orientation of burman photos at sbc

First: Bob.
The point of the team's diagram is not to be able to draw an edge around what was described as a 10 acre clearing.
The point of the diagram, and this is clearly evident, is to provide the team's assessment of the position of Burman's camera relative to the log formation, and the position of the tent - all of which have been detailed by McIntyre in his detailed scale diagram. I think this is patently clear in our descriptive comments and the annotated diagrams.
The edge of the clearing has no bearing on the positioning of the logs and tent as defined by McIntyre, and the camera arrays shown are derived by analysis of the Burman photos, emanating from where we say the correct position of the police camp site is.
With respect- unless you spend time (and I suggest this is in days and not hours) walking, measuring, "considering" the observable features of the ground (which cannot lie), and the features we can clearly and precisely show - spring, declivity, spear grass corridor, land profile by sight, (and fully confirmed by professional survey), and the position of the then kelly tree (todays one) in the background of one of the Burman photos and comparing what we can clearly demonstrate to what Denheld cannot demonstrate at his site - again a visual assessment will make this patently obvious, then continual posting of stuff will get us precicesly nowhere.

Second. Fitzy has yet again explained about the Burman photos. He is absolutely correct.

Now to another:
"laugh at our silliness and get down to tin tacks"
What a cop out - silliness it was not, vitriolic yes, defamatory - yes, a pathetic outburst - yes, not to be forgotten as it seems somewhat a recurring position that happened in other forums previously.
Take a good hard look at the churlishness displayed.

And :Wow the team did not get their report in before Denheld's. No we didn't because we spent the necessary time and consultation between all the team members to ensure that what we did lodge would stand the test of time and unlike the first place getter report has not needed to be "clarified" inside forums and the like (where it simply languishes in the ether, of no use to authorities who may one day assess the competing claims.) It seems to me that the winner (ie lodged first) needs to be updated to reflect the ongoing fluidity displayed subsequently.

And now the statement - already refuted eons back in another forum but again it appears:
For clarity here is the special reporter's words:
It is difficult for people at a distance to fully understand the scare which the recent tragedy at Mansfield has caused among a number of the residents in that district. Every drunken loafer who is in his cups and talks wildly is at once put down as a friend of the Kellys on the look-out for information. The probability or otherwise of the gang attacking Mansfield is freely discussed. It is with great difficulty that a guide to the scene of the murder can be obtained. An Artist from one of the Melbourne Illustrated papers was anxious to visit the scene, but found great trouble in procuring any person to show him the way to the scene. The more so, as one half-drunk individual, on the day of Kennedy’s funeral remarked that the artist looked like a poll officer. This gentleman and myself, however were determined to visit the scene even had we to be our own guides. The weather, however, was so fearfully bitter that it was quite impossible to set out. At this stage an enterprising Melbourne photographer, Mr Burman, arrived at Mansfield, and, as a photograph of the scene would suit him equally well, the military-looking artist left Mansfield. The knight of the camera, after some hunting about and invoking the aid of one of the principal residents of the district, found a man who knew the country and who was willing to supply horses and run the risk of a bullet for a given sum. This man was engaged. Meanwhile a number of the search party who had gone out to look for Kennedy’s body, came into the hotel, and after some persuasion, induced Mr Burman to promise that if they visited the scene of the murder he would photograph them. Horses were sent for, and twenty-five men undertook to be in the saddle at six a.m. next morning. After the exhilarating effects of the whisky had been slept off, however, the discretion of the members of the party overcame their vanity, and even the inducement of a “potograph,” as they called it, was not sufficient to take them to “Murderer’s Gully,” as it is now named. Just as we were preparing for the start, Ned Monk, of the Wombat Creek saw-mill, came into the township, and at once consented to house us for the night and take us to the scene on the morrow. Some demur was made, not by Monk, to my appearance, as, dressed in a white macintosh coat, with patent leather leggings, and riding a big grey horse, which once belonged to the Government, and still bore conspicuously on his shoulder the Crown brand, it was considered probable that I would be taken as a police officer, and if met by the Kellys the party, would be all shot. However, all difficulties were at last overcome, and four of us (ominous number) started. "
If then Hall was one of the party why did he not provide the guidance sought by the artist?

Bob is not chuck, Chuck is not Bob.
Bob I tried to upload a new avatar but the software froze whilst in the process of updating. I will try again another time.
chuck

Bob wrote to Kelvyn 23:18 -
" As I do not want to break any copyright rules I won't and cannot put photos that are in your document pages these being pages 18 and 39"

Bob, I am sure the CSI team won't mind you showing pages from their document on this forum. After all this is what this debate is all about.

A case for breach of Copyright only applies if the user of that material uses it for commercial financial gain, and which non of us here is in the business of doing.

As far as I am concerned anyone can use my material for the purpose of discussion or criticism, and copyright laws allow for this. If nobody was allowed to scrutinise, review, copy and discuss other peoples work, then science and the advancement of knowledge would be stifled. Copyright laws are not made to stifle knowledge.

Kelvyn, Why would Bob not be allowed to copy a picture or page for the purpose of this discussion? All just crazy. After all, your group's CSI at SBC document is an accumulation of material that came from the public domain including my web pages.

Kelvyn, I put this question to you as you have raised this copyright issue just recently.
On what basis are you objecting to us on this forum from making a copy of any page from the CSI@SBC Report document ?

Bill

Bob, I can assure you that what I said was true. I did apologise to that person and have now done so publicly. Why would I cover for someone else at the expense of my own reputation? I made a mistake, albeit an honest one and I will admit fault. My actions bought about ill feeling between people and for that I am deeply sorry. There is too much ill feeling out there as it is, so a bit more aimed in my direction is better than the blaming of an innocent party.

All is forgiven. Now where were we? oh yes, the Burman photograph.

Please explain the story behind the photos? The kelly tree I can make out but for the rest I have no hope.

Bob,
Your text: "Certain page will be fixed up". Thanks for the riddle - what page and what do you believe needs to be fixed?

You refer to pages 18 and 19 - the August 2012 report (latest version) has on page 18 the Kenneally pic of the site of kennedy's body and the team's pic of the Kelly tree; and no pics on page 19.
For the purpose of appropriate review/research the copyright act is quite specific, you - as the holoder of a copy of a published document, can within the confines of the act "publish" as part of (say) a critique of the material PROVIDED appropriate acknowledgement of the source is made. But only YOU.
By way of further example of copyright: Should such material be further copied and provided to a third person that is clearly a breach of copyright.

To fellow posters. I apologise about having to waste space with such a matter but it is of utmost importance and relevant to all postings wherein material is used from published sources.
Now I turn to the question posted recently:
On what basis are you objecting to us on this forum from making a copy of any page from the CSI@SBC Report document ?
AND this erroneous statement in an earlier post:
A case for breach of Copyright only applies if the user of that material uses it for commercial financial gain
The copyright Act is very clear:
By way of example here are the words I was advised to include within my book:
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording, scanning or by any form of information storage and retrieval system and display system, without the prior permission in writing from the publisher. The Australian Copyright Act 1968 and as amended (the Act) allows a maximum of one chapter or 10 per cent of this book, whichever is the greater, to be photocopied by any educational institution for its educational purposes provided that the educational institution (or body that administers it) has given a remuneration notice to Copyright Agency Limited (CAL) under the Act.

Very clear as to how material can be utilised by anyone, and has nothing to do with the use of material for commercial gain !!.
Bill, you need to read the Act and/or obtain suitable advice about Copyright.
And you recently posted an appendix from the report to which I responded that it was not from the team's latest report, then in a very short space of time you posted the latest report's appendix. Yet you still refer to material from superceded reports. I would suggest there was a prima facie case that you sourced the later appendix from another who had the latest document.
I will of course be corrected if you now always use the latest report when you post anything to do with it - subject to appropriate copyright conditions of course; or at least provide appropriate creditation of material so used forthwith.[i]

Plausible theory Bob!
Are my eyes playing tricks with me or is it that your car is parked on an incline? strange place to pitch a tent.
Photo5 I see a definite slope.

Hi Bob,
Hope you don't mind me adding text to your pictures as this may help.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
w w w dot ironicon.com.au/images/bobs-view-across-creek-at-kelly-tree.jpg


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
w w w dot ironicon.com.au/images/bobs-kelly-tree-with-hand-rails.jpg

The area between the yellow lines is the slope rising from flat ground.
Now all over grown, the two huts fireplaces are to the left.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
w w w dot ironicon.com.au/images/bobs2hutsslope.jpg

Brian, this image below will give you a better idea of what the place looked like in 2009.
This panorama wide wrap around was made up of several images stitched together.
The first looking east and gradually panning around to the south. The slope actually aligns south easterly to where the creek is pinched by it on both east and west sides.
The road section is what is refered to as 'The red hill' as opposed to the 'white hill further down the road near the Kelly tree. The red dirt is from vulcanic origin from much higher up the hill. Bill

To see full image click here-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


To see full image click here-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

w w w dot ironicon.com.au/images/twohutssouthslopefromroad.jpg

Re second image.

Bill, photo looking North N East?
This photo was taken almost in the same position as your "viewer scope" was set up. (page 7 your conclusions) Used to demontrate the lack of slope near the Kelly tree. On the other side of the bank behind the Kelly tree. Looking down the creek.
Also a bit close to the creek don't you think?
Certainly nothing like the position 3B on page 11.(Your conclusions)

The slope near the Kelly tree rises to the right -South side.
Not where you have shown with your "viewer scope"

Hello Glenn,

Quote, " This photo was taken almost in the same position as your "viewer scope" was set up"

Sorry Glenn, on my document I was very careful to make sure I had set up the viewer scope to the North East. Bob's picture is taken looking N.North easterly.

I selected a different position for my camera on tripod, ( it was selected to be only 1.2 metres high) as in the Burman photo. This view below shows a large Gum tree that Bob's picture No2 does not show. This gum tree is to the far left out of shot of Bob's photo (above)

So, you will see, the view I base my orientation on is pretty well the direction indicated in your CSI document, your page 81 red array , but see my document page 26, not at all page 7.

This image below shows how shallow the east bank slope really is if viewed like the burman photo. The view is 4 degrees down hill so as to make the ground look flat. Yet the slope on the other side is only half the height that it should be if this was the site of Burman's photo.

See image below as taken through my viewer scope with logs scribed on it as per the Burman photo. I went to a lot of trouble to ensure there was enough foreground space to place the logs, and in this image the Kelly tree is central to the picture looking North East. You will see the image is 1/3rd foreground, 1/3rd slope, and 1/3rd sky trees.

Please digest this image for as long as you want, because it proves the Burman photo was not taken in the direction North,N East as you suggest in your CSI book or your last posting.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
w w w dot ironicon.com.au/images/viewerscopekellytree7953small.jpg

For full size image click here-
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

w w w dot ironicon.com.au/images/viewerscopekellytree7953.jpg

THERE IS NO CREEK BETWEEN THE LOGS AND THE SLOPE IN THE BURMAN PHOTOS

WHEN ARE YOU AND THE CSI TEAM GOING TO COMMIT TO THE APRIL 20 MEETING AT SBC ?
Bill

Bill,

Does that mean the fence has moved back by around 30yrds or more as well?
"Kennedy's hat" sits on the fence. Yes?
The logs are alwfully close to the creek. So is the fenceline.

The Kelly tree has been measured from the creek line at approx. 23yrds.

(Burman1 shows one burnt post. Burman2 image shows two burnt posts)

Part of the outlines of the Burman1 image you have drawn onto the perspex on the "viewer scope"
(Not etched onto transparent film)

The Kelly tree is not visible in the Burman1 image only the Burman2 image.


What you are demontrating is nothing like the view in either image.

Check again.

P.S. Quote;Please digest this image for as long as you want, because it proves the Burman photo was not taken in the direction North,N East as you suggest in your CSI book or your last posting.

The Burman1 image was taken looking ENE as per the CSI@SBC report. Not NNE.

Glenn wrote

" Does that mean the fence has moved back by around 30yrds or more as well?
Don't know what you mean Glenn

"Kennedy's hat" sits on the fence. Yes?
No. Kennedy's hat sits atop my long handled shovel stuck in the ground parallel to Carla sitting on the post, the two hats are six or so metres apart as calculated (see my doc page 16 for scale).
Hanging over the shovel under the hat is my yellow HighVis.

The fence in the back ground would be about 15 to 20 metes distant from Kennedy's hat.
That same fence is on the right of Bob's picture of the Kelly tree. But taken from a different angle

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
w w w dot ironicon.com.au/images/viewerscopekellytree7953small.jpg

"The logs are alwfully close to the creek. So is the fenceline."
Distances on photos are deceptive.
The figures 'Hats' distance to the Kelly tree is about 20 metres.
The Viewer Scope to the figures is about 13 metres.
The camera is about 35 metres from the Kelly tree.

The Viewer Scope position and layout can be seen on page7 & 8 my online document.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Part of the outlines of the Burman1 image you have drawn onto the perspex on the "viewer scope" (Not etched onto transparent film)"
Yes etched on perspex. Looking through the viewer peep hole our eyes can easily see the fine etched lines and look past them to the scene beyond.

The Burman photo consists of 1/3rd flat ground, 1/3rd slope, and 1/3rd for sky and trees.

The Viewer Scope proves there is no Slope at your Kelly tree site like there is in the Burman photo.
Plus your site has a creek running between Burman's logs and slope.

The Burman photo does not have a creek running between the logs and the slope.
The creek is on the left hand side of the Burman photograph. This is exactly like it is at the two huts site.

This is what the meeting at SBC in April will be all about.
I will set up the Viewer Scope for everyone to look through. Seeing is believing.

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

The above image has not been cropped. If anyone expects me to produce a replica of the Burman 2 image using a modern digital camera forget it.

Quote:The Burman photo consists of 1/3rd flat ground, 1/3rd slope, and 1/3rd for sky and trees.

Slope should be 1/3rd of image? Who says- you? By your own analysis?
Look again Bill.

Hi Bob,

Quote: Could someone from the CSI team please answer a simple yes or no to the following question.Do you think that the slope rising to the east in the Burman photos rises from the same flat piece of ground? No.

The ground rises from the other side of the creek. But can appear to rise from the same ground. The creek being at a much lower level. In amongst the scrub.

Quote: “There is the decline to the creek as shown in the photo and the slope rises the other side of the creek and simply cannot be.” Your opinion only.

Read the descriptions by the The Melbourne Herald’s special reporter.
“At the rear of the tent, the slope goes gradually up to the summit, receding again to the creek”

Re; Your photo No.3 shows the ground on the road. Looking southerly? Certainly not towards the Kelly tree. So proves nothing.
It is also to be remembered that we have placed the tent at exactly the 70yrd mark. According to the only distance provided by McIntyre.
Also the Burman images were not taken from the tent entrance. But nearer to the logs. Or along the side of the remains of the burnt hut.

According to Bill, allowing for error of McIntyre’s judgment the tent could have been only 56yrds from the creek.
Bill shows his tent as being less than 53yrds or 49mtrs from a conveniently realigned creek line. (Page 36.)
Pitched behind no hut.
Perhaps you could explain this Bob?


Quote: Also Glenn what do you mean that the slope rises to the south of the Kelly tree,everyone knows that.Guess what it also rises to the north of the Kelly tree also.Yes I have photographic proof for that too.I just don't understand your point there.

The point is:
Yes, there is a smaller slope on the left but not as substantial. The slope rises from the left north to the right south.
Bill measured the height of the slope on the left using his “Viewer scope”

Glenn

Dear Bob, I reckon you and Mary deserve a trip down south to enjoy the SBC meeting.
I propose to Edward to contact the Mansfield Gaurdian and Melbourne Herald and The Age to anounces the special event for 20th April at SBC. Even Channel 9 Prime Paul Terry to take footage for an interesting doco on this subject.

However back to basics,-
On KC2000 SBC News and Views,
Glenn Standing posted this original picture 18 April 2012
to which I have added some notes.

For this picture Glenn wrote-
" View near the position of the police camp site – the Kelly tree shown on the left.
Of interest is the back ground slope. The light is coming from the N/W. highlighting the trees in the back ground."

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

w w w dot ironicon.com.au/images/glennsbc.jpg
Obviously Glenn hopes no one will notice the narrow width of the Burman photo1 as per the blue line. It showes the maximin width of Burman Photo1, and the Burman photo2 is to the left of the red lines, meaning the almost invisible figure on the slope arrowed is not even relevant to this Burman photo orientation exersize.

Clearly, the CSI team is providing poor evidence to support their claims for a near Kelly tee site.

The next thing the CSI team want you to believe is that the Current Kelly tree is in the Burman photo? This is a preposterous idea as it has already been demonstrated the light in the Burman photo comes from the RIGHT over from behind the photographer's right shoulder, yet the CSI team want you to believe the light comes from the left.

Glenn, the green line indicates the direction of my SBC document Viewer Scope view.
The Kelly tree is outlined in yellow.
Bill

A need to step in.

I encourage all to participate in all discussions. However, I can not stress enough that it must kept civil at all times.
We are debating a 135 year old mystery. Therefore, we are obviously depending on photographs, oral history, newspapers and police reports. Analysing all relevant material and field work is the key to solving the mystery.
Regardless who has it right or wrong it does not make it ok to patronise one another. Lets get back on track and leave out the patronising.

Bob, I hear your voice echoing in the distance. I give you this opportunity to be heard.
You claim Glenn is avoiding a particular question you have put to him? Please repeat that one question.

Also, the CSI team, who makes up this team? I'm aware Joey is not part of the team, so Joey how do you fit in?

Bob, You have stated not one but three questions. Regardless could the CSI team be gracious enough to answer the questions set out below.
I hope this will clear the air.

Quote
"why the CSI team showed the creek a long way behind the Kelly tree when it was actually right behind or close to it."

Quote
"Why McIntyre stated the 2 logs met each other at the centre point as the Burman shots show yet the CSI diagram and McIntyres sketches do not match his statement"

Quote
"I asked Glenn about the creek I also asked why their team hardly mentioned the slope which was brought up again today."

Bob,

Not a problem buddy – glad to help. Sorry it's taken so long to reply.

RE: Photo # 5 – Slope.
Yes - I agree there is a slope at the two-hut site. BUT personally I cannot attribute the two-hut site as the place where the police camped out in Oct/1878.

Why is this so? In short I will explain …

Log orientation – I accept/believe Macintyre version of events

Log orientation - At the two-hut site it just does not work for me.

Slope – The slope at the two-hut site is way to close to the intersecting logs.

Creek Line – The intersecting logs sit extremely close to the Creek line (at the two-hut site)

Declivity – As per Mac’s notes, it just does not work at the two-hut site

AND then we have the remnants of an old hut site, the Spear grass, Tent position, spring, etc, etc.

Macintyre must be believed regardless of when he wrote his memoirs/sketches. If Macintyre wrote 70 or 1000 yards - well we should then give him some credit. Perhaps he was off by just a few yards +/-

Until recently I had no interest in the positioning of the sun in relation to the SBC story. Nor did I take time to understand it. To be honest I felt it was completely unnecessary. However, in the last few days I have been in conversation with Glenn RE: the sun’s positioning. I had a few ideas and shared those with Glenn – I referred Glenn to a photo where I pointed out an obvious detail and on that note Glenn begun to explain his theory and once again I believe Glenn has hit the nail on the head.

I suggest a re-think is in order to get the sun alignment correct. The sun angle is ever so present and cannot not be dismissed.

Hiya Chuck,

Also, the CSI team, who makes up this team? I'm aware Joey is not part of the team, so Joey how do you fit in?

Force one - I work alone. Always have and always will. I have never been a part of the CSI@SBC team nor do I consider myself a "disciple of the Linton team"

My work at SBC is based purely on the camp site - which incidentally is located near the current Kelly tree.