|
bill
New Member
|
Post by bill on Mar 3, 2014 at 2:13pm
Thanks photographer,
The blue tarps were the work of Bruce, admin of KC2000
24/09/2010
www.ironicon.com.au/images/bruces-blueimg049.jpg
Bruce posted this six weeks after PoorFlour had removed all her
postings from SBC thread at KC2000 ? That shows you how
interested he/she was to debate almost four years ago.
Now he/she wants to create a dubious argument suggesting the
height of the tarps reflect the true height of the rocks on the
ground. It has always been said at the offset 2002, the huts
fireplaces may have been rebuilt several times there.
Please note the hut posts in the original photo do not
match the two plastic posts Bruce has placed in existing holes
in the ground.
These holes of posts were left over when either
bush fires burnt out the hut posts long ago although these holes
do mark the edge of that hut site.
You
can read Bruce's post at
www.ironicon.com.au/newforum/sbcnewsandviews10.htm
More to follow,
|
|
Last Edit: Mar
3, 2014 at 2:22pm by
bill |
|
|
|
|
Brian
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Mar 3, 2014 at 2:46pm
Thanks Sarah.
forums popping up and we're no closer to solving the mystery.
One thing that is clear though we're agreeing to disagree with
one another.
Sarah what is your involvement with the kelly story? interest,
passion, etc? |
| |
|
|
sarah
Junior Member
|
Post by sarah on Mar 3, 2014 at 3:11pm
Interest in the history of
Victoria Brian which lead to persecution of early selectors and
progressed to the Kelly story.
|
| |
|
|
Henry
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Mar 3,
2014 at 3:42pm
Sarah,
I was just quoting what Dee had already said about Poorflower.
Who has already been tried and convicted by Dee.
Poorflowers got it right. |
| |
|
|
sarah
Junior Member
 |
Post by sarah on Mar 3, 2014 at 3:47pm
Sorry Henry, my apologies I
didn't realise it was a quote. |
| |
|
|
bill
New Member
|
Post by bill on Mar 3, 2014 at 5:50pm
I have no interest going from one forum to
another.
I tried to join the other bad attitudes forum on 7 Feb - by
email I asked admin to give me a ring as I would like to know
who I was dealing with. On application a window popped up to say
it was up to 3 admins? No one did ring, but and 3 weeks later on
that forum they said I could log on, then I'm accused of not
wanting to answer dubious loaded questions.
I will address these here.
This person pseudo Poor Flour, wants me to comment on a scenario
that has been well covered more than four years earlier on
Bruce's KC2000 forum when he simply allowed this pseudo Poorfour
to delete all his/ her postings 'even though' Bruce's forum had
been gutted years earlier, rendering some forty threads useless,
my postings amongst them. I always copy my postings and threads.
These webpage links below are my copies showing where Poor Flour
had posted with images back in 2010 that he/she remove from the
original KC2000 forum thread within days of he/she's last post.
One wonders why that would be?
You can read Poor Flours original postings here, They are no
where else to be found.
www.ironicon.com.au/newforum/sbcnewsandviews5.htm
www.ironicon.com.au/newforum/sbcnewsandviews6.htm
www.ironicon.com.au/newforum/sbcnewsandviews7.htm
www.ironicon.com.au/newforum/sbcnewsandviews8.htm
Without doubt, pseudo Poor Flour made some interesting
observations that I thought were great, and I encouraged he/she
to keep going as you will read if you have the time. But later
he /she thought the wacky bent trees theory may throw a spanner
in the two huts site which is always OK, we need as much rigor
in the argument as possible, but after all this time, why try
again when these issues had all been addressed years ago. This
makes one wonder she must be one of the desperate undercover CSI
team for which he'she may get a medal.
It is interesting that for almost 4 years these forum
discussions lay dormant, then just after Peter FitzSimons's Ned
Kelly book comes out with my SBC illustrations in centre pages,
then all of a sudden the its on again - kill Bill.
Isn't it amazing how these people now want to demolish the Two
Huts site while the CSI team are still unable to provide even
the slightest evidence of their location near the Kelly tree, -
except for some text and swamp gums, what ever they have to do
with it I have no idea, but they hang their hat on an earlier
marked tree where the local land owner signposted it nearest to
the road, so the 1930's Kelly tourists would not be jumping the
fence and trampling all over his ground looking for the dreaded
site. This was more than fifty years after the event.
At NKF boards -where was the police-camp at sbc bad attitudes
forum, you will see a staged number of postings from hidden
pseudos most likely the CSI team, for who else would bother and
they keep telling us 'its not at the two huts site'.
When you cannot present a reasonable better scenario, you either
accept you may be wrong or you mount a propaganda campaign.
But what is Poor Flour all about attacking dreaded ' Two huts
Model Plan'.
www.ironicon.com.au/images/burmanphotomodelplan.jpg
click on link for full size image
The grid on the plan (above) represents 3m sqr in
order to give an estimated scale to the Burman photos based on
the height of an average standing man, and the foot print of a
hut, so we could determine a scale grid, so we can determine how
far back that large tree on the right is from the camera, then
we can also estimate how far back the slope starts from as THERE
is No creek between the slope and the tree.
Obviously there will are always scaling errors that cannot be
avoided, but you will see the green and Pink arrays represent
the photos boundaries and camera spots. In the arrays, notice
one post is in one array and two posts in the other. Notice the
big tree on the right is in both arrays. The blue lines were
suggested by PoorFlour mid 2010 on in order place the second hut
site behind central big tree.
Whoever PoorFlour was then when he/she put up some very smart
observations, but now doubt if it’s the same brains today.
Poor Flour says the placement of Burman's camera would be " down
the bank where nobody would place the camera" (Ref posting by
guest Horrie page 6.)
I would like you to visualise this-
In your backyard make a 3 metre square grid on the ground. With
camera in hand take a picture looking diagonal across from point
to point. Take a picture. On the print out measure the width of
the square, and divide the height into the width. This gives you
a ratio. You will need a ratio of 9 to 1.
See image-
www.ironicon.com.au/images/burmanphotologanglegrid2.jpg
In order to capture a photo of a 3m grid like in the Burman
photo you need to be laying down or on your knees bent over to
get a ratio of 9 to 1.
So PoorFlour, you are correct Burman would have had to take
his photos lying down or lower down the bank of the creek
probably on a fully extended tripod to get his Wide shot, and a
little higher up the creek bank to get his narrow angle shot.
PoorFlour, good luck with your research.
CSI team, hope you can follow this otherwise I may have
to build you a very short tripod so you can take your Kelly tree
Burman photo comparison, and being only 500 mm above the ground.
Bill
|
|
Last Edit: Mar
3, 2014 at 6:04pm by
bill |
|
|
Shonk Watcher
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Mar 3, 2014 at 8:48pm
Sarah (Fitzy), you only told
Brian about one of your pet hates, the alleged persecution of
early selectors - but you didn't add your well-known rant about
how Victoria Police were corrupt then and now.
You've posted here 36 times in an outpouring of negativity and
hate. You have bagged Dee endlessly, slagged the MacFarlane book
and heaped criticism on Bill (I relished seeing when you
supported him briefly in 2010 in Bill's archive).
You praise Pooflower who is an internet serial pest nearly as
tiresome as you. |
| |
|
|
sarah
Junior Member
|
Post by sarah on Mar 3, 2014 at 9:21pm
Shonk Watcher (Internet
Pest), you know nothing about me or Poorflower and you accuse me
of being someone you all hate with a passion because he tears
you all and that book to pieces. I know nothing of Fitzy
supporting Bill as you claim, although he may well have before
discovering the truth. That however has nothing to do with me
and as I have said before, I hope Fitzy is viewing this forum so
you end up in gaol with your friends for slander. As you already
know, his friends are going to use ‘cyber detectives’ (see ABC 2
a few weeks ago), Look it up, you will be crapping your dacks at
what they can do and how they can find people!
Dee has already stated how she personally sought you people from
where you were, so she is complicit in your illegal activities.
I am personally (like several others), taking screenshots of
every post here for use as evidence against you all. Fitzy has
lots of friends and they are all monitoring websites for him as
he is too busy to do it himself and no doubt will reward us all
from the defamation claims against those who have offended and
broken the law! |
| |
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Mar 3, 2014 at 9:46pm
Bill,
I can assure you and everyone else on this Forum that Poorflower
is totally unknown to any of the CSI team. She has independently
come to her own conclusions.
As have a growing number of others that have taken the time to
study in depth the relevant information.
As for your remark about staged pseudos, it is easy to see that
there are more than one or two here that back you up. Mostly
diversionary tactics or some other garbage. They could
just as easily be you or someone close to you for all I know.
That is the problem with this type of forum. Hence my suggestion
to continue this discussion on the
www.stringybarkcreek.forumotion.com Where people who
post must have a real identity.
And the forum more closely moderated.
So please forget that for the present and stick with the subject
matter at hand. It is an interesting read so far.
I have nothing to add at this point in time.
|
| |
|
|
Glenn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Mar 3, 2014 at 9:48pm
Horrie,
I did say that I would talk with the other members of the team
prior to proceeding here with a full presentation.
Have spoken with Kelvyn who in turn spoke with Gary. Have not
yet been able to contact Linton. (At 82 he is still a busy man)
The general opinion is no, not yet.
Gary, would like to sell the remaining hard copies of the report
(second printing) first.
Then we may consider a suitable and more stable site, most
probably a web site. To make it more open to the public.
Cheers, Glenn |
| |
|
|
Horrie
Guest |
Post by Guest on Mar 3, 2014 at 10:14pm
Glenn, I'll be older than
Methuselah before you disclose the Kelly Tree site!
|
| |
|
|
Shonk Watcher
Guest |
Post by Guest on Mar 3, 2014 at 10:20pm
Sshhhh, Sarah!
...You've been found out. |
| |
|
|
Madame de
Farge
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Mar 3, 2014 at 10:43pm
Sarah, Fitzy (Fred) can't be
that busy. He's busy posting on the Ned Kelly Forum boards:
"Keep up the good work PF [Pooflower]. Bill might not be
answering, but you can be assured he will be watching and
reading. LOL".
fred
Full Member |
| |
|
|
Shonk Watcher
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Mar 3, 2014 at 11:43pm
SARAH (Fitzy/Fred) I'm
thinking of posting here about the three most vile and
defamatory posts I've ever read on the net. They mentioned each
of the CSI@SBC members by name - "Gary your first" - and
concerned Bill's wife in the most disparaging, sickening terms.
She had been expelled earlier by the wacky Ned Kelly Forum for
supporting "The Kelly Gang Unmasked" book.
The thing that tied Fitzy (who then was using his real nickname)
to the disgusting posts was the fact he had just posted two
posts a few minutes earlier. No other posters posted hours side
of his repulsive comments.
This is one of the major stories of the hate campaigns against
Bill and Ian.
When the CSI@SBC guys see what you wrote about them, Fitzy, they
are going to want a very, very long talk with you.
|
| |
|
|
Dee
Administrator
|
Post by Dee on Mar 4, 2014 at 7:50am
Shonk Watcher if you or anybody else
reposts things on this Forum from the ForumJar THEY WILL BE
DELETED. I understand exactly where you are coming from and
share your revulsion at the tactics of people on Forumjar and of
people like fred and fitzy, but by bringing that sort of
"debate" to this forum you are assisting these nasty people in
their work as trolls and internet bullys and pests, who just
want to wreck discussions and disrupt debate between genuinely
interested participants. Please just contribute in a positive
way to debates rather than be drawn into the mean and dark place
that these small minded individuals want to drag us all.
The title of this thread is The Great Debate about SBC.
I have been enjoying the positive contributions from both sides
of the SBC debate, and don't want them wrecked by people whose
only interest is to wreck and disrupt. Lets keep discussing SBC.
In regard to Poorflower, Henry, yes I did say her theories are
absurd amateurish and a joke, and that I was offended by her
attacks on Bill, but to say she has been tried and convicted is
a cop out. I would have expected her to defend her views if she
held them with any conviction, and as I have repeatedly also
said, her attacks on Bills site add NOTHING to the strength of
the case for the other - or any other - site. Can Poorflower
point us to any other work using the angles of trees as a means
of identifying an historical site 136 years later? As you will
note I have left open the possibility of there being something
to her arguments about the place the photos would have to have
been taken from.
|
|
Last Edit: Mar
4, 2014 at 8:04am by
Dee |
|
|
Kelvyn
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Mar 4, 2014 at 3:02pm
Just a few observations from words posted
recently by an unimpressive rabble of the arm-chair (no doubt a
well worn one) mob.
1. To quote Horrie: "a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs"? YES
HORRIE A BUNCH OF AMATEURS WHO WENT LOOKING WITH OPEN MINDS.
Your words should have appropriately also mentioned that
individual amateur flogging his rocks solution.
2. "sqrs" (What?) It has been OK to lambast Poor Flower recently
for a "different" way to denote metres; perhaps a similar
derision is appropriate in this case.
3. "Poor Flour" (sic) is it caused by Dyslectic or poor spelling
capability or yet another attempt to "belittle" someone ??.
4. "Beekeeper" indeed - try using the limited grey matter the
rabble seem not to have in plenty and spend a few minutes of
your time (Google and the Internet make research reasonably easy
even for the intellectually challenged) to establish the life
and times of Linton Briggs. A man of many facets and a very well
respected man of integrity who has served this country well
(check it out).
|
| |
|
|
ME AGAIN
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Mar 4, 2014 at 7:43pm
Here we go
again. Unable to address ANY/ALL OF THE MATTERS GIVEN
APPROPRIATE INVESTIGATION IN THE CSI TEAM'S REPORT ALL DENHELD
CAN DO IS REGURGITATE HIS RIDICULOUS ASSERTIONS AND GUESSES.
So, I apologise to those who take the time to read his rambling
words BUT HIS UNTRUTH's, ETC WILL BE ADDRESSED.
"poped up" Do you mean
1. the bishop of Rome as head of the Catholic Church, or
2. one of the other religious heads (Coptic patriarch, or
3. parish priest of the eastern Orthodox church, or
4. just a commoner who has assumed a supreme position in some
field, or
5. the freshwater fish genus Acerina
or did you mean to say pope's nose ?
Now for the serious stuff.
Some more quotable crap from an above posting:
"This makes one wonder she must be one of the desperate
undercover CSI team for which he'she may get a medal".
SO IT HAS TO BE AGAIN SAID (AND RAMMED INTO THE SUBCONSCIOUS)
THAT POORFLOWER IS NOT NOW AND HAS NEVER BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH
THE CSI TEAM IN ANY FORM WHATSOVER. SO SHUT THE .... UP (THE
ADULT/CHILD BOOK IS AN EXCELLENT REFERENCE IF YOU DON'T
UNDERSTAND) ABOUT THIS MATTER.
"Isn't it amazing how these people now want to demonish the Two
Huts site while the CSI team are still unable to provide even
the slightest evidence of their location near the Kelly tree, -
except for some text and swamp gums, what ever they have to do
with it I have no idea, but they hang their hat on an earlier
marked tree where the local land owner signposted it nearest to
the road", ETC ETC
WHEN YOU CAN ADDRESS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WITHIN THE CSI REPORT
AND OFFER MEANINGFUL REBUTTAL TO IT THEN YOU CAN RATTLE ON BUT
UNTIL YOU CAN THEN I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST YOU SHUT THE .... UP
(SAME BOOK REFERENCE REFERS) . AT NO STAGE HAS THE CSI TEAM HUNG
THEIR HAT ON THIS TREE - BUT LOOK CAREFULLY IN THE BACKGROUND
FOR A CLUE THAT ADDS TO THE COMPLETE REVIEW OF THE (NOW) 3 KELLY
TREES.
"At NKF boards -where was the police-camp at sbc bad attitudes
forum, you will see a staged number of postings from hidden
pseudos most likely the CSI team, for who else would bother and
they keep telling us 'its not at the two huts site'"
WELL ITS NOT THE CSI TEAM PLAYING PSEUDOS BUT NO DOUBT OTHERS.
THE CSI TEAM IS AWARE OF MANY OTHERS WHO HAVE CONTACTED TEAM
MEMBERS, MET TO DISCUSS ITEMS OF INTEREST, THESE 'PSEUDOS'
PREFER TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS TO AVOID BEING RIDICULED.
Now for some relevant information:
PERHAPS THOSE STILL WASTING THEIR TIME TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF A
NON-SENSICLE (MY WORD THIS ONE!)PROPOSITION ABOUT ROCKS THAT MAY
OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN MOVED/ PILED UP AGAIN, OR WHATEVER MAY
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING FROM A NEWSPAPER REPORTER WHO WENT TO THE
POLICE CAMP SITE (TOGETHER WITH MONKS, BURMAN AND AN
UNIDENTIFIED MANSFIELD LOCAL WHEN BURMAN MADE HIS 2
PHOTOGRAPHS).
EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT
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 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. . . .
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. At the time the
call to surrender was made, M’Intyre was at the fire cooking.
This was precisely 39 paces from the foremost bunches of grass.
The tent stood exactly 25 paces from the Kelly’s hiding place.
NOTE HIS WORDS - PRECISELY AND EXACTLY - SO HOW COULD HE BE SO
PRECISE ? THE ANSWER IS STARING YOU IN THE FACE IF YOU KNOW THE
HISTORY OF THE SEARCHING & RECOVERY OF THE 3 POLICE)
SO NOW WHAT CHANCE FUTURE POSTS BY DENHELD WILL NOT CONTAIN
INNUENDO OR GUESSWORK AND INSTEAD ADDESS THE MANY SUBSTANTIVE
MATTERS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE CSI TEAM'S UNASSAILABLE
CONCLUSION(S.)LONG ODDS NO DOUBT THAT HE WON'T BE ABLE TO HELP
HIMSELF "GOING FORWARD" |
| |
|
|
Horrie
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Mar 4, 2014 at 8:57pm
(The above comment is as clear as porridge.
What does it all mean?)
Kelvyn, all those open minds have snapped tight shut.
You should be working on the CSI's response to Bill's
presentation of 26 February.
We'll all be in nursing homes before you get around to telling
us where your Kelly Tree site is.
Bill's presentations are always impressive. He has additional
gifts as an artist.
His brilliant illustrations in the Peter FitzSimons book were
helpful. I read somewhere there were more that inexplicably were
not used.
I just noticed in the needlessly long post above "The tent stood
exactly 25 paces from the Kelly’s hiding place".
What is an "exact pace"? There is no such thing - unless you are
a Regimental Sergeant Major carrying a Pace Stick. Groan... more
BS
. |
| |
|
|
Horrie
Guest
|
Post by Guest on Mar 4, 2014 at 9:50pm
Not much precision or exactitude in the
newspaper report presented by 'Me Again'.
Another Version 1
They
descended on the camp through clumps of
saw-edged sword-grass between 6ft. and 7ft. high. The tent stood
in the
middle of about
three acres
of cleared ground, and commanded a good view of all
approaches except the one through the sword-grass. No
precautions were taken to prevent surprise, because the police
never suspected that an attack would be attempted.
Another Version 2
We camped at Stringy Bark creek, about 20 miles from Mansfield.
All four of us travelled on horseback and were armed. At Stringy
Bark Creek the country is thickly timbered, but we camped on a
clearing. The photograph produced shows a portion of the ground.
There had been a hut on the clearing, but only remains of it
were left standing. A number of logs were lying about. The
opening was about
an acre or two in
area; we camped
immediately behind
the old hut, erecting a tent there.
Another Version 3
When we reached Stringybark Creek, we camped in an open place
which had been previously used as a camping-ground, there being
the remains of a hut there. The country was thickly wooded, and
there were a number of fallen logs lying about
at the time.
The photograph (produced) of the locality is a correct one. The
open space was about
an acre or two
in extent.
Another Version 4
Where we built the fire was near two logs, about twenty yards
from the tent.
|
|
| |
|
