The Huts @ SBC

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The Huts @ SBC

Post  Glenn Standing on Thu 14 Feb - 14:26:09

Thought it would be best to have the huts under a different heading.

I will start by asking Bill if this claim he made is correct: To have -
Positively identified Stringbark Creek police camp by finding the remains of two old huts there in Sept 2002. One hut referrred to by Ned as the shingle hut in the Jerilderie letter

If so which of the two fireplaces belongs to the shingle hut mentioned?


Glenn Standing

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-01-05

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Bill Denheld on Thu 14 Feb - 19:12:58

Glenn ,
First please tell the readers where this quote comes from.
Then, when I reply we expect you to reply without long delay.
Bill

Bill Denheld

Posts : 69
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Glenn Standing on Thu 14 Feb - 20:09:31

I read it in one of your profiles. I did not copy the source. But it may have been also on another forum. If I have done the wrong thing I will remove the post.

OK. Found it = From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Last edited by Glenn Standing on Thu 14 Feb - 20:24:43; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : added subject source)

Glenn Standing

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-01-05

Back to top Go down

Shingle hut

Post  Bill Denheld on Fri 15 Feb - 11:50:52

Yes Glenn, You're correct that came from Wikipedia. Shingle Hut?

You tell me which of the two fireplaces belonged to the shingle hut?

Bill

Bill Denheld

Posts : 69
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Glenn Standing on Fri 15 Feb - 14:03:32

Bill,

I don't really know the answer to that question.
So for now I'll say niether one.



Glenn Standing

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-01-05

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Glenn Standing on Sat 9 Nov - 22:44:46

Within the comments made regarding the CSI@SBC report and published on the ironicon website.   I came across the following: Page 25.

Quote:
“Kenneally states”- on page 50 that Mr Tolmie took Kennedy to SBC and “showed him the Shingled hut on Stringybark Ck near which the police party afterwards pitched their tent” It also mentions Ned followed horse tracks on their way to “this hut”
So by that, we can see that one hut was standing at the time. The other ‘burnt hut’ as reportedly burnt down by Walter Lynch 15 months previous with Sergeant Kennedy as the court witness* (Source, S. Hutchinson), is probably the fireplace shown above. See this also- [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The police tent was pitched “ a few yards behind an old hut” - the hut that was standing at that time. If the hut entrance faced the creek and you pitched your tent between it and the creek you would be pitching the tent in front of the hut. It was pitched behind the hut.
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. see - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.

…......................................................................................................................................


Hut 1.  The fireplace located behind the tree and stump in the middle of picture.
Hut 2.  Referring to the two posts and remains outlined in red.                                             (This hut may have been burnt down by Ned prior to leaving the scene.)


Bill. Can you please tell me if I am reading this information correctly?


Thanks,
             Glenn

Glenn Standing

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-01-05

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Bill Denheld on Sun 10 Nov - 18:49:13

Glenn, how do you do.

FIRST, you should provide the reader the exact context in which this quoted passage was used and reffered to. ( including the URL please)

Bill

Bill Denheld

Posts : 69
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Glenn Standing on Mon 11 Nov - 10:25:07

Hello Bill,

welcome back.

Re my previous posting. The URL Reference is :   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is in relation to the shingle hut as can be read on the above link.

Cheers,
         Glenn


Last edited by Glenn Standing on Mon 11 Nov - 16:43:07; edited 2 times in total

Glenn Standing

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-01-05

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Bill Denheld on Mon 11 Nov - 15:36:43

Thanks Glenn, but the link does not work,
And while you are at it why not tell all the title of the page and what it was about including the PDF page No.

Bill Denheld

Posts : 69
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Glenn Standing on Mon 11 Nov - 17:18:43

Hi Bill,

My apologies. Have corrected the link above and should now work.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

PDF page No.15/20    A copy of the entire page is below.

Your comments are in red.

Page 25
Kenneally states that the shingled hut was not in the open space but close to it in the bush. This is also consistent with McIntyre’s descriptions that the police had camped in the north west corner of a clearing, and later describing the finding of Scanlan’s body just outside of the clearing.

Can someone please refer to the source of the highlighted sentence?

“Kenneally states”- on page 50 that Mr Tolmie took Kennedy to SBC and “showed him the Shingled hut on Stringybark Ck near which the police party afterwards pitched their tent” It also mentions Ned followed horse tracks on their way to “this hut”
So by that, we can see that one hut was standing at the time. The other ‘burnt hut’ as reportedly burnt down by Walter Lynch 15 months previous with Sergeant Kennedy as the court witness* (Source, S. Hutchinson), is probably the fireplace shown above. See this also- [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The police tent was pitched “ a few yards behind an old hut” - the hut that was standing at that time. If the hut entrance faced the creek and you pitched your tent between it and the creek you would be pitching the tent in front of the hut. It was pitched behind the hut.
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. see - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.


Can we now continue?

Cheers,
              Glenn

Glenn Standing

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-01-05

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  brian murphy on Mon 11 Nov - 17:33:19

I see a patten emerging.
Bill
is there an ulterior motive as too the demands you are putting across to the admin and to glen? What is the big deal about providing a working link and a title to a page. sounds irrelevant to me.

does your webpages receive somesort of kickback? Dad and I are waiting patiently for you to reply to glens questions.

@Brian
Bill's reasons are his reasons. I see no reason to question him. Stick to the subject matter please.

brian murphy

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-01-14
Age : 33
Location : SE Melbourne

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Glenn Standing on Wed 13 Nov - 21:44:13

The Outlaws Of The Wombat Ranges G.W. Hall. (c1879)

“The spot where they established their halt, was a small clearing on the rise alongside of the creek near the ruins of two small huts, one of which was burnt down and had been the temporary residence of three prospectors, Reynolds, Broomfield and Lynch who worked the creek for a short time with indifferent success.”

Two ruined huts. One burnt. (Two huts not three huts)

Since the finding of the “Two Hut” fireplaces in 2002. Some 245 mtrs up from the Kelly tree.  It has been inferred that they are those as described above by G.W.Hall. So much has been made of and written about them it has become quite confusing.
Given that  “they may have been moved since by subsequent occupiers”
Even more so.

Nevertheless:

The ruins of one of these huts/fireplaces is said to be seen behind the tree central to the Burman image.

The blackened posts of the other burnt hut are seen in foreground of the image.


The police tent was pitched a few yards behind one.




By placing the tent behind one of these hut remains it then matches McIntyre's descriptions and schematic drawing.

By placing the tent elsewhere it does not match. Therefore “things” need to be “changed” so that it does.


Which one is it?




P.S. Bill, I await your reply.

Glenn Standing

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-01-05

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Bill Denheld on Thu 14 Nov - 14:34:17

Starting to sound like the continuation of a nit picking debate again.
Is this a friendly place ?

Glenn, except for the blue quoted text in your above posting, like me, I'm sure other readers cannot work out which are previous texts, or your comments?

Suggest any quotes be in colour and Italics as well as sources and location of those quotes.

Using reported texts from various sources, of whether a tent was pitched in front or behind a hut depends which was the front or back of the hut ? But what difference does that make?

If there is something that I could / should change on my webpages then if I agree with you, then I will make the changes as history must be recorded correctly. ( if this your point?)

It is obvious this SBC forum was a perfect vehicle to showcase your CSI@SBC document, but since its inception, you or other members of your team have not put up one skerrick that supports your site.

Unless you can be more specific I do not see the point of answering any of your questions, as I have previously said it all. I know I'm right, I have the support from numerous eminent professional people, historians, including history writer Mr. Peter FitzSimons who has even stated in his Ned Kelly book that he is confident I'm right.

Here is PF's Quote,
"I learned early that, on a bad day, Kelly experts can be flat out agreeing it is Tuesday, let alone having a consensus on where precisely the StringyBark Creek site is – but, in my search for accuracy, I have been every bit as exhaustive as I have been exhausted by it. And, for the record, having visited Stringybark Creek with Bill Denheld and seen the evidence with my own eyes, I am confident that he has it right."  ( Peter FitSimons )


Last edited by Bill Denheld on Thu 14 Nov - 15:41:40; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Change line to read ' Is this a friendy place?)

Bill Denheld

Posts : 69
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Glenn Standing on Thu 14 Nov - 17:00:10

Hello Bill,

Thank you for your reply. Be it what it is.

I have read Peter Fitzsimons  book. Well mostly, gave up after a while.
It is full of errors. How many guns did the Kelly's find inside the police tent? Page 179. “For there, inside the tent, is stored a rifle, a shotgun with thirty six shells, breech-loading shotguns and so much ammunition it is dizzying”

When in fact they were armed with a Spencer rifle which Scanlan carried with him. 4 Webley revolvers. One each. And a double barrelled shotgun (fowling piece) Page 164. Where the breach-loading shotguns came from is anyone’s guess.


Are yes. Page 191. Still the “gang” missed some as: “Explosions from the burning tent indicate that they had not recovered all of the ammunition before setting the shelter alight”

No mention of the burning of any hut behind which in your view the police tent was pitched. (Re your conclusions.)

If these are examples of his “search for accuracy” then it needs to be questioned.



Within are the SBC camp layouts which you have drawn. You do excellent drawings. However, strangely the tent is not shown to be behind any hut.
I strongly suggest the idea of this third hut was invented by yourself for your own purposes.

My copy is destined for the recycling bin.




Bill, I respectfully ask you now to clearly define which of the two fireplaces in your view was the hut behind which the police tent was pitched. This is not nit picking but a crucial point. Which I believe you are avoiding.

Cheers,
             Glenn


Last edited by Glenn Standing on Thu 14 Nov - 22:00:36; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : corrected some spelling mistakes. text is the same)

Glenn Standing

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-01-05

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Kelvyn on Fri 15 Nov - 10:41:22

Sorry Glen, but I can't let the matter pass, same old same old "dig" by you-know-who.
Its a pity that Fitzsimmons as part of his examination of the SBC story was hoodwinked (or simply not made aware of) the CSISBC work. No reference to the only exhaustive examination of all available material, as well as extensive on-ground contemporary analysis to substantiate the descriptive information from the time appears in the book.
Perhaps the book's author was not appraised that such a significant document existed.
For the record yet again - the CSI@SBC report is published - ISBN 978 0 646 55998 8; is available from Gary Dean's Glenrowan Cobb & Co shop; and shown on my website [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] also as to how a copy can be purchased.
So now I hope (probably all it will be) that the sensible observations of yours are responded to without the "Noise" of nits.


Last edited by Kelvyn on Fri 15 Nov - 13:06:32; edited 1 time in total

Kelvyn

Posts : 37
Join date : 2013-01-15

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  mitchell o'conner on Fri 15 Nov - 11:39:13

Kelvyn, So many questions and so little time.
Please shed more light on the CSI@SBC report. We (the O'conners) know very little about the facts that surround the SBC incident.
Bill has also undertaken his own research and reads very credible. It's quickly becoming confusing. Who has it right? which site is the correct site?
Kelvyn please check your previous post. The link is broken try removing the closed bracket


Last edited by mitchell o'conner on Fri 15 Nov - 11:42:33; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : link error)

mitchell o'conner

Posts : 5
Join date : 2013-11-14
Location : Melbourne

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Bill Denheld on Fri 15 Nov - 12:45:21

Hello Mitchell,
Welcome, but don't be confused.

Do your own examination of both SBC scenarios, I have provided a critique of the CSI@SBC document while I was member of that group. Read my notes in blue at this link [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This will save you having to buy their book.

Despite what the CSI team members will want to tell you, the pages (in the above link) commented on in blue are essentially unchanged in their latest edition and serves to show the dubious claims made.  

On the previous posting Kelvyn writes -
Its a pity that Fitzsimmons as part of his examination of the SBC story was hoodwinked (or simply not made aware of) the CSISBC work.

In his radio interviews Peter FitzSimons said he used the services of six researchers, two of which were full time. His researchers were very much aware of the debates on various forums regarding the SBC sites and together with my document, the CSI@SBC document was also examined by them. Peter being an extraordinary writer of history, his researchers helped vet out the most accurate scenarios for the whole book including for the first time closer details of StringyBark Creek for his book on Ned Kelly.
See
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

My other research can be read for free at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Bill

Bill Denheld

Posts : 69
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Kelvyn on Fri 15 Nov - 13:21:13

BC
Mitchell, thanks the link closing bracket is now removed.
The correct site is an ongoing debate between the proponents of a site which clearly meets all of the available information such as layout, ground topography, local flora (ie speargrass), natural spring(s) referred to by Ned, and so on and detailed Newspaper report(s) of being on the ground shortly after the event. The CSI@SBC team is Linton Briggs, a resident of Glenrowan for his lifetime (now over 80 years) with a deep interest in the story of SBC and who has traversed the country of SBC for many years as it is licensed to him for bee keeping; Gary Dean also from Glenrowan and a Kelly researcher (also proprietor of the Glenrowan Cobb & Co souvenir shop; Glen Standing a business owner and also a Kelly researcher and myself - my website explains.  
The other proponent of a site is Mr Denheld and you can peruse his stuff on his website. He seems to spend most of his efforts in attempting to "prove" our work is incorrect. And yes he was a member of the CSI team for a short period.
The CSI @SBC report was undertaken for the benefit of the appropriate Government Agencies with an interest in the locality at SBC and it will be them that determine the merits of the two proposals.
PS: So the present site clearly signposted and storyboarded at SBC is not considered to be correct.
Now to return to Glen's work - this is the thread's topic so I will not be posting further unless to do directly with the question(s) appropriate to the issue of "huts" etc .

Kelvyn

Posts : 37
Join date : 2013-01-15

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  brian murphy on Sun 17 Nov - 1:13:50

No reply from Bill?
Have i missed a thread ? Glen's questions go unanswered why? In my book that is downright rude and disrespectful.
Bill will you be replying to the questions put before you? It certainly does no justice for your course.

brian murphy

Posts : 45
Join date : 2013-01-14
Age : 33
Location : SE Melbourne

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Bill Denheld on Sun 17 Nov - 16:04:32

Brian,
Perhaps when this forum opens to the public as it is now a closed shop, I may find the time to address those deeply trivial questions for which there are no answers.

Your obvious high enthusiasm is demonstrated by re- Opening this forum to a closed shop within a week of Peter Fitz's Ned Kelly book, and only nine months after you forgot to email me for that special SBC trip you were hanging out for !

I really appreciate your eagerness to learn more about SBC despite the fact I have already said it all in other parts of this for -um and the web.

Enjoy playing games fellas.
Bill

Bill Denheld

Posts : 69
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Glenn Standing on Sun 17 Nov - 16:35:24

Bill,
perhaps you could help with /explain the following. As you do not like playing games.

Within your findings and conclusions -Stringybark Creek The Authentic Location
you have the following:
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 your critique of CSI@SBC you say that:
Quote:
“[i]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.” [/i] 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 your 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, “]i]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.”
[/i]

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

Brilliant. To confuse matters even more again the fireplaces may have been moved around before or after, I don't know any more. But some how they all fit the Burman image.
Now call me stupid if you like. But none of this adds up. Could you please explain which hut is which?
Either your conclusions are wrong or your critique of the CSI@SBC report. Which is it?


Thanks,
            Glenn

Glenn Standing

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-01-05

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Edward Roberts on Sun 17 Nov - 19:33:59

Hello Glenn
A civil debate is sometimes too much to ask for. I have spent the best part of an hour combing through the latest posts. It's absolutely appalling that the forum has reached a new milestone with it's non reply policy by a certain individual. I had given him more credit.
Glenn, Your posts are consistent, honest and upfront. I commend you for keeping the standards high and on a professional level.

I look forward to the debate continuing.
Edward.

Edward Roberts

Posts : 10
Join date : 2013-01-05

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Glenn Standing on Tue 26 Nov - 15:29:45



Scene (A) above. The police tent was pitched facing East behind another hut / one still standing out of frame to the right. This is not in accordance with McIntyre's detailed diagram for reasons described within Stringybark Creek, the authentic location.



Images courtesy of the police historical unit

Scene (B) above. In accordance with McIntyre's detailed diagram and descriptions of the camp. As per CSI@SBC report.
The police tent facing East was pitched a few yards behind a ruined/burnt hut.

In an endeavour to clarify the opposing views I have used one of the Burman images to show the locations of the tent and huts in question. Please ignore the positions of the men in the image as they are not relevant, as it is agreed they are not in the correct positions. The approximate locations of both McIntyre (M) and Lonigan (L) just prior to the confrontation are indicated in both scenarios.


Glenn Standing

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-01-05

Back to top Go down

Re: The Huts @ SBC

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum