This is a true copy of a forum debate about SBC where the Police were shot by the Kelly gang in 1878. These following 25 pages were lost when one of the participants complained to forum host Despite numerous efforts to have the whole forum re-instated by me, this topic was one of several threads on DEE's 'Ned Kelly Truth forum' that questioned the many mythologized elements of the Kelly story, and is the reason for much personal attack on those that may have alternative views of how Kelly history is recorded.
Bill Denheld May 2014

Man stands at fireplace of one of two huts, the police tent stood behind where this photo was taken. The Kelly gang came from left of little hill above.

The Great Debate about Stringy-Bark Creek  
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25



Guest Avatar


Post by Guest on Apr 1, 2014 at 8:40pm

On and on by Horrie and then Bill gets a another bit-of-red ned and away he goes again with still rubbish, the smell is getting worse at the cesspool.
Illogical nonsense is sprouted by Bill about springs and creeks from a factual report about there being two creeks and other properties using springs. Dah! So what point is trying to be made by Bill Dah!? Of course properties in the area used springs - no words to the effect that they didn't have been recorded anywhere Doh! So this type of nonsensical comment is supposed to negate the FACT that a spring has been found IN THE PLACE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED TO BE using Ned's description of sending Dan to it to keep watch. The country throughout the Toombullup area has springs - well how amazing, so the CSI Team have been able to find, record by GPS co-ordinates and photographic evidence another spring.
But still no spring near the rock piles !!
Now turning to that other forum here are some comments (I will put into another post so Horrie doesn't get a sore head from trying to read and understand too much in any one posting.



Guest Avatar

Post by Guest on Apr 1, 2014 at 8:49pm

I used to love going to the Two Huts website in the early days. It was like looking over the shoulder of an explorer.

Each of Bill's discoveries was a thrill. Years later came the CSI, the falling outs, the attacks and the acrimony.

Strangely, Fitzy was an early supporter of Bill's but admitted he hadn't been to SBC and would decide for himself when he did.

Several like him, Pooflower and others became fierce critics, constantly trying to unpick Bill's labours.

I think this thread should be closed and archived, even if only to join many threads on other sites ruined by CSI believers.

I've learned a lot here myself, and am grateful for this Forum and Bill and Carla's time.



Guest Avatar

Post by Guest on Apr 1, 2014 at 8:51pm

Here he is at it again, still talking crap!!
Quote: "Again, we have to look at the past when a person who does not wish to be identified Poorflower re openes the CSI debacle just after Peter FitzSimons's NK book came out. Isn't that a co incident? I know who Poor flower is and so do the CSI team, or if they don't they deserve to be again tangled up in all this stuff that in the end will make them look even more STUPID than idiots."


Well so Horrie has time to read and come to grips with making a reply using his addled nonsensical grey matter I need to make another posting.

Read more:



Guest Avatar

Post by Guest on Apr 1, 2014 at 8:59pm

Horrie, If in fact you have been to the "Kelly House" you would have no trouble telling the audience of this forum the name of the property and what you found chiselled in the doorstep?"
By the way was it the front door or rear door, and what type of stone was it chiselled into??
After you answer I am sure someone will correct you and once again show that you really have no idea what the marking was and where it is.
Try Pink Granite as the class of rock as a start.

One more to go.



Guest Avatar


Post by Guest on Apr 1, 2014 at 9:04pm

Dee, your delete button is on holiday. Scammers like Foghorn Leghorn Kel and Mini-Me Bren are having a ball.



Guest Avatar



Post by Guest on Apr 1, 2014 at 9:25pm

Now returning to Bill.
From another forum and a post by Bill of 17 March 17:07:04 titled Re: orientation of burman photos at sbc:
"I gave up posting here because I did not join a closed shop".
Now he posts.

"The Engelke family photos were scanned by me for use in debate about SBC but they need to be citied".
You mean cited I think Bill.
And you are not the only person to whom this photograph was provided to for use.

Note  * Yes Kelvyn, but I undertook the scanning of all the Engelke photos and I gave assurances they would be properly attributed to the family. Bill  

 Bill  "Incidentally the Cuddon family read these forums ( if it was Open) so should be respected too"

Oh now onto a high horse which when it suits you to use you do, as distinct from when the horse has gone bush when it suited you.
No one has disrespected the Cuddon family as you seem to imply is otherwise.

Brian "* Has the CSI team identified for certain the huts within the kelly tree region?

( by Bill) NO huts, " I was the first to detect the whole area back in 1985 and apart from a few rusty nails and melted aluminium in what looked like some campers fire ashes just near the road boundary opposite the Kelly tree, the whole was barren."

Brian* What are their dimensions?
Negative -There were none.

Brian * Can the team place the huts precisely where they should be? As per Mcintyr. We searched for signs and/or remnants but to no avail. if the huts do exists they're proving to be very elusive , ( by Brian)

( by Bill) "No Brian, the CSI team cannot place their huts on the ground as there is no evidence of huts near the Kelly tree area, nor is there a 'Spring', they have no Slope, they falsely orientate the Burman photo to North East when it is proven to be looking South"

On and on with crap.
The team has identified a site where rocks in the form of a rudimentary fireplace exist. The team was first made aware of this site from information provided by people with a very good knowledge of the area and who had taken steps to ensure the site would not be disturbed by fossickers or others. The Team can demonstrate that there is a strong possibility that this is the hut to which Ned referred when asking who is in the hut (a question of no consequence if he was standing close to any hut near to his position near and around the two logs where he and McIntyre were)
SPRING = YES, A SLOPE = YES. and much other relevant material ignored by Bill AS IT DESTROYS HIS CLAIM OF TWO ROCK PILES = CAMP SITE.

DEE I note Horrie has suggested this Forum has run its course, I find myself in agreement with his observation. Its another forum hijacked by people with no real interest other than to bait and stir (reminds me of a lot of precursors to your forum where the same outcome resulted).
Bury it soon before the corpse gets too smelly.



Guest Avatar





Post by Guest on Apr 1, 2014 at 9:32pm

Kelvyn: Lake Mokoan will be the death of you duds! There are no SECOND PRIZES, as the quiz closed last night at midnight.

It was a MASSIVE F A I L for Brendon, and you only got one question right out of three after 24 hours.

Cripes, even Blind Freddie could have found the place by now! Freddie, watch out for the CCTV coverage areas!

The property name is "Ch______le". You have to answer the front door or rear door question. Its part of the riddle.




Guest Avatar








































Post by Guest on Apr 1, 2014 at 10:19pm


As I said earlier your conclusions are incredibly frustrating and full of inconsistencies and can only conclude that you are in fact manipulating the facts for self purpose.

This has been conveniently ignored by your good self in the course of this debate:

Re the tent location. Anyone who really took the time to study the information would soon see that:

The tent being placed on the only suitable location at your site. N/W corner.
Places 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 shown 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 would be totally different to the locations within your conclusions.
Nor does it match any of your illustrations or diagrams.

The following pages need addressing as they are incorrect. Within your conclusions:

Page 16 Scaled layout – tent location incorrect.

Page 17 Scaled layout – tent location incorrect. Text reads:

"This model layout has proven the logs configuration and also helps give dimension to the photo."

"Note the posts are only 6 metres from the fire logs junction – meaning the police tent was not behind the viewer of this picture, rather 25 metres to the right of these two posts (in the foreground). However we show the tent closer in view." 

The tent location shown is now wrong given that the tent should now be placed behind the viewer.

Behind the burnt posts as seen in the Burman images. As per the CSI report.

Page 20 Scaled layout – tent location incorrect.

McIntyre incorrectly quoted

Quote: "McIntyre said to find Scanlan’s body – “from the tent he turned left past the log and the stump to the creek – and found Scanlan near the bridle track”.

No he did not. Another convenient misquote to suit your purpose.

Should read: "Starting from the tent I took a turn to the left between the stump and the log as shown in the accompanying engraving and then proceeding in the direction of the creek, outside the clearing where they had been searching. I showed them the body of Lonigan,

All doubts about the truth of my story were removed by this confirmation of it. Then walking down the creek a little distance and close to the bridle track I pointed to the body of Scanlan."
 As per the CSI report

Page 21 Quote. "McIntyre none the less gave detailed accounts of the Stringybark Ck incident that allow us research and pin point the true site of the killings."

Yes he did. As per the CSI report.

Conclusions Page 29,

Quote: "That, the tent faced east or easterly to the creek and to his left from the tent entrance a log lay East west with another crossing it that lay due northerly. ( at the flat area between the two huts and the road)"

McIntyre actual words: "Standing at the tent entrance facing the creek there was upon the left front a felled tree nearly four feet in diameter at the thickest part. It lay nearly east west. About mid way along it was joined by another which lay due north south and terminated where it joined the other."

With the tent in the current position the log would now be the North/South log. Not the East/West log. The north south log terminated not crossing the east west log. (Another play on words)

Compare McIntyre’s words to the Burman images with the tent being pitched behind the burnt posts towards the viewer. As per the CSI report. Image  Huts. Last image.

Page 36. Scaled diagram of the camp layout. Show the tent and log configuration.

Tent is located in the S/W corner this should now be moved to the N/W corner. As per the CSI report.

More disturbing and quite tragic is that the diagrams shown (drawn by yourself) in the Peter Fitzsimons book are totally false. And do not match your own conclusions.

Why does or this matter?

Because it makes mockery out of everything McIntyre has to say, his descriptions, distances, along with his two diagrams of the camp layout. The first known sketch being done shortly after the event.

Much of what McIntyre has stated is ignored simply because it does not suit your purpose. Only if it does suit your purpose do you include it in your conclusions.

That is not good research.



Guest Avatar


Post by Guest on Apr 1, 2014 at 10:51pm

Let's reprise: Brendon (Fitzy) and Kelvyn (a Fitzy disciple) are the Masters of Misidentification. They insinuated I was a Kiwi!

Where did that come from? Fitzy wrongly identifies author Macfarlane as a Kiwi. I thought he had identified Kiwi Dr David as the author.

I told Kelvyn to go jump in a lake. I picked Lake Mokoan which was drained years ago. Kelvyn didn't get the joke.

I next posed questions that 99% of Kelly freaks wouldn't know - about the 'Kelly House' at Lake Mokoan.

That's why it has taken Kelvyn more than 24 hours to partly solve the questions I asked. I'd love to know who he called for help.

It wouldn't have been Fitzy, who impugns everyone, but knows next to nothing about the Kelly story.

I'm having a lot of fun reeling these Lake Mokoan dummiefiah in.

Now to wade through Glenn's mountain of misinformation.



Dee Avatar



Post by Dee on Apr 2, 2014 at 3:19am

Kelvyn I don't know or care who poor flower actually is. And you say you don't know who Poor Flower is either, and that the CSI team have no connection with Poor Flower. In that case how can you be so sure that Bill doesn't know who it is? Or has Bill previously named the person he believes is Poor Flower?

As for closing the discussion down when it gets to Page 25, whether a draw or a truce there aren't going to be any winners. And no doubt you will all find somewhere else to carry on the point scoring and nit picking. I shake my head in disbelief.



Guest Avatar













Post by Guest on Apr 2, 2014 at 12:40pm

Dee, thanks for the posting. Bill doesn't know, I can bet on that, If he did he would have by now emptied his bile bottle upon her given his way of making statements of no foundation (as I said there is yet to be a significant response to his recent outburst about the CSI Team and the Glenrowan Improvers)
As to who he believes it is - well some time ago (not in this forum but another) I stood accused of being Poorflower by Bill.
It took him a little while to retract his accusation, and even then on a felonious reason, as I made no bones about pursuing him at the time for a libellous and scandalous accusation.
So Dee you have come along with good intention but you obviously were unaware of the going-ons on forums which preceded yours and of which all met a death for the same reason(s) your forum will.
If you wish to pursue a forum in which comment etc is of a sensible nature and which provides a meaningful place for presentation and discussion I suggest you get a forum which is subject to diligent moderation by one or more people who ensure dolts, time-wasters and so forth are brought to account quickly.
Now, of course Bill will not like this as he has either chosen not to be a REGISTERED forum user or has been exorcised from participation I understand.
He wants a free-for-all place so he can continue, along with dolts like Horrie (who hides behind the name and is incapable of coming-out for reasons only known to him/her self), to harangue, insult and simply misrepresent the clearly historically accurate facts (as demonstrated by Glenn's posting above) to suit his ever diminishing claim to the rock pile site.
Its a pity he can't address the substantive issues of the overwhelming evidence provided by the CSI Team with irrefutable logical (something I seem to have missed in many of his ramblings)statements.
A step to the left, a step to the right, do the twist, obfuscate, make wild and unsubstantiated claims and comments about people, etc etc.
He stands like King Canute against the tide of overwhelming evidence.
Perhaps Bill would like to post the FULL text of the letter he received from the Team explaining why the team would not continue to include him.
So Dee thanks for the effort, but now this forum travels the same path as many others and into the waste bin of failed forums.
Nit picking and point scoring (Horrie stands as the pinnacle of such) can be managed and eliminated in a moderated forum of users prepared to be registered as contributors.



Guest Avatar






Post by Guest on Apr 2, 2014 at 1:21pm

Pooflower is one of the more rancorous of the midges that attack Bill anonymously.

Weeping prophet and Jeremiah Kelvyn only predicts doom and gloom. He yearns for regimented fora that restrict everyone except him.

Dee you have done a wonderful job of moderating fairly here. Unlike the authoritarian, nosey forums, this one has broken new ground.

But the headline from this thread is that it took CSI five w e e k s to finally provide a site for the CSI police camp.

Appendix 11 isn't the answer, but it at least shows where the CSI thickos think their site is.




Guest Avatar

Post by Guest on Apr 2, 2014 at 1:27pm

Deleting posts is not moderating, it is censoring.

Believe me there's lots of tripe on this forum that I would LOVE to delete but I haven't because I don't believe in Censorship. I believe in Free Speech but that right has responsibilities which some of you don't seem to understand - they include not being offensive or disrespectful, - and when comments cross the line, you bet I delete them - and yes it IS called Moderating - and FaceBook does it too, as someone learned recently to his acute embarrassment and humiliation. DEE

Last Edit: Apr 2, 2014 at 2:01pm by Dee


Guest Avatar

Post by Guest on Apr 2, 2014 at 1:35pm

Hi Fitzy!






Guest Avatar


Post by Guest on Apr 2, 2014 at 3:09pm


as a believer in Bills site would you please give us your opinion on which of the two huts was the shingle hut Bill referrers too on his earlier post.

One of the fireplace's HUTS was probably the shingle hut Ned referred to.

I am interested in your thoughts on this.





Guest Avatar






Post by Guest on Apr 2, 2014 at 4:21pm

Glenn, it is obvious I am no expert on the SBC police camp site. Nor have I claimed to be.

When I first visited SBC 20-odd years ago, there was no guidance there, and I wandered around not knowing what I was looking at.

My later visits (two) were increasingly worthwhile because of the research done by Bill and the CSI, and online resources.

You asked my opinion about the shingle hut. For what it is worth, I think shingling refers to roofing made of rough timber tiles.

Although more elaborate than temporary huts, once ruined they would be no longer lasting. Fireplaces have lasted much better.

I don't think there is sufficient information about any of the hut remnants to reach any firm conclusions yet.

The forest dwellers of the time didn't have GPS - otherwise we could be a lot more sure. Bill's two fireplaces are convincing for me, meantime.



Guest Avatar


Post by Guest on Apr 2, 2014 at 5:07pm

Thanks Horrie,

I appreciate your reply.

Just that I have asked Bill this question previously and he provided me with no answer. So am non the wiser.

Would you agree that Bill now has his tent placed behind the viewer in the Burman images. Behind the burnt posts as seen in the Burman images?

This hut being Broomfields burnt hut. Burnt some 15 months prior to the encounter.




bill Avatar
































Post by bill on Apr 2, 2014 at 6:09pm

Glenn, on your CSI report map Appendix 11,

On your map, please show us where Ned Kelly's Shingle hut stood ?
Remember the police camped near the ruins of two small huts.

Last Edit: Apr 2, 2014 at 6:32pm by bill


Guest Avatar

Post by Guest on Apr 2, 2014 at 8:25pm

Hi Bill,

How quick you are to try and divert the subject.

Within the CSI report we have identified the remains of a stone structure 37meters N/W of the current kelly tree. These remains may be that of the shingle hut.

Near is how far in a bush setting? Also remember near the ruins of two small huts - one of which was burnt down. One ruined hut. One burnt hut.
Just how many huts do you need Bill?

Furthermore I was actually talking with Horrie, but as you so kindly interrupted perhaps you could answer yourself before plastering more images and turning the subject around.

Would you agree that you have placed the tent behind the viewer in the Burman images. Behind the burnt posts as seen in the Burman images?

This hut being Broomfields burnt hut. Burnt some 15 months prior to the encounter?

Horrie I am still interested in your opinion.




Guest Avatar


Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 12:04am

Glenn, how kind. But Bill is the expert, not me.

Like you, I am awaiting his expert response.

The two black dots just over SBC Road from the tent, on Appendix 11, purport to be 'burnt hut remains'.

Is this the 'Broomfields burnt hut' you talk of?

I can't wait to revisit SBC armed with Appendix 11 - not to pick holes but to absorb all aspects of CSI's labours.

(Of course, I unknowingly passed by your SBC site several times toing-and-froing Bill's SBC site further south up SBC Road



More to come in due course
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25