATED BUT YOU CANNOT CONVINCE MANY (MANY) PEOPLE TO YOUR VIEW.

So why would you now want me to make any changes to the tent position,
Remember I had you and Kelvyn standing there.
SO WHAT , I WILL OBLIGE ANY ONE WHO ASKS ME TO POSE FOR A CAMERA SHOT. I THINK I SENSE A PATHETIC ATTEMPT BY YOU TO CO-JOIN ME WITH YOUR VIEWS THUS PROVIDING SOME LEGITIMACY TO YOUR WORK, I’LL SEND YOU SOME MORE PICS OF ME WITH OTHERS (NOT CSI TEAMERS) AROUND YOUR AREA WHEN WE WERE MAKING DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF YOUR ROCK PILES. I’LL BLACK OUT THE FACES THOUGH AS THEY WOULDN’T LIKE TO FIND THEMSELVES BEING PILLORIED.

For the red liners here are “lastest posting” “ enableing” “graphicaly” “referres” and again “referres” photogrphic
SCHOOL REPORT: IF THIS IS THE LEVEL OF PRESENTATION THE STUDENT NEEDS TO CONCENTRATE . PRESENTATION REFLECTS ON THE WRITER’S WORK OVERALL, NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.

bill
New Member

Post by bill on Mar 10, 2014 at 7:17pm

Glenn and Kelvyn,
You are so obsessed with fighting the two huts site while Linton or Gary are sitting back not saying a word. I have presented my case again and again, its really now up to you put your case for the CSI@SBC report.
Bill

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 10, 2014 at 11:32pm

Totally agree, Bill. Its like 'Waiting for Godot' who never arrived.

Wake