bill
Legend

Post by bill on Apr 3, 2014 at 9:15am

Glenn I am so sorry to interrupt your in depth discussion with Horrie.

I will await your answer to Horrie's perfectly good question - on the CSI map below - those two dots, 'purported to be burnt hut remains' , it this Broomfield's burnt hut' you talk of?

I will then ask,-
Has anyone actually found the remains of a hut there at those two dots ?
And what constitutes hut remains north of the Kelly tree ?

Last Edit: Apr 3, 2014 at 10:39am by bill: FIXED install image

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 10:07am

Thanks Bill.

 

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 10:10am

Horrie, thanks for your reply

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?

Yes that is correct.

I am wondering if you have taken the time to study the information provided in the conclusions - Stringybark Creek, the authentic location?

Please compare the image @ www.ironicon.com.au/images/twohutssouthslopefromroad.jpg The tent location within the image shows it to be N/W (Behind the burnt hut)
Compare this to the to the scaled map Page 36 (Conclusions) Where is the tent located on this scaled map?

Then please compare this to layout Appendix 11 CSI report.

Would you agree that with the tent located behind the burnt hut we can assume that this hut was not the shingle hut Ned Kelly referred to?

One burnt hut. One ruined hut.


 

alex
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 12:11pm

How refreshing to have two people actually discussing the issue........ although there still seems to be someone trying to interrupt the quaestion at hand.

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 12:44pm

Glenn, I am uncomfortable answering your questions, not being an expert like you and Kelvyn, and certainly Bill.

I have a large library of Kelly books, but not the SBC resources you mention. To that extent I am badly disadvantaged.

I keep thinking of McIntyre's description of the police camp area as "small". CSI's site seems to be about 70 yards in diameter.

Bill's is half that size, perhaps smaller - but "small" and "smaller" as units of measurement are less than useless.

The borrowed tent was 10 feet by 8 feet, and could have been set up on any relatively flat ground.

Its location is not mentioned, having been burned by the Kelly Gang when ransacking the camp. My guess would be less reliable than any of your's.

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 12:57pm

The location of the tent has come up before, but if Bill has not already posted 'scaled map Page 36' earlier, perhaps he would be kind enough to do so now (plus comments).

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 1:24pm

Horrie,

I’m sorry if you feel uncomfortable answering my questions. You don’t need to be an expert. That’s O.K.

The SBC resources I mentioned are as shown on the image, scaled drawing and Appendix 11 CSI report. As above. All readily available.

You strike me as someone who has reasonably good knowledge on much of the Kelly story. If someone like yourself cannot make sense of it what hope is there for any reasonable conclusions?

Please take some time to look into the above more closely as I would appreciate your honest opinion. Or agreement.

Thanks

P.S. McIntyre did provide us with descriptions as to the tent location but are not needed at the moment.

 

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 1:51pm

I think you are pulling my legs though, Glenn, if you look up the definition of that phrase! Appendix 11 doesn't have a page number here. My mistake?

I'm struggling to make the sketch and photo correspond though. Perhaps an interpretive overlay by Bill over Appendix 11 would help me.

He has added already the observation in red about there being no slope that matches Burman's photographs...

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 2:12pm

'Pulling someone's legs' - friends and relatives of the condemned would hang onto their legs when they hung to make their deaths quicker and less painful.

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 2:39pm

Horrie,

I'm getting the impression that you are doing all to avoid answering the questions. Hope that is not the case.

I'm also gaining a clearer picture. 

Please look at the image www.ironicon.com.au/images/twohutssouthslopefromroad.jpg The tent location within the image shows it to be in the N/W corner of the clearing.
This would place it behind the burnt hut posts as seen in the scaled map Page 36 ( Bill's Conclusions) (Not the S/W corner as shown on the scaled map.)
Would you agree with this?

This (Broomfield's) hut was burnt down 15 months earlier. 

Can we then agree that this hut would not be the shingle hut referred to by Ned?

 

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 4:21pm

I am avoiding the questions, Glenn, because I don't know the answers - but neither do you or anyone else for certain.

All the postulations here about tents and huts (whether burnt, shingle or temporary) are based on assumptions. Some are quite persuasive.

Correct me, but Bill does not claim to know who his fireplaces belonged to, simply that there were two ruined huts near the police camp.

CSI have gone a step further by identifying 'Broomfields burnt hut' also based on various propositions and assumptions.

I'm reluctant to mention certain features of Bill's Two Huts site (for obvious reasons), although they could well account for the posts in the Burman photos.

Someone, I can't remember who, wondered if the police tent could have been set on those posts. Who can tell? I don't know.

I would like to see more evidentiary proof for 'Broomfields burnt hut' and its proposed location than presently exists.

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 4:32pm

Glenn, who was Campbell of Campbell's Clearing? Was it cleared before or after the SBC police camp?

How far south is the CSI site (on SBC Rd) from the present carpark?

Dee
Administrator

Posts: 162
 

Post by Dee on Apr 3, 2014 at 4:45pm

I have two questions : Glenn , you're obviously trying to make a point about the position of the tent - lets just say we agree with your propositions about the tent being in a certain position - are you able just to say what your point is? I am not trying to be clever but its hard to see where you're going and what the point of this exercise is. My second question relates to the two diverging lines that represent the angle of the Burman photos - if they are where the photos would have had to come from then you obviously dispute Bills interpretation of shadows and angles of sunlight which lead Bill to the view that the camera had to pointed to the SW? I haven't read your /the CSI view of that aspect of the Burman photos.

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 5:10pm

Yes. Dee I do have many points to put forward about the position of the tent. Along with the huts. etc

It will take me a little while to put it all together. So will give an in depth reply tomorrow.


Horrie, Thank you for your reply.

Correct me, but Bill does not claim to know who his fireplaces belonged to, simply that there were two ruined huts near the police camp.

Bill has much to say about these fireplaces. Who was who's etc. One said to be that of the shingle hut. Re his conclusions.

I have no idea who Campbell was. 
Nor the exact distance south of the present day car park the CSI site is, but it is not very far.

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 5:23pm

Horrie , FYI.

Within the findings and conclusions -Stringybark Creek The Authentic Location    ( see www.ironicon.com.au  )
is the following relating to the huts:

From page 29 Quote:
2. “That the police tent was pitched on the rise slightly west of the road with a commanding view overlooking the numerous logs that the police had used as a beacon bon fire far enough from the tent.” Unquote

This would place the tent on the far side of SBC road.

Quote:
3, “That the police tent was pitched behind a ruined hut but one still standing maybe slanted over and dilapidated ready to fall, and that north of the logs there had been another hut that was burnt down as was reported in the press of the time. This being consistent with the Burman photo’s two posts of green wood that did not want to burn.This incidence was 15 months before the Kelly /Police shootout. “ Unquote

From this information we are lead to understand that:
The tent was pitched on the far side of SBC road, a few yards behind a ruined hut but one still standing on or near SBC road.

Quote:
15. “That, Broomfield had built his new hut near the two huts later burnt down is consistent with the Burman photo’s two posts of green wood that did not want to burn. On the southern side of the logs there being another fireplace.” Unquote

There are 3 Huts mentioned.
1. Still standing near or on SBC road. Behind which the police pitched the tent.
2. Burnt North of the logs. Broomfied's hut burnt 15 mths prior.
3. On the Southern side of the logs. Behind the tree middle of the Burman image.

Yet: Within the critique of CSI@SBC :
Quote:
“The fireplace (stones) of the other hut hidden behind the tree and stump in middle picture was probably described by GW Hall as the one which had been burnt down. Hall was the Mansfield Gaurdian paper proprietor and he had reported the hut burning 15 months earlier, so he would have known.” Unquote.
Furthermore you state that: Quote: “It is my assertion, the un burnt hut behind which the police pitched their tent was the one on the far right of the Burman photo.” Unquote

But in the conclusions we read that the hut that was burnt down 15mths prior was Broomfield”s. Quote:“consistent with the Burman photo’s two posts of green wood that did not want to burn.” Unquote.

To confuse matters even more we read that. Quote:
12, “That, the two huts were shepherds huts built by Messrs Heaps and
Grice the first lease holders in 1848, and that a letter exists mention of two huts near the southern boundary of Fern Hills which adjoined Hollands
Ck Run.”

13, “That ‘Shepherds huts’ needed to be more than miners huts – so it
was build using overlapping shingle boards. The shingle hut Ned Kelly
referred to in his Jerilderie letter” Unquote

Which Two Huts?

Keeping in mind that: Quote
30. “That, we can be sure the two huts fireplaces at SBC are important, for together with the steep slope and topography all round, we have three important markers that fit the Burman photo, but the huts fireplaces may now not be in their original position as subsequent miners may have rebuilt the huts later but not far away from the original positions.” Unquote

To confuse matters even more the fireplaces may have been moved around before or after. 
Now call me stupid if you like. But none of this adds up.

bill
Legend

Posts: 79
 

Post by bill on Apr 3, 2014 at 7:04pm

Glenn asks me these questions -

" 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?

My Answer is, NO. There was no TENT behind the photographer when he took the photos.

The police TENT was out of view to the right of the logs in the Burman Photos.

Glenn then suggest to me - the blackened posts in the photo are of -
"This hut being Broomfields burnt hut. Burnt some 15 months prior to the encounter?"

My answer, probably yes. The Hut posts in the photos are probably those from a re built but burnt down hut prior to the police camping there. Meaning there were probably only ever two huts there, which is contrary to earlier beliefs there may have been a third new built hut. This was the thinking when in 2002, Gary Dean was adamant a third hut stood on the east bank at the Jones site but I never metal detected anything to suggest this at the Jones site.

Now I know Glenn will seize on this notion because McIntyre said they pitched their tent a few yards behind an old hut. However, I have already addressed this on page 2 21 Feb. I do not wish to repeat it here now.

Readers, the reason the CSI team are tangled up with orientation is because McIntyre said the Tent opening faced East and from there looking towards two logs as he has drawn on his map.
The problem for them is these two logs ARE NOT the same logs as in the Burman photo.

This next image will explain why the CSI Team is almost 160 degrees arse about face.
The logs in section 2 may not be to scale but representational enough to understand where things fit.

www.ironicon.com.au/images/SBC-1234.jpg   Click on link for full size image



Glenn, Kelvyn and Linton, please accept I know it is a difficult set of numbers, but I have done enough to convince you all. If you still you don't get it by now I will leave you the last 3 pages on Dee's great forum to convince the readers of your CSI teams site, so don't waste any more words, just put your 'Stuff UP' while you still have that last gasp.

Dee, thank you for a great opportunity to present to the world wide web my case for the two huts site at SBC. Remember too this is a first class understated historical site for Australia. Your NK Truth forum now has 70 of my postings which in itself may constitute a truth record, if only the CSI team could put up a convincing argument which I doubt the will.
This morning I edited all my postings so all the images now work. I do not intend to make any more postings except if readers wish to ask me further questions. If and when you shut down this thread end of Page 25, I will always be receptive to private emails from anyone who wants to can contact me, feedback at ironicon dot com dot au.

I do hope the CSI team can present their case before their time runs out, but I bet they will never concede they are wrong.
Time will tell as I always thought Gary, Linton and Glenn were good blokes.
Bill

Last Edit: Apr 3, 2014 at 7:22pm by bill

Glenn
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 8:23pm

Bill,

More tricks?

Before you leave us would you please correctly re locate the tent to the S/W corner on the scaled map 1 above. This should be rotated to near the 26M mark.The position shown in the above image 2. Left (North) of the little hill.

I also note that the log angles shown in the image 2 are different to those shown on the scaled map 1.
S.East shown on the image 2 above is actually South West. Towards the little hill on the scaled map 1 above. Follows the red line.

Horrie
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 8:36pm

(Campbell's Clearing was actually 'Campsite clearing' - small font in Appendix 11, with line strikethrough - my mistake - sorry everyone).

Having admitted that, I am wondering who wrote what in those quotes in Glenn's post. Kelvyn's recent post mixed various quotes too.

Bill (above) says the police tent is out of sight in the Burman photos. No it isn't. The tent was burnt just after the police murders.

Not being picky - it's just that this is a hyper-complex subject, not helped by careless presentations. I'm guilty too!
 

alex
Guest

Post by Guest on Apr 3, 2014 at 10:09pm

Keep on probing Glenn.
Perhaps sooner or later, (sometime before we all expire), Mr.Denheld will run out of variations to put on his paranoic scenario.and we will all be left with the inescapable facts of the matter;that the CSI findings are most probably the correct interpretation of the events of 1878.

bill
Legend

Post by bill on Apr 4, 2014 at 1:27pm

Dee,
As time is running out for the CSI team to present their case, your posting yesterday reminded me of another very important problem with the CSI scenario they don't want to discuss.

You wrote yesterday-
"My second question relates to the two diverging lines that represent the angle of the Burman photos - if they are where the photos would have had to come from then you obviously dispute Bills interpretation of shadows and angles of sunlight which lead Bill to the view that the camera had to pointed to the SW? I haven't read your /the CSI view of that aspect of the Burman photos."

Out of this important difference of orientation almost arse about face, I would like the CSI team to explain the following.-

1,
The Burman photos show the figures facing northerly as McIntyre said they faced North looking Down the creek.

2,
McIntyre also said when he sat on the log waiting, that Ned Kelly was on his right- the creek side.

3,
McIntyre also said as they waited, the sun sank to the left -the west.

These 3 points are totally ignored by the CSI scenario.

On their plan, they show two logs as in the Burman photo.
It was from these two logs 'included angle' they faced North.

This means McIntyre the seated figure would be facing SOUTH erly.
The seated man's right would be to the west and the creek on his left  which is 180 degrees around the wrong way.

It would be interesting to have the CSI team explain this fundamental problem with their scenario while a few pages remain.

www.ironicon.com.au/images/burman-photo2.jpg



In reality, except for Kelly with gun, the two other figures are on the north side of the logs.
Two are facing westerly to the supposed Sergeant Kennedy with raised arm. They were placed there by the photographer so as to get them all into frame.
Otherwise the scene would have looked like this below-

www.ironicon.com.au/images/burman2wide.jpg  Click on link to see full size image