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
*****

Dee Avatar

 

 

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                

Guest Avatar

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 Avatar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

http://www.ironicon.com.au/images/sbc-geology-small.jpg
www.ironicon.com.au/images/sbc-geology-small.jpg

See below the same area on a topographic map of SBC and Hollands Creek

http://www.ironicon.com.au/images/sbc-topo.jpg
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

Guest Avatar

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 Avatar

 








 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
 

bill Avatar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 









 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Guest Avatar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 











 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
 

bill Avatar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Guest Avatar

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 Avatar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Avatar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

http://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
**

sarah Avatar

 

 

 

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

Guest Avatar

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 Avatar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Guest Avatar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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
**

sarah Avatar

 

 

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
**

sarah Avatar

 

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

Guest Avatar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Guest Avatar

 

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