orientation of burman photos at sbc

Hi All,

Re my quote, "The light was coming from the right and from behind. This is fact and cannot be refuted" .

As Glenn has identified there are a number of areas in the photos where the objects are not illuminated from the sun directly. Just as lighter - brighter areas will reflect lots of light, such as the logs, there will always be reflected light in any picture, as would be from clouds overhead as difuzzed light.

What we need to look at in the photos are those areas that are not affected by reflected light, ' like the branches in the forest canopy' adjacent to the campsite clearing 'opening', without other reflection influences.

So, to pick out areas like Glenn has done, i.e., photo brightness to the left side of standing man image, for instance, is coping a lot of reflected light from the logs or even the ground itself, and is no indication where the sun was at that moment of time.

I provide an image depicting of what Glenn's chart shows.

Glenn, are you happy this illustration over McIntyre's map is correct ?
Bill



Picture Azimuth700
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

w w w dot ironicon.com.au/images/azimuth700.jpg

Joe,
I have gone through all the emails you have sent me and to which I had replied, I have not found where you asked me to go on a day trip to SBC ! Not saying you did not send me an email to this affect, but I don't have it in my records, and I keep all email correspondence. I am sorry we did not get to go to SBC because I did not get that email.

I did find in my records that you did agree with me as far as the two huts site is concerned, as being the police camp site. You wrote you did not agree with Ian Jones's site nor Dave White's mention of some spurious stones north of the picnic ground. However, since then you have changed your mind and you have every right to do so, but don't tell me that I should admit to being wrong, because I don't think I'm wrong with my conclusions.

And one more thing, don't accuse me of taking you for a fool. I have never done that.
I have always helped you with your research where ever I could.

Joe, can you now elaborate on your "Pet hate, 'Manipulation of Historical facts"
I don't know what you mean by that ?
I'm sure the readers would like to know what they are ' in your opinion' ?

Bill

Bill,
Fair enough - The correspondence occurred way back in early 2000....before I become a member on Bruce's original [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Perhaps as early as 2003 - 2004 - Anyhow lets move along it's not important.

I did find in my records that you did agree with me as far as the two huts site is concerned, as being the police camp site.

WOW! you managed to hold on to that one particular email..... How convenient - regardless as you say I have every right to change my mind. However, very naive of me to accept it as fact - Your theory/research seemed very convincing back in the ol days.

but don't tell me that I should admit to being wrong, because I don't think I'm wrong with my conclusions.

Yes of course..... your allowed you own opinion.

And one more thing, don't accuse me of taking you for a fool. I have never done that.
I have always helped you with your research where ever I could.

Bill - helping out is an other matter altogether. However, we both know exactly how you have taken me for a fool - People do talk And for the record - Yes Bill, your always willing and able to help and is/was appreciated.

Joe, can you now elaborate on your "Pet hate, 'Manipulation of Historical facts"

If you must insist - In the interest of YOUR readers ...
Your findings as a whole - you manage to twist and manipulate historical facts to suit your desired { X X X X }2 hut location.
ie:
Log orientation, creek line, slope, spring, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. At the end of the day I guess your allowed to have your opinion as do I. However I stick to the (historical) facts without altering them.

Now that concludes my part in this never ending debacle - time for me to move on.

Bill

Diffused or reflected light?

On an overcast day where no shadows can be seen on the ground. The light is reflected off the ground and off the logs? The same in both images.
So now we should ignore any areas where light is coming from a direction that does not suit a theory.
As Quote "The light was coming from the right and from behind. This is fact and cannot be refuted" .

From the ground we now move up into the trees.

I wonder what the readers would think about this?


We should also ignore any evidence provided by McIntyre and others that does not suit.

There is a spring, declivity, boggy ground and spear grasses actually near the Kelly tree location that all fit McIntyre’s map and descriptions. Plus many other features that also match including the slope.

It has previously been established and agreed that there is no spring at the two hut site. Therefore it cannot be the site.

Why then must we continue this debate?


Glenn

Note: There certainly is a weird understanding of SBC by many. They have fundamental problems with 'on the ground' evidence supported by dozens of written 'primary' sources' all indications that identify the proper place, but most researchers studying SBC seem to be guided by 'secondary source' accounts' and don't even know the difference. Remember McIntyre's Manuscript is dated around 1902, as he wrote it is 24 years since the SBC encounter.
I can hardly believe the CSI@SBC proponents can still stand up and doggedly deny scientific evidence.

I refer to Glenn's post and the CSI@SBC team who include in their document " An extensive analysis of Sun movements across the police camp for 3rd November 1878" (on page 78 of their report document) without even checking the said Sun angles into the only photographic evidence , - the Burman photos. The sun angles do not match the orientation of the Burman photos looking Easterly near Kelly tree location as they insist in their book.

As our Antarctic explorer /surveyor, the honourable Mr, Syd Kirkby, OBE, said, quote- " I am aghast at the lack of rigor and even basic honesty widely evident in the material presented" and most will I totally agree with him.

There is not a debate happening here.
Replies so far are nothing more than avoidance gibber - childish silliness and many readers will agree.

I asked Glenn a question,
" Glenn, are you happy this illustration over McIntyre's map is correct" ?
Glenn does not even have the courtesy to answer the question.

Everyone can see in the Burman photos where the light comes from.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As there is no debate, I will just continue to provide the readers the evidence they need so they will make up their own minds.
Bill


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

Bill,

You have the habit of carrying on regardless. Furthermore you insult me.

On two occasions I have asked you a question which you have chosen to ignore. Quote:
It has previously been established and agreed that there is no spring at the two hut site. Therefore it cannot be the site.

Why then must we continue this debate?

Mr. Denheld

I'm utterly disappointed by your bold attack on forum member Glen.
Is this what you refer to as, debating? If so, I care to differ. I believe an instant apology is in order to both glen and the forum members.

( X X X X X X X X XX X X X X) Further more your an acquaintance of Mr, Syd Kirkby, OBE. How might Mr Kirkby react to such a pathetic comment? I am sure he would not be pleased. I look upon you as an ( X X X X X X) person, You absolutely have no respect for any forum members. You are ( X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X).
( XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ). (XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX). He is too much of a Gentleman to have done so.
Furthermore I find your website incredibly frustrating and full of inconsistencies. I have also taken the time to study those inconsistencies and it appears as though as other forum members have stated it's a one sided affair.

Mr. Denheld you have accumulated many hours of your time researching and going back and forth with incomprehensible theories. It is any wonder why no-one will take you seriously. How do you expect the authorities to take on board your "conclusions"

( X X X X X X X X X X X X ). Your theories are inconclusive.

Based on your behaviour, on present and other forum's. I call upon all members to ( X X X X X X X )all traffic to (X X X X X X X X)

A word to the administrator and it's members.
Please accept my deepest and sincere apologies for my outburst.

Brian, you are forgiven.

Readers, please take a look at the picture below.
Using the CSI Team's own Sun chart I have proven the Burman photo is looking Southerly.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
w w w dot ironicon.com.au/images/azimuth4.jpg

The CSI team want you to believe Mr Burman took his photos looking Easterly.
The whole CSI@SBC team's document revolves around their easterly Burman photo orientation and McIntyre's map and the tent positioned in the bottom south west corner looking east.

So, the CSI team members have to prove to us that the Burman photos are looking easterly as their book proposes. This picture above proves the view is looking South.

I look forward to meeting you all at SBC as proposed by Edward Roberts in April.
This is a very good idea, but I would not want this event to be a contest.
Just an onsite debate without judge and jury.

Bill

PS, Thank you Brian, do you have anything to offer on this SBC debate? I am happy to be proven wrong, but you do not provide the reader with even one question or alternative scenario.
_________________________________________________________

Dear members
This notice will serve as a final reminder. Please refrain from using any form of abuse towards forum members.
In future, I will without hesitation apply a ban notice to any offending person.
Also I have received a number of complaints from forum members against Bill and his defamatory statements, also the unwarranted comment made against Joey's Tours. Bill an apology is in order and would be appreciated.

Brian, Bill deserves a public apology from you also. Your outburst were most severe.

Gentleman your cooperation is appreciated.
chuck

It is now 7.51 pm and no apologies from either Bill or Brian. I will persist until all apologies are accounted for. Bill, Brian please don't force my hand.
All parties have viewed my last post and are fully aware of my request.
chuck

Dear Admin (Chuck) Congratulations on the steps you have taken thus far to "cleanse" this place, however I provide the following comment:
Under the laws of this land once a derogatory, or slanderous statement is placed within a public place - and this forum is a public place available to anyone to read, then it is deemed under the appropriate Acts to have been PUBLISHED.
A subsequent act to redact/remove/edit is a POST EVENT: The offending statement has been published (and can therefore have been not only read but copied to file and so continues to exist).
The laws appropriate are quite clear as to publishing, and to remedies available to the person(s) so affected.
As you are the Administrator (creator) you too are responsible for allowing the act of publication of the offending statement or words, so whilst you call for apologies that is of NO CONSEQUENCE to the offended person(s) who have the full force of the necessary acts to pursue their claim accordingly. Matters like this must be stopped BEFORE publication.

I'll be the first to man up. Bill accept my public apology. In hindsight my comments were rather offbeat.
BM

Brian
You can hold you head up high.
Thank you.
chuck

Chuck; This is what I wrote to Joey on 25 Jan.

" And also, you say you are an unbiased tour guide for SBC tours that hands out free info booklets. On the 19 Jan on SBC thread you also say " I have nothing but respect for Bill" I say this without hesitation" , but Joe if you have this high resect for me, have you ever thought of asking me to accompany you to SBC, and I could have personally shown you my findings there, and then you may have been better qualified to be a tour leader."

I can hardly find any reason to apologize to Joey. The only thing I inferred is that ' had I been able' to give Joe a personal tour of the sites from my perspective, Joey may have become a better informed tour leader at SBC.

Well, Joey, I am very sorry you took offence to me stating the obvious " better qualified to be a tour leader". Please accept my apology. Bill

Thank you Bill.
Looks as though you may have forgotten one other members apology.
chuck

Hiya Bill,

Well, Joey, I am very sorry you took offence to me stating the obvious " better qualified to be a tour leader". Please accept my apology. Bill

Accepted - thx!!

"The whole CSI@SBC team's document revolves around their easterly Burman photo orientation and McIntyre's map and the tent positioned in the bottom south west corner looking east."
WRONG AGAIN! Nowhere is the tent shown in the bottom south west. Try to the west of the logs, and the document not only encompasses the Burman and McIntyre material (of which his detailed diagram provides ample evidence of log, tent and police positions absolutely consistent with descriptions within depositions, statements, reports etc etc).
It also provides matters previously referred to by Glenn: declivity, spear grass corridor, observable springs, a fireplace relic nearby, the PRIMARY EVIDENCE provided by the Herald's Special reporter who was one of the party (which included Burman) who travelled to the scene of the camp and who provided a very detailed account of the terrain traversed approaching the scene and which has been PROFESSIONALLY SURVEYED and demonstrates absolutely the profile of the terrain described by that Reporter. And other matters.
NOT ONCE has Denheld rebutted these other significant matters, as he CANNOT.
I see an apology now to Joey and still no public apology to Glenn.
Brian your recent insightful posting was of great interest.
Its been noted before the only place all this matters is within those Government organisations who will in due course assess the team's claim. Bill you would serve your agenda better by addressing yourself to those organisations.

An apology to Glenn,
Please accept my apology for trying to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I apologise.
Bill
___________________________________________

PS;
I now want an apology from Glenn for not answering my question on Page5,- 3rd and 5th Feb.
" Glenn are you now happy this illustration over McIntyre's map is correct"

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



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


Sun movement chart - courtesy of Glenn posting and CSI @SBC report July 2011 Page 78

Time...........Sun Direction...............Azimuth.................Altitude
12 noon...............N.....................359 deg 17’ 23”.............68deg 07’ 06”
1pm....................NW...................324deg 08’ 38”..............64deg 15’ 36”
2pm...................WNW.................301deg 03’ 44”..............55deg 22’ 13”
3pm....................W.....................286deg 16’ 49”..............44deg 23’ 11”

G’day Bob, that person that contacted you as he thought you had helped start this forum was my fault. When I first joined, your profile said ‘Moderator’ (or it may have been administrator I can’t remember) and I wish I had copied it. It later disappeared, so it was an honest mistake and I apologise to you and that other member. When this website started, there was a lot of speculation as to who was behind it given the upheaval over the SBC site at the time and as Chuck was unknown in the Kelly world and there was only one person wanting to continue the debate the whole thing looked suspicious.

As for the Burman photos, the men in it have nothing to do with the police or Kelly Gang positions and there is nothing to state that, it is only speculation and is totally wrong. I think Kelvyn has already explained that Burman was an entrepreneur and he was looking at sales of the photos. They were not taken on behalf of the police as part of a crime scene, although the police did use the photos. It’s not plausible that Dan would have been on lookout at the spring and then had to sprint all the way back to the two huts without being seen. The spring would have to be closer to the police camp.

Bob, welcome back.
I have not fully read what you have written. Please allow me to digest this first before making any replies.



Bill,
I do not accept what you have written as an apology. Because it isn’t one.
I did not asked for an apology, only that you justify the statement made. Which you did not.
Never mind, I think we should all move on.

I am happy enough to continue with this debate.

Quote:
I now want an apology from Glenn for not answering my question on Page5,- 3rd and 5th Feb.
" Glenn are you now happy this illustration over McIntyre's map is correct"

Bill, I do apologize for not answering this question.
I was waiting for you to answer my question. But should have answered yours regardless.

I think that you have produced an excellent illustration showing the sun movements over the police camp.
The log layout in our report is shown as a representation only, not scaled.
May I ask that the nearly east west log be rotated to between the 2 & 3pm position of the sun angles in the illustration.
This would then be more in keeping with your log angles.

Glenn, I was following Kelvyn's disdain that I should have apologised to you?
However lets all have a laugh at our silliness and get down to tin tacks.

I appreciate and accept your apology for your late reply. You say-
" the log layout on our report is shown as a representation only , not scaled."

But my drawings are not scaled either and you ask me -
" to change the east west log to be rotated to between 2 & 3 pm".

I could do that but please take a look at the image below of your CSI page 81 over which I have placed McIntyre's map in red. You will see the east west log is already at 3 pm according to Mc's map compass, ( ref your CSI book page 90 Appendix16).

Also, note my previous illustrations refer to McIntyre's Map. Not your book map, except for your Burman photo arrays.
Bill

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

w w w dot ironicon.com.au/images/csi-at-sbc-kelvyn-site-map1redtext.jpg

Kelvyn, at 16:52 You quoted me-
"The whole CSI@SBC team's document revolves around their easterly Burman photo orientation and McIntyre's map and the tent positioned in the bottom south west corner looking east." "wrong again" Nowhere is the tent shown in the bottom south west."

In the image above posting, can you now see the tent is in the South West corner (or qaudrant) on McIntyre's map.

You then say - refering to your book -
" It also provides matters previously referred to by Glenn: declivity, spear grass corridor, observable springs, a fireplace relic nearby, the PRIMARY EVIDENCE provided by the Herald's Special reporter who was one of the party (which included Burman) who travelled to the scene of the camp and who provided a very detailed account of the terrain traversed approaching the scene of the camp and who provided a very detailed account of the terrain traversed approaching the scene and which has been PROFESSIONALLY SURVEYED and demonstrates absolutely the profile of the terrain described by that Reporter. And other matters.
NOT ONCE has Denheld rebutted these other significant matters, as he CANNOT."

I will now point out that the Melb Herald text of 5th Nov 1878 - states the following as in my SBC document, w w w dot ironicon.com.au/stringybark_ck_the_authentic_location.pdf

Link [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
w w w dot ironicon.com.au/stringybark_ck_the_authentic_location.pdf
See pages 36 and 37


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

Text page 37
Regarding the previous map with numbered location points, this text below was part of the Melbourne Herald dated 5 November 1878 [12] -
just after the shootings. The SCENE OF THE MURDER was described by the news paper’s special reporter confidently identified as G, Wilson Hall, the proprietor of the Mansfield Gaurdian [6], as he was very much in tune with the circumstances, having been allowed to visit the Kellys at their camp.
The bracketed ( ) numbers below relate to the map description above but were not part of the Melbourne Herald texts.

“ The Scene of the Murders. This was a cleared space, of about ten acres in extent, on a gentle slope, rising gradually, and on the further side having a northerly and easterly aspect. The site until recently was occupied by a prospector’s hut (2 fireplaces).

A small race has been cut along the side of the hill, and the Stringy Bark Creek, for some little distance up and down from this spot, has been prospected (16).

About six months ago the party who occupied the hut (2) fell out, and it was burned down. One of them was tried for arson, but was acquitted. The site has been partly cleared as a paddock for a horse, but no fencing was erected. The place was an excellent one for the camping ground of a party who were not expecting to be attacked. For a party assailed by enemies, however, no worse spot could be chosen.


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

The police tent (1) was pitched on the northern slope of the hill and faced that direction. ( Note Mc also said the tent faced east )
At the rear of the tent, the slope goes gradually up to the summit, receding again to the creek (20, and the creek / spring), which winds partially round it.

Across the creek, at the back of the little hill, was a fallen gum-tree (17), over six feet high at the butt end, and behind which twenty men could find shelter. This tree can be reached from the scrub which covers the country in the direction of the King River.

At the top of the slope (little hill) and overlooking the police tent, was a clump of scrub and sword-grass (18), some sixty feet in circumference, and in which a dozen men could readily conceal themselves. Standing a few feet in front of this clump of scrub but still overlooking the police tent, are two bunches of sword-grass (19) , four feet six inches high, and presenting a covering surface of some six feet.

It was from behind these bunches of sword-grass ( 18 and 19) that Kelly and his confederates called on the police to surrender. Having reached the gum-tree (17) from the bush,The hill (slope) hid their approach to the clump of scrub mentioned, the distance being about 20 paces. At the time the call to surrender was made, M’Intyre was at the fire cooking. This was precisely 39 paces from the foremost bunches of grass. The tent stood exactly 25 paces from the Kelly’s hiding place."


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

By relating these notes to the map on page 36, we can see strong correlation to the scene of the ‘murders’ and it should be remembered that the formed road has filled in the area where the tent may have stood.
Also, we can see the creek (when it runs) may well have run in position of (20) and that the current course is the result of mining during the late1800’s and early 1900’s where most of the ground has been sluiced.(16)
______________________________________________________
Now, lastly,
Kelvyn suggests that I should address my document to the Government organisations.
Well Kel, my document was there before your CSI@SBC report.

When is the CSI team going to agree to Edward Roberts's plan for a SBC meeting in April.

Bill

Howdy all,

First thing first........ Small note for the admin - Thx for sorting the crap out.

Bob, Great to see you back
As per usual I'll reply in my usual manner, short and sweet OR otherwise I couldn't be bothered replying at all.

I will not speak on behalf of the csi team BUT I will answer ONE of your questions RE: slope.

According to my work at sbc there is in fact a slope - In an easterly direction. This slope is somewhat difficult to make out BUT it is there. The heavy foliage conceals it rather well. When I first spotted the slope it sent shivers up my spine - how I missed it in the first place is beyond me.

image clearly shows a gradual slope.

(This image was first hosted on KC2000 - Copyright G. Standing)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
NOTE:
The spot where the figure is standing (Red arrow pointing towards) is a gradual up hill climb.

The slope is obvious is it not?

OK - Now let me stir the pot a little According to your work and mine we now have two slopes ....correct.

** Somewhere I recall reading the following article - thou I don't recall the source **

CUT & PASTE
This was a cleared space, of about ten acres in extent, on a gentle slope, rising gradually, & on the further side having a northerly and easterly aspect. etc etc.
END CUT/PASTE

Bill,

I have not finished with the sun angles and the log orientation.

You have sent me up into the tree canopies. There you will find the answer.
Look again. The sun came from approx. along the east west log.

I will substantiate this in due course.

In the meantime look again.