Kelvyn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 24, 2014 at 5:31pm

The base drawing used by BD is as can be seen at the foot of it a Department of Sustainability & Environment drawing.
This drawing included the words : Stringybark Creek at the point identified as K - now missing (as it is in the 2010 paper by BD)as has the nomenclature for "M" seen a transformation from early versions of this drawing by BD when "M" was identified as "The swamp McIntyre crossed to escape the scene".
So, the paper on BD's site at Page 38 (see below the red note following notation P -RHS) also has both these features changed from earlier versions.
The paper was first released according to bibliography information on the National Library Australia web-site: First published February 2011.Print edition December 2011: July 2012 Author W.Denheld/copyright.
The paper as accessed on-line in an Ironicon site has been tagged as created (and modified) 23/02/2014 5:52:26 PM.
There is no record in the State Library Victoria of this publication (In contravention of the legal requirement for it to be lodged at the Library).
The National Library also indicates that the paper/book ISBN 9780987200501 & 098720050X (Trade Paper) has an undetermined copyright status.

So what changes have occurred between the release and the on-line version now in existence - a careful analysis of the printed copy and the on-line version will reveal I suspect interesting changes of comment etc etc, - seems a trait used often as a theory/thesis is challenged by others.

PS: Whilst you are on the job BD you need to not only convince the authorities of the merits of your case but also to get the place names committee on the job to rename the road as "Stringybark Spring Road" to correctly align with your persistent utterance that the "Creek is the Spring".
More to follow sometime later.

bill
Junior Member

Post by bill on Mar 24, 2014 at 7:08pm

Horrie , your humour is no longer required !
I laughed out loud all the way through Kelvyn's post.

The map I show on page 15 of this forum is described as
" A plan like this shown with the yellow lines was submitted to DSE but totally ignored by the SBC discussion group in favour of the Jones site L."

Kel, in your big book 'Crime Scene Investigators at SBC' how can you explain to show two Parish plans, one from 1884 the other 1885, ( one year later) with the same notations - " Police murders by the Kelly Gang' but 160 metres apart. Is one or both wrong ?

Kel, JUST put your 'STUFF UP', or do you want me to do it for you ?

Bill

Last Edit: Mar 24, 2014 at 7:15pm by bill

Kelvyn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 25, 2014 at 8:00pm

And since when has the CSI Team relied upon two maps as the be-all-and-end-all of the exhaustive investigations undertaken by the Team?
I repeat the Team has examined ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE, TOGETHER WITH EXTENSIVE FIELD WORK SUCH AS EXTENSIVE SURVEYING, DETAILED EXAMINATION OF TREE FORMATIONS, GROUND COVER WHERE SUCH THINGS AS SWAMP GUMS, MANNA GUMS, SWORD GRASS CAN FLOURISH, LOCATING THE SPRING ON HIGH GROUND, DETERMINING POSITIONS OF CAMERA SHOTS FOR BURMAN IMAGES AND CUDDON IMAGES, ETC. THE LIST GOES ON.
THE TEAM ALSO NOTES THAT OTHER INDEPENDENT OBSERVERS/ANALYSTS HAVE ARRIVED AT THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS THE TEAM HAS AS TO THE POSITION OF THE POLICE CAMP, SO WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO ALTER ANY OF OUR PUBLISHED MATERIAL.
AND TO ANSWWR YOUR QUESTION BILLO.
NO;YOUR OFFER IS ABSOLUTELY REJECTED. WE ARE QUITE CAPABLE OF PUTTING OUR STUFF UP WHEN WE CHOOSE TO DO SO AND IN WHAT FORM WE CHOOSE TO DO SO.
WE DON'T HAVE TO CONVINCE YOU OF ANYTHING.
YOU WILL NOT BE THE JUDGE NOR JURY WHEN YOUR CLAIM AND OUR CLAIM ARE PUT TO THE TEST BY THOSE WITH THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE APPRORIATE DECISIONS AND PROCEED (IF THEY CHOOSE TO SO DO) TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE WORK AT SBC AND IDENTIFY WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE TO.
I REPEAT - YOUR OFFER IS REJECTED.

COPYRIGHT IS AN INTERESTING TOPIC AND I WOULD REFER YOU TO THE FOLLOWING AUSTRALIAN COPYRIGHT COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS:
1. COPYRIGHT & ONLINE TECHNOLOGIES OF MARCH 2013. PUBLICATION NO B142.
2. WEBSITES & SOCIAL MEDIA OF MAY 2013. PUBLICATION NO B1460.
3. COPYRIGHT & PUBLISHERS OF NOVEMBER 2013. PUBLICATION NO B147.
BEST YOU SPEND SOME TIME TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTS.

IF THIS IS TOO HARD THEN GET AN INTRODUCTION TO COPYRIGHT IN AUSTRALIA INFORMATION SHEET GO10V16 PUBLISHED BY THE ACC.
AND A COPY OF THE ACT AS AMENDED.

 

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 25, 2014 at 9:10pm

You should be a pollie, Kelvyn. It has taken you more than 24 hours NOT to provide what Bill asked - and you have given him a gratuitous lecture about copyright he didn't ask for.

The four prominent people Bill recently showed over his Two Huts site support him (as do many, many others from the past). That CSI has done a huge research job in THE WRONG SPOT is nobody's fault but your own. Amateurs are usually time-wasters.
 

Evian
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 25, 2014 at 10:19pm

ROY AND HG VISIT CSI@SBC

HG: Someone should be bottling all this springwater, Roy.

Roy: I forgot my galoshes, HG.

HG: What did you make of Ol' Kelvyn and his parrot 'Pooflower', Roy?

Roy: That parrot made a lot more sense than Kelvyn, HG, but I didn't understand what it meant by squawking 'X marks the spot' all the time...(with apologies to the real Roy and HG)

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 25, 2014 at 11:50pm

Kelvyn,

I do hope you have sent copies of your copyright brochures to the lawless operators of pro-Kelly forums and your loathsome 'mate' who runs the Facebook hatepage of smears about 'The KellY Gang Unmasked' book.

They all use stolen, copyright images of Ned and/or his armour on their websites - ripped-off from online portraits on the State Library of Victoria's website.

Those belong to the taxpayers of Victoria, and not the lawless Kelly copyright infringers.

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 26, 2014 at 10:54am

Horrie,

You had best ask Bill if the spring is “primary” or “secondary” evidence.

I find it interesting that even though he was a first hand witness, McIntyre’s diagrams, descriptions etc can be totally dismissed as they do not fit the two fireplace site.

Yet, the spring is being pushed hard as a key factor.

Kelvyn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 26, 2014 at 2:11pm

Horrie. thanks for your comments. Yes I did spend much time whilst in business working with legal people and the matter of copyright was one which occupied time in the construction of contracts for work and developed material so thanks - I do know about the matter somewhat and I have kept up-to-date on the topic. The quoted material has just one brochure as you call them (that's a free one) the others are significant publications from the Australian Copyright Council and you pay for them. I recommend them all to you and others who you suggest have flouted/broken copyright in forums and web sites etc. A matter that from my experience to do with matters Kelly that some give scant regard to and in one instance was explained as "if its in my head then I can use it" which is utter crap.
Its a pity you don't spend some time understanding copyright as it relates to such things as photographs, images etc. You clearly are ignorant of the law.
I make just one pertinent observation about material on the web regardless of where (forum, web site, etc) and that is that once it appears it is considered as published and copyright transgression has been made by both the originator and by the forum/web site owner. Beware the copyright law upholders.

And Horrie/Eve please note: Just as we don't ask for his gratuitous advice nor his pathetic words concerning individuals which he makes at times.
And to the Evian who is too shy to identify him/her self: Thanks for the reminder about Roy and HG. Material and correspondence was exchanged between the Team and the show creators; the team did not break confidences contained therein but they were most interesting and comical in some observations therein.

And Horrie your logic is breathtaking:
"They all use stolen, copyright images of Ned and/or his armour on their websites - ripped-off from online portraits on the State Library of Victoria's website.

Those belong to the taxpayers of Victoria, and not the lawless Kelly copyright infringers".

SO Horrie which taxpayers of Victoria do they not belong to?? seems you are able to discern this to mean "They"!
So anyone outside of Victoria must be a thief??
Best you also hone up on the many sources of the images you refer to and the conditions of reproduction available for each image depending on the attached citations by the holding institutions.
You are a hopeless armchair pretend not-very-good-lawyer who spouts forth without any understanding of the matter(s) you rant about.

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 26, 2014 at 2:43pm

You are easily distracted, Kelvyn. Everyone here was expecting you to put 'your stuff-up' up!

Who on earth is Eve? Misidentifying people is a particular skill of your mad friend who continually smears 'The Kelly Gang Unmasked' book on his Facebook hatepage.

Last week you accused me daftly of being a kiwi. Your guesswork is as peculiar and ridiculous as your mate's.

What part of Crown copyright don't you get? Those stolen images belong to the Crown and, eventually, the taxpayers and people of Victoria.

The institutions those images have been stolen from on-line are owners of the originals. Whether or not copyright technically still exists, reproduction permissions should have been sought and granted, and any fees rendered.

bill
Junior Member

Post by bill on Mar 26, 2014 at 2:50pm

The score board on these Forum pages, INDEX
Pages 1 and 2 -
The first CSI team 'Stuff Up' is their blinkered view of what the spring is at SBC.

Forum page 4 ,
The second CSI teams 'Stuff Up' regarding Burman photo orientation. see Steps1 to 6

Forum page 8
The third CSI teams 'Stuff Up' at their Kelly tree site is the lack of a 'Slope' as in the Burman photo. They can't provide a picture to compare, and they have the Burman photo looking the wrong way.

Forum Page 9
The forth CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is the non use of Primary Source pictorial evidence sketches from newspapers, one drawn from a rough sketch by McIntyre himself depicting the genaral layout of the scene at SBC.

Forum Page 14
The fifth CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is on going debate by CSI that there is no pipe to take away the water from higher ground under the SBc road, and when asked to show a picture of - or where their spring happens to be along the road they cannot show this.

Forum page 15
The sixth CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is their lack of understanding which are Primary sources as against Secondary sources. Primary being records closest to the event where as secondary are reports written months - years later- reports not of the time, such as many of McIntyre's Memiors published 24 years after the event.

Forum page 16
The seventh CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is their sloppy research regarding the maps- plans showing a 'notational hut plots' incorrectly described as the same place but 160 metres apart.

As follows - CSI book page Images re produced-
Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, which allows for research, criticism or reviews of published material, I provide copies of CSI@SBC pages 62 and 63 to allow the reader to evaluate erroneous assumptions made by the authors of the document.

Firstly, Quote from Page 39 - Section 8 CSI 'Conclusions',
# 8.2 - The analysis concludes that the Victorian Police tent entrance within the camp site clearing was located: on or about an east/west transect 802.2 metres ( 877.3 yards) from the junction of Stringybark Creek and Ryans Creek to the north - - - -being 51 metres south --- --- of the present day Kelly tree, "

The hut on the first map dated 1884, was marked on the ground by me as being 804 * metres distance from the creeks junction by using the map scale when there were still no roads, property fences. ( I am not concerned about 2 metres one bit, it just shows any one using a car speedo reading can be as accurate as a surveyor's plot.)

The CSI@SBC document on pages 62 and 63 shows a 1884 map of the area with a HUT marking "Scene of the Police murders by the Kelly Gang", and then on the next page a property boundary survey called an allotment map dated 1885 showing the same area with HUT notation "Police Killed by the Kellys"

Now, anyone conducting a serious investigation to locate the 'police camp site' 132 year later to be published, should first be checking the numbers of relative distances I would have thought? I did this in April 2009.

What I found, each map had the same hut marked but they are approximately 160 metres apart at different locations, so, if we were to say this is where the police camped- near that hut, then neither location can be relied upon because we can only have one site, yet the CSI team reckon it is OK to go with the 802 m 1884 hut plot ?

But why did they not use the far more accurate survey of 1885 that Sheila Hutchinson and Fay Johnson found in the Lands Dept files in 2004 ? This information would be far more weighty evidence you would think, because the first surveyor had no real need to accurately plot that hut within the virgin bush because there were no roads, fences or even people living there. He simply plotted the creek with a hut about halfway along on the west bank 6 years after the shootings.

Yet the CSI report shows both maps - both hut plots as being the same place. One being approx 645 metre and the other at 802 metres from the junction of the two creeks.

All this is very sloppy work by some very amateur Crime Scene Investigators.

www.ironicon.com.au/images/csi-pages-62-63.jpg  CLICK on Link to see large image

Last Edit: Mar 26, 2014 at 6:17pm by bill: Spelling error picked up by Nit picker Kelvyn

Kelvyn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 26, 2014 at 4:06pm

Here goes Horrie again: “What part of Crown copyright don't you get? Those stolen images belong to the Crown and, eventually, the taxpayers and people of Victoria”.
Which Crown Horrie?
Because different ‘crowns’ have different conditions pertaining to the same image in some cases.
An original can exist as many times as there were made at the time of the photograph.
In fact unless otherwise identified the image in fact belongs to the originator of the photograph or image – a sculptor, artisan or photographer (as you may well see in daily newspapers where often the name of the photographer is given due acknowledgement and if no acknowledgement then by the commissioning party.

“The institutions those images have been stolen from on-line are owners of the originals. Whether or not copyright technically still exists, reproduction permissions should have been sought and granted, and any fees rendered”.
Oh Horrie see above. Technically ?? What ??
Much material has passed beyond the statutory period of Copyright and where this is so it is, depending on the holder of the material, available sans reproduction conditions and/or used by simply providing appropriate source attribution (Not done by Denheld by the way which will be subject of another Up Yours posting soon) if specified or indeed the material can be used gratis.
Try harder if you intend to delve into the world of publishing and stop trying to be an armchair expert, which clearly you are not good at anyway.

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 26, 2014 at 4:18pm

Bill

From (your page 26 )‘Stringy Bark Creek, the authentic location’

"So I make the point the surveyors simply marked a hut on the map near where they thought it ought to be. There were no fences so it did not matter whether the huts were accurately plotted or not."

With the apparent distance discrepancies of Hut placement on the maps we can see variations of hundreds of metres. And note, the first surveyor was there six years after the event and who we presume had previously been told about the shoot out there, he simply saw a hut and marked it as the place of the shootout.

Nobody was going to argue with him. "

The CSI team did not base their findings on the surveyors maps.

Detailed images of the spring can be seen on pages 24 and 25 of the August 2012 report.

Re the tent location. Anyone who really took the time to study the information would soon see that:
The debate by rights should have finished when you moved the tent to the only suitable location at your site. N/W corner.
Placing it behind the two posts – the burnt hut.
Your current tent location does not match the descriptions provided by McIntyre nor the special reporter.
The log angles now make no sense compared to McIntyre's words
The locations of McIntyre and Lonigan make no sense.
The distance from the tent to the attacking party are now totally different to the locations within your conclusions.
Nor does it now match any of your illustrations or diagrams. As you know well. 

Quote: Forum Page 9
The forth CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is the non use of Primary Source pictorial evidence sketches from newspapers, one drawn from a rough sketch by McIntyre himself depicting the general layout of the scene at SBC.

You fail to use the rough sketch and detailed diagram provided by McIntyre himself. Both show the log layout and the direction of the attacking party.

So why continue to push artists interpretations of the scene when they do not match your own conclusions? 

Kelvyn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 26, 2014 at 5:25pm

My apologies, Glenn. First - your comments above are spot on.
Second I have been moved to do a bit of work also which follows in a separate posting.






 

Kelvyn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 26, 2014 at 5:27pm

THE SCORE BOARD REVISITED
The score board on these Forum pages, INDEX
Pages 1 and 2 -
The first CSI team 'Stuff Up' is their blinkered view of what the spring is at SBC.
Rebuttal: The Spring is a Spring unlike the Creek which is given a name of Spring by you Bill.

Forum page 4 ,
The second CSI teams 'Stuff Up' regarding Burman photo orientation. see Steps1 to 6
Rebuttal: That’s your view Bill, the CSI Team stands by its orientations as we do for the Cuddon and Beautiful Mansfield photographs.

Forum page 8
The third CSI teams 'Stuff Up' at their Kelly tree site is the lack of a 'Slope' as in the Burman photo. They can't provide a picture to compare, and they have the Burman photo looking the wrong way.
Rebuttal: Slope exists simply look at contour maps made by mapping authorities such as Vicmap to see contours clearly shown; and as the team has also undertaken photo shoots the Team has images where slope is observable.

Forum Page 9
The forth CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is the non use of Primary Source pictorial evidence sketches from newspapers, one drawn from a rough sketch by McIntyre himself depicting the general [SIC] layout of the scene at SBC.
Rebuttal: Try reading the following Bill: Truth versus Art in Nineteenth-century Graphic Journalism: the colonial Australian case. Author: Pewter Dowling, Monvae College, Hamilton, Australia (A Postgraduate award enabled this study). Media History, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1999.
The Team has said enough about so-called depictions done by illustrators for newspapers ad periodicals, all of which conforms to the work of Peter Dowling.
And don’t forget the hatchet/axe in the stump Bill – was that at the scene, as it didn’t get a look-in in the Burman photographs (perhaps he photoshopped it out?).

Forum Page 14
The fifth CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is on going debate by CSI that there is no pipe to take away the water from higher ground under the SBc road, and when asked to show a picture of - or where their spring happens to be along the road they cannot show this.
Rebuttal: If this is a matter that occupies your twisted attempts at proving we have the wrong position it is indeed rather a pathetic one. Correct we did not find the pipe but as I said in an earlier posting – thanks for the info, as it absolutely goes to demonstrate the need for water diversion of sufficient quantity which would have emanated from a significant water discharge (its called a spring) and as you appear unable to accept the fact of a significant water diversion channel across the road to enable significant water to be diverted from the road’s western side to the eastern side thus stopping the water flow (emanating from the spring) from damaging the road, it seems this matter is just tit-for-tat and a one all draw.

Forum page 15
The sixth CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is their lack of understanding which are Primary sources as against Secondary sources. Primary being records closest to the event where as secondary are reports written months - years later- reports not of the time, such as many of McIntyre's Memiors published 24 years after the event.
Rebuttal: So eye witness reports, etc that in a modern world are used by Forensic and other police specialists when they reopen cold cases and review both contemporaneous and new (many many years later) material which results in a successful prosecution are based on material of only secondary consequence – go tell it to the judge Bill, its utter crap you try with your definitions/interpretations. Ever heard of corroborating evidence Bill?
The eye witness is if your view is accepted) is of no consequence as a primary recorder of truth.
The only person with a first-hand knowledge of the place and events and you try to paint as an unreliable witness with your stupid secondary rubbish. Get real, Bill.

Forum page 16
The seventh CSI teams 'Stuff Up' is their sloppy research regarding the maps- plans showing a 'notational hut plots' incorrectly described as the same place but 160 metres apart.
Rebuttal: Now Bill I suggest you get a spy glass out and look carefully at the 1884 map.
Two points need addressing. The hut is clearly identified by “HUT”. The wording near to but not necessarily shown by arrow or anything else indicates that close to this feature was the Scene – In fact by inference all that can be reasonably deduced is that the wording starting on the eastern side of the creek would lead some to say the scene was in fact on the eastern side of the Creek (named as a creek not a spring) on this map.
So as it was stated in a previous posting somewhere in this dog’s breakfast of a topic (but obviously you either did not read it or simply as you are wont to do ignore it) that the Team did not (and does NOT) rely on one piece of primary information as a be-all-to-end-all proof but together with ALL(repeat ALL) primary and secondary and maybe some thirdly material make a compelling case for the position of an area in which the police made camp.

As follows - CSI book page Images re produced-
Under the provisions of the Copyright Act, which allows for research, criticism or reviews of published material, I provide copies of CSI@SBC pages 62 and 63 to allow the reader to evaluate erroneous assumptions made by the authors of the document.
*******************************
And of course there is a need when utilising copyright material to provide a FULL and ACCURATE citation of the status of the material so used – SO GET TO IT BILL AND DO SO, so others can access the source material for correlation of integrity and accuracy in the reproduced material.
Perhaps once this is done it will be possible to ascertain from which “CSI book . . . images AND WORDING has been appropriated by you as “re produced-“
Once this information is added to your posting the Team will respond further accordingly.
************************************************
But it is necessary to make just a few comments herewith.
Look closely at the 1884 map for some accurate survey information included !!

And an apology to “FAT JOHNSON” might be appropriate too Bill.

And as to distances you checked in 2009.
Well, Bill we gave a commission to a reputable survey company to provide both ground side view relief and distance measurements, without providing any pre-conceived observations,
Lo and behold we had as a result a survey that clearly shows the declivity, the down slope and flat ground where we had determined the camp site to be and geez, Bill a distance marker which further confirmed we were in the right location (not a further horse ride needed to get to your rock piles).
Firstly, Quote from Page 39 - Section 8 CSI 'Conclusions',
# 8.2 - The analysis concludes that the Victorian Police tent entrance within the camp site clearing was located: on or about an east/west transect 802.2 metres ( 877.3 yards) from the junction of Stringybark Creek and Ryans Creek to the north - - - -being 51 metres south --- --- of the present day Kelly tree, "

The hut on the first map dated 1884, was marked on the ground by me as being 804 * metres distance from the creeks junction by using the map scale when there were still no roads, property fences. ( I am not concerned about 2 metres one bit, it just shows any one using a car speedo reading can be as accurate as a surveyor's plot.)

The CSI@SBC document on pages 62 and 63 shows a 1884 map of the area with a HUT marking "Scene of the Police murders by the Kelly Gang", and then on the next page a property boundary survey called an allotment map dated 1885 showing the same area with HUT notation "Police Killed by the Kellys"

Now, anyone conducting a serious investigation to locate the 'police camp site' 132 year later to be published, should first be checking the numbers of relative distances I would have thought? I did this in April 2009.

What I found, each map had the same hut marked but they are approximately 160 metres apart at different locations, so, if we were to say this is where the police camped- near that hut, then neither location can be relied upon because we can only have one site, yet the CSI team reckon it is OK to go with the 802 m 1884 hut plot ?

But why did they not use the far more accurate survey of 1885 that Sheila Hutchinson and Fay Johnson found in the Lands Dept files in 2004 ? This information would be far more weighty evidence you would think, because the first surveyor had no real need to accurately plot that hut within the virgin bush because there were no roads, fences or even people living there. He simply plotted the creek with a hut about halfway along on the west bank 6 years after the shootings.

Yet the CSI report shows both maps - both hut plots as being the same place??? One being approx 645 metre and the other at 802 metres from the junction of the two creeks.

All this is very sloppy work by some very amateur Crime Scene Investigators. "" ""

You seem to forget an earlier posting (or is it another you don’t bother to read?) you by your own words lump yourself into this “amateur” class, and of course you demonstrate the same “sloppiness” of work by NOT ADDRESSING IN YOUR PAPERS ALL OF THE MATERIAL THAT WE – THE TEAM, WERE ABLE TO LOCATE AND CONSIDER IN THE OVERALL PRESENTATION OF THE CLUES AND EVIDENCE .
WHY NOT BILL? I SUGGEST BECAUSE YOU THEN WOULD HAVE NO CASE TO PUT BEFORE THE JUDGE AND JURY WHICH WOULD STAND UP TO CRITICAL ASSESSMENT.
If you wish we can keep this - you say, the Team says - going for ever with frivolous and space consuming and regurgitated stuff indefinitely.


 

bill
Junior Member

Post by bill on Mar 26, 2014 at 6:22pm

Glenn,
You say- Quote,
" You fail to use the rough sketch and detailed diagram provided by McIntyre himself."

Where did I fail to show that sketch by McIntyre ?

And Glenn show us those images of your spring in the revised edition of your CSI publication.
Do we all need to keep buying revised editions ?

Last Edit: Mar 26, 2014 at 6:49pm by bill

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 26, 2014 at 8:02pm

OK. I stand corrected. You have used the rough sketch by McIntyre within your conclusions.

Perhaps what I should have said was in conjunction with the detailed diagram.

Both the rough sketch and the more detailed scaled diagram show the log layout in a very similar fashion, both show the attacking party coming from the south. Both show the locations of McIntyre himself and the position of Lonigan in the same locations.

The more detailed diagram though produced some time after the rough sketch is remarkably similar, the attacking party coming from the south. Compass directions are provided on the diagram.
These directions fit both and when used in conjunction with McIntyre’s descriptions and distances work remarkably well. These also work well with log layout within the Burman images.
The tent location also fits as you have demonstrated earlier.

He was able to provide diagrams, evidence and detailed descriptions that all make perfect sense. No confusion.

Your question: "And Glenn show us those images of your spring in the revised edition of your CSI publication.
Do we all need to keep buying revised editions" ?

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

By rights you should already have the images of the spring within your “97" page copy. If not you will need to obtain the 2012 copy.


Thought. Is the spring is “primary” or “secondary” evidence.

I find it interesting that even though he was a first hand witness, McIntyre’s diagrams, descriptions etc can be totally dismissed as they do not fit the two fireplace site.

Yet, the spring is being pushed hard as a key factor.

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 26, 2014 at 10:56pm

The Australian Commonwealth and State governments routinely own crown copyright in Australia. The State governments follow different practices in regard to licensing, fees and waivers. Copyrights owned by the Crown in Australia have different durations to publicly held copyrights.

Now, listen up Kelvyn. I don't want to get bogged down, as you and CSI have inflicted on Bill, by carping over minutiae. You have shown in this thread that you can argue - ad infinitum (forevermore) - about a range of introduced irrelevancies.

You say you are an expert on copyright and, as Justice Barry told Ned in 1880, "I will even give you credit for the skill which you desire to show you possess". I'm leaving it at that.

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 26, 2014 at 11:33pm

I don't know how Bill puts up with all this endless, long-winded CSI BS.

It reminds me of the herculean task of cleansing of the Augean Stables, where King Augeas kept 3000 oxen.

Hercules diverted the River Alpheus through them and cleaned them in a day. Bill only has Stringybark Creek and it will take him a lot longer.

Seriously Kelvyn, your presentational style is absolutely awful. CSI's and Bill's points are hopelessly intermingled in your post.

It is nearly impossible to follow whatever argument(s) you are trying to present.

I'm off to bed. My head hurts.

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 27, 2014 at 9:47am

stringybarkcreek.forumotion.com/act?u=2&ak=cb73ef

For those interested. There is a most informative and in depth analysis regarding to Stringybark creek and the spring recently posted.

Well worth a read.

Kelvyn
Guest

Post by Guest on Mar 27, 2014 at 11:27am

Horrie, Gee I'm glad you have retired to bed. No doubt your head hurts as you still post rubbish about the crown and copyright.
Institutions - not the Crown !! may or may not have copyright, as does an individual if they have ban original work/photograph etc etc so the only copyright the crown has in works it has created or in material it would have purchased or been gifted and that material is an original work. Authors as you should well know (perhaps not though) retain copyright in their original works as they indicate in the front of the published material.
I suggest you have a couple of bex powders (or something stronger, mix em with a nice red and the BS to which you refer is a two way street.
When he stops with his BS then you can rest and sleep assured that the Team wont be continuing with the factual rebuttals we have to make to correct absolute mind-numbing rubbish from W (is this a Willie, Wilhelm or William identification - you should know as from the style and posting time/day etc I have a suspicion you and he are in cahoots, happy to be corrected when you out yourself and stop being a pseudo - which BD has indicated a strong dislike to.)

Following on from Glenn's last posting:
Creek or spring?
For a very well researched story I recommend you non-believers go to the Stringybark Creek Forum, where a joey (baby Kangaroo ?) has provided a great read together with a link to a presentation on how springs occur and work.
If the luddites can’t be bothered just use the link:

Thanks joey – your posting is most erudite and appropriate.

Link to You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdO3HZLDUcQ