 |
| For $8 you can look at this valuable Kelly photo for about 5 seconds at the Kelly Vault. |
I’m not going to do what the Vault did, and play games with everyones interest in this Photo, subjecting us all to drawn out guessing competitions, exposures of tiny bits of the image, a long slow campaign of promotion and cranking up of interest and expectation, hints of controversy and uncertainty about it; I am going to tell you straight away what I think about this Forgotten Image: its Ned Kelly.
Actually, it was the cheeks that did it for me, and their relationship to his eyes. Ned Kelly’s cheek bones are quite high, plump and rounded like small fruit – plums maybe – and they’re easily seen in the photo taken before he was hanged, and in the death mask. They’re also visible in the Police Mugshot taken in 1870 at Kyneton when he was 15, and in the two taken in1874 : the Mugshot before he was released from Pentridge, and even in the ‘Boxing Ned’ photo. And if you look at the blown up bit of the “Forgotten Photo” that’s visible behind Matt Shore in the newspaper Photo that’s posted to the Vault and the NK Central FB pages, you can see them there too! Sharon has posted a comparison of the Forgotten Photo with the Boxing Ned image and again, you’ll see what I mean. Ive looked at a few other photos of Kelly sympathisers from the time, and no one has cheek bones like Neds!
However, as Matt Shore himself has said, its impossible to be 100% certain of the identity of that strapping fellow in the bush, these are all highly subjective assesments but this is my rationale for deciding its Ned Kelly. For a start, we know the activity portrayed in the image is exactly what Ned was employed doing for a short period of his life after Pentridge. The provenance of this Image seems to firmly link it to the Kellys, and theres also the fact that apparently this image was treasured by his mother. What better reason would there be for her to treasure it than that it was her son? And lastly of course, there is the physical resemblance between the person in this image and the other images we have of Ned Kelly.
There are however some really important questions that still need to be answered about this image, and in making my own pronouncement I am assuming these questions have all been answered in a satisfactory way. Thus far however, the Public have been kept in the dark about these answers, and on Facebook attempts to get them recently by myself and another person were met firstly with responses that were evasive and ambiguous, and then with direct attacks on our identity. Leigh Olver clearly is more deeply involved and is privy to much more than he lets on, insists that these are all questions for the Vault to answer but the Vault has remained silent. Never-the-less these are serious questions and they require answers.
The first relates to the fact that a woman called Elsie Pettifer claimed that the man in question was her father. Elsie Pettifer was a grand-daughter of Neds mother Ellen, and was at one time custodian of this and other Kelly memorabilia, but she died in 2000. On Facebook last week Kelly descendant Leigh Olver claimed Elsie was wrong when she claimed this was a photo of her father and not of Ned, but when asked how he could so confidently assert that a woman couldn’t recognize her own father, he declined to elaborate. The interesting thing is that in 2002 when this same photo was put up for Auction by Christies, Elsie Pettifers opinion was accepted by Ian Jones and others, and for that very reason the photo was withdrawn from the Auction. In 2002 nobody thought this was a photo of Ned. It then became the ‘forgotten photo’. So the question that really needs answering is what changed between 2002, when Elsies view was accepted, and 2016 when Elsies view was dumped? All kinds of innocent and not so innocent explanations are possible – was it realized that Elsies eyesight was so poor, or her aged mind and memory so infirm her opinion could not be relied on? Was she trying to wrest back control of an image that she thought could be worth a lot of money if it was known to be Ned, by falsely saying it was her father? Equally, could modern day Kellys have decided that because if it was Ned the image could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, they would discredit Elsies view and promote one that would greatly benefit whoever has control of it in 2016?
The first relates to the fact that a woman called Elsie Pettifer claimed that the man in question was her father. Elsie Pettifer was a grand-daughter of Neds mother Ellen, and was at one time custodian of this and other Kelly memorabilia, but she died in 2000. On Facebook last week Kelly descendant Leigh Olver claimed Elsie was wrong when she claimed this was a photo of her father and not of Ned, but when asked how he could so confidently assert that a woman couldn’t recognize her own father, he declined to elaborate. The interesting thing is that in 2002 when this same photo was put up for Auction by Christies, Elsie Pettifers opinion was accepted by Ian Jones and others, and for that very reason the photo was withdrawn from the Auction. In 2002 nobody thought this was a photo of Ned. It then became the ‘forgotten photo’. So the question that really needs answering is what changed between 2002, when Elsies view was accepted, and 2016 when Elsies view was dumped? All kinds of innocent and not so innocent explanations are possible – was it realized that Elsies eyesight was so poor, or her aged mind and memory so infirm her opinion could not be relied on? Was she trying to wrest back control of an image that she thought could be worth a lot of money if it was known to be Ned, by falsely saying it was her father? Equally, could modern day Kellys have decided that because if it was Ned the image could be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, they would discredit Elsies view and promote one that would greatly benefit whoever has control of it in 2016?
You see, there is definitely a very real power struggle going on between various Kelly factions at the moment. Last year, when Joanne Griffiths started her Ned Kelly Center Facebook Page to promote her plans to create a unified Kelly family organization, almost immediately the almost identically named, but anonymously backed Ned Kelly Central sprang up. It soon broadcast declarations from Leigh Olver that he and a different group of Kelly descendants didn’t endorse or support Joannes group, and at various times over the last year, he has made various critical and unsupportive comments in relation to activities the NKCenter has been engaged in.
Enter the Ned Kelly Vault: According to the Vaults own publicity, one of the Kelly factions approached the Vault with an offer about the ‘forgotten image’ . Given there appear to be only two factions, it was either someone from Joanne’s group, or someone from Leigh Olvers group, but not a single mention has been made of this Image on the NK Centre FB page. Additionally, a report from the Age newspaper has surfaced from 2002, quoting Leigh Olver making a comment about these very images at the time they went to Auction,so it stands to reason that Leigh Olver and his faction is behind this Kelly Image Project. They wanted the image to be made public but they made very strict and specific demands of the Vault if they were to have access to this image : specifically, the identity of the Kelly faction involved was to be kept secret, no-body was permitted to copy it, it was not to be made available on the Internet or anywhere else, and the Public could only have access to the image at the Vault. Poor Matt Shore had no real choice – the diehard Kelly collector and enthusiast would probably have cut his arm off to get it if they had asked him to – this was the Kelly find of the Century, he could barely conceal his enormous excitement and delight at the chance to see something he was told had never been made Public before, a photo of Ned Kelly that would be only the second that wasn’t a Police mugshot. Not only that, the photo was in great condition and so different to all the others, a photo of a happy relaxed natural looking Ned out in the bush, at work making an honest living. No question: a sensational find.
I’m guessing of course, but I would imagine that Matt Shore isn’t all that pleased with the strait-jacket the Kellys have forced him to wear. I imagine that what Matt Shore would have wanted to do is cover half a wall with a huge blown up version of this great Photo, be very open and informative about the exact provenance of it, tell a fascinating story of its history from 1874 to 2002 when it was withdrawn from Auction to 2016 when it was ‘unforgotten’, why Elsie Pettifer got it wrong,what the Professor did, what its market value might be, and make it widely available so everyone can share his delight and fascination. When I saw that newspaper article where a bit of the Photo was visible in the background, massively enlarged, I was encouraged.
But readers, let me warn you, if you go to Beechworth expecting something magnificent like that, you’re in for a massive shock and deep disappointment. I cannot imagine for a second that what the Kellys have forced Matt Shore to do with this image pleases him in the least. In fact I think it might be an embarrassment to him, because , like the imprisonment of a magnificent wild animal in a tiny cage, this image of Ned is imprisoned in a bizarre little box with a tiny viewing window at the top. And when you look in its not even the actual photo itself that you see, or the high resolution image they have made of it but a sort of perpetually scrolling video that begins with a washed out version of the original that fades out and is replaced by the new one, and if I remember rightly a close up of the face which is then superimposed by the death mask and other Ned images one by one for a few seconds and then it starts all over again. Meanwhile, you’re stooped over this box and kids behind you are noisily jostling for their turn to be next, as you watch it a second time in disbelief at what you just saw, desperate to try to fix the image in your minds eye before its replaced with the death mask and the beard obscures the face….I cannot begin to describe how disappointed I was, even somewhat annoyed that after all these months of hype and promotion of this ‘find of the Century’, all I get to see is a few seconds of video in a stupid little box:
 |
| The stupid little box at the Kelly Vault that hides the ‘Kelly find of the Century’ |
I don’t really blame the Vault, or Matt Shore for this farce, I blame the Kellys, and if Leigh Olver has something to do with all of this he needs to own up to it and give the public an explanation of just what the hell they think they’re playing at. They’re happy to have the State Government spend a million bucks on restoring a Kelly house, but the Public have to pay up if they want to see the Kelly find of the Century!
I wish Matt Shore could have told them in March where to stick their Photo if the only way the Public could get to see it was to pay to do so and in conformity with their ridiculous demands for secrecy and security. Maybe now he is wishing he had.
I wish Matt Shore could have told them in March where to stick their Photo if the only way the Public could get to see it was to pay to do so and in conformity with their ridiculous demands for secrecy and security. Maybe now he is wishing he had.
The only possible reason that I can think of for all these restrictions around the Public showing of this image, is that its about money, not so much for the Vaults coffers but for the Kellys. By having the Vaults experts offer an opinion that undercuts Elsies, and having the Public interest aroused and a belief generated that it is indeed Ned in that photograph, you can be sure the next time it goes to Auction it wont be passed in. Remember the photo of that dodgy trio said to include Ned that sold for $16,000 earlier this year? Matt Shore was asked what the value of this Photo would be in an ABC interview you can listen to by following this link ;he declines to provide a number, but you can sort of hear him shaking his head in wonder when he says it could be worth “anything”. He’s right!
I wrote elsewhere that I and many others felt we had been ‘jerked around’ by the Vault in its manipulation of Public interest in this Photo, but now I think the Vault has been jerked around too. I think the Vault has been caught up in the Kelly wars, and has compromised itself in the way it has given in to their absurd demands and created this sad and miserable little display that completely fails to do justice to the image and its significance for not just Kelly history but Australian history as well. An opportunity for something magnificent has been missed.
Given that I am persona non grata at the Vaults FB page and at NKCentral, where Leigh Olver hangs out, I somehow think my questions will go unanswered but these are the questions the Kellys and the Vault should be answering :
- Why are you so sure Elsie was wrong?
- Why do the experts no longer accept the view of the experts in 2002 who said the clothes these men were wearing belonged to well after 1874?
- How exactly did Professor Spring the photographic forensic expert analyse the Photo, and what were the facts that led him to conclude it was very likely to be Ned Kelly?
- Did the Kellys not tell Matt Shore that the photo HAD been seen before, and that it had been published in a Christies Auction Catalogue of 2002? ( The initial Vault publicity suggested this was a photo that had never been seen before)
- Ian Jones was reported to have been at the unveiling of this Photo at the Vault on November 12th. Has he changed his view of who is in the photo, and if so, does Matt Shore know what it was that led Ian Jones to change his mind?
- What happened to the analysis of the writing on the back of the Photo?
- Where is the actual Photo now? Hidden in the Vault or back in the hands of the Kellys?
(Visited 410 times)
Dee you originally rubbished this photo as lacking clothing reliability of the era. Now you are saying it is authentic.
I think the Ned photo looks nothing like him, including the cheekbones.
It isn't him.
Actually I am not sure that I rubbished the photo entirely, but I have just modified this Post to reflect the fact that my decision to call it for Ned is contingent upon their being satisfactory answers to questions like the one regarding their clothes. I hadn’t made that clear in the Post, but now I have I think. I am assuming that these obvious problems have been addressed by the Vault and by the Professor, but as this information hasn’t been released I am calling for that to happen. Now, its a very subjective thing I agree, but – and I hate to pull rank like this – I HAVE seen the restored image and its a huge improvement on the dodgy images we’ve managed to get our hands on up to now!
You present a nice strong case, Dee, but the photo just doesn't look a bit like Ned at all. And where is the provenance linking it back to Saunders and Rule Sawmills? That's a link Ian Jones added in his Short Life book, but even he didn't provide one iota of evidence. That in itself doesn't rule out the photo. But you have seen cheekbone similarities in the photo I just can't 'see'. That fellow from Melb Uni who dismissed the Gentleman Ned Photo should be called upon again, I suggest. I would accept his authentication.
Yes, hmm, aha, definitely Gentleman Ned in his early days as a timber cutter, hmm ah.
Signed, Dr Arbiter, Department of photographic waffleology. And just stick that Christies catalogue in the bin. They don't know what they're talking about. Hmm hum.
But Christies agreed with you Stuart! Thats why they withdrew it or passed it in or whatever it was. So did you go to Beechworth and have a look? If not, I wouldnt really recommend it, its a really dumb thing that they’ve done with it, especially after all the hype and promotional hoopla they ran about it being the kelly find of the Century. However having seen it myself I think the restored image does resemble Ned and I don’t think its a hoax or some sort of digital trickery. But unless the Vault opens up about exactly what the Professor did, they are vulnerable to that suggestion.
I'm gradually beginning to think that it is Ned after all.
Hmm. Hmm. No, Christies catalogue is right. Mrs Pettifer identified the man on the left as her father, Walter, who was born in 1876, http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/71795325
She identified the man on the right as Jack Kelly/king, born March 1875 (Corfield, Kelly Encyclopaedia). That puts the men in their 20s in the mid 1890s. Christies identified the clothing as 1890s – see the Christies catalogue text typed up by Peter in Dee's first blog about it.
Indigo Shire had a media release on 10 November, that state without any qualifications or caveats that the photo shows Ned Kelly working at Saunders and Rule sawmills, http://www.beechworth.com/documents/ned-kelly-photograph.pdf
This is despite the Vault's photo consultant only saying it was "very likely" that the man on the right was Ned (see the news write-up in an earlier post), presumably based on photo comparisons like Dee's one on this page. It is not surprising that there should be a family resemblance, given that Jack and Ned had the same mother.
But it is a big leap for the Vault to go from "very likely" based on photo comparison, and against a statement from the daughter of a man in a photo that it is her dad, to pronouncing in a media release without any such caveats that it is certainly a photo of Ned Kelly! Is this mythmaking live?
Then the second problem of the media release, that says the photo shows "young Ned Kelly working in the Saunders and Rule Sawmills". It does not. It shows two bushmen working somewhere in the bush. There is no visible link in this photo with any sawmill at all. It could be NSW or Gippsland for all we know.
Worse, the claim of Ned ever having worked for Saunders and Rule is based solely on his own words in the Jerilderie letter. It is most likely a "cover" story from knowing something about the mill, while he spent his time thieving as part of the Baumgarten brothers horse stealing ring.
The more one spends time in the Kelly story, the more it seems that it starts with the brothers Baumgarten, long before the much-blamed Fitzpatrick incident. There is still not one shred of evidence to suggest that Mrs Pettifer incorrectly identified the men as Walter (her own father) and Jack, with visual corroboration on dating the clothing to the 1890s by the Christies experts. Everything else seems to be speculative wishful thinking.
Brilliant commentary Stuart, and your points are well made. I have perhaps naively assumed that the Vault, over the many months that they had this picture, were investigating all those issues you raise and had satisfied themselves with credible answers to them. However they have NOT provided any of that evidence or answered any of those sorts of questions when asked by me on Facebook – in fact I got chucked out for my efforts. They did say on the Ned Kelly Central FB site that they would answer questions submitted in the near future but once they chucked me out fro there as well, all those questions that I had asked them disappeared. One tries not to be a conspiracy theorist but it gets hard when contrary voices like ours are ignored or silenced as completely as they can manage when we ask searching questions. My suspicion is that the Kellys have their eye on the windfall this photo could provide them the next time it goes to Auction, if it becomes generally accepted thats its Ned. I still think it is Ned, but as I say I am assuming there are satisfactory answers to the questions you raise about Elsie, about the clothing styles, and so on. In a genuine history museum, which the Vault claims to be, there would normally be open disclosure and these sorts of controversies are usually set out for the publics scrutiny, but they probably won’t be at the Vault because they have compromised themselves by agreeing to the extreme demands of the Kellys.
very bloody cynical Dee..
Saunders & Rule Sawmill??? Now the Indigo Shire media release claims that the photo not only shows Ned but also that it was taken at the said sawmill! How did they, or the Vault, arrive at that conclusion? Seems to me that the 2 men are working in the bush.
Once again, I ask 2 questions – what scientific/forensic procedure was used to confirm the ID of Ned? And what similar evidence does the Vault have to refute Mrs Pettifer's assertion that her father is one of the men in the photo?
In The Age today (1 Dec 2016: p. 26) a review of the film "The Legend of Ben Hall" by Paul Byrnes. Byrnes claimss "Holmes has tried to tell Hall's story without deviating from the facts". But he goes on in reference to another gang member "who is in trouble with corrupt rural police aka "the traps".
Where have we heard this all before?
Those corrupt rural police seem an essential ingredient in all the Bushranger legends – including Ned's.
Never any proof of their corruption. of course.
I find on page 236 of "Ned Kelly under the Microscope" that a professor thought Ned had the brain of a 14 year-old. Dee, what does this mean for your theory he was a nice kid. Did he ever grow up?
Eventually Mark, you have to apply cynicism to every aspect of the Kelly story. He was a multiple cop killer. He had plans to kill many more at Glenrowan – the sadistic, murdering bully brute,
Nobody at The Vault is a scientist or forensic specialist, Spudee. They are just lazy lifetime supporters of the Kelly Legend who have never realistically thought things through. If they ever wake up, they will realise that Ned fooled them too.
The Ned Kelly apologists took two years to come up with lame excuses for Ned dobbing Harry Power as shown in the Babbington correspondence, as reported in the Royal Historical Society of Victoria's journal. The apologists suggested Ned told police little and probably led them astray. Rubbish.
Its 5 years since the damning MacFarlane book and three since Morrissey's archival evidence emerged. Utter silence since then. Peter FitzSimon's book ignored "The Kelly Gang Unmasked" altogether, apparently at Ian Jones's behest, proving it to be an embarrassing farce. No response whatever anywhere to Morrissey's PROV in depth decades ago research.
Will Ned columnists ever pop up their silly heads again?
They have been proved wrong hundreds of times in those books and on your blog.
We have been been badly misled by the pro-Kelly literature for more than half-a-century.
But the trouble is Barry, that the Kelly myths are still being rehashed and taught as truth to school kids and regurgitated as such to the general public. This comes as no surprise to those who have a better understanding of the reality of the Kelly outrage. However, it is difficult to counter the public perception of Kelly and his mates as some sort of Robin Hood-like rascals when the Australian Government's own official website at http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/ned-kelly describes Ned as "…one of Australia's greatest folk heroes". There are a number of other inaccuracies and mistakes in this official entry as well as this guff: "Ned Kelly in his armour came to symbolise a fight by a flawed hero, a convicted criminal, for 'justice and liberty' and 'innocent people'."
Interestingly, I note that the entry was last updated as recently as 31 March 2016, probably to add details about 'Ned Kelly tourism' as it is referred to. A pity someone didn't have a look at some of the more contemporary research which updates and in my opinion shines light onto the real Kelly outbreak and edit the entry.
Maybe we could instigate a campaign designed to inform the people who manage this Government website that it is perpetuating lies and mythology in the name of Australian history, point them in the direction of the newer thinking and argument and evidence on the topic and persuade them to make their site true to the historical facts?
Hi Spudee, it's a lost cause. I challenged them on 2 September 2016 as follows: "Hi, I wish to alert you to revisions necessary to your Australian Stories page on Ned Kelly, http://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/ned-kelly
The page states that Kelly "uttered the immortal words, 'Such is life'" at his execution. Although often repeated, that claim is based on one of three different newspaper reports of the day, and has now been disproved. Newly published refereed academic research shows that his last words were only a mumbled "Ah, well, I suppose", ending with a sigh, as per one of the other eye-witness newspapers. The research article can be downloaded from this link http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/eras/files/2016/08/Eras181_Dawson.pdf and I request that the Australian stories page be updated to reflect this, and a link to the article provided in the 'Links' section at the bottom of the page. Additionally, the page's comments on the Fitzpatrick incident continue to reflect the dated and insupportable view that Fitzpatrick was a liar about the events of his attempted arrest of Dan Kelly. Academic refereed research published late last year reconstructs, corroborates and vindicates Fitzpatrick's testimony, and can be downloaded here http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/eras/files/2015/11/Eras-171-4-Stuart-Dawson-FINAL.pdf and I request that the page text be adjusted as above to reflect this, and that a link be provided to the Fitzpatrick article download page at Monash University. [Also], I have noticed a further serious error … Under the sub-heading ‘Outlaws’ the text says, “The Kelly Gang were declared outlaws after raids on the National Bank at Euroa and Faithful Creek station in December 1878.” This is obviously wrong. The Victorian Parliament passed the Felons' Apprehension Act, coming into effect on 1 November 1878, which outlawed the gang in response to the public outrage at the murder of three police officers at Stringybark Creek on 26 October 1878. Please correct this glaring mistake,it is most important that a Government website page gets its facts right, and I would very much appreciate a response to this request please, With best regards, Stuart Dawson (PhD, history).
They replied on 5 September as follows: UNCLASSIFIED Hello Stuart, … Please note that we are currently reviewing the content on Australian Stories and many will be removed from the site or they may be archived within the site with a possible disclaimer that the information is no longer being updated and that the information may not be correct. Regards Australia.gov.au team
So as you can see, it is just another stupid site run by some PR section with long outdated info and no interest at all in accuracy. No wonder school kids are taught such drivel. The main problem in my opinion is that for about 50 years Ian Jones has controlled the master narrative on Kelly, ever since the 1967 Wangaratta conference, and practically everyone who has said anything since about the Kelly gang of bushrangers has been a Jones protégé or worked within his general narrative. Most of the work has been by enthusiastic amateurs who embrace the Kelly myth and follow the line Kenneally-Brown-Jones, which is really based around Kenneally's selective picking all the anti-police bits out of the Royal Commission, and loaded up with oral history (lies) from ex-convict and cousin Tom Lloyd Jr, the 'fifth member' of the Kelly gang. so until there's an alternative master narrative, people just "oh, yeah, but Jones says…".
There are bits and pieces of an alternative narrative on this blog, but because it's a blog they will inevitably be scattered. And I might not agree with all of them anyway, but that's besides the point. What some of the bits Dee has put up suggest to me is that first, the Kellys lived fairly happily up to and including Avenel where the kids went to school. There is a little history book of Avenel that is compatible with this somewhere. I'm not entirely convinced, as Red proposed making moonshine early on, in Hall, Outlaws of the Wombat Ranges, but I'll go with the flow. Later they went to the 11 Mile and went full-on into crime, kids and all. In the middle there is a gap which I haven't looked at, but giver that just about every rellie has a prison photo, it's not promising for a straight life at any point.
If my Fitzpatrick article is fairly accurate, the Kelly outbreak is more likely to do with the Baumgarten horse ring. So a new narrative would have to go back through the period from when Ned got out of gaol, when he certainly wasn't straight, as Dee showed somewhere else, and see where it goes from there.
Certainly using the Jerilderie letter as a school text is an outrage. It just teaches a whole generation of kids to disrespect the police and see them all as corrupt and biased, which is clearly a stupid thing for teachers to do. I have had a few digs at teachers on this blog; they problem is that they too are victims of the Jones master narrative. Every source you look at refers back to Jones; including Corfield. so when a teacher wants perhaps to offer an alternative, there isn't one. The fault here goes to the curriculum writers and setters who think they're teaching kids critical skills. Doing alternative constructions is a lot more work that showing certain bits are wrong!
Morrissey and MacFarlane both say the Baumgarten connection is central in the Kelly story. It ended up with several horse-stealing convictions, the Const Fitzpatrick shooting at the Kelly homestead, then the Stringybark Creek police murders. This led later to the bank robberies and then Glenrowan. PROV has several large, as yet unpublished files about the case. Jones and FitzSimons all but ignored this material.
Thanks a lot for all your backgrounds and active work, Stuart. That offensive Kelly webpage is on the PM's website I think. No wonder the Poms think we are dumb worshiping a cop killer. I don't think Mal would be happy if he knew about it. Its probably a Gillard remnant, and should be flushed away forever.
Ray, when you say unpublished files, are these listed on the PROV site? If so, can you say where? If not, where does one look? Do you have any PROV series or folder numbers that you can point me to? This sounds vital for sorting out the pre-Fitzpatrick background. It's hard to do much when one doesn't know that stuff exists.
Initially I thought Dee's suggestion that we start a campaign to demand that the Aust.Gov. website update the information it displays on Kelly was a good one. However, after reading about Stuart's experience with them, it seems pointless. Typically they say that they '…may be archived within the site with a possible disclaimer.' Perfect 'Yes Minister' bureaucratic double speak!
But what is being taught in schools about the Kelly outbreak is another kettle of fish. If, as we suspect, the Jones line is being followed, this will only serve to create further generations of myth-followers. Can anyone suggest how this might be tackled? And obviously to make any case for a severe revision on what is being taught, we need to access the existing subject material. Does anyone know how this might be achieved?
Spudee I think what gets taught in schools about Ned Kelly very much depends on the views of the individual teacher. If you go back toMarch 2nd this year on this Blog there's my review of the comic book by Hugh Dolan about Ned Kelly. It's intended for schools and there's a downloadable teachers guide that I made a link to in the Post. Why don't you have a look at it and tell us what you think? If teachers all used that comic and the Guide, I think kids might get a fairer idea of true Kely history. The guide even provides a link to THIS BLOG! So kids who were interested might end up here and reading what we write.
I reread that blog and while the book itself is pretty simplistic it would probably get the story across to young readers. However, having a bit of a bee in my bonnet over what might be taught in schools today about the Kelly outbreak I did some cursory research. The following are just 3 links to some of the material which is either being used, or was used n the recent past. Seems the target group are primary school right through to in one case, year 12 students.
http://tlf.dlr.det.nsw.edu.au/learningobjects/Content/R10508/object/pdf/representations_of_ned_kelly.pdf
The above link is to a paper (? is that right Stuart?) based on the experiences of a history teacher at a private girls' school in Qld. Unfortunately, I can find no date. As you can see it is a fairly in-depth assignment which is titled Representations of Ned Kelly. I have not had a chance to examine it in detail but I think it is quite impressive. The tone of the work for the students seems to have been to determine if Kelly was a 'hero or villain'. Ian Jones gets a couple of mentions.
https://syllabus.bostes.nsw.edu.au/hsie/history-k10/life-skills-content/group/936/
This one has been issued by the NSW Board of Studies and is titled Investigating the Past and seems aimed at students in Years 7 to 10. This study guideline is not specifically directed towards Ned Kelly but includes his name along with other notables such as Mandela, Stalin and Gandhi.
http://www.nma.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/19500/Kelly_search_allbw.pdf
The final example was produced by the National Museum of Australia in 2002, so to me alarm bells are ringing already. The Background Briefing note gives a general outline of Ned's story but it sets a specific tone with this comment "In 1878 Constable Fitzpatrick visited the Kelly home to arrest Ned’s brother, Dan, on a charge of horse stealing. Fitzpatrick, a notable liar, claimed that Ned had shot him in the wrist during a scuffle after a drink-affected Fitzpatrick had molested Ned’s 14 year old sister, Kate." The paper then goes on to ask students a series of questions based on various pieces of information and photographs which are included in the paper. At the head of one series of information data of which subsequent questions are asked is this "A main source of knowledge of Ned Kelly is through his own words." This of course is a reference to the Jerilderie letter of which extracts appear followed by questions.
All three of the above sources direct students to carry out further research as part of the assignments which is of course right and proper. They also tend to concentrate to some extent of suggesting that students decide if Ned was a hero or villain and presumably back their individual findings up with research sources.
The problem as I see it is that unless some very serious research is done, then students are simply left with the usual material, which tends to lean towards the 'lovable rascal, antipodean Robin Hood, Irish rebel' profile. And so it goes on generationally. And for the life of me, I can't see how this can be changed.
Early days, Spudee. No-one really wrote anything critical until MacFarlane's 2012 'Kelly Gang Unmasked' book; before that there was only Keith Holdens' chapter in the 1968 'Man & Myth' book. That's over 40 years between drinks. Then there's Morrissey's 2014 'Lawless Life', my 2015 'Redeeming Fitzpatrick' (and just for laughs, the 'Last Words' this year). So there are some key myths being subject to critique for the first time in nearly 50 years. Dee has been running a number of themes here that hopefully she will grow into a consolidated critique at some point; I have written up the Metcalf thing to document that Ned did shoot Metcalf while Kelly nuts blamed the police for 130 years; the Republic is teetering although the work hasn't been put up anywhere yet. So the pillars of the myth are getting wobblier, even if it doesn't look like an alternative narrative is shaping up yet.
There are so many more topics on the brink – Ned was a young colonial, just like Fitzpatrick, with distinctive Australian accents. The Irish stuff is mostly hooey from Moloney. Morrissey has shot the Irish thing down fairly well re Whitty, etc. Dee has shot down the body straps pretty well. Ned probably didn't have any "straight" years. the Cameron and Jerilderie lies are exposed in various places, but need consolidating before it can have much chance of getting off the curriculum. No-one has looked at the many threats of violence various gang members threatened the public with during their robberies. No-one has systematically taken up Kenneally's claim that the gang never harmed a woman (Dan and the Lloyd's robbery at Goodman's store with violent assault and possible rape of Mrs Goodman), robbed a poor man (Morrissy shows they robbed other selectors' drat hoses, and some plough blades for the armour); threatened selectors with damage or death for talking to police…
There's a long list of topics for interested persons to demolish, some of which are off to a good start here; then it takes time to think it through and piece together bits of a new master narrative that is consistent with the historical sources (and not just with selective bits), and the newspapers of the day. I'm pretty confident it's happening, but slowly, as it's impossible to just see a new perspective without testing it in stages. The only people who ever do that are people who apply an instant perspective or methodology and sure, they get a result, but they don't get history. We can obviously not time-travel and can't know everything, but I wouldn't waste my life trying to anyway, certainly not on some bushranger. There are hugely more important historical topics, like nineteenth century constructions of Athenian democracy and why we think about democracy the way we do. But since I've dropped in here, I'd like to play around a but more and at least tackle the republic and give the armour another dent!
Stuart you may have seen on the Ned Kelly Central Facebook page that someone there has made reference to your attempts to update the record, and asks "who is this Dawson guy anyway?" There's a link to the Govt. Ned Kelly web pages that you refer to but the only comments in response to that post have been attacks on you and me by Leigh Olver the Kelly descendant and the vile troll and wrecker, Fitzsimons. I wrote to N K Central by email, to point out that they banned me from that Page for posting what they deemed were attacks on people so I asked if they were going to be consistent and ban these two as well. Predictably they haven't banned them but at least one comment of Fitzsimons was removed.
But more significant than the trivial matter of how fairly or consistently they run their FB page is the COMPLETE ABSENCE of any interest in the Govt. website about Ned Kelly. There hasn't been one single response about it, yet you would think these people who rant and rave about our offerings in regard to Kelly history would be keen to go there, read what's written and comment on what they found. but no, not one peep from any of them. And it's not as if it's hard to find glaring blunders in the narrative presented there – I just noticed for example that it says Steve Hart and Dan Kelly were shot dead, then the Hotel was burned to the ground and then Ned Kelly was captured. Completely wrong sequences of events, and wrong description of the deaths of Steve and Dan. But none of the NK Central Ned sycophants who have been drooling over the Unforgotten Image could be bothered to read this stuff and comment on it. It's really pathetic how shallow these peoples real interest is in Kelly history, how ignorant so many of them are in the detail and how utterly unqualified most of them who are to make attacks on people like you, a serious knowledgeable thoughtful Kelly scholar. This of course is the post-truth world in which we live, the deplorables are having their revenge on people who actually know what they are doing, and true professionals and people with qualifications are being told opinion is what counts now, not the facts. So we have unqualified morons trying to run the world and to write Kelly history. Their reign will end fairly soon I expect once everyone realises that being unqualified means you will mostly make a mess of everything but there's going to be some chaos to get through first. We have to keep standing for historical accuracy, and keep opposing garbage in Australian history when we see it.
Dee, I haven't looked at those sites since about March and saw no reason to go back. Please don't mention me in any connection with them. I not going to waste even one minute on other people's stupid blog wars.
Lazy Ernie? Really? You call the years of effort Matt Shore has put in looking for a permanent home for a Kelly Museum Lazy? I have been a student of the Kellys for 30 years+. Am I lazy? No, there are no scientists or forensic specialists at the Vault. What is there though is a dedicated curatorial staff who can source the scientific feedback when required. I found your comment very stupid I am afraid..
Mark with all your apparent Kelly contacts, have you managed to find answers to my 2 questions above?
The Unforgotten Photo – Its not Ned
Stuart, do you really think using the Jerilderie letter as a school text is outrageous? I'm shocked that you would be this narrow minded to think that about other educators and the actual text in question! Surely educators would be well versed in 'educating' students into all the various points of view about the Jerilderie Letter and then making the students think about deeper ethical type issues raised in class discussions. Isn't that what teachers do!
From my experience with tertiary life, a lecturer may only talk about their own specialised areas of interest or study, whereas a teacher would be required to actually teach. A bit of a difference.
Bill Denheld in your link it is quite clear that you did not acknowledge the detail of Matt Shores interview on Ned Kelly Central site otherwise you would realise that two granddaughters of Walter Knight have stated that neither of the men in the photo are Walter Knight their grandfather, or Jack King. The Christies catalogue statement is not correct! That is the whole crux of the matter. Also why would you be comparing Walter Knight with the Ned Kelly axeman figure when in 1886 (roughly the era of the photo) Walter Knight was 10 years old according to the BDM records, he doesn't look like that age to me. This blurry looking guy in the photo is not Walter Knight!
Not sure why all you guys are talking about 1886. In that Sneak Preview article Christies says the photo itself and the men’s clothing suggest a date in the 1890’s, more than 10 years after Ned and Dan's deaths. And up this post here Stuart said Jack was born in 1875 and Walter in 1876 with some references. That means the men are in their twenties in the mid 1890s when the photo was taken. Sounds like the granddaughters don't agree with their mother's statement that one of the men is her father, so even the family oral history is disputed and inconclusive. Nothing there shows that the Christies catalogue statement is not correct. The photo that Bill found looks very like the man in the Unforgotten photo. Much more than the Ned photos do. The argument that it is Ned is losing ground.
Blurry photo compared with a blurry photo, not very scientific to me Bill, but it makes for a good anti 'The Vault' headline for your blog.
Matt Shore has already stated that the grandaughters have verified that neither men are their grandfather Walter Knight or Jack King.
rubbish.
Anonymous-29 Dec 2016, says 'I do not acknowledge the detail of Matt Shore's interview on NKCentral regarding what the two Grand daughters of Walter Knight have stated, that the photo is not their Grand father. '
Question,
Why would Elsie Pettifer's two grand daughters know better than their own Grand mother, of what HER father Walter Knight looked like?
Anonymous1 Jan 2017,
Why would I be anti the NK Vault ? I've never been there. I'm aware it’s the same display stuff shown at ' Ned the Exhibition at South Bank Melbourne many years ago, so why would I want to do a special 500 km round trip to see a photo that's in a Christies catalogue?
On my page' Is this Ned?' the image of Walter Knight and the railway sleeper cutters head shot is more than sufficient to tell me they are a very close match, blurry or not. Its up to the owners of the photo to show why it is Ned and not Walter Knight.
Starting to look like the two grand daughters own the photo and would like to pass it off as a photo of Ned.
You are obviously not that serious Bill about your claims then! You have based this whole reasoning about your Walter Knight theory on two blurry photos and without a visit to see the high def version of the photo – and you are proud of the fact that you haven't seen the high def version???… Sounds like you are stirring the pot, and its obvious that you are giving Matt Shore a hard time also. Not to mention the two grandaughters accusing them of passing the photo off as Ned and then accusing them of owning the photo.
Many know your involvement with the original Ned Kelly Centre and I suspect you are protecting your interest in this Centre in some way by dismissing this photo.
Answer,
Because Bill according to Matt Shore's interview, Elsie Pettifer was asked over the PHONE if she could state who was in the photo?… and she said "if it is not Ned (Kelly) then it could be Walter and Jack". Elsie never saw the final catalogue entry as she was deceased. THE CATALOGUE ENTRY IS NOT ACCURATE according to those that would know.
I would urge everyone to look at Bills site and in particular the photo of Walter Knight that Bill has posted there. I gasped when I first saw it because there really is a surprising resemblance between Walter Knight and the character on the right that everyone is trying to prove is Ned. Again, I have to point out that the Vault has still NOT supplied any official reason why the latest bunch of experts who have examined the Photo disagree with the 2001 bunch who said the clothes were from the 1890's.
Lay off Bill you cretins. He has done all the hard yards at SBC and amply proved his case.
You are nobodies who haven't attempted to prove anything!
Bill and Carla, have a GREAT 2017!
More misleading information by some Anonymous who can't even read the interview properly. According to Matt Shore's interview "What we think likely is that Elsie (in conversation over the telephone) said, it was a photo of Ned, but then when questioned further commented if it wasn’t Ned, it would be ‘Dad and Uncle Jack’". It is only a wild self-serving guess by Mr Shore and whoever else his "we" are that Elsie Pettifer MIGHT have said this. He (or they) have made it up. Now the Anonymous is trying to turn a wild guess into a true fact.
"Lay off Bill you Cretins"………!?
Well that sounds very informative and scientific doesn't it.
The photo of Walter Knight is obviously a much older image of the man Bill is comparing when studying the low def version of the Ned photograph (Walter would be 40+). Did Walter have a moustache during the 1880's and 1890's?
Maybe the grandaughters know a lot more than we do, I would say MORE THAN BLOODY LIKELY.
Yet some folk have the arrogance to speculate about someone they know virtually nothing about based on one blurry photograph.
…..A photograph of my big toe the other day actually looked like the side view of my baby photo……it's nonsense Bill!
I would be interested to hear Bill's latest thoughts and feelings about the Ned Kelly Centre, as he was one of the first to advocate this. I suspect others would want to know if this is clouding his judgement and motives with the photo, his feelings about Matt Shore and The Vault.
Thanks Deazza Haines for your reply, my point here is crystal clear – and under ANONYMOUS also, is that a problem?
Why is Bill analysing a photo of Walter Knight that is obviously an older photo of him (40+) and trying to convince everybody it's the same guy in the blurry 'Ned' photo, when he has been informed by Matt Shore (through an interview), that it is not Walter Knight.
Three possible reasons as to why…..
1. He has an axe to grind with Matt Shore and likes to stir up trouble
2. He has a personal interest in the Ned Kelly Centre and cannot be seen supporting The Vault and would prefer to discredit The Vault's professionalism
3. He is thinking that he is more equipt to scientifically prove his theory than Spring and The State Library.
Or may I suggest that all Three reasons apply here and we all await Bill's response to confirm otherwise.
Anonymous,
1, Why would I have an axe to grind with Matt Shore or the Vault?
I've known him since mid 1990s. He and I have discussed Kelly things in the past and about the NKV displays. For the Vault's grand entrance he recently asked me to provide a very large drawing 'as a birds eye view' of the route the Kellys took to get from SBC to the Woolshed Valley. A trade off for the work could not be reached even though I was prepared to do the drawing without monetary payment.
2, The Boyd/Denheld design for a Ned Kelly Centre Glenrowan seems a non event today. If the local authorities could not get it off the ground in 2003 when there were plenty of funds available, then it is unlikely with today's fund starved Govts.
On our webpage http://www.nedkellycentre.com we have provided a suggested pathway to getting a fresh start. A lot depends upon the descendants of the families involved. Quote " If the descendants cannot reach agreement, it is perhaps best that a centre not be built. However, once an agreed aim is known, professional help can express that aim into a building brief – i.e. a list of functional requirements for a proposed building. We, Penleigh Boyd and Bill Denheld, would be happy to assist in that process of developing the agreed aim into a building brief. Once that was established the building brief would be opened up to a design competition, how much it would cost and even where it would be best located. To date I do not believe anything like this has transpired.
3, Regarding the Unforgotten photo, There is no science needed on my part to identify the men in the photo, just common sense. If the suspected named person in the photo looks like the person in another photo so named and they look alike its more than likely to be the same person. I am sure if Professor Gale Spring had been shown the image of Walter Knight he would have come up with the same conclusion that I have suggested.
I have also re uploaded some extra images to the page linked.
Far too many anonymice here. The latest is a bewildering goose who continues to attack Bill for no apparent reason – and mentions "a photograph of my big toe"… Sorry Anon, I'm just not following you at all. Get to the point or stop posting garbage here.
1. Not Confirmed – Looks like there is a bit more to this story Bill, but hey that's great you haven't got any axe to grind with Matt Shore.
2. Confirmed – you have more than a general interest in The Ned Kelly Centre.
3. Confirmed – according to you there is no science needed to identify the men in the photo. Ok so that means you now officially can identify people from blurry photos using common sense….Amazing skill you have….. Sorry Bill your analysis is now shot to pieces.
To the Anonymous attacking Bill – the possibility that you have entirely overlooked is that Bill is doing precisely what the Vault has been encouraging people to do all year, which is to look at the Photo and decide if you think its Ned. You are aggressively promoting a line that Bill is acting in bad faith and its all about some other agenda but your sarcasm, and misrepresentation of what Bill has said suggests to me its YOU who is acting in bad faith. Why would a person need 'science' if common sense proves an answer? Matt Shore has NOT said this photo is NOT Walter Knight – on many occasions he has been at great pains to point out that nobody can be 100% sure WHO it is, so if that is the case then it could be anyone whose Photo matched this one, and Walter Knight is one such possibility that Bill has advanced. On what basis do you say your Point 2 is "Confirmed" meaning that Bill doesn't want to be seen supporting the Vault and wants to discredit its professionalism? You're just making this stuff up for your antiBill agenda.
The reality is this : the Vaults explanation of why they have discarded Elsie Petifers identification of her father in a Photo is ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC. To say that daughters are less likely to know what their father looks like than the mans GRAND DAUGHTERS is totally absurd, and yet the Vault has decided to accept the granddaughters view over the daughters (Elsie Pettifers) and appears to have no evidence for this other than a phone conversation that they admit is a pure invention to try to explain what might have happened. THIS IS GARBAGE.
Also GARBAGE is the fact that the Vault HAS NOT answered the question relating to the clothes these men are wearing.
Experts apparently said they were not typical of clothes worn in 1874 and because of the dating of the Photo, and Elsie Pettifers opinion it was decided the Photo was NOT Ned.
Now you may believe its Ned and be satisfied with the answers the Vault has given already, preferring just to accept what you're told. However, others are not, and people like Bill have taken up the challenge that the Vault ITSELF made to anyone and everyone interested, stirring up interest and encouraging speculation for MONTHS before the Image was finally made Public in that complete JOKE of a viewer. Was the Vault whipping up all that interest just to dismiss it in the end once they had their Publicity ? Were they just PRETENDING they wanted people to make up their own minds? All the talk about the families need for secrecy – was that just cynical pretence as well? It certainly went right out the window recently, with copies of it being made and spread far and wide, and published in national and International Newspapers.
Now all the Kelly followers are rushing about like dumb chooks picking up all the tidbits the Vault throws in their direction, they've forgotten about the arguments once made about Ned Kellys beard, about the Clothes , about Elsie Pettifer, how it couldn't possibly be Dan, how it was Saunders and Rules Mill and suddenly we've jumped forward several years and its mad speculation about Ned and Dan building a house. All those questions just shunted aside and the hysterical Kelly wagon rolls on, everyone is expected simply to accept the now PC line that its Ned Kelly and some other person, and ignore the unanswered questions from a week or two ago.
Unfortunately the Vault has made some major errors in its handling of this whole episode, and they mainly centre around the cynical way they have manipulated Public interest in the Photo, whipping up interest when it suited, ignoring it when it didnt, giving answers when it suited and not when it didnt, responding to the questions that suited it but ignoring the ones that didnt, ignoring suggestions and people who weren't swallowing the hysteria and the party line.
"Anonymous" I wish you would simply accept that Bill is making his opinions and viewpoint known in accordance with the expressed desire of the Vault, give his ideas and the man the respect they deserve. It might be Walter! And it might be Ned…
I'm not attacking Bill, but defending The Vault, Dee. I can accept that Bill has every right to have his own opinion, but this site has allowed continual attacks and critical scrutiny of Matt Shore, The Vault and this photo – with an apparent bias.
Why would this site allow non scientific theories from Bill to be proudly defended here?, but on the other hand criticise someone who has done all the hard yards to get the image verified as much as possible and then say that's not good enough.
When Matt Shore released an interview attempting to answer many obvious questions and also offering to address other individual queries, he did the right thing respectfully for all. How many from this site actually asked legitimate questions then in the format he offered? Now suddenly all these new questions he has to answer right here!.. right now!……Give the guy a break.
But back to the photo itself, it seems to be an evolving story anyway, Matt has suggested himself that he does not have all the answers.
Isn't it great that we now have the privilege of seeing the image ourselves to speculate and decide. An actual photo owed by Ellen Kelly according to its Provenance, and it's possibly Ned Kelly…pretty amazing.
You also say The Vault has "major errors" in handling the photo, I would say this site has major issues with people interpreting known information, treating others as rivals and showing a bias by looking after their own blogging buddies.
It's all about the BLOG WARS, just as Stuart Dawson suggests.
This Blog is not immune to criticism, and I don't ban people who are critical of it, which is what the Vault does and so does NK Central.
As far as your complaint about what you call 'attacks and critical scrutiny of Matt Shore, the Vault and the Photo' isn't this exactly what the Vault / Matt Shore was encouraging everyone to do? They can hardly complain if they don't like what people come up with in responding to that call can they?
And you must have missed the questions I Posted on N K Central in response to their request for them, for Matt to subsequently answer – you will have missed them because they were deleted, but I rePosted them on Ned Kelly The True Story Facebook page and you will see they included the very same unanswered questions we are all still asking for answers to. As I Said before you may be satisfied with the answers given, but not everyone is.
I agree it IS an intriguing find, but to call it the Kelly discovery of the Century is overdoing it I think, especially given that even Matt Shore has said nobody can be sure it's Ned, and that even if it is, it adds nothing to our knowledge or understanding of the outbreak or of Ned Kelly. I think it's fascination for Kelly sympathisers is because it gives them something to argue about that doesn't in any way threaten their sacred beliefs about Ned. Serious discussions about critical subjects never happen – except HERE.
How exactly can this photo contribute ANYTHING to the Kelly story if we can't say who it is?
Wow! Dee banned from two sites, you must have really over stepped the line. I see you also published private emails from the Ned Kelly Central site, a major error of judgement I think (looks like sour grapes on your behalf also).
Yes The Vault was asking for people to view and make up their own minds, and that is exactly what people are doing isn't it. I don't think The Vault is complaining as far as I have read online, but I am just stating some observations from what I have seen here and as an anonymous contributor.
I actually think the photo does add immensely to the Kelly story in that it shows 'the man' in a completely different light, not incarcerated, human and stoic. A picture says a thousand words in this case.
I think serious discussions about Ned Kelly "critical subjects" actually do happen outside of the narrow, insular online blog world. My advice, I wouldn't flatter yourself too much here as it looks a bit self indulgent and belittling of others.
All the best with your seemingly biased and overcritical at times blog, I'm off to enjoy the sun…..
Why have you deleted my comment Dee?
Is this selective editing now of your blog comments from contributors?
Who says you publish everything here, you only publish what YOU choose.
Apologies : I was at the shops and your Post came on my Phone, and I replied to it but forget to post your Comment, which I have now done. I ALWAYS publish comments submitted except when they are direct abuse and personal attacks.I used to not moderate ANYcomments and EVERYTHING was published but the Kelly troll Fitzsimons so abused that privilege with abuse and personal attack that I introduced what I do now, with the result that his abusive responses have completely stopped and virtually everything – but not absolutely everything – that's posted as a comment gets through. But yes This time I replied to your comment before even posting it which was purely an oversight. I apologise.
Thanks I see the comment has returned.
I have just re uploaded IS THIS NED
On Ned Kelly Vault a Walter Knight descendant posted a picture of Walter wearing a hat.
They say this person looks nothing like the person in the sleeper cutters photo.
Please take a look and make up your own mind.
Anonymous: If I was the webmaster here I would have banned you yonks ago. You are a very tiresome bore who is leading us around nowhere. Bill Denheld is revered hereabouts not only for his magnificent first-hand SBC ressrch, but his vast knowledge of the whole Kelly story…
Ok Bill, I have taken a look and I have made up my mind now…..you must be mocking everybody with your comparison parody.
I get the joke now.
Thank you Bill for the comparison in your link. Yes the new Walter Knight photo posted actually looks like the older Walter Knight photo on the left. They must be the same person, thanks for confirming this.
Anonymous – go and jump on your head! You are wasting everyone's time and Bill's with nonsensical blether and totally unfounded postulations of your own. Go away! Go away, NOW! And don't ever come back!
"Go and jump on your head"….Ok..I guess, that's the only possible way I could ever distort my brain enough to see any similarities between Walter and the 'Ned' image. As for wasting time I think Bill is travelling down a very ineffectual path comparing obviously two very different people and then trying to suggest or convince us that it is the same person.
The only possible intent Bill could have is to treat us all jokingly with a mocking parody of the photo, as nobody surely would take his claims seriously. I did have a good laugh though, thanks Bill.
No that's NOT the only possible intent Bill could have: he might be quite genuinely testing various other possibilities regarding the identity of the unidentified person in the Photo, and unlike so many others whose blinkers and Kelly tinted glasses would see Ned Kelly's face in a fried egg if they were told to look there, Bill has an open mind and is prepared to think outside the tiny square that the Photo fanatics have erected around it. Bill has actually said he hopes it IS Ned, he's said he thinks it probably IS Ned and. In the final analysis might decide like I have that it is as likely to be Ned as to justify putting aside various doubts. However in the meantime his curious mind is exploring other possibilities and he's sharing his thoughts with anyone who is interested. Why do you react with sarcasm and ridicule instead of appreciation of his generosity, and make use of the opportunity to expand your horizons?
Yes agree Bill is testing out all of us…..with his theory. I've reached my tolerance for such nonsense.
So go away, then.
You are much smarter than Doyle, Flannery, Denheld and many others, or so you say – but you are anonymous – so how can we tell?
Happy New Year Fitzy!
Happy New Year Fitzy??….who is Fitzy? what a strange site this is.
I have to go away now for making comment…Paul Baird sounds like you need to get some good manners.
Dee, don't let anonymous whackers clag up your pages.
There is clearly an agenda by some anonymous posters whose aim it is to pollute a discussion as a defence for their way of thinking. Their 'thought viruses' add little or no truth to an open internet discussion like this Blog, except leave their poo behind. And incidentally, Viruses are microscopic parasites that lack the capacity to thrive and reproduce outside of a host body. So, perhaps consider deleting postings that add nothing to the topic, just like other sites who have little concern to delete or deny well intended comments if they do not support their way of thinking. The readers will make up their own minds what is true or not.
I think you have nailed it Paul!
Bill, there is clearly an agenda by some here to use it as a platform for their theories. If others disagree with the theory maybe it's for good reason.
You have been promoting your theory about the photo on this site, what do you expect a universal congratulations for something that is obviously nonsense or what would be bordering on offensive to descendants of Walter Knight. I can understand a marginal visual 'common sense' similarity between the two blurry photo's, but Walter Knight at age 40+ is a far stretch. Even the latest photo released of a younger Walter discredits your hypothesis big time.
How can you not see this?
If I choose to be anonymous, that is ok according to Dee's site.
"Bill, there is clearly an agenda by some here to use it as a platform for their theories".
Exactly, Anon, you time-wasting tool. Get Lost!
An expert photo interpreter, you ain't!
This new minutely-intellectual Anonymous might not be Fitzy, but he is a serial internet pest just the same.
Its obvious that The Vault didn't sufficiently research the questioned photo before wildly publishing it. The boastful Matt Shore runs the show! Its his fault, and his alone.
Vault defender 'Anonymous' has unsuccessfully tried to deflect blame onto Bill, a noble bystander in this photographic storm in a teacup.
Thanks Jimmy and Frank for your non contributions and mostly bullying comments, administration must be away on holidays to let this rubbish through. If you want me to go then I will, this is not a very friendly blog!
We don't suffer fools lightly…
You have relentlessly attacked Bill, Doyle, Flannery, Dee, and this site – without any evidence, just based on your daft, anonymous, rather droll opinions. If I want those I can go down to the pub.
If you ever come back here, do so as a recognisable pro-Kelly person, so that everything falls into place.
Thanks,
We'll hold you to that 'Anonymous'. You're a terrible time-waster. We are time poor.
Lookout for the new TV series "Lawless" about the bushrangers, attempting to be more truthful about them than the past shonky retellers of the legends were. Who knows, maybe they have done a good job?
But hasten away, we've had lots more than enough of you!
Nearly 80% certain – The rediscovered photograph, on display at the Beechworth Vault, may have been taken in 1874, when Ned Kelly was 19. Ms Griffiths said she was not interested in the photo as her grandfather, Walter, the son of Ned’s sister Grace, had been adamant it was not Kelly. Photo identification expert Gale Spring, of RMIT University, said it was nearly 80 per cent certain the man on the right is Kelly. Nearly 80%. LOL.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/kelly-gang-descendants-at-war-over-bushranger-lore-and-legacy/news-story/52cf1d3180c5a47bafac282875b53ec9