This is a read only copy of 'CSI@SBC The Report' posted on KC2000 Forum
page  http://kellycountry2000.forumco.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1161&whichpage=1 


The purpose of this forum page copy is to allow further debate and input by myself Bill Denheld, as I have been excluded from this forum by administrator Bruce Johnson for very dubious reasons. Being central to this debate, I have been stymied from taking part because the creator of this CSI@SBC report, wants to critique me and hopes to influence the uninformed reader into believing that the area near the Kelly tree at Stringybark Creek as being the true site where the Kelly gang killed the police 1878. One may say 'what does it matter', however the point is that history books must get these things right, and this book is just not. It is agreed the unravelling of all the facts and assemble these into a coherent understandable read is not an easy task. 

The author of this 'CSI@SBC The report ' and proponents have chosen to create this separate 'forum thread' when it should be part of the main SBC debate at SBC News and Views which can be read at ironicon.com.au in its uncorrupted form.

This forum page was started by co author of the csi@sbc The Report - Kelvyn Gill who in the main is promoting his group's document that can be purchased for a sizable sum, whereas my document "Stringybark Creek-The Authentic Location" is for all to read at www.ironicon.com.au for free.

Apart from promoting their book, a large part of this thread is aimed at denigrating my research, but the debate now centres around whether the natural lean of trees at the considered sites (today) would help identify the true site when compared with the original photos of 1878. 

It should be pointed out that forum member 'Poorflower' who stated that 'her science teacher' had proposed this notion of the leaning trees in pictures, but as we don't know who Poorflower is, he/she seems bent on denigration while also raising perfectly reasonable questions that require proper analysis. When 'one' openly debates using our real name, when another uses a pseudonym name, this is suspicious, one who appears to have an agenda, and takes the liberty to use images from my WebPages ironicon.com.au without seeking permission for their use, nor does he/she make any effort to acknowledge the source of the images. 

My comments on this page are in blue bold text that hopefully reveals the slant of the agenda. 
Other peoples quotes are in Italic Maroon 

Bill Denheld
 

 CSI@SBC The report Page1   KC2000 forum  
Next Page
Author Topic
Page: of 2
Kelvyn
Advanced Member


Australia
184 Posts

Posted - 23/01/2012 :  5:27:01 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Elsewhere [now shown below] on this ( KC2000) forum is information about this comprehensive, detailed analysis of all the material known to date and which is pertinent to establishing the precise location of the police camp site at Stringybark Creek.
Recently forum members were alerted to Mr Denheld's critique of the team's CSI@SBC report (and his report offering a different site location to that determined by the CSI@SBC team).
A detailed review of Denheld's critique of the CSI@SBC report, Whilst it is possible to detail numerous inaccuracies, time would be wasted doing so as the team's final published report is NOT the basis for Mr Denheld's critique.
I forwarded the following email, December 24, 2011 to the feedback email address
Mr Denheld provides:

You are a very *disingeneous  person putting selected wording from the CSI @ SBC Team's "K28" paper online to which you have prefaced it with a photograph of the team's July 2011 report which has been released for general information. *(I think he means dis-ingenuous)

You have used wording from an early DRAFT. Draft version K28 was a working version which was superceded by [many] further drafts and culminating in the team's March 2010 report.

This report was provided only to Government departments,agencies and other bodies with an interest in the topic and was not released for general information.

Your claim that "in essence, the texts of subsequent versions are unchanged"  DOES NOT reflect the extensive material, including further material, of the July 2011 published report.


( Yes but in the main the contents are the same. Bill )


So if this is how you provide objective comment and analysis then it does little credit to your methods of analysis and objective review of published material.
No doubt your way will be seen over time to be an amateurish attempt to try to discredit the extensive and detailed report, which draws upon ALL of the (currently) known material concerning the question of the position of the Police camp site at Stringybark Creek.

To give you just one example of your misleading and inaccurate words:
YOU SAY:
"In the past I have been in touch with PROV and PHU and neither have this sketch." and you go on to quote from McMenomy.
Well, Mr Denheld you only have to look at the team's published report to obtain a PRECISE reference to where this sketch CAN BE FOUND in the records of the Public Records Office. And isn't it interesting that it is within the papers of the Crown Law Department !![See my note below also]

The second very extensive diagram (drawn to scale and annotated) prepared by McIntyre and reproduced in the team's report was unknown until it was found in 2008 by M/s Liz Marsden the Collections Manager, Victoria Police Museum & Historical Services of the Victoria Police AND which first went on public display, in August 2009, within the Victoria Police Museum display, at the annual Ned Kelly weekend. You may recall that on my return from the Kelly
weekend that I alerted the team to the diagram's existance and shortly thereafter commenced to discuss, with Ms Marsden, the issue of being able to examine it (and reproduce it).
This I have been led to understand is not how you in the past have
identified the method by which this document was discovered (and by whom it was found) when it was the subject of an article by Mr Paul Millar, -"Police map discovery takes gloss off Ned Kelly", published in the Melbourne Age 12 September.
Mr Millar was first made aware of this diagram by me.
You can confirm how this diagram was found by reference to the Journal of Australian Colonial History, Vol 13, 2011 in which Ms Marsden's paper is at pp242 -248.
This diagram (THE ORIGINAL) is catalogued and held by the Victoria Police Museum and NO copy of it is in any of the "Kelly files" of the Public Records Office!!

Now IF YOU WERE TO DO AN OBJECTIVE story about this paper by the team, I offer just one example:
Perhaps you would comment on other material therein such as the extensive report of the Herald's reporter and how it cannot be said that your claimed site fits the description given by him (and which is confirmed by professional survey of the country commissioned by the Team and the results of which provide a profile of the land which matches precisely to the description given by the Herald reporter).

You prefer to resort to the banal also: To quote you: "What a lot of crap" .....; and "ars" - perhaps you meant "arse" ?)

And I do need to also reference your words when you refer to the Team's identified camp site "This cannot be the site of the shootout, in actual fact, gentlemen, like they say your site [is] up the creek - truly." 


Well, Actually our site is down the creek.
Yours is literally up the creek.

Suffice to say I am not going to waste any further of my time continuing with words to show that you have done a lousy job of being a critical reviewer of the report.


( you can all read my critique document to which Kelvyn refers  http://www.ironicon.com.au/csi@sbc_bills_comments.pdf )


The report
(Kelvyn's csi@sbc report)  is now in the public domain and I am sure it will be seen to be an extensive, factually based report that is very worthy of serious consideration and analysis by those with an interest in the matter, and most importantly of course by the authorities (both State and local) who will ultimately decide the merits of the research undertaken by the team.

Kelvyn Gill

[Recently - January 22nd 2012, I was made aware that in Harry Nunn's Bushrangers A Pictorial History, First published in 1980, at page 162, is McIntyre's diagram credited as being Courtesy Public Records Office, Victoria.]

Yes, I got a reply from Mr Denheld:
Very succinct in fact: "A Merry Xmas to you".
I still await a substantive reply to the matters I raised in my email.
Oh, and as I indicated above I did send my email to Mr Denheld's feedback address, so perhaps one day it might appear therein on his web site but, as it is said - I won't be holding my breath.

Edited by - Kelvyn on 22/05/2012 8:48:20 PM

   
Kelvyn
Advanced Member
 



Australia
184 Posts

Posted - 24/01/2012 :  9:29:31 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Oh my oh my.
How quickly a further few words from Bill Denheld have now appeared (along with my email text above) on his feedback, and
so that the record is maintained and as the words are addressed to me (no copyright problem with this I assume) here they are:
Thank you Kelvyn Gill. For someone who has such mastery of the English language, it's a pity your 'team's book, CSI@SBC did not take into account all the evidence on the ground at Stringybark Ck, such as Two old fireplaces, a Slope, the early newspaper illustrations of the scene of the 'murders', the Orientation of the Burman photo which is looking South -not North - (you silly fellows) and then your team decided on a site that displays no such crucially important markers as mentioned above. Dear Kelvyn, please take a look at this photo (link below) where in you stand on the road with other team members. It was the day I pointed out there was no slope comparable to the Burman photo near the Kelly tree. Bill
http://pixmaker.com.au/twohuts/images/northviewnearkellytreesite.jpg


My oh my, same stuff different day.
Read the team's report and consider ALL the evidentiary material therein.
The conclusion is obvious from that material and will stand all rigourous scrutiny applied, and will be used as necessary by me, and I am sure others, to see that the appropriate marking of the sight - when the appropriate authorities elect to do so (if indeed they do) are placed appropriately.

And for the sake of absolute correctness, also now shown on Mr Denheld's site is the full text of a letter to him on the 20 March, 2010, signed by Linton Briggs (and I stress with the endorsement of myself, Gary Dean and Glenn Standing - the team members):

Dear Bill,

We agreed recently that I should seek feed back from Kelvyn, Gary and Glen about your case for the police campsite on the western bank at your two-hut site which you earlier sent around the group for consideration.

They have responded, and confirm they are confident that exhaustive review of all the available evidence places the campsite further north on the eastern bank, as concluded by the investigation draft report, with which you are familiar.

This does not mean to say the case you have developed is not worthy of consideration and assessment by Heritage Victoria and other interested parties. On the contrary, I at least have found your case to be both stimulating and productive in the sense it has made the group look more closely at some aspects of the development of the other proposal. In fact, by looking more closely, the study has been considerably strengthened in places.

One example has been the search for and inclusion in the latest version of the study, reference relating to establishing the camp on the Stringybark Creek at the burnt hut. ….”which took us to the old diggings, at the burn hut on the Stringybark Creek”, further clarifying there were two huts, one burnt the remains of which were apparent, the other, still standing in the bush outside the campsite clearing. (Kenneally, Wilson Hall, Ned)

Another example relates to the rising terrain in the background of the Burman photographs, the most important topographical feature which I understand leads you to conclude the Burman photographs were taken from a position facing south, orienting the police camp at your two-hut site. We have included an additional appendix (Heritage Victoria diagram 2205), a contour map of the precinct, and additional commentary which demonstrates the rising background at both the proposed campsites to be remarkably similar. The 1897 Beautiful Mansfield (burl tree) photograph at 4.2.1 viewed together with the contour map reveals the background terrain to be rising from the creek bed to the eastern skyline, a height of about 30 metres, over a distance of about 340 metres. At your two-hut site, looking to the southwest, the degree of slope is almost identical. The study’s report commentary at 4.2.1 has been amended to now read, in part:

4th paragraph: Timber harvesting and ring barking since 1878 reduced vegetation density revealing background Stringybark Creek topography rising about 30 metres east south east to the eastern bank tableland elevation. This landscape feature is also discernable in the Cuddon photograph below at 4.2.3 and in the foreshortened Burman photograph plate 1 at 4.3, photograph number 4.

Appendix 13 is the map used by Heritage Victoria to indicate the land (marked at L1 on diagram 2205), placed on the Victorian Heritage Victorian Register in 2009. This map shows ground surface contours at 10 metre intervals. From Stringybark Creek opposite the police camp position (elevation under 770 metres) the ground rises towards the east south east to 800 plus metres over a distance of about 340 metres.

Incidentally, a blow up of photograph no. 1 confirms the existence of a burl on the trunk of the tree in question, – not just a bunch of leaves.

The group again confirms it remains strongly of the opinion the two Burman photographs were taken from the western bank, looking respectively to the east and east south east. The group submits the rising background of photograph no 1 is the same background portrayed by the Burman photographs.

The group acknowledges your tremendous drive and effort to initially help bring a team together in order to challenge the conventional wisdom of the day about the authentic campsite location.
It brought together a group of dedicated people, united in a common purpose.

The group has noted your advice to me you could no longer remain a member of the team putting forward a proposal the police camp was located near the present day Kelly Tree, but that you would like your case to be presented to Heritage Victoria for consideration. The group advises it is supportive of this course of action, in the interest of providing Heritage Victoria with an opportunity to add rigour to their assessment by evaluating another proposal.

The group feels that this would best be actioned through yourself independently lodging your case with Heritage Victoria. Accordingly, as discussed with you, I have drafted, for consideration by the team, the following paragraph for inclusion in the report’s introduction:

“Mr. Bill Denheld, a former member of the investigating team, agrees that the authentic location of the 1878 police camp is sited on the western bank of Stringybark Creek, but that it was established at a site 274 metres south of the present day Kelly Tree. Mr. Denheld advises that he has developed a case which he will submit to Heritage Victoria for consideration.”

When Kelvyn is able to produce a final version of the report for lodgement with Heritage Victoria,
I will see that a copy will also be provided to you.

I will give you a ring some time next week to talk through the above.
Kind regards, Linton Briggs


And the succinct rebuttal shown following the letter's transcript:
Seems the quest for rigor in the debate for the true site at SBC has been replaced by inflexible false beliefs based upon too much literal evaluation.

Tit for tat is simply a waste of time.
I am reminded of the words from The Time Warp*
Its just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right,


seems appropriate to the matter.
sine die

and for a bit of a jape:
Question: What meaning or purpose did the artist wish to convey by including the axe in his sketch?? (Look carefully its embedded into a stump!!

*Rocky Horror Show.

 
Go to Top of Page
Kelvyn
Advanced Member
 



Australia
184 Posts

Posted - 27/04/2012 :  7:49:33 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
And now another piece of the puzzle has been completed and is on display for all to see at Stringybark Creek.
The spring(s) are again now active following the rains over the past couple of years (following drought times) meaning the underground is now fully saturated, particularly with the rains of the last month or so.
Two springs are there for all to see.
Both where we said they should be in our CSI@SBC report.
One spring is on the road reserve - small water flow; the other to the west of the camp site with a significant water area.
The swampy corridor also discussed in the report is indeed just that at present and spear grass is growing profusely in this corridor. Clumps now approaching 5 feet high are there.

A visit to the two rock piles to the South of the police camp site did not result in any trace of a spring being found (Oh, I forgot, of course Stringybark Creek is the spring!!)
And, my word, there has been some activity in the vicinity of the rockpiles. Various coloured markers seem to be placed throughout the area.
Are we in for another hypothesis about this site??

( As said before, Stringybark Creek is the 'Spring',
not the trickle from a higher level remnant of a swamp when it rains. Bill)

 
Go to Top of Page
Kelvyn
Advanced Member
 



Australia
184 Posts

Posted - 22/05/2012 :  8:47:20 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
For those who have not obtained a copy of the report by the CSI@SBC team (the profit from which is being donated to the Glenrowan Improvers committee) the details are:

'C.S.I. @ S.B.C.’

AN INVESTIGATION TO REVIEW AND EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE AUTHENTIC LOCATION OF THE POLICE CAMP SITE AT STRINGYBARK CREEK
____________________________________
THE VICTORIA POLICE EXPEDITION AND THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE KELLY BROTHERS AND THEIR ASSOCIATES AT STRINGYBARK CREEK, NORTH EASTERN VICTORIA,OCTOBER 25 – 26, 1878.
_____________________________
FINDINGS,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION TEAM:
LINTON BRIGGS
GARY J DEAN F.A.I.H.A
KELVYN GILL
GLENN STANDING
________________

JULY 2011 Second edition. This paper was first released March 2010.
Publisher: Glen Rowan Cobb & Co. Pty. Ltd.
37 Gladstone, Street, Glenrowan. Victoria. 3675
Printed in Australia by Think Print Wangaratta, Victoria
ISBN: 978-0-646-55998-8

The report is available by contacting Gary Dean: tel: (03) 57662409
or
email: gdean@nedkellysworld.com.au
 
Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 29/05/2012 :  11:30:03 AM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Please wait I need to edit this text, and will be adding more information
PF

In August of 2010, I posed a question to Bill Denhold, about the tilted trees at his site,

 

 



The trees at his site tilt the wrong way



Where are your tilted trees, to match the Burman photographs.

My critique,
Poorflower, you have exaggerated the lean of your pink poles over these images above.

Regarding these images you have used, 
you should edit all your postings and include the following citation on the Burman photo,-
 " Original Image - VPM208 Carte de Visite, A.W. Burman Stringybark Creek Re-enactment .
Reproduced with permission from the collection of Victorian Police. Image
courtesy Bill Denheld ironicon.com.au -


This citation had been agreed to with the Victorian Police Museum (VPM) where this original (upper) Burman photo was
photographed by me. I do not own this historic photo (copy as shown), I have permission from the VPM to use this image.

Wherever you use this Burman photo please insert this
citation as above.

If this is not done the KC2000 forum owner will be seen as contravening the VPM requirements.

Lets examine your pink lined posted pictures.


The old tree to the far left ( Upper picture but hard to see as the image is small) most probably has a lean to the left due to old age and root erosion because this is where the bank of the creek starts to lower, and where most of the trees are near vertical.  However you raised this 'Lean' as a reasonable question to which I gave my best answer at the time that my camera has a fault that shows a slight lean in all my bush pictures, BUT then shortly after my explanation you deleted all your postings from the original SBC News and Views forum page, and I was puzzled by this because 'the forum admin' would have been dead against this deletion. Why then would 'a school girl as you claim to be', and now with babe, be so interested in this Ned Kelly history, and want to delete these technical issues on a major Ned Kelly Forum that your science teacher instigated, and then your obvious keen interest to denigrate only my research? This is not what a school girl expecting a baby would be interested in doing?

Because I sensed Poorflower was not what she was said to be, and shortly after her postings were deleted from the SBC news thread, that's why I uploaded copies of the debate 'out of respect' for all those that were taking part.  Then why is Poorflower now raising the same questions aimed at me when she knows I have not been able to reply on that forum?  Secondly, according to Bruce (admin) it was Poorflower that deleted her postings, yet Poorflower then created another thread titled "The Gloves are Off Denhold"  ( now deleted from KC2000) So why would a school girl be so antagonistic towards me saying the gloves are off Denhold- meaning by her things will get dirty? You don't even spell peoples names properly'

I will prove to the readers that your arguments are as hollow as your identity. Poorflower, you are one of the people behind the 'CSI@SBC Report ' pretending to be a school girl when all you want to do is denigrate the only positive scenario that stacks up in every way, that is my document concerning the site of two huts. Whoever you are, you are trying to cover up your  mis informed notion that the police camp was near the Kelly tree as proposed by Linton Briggs and those that fell for it.

How do I come to this conclusion?  You have copied one of the pictures from my photo files that I gave to Kelvyn Gill and Glenn Standing for the purpose of the document we were collaborating to release.  How can it be that Poorflower can use a photo from my photo file and doctor it to show exaggerated lean angles of trees at the two huts site - (the true site). Poorflower thought that by comparing leaning wind swept saplings, that this would swing the argument away from the two huts site, and towards the Kelly tree site.
 
I add these pictures and notes below -

This image below shows where Poorflower cropped to the (white line) from the whole image and deleted the figure circled, in your slanted version above. This is one of my pictures no one else had access to except Kelvyn or Glenn.

 



 

 

Both pictures were taken by me and no one has asked their use from me.
The two pictures depict the true scene showing most mature trees as near vertical in both photos.
Certainly not how Poorflower wants to portray it.  If there is any skew in the images this will be due to camera
distortions resulting from lens relating to glass photo plate or digital photo planes. These distortions were adjustable in early
wooden  box cameras but now with digital cameras the focal plane is set - but not always dead on square to the lens which skews the image left or right -as in the case of my small credit card size camera.


If we were to add pink poles to this image below, (said to be supplied by Glenn Standing of the Kelly tree site), clearly then
the ground angles are all wrong if the Burman photo is to be the model template, it does not match as Poorflower 16 days
after this posting informs us ?




Edited by - poorflower on 29/05/2012 12:04:12 PM

 
Go to Top of Page
mace
Advanced Member
 



Australia
62 Posts

Posted - 29/05/2012 :  12:38:28 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Mixed species forests, such as around SBC are dynamic things. Forest areas on our property, similar elevation, 8k in a direct line to the east, has changed markedly in age and composition. Even in my lifetime, I walk into small pockets of timber that now look nothing like they did when I was young (40 years ago).

IMO its ok to compare photo's (in mixed species forests) that are say 30 years apart, but very hard to make valid comparisons with photo's that are say 50 to 80 years apart. Young trees become mature, mature trees become senescent. Composition, structure and lean for example, get altered by available light. They are growing, vibrant plants, all plants adapt and change to suite their environment in this way.

The SBC Report has provided linkages via photographic images in and around the current Kelly Tree from the 1890's thru the 1930's to the present day. Ive studied them carefully, Im still making my mind up as to their validity, but on first impressioons there are some reasonable assumptions made.

As a comment, Ive spent (in a previous working life) 20 years in production forestry and Natural Resource Management in this area and have seen forest composition change markedly in response to fire, logging and possible even climate change. I think that direct comparisons of modern images of vegetation with ones over 100 years old without any linkage images is questionable.

Regards, Al.

Edited by - mace on 29/05/2012 12:39:08 PM

Go to Top of Page
Trent
Advanced Member
 



Australia
94 Posts

Posted - 29/05/2012 :  1:00:17 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Hi all well said mace I have lived in the dandenong ranges all my life some places are completely different to what they were 30 years ago and I am talking about right out in the bush up here. I have a creek running through the property which has changed course in 9years and springs up here can change from year to year. With logging and bush fires for which I am sure SBC hasn't escaped in the last century even the terrain would have changed a little. This is just my opinion as I have lived and camped in the bush in the same places most of my life and the changes that I have seen whether man made or natural astounds me.
Cheers Trent
Go to Top of Page
Kelvyn
Advanced Member
 



Australia
184 Posts

Posted - 29/05/2012 :  8:52:58 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Mace and Trent.
Thank you for the comments on tree growth etc etc.
The point of the photographs recently posted by Glenn in the forum topic: Stringybark Creek News and Views is to address the obvious sloping background to the east of Stringybark Creek at the police camp site designated in the CSI@SBC report.
The figure standing on this slope (RHS as indicated) clearly demonstrates a slope does "exist", as do all of the topographical maps available for this area. The report includes such a map.
It is claimed by
other(s) that no such slope can be shown at this site which "matches" that in the Burman photo(s). Of course it depends on the orientation of the Burman camera (which we say by our analysis that the camera was facing almost due East (see the report's Appendix 11A and 11B). If as another constantly orientates a "viewer scope" towards the NE then the slope "disappears", making a felonious observation of the placement and orientation of Burman's camera field of view.

 

Kelvyn, In your book page 81 Appendix 11A, you have a diagram which clearly shows the Burman camera positions as pointing to the North East. Are you now suggesting your diagrams are wrong?

Secondly, the figure on the OTHER side of the creek to which you refer (on another thread 18/05/2012 SBC News and Views) -
http://kellycountry2000.forumco.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=805&whichpage=12
 
demonstrates your disjointed approach to further your argument. I see a red arrow to a figure so far away you have had to use a telephoto lens and by my own ground survey of this area, the figured position from the camera is about 150 metres or more, and is no comparison to the Burman photo which by all analysis - the slope is only 40 metres from the camera. Bill 

Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 05/06/2012 :  10:18:09 AM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
On the 02/08/2010 I wrote

"Trees grow mainly towards the sun or the most sunlight, they also grow against gravity, they also grow towards vertical against the angle of a hill."


After the tilt in the trees at his site was pointed out to him as being the wrong direction,
Denhold came back with an excuse that his camera was faulty

Denhold said
"Hello All,
I am afraid my digital camera that took the image is at fault.
I had noticed quite some time ago that there was a lean to the right of the trees in all my recent shots"


YA RIGHT DENHOLD

Photo's from other camera's show the same tilt.


The sun has not changed position since 1880, the trees still grow the same.

Taken from forum, 3/08/10

"Plants tilt Due to plant growth hormone, call auxins
Plants in nature have the ability to balance the presence of auxins in plant parts either in root tissue or shoot tissue.
At the same time auxins has negative effect against light.
Less auxins is detected on the side of the stems/branches facing the light source and this will slowed down the growth on this side of the stem, while the shadowed side, which contain higher concentration of auxins will grow faster.
The uneven growth rate of the stem/branch will cause the plant to bend and growing towards the sun, and not perpendicular to the surface of the earth where the plant is growing. IE hill."


You can still see that the tress tilt towards the sun, today some 130 years later, photo by KC200 I think.


There are no tilting trees at the Kelly tree that match the same tilt as the burman photo.
PF

Edited by - poorflower on 05/06/2012 10:21:50 AM

Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 05/06/2012 :  10:27:24 AM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Also how wide is your CSI@SBC photo taken at the Kelly tree,
on the 13/08/10 I posed this question.

"Also given that the standing man is 5'8" we have determined that the wide angle photograph is approx 39.3 feet wide does anybody agree or disagree with this ? Note: we have performed the calculation on different scans of the photograph and the distance is within one foot on each."

This is just to show which one we mean from the Denhold website

Edited by - poorflower on 05/06/2012 10:55:38 AM

Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 05/06/2012 :  10:29:50 AM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
To which Denhold replied

"Given the man in Burman photo2 is 5' 8 inches tall you calculate the width to be 39.3 feet wide.
To be clear we are talking about a line on the ground left to right through the standing mans footing ( on the ground) through the seated mans boots as scaling of 5.75 times the mans height. Therefore proportionately I make that ground line to be 32.6 feet. ( about 6 feet or 1.8 metres different) But lets say 36 feet.

It should be understood the very front edge of the photo on the ground would be in order of 22 feet or 7 metres,
and the line along his boots being 36 feet or 11 metres
And the back ground width unknown.

I hope you can follow this.

Poorflour, please proceed further.
Bill "




You are saying that the present day kelly tree position is estimated to be at the location shown drawn on the Burman photo.

Poorflower is directing this question to me (Bill Denheld) but I never proposed this.
This ridiculous proposal is part of the CSI@SBC teams document dreamed up by Linton Briggs
who has somehow hood winked the other three members to believe this without any proof at all. Bill




The present day Kelly tree appears in this photo of SBC
how wide is your photo of the site ? where are the edges of the Burman photo ?
PF

Come on Glenn or Kelvyn, show us 11 metres on the ground in this image which includes the Kelly tree. Bill


Edited by - poorflower on 05/06/2012 11:10:55 AM

Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 05/06/2012 :  11:07:12 AM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Also another question to ponder where is the raised ground to the left of the photo where logs A and B are ?
The ground where logs A and B would be 3-4 feet or about 1.5 metres above the men

There is no raised ground to be seen in your photo.
PF

Poorflower, there is no raised ground in this photo where logs A and B lay. It is all flat ground. Bill

 


Edited by - poorflower on 05/06/2012 11:32:13 AM

Go to Top of Page
Glenn Standing
Advanced Member
 



Australia
72 Posts

Posted - 05/06/2012 :  9:54:16 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Hello Poorflower.

You have put a great deal of thought into your posting and I thank you for it.

I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

Regarding the direction of the sun. On page 78 of the CSI@SBC report there is detailed the sun movement across the police camp site as it would have been on the 3rd November 1878. Obtained from Geoscience Australia. The angle and direction of the sun is close but not exactly the same today as it was then.

The sun direction came from the NE at 9am through to the W at 6.30pm.
At say 1pm the sun direction was NW.
(Azimuth 324deg. 08’ 38”) (Altitude 64deg. 15’ 36”)

The images taken recently near the Kelly were taken when the sun was coming from the NW at approx. 1pm.-1.30pm. Guess best described as coming from near the bottom left hand corner of the images posted on the SBC thread. One of which you have shown above.

So why then aren’t all the trees leaning to the NW? Some are some aren’t.
According to your suggested theory they all should lean towards the sun.
When obviously they all don’t.

As to the width of the photo/site. Sorry, I did not measure the width of the site/ image. So without making another trip up SBC to do so I cannot accurately say. The images were not meant to be an exact replica of the Burman image/images. But taken to demonstrate that there is in fact a suitable slope in the background, a flat foreground and light in the trees. Very similar to the Burman images.

If you were to draw an imaginary outline of the E/W log on the photo you would still be able to see some distance behind that log. You would still see the people near the Kelly tree, or any smaller logs that might be lying on the ground. So there may or may not have been raised ground behind the E/W log in the Burman images. Regardless. The smaller logs would still be seen. I think your last image demonstrates this quite clearly.

Hope all this helps.


Best regards,
Glenn
 
Go to Top of Page
Thomas McIntyre
Advanced Member
 



51 Posts

Posted - 15/06/2012 :  3:15:48 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Mr Duncs. Thank you for the comments recently made by yourself at another place here within this forum - Stringybark Creek news and views if my memory serves me right.
Yes, indeed your observations are very pertinent and I assume you have had the opportunity to read and critically analyse the work of the team who prepared the report by the moniker of CSI@SBC.
I believe I was recently appraised that this matter will be subject to a magic lantern show in that wonderful town of Beechworth during the early part of August.
I do hope to be an interested observer at such.
One thing I do have often is time on my hands these days once I peruse the daily broadsheets and partake of consideration of some of the topics being canvassed within this forum.
Good cheer to you Mr Duncs.
Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 22/06/2012 :  12:56:00 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Hello
called into SBC recently but the weather was too prohibitive to do much work, looking around the area there are signs of some activity, full of under growth and the leeches are hungry.

The reason for going to SBC was to check some more trees with a plumb bob,
what I am trying to point out, is the sun travels from the tropic of Capricorn to the tropic of Cancer, trees will grow towards the most sun, trees will not suddenly jump around and start growing away from the sun.

What reports are there of fires being right at the Kelly tree?
apart from what the DNRE lit.

I have made a model of the trees in the forest which demonstrates this principle of trees growing towards the sun, this is all about the orientation of the the Burman camera to the tilt of the trees, the Burman photograph is an 11 mts or 36 foot wide snap shot of the forest, which clearly shows the very large old tress tilting .

As you rotate the model it produces some very interesting results
and blows away the denhold claim, to see near vertical trees you must be holding the model and be looking either almost North or South,
when you start to move away from those directions you immediately start seeing the tilt.
PF

Another thing I have just noticed is the ground in your photgraph slopes to the right.


 


Poorflower, This tree lean argument is very hollow.
Here is what I found on the internet 
'Why do trees grow straight ' ?
Scientific American has to say on the subject

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-dont-trees-lean

Article title  ' Why don't trees lean toward the equator'?

Edgar Spalding, a botany professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, sprouts off an answer
Quote from above webpage
 " A plant on a windowsill experiences a stronger light gradient than does a tree outdoors, where gravitational cues can overpower more subtle light-direction cues. Indoor plants get a lot more light on one side than on the other, which activates photoreceptor molecules to a much greater extent on the lit side. This difference is biochemically translated as a growth response, known as phototropism, which makes the plant bend toward the light.

Trees growing at a latitude of, say, 60 degrees ( further to the south near the south pole) are also asymmetrically illuminated because of the slant of the noon sun—approximately 55 degrees at the beginning of the summer growth season—but the difference in light intensity there is smaller and more variable. The modest light gradient experienced by the tree is counteracted by a continuous gravitational influence, known as gravitropism, which guides plant growth upward.

The strength of gravitropism trumps phototropism in the tree scenario but not on the windowsill. The edge of forest gaps provides a good place to observe light-guided tree growth at any latitude. There the effect of a strong light gradient can be seen in the reaching of trees into the gap."

 To which someone writes - Keith Labreque 5/8/2009
 
Quote "The relevance to the topic is that because the earth spins at a very high surface speed, one would think that at a mid-latitude of perhaps 45 degrees the centripetal acceleration would alter the direction of apparent gravity noticeably. It does not, however, because in reality the centripetal acceleration is miniscule compared with local gravity. So although plumb bobs there don't hang vertically, and trees there don't grow vertically, the effect is so small you cannot observe it. "

My comment,
This debate about photos of leaning trees at Stringybark Creek can be dismissed as irrelevant. Photographic camera distortion, and the will of the photographer to create a balanced composition, i.e., unlevel ground verses upright trees will always be a challenge.

Plumb bob exercises?  I would assert that even with accurate laser pointing apparatuses set on stable level tripod to gauge the lean of a tree or trees SBC, would show insufficient lean in a general sense except for young trees growing on the edge of a clearing as the professor said,
 "
The edge of forest gaps provides a good place to observe light-guided tree growth at any latitude. There the effect of a strong light gradient can be seen in the reaching of trees into the gap."

We have to remember when Burman took the photo, all the mature trees were part of an undisturbed forest around that time, and before any part had been cleared, and  no trees would have developed a lean during the short time period since the clearing there. We can be pretty sure the lean of any trees at the Burman photo spot were leaning left or right and every which way according to the 'then' forest canopy and that no particular pattern could be attributed to the effect of the sun arcing through our northern sky. Therefore, to try to determine where the police camp was by testing the lean on mature trees in photos and current circumstances is not a viable theory.  
Examples of cameras that can correct for parallel distortion.
Burman's camera was earlier than this one below, but the principle of bellows allows for correction of what would be vertical walls or trees as in Burman's scene of SBC to be seen as vertical structures that would otherwise appear to be leaning inwards.
Modern digital cameras generally don't have such features except for very expensive ones that have higher quality lenses specifically designed to reduce distortions such as for photographing buildings and to keep straight lines straight. These days with digital photography, distortional correction can be done easily with computer software.
Example of early cameras from Google images.

 
 

This image shows a typical correction of parallel distortion. Burman would have done the same corrections when taking his shots at Stringybark Creek, so the photo looked right.
This camera left was more like the type Burman would have used and was a simple version of the later compact cameras shown above.

The function still allowed parallel distortion to be minimised with the sliding hinged mounted
lens.

 





 

 


 

 


Edited by - poorflower on 22/06/2012 1:19:09 PM

Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 22/06/2012 :  1:38:44 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Have a look at the Cuddon photograph and how sparse the ground is, why would the trees tilt away from the sun if the growth is so sparse ?
I would say the tress would still grow towards the sun not away.

Citation, Image courtesy of the Engelke family in WA

Go to Top of Page
Glenn Standing
Advanced Member
 



Australia
72 Posts

Posted - 23/06/2012 :  6:57:17 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Hello Poorflower,
Re my previous posting. With due respect. It would appear that you like to ask questions but so eager to answer them. I don’t know why all the trees don’t lean towards the sun.

quote:


Have a look at the Cuddon photograph and how sparse the ground is, why would the trees tilt away from the sun if the groth is so sparse ?
I would say the tress would still grow towards the sun not away



When looking at the Cuddon photo the shadows cast from the sun can be seen on the right side of the image. To the right of the gentleman’s jacket also along the ground near his feet and from the surrounding bushes and trees.
It is widely accepted that the current Kelly tree is shown on the left of the image.
The sun light would be coming from the left from the NW.
Why then aren’t all the trees leaning to the left towards the sun in this image?

Regards,
Glenn
 

Go to Top of Page
mace
Advanced Member
 



Australia
62 Posts

Posted - 23/06/2012 :  8:19:07 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Your comments summarise my views Glenn,

You cant make three dimensional assumptions with a two dimensional photo.

The trees as shown (apart from the actual original kelly tree in the centre,where the purple marking is just wrong) can also be either leaning towards the viewer, or away from them, you cant tell.

Also, there are many reasons why they might not lean towards the sun, wind shear effects, overshadowing effect, compression compensation to name a few.

Al.

Edited by - mace on 23/06/2012 10:46:33 PM

Go to Top of Page
Kelvyn
Advanced Member
 



Australia
184 Posts

Posted - 18/07/2012 :  4:30:18 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
The CSI@SBC team will be presenting at the Beechworth Kelly 2012 Ned Kelly Weekend their extensive & exhaustive review of ALL the available contemporaneous information; explaining their detailed field work and the results of the survey by professional surveyors.
Since the team's report was published in July 2011 (ISBN:978-0-646-55998-8)* some further material has been "discovered" and this will be discussed also.

Sunday 5th August at 9.30am, Beechworth Town Hall.

The team looks forward to meeting people with an interest in this topic, and talking about their work over a quiet ale or two during the weekend.
* Available on the day for purchase.
e
Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 20/07/2012 :  12:25:13 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
To the members of the CSI@SBC team
the way I see this is it all boils down to this.

When you all stand up in front of the crowd at Beechworth in a few weeks they will all be expecting to see conclusive photographic evidence of the Police Camp Site, that match's photo A, its as simple as that.
If you cannot do this then what the outcome for you is in the lap of the Gods

when I finish here I hope to demonstrate to you what the audience will be asking, and can be demonstrated with a simple model, shown in photo H, based on photo A, whether the model is in 1D or 2D or 3d does not matter the results are the same, this is all about the camera angle and tree growth.

Lets look at photo A, it shows tilting trees pointing to the Left
the actual compass direction does not matter.

Also there is a steep step up on the left of the picture behind the two men.

I may not finish this today

 " Original Image - VPM208 Carte de Visite, A.W. Burman Stringybark Creek Re-enactment .Reproduced with permission
from the collection of Victorian Police. Image
courtesy Bill Denheld ironicon.com.au -  

( NOTE, the pink lines and Text has been added by 'Poorflower')

You are saying the present day kelly tree is shown here in picture A

 


Edited by - poorflower on 21/07/2012 11:31:47 AM

Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 20/07/2012 :  12:26:20 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
When we compare photo A with photo B
we can see that the trees tilt the wrong way and cannot be the same scene, so the denhold theory of where the Police Camp was is blown completely out of the water.



 
" Original Image - VPM208 Carte de Visite, A.W. Burman Stringybark Creek Re-enactment .
Reproduced with permission from the collection of Victorian Police. Image
courtesy Bill Denheld ironicon.com.au -  
 
( NOTE, the pink lines and Text has been added by 'Poorflower')

Edited by - poorflower on 21/07/2012 11:26:46 AM

Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 20/07/2012 :  12:27:17 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
From the CSI@SBC report this photo was taken in 1938,

When we compare this photo with photo A the tilt is the wrong way, how can the tree in the back
left be the present day Kelly tree.

Yes the sun appears to be coming from the left of the photo, but the point is why have the the tress tilted
180' from photo A, in only 58 years, we have gone from a left tilt to a right tilt, really the only answer is
its not the same scene as in photo A.



Citation, Mr Cuddon Image courtesy of the Engelke family in WA  

 
 
" Original Image - VPM208 Carte de Visite, A.W. Burman Stringybark Creek Re-enactment .
Reproduced with permission from the collection of Victorian Police. Image
courtesy Bill Denheld ironicon.com.au -
 
( NOTE, the pink lines and Text has been added by 'Poorflower') 

Please note; The inclusion over this image above of CSI@SBC is a breach of copyright as this infers the image belongs to the proponents of csi@sbc, and therefore Poorflower may be one of them. Poorflower, please make sure to replace this image
you have marked 'A' without csi@sbc and see that all my images used are properly cited on the KC2000 forum pages. Bill

Edited by - poorflower on 21/07/2012 11:39:42 AM

Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 20/07/2012 :  12:28:47 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Lets take a look at photo D,
which is supposedly taken from the same location as the Cudden photo
and has the present day kelly tree in the same location, back left does the tilt in the trees match with photo A,
that answer is NO.

If Cudden photo was taken in 1938 and IF the tree in the back left is the present day Kelly tree
why then have the trees suddenly all gone vertical in only 74 years.

In 1880 they tilted Left, in 1897 they are vertical in 1938 they tilt right.
now in 2012 they are vertical and the ground slopes to the right compared to photo A.
see photo D.

The answer is its the wrong location, or camera angle.





 
" Original Image - VPM208 Carte de Visite, A.W. Burman Stringybark Creek Re-enactment .
Reproduced with permission from the collection of Victorian Police. Image
courtesy Bill Denheld ironicon.com.au -  

Edited by - poorflower on 21/07/2012 12:15:18 PM

Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 20/07/2012 :  12:29:50 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
Photo F shows the location of the present day Kelly day as drawn by the
CSI@SBC team in hi-resolution it also clearly shows the steep step up or bank
or whatever you wish to call it, behind the two men on the left, which is not present in photo D.

From previous discussions about this Burman photo, if we draw a line from each side of the photo
through the standing man's boots and assume he is five foot eight inches high then the
photo at that point is approximately thirty six feet wide, or eleven metres.



Edited by - poorflower on 21/07/2012 12:26:15 PM

Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 20/07/2012 :  12:30:54 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
From the CSI@SBC report this photo was taken in 1897 before the Cudden photo .

But what have we got, vertical trees.
Does the tree tilt match photo A, answer NO. In 17 years we have trees that tilted to the left
to now vertical trees.

So what does this mean ? either the wrong site or the wrong camera position ether way it does not match photo A.



Citation; image from Tourism promotion booklet " Beautiful Mansfield" circa 1897, showing what was then believed the site of the police camp.
However, already by then, 1897, it would appear the true site had become obscure due to land holders falsely believing the site location. Bill

Edited by - poorflower on 21/07/2012 11:16:25 AM

Go to Top of Page
poorflower
Senior Member
 



Australia
48 Posts

Posted - 20/07/2012 :  12:37:03 PM  Show Profile  Email Poster  Reply with Quote
This simple model , photo H is based on the tree tilt in photo A,
the pink tree is the approx position of the present day Kelly tree as shown by the CSI@SBC team.

By rotating the model to match the tree tilt and matching the location of the Kelly tree in all the photos,
it demonstrates something is not matching with photo Burman A. The model can be made in 1D,2D or 3D the results are the same.

IF we assume that the tree tilt has not changed much since 1880 then the only way we can see the same tilt in the trees
is in the following photos. The only way to see vertical trees is to look end on to the tilt.
I will provide more photos later.




" Original Image - VPM208 Carte de Visite, A.W. Burman Stringybark Creek Re-enactment .
Reproduced with permission from the collection of Victorian Police. Image
courtesy Bill Denheld ironicon.com.au -
 ( NOTE, the pink lines and Text has been added by 'Poorflower')


Edited by - poorflower on 21/07/2012 12:44:00 PM

   

Please Note,  This was only page 1 but decided not to continue to show page 2.

Since this csi@sbc The Report - a KC2000 forum page thread Copy has been shown here at Iron- Icon, the original forum thread at KC2000 has been heavily edited by deletion of all images, however, the pictures that remain still don't have proper image citations added as was requested.  They still breach Police Historical Museum (PHM) and copyright .   All images that Poorflower had used in his/her argument to determine the proper site of the 1878 Police camp have been deleted, compromising the whole KC2000 forum thread, therefore one wonders who Poorflower really is?

In conclusion, I have decided to restore all the images on this page so the reader ( you) can make sense of this interesting debate, one from which I was excluded by the administrator. It's a pity many grown up people cannot demonstrate a common courtesy when they decide to enter into a public debate. 

Oh, I almost forgot, trees do grow straight to counter balance the pull of gravity, otherwise they will fall over. Trees do lean out from the edge of a forest towards the light, or lean over where the ground on which the tree grows subsides as on a steep creek bank, but in general all trees do grow straight up.

Any pictures showing leaning trees is more likely the result of the photographer taking the ground as level and as a priority, and compromising the ground to tree 'angles' which may give the impression of leaning trees. Then there is also camera lens distortion which makes trees or vertical buildings look like they are leaning in to the viewer.

Bill Denheld  28 October 2012