I thank all for their postings.
And a special thanks to those who are supporting me.
I will go down the list starting with reply to Bruce's posting near
the top of this thread page.
Bruce, on 02/07/2010 you wrote, - ( how you find it all confusing)
( Blue, orange and crimson stars, some red lines etc)
You finish with " What else can I do here ? " Bruce, may I ask why you
have a star at the end of the log ?
I understand you want to plot the 70 yards from the creek when I have
suggested it may only have been 56 yards.
May I suggest you diminish McIntyre's seemingly un questionable
measurements to estimates. Also forget those two right angled logs he
drew like an up side down L.
Do not accept McIntyre as gospel. Mc did an amazing job recalling and
recording so much detail with variations.
If readers of this debate want to be fair they should be able to see
the alternative document sent out by the other four, and on this forum
I have asked Glenn this question without response.
Then on 03/072010 Bruce you make a posting KC2000 to Fitzy-
" G'day Fitzy
What may seem to be a veiled reference to a certain geographical
locational or feature such as spear grass is fully understood by
Bill or Glen as they know the SBC
area like the back of their hand , you would be surprised as the the
amount of resources that has been expended by many people on this
police camp site,
I would hate to think what the time and money added up to on this
quest and hobby, for some of us it has become nothing to think of
the 6 hour drive up and back
and only spend 5 minutes there making a measurement and driving home
Fitzy please gather up all the info on the Police camp site you can
find, actually go up to SBC and report back your findings as we are
all very interested in your
conclusion, why should we be the only ones loosing sleep and
suffering the stress of this ongoing problem, please join in.
But then sometime later you add these Para's-
" From his own website "Now read Bill's conclusion for
identifying the authentic site." and "Please click on the image to
see Bill's definitive document to
establish the authentic location." and "If anyone has anything they
wish to add to this article or if they wish to correct or confirm
anything, please feel
free to contact this site, as we are all on a journey to find the
Mcintyre is a conundrum , At the recent talk by the FBI trained
police expert he stated that Mc could be believed up to a point then
he falls apart,
Mc gives very specific details which have caused us all a great
angst when we have tried to apply his info to the very ground at
Bruce, are you making these statements on behalf of someone I
recognize ? as the words don't seem to be your style ?
However this raises the point that attention is being focused on my
document while the opponent's document has not even been tabled.
By all means pick my document to bits but at the end of the day either
accept or reject and tell the forum why its wrong.
To understand my document you will need to -
First, accept my reconstruction log model of Burman photos as
correct, (see my PDF document pages 14 and 15), you will see the logs
are more like a back to front y.
Second, if you want to stick religiously to McIntyre's map
orientation with his L shaped logs, please see he was all mixed up,
see pages 17,18,19
Third, forget Mc's measurements from the creek to and fro.
Would Mc have have had a tape measure with him? they are only
estimates that sound official.
Forth, the Burman photos are looking South. And that Mc thinks
his logs are those in the Burman photo facing the viewer looking
Fifth, accept the value of a Viewer Scope to identify a site by
looking through the outline of the Burman image.
Sixth, that the 1884/5 parish maps showing locations are
basically wrong, one map shows the hut at 804m mark, the other at 645
Seventh, that Glenn's identification of a fireplace in the
Burman photo pulls the Burman photos to the Two huts site at SBC.
If you can not agree to all these above 7 points, then my research
www.ironicon.com.au cannot be
Then 03/07/2010 KC2000- Bruce writes
" Bill with your grids and things do you see the log with the
dotted lines how higher than the mans feet do you think the log is
and the dotted line in the
back ground how far away do you think the back ground is, and no its
not a trick question
hmmmm i just observed the sapling/log is about level with the mans
By my calculations the saplings are laying not more than 10 metres
behind the seated figure. See map below. It would apear the ground
gently rises, but I think it is
more likely to be fairly level ground and because the camera is higher
than the ground it will give the impression the ground rises when it
But how far is the background ?? say 35 to 40 metres.
Then on the same day
Glenn wrote 03/072010
" The basis of Bill’s conclusions seems to rely heavily on both
the fireplaces & the slope. I have issues with both of these.
No Glenn, my document was out in Feb 2010, and only relied upon the
slope as hard evidence and with the two huts as Primary source
It was not until mid May that you told me about the fireplace
identified in Burman1 photo.
Since then I identified the strong possibility the second fireplace
was also in view, Burman2 photo.
After you challenged me about the log angle to the two posts, you
" I do agree with Bill’s the scaled layout demonstrating the
angles of the two main logs.
If we may use this scaled layout and place the (Hut 1) fireplace in
the location and angle as Bill is suggesting the layout does not
The direction the (Hut 1) fireplace faces 10deg North of East almost
due East and the creek. This being the case the log angles also
We no longer have almost due North /South log. In addition the
location of the second fireplace would not fit the Burman images.
I cannot yet see how the fireplaces fit the Burman images."
Glenn, if as Mc said one log was East West, the other nearly N,S,
and as we have now established the two posts are about 35 degrees to
the log, we have had to turn
the whole Burman scene clockwise to line things up with the fireplaces
orientation. With this done, we now see the east west log is turned to
West NW and East SE
This does not mean anything has changed in reality, who said
had to be on a perfect grid. McIntyre thought his left log lay east
west when it was not actually so.
Glenn, you have identified one of the fireplaces in the Burman photo,
this to me was a break through. You should accept this as a mile stone
towards identifying the correct site, yet you
dither about relatively petty issues because you want the site to be
Later I identified the second fireplace in Burman2 photo, and now if
you look at my scale layout picture below, it all fits.-
I do remember you telling me you believed my photo reconstruction
models were close to reality. If you accept Burman's photo logs do not
form an L but rather a Y,
why then can't you dis regard Mc's L configuration. I have
demonstrated " L " right angled logs never existed . McIntyre used the
Burman photos to construct his map, ( for Ned's trial)
McIntyre within days of the shootings gave his information to an
artist with the Sydney Mail who created what could be the closest
pictorial image of the scene -see my Document page 27.
I know your group has tried to poo poo pictorial illustrations of the
SBC event but this one closely matches the two huts site and should
not be ignored.
The text read it was drawn with Mc's endorsement. Notice where the
tent is in relation to the logs and the swamp. This swamp cuts across
north of the two huts site quite close to the road.
And while we are at page 27, note your other posting,
Glenn wrote - 03/07/2010,
Bill, Thank you. I am pleased that we can now agree that there is
in fact a good slope near the Kelly tree.
Glenn, my second para on page 27 reads,
" At SBC there are many places a slope on the other side of the
creek can look steep as near the Kelly tree, but the view angles are
Here then is the latest scale layout. Burman2 photo are
greenlines and Burman1 photo
And the Then and Now