Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Feb 25, 2014 at 10:50pm

'Contortionist', re-inventor of 'facts', 'his latest suppositions' - isn't Kicking Bill?

We are all still going backwards. Doesn't anyone have forward gears?

Glenn
Guest

 Post by Guest on Feb 26, 2014 at 10:10am

Kicking Bill?


Bill: Quote.

The CSI @sbc report - for what I show is 90% of their final and if I show the rest it is even more ridiculous than the issue I show which is bad enough.

If we all continue to tell lies, what do we learn from history?

14 pages including Bill’s comments and images are shown on on his Web site.

There are 97 pages to our report.  A long way short of 90%

So who is telling lies?

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Feb 26, 2014 at 11:25am

Quote: If some one can show me I am wrong I would gladly concede I am wrong.

An example.

Please read the following from Bill’s comments on the CSI @sbc report www.ironicon.com.au/csi@sbc_bills_comments.pdf

Quote: The police tent was pitched “ a few yards behind an old hut” - the hut that was standing at that time. If the hut entrance faced the creek and you pitched your tent between it and the creek you would be pitching the tent in front of the hut. It was pitched behind the hut.

It is my assertion, the un burnt hut behind which the police pitched their tent was the one on the far right of the Burman photo. see - pixmaker.com.au/twohuts/images/burman2photositeof2huts.jpg (Unquote)


Follow the link to the Burman image. The burnt hut is outlined. The hut on the far right of the image. (The one with the burnt posts)

Within the findings and conclusions -Stringybark Creek The Authentic Location

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.

3, 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.

Either the conclusions are wrong or the critique of the CSI@SBC report is wrong or both.

bill Member

Post by bill on Feb 26, 2014 at 6:40pm

Hello Dee and all,

Dee wrote- Page 3 second post from bottom 25 Feb. 2014
Quote " Instead of having such a wide unfocussed discussion, if people want to discuss SBC sites could we perhaps focus on one thing at a time, as one of you suggested earlier? And As I suggested, could the two camps explain how they worked out the orientation of the Burman Photos? That would seem an obvious place to start. "

Thanks Dee this is the way to go.
I present my case for the Two huts at Stringybark Creek for all to read.

First off I'd like to say something about my critique of the CSI@SBC report
www.ironicon.com.au/csi@sbc_bills_comments.pdf

The content pages covers points from point (1, 1.1 , 1.2, ) through to ( 8.4)

Example, points 1 right through to 8.4 are exactly the same points in their latest version of CSI@SBC, so I am covering the entire publication, not just 16 pages of 96.
Following points 8.4 are their Recommendation points 8.5 through to 9.6.

My critique represents about 90% of their case which is bad enough, but let me tell you about the other 10% which is even worse.

On page 78 of CSI@SBC report, they show a "Sun Movement chart Across the Police Camp site for 3 Nov 1878".
And we all have to accept that as fact.

I show it here-

www.ironicon.com.au/images/azimuth-chart.jpg

Following is about leading you through why the Burman photo is looking SOUTH

bill Member

 Post by bill on Feb 26, 2014 at 6:44pm

Step1
In January 2002 I studied the Burman photos very carefully for light and shadow information in both photos,

This drawing below was to demonstrate that in our Southern hemisphere the Sun arcs through a Northern sky casting shadows to the south.

I traced all the main features of the Burman photo to highlight any light and shade, as a result the light angle bias clearly favours from behind the photographers right shoulder which was to indicate the northern sky. It was this information that helped rule out the Jones site because , like with the other sites when looking southerly there was no slope like in the Burman photos.

Here is that drawing.

 
www.ironicon.com.au/images/Burman2-photo-light-and-shadows.jpg

bill Member

 Post by bill on Feb 26, 2014 at 6:49pm

Step 2

Years passed and I went a bit further preparing this high res image highlighting relevant light and shade.
It should be remembered that the 'clearing' within a tall tree canopy, there will always be some strong reflected light. The exercise was to establish where north was in the photos.

You should also note that the main tree trunks look very flat (without any shadows) this means the light falls more or less straight onto the logs giving them little detail.

A few years ago a friend of mine became interested in my SBC research and I asked him to evaluate my findings.
He is our wonderful Mr Sydney Kirkby OBE. He was the surveyor at Mawson station in Antarctica from 1956 and 1960. Absolutely the surveyors surveyor, there could be no better person in the world to ask . We remain humbled by his interest and for his time.
Here is what Syd wrote about the Burman photos- I only show the relevant part about StringyBark Creek, and webpages on the subject,
Syd wrote to me Wed 14 Nov 2012

Dear Bill
I am aghast at the lack of rigor and even basic honesty widely evident in the material presented (on Kelly forums) Examples; slopes of trees --- geometric projections -- -- and now about the Burman photos,--
" My reading of the light in the re-enactment photo is thus. The sun is close to the zenith (in the N) and seems to me to lie above the photographer's right shoulder, say 20, 30 degrees (somewhat post noon) off the orientation of the camera. I think this was pretty much standard practice for those times as light coming directly onto a subject "flattens" it, Fully side on, either way, risks losing detail and, of course, coming straight on to the lens is a wash out of detail. We followed these conventions (or tried to) with our mapping photography, both aerial and photo-theodolite. Regards Syd Kirby "

About Sydney Kirkby-Cited by 'The Australian ' news paper as one of the top 10 Australian adventurers of the 20th Century, it was Syd Kirkby’s expeditions in Antarctica whilst working for the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition in the 1950 and 1960’s that saw him survey more Antarctic territory than any other explorer – including Scott, Shackleton and Mawson. During his expeditions he was the first man to venture into the 'Prince Charles Mountains with sled dogs. In the autumn of 1960, he and his team journeyed 400 kilometres through Enderby Land from the Napier Mountains to Mawson Station. His contributions have made a significant impact on the fields of regional geochronology, petrology, tectonics, geology, orogeny, glaciology, geomagnetism and paleomagnetism. During 1954 Syd was a member of the Great Sandy desert expedition and also crossed the Gibson desert from Shark bay in WA right across to Cap Byron in NSW.
Syd has been awarded with the Polar Medal and the Order of the British Empire.

Google Sydney Kirkby,
www.cosmosmagazine.com/blog/5601/pursuing-frontier
and
www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/history/people/syd-kirkby

The images below show where the light comes from. From the right over the photographers right shoulder.


See full size image
www.ironicon.com.au/images/burmanphotos-large.jpg

bill Member

Post by bill on Feb 26, 2014 at 6:53pm

Step 3

Now, lets see where this takes us.

We have the CSI Sun movements over the police camp for that time,

We have verification from the best observer in Australia if not the world, that the light comes from over the photographers right shoulder,

Take a look at McIntyre's map, then lets apply the sun movements over Cnst. McIntyre's map.


www.ironicon.com.au/images/mcintyre-map-sbc.jpg
Map Image, Reproduced with permission from the collection of Victoria Police. Reference to -
VPM3847 Map, Thomas McIntyre Stringybark Creek Ambush site.

Sun movement over McIntyre's map.

www.ironicon.com.au/images/azimuth700.jpg
Sun movement over McIntyre map.

bill Member

Post by bill on Feb 26, 2014 at 6:55pm

Step 4
Lets apply all this to the Burman photo as per the Two huts site.

Remember the Burman photo was taken looking SOUTH.


www.ironicon.com.au/images/azimuth4.jpg  
Burman photo orientation in accords with Sun movements on Mc's  map
 

bill Member

Post by bill on Feb 26, 2014 at 6:56pm

Step 5

Now lets apply that sun movement over the CSI@SBC report

CSI say the Burman photo was taken looking East, North East.


www.ironicon.com.au/images/azimuth3700.jpg  
Burman photos cannot be taken looking E North East as the CSI team want to tell us because as you will see the arrows on the Burman photo do not coincide with the Sun movement chart.

The are opposite directions

bill Member

Post by bill on Feb 26, 2014 at 6:58pm

Step 6
The question of orientation of the Burman photos has confused many historians including McIntyre himself .

Had McIntyre taken more notice of the logs he would have drawn them differntly as the photos will show accordingly
as illustrated by the red lines.

Notice Mc has himself ( M3 ) on the south side of the log when Ned Kelly on the east of the log ordered him to site there. ( M3)

As they sat there, they all faced North waiting for the returning police.


www.ironicon.com.au/images/mcintyre-map-corrected.jpg

bill  Member

Post by bill on Feb 26, 2014 at 6:59pm

This was my step by step explanation why the Burman photos were taken looking Southerly at Stringy Bark Creek.

I now leave it to the CSI team to present their case.
Bill

PS, Pat, from your other posting at Bad Attitudes forum.
I am right with you about the loss of 1870's warship Cerberus.
The authorities need to bring in the experts in all fields of expertise. For years I have been trying to get an archaeologist to take it on but it always comes down to who will pay ?

At the moment the site of the two huts is protected by Heritage listing. Interestingly though, the SBC area that is protected is east of the SBC road, and at the time of our investigation, Linton Brigg's leader of the CSI team - his original site was West of the road. When I told Linton Briggs this his preferred site was not protected by Heritage Vic, he would need to change the Heritage boundaries? The following day the CSI team changed their position to east of the road but still west of SBC - mainly because I had showed then there was no slope looking south. They then swung their whole scenario around 120 degrees looking East.

Having spoken to head archaeologist of Heritage Victoria Jeremy Smith several times with reference to other historical sites near the top of Mt Dandenong, he said that after reading all what has been presented about SBC, he believes the two huts is almost there.

Bill

Pat
Guest

Post by Guest on Feb 26, 2014 at 11:21pm

Hope the CSI team can be equally brief and to the point.

Facts not waffle!

Dee
Administrator
 

Post by Dee on Feb 27, 2014 at 7:36am

That's pretty convincing Bill I have to say.
The crucial step is working out what are shadows and what is sunlight falling on the various surfaces.

I would like to hear what the CSI team think about the way you have drawn the light angles and shadows?

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Feb 27, 2014 at 10:40am

Bill, on the surface of it you have presented a very impressive demonstration.

The devil is in the detail.

Once again you have used a page from our report to try and prove a point. One of the 97 pages in our report!

The sun angles were studied in depth by the CSI@SBC team as part of our conclusions.

I have little doubt the gentleman you speak of is a knowledgable man. So do not mean to be disrespectful when I say that he is a surveyor, even if as you say, a surveyors surveyor.
He is not a photo analyst. In any case it becomes a matter of opinion when it comes to the sun angles.

No doubt you will say black when I say white.

This subject was previous covered in depth on the stringybarkcreek.forumotion.com (Where the SBC debate should be continued properly.)

There I have provided imagery showing areas of light that could not have come from the direction you have indicated.

Not happy with that you then said:
Quote: to pick out areas like Glenn has done, i.e., photo brightness to the left side of standing man image, for instance, is coping a lot of reflected light from the logs or even the ground itself (Unquote)

Copping light from the logs indeed!

You sent me up into the trees.
Where again I provided further imagery indicating the areas of light in the trees limbs and branches that could not have come from the light source you have indicated.

The sun direction came from a similar direction as the log the man sit on (nearly) east west log. Or almost along the nearly east west log. As per McIntyre’s detailed layout and in keeping with the Burman images

In accordance with the sun movements it was established the images would have been taken between 2 & 3pm. on that day.

In addition :
Bill, when you show the log layout please draw the log angles correctly in our scene /demo.
And for heavens sake do not show the tent in the wrong location in our scene ! On the wrong side.

You can move your tent around wherever you want to apparently? But please do keep moving ours.
Glenn

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Feb 27, 2014 at 10:41am

Dee,

I respectfully ask that as moderator of this forum you should keep your opinions to yourself.

Kindly stop ooh arhing and supporting Bill and patronising me.

It it glaringly obvious that you share a combined mutual interest.
Thank you.

Brian
Guest

Post by Guest on Feb 27, 2014 at 11:04am

Moderator patronising a forum contributor. Should this be permitted?

Pat
Guest

Post by Guest on Feb 27, 2014 at 12:12pm

Pah! What a load of cobblers!

Glenn, you won't be happy until everyone capitulates and worships your group's loquacious report.

Your group should be finalising a brief presentation so folks can decide for themselves, without being hectored.
 

sarah
Junior Member

Post by sarah on Feb 27, 2014 at 1:24pm

You are wasting your time Glenn as you can see by the comments of Dee, Brian, Pat and Horrie. There are none so blind as those that refuse to see. It a bit like trying to teach algebra to kindergarten kids, as it is far too technical for them to comprehend. They are all too tight to fork out $50 (which goes to a good cause), to become enlightened, though they probably know they would not understand it. It is far easier to agree with what is put in front of them as they don’t have to question any of it.

Brian
Guest

Post by Guest on Feb 27, 2014 at 1:46pm

Here we go again ... forumjar.



 

Brian
Guest

Post by Guest on Feb 27, 2014 at 2:15pm

90% of Mr. denheld's investigation of what he claims as the "true site" is totally incorrect. As for the csi team I have a series of questions I'll like to put forward to them as well.

Denheld FYI I've just got off the phone with Chuck from stringybarkcreek.forumotion.com
In the course of our conversation I asked him as to why he has turned off the forum to non-members. Chuck's reply was simple "spam" he has also made this very clear to you via email and he would re-open to non-members in due course. However. This did not eventuate for obvious reasons.
I will