This is a copy of KC2000 forum SBC News and Views page 8

robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member

Australia
107 Posts

Posted - 11/08/2010 : 13:40:10

quote:

Originally posted by Fitzy

G’day Gang,

Regarding the tilting of the trees, I agree with Bruce as this has always been my understanding of plant growth.

Quote:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Plants tilt Due to plant growth hormone, called auxins
Plants in nature have the ability to balance the presence of auxins in either their root
tissue or shoot tissue.
At the same time auxins has a negative effect against light.
Less auxins is detected on the side of the stems/branches facing the light source and this
will slow 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 grow towards the
sun, and not perpendicular to the surface of the earth where the plant is growing. IE hill.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

However, this presents another problem and one that has always bothered me and that is;- Going by the Burman photos what everyone believes is north and south in these two photos would have to be reversed, as the trees appear to be leaning towards the left to rear of the photos, which would place north in that direction. Thoughts on this please!

There are very few shadows to conclusively say where the sun is, although the brightness appears to be coming from in front of the man seated on the log. Then again, different copies of the photos give different perspective on the light, so is inconclusive. I tend to think that it was a slightly overcast day (or light fog lifting into the air), giving bright light all over, hence what appears to be a bright sky in the background that Bob has mentioned.

Just a point regarding the shingle hut, the picture drawn in the Australian Sketcher, to me is a slab hut with a bark roof. This was a very common form of hut for miners and a shingled roof would only have been added to what was a more permanent dwelling because of the time involved in splitting the shingles and attaching them. If this hut had a shingle roof and the artist was present, it would have been drawn as such.

As for Thos Mc., the name Haldane comes to mind with his knowledge of the whole affair and where references can be found. Add the police bias and the knowledge of early speech terminology and I think we have our man. It certainly would be enough circumstantial evidence for the Vic police both past and present. Remember their motto, “Better to convict an innocent man, than no man at all!” The only thing that doesn’t fit is Mc’s sense of humour, definitely not a police trait.
Fitzy

P.S. I’ll be up for that trip to SBC and I’ll bring my ouija board.

robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member

Australia
107 Posts

Posted - 11/08/2010 : 13:54:54

I apologize for pressing the wrong button again. I guess however it might increase your posting numbers up Fitzy. I am glad to see that you also Mick will be going to SBC in October. We might be able to go and have a beer at Tatong, supposed to be a good place for an ale or 2,so they tell me. I do hope its not VB though. Bruce do you think it might be better to go there on the weekend before the 26th,a lot of members will probably be working on the actual anniversary date. I can go whenever and will go along with the majority.
As far as this debate goes I won't be making any further comments on the matter until 2 certain people put their documents on the table like Bill has. As the old Aussie saying goes PUTUP or SHUTUP.

bill denheld
Advanced Member

Australia
131 Posts

Posted - 11/08/2010 : 16:59:12

Hello Robert, Fitzy and all,

Here is a webpage with Shingle huts in Tasmania,

http://catalogue.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/item/?id=629945

Click on " Huts - Tasmania - Photographs "

Fitzy, the first picture on the list, Huts at the Springs on Mt Wellington. Note vertical shingle boards and shingle roof. Also 'Shingle Hut In the Bush' - go to High Res copy and notice vertical boards to the walls and full length roof shingles.
Much the same as the Australasian Sketcher

Regarding the SBC meeting, Saturday 23rd or Sunday 24th Oct would give most people an opportunity to be there.
I can make it any day but can we plan for that weekend before the 26th as Robert suggests.
Bill

PS, another link takes you to lots of others
http://catalogue.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/find/?subject=Huts - Tasmania - Photographs

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
180 Posts

Posted - 11/08/2010 : 21:33:15

G’day Bill,
Some great photos on that website. The hut you refer to is a ‘split paling’ hut with a shingle roof. Note split paling, not sawn. The type of tree you had at your disposal, depended on how thinly you can slit it, especially in lengths. For instance in Victoria, Mountain Ash is very easy to split and making shingle out of them is a breeze, so would split palings. Yellow Box on the other hand would be impossible and great for upright posts and fence posts. Most of the trees throughout Victoria are easier to make the ‘split’ slab type hut.

My point is, don’t put too much emphasis on what is a shingle hut. In rough isolated places, miner’s huts were more likely to have a bark roof and one flash enough to have a shingle roof would be referred to as such, to distinguish it from the common variety. If a hut was built in the Northern Hemisphere log style (not popular here because of the weight of the timber and termites), it would be a log hut and the same with a wattle and daub or stone hut.

I’m trying to simplify the matter, not make it more complicated and certainly not nit picking, or saying you are wrong in any way Bill, just pointing out some facts on a topic that has always been of great interest to me. There was certainly what was referred to as a shingle hut there and undoubtedly had a shingle roof. Perhaps Thos McIntyre can enlighten us as to exactly what the hut was constructed out of.

A good example of a slab hut with shingle roof (and they emphasis the ‘shingle’) can be seen below.
http://maps.bonzle.com/c/a?a=p&p=12466&cmd=sp&d=pics

Fitzy.

Glenn Standing
Senior Member

Australia
21 Posts

Posted - 11/08/2010 : 22:25:25

By assessing the suggested scenario at the Two Hut site.

The following problems arise:

*Regarding the viewing angles etc in the Burman images.*
The position of Hut 1 faces East and also the creek. If the two blackened posts represent the side of the hut then the creek would be on the left of the images.
The slope would be on the right hand side of the image. This being West.
There is no suitable slope on the Western side at the Two Hut site.
If the two blackened posts represent the end of Hut 1 then the creek would be directly down the middle of both images.
The slope would then have to be on the right side looking towards the creek at the Two Hut site.

*Positions of the Two Hut fire places in relationship to the Burman images*
*What is most likely a fire place can be observed in the Burman image 1.*
There appears to be sizable stones THAT can be seen to the left of and back from the centre tree. This has been generally accepted.
By following the suggested locations of the two hut fire places compared to the most probable locations it has been proven that they do not match.
If the fire places have been moved since Burman photographed the site then they cannot be relied upon as evidence.

*Orientation*
If the two blackened posts in Burman image 2 represent the side of the hut1 then the creek would be on the left of the image.
The direction the Kelly's first approached the camp site would have to be from the left hand side of the Burman images. From the creek side.

If the two blackened posts represent the end of the hut 1 then the creek would in the middle back ground of the images.
The direction the Kelly's first approached the camp site would have to be from towards the middle of the Burman images. From the creek side.

*Regarding the positions of Constables McIntyre & Lonigan in the first instance*

Constable McIntyre was as he said facing the fire with his back to the spear grass concealing the Kelly's. He did not see them coming as he had to turn around to face them when challenged.
In both the possible suggested creek locations McIntyre would be facing the advancing men.

Etc etc.

And so it goes.

As Bill will not acknowledge that the two hut fire places do not match the Burman images as I have clearly demonstrated then I can see no point in continuing any future debate with him.

I can see no credible evidence to support his case
I thereby dismiss his conclusions as nothing more than a magnificent folly.

For the record in my view the true site is near the Kelly tree but further South towards the “White Hill” (which is shown in Bill’s diagram “Where are these four sites? Below, Stringybark site).

Perhaps those interested should have a closer look at Joe's findings.
Joe has independently used the facts & evidence provided without distorting them to come to his conclusions.

Regards to all,
Glenn

poorflour
Senior Member

22 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2010 : 14:20:41

quote:

Hello Poorflour,
If you go to the first page of this thread you will see a darkened picture 'computer enhanced' of Burman photo1 showing what looks like a fireplace structure of rounded rocks.
Here is a link - http://ironicon.com.au/twohuts/images/burman1photofireplace.jpg

Here too is a large picture of both Burman photos. ( 650 kb) You can see where the fireplaces are identified. Similar pictures are shown half way down on page 2 of this SBC thread.

http://ironicon.com.au/twohuts/images/burmanphotoscopy.jpg

Thank you Bill, we have a question please about the two black vertical hut posts that feature in Mr Burman's photograph, are they the posts in the holes that are there today ?

poorflour
Senior Member

22 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2010 : 14:38:42

If the most distant post is the same as the post hole today
to determine the compass points , why not
draw a line from the post to the rocks ?
Thats North South

Edited by - poorflour on 12/08/2010 14:45:45

poorflour
Senior Member

22 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2010 : 14:40:54

Then draw a line on the photograph from the post to the blob, IE NS

Edited by - poorflour on 12/08/2010 14:43:15

bill denheld
Advanced Member

Australia
133 Posts

Posted - 12/08/2010 : 22:28:00

Hello Poorflour,

You ask me,

quote:

" we have a question please about the two black vertical hut posts that feature in Mr Burman's photograph, are they the posts in the holes that are there today ?

Answer, No, these two post holes are orientated North south but perhaps one post hole South could be near the location like the one you draw the pink line from to the fire place in the back ground.

This also means the map to which you refer would need the pink and green arrays to be turned around to the south west while leaving the fireplaces as they are on the map.
Bill

PS, The map portion you show unfortunately has a W for west at the top left hand corner. This map was marked N S E W by Joe and only the W remains.
Where it has W is in fact East.

Edited by - bill denheld on 13/08/2010 02:57:32

bill denheld
Advanced Member

Australia
133 Posts

Posted - 13/08/2010 : 02:50:27

Hello Fitze,
I agree with your explanation that a shingled roof would differentiate from an ordinary bark roofed hut.
Looking at the Australasian Sketcher article on SBC Nov 1878 - The bushrangers Hut in the Glenmore Ranges would seem to be a bark roof and slab walls.

1, As the article was published within 3 weeks of the shootout mid Nov, there is a possibility this hut was standing nearby as the artist had seen, but it was not the shingle hut.

2, Perhaps the Sketcher hut was located on the rise as per the Herald Special reporter ( G,W Hall of Mansfield Courier for the Herald ) also said upto 10 acres appeared to have been cleared, and McIntyre said the tent was pitched in the N. West corner of an acre or two, meaning the ten acres was to the south.

3, The reporter also described when at SBC heading for the shoot out location the ground rose up there and when standing on the rise slope overlooking the tent, the ground fell away to the north and east meaning we are on the rise on the west bank with the creek on our right ( east). This all fits well at the two huts site.

4, The fact Burman took 2 photos, each with remains of huts means there were no huts standing at that time (where the fireplaces are today) - unless one was still standing when the bodies were taken out, - - But burnt or pushed down only days before Burman arrived five days later.

Are we trying to reconcile two huts or three ?

Your opinion please.

Bill

____________________________________________________________________

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
152 Posts

Posted - 13/08/2010 : 09:10:56

G’day Bill,

I accept your findings that there were two huts, just merely pointing out that should a photo, more detailed drawing or descriptive observation of the shingle hut come to light, that it’s not dismissed because there are no shingle walls.

Unfortunately I have been too busy to scrutinize (for my own satisfaction), all that has been put forth on this topic and give an opinion. When I eventually get to the SBC and see the various locations and the terrain, I’ll try and form an opinion and share my thoughts with the forum.

Fitzy.

Joe.D
Advanced Member

Australia
740 Posts

Posted - 13/08/2010 : 11:57:33

Hello Bill,

You wrote.....

quote:

PS, The map portion you show unfortunately has a W for west at the top left hand corner. This map was marked N S E W by Joe and only the W remains.
Where it has W is in fact East.

Bill, which map are you referring to?

Joe.D

poorflour
Senior Member

24 Posts

Posted - 13/08/2010 : 12:32:17

Dear Bill and others
we are trying to determine North South on the photographs using our own methods.

The map we used was yours, we cropped it , so the compass was cut off, and only the W was visable, sorry for the confusion, we have replaced the map.

Firstly, What we are asking is, if we draw a line from the post hole to the rocks on the map then that gives us North South on the map.

If we now look at the photograph and if we draw a line from the post to the object which you claim is the pile of rocks from the fallen down fireplace,
we can determine North South on the photograph would you agree ?

Edited by - poorflour on 13/08/2010 13:37:42

poorflour
Senior Member

24 Posts

Posted - 13/08/2010 : 13:23:45

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

Edited by - poorflour on 13/08/2010 15:20:20

bill denheld
Advanced Member

Australia
134 Posts

Posted - 14/08/2010 : 02:11:42

Joe, Sorry I did not realise Poorflour had used map copy from my upload as I could not recognize the W of NSEW by me. My apology.

Poorflour, on 13/08 - 12.32 min, you confirm my map was used.

You ask if the pink line represents a connection from post to fireplace rocks.

Answer Yes , your pink line across the photo would be North South orientation if we use a post hole of one hut at the two huts site to the fireplace south nearby. However , this N.S line only applies to that part of the photo as demonstrated with the railway lines perspective. A true distance line calculation can only apply directly across the photo from left to right, not an angled line cutting into the image perspective.

The map and the photo correlate well. However the length of the pink line represents about 70 % of the photo width of Burman photo1. So it is obvious the direction of my pink array on my scale map needs to be turned to the S West for that line to be viewed 70 % of the photo width. I acknowledged that in my previous posting 12/08

You then repost.
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

Thomas McIntyre
Senior Member

29 Posts

Posted - 15/08/2010 : 22:24:02

Hello Mr Fitzy.
I have read with interest your words about the timber providing for ease of construction of huts in our colony’s high country.

The topic of the shingle hut is one of much interest to those who are attempting to determine beyond reasonable doubt the position of our camp site at Stringy Bark Creek.
The hut to which reference is made was in a poorly condition, located some distance away from the open ground upon which we camped. It was in the rather dense scrub to the north of our position.
I see that Mr Hall said that “ The spot where they established their halt was in a small clearing on a rise alongside of the creek, near the ruins of two small-huts, one of which was burnt down “. This latter hut was in fact very near to our position and the other as I have described.
We did not at any time decide that the ruined hut would be a spot that offered us any comfort and in fact the very opposite – in dense bush, in a parlous condition, lack of sun available because of the thick tree canopy, and not affording any reasonable view of the immediate surroundings. So I did not make any foray to examine the hut in any detail.
So, I am not able to provide a considered opinion of the structure but I have sought information concerning the timber in the locale of our camp site and I have been told that the predominant type of trees are the manna, mountain swamp, and peppermint gums.
I have been fortunate over the years to observe the construction of shingle and slab bush huts by people skilled in the art.
I have observed the making of both slabs and shingles by primarily the use of a saw for establishing the length of the timber to be split, then the use of wedges of different sizes to split the timber, and hand axes or adzes to finish the timber pieces.
Oh I also recall that there was a log hut constructed over at the Kelly’s camp on Bullock Creek.
Thos.

bill denheld
Advanced Member

Australia
136 Posts

Posted - 16/08/2010 : 16:58:54

In response to the above Kelvyn Gill alias McIntyre,
I will not be replying to fictional Mr McIntyre who we know is not here, so lets try and eliminate fiction from fact.

This thread is all to do with fact and Mr Gill is adding an element of fiction that could be hard to differentiate by other forum readers, thus muddying the waters.

Readers should be aware Mr Gill is trying to create the impression and endorses what Mr Ian Jones advanced in his books " A Short Life " 2003 Notes pages 385/6 and 2008 edition pages 443, THAT discredits the only two huts fireplaces near a slope along SBC. Like Jones, Gill sees the only way to discredit the two huts location is to give the illusion there is great distances between them with one being south the other much further north from the camp site?

Quote,
Mr Gill first quoted JJ Kenneally on Page 4 of this thread 15/ 07/ 2010
wrote "

quote:

" *Kenneally, The Inner History of the Kelly Gang:
"Dan was deputed to find out exactly where the police were camped. After a careful reconnaissance he returned and reported that the police were at the shingled hut on Stringybark Creek, and their tent was pitched in the open space nearby."
And he goes on to say: "Ned Kelly then called out, asking McIntyre who was in the hut. The latter [Me] replied, 'No one,' and Kelly advanced..."

But Mr Gill should have finished the quote with " and took possession of Lonigan’s and McIntyre’s revolvers and the shotgun"
Mr Gill wants you to think Kelly's advance was moving forward north, but rather than just collecting the firearms. .

Mr Gill then continues -

quote:

Of course, Ned had to ask the question as the hut was NOT on the South side of the camp as Ned was in this locale and would therefore have been able to reconnoitre the area before advancing on us; but it was to the NORTH of our camp and outside of the cleared area we were occupying!!
I also said about the finding of poor Scanlan that his body was just outside of the clearing."

Then this on page 8 -

quote:

" The hut to which reference is made was in a poorly condition, located some distance away from the open ground upon which we camped. It was in the rather dense scrub to the north of our position."

Reading JJ Kenneally The Inner History, Mr Gill seems to come to his conclusion by first quoting JJ with " that the police were at the shingled hut on Stringybark Creek, and their tent was pitched in the open space nearby."

And concludes because " their tent was pitched in the open space nearby " the hut must have been in dense scrub and to the North ? But there is no reference to this.

Nowhere in McIntyre's or JJ K's, or G.W Hall's texts is there any suggestion the police camped in between two separated distant huts.
Rather, as reported by Hall and the Argus "They camped Near the ruins of two small huts one of which was burnt down".

The Burman photos are testimony to that.

Mr Gill, Lets not mix fiction with facts.
If you were to write your postings as coming from you stating you 'think' this or that as a possibility, then we may have a constructive debate.
Bill

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
155 Posts

Posted - 16/08/2010 : 23:40:51

Bill,

It makes no sense to me why this second hut would have been built in dense scrub with a thick tree canopy when there was a large clearing (“Partly natural and partly man made”), nearby. I smell a rat.

Fitzy.

Thomas McIntyre
Senior Member

31 Posts

Posted - 18/08/2010 : 22:25:36

Hello to those who are following this matter of the police camp.
In May 1897 the Mansfield and District Progress Association published a booklet of 38 pages Beautiful Mansfield. This booklet included a photograph entitled “Police Camp, Wombat Ranges. Scene of Kelly Outrage.”

Mrs Hutchinson on the 25th July asked:
“I would like to know your views on the photograph that appeared in the Beautiful Mansfield Booklet in May 1897 titled Police Camp Wombat Ranges - Scene of Kelly Outrages. To me this photograph appears to have been taken not far south of the Kelly Tree with the background in a north-easterly direction.”

Mr Denheld responded that: “this scene was taken across what is now the picnic ground looking east. The scrubby growth behind the men hides the creek. The ridge line in the back ground are the ranges more than 2 km away to the east and can be identified on the topographical map of the area.”

And later on the 29 July goes on to pose a question:
“How many locals of 1885 would have had a Burman photo of the police camp to compare the site. ( Yes a few would have )”
And answers it with:
“Then 19 years later a group came along to revisit the sites non the wiser to be shown the area close to the picnic ground
simply because an allotment map was marked with a hut site attributed to the police killed by the Kelly gang. From the map information this hut site is 644 metres from the creek junction - being where the picnic ground is today. This is why I believe the Beautiful Mansfield picture was taken there rather that near the 800 metre mark.“

Well, a statement that is now challenged as those who went to the place certainly had a reference tree to the place as the following shows clearly.
Now just two years before the year of the photograph, in March of 1895 Mr. Stirling, the Assistant Government Geologist presented a report to the Mining Department on the gold workings at Toombullup.
In this report he says that:
“In following down the Stringybark Creek valley, the character of the wash in the creek banks, where alluvial gold has been obtained as close to the site where the Kellys shot the police, is seen to partake of that of the minerals abraded from silicious conglomerates of the higher levels.
Mr Archer, junior, having obtained a pound weight of gold in one small paddock, from an ambush of sword or cutting grass and scrub to the south, close to the tree riddled with bullets, marking the spot where the Kelly Gang surprised the troopers.”

The Archer property was at the Southern end of Stringybark Creek Road, so here is a local who would know the significance of the tree riddled with bullets, and if he did then so would others, such as the photographer and his subjects in the Beautiful Mansfield booklet!.
So much for being “non the wiser (sic).

Diligent work by some enables me to be able to present such information for consideration in the quest to resolve the mystery of our camp.
I will have more to say shortly, but in the meantime,
I remain,
A humble investigator,
Thomas.

duncs
Average Member

Australia
18 Posts

Posted - 19/08/2010 : 19:05:20

As a general rule of thumb it’s agreed that the current Kelly tree is not the genuine location of the Stringybark shootings.
The preferred Ian Jones location, (exciting as it was when first proposed), has now pretty much been discredited.
The Bill Denheld site has polarized everybody.
As much as I’d like to accept Bill’s site, having been there armed with my camera, photographs, tape measure and books, I just can’t get it all to fit.
My question is this: How far is “NEAR”
Just because McIntyre says they pitched camp “ALONGSIDE” the creek and “NEAR’ the remains of two huts does not mean the shootings took place within meters of the existing fireplace ruins.
By his own descriptions McIntyre suggests the tent was some 70 yards from the creek. Now that’s hardly what I’d call “alongside”.
Similarly, “near” the remains of the hut/s doesn’t have to mean “at” the huts.
If, as McIntyre suggests, they camped in the north west of a clearing, my contention is that any feature other than the surrounding bush, be it Stringybark Creek or ruins of two huts would have been regarded as ““alongside” or “near” where they were. Faced with 360degrees of seemingly endless bush it seems obvious to me that they would make camp on level ground in a clearing and close to water. Relative to their surroundings that 70 yards is “alongside” the creek.
I have no argument with the remains of two huts at Bill’s site. They’re there for all to see. What I’d really like someone to find are the remains of the shingle hut. Could not the shingle hut in fact be the one shown on the two early survey maps? If so, not even the surveyors could agree on that location. Maybe they were both right and there were two huts to the north as well as the two huts to the south, (which they didn’t mention).
Whatever the case, it makes far more sense to me that the probable real location lies somewhere between the current Kelly tree and the two huts site, and I’m inclined to lean towards the site as shown in the “Beautiful Mansfield” photograph.
cheers,
duncs

Thomas McIntyre
Senior Member

32 Posts

Posted - 19/08/2010 : 23:02:01

A warm welcome to you Mr Duncs.
Thank you for your words about NEAR and AT.
This is a matter that seems to defy some of the readers as to what these words do in fact convey, and you have succinctly encapsulated the issue in your fine statement.

Now I must again make comment on the recent words where many quotes I have used are re-iterated.
My humble apologies to those who do understand but bear with me as I again have to make comment.

I must start with this animal dropping: "Like Jones, Gill sees the only way to discredit the two huts location is to give the illusion there is great distances between them with one being south the other much further north from the camp site?"
What illusion is it? Let me say NONE!.
The ruins of a hut at the camp site YES.I make that clear in my description(s).
The other one - the shingle hut, was to the north of our camp site, and for those with a knowledge of the area as it is today NOT AS FAR AS THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY Of the present day public area!!. So what illusion exists. NONE!

Now, bear with me as I continue.
The Kellys were on the South side of our camp.
The hut was to the north of our camp.
The reasonable question asked by Ned given they were to our South, and that he had not beforehand reconnoitered the ground to our North was to ask if anybody occupied, or was "hiding" in the hut.
Upon my answering him in the negative, he of course then advanced upon our camp position.
Now any sensible person would then as the first requirement of executing my capture ensure that all arms were swiftly gathered thereby ensuring the ongoing safety of he and his mates.
This is precisely what occurred as Mr Denheld points out in his additional words " and took possession of Lonigan's and McIntyre's revolvers and the shotgun."
Further Mr Denheld goes on with "But there is no reference to this" meaning dense scrub to the North.
Well, an eye to the Burman photographs gives reasonable credible evidence of dense scrub to the North!
And then he concludes that "The Burman photos are testimony to that" IE They camped Near the ruins of two small huts one of which was burnt down").
It seems to me that this claim is far from being proven beyond reasonable doubt and so it remains just that- a claim which I expect to be further extensively tested in the coming time.

Oh, and as to smelling a rat also mentioned by Mr Fitzy recently.
No rat there was or is.
The hut had been abandoned, by person or persons unknown.
Why it was there is also unknown but just perhaps (and maybe this could be "deemed" to be so): It had been erected by a hermit seeking the solitude of the bush (probably not) or perhaps gold fossiker(s) before the area became well known for gold extraction; or perhaps a dogger or roo shooter or whatever.
And having been abandoned in time past, the bush was, as is it's wont, was well advanced in reclaiming the area.

And yet again, I do remain,
committed and enquiring,
Thomas.

bill denheld
Advanced Member

Australia
137 Posts

Posted - 21/08/2010 : 15:54:41

Hello Duncs, how do you do.
Pleased you studied the SBC topography well armed with camera, maps and measuring tape. For a moment I thought here was someone prepared to open his eyes.
However you state your preferred site would be -

quote:

" somewhere between the current Kelly tree and the two huts site, and I’m inclined to lean towards the site as shown in the “Beautiful Mansfield” photograph".

In other words your site would be near the Kelly tree, and then you failed to notice there is no slope there like there is in the Burman photo and at the two huts site !
I much prefer to conclude the true site is where the Burman photo was taken not the Mansfield photo.

No matter what anybody writes, at the end of the day the true site has to be where the photo evidence fits the actual Landscape.

Once again, go back to SBC and look for a site with two huts fireplaces,

A slope like in the Burman photo - south from which you could overlook the Police tent, orientate to McIntyre's view looking North, with the sun going down to your left west, with elevated ground down from which Kennedy came when Ned Kelly fired a shot at him and missed,

A patch of swampy ground to the North through which horse tracks were seen to pass in a northerly direction as Constable James reported later,

A pair of photos that exhibit the fireplace and a hut site,

Historical truth is very important but denial of truth by people who look but don't want to see is a total waste of time.

I will gladly show you and anyone else the true site at SBC, the place where Constable Lonigan was shot dead. The Burman photo shows the exact spot, near and behind the central big stump, just to the right of it. That's why the Burman photos were taken there.
I am telling you and everyone else the two huts site is the site where Lonigan was killed.
Bill

max
Senior Member

20 Posts

Posted - 23/08/2010 : 16:29:03

What a load of dribble.

RUBBISH, RUBBISH, AND MORE RUBBISH

How do you plan to show us the "TRUE" site when you have no idea where it is or in fact what you are looking for? stop putting words in peoples mouths.

I urge all to disregard Bills work as it makes no sense and is based upon the fact that Bill is suffering from the Ian Jones syndrome.
Fame and glory is all you are seeking.

MARCUS PREPARE TO MOVE YOUR CHAIR CLOSER!
max

robert mcgarrigle
Advanced Member

Australia
109 Posts

Posted - 23/08/2010 : 17:26:06

Max you are the one that is speaking the dribble. The facts are there ARE 2 fireplaces on a flat piece of ground with a distinct slope. As far as the site south of the Kelly tree goes there is very little slope, no proof of fireplaces, except for one shown on the 1884 map and is far from being accurate. As I have said previously Bill has helped many people over the years and I have no idea why you and the imposter are so nasty towards him. I don't particularly care what you think, as you have provided no tangible evidence what so ever just a lot of unjust criticism. Keep sticking to your guns Bill your opinion is as good as the next bloke and far better than most.

max
Senior Member

20 Posts

Posted - 23/08/2010 : 18:24:05

Bobby
Your so naive and obviously brain washed by "DRILLED DRIBBLE".
Since you are so clever why does billy refuse to answer questions that are put to him? Billy only answers questions that suit his so called FACTS. saying this, bill does answer SOME questions but only if they suit him and his damned theories.

I will gladly show you and anyone else the true site at SBC, the place where Constable Lonigan was shot dead how on earth can billy achieve this as he is off the mark

Lower your guns billy for I am firing away in a blaze of glory! I've had enough of your rubbish, brainwashing and dribble.
SEE YOU AT SBC!

Billy knows deep down he has buked up.
max

Edited by - max on 23/08/2010 18:31:36

AND on NEXT page9

Fitzy
Advanced Member

Australia
156 Posts

Posted - 23/08/2010 : 22:00:03

Max,

You sound like someone who has lost 10 quid and found sixpence. Not only do I find your sarcasm and rage unimpressive towards Bill, you have now started on Bob. The SBC site is not new to Bob and like Bill, he’s entitled to his opinion, as everyone on this forum is.

Maybe you would be so gracious as to supply the forum with a map of your own, pointing out your thoughts on the matter. Bill has put all his cards on the table and of course is up for scrutiny, but let us scrutinize in a civilized manner.

Fitzy.

Edited by - Fitzy on 23/08/2010 22:02:41