This is a true copy of a forum debate about SBC where the Police
were shot by the Kelly gang in 1878. These following 25 pages were lost when one
of the participants complained to forum host ProBoards.com. Despite numerous
efforts to have the whole forum re-instated by me, this topic was one of several
threads on DEE's 'Ned Kelly Truth forum' that questioned the many
mythologized elements of the Kelly story, and is the reason for much personal
attack on those that may have alternative views of how Kelly history is
recorded.
Bill Denheld May 2014

Man stands at fireplace of one of two huts, the
police tent stood behind where this photo was taken.The Kelly gang came from
left of little hill above.
The Great Debate about Stringy-Bark
Creek
Page 1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25
Foreword
explanation, the CSI team refers to Crime Scene
Investigators @SBC. This team is headed by Linton Briggs and three other
researchers. Only Glenn Standing and Kelvyn Gill are contributing to this forum
debate on behalf of the CSI team.
It is their belief the police of Oct 1878 camped at a location now known as 'the
Kelly tree site'. Despite this, the CSI team's stalling tactic was for them not
to put any of their stuff up which in the end is their stuff up in any good
debate.
It is without doubt and my 100% conviction the true site is two hundred metres further up the creek
taking all the evidence into account. The wide picture above is looking from
east to south and the little hill (right hand side), is the same slope as in the
Burman photo below. Notice the tiny figure standing on the slope image above. Stringy Bark
Creek runs from right to left (south to north) rear of this scene above- past
and behind man with leg on
fireplace rocks. In the Burman photo below the creek is to the back of the seated man.
Photographer
Burman photo taken only days after the killing of two police here. Lonigan and
Scalan
Quick Index of debate Mile Stones along the way-
Pages 1 and 2,
The first
CSI team 'Stuff Up' is their blinkered view of what the spring is
at SBC.
Forum page 4,
The second CSI teams 'Stuff Up' regarding Burman photo orientation. see
Steps1 to 6
Forum page 8,
The third CSI teams 'Stuff Up' at their Kelly tree site is the non
existence of a 'Slope' as in the Burman photo. The CSI Team can't provide a
picture to compare, and they have the Burman photo looking the wrong way.
Forum Page 9,
The forth CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is the non use of Primary
Source pictorial evidence sketches from newspapers, one drawn from a rough
sketch by McIntyre himself depicting the general layout of the scene at SBC.
Forum Page 14,
The fifth CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is on going debate by CSI that there is no pipe
to take away the water from higher ground under the SBC road, and when asked to
show a picture of - or where their spring happens to be along the road they
cannot show this.
Forum page 15,
The sixth CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is their lack of understanding which are Primary
sources as against Secondary sources. Primary being records closest to the event
where as secondary are reports written months - years later- reports not of the
time, such as many of McIntyre's Memoirs published 24 years after the event.
Forum page 16,
The seventh CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is their sloppy
research regarding the maps- plans showing 'two notational hut plots'
incorrectly described as being the same place but 160 metres apart.
This is how the debate started-
Dee
Administrator
    

|
Post by Dee on Feb 17, 2014 at 6:59pm
Welcome Bill, its very nice to have an expert on my Forum!
I've spent quite a few hours reading and re-reading your Site, and it is
quite convincing. I like the fact that you are very open about what you
have been doing and thinking, and you go to great lengths to explain
your reasoning. I haven't bought the CSI report for $50, so cant
be certain about their claims for their site.
On the "Bad Attitudes" forum before I was ejected a claim was made that
the presence of a "Spring" near the CSI site but not near your one was
irrefutable proof that the CSI site was the correct one. Would you care
to respond to that claim?
|
|
Ken
Guest

|
Ken Feb 18, 2014 at 12:13am
Post by Guest on Feb 18, 2014 at 12:13am
Greetings to Bill! Glad to have you here. I read
recently a blog about your search for where Sgt Kennedy may have been
found. I got the impression this will be harder to find than SBC. Again,
compass bearings of the time are a problem. Surely everyone, even then,
knew Stringybark Creek Creek runs North-South? Can you give a short
update? |
|
bill Member

|
Bill Feb 18, 2014 at 11:41am
Thanks for the welcome Dee,
You wrote -
"the
presence of a "Spring" near the CSI site but not near your one was
irrefutable proof that the CSI site was the correct one. Would you care
to respond to that claim? "
It just
goes to show how easily readers can be led astray.
I show some pictures
the geology at Stringy Bark Creek.
A water spring is
described -
Spring - A
place where water naturally flows out from the ground.
This
Geology cross section from a 'Report on Toombullup Gold Field' by James
Stirling, Government Geologist 1895. supplied courtesy of Sheila
Hutchinson, the cross section shows geologically why SBC is a spring.

www.ironicon.com.au/images/sbc-geology-small.jpg
See below
the same area on a topographic map of SBC and Hollands Creek

www.ironicon.com.au/images/sbc-topo.jpg
For a larger scan of
the cross section click this link-
www.ironicon.com.au/images/sbc-geology.jpg
While Const Thomas McIntyre and
Kelly gang waited for the other two police to return to camp, they
waited looking down the creek North. Ned said to Dan to go ' UP the
creek to the 'spring' (south) just in case the returning police came
back from that direction, - from UP the creek. Quote - "Dan went back to
the spring for fear the troopers would come in that way, but I soon
heard them come up the creek" -source- the Jerilderie Letter.
Please read the Toombullup 'Stirling' report highlighted in yellow
www.ironicon.com.au/images/sbc-geo-report.jpg
The spring the CSI team want to believe is just a small trickle coming
typically from the west bank 'shelf of soggy ground' and drains easterly
into SBC. This trickle only runs for a short period after heavy rain and
is not the spring Ned wrote about.
By contrast, the spring Ned referred to is where 'spring water' flows
from out of the ground from up Stringy Bark Creek all year round, and
incidentally the very reason the first lease holders of Fern Hills
Station - Messrs Heaps and Grice had built two Shepherds huts* there in
1848- right near the permanent fresh water supply of SBC.
* I have a transcript of dispute letter by Ewan Tolmie who owned the
adjoining Hollands Crk Run.
The letter questions the Lands Department to re establish a mutual
boundary.
As a matter of interest, in 1948 the whole of the table lands farmers
were forced to relinquish their farms to protect the huge water
catchment range for Benalla and northern town's water supplies.
Bill
|
|
Glenn
Guest

|
Glenn
Feb 18, 2014 at 12:29pm
Dee and others interested in this subject. Rather than re hash what has
already been said and debated regarding stringy bark creek. I strongly
recommend that you read what has bee read and demonstrated on the
Stringybark creek forum.
Yes you may have to become a member. There you will find that the creek
being a spring has been totally disproved.
Cheers,
Glenn
|
|
bill Member 
|
Bill Feb 18, 2014 at 3:47pm
Hi Dee and all,
This forum Glenn speaks of has been a closed shop for a year or more.
When the Stringy Bark Ck Forum started I was assured it would remain an
open to the public forum, as it should be.
I put a lot of work into it in the hope people would see a rational
debate.
What I found was that threads where we discussed the 'Spring at SBC'
where I displayed images and lots of explanation was later set so only
logged on members could see the pictures, and to the outside world, they
could only read the text without pictures or links working.
I privately asked Admin Chuck to return the settings to how it should be
for all to see without success. So all my postings are now locked away.
In the end I just gave up.
Interestingly, today I tried to see if anyone could join to become a
member but down the bottom it said this forum is locked.
So much for the suggestion for you Dee or anyone else to have a look
around there.
To date, I have not seen or read any convincing argument to suggest the
CSI team have identified a spring.
Bill |
|
bill Member

|
Post by Bill Feb 18, 2014 at
4:04pm
Hello Ken,
Re update for where Sgt Kennedy may have been found -
Perhaps the compass bearings are not such a problem. Seems contemporary
historians had got things wrong.
I think the problem started around the time when Ian Jones and Keith
McMenomy were writing their respective Kelly books. Ian has set out to
find the correct site of the shootout after disbelieving commonly held
belief the site was near the Kelly tree.
In the Age newspaper report by John Lahey dated Oct 1995-
Mr
Jones says that in 1960 he learnt that there was once a local man who
grew tired of people asking where the battle took place, so he randomly
cut a legend into the Kelly tree to put an end to it. Everyone simply
accepted that here was the true site. In time, the site became
formalised for parking. The tree now carries Ned’s metallic likeness.
The same man who told Mr Jones about the tree said that the real site
was further south along the creek and described it. From that day, Mr
Jones set out to find it.
When he found a site about 300 M south that
looked right, it was on the east bank of the creek, but he later told me
he had never came across the fireplaces of two small huts- diagonally
across the creek from his preferred site.
In his book A Short Life, Ian Jones then set out to locate where Sgt
Kennedy died.
Now, because one Const James one month after the shootings reported he
was able to follow horse tracks crossing the creek there, he followed
these tracks and eventually found the Kelly camp at Bullock Creek.
Because of this report Ian was sure his site was the right ( one on the
east bank), for how could horse tracks lead to Kelly's camp to the North
West if they did not cross the bogy swampy creek from the East bank?
Reading both Jones and McMenomy on this subject they seem to have
collaborated to suggest the Sergeants body must have been found on
or near Germans Creek ( between SBC and Bullock Cks). And we all went
along with that scenario, except much later I identified the one Burman
photo showing a body on the ground with two men looking over it had to
have been looking east by the light and shadows - meaning Jones's
assertion the Sergeant's body was found on the west bank of Germans Ck
was negative. However for years we accepted the Germans Ck scenario and
my webpage will explain that.
www.denheldid.com/twohuts/germanscreek.html
It wasn't till members of the CSI team started a thread on KC2000 after
careful reading of primary sources that state the Sgts body was found
North East of StringyBark Creek and not Germans Ck at all.
The CSI team thought this would add weight to their claim the police
camp was near the Kelly tree.
The only problem being at that site there is not enough swampy enough to
allow anyone as Const James would, to be able to follow one month later.
The creek near the Kelly tree is a deep gutter, not at all swampy
flat ground.
However, after communicating with Ian Jones by letter he seemed ok with
the notion that if the police camp was at the two huts, and that the
swampy ground was directly north as it is, then anyone escaping like
Const McIntyre on Kennedy's horse 'travelling north for several hundred
yards before heading west' fitted exactly horse tracks crossing the
creek to the east bank. This means the two huts site would be the
starting point for the search for the Sergeants body.
Primary sources tell us a variety of distance estimates, from 400 to 800
yards or metres.
So by that, the closest site would be about 200 M past the Kelly tree,
or if 800 M almost near the junction of SBC and Ryans Ck.
If on the other hand the police did camp near the Kelly tree, then the
800 M mark would mean the body was found way past and across Ryans Ck
(and the current road) which the reporters certainly did not say. They
said the body was found North N East of SBC, not North N East of SBC and
across Ryans Ck. Otherwise they would have said on the north side of
Ryans Ck North east of SBC.
Bill |
|
Glenn
Guest

|
Post by
Glenn Feb 18, 2014 at 8:50pm
Bill.
Perhaps it is time to refresh your memory in regards to the spring as
debated by members on the SBC forum.
In short.
You will recall that you had not not identified the location of the
source of the spring. It was concluded that this is much further up the
creek most probably on what was the Engelke property at the top of SBC
road. Several hundred Mtrs further up from the two fireplace site. From
there it gathers pace as it progresses down through a steep gully
collecting more run off water along the way. Immediately above your
preferred site there is no spring. This was agreed upon by yourself.
Further you invited me to join you on a days outing to try and locate
the source of the spring. Which I accepted at that time.
Ned referred to the creek and spring as two separate identities.
Obviously to send Dan back to the spring (and green rise) several
hundred Mtrs away does not make sense. Therefore the spring was near by.
A seasonal spring has been identified above the SBC road near the Kelly
tree location by others besides the CSI@SBC team. Pictures have been
produced proving as much. This also coincides with the descriptions
provided by Ned Kelly and constable McIntyre.
The location of the police tent, the logs, creek etc are all in
accordance with the distances provided by McIntyre. About 20 yards
distance on the right of the tent the ground was of a boggy nature etc.
This boggy ground being on the creek side of the road where the run off
from the seasonal spring naturally makes it’s way down to the creek.
(McIntyre’s declivity) Anyone can see this boggy ground and declivity
for themselves. Spear grasses also grow in this area.
Naturally you would not would not agree as it does not suit your cause.
With regards to the Stringybark Creek Forum, saying you just had to give
up, Mmmm.
Bill, you can still access and post on that Forum but choose not to. I
suspect that because there is many an unanswered question I put to you
in relation to the Two Huts, the shingle hut and the one a few Yrds
behind which the police tent was pitched.
Your conclusions and the huts just don’t add up. Either your conclusions
are wrong or your critique of the CSI@SBC report is wrong or both.
Questions which up until now have done your best to avoid.
These question are an integral part of the story and need o be
addressed.
Perhaps this should be continued on this forum for all to see. Yes?
Glenn
|
|
bill Member

|
Post by Bill Feb 18, 2014 at
10:40pm
Glenn and all,
There is no use
going on with this type of debate.
Readers please note the CSI team are not able to show one photo that
resembles the Burman photos by comparison if taken near the Kelly tree.
The orientation of logs as in the Burman photo on their plan, - they
have them as if the camera was facing 'North East'
The seated man and standing man in the photos are on the north side of
the logs. The CSI report has them facing south which is absurd. Const
Lonigan was shot on the north side of the logs. That's why Burman took
the photos of the place. The photos were taken looking Southerly.
McIntyre verified in court that the photos were of the place where
Lonigan was shot. and verified the presence of some hut posts. The note
attached to the photos written by Fredrick Charles Burman verified that
in the back ground there was spear grasses some six foot tall . In court
Burman verified he took the photo himself and McIntyre said it was the
place.
While McIntyre had drawn a map of the scene, he did not need to present
this map till 23 months after the event, - so it is not Primary Source
material He had made it up from memory as were his measurements. He
mentions feet and yards but somewhere else he said they were steps.
What the CSI team keep forgetting is the two logs facing the viewer in
the photos are not the same two logs facing the tent which he drew on
his map. THERE are THREE logs of importance in the photo but he only
drew two of them. I have never seen a map drawn by the CSI team to show
that third log.
The way CSI team have their logs in their CSI book means there would
have to be a steep slope immediately behind rising from flat ground
without a creek in between as in the photo, - BUT at the Kelly tree
there IS NO SLOPE like in the Burman photos except for the creek bank on
the other side but this would be 120 metres away as I have measured.
If the seated man was McIntyre, we know he actually sat on the log (to
the right) of photo WITH Ned Kelly on Mcs RIGHT, which Mc said was the
Creek side. Mc said they looked down the creek North waiting for the
police to return, and wrote the sun sank to his Left -WEST. In the CSI
scenario Mc sat looking south, nearest the creek which is all about 180
degrees the wring way.
Sorry Glenn, you and the CSI team you are all very wrong. I don't know
how many more times I have to keep telling you-
there is no comparable slope at the Kelly tree site, there is no spring
that any one would want to use for drinking there. It would by now be as
dry as a bakers shovel, but SBC keeps flowing even right now. You need
to ask yourself why would this be so ? ITS because of the massive water
catchment up the hill made up of trillions of tons of gravels into which
rain soaks slowly releasing that 'Spring Water' for months and months
between rains. Stringy Bark Creek is the Spring.
The CSI team are not able to provide any substantiated proof of huts
having stood where they say the police had camped. I know this because
back 1985 I spent hours looking for evidence of huts there and there
were non.
The CSI team want you to buy their document when if they were serious
they would put it all on line for free just like I have because I don't
need to make a profit from it. You can read 90% of their joke on my
webpage. I am able to do this because the copy I have has my name on it.
The only thing different with the one I have online and the last print
is a few more pictures in the back.
How can the CSI team suggest that the current Kelly tree is also seen in
the 'Burman photo' of 1878, when the original Kelly tree stood some
forty yards away behind the photographer at the time. And how can this
original tree still be standing today when it was cut down in 1908. All
this is absurd.
There seems to be an ongoing concerted effort by CSI team not to show
anything, rather their game to save face is to 'just create as much
doubt as possible' - the oldest political trick in the book.
Again Glenn and his CSI has not provided one skerrick of evidence the
police camped near the Kelly tree area.
Bill |
|
Ken
Guest

|
Ken on Feb 19, 2014 at 3:23am
Bill thank you for answering
my question about Sgt Kennedy's body in so much detail. I think I am
right in saying that riders went in widening circles around the SBC
police camp to discover how the Kelly Gang departed the area. They did
not discover Sgt Kennedy.
It is a great pity after years of quiet, that debate about your Two Huts
site suddenly turned ao nasty. Some of the points raised by opponents
are micro-details which, despite your helpful comments, lost me in the
thickets and undergowth of minutiae.
I don't much want to join any of the Kelly forums where registration is
required. There is ample evidence on some sites, it seems, that private
information has been misused. Those forums need to become less
intrusive, much more transparent and cordial. |
|
Dee
Administrator
    

|
Dee on Feb 19, 2014 at 7:04am
Its amazing how much detail all you blokes have
absorbed into your theories about the exact place. Bills diagrams and
maps are fascinating. I find the discussions about two huts and the
slope in the Burman photo quite compelling, but on the other hand the
question of a Spring is hard to resolve - Bill I think is technically
correct to describe the SBC as a spring but would Ned Kelly have
referred separately to a spring and a creek but meant the same thing? I
don’t see the lack of a separate spring at the two huts site as
necessarily fatal to Bills theory - or the lack of huts at the other
site as necessarily fatal to the other theory - and Ian Jones has a
different site does he not? If you add up points for and against I would
give it to Bill, but the CSI material is less accessible so who knows?
In the end, for me as an interested bystander, the reality seems to be
that we know quite accurately where these events took place, to within a
few hundred meters, and you guys are debating about the last few meters.
I would say whichever view is accepted, it is going to be based on a few
untestable assumptions - e.g. that Ned was - or was not - referring to
the same thing when he mentioned a creek and a spring - or the
assumption about what the shadows mean in terms of orientation of
certain photos and so on - but in the end we are never going to be
absolutely certain where exactly these events took place.
Would it ever be possible just to agree to differ?
There are probably heaps of other related subjects that could benefit
from your passion, your intense interest and eye for detail. Ive always
thought it sad that the Kelly house is falling apart and nobody is
trying to save it. |
|
bill Member

|
Bill on Feb 19, 2014 at 10:29am
Thanks Ken,
The points about the minutiae micro details would be in order if the big
picture was settled. I don't mind having discussions about forensics if
the crime scene is established amongst debaters. The CSI team have gone
down their road and seem not able to track back. If some one can show me
I am wrong I would gladly concede I am wrong.
Dee, despite how you think about history -it must be right. It is no
good having tourist visitors guided to the wrong spot with almost all
history enthusiasts scratching their heads about the place when there.
If all it takes is for someone to say 'hey' its not over there but over
here lets get it right. Lets be able to say, I am standing where it
happened, thats what history is about. We have to know we are looking at
the right spot. Its a bit like saying where General Custer lost the
battle, was it in that valley or over there somewhere? or this was where
the Wright Brothers first took off and landed.
We are talking about a place where the two police lost their lives, one
wounded and later died. We are talking of a place where blood was spilt
that affected the lives of hundreds if not thousands, and we are still
talking about it today.
You wrote-
"I find
the discussions about two huts and the slope in the Burman photo quite
compelling, but on the other hand the question of a Spring is hard to
resolve - Bill I think is technically correct to describe the SBC as a
spring but would Ned Kelly have referred separately to a spring and a
creek but meant the same thing?
Ned Kelly also loosely referred
to Stringybark Creek as the Shingle hut, The creek must have got its
name when the first maps were being drawn up. Perhaps it was the first
lease holders that named SBC ?. They knew they were on a spring. They
could have called it Spring Creek. The point is the near where they
built the huts there was running spring water, and just up the gully is
where it flowed out and beyond that point there was non. The water just
comes out of the ground.
The point where it comes out of the ground is the spring, when it runs
down hill and along it becomes the creek.
The CSI Team talk about a 'Seasonal' spring ? If this is important then
any water run off when it rains becomes a seasonal spring. That is not
what Ned referred to. A seasonal spring is all nonsense in those parts.
The whole point of the spring is not important if we know we have a
place where we can photograph the terrain as for comparison ' then and
now.' We are talking about a landscape with special features.
www.ironicon.com.au/images/twohutssitethenandnow.jpg

Number1 - post and
post hole in the ground. 2 fireplace stones. 3 the Slope in the
background
Notice the slope represents about 1/3rd of the height of the photos
Look at the two images, with exception to camera lens focal lengths,
they are so similar because it is the same place. There is no other
place along SBC that you can compare with the Burman photo....
Lets ask the CSI
team to provide their ' Then and Now' pictures.
They haven't and
the can't because there is no slope at the Kelly tree site.
Bill
PS, as for the Kelly house, yes it is a scandal really.
|
|
sarah
Junior Member
 

|
Post by sarah on Feb 19, 2014 at 12:03pm
As already pointed out, Ned
referred to the creek and a spring as separate entities. A spring is
where water comes forth from the ground. It may form a pool and will
still be called a spring, though once it starts to flow it is a creek.
So the creek and spring are two different things.
From Jerilderie Letter: “I stopped at the logs and Dan went back to the
spring for fear the troopers would come in that way but I soon heard
them coming up the creek.”
Ned stopped at the logs facing down the creek (north) and Dan went back
to the spring to watch for troopers coming down the creek (from the
south). Would this not suggest that the spring is in an elevated
position to give a better view up the creek? Being on the back of the
creek is lower and would not give much of a view up the creek.
This elevated spring would have also been the ideal place when Ned and
Dan approached the police camp as it would have given them a clearer
view. |
|
Ken
Guest

|
Ken Feb 19, 2014 at 2:09pm
National Trust is supposed to
be caring for the Kelly home at Beveridge. I suppose they are having
lean times.
I am not a Ned Kelly fan - far from it - but that house should be
preserved for all Australians as it is part of our dwindling history and
disappearing national heritage sites.
Give National Trust of Australia (Victoria) a call. I just did. (03)
9656 9800 |
|
Dee
Administrator
    

|
Dee on Feb 19, 2014 at 4:08pm
Yes Sarah you are right, the creek and
the spring are two different things, but Bills point, which seems fair
enough to me is that they can be part of the same structure, in the same
way the head and the tail of a horse are two different things but part
of a single horse. And yes if theres a spring giving rise to a creek
then it will be elevated.
I see Poorflower and fred are attacking Bill once again over on the Bad
Attitudes forum,and having a go at this forum as well but as usual not
making any attempt to be constructive. So far we have been having
constructive discussions and no unnecessary personal attacks on this
Forum and I am going to make sure it stays that way.
I think its a shame we can’t dissect the CSI theory the way we can
Bills, and I also think he deserves credit for putting it all out there.
And that's a good idea Ken. What did you say to them and how did they
respond? |
|
Glenn
Guest

|
Glenn - Feb 19, 2014 at 4:45pm
Bill,
When you present images like those "Then and Now" pictures above. How
about doing them to scale.
The figures and the logs are disproportionate to the image.
E.G. The log on which the man sits is approx. 24ft long. Show 24ft on
the ground. Show someone actually standing in Kennedy’s position.
Otherwise they are meaningless and totally misleading to some.
I think you will find that your camera position will need to be moved
much further back therefore the slope height diminishes. You know full
well there is a slope just south of the Kelly tree. Higher in fact than
the one you have demonstrated. To say there is not is simply not true.
Again misleading.
You have said: "If some one can show me I am wrong I would gladly
concede I am wrong.”
Can I really believe that?
Again I ask.
With regards to the Stringybark Creek Forum, saying you just had to give
up, Mmmm.
Bill, you can still access and post on that Forum but choose not to. I
suspect that because there is many an unanswered question I put to you
in relation to the Two Huts, the shingle hut and the one a few Yrds
behind which the police tent was pitched.
Your conclusions and the huts just don’t add up. Either your conclusions
are wrong or your critique of the CSI@SBC report is wrong or both.
Questions which up until now have done your best to avoid.
These question are an integral part of the story and need o be
addressed.
Perhaps this should be continued on this forum for all to see. Yes?
|
|
sarah
Junior Member
 

|
Post by sarah on Feb 19, 2014 at 6:27pm
Dee you are missing the point
completely about a spring and creek. Even Ned referred to them
separately, or do you believe he didn't know what he was talking about.
Bill is completely wrong as any spring that the creek may come from
would be where the creek starts, which is a long way from Bill's two
huts. The analogy you use; "in the same way the head and the tail of a
horse are two different things but part of a single horse.", means that
you could call all the horse a 'tail' or a 'head' and disregard the
rest, though no-one would know what you are talking about. That is the
whole point of using the correct terms to describe the area.
|
|
Dee
Administrator
    

|
Post by Dee on Feb 19, 2014 at 8:03pm
Sarah is the quote from the Jerilderie
Letter the basis for your claim that Ned was meaning two completely
separate and unrelated geographical features when he talked about
“creek” and “spring”? If it is, then its a very tenuous connection. To
make a possibly clearer analogy than a horse, supposing someone told you
to go the waterfall and me to the river, would you say that they MUST be
two unrelated geographical features? My point is that there could be a
waterfall on one river and another river altogether separate, but it
would also be possible that they are different parts of the ONE river.
Same with creek and spring. It isn’t necessary to agree with Bills
interpretation but it is a POSSIBLE interpretation and so cannot be
summarily dismissed. It would probably be fairer to say you don’t agree
with Bills interpretation than to say he “is completely wrong”. Actually
I think this is the place where Kelly debates often go off the rails,
when people frame their arguments as “I am right and you are wrong”
instead of t “This is my interpretation and that is yours” You’re all
guilty of that .
However I would like to hear if Bill accepts that the start of the Creek
is “a long way from Bills two huts” as you suggest. |
|
sarah
Junior Member
 

Posts: 56 |
Post by sarah on Feb 19, 2014 at 8:30pm
Dee, it doesn't come down to
interpretation, a spring and a creek are two totally different things,
simple as that. Bill calling the creek a spring is only to justify his
two huts site. The spring in question (where water comes from the
ground), at SBC is elevated and would give a good view of the police
camp and also to the south where Dan was keeping watch. You would not
use a low point for observation.
Your analogy of a river and a waterfall highlights the point. A
waterfall is a specific part of a river, whereas ‘river’, could mean any
part of said river. A spring could be the source of the creek, or one
that flows into the creek anywhere along its length, but the spring is
not the creek! So Bill is incorrect in his description! |
|
Ken
Guest

|
Post by Ken on Feb 19, 2014 at 10:49pm
Kelly home at Beveridge.
Dee, in my call to the National Trust of Australia (Victoria), I got
through to the heritage people.
They said the house is privately owned (although with a heritage listing
I believe).
Generally speaking, I was told there is such a thing as 'demolition by
neglect'.
Because of several recent calls about the state of this particular
building, they are going to discuss what if anything can be done.
The cost of restoration and upkeep would be hefty and perhaps beyond the
means of the present owners and NTV. I don't know what the owner's plans
are, and they are entitled to be treated with respect.
I would like the building to be preserved. Perhaps the departing car
industry, which milked taxpayers of billions, could as a psrting gesture
set up a fund for this purpose? I wouldn't mind a Ford-Holden-Toyota
sign as long as it was just on the motorway. |
|
Horrie
Guest

|
Horrie on Feb 19, 2014 at 11:39pm
The
biggest problem
with SBC is that the area has been endlessly logged, had bushfires pass
through, and was used to agist destructive animals including cattle and
horses. To expect everything today to be identical with the Burman
photographs of 1878 is a bit rich. Thanks to Bill's tireless endeavours,
the remnants of the two huts were discovered over a decade ago. They are
what makes his work so compelling. His topographical comparisons with
Burman's photos are obviously correct.
I have difficulties with the Jerilderie Letter, but Ned wouldn't lie
about springs and creeks at SBC as well would he?
Hmmnn |
|
|
More to come in due
course
Page 1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21,
22,
23,
24,
25