Saturday, 8 October 2016

Sneak Preview?



Next month the Ned Kelly Vault at Beechworth is going to unveil the ‘Alleged Ned’ photo they’ve been promoting for most of this year as possibly the Kelly find of the century. There has been much speculation and lots of interest in this photo, and no doubt, now they’ve announced that its public unveiling will be on Saturday November 12th, the excitement will build even further. They made me the generous offer of a private viewing some weeks ago, but not living in Victoria, I was unable to take them up on it. Peter Newman offered to go in my place and write a Post for the Blog about what he saw, but the Vault insisted the offer was exclusively made to me.

Undaunted, Peter embarked on his own investigation, and has now submitted a post on a photo which he thinks might be the ‘Alleged Ned’ photo that the Kelly Vault now has in its possession. I am not so sure, because the Vaults own promotional material on their photo clearly says it hasn’t been published or been seen in public before, whereas this one obviously has, albeit in a rather limited way.  It appeared in an Auction Catalogue along with the famous – or should we say infamous – “Gentleman Ned” Photo, the one wrongly identified by Ian Jones as being of Ned Kelly. The Auctioneers refunded the successful bidder the purchase price, once it had been clearly shown and accepted by all parties that the Photo was not of Ned.  This other photo mentioned by Peter Newman was passed in at the same auction and presumably returned to the family. One can only guess at the reasons for it not selling, but surely the most likely reason would be that nobody was certain it was Ned.

I thank Peter for this stimulating contribution: it will be interesting to find out next month if he’s on the money or not!

                  
The Gentleman Ned photo was put up for sale at a Christie’s (Melbourne) “Australian Literature and Sport’ auction on 26th March 2002. That auction featured a large number of photos from the Ned Kelly  photographic archives, together with other Kelly memorabilia. Most of the photos were from a collection passed down from Ellen Kelly to her daughter Ellen Knight and grand-daughter Elsie Pettifer. Other photographs were from the Lloyd/Hart collection.

One of the photographs (No 123) is titled ‘Ned and Dan Kelly cutting sleepers’. Could this be the photo the Vault is talking about? If so then the fact it has previously been put up for auction means it is hardly a new find, although the catalogue states it had never previously been published.

The Catalogue contains the following description:

__________________________________________
123
‘NED AND DAN KELLY CUTTING SLEEPERS’ mounted sepia print, 110 x 150 mm

A spidery blue ink description on the back is partly decipherable. It appears to refer to ‘Ned and Dan’ Certainly, some descendants believe that the two men in the photo are Dan Kelly at left, and Ned. However the photo itself and the men’s clothing suggest a date in the 1890’s, more than 10 years after the brother’s deaths. The mustachioed man at left is too old to be Dan Kelly (he died at 19) though the second man, with a half grown beard strongly resembles Ned Kelly. It is true that while Ned Kelly was growing his beard after release from prison in February 1874 he worked at a sawmill. But these two axemen do not look part of a commercial operation and, as already noted, they wear bush clothing that belongs to the 1890’s rather than the 1870’s.

In 1995, Ned Kelly’s niece Elsie Pettifer told Ian Jones that she believed the two men to be her father Walter Knight and his brother-in-law Jack Kelly/King. Jones accepts this identification, though Kelly pictorial expert Keith McMenomy is still tempted to believe the right hand figure is Ned Kelly. THE PHOTOGRAPH HAS NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED.

The mount is badly stained and torn but the image is completely undamaged.

$2000 - 4000
______________________________________________

Despite the doubt expressed about whether it is Ned, my own view is that it could well be him. The facial features look similar to me and the mans build is about right I’d say. However Christie’s say the clothing indicates the photo was taken in the 1890’s so perhaps it is Jack Kelly/King after all.

The Catalogue (which I viewed in the heritage Collection at the SLV) has a notation on it that indicates the photograph was either sold, or perhaps passed in for $1400.00.

The Catalogue contains a lot of other interesting photographs, many of which I had not seen before. Early 1950’s photographs of the Kelly Homestead at Eleven Mile  Creek were of interest, as were the  collection of photographs of many of the  sympathizers and others like Tom Lloyd who played a role in the Kelly story.



48 comments:

  1. this is very interesting. More interesting is that when you look up the lots you speak about, they don't exist. Christie's make available their past auctions along with photo's, lot numbers, prices etc on the website, yet there isn't a lot number 123 under Christie’s “Australian Literature and Sport’ auction on 26th March 2002 (Melbourne). They have photos from Glenrowan and of others well connected to to the story but none of Tom L or the Ned Kelly one you mention... isn't that strange?...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous, I see the Christies' online catalogue http://www.christies.com/australian-history-literature-and-17966.aspx?saletitle= shows only the sale results, not unsold. That would explain why Peter had to go to the State Library to see the printed version. The numbers jump in many places in the online sale results, here jumping from Lot 117 (a red-headed warbler - not Ned, obviously), to 159, Jones' hotel before the fire. So there were what sound like quite a number of Kelly photos unsold, running from at least Lot 123, the one mentioned in this post, to 159, and several more missing numbers after that.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Stuart, I will admit (a little red faced lol) that I didn't consider that or recognise it at all.

      Thanks for taking the time to explain it :)



      Delete
  2. Several weeks ago Captain Jack had said to me that the photo being touted as the find of the century sounded suspiciously like the Ned & Dan woodlot photo in the Christie catalog that Jones had debunked. I have the catalog and took a look but he sent me close up scans he took and had urged me to do a post at my blog on it asking could this be it! I kept hesitating and wringing my hands and only had made mention of it to Michael Ball on the telephone up to this point. I was sort of worried at having egg on my face if it was not the photo in question, but then worried that if it was the real thing and I would break it that I would be hated even more than I am now! ;) Might be a good thing that you and Peter have broken the story instead! :) Now let's sit back and see what the response is from the Vault regarding it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far back as April the Vault asked us to guess what it was they had just been given. If this 'Sneak Preview ' turns out to be right, it will still be interesting to see what they've done with it, because all we have posted here is Peters photo of the photo in the Catalogue and not a lot of the detail has survived the series of reproductions.

      Delete
  3. If the soon to be revealed Vault photo is the same as the photo above, then it is not Ned. There is no doubt at all from the catalogue description and accompanying notes that the photo came to auction with some others, both from the Kelly line through Elsie Pettifer, and from some Lloyd/Harts. It also says, “In 1995, Ned Kelly’s niece Elsie Pettifer told Ian Jones that she believed the two men to be her father Walter Knight and his brother-in-law Jack Kelly/King.”

    If Elsie Pettifer says it’s a photo of her dad, that’s good enough for me. She’d know her own dad. Her expression about who she "believed the two men” are, logically refers to who the second person in the photo probably was, not to her own dad. And if she says the other man is her dad's brother-in-law, Jack Kelly/King, there is no obvious reason to doubt it.

    If it’s a different photo altogether from the one on this page, someone will let the world know in November. It will be interesting to see if the digital enhancement mentioned somewhere just means adjusting the contrast, or if anyone is playing with Photoshop beyond that. Hopefully not, as then we would have an artist's impression. And we know there's a lot of interested artists.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was at that auction and very few of the Kelly-related items sold. Some of those sold went to the museum at Beechworth. I bought an unrelated lithograph cheaply. Maybe I should have bid on the Kelly stuff too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why would Elsie Pettifer not recognise both her Father and Jack Kelly, I spoke To Mrs Pettifer in Glenrowan many years ago, she was an astute lady

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous, there is also the fact that Christies who are experts in these things state in the catalogue listing above that "the photo itself and the men’s clothing suggest a date in the 1890’s, more than 10 years after the [Kelly] brother’s deaths." It seems to be a photo of two proud, handsome bushmen, with still no reason to doubt the Christie's dating along with Mrs Pettifer's description to Ian Jones. Christies have covered themselves by providing this information for buyer's awareness. They have said what it is, and why it is so. It has been sold as a photo of Walter Knight and Jack Kelly/King and, as again stated in the listing, "The mustachioed man at left is too old to be Dan Kelly (he died at 19)". I am mystified why people are trying to make something else out of it. I have just ordered a copy of the Christies catalogue from a secondhand bookseller so I can have a better look, both at it and the other related photos; but assuming the catalogue listing reproduced above is what the catalogue gives in full, then all the information needed to identify these men has been clearly provided. The "spidery blue ink description" that "appears to refer to 'Ned and Dan' is not said to identify them. It may be noting the family relationship. It is logical that they could be a genetic resemblance between Ned Kelly and the man on the right, apparently Jack Kelly/King. Why the great passion to turn it into a photo of Ned? It's still a great bush photo.

      Delete
    2. Got my Christies catalogue this morning; the photo here is from the Ellen Kelly/Ellen Knight/ Elsie Pettifer part of the Kelly lots. The catalogue photo is crisper than the above photo, but the blog here still gives you a reasonable image. Not all the auction items have a photo, but quite a few do. There are a couple of nice photos of the Eleven Mile and Kelly's Gap homesteads, a few of Jack Kelly/King, with one in racing silks from the 1890s. I am not going to play guessing games with photo comparisons, but will stay with my above reading of the Christies description. There are quite a few other interesting photos and cartes de visite pictured in the Kelly listings.

      Delete
  6. Dee, even if this is not the find of the century photo, still it is good for people who have not seen this particular photo before to have a look at yet another example of a disputed Kelly photo. Not many would have a copy of the auction catalog and it has not been online before, either. Interesting how Ian Jones said that the Gentleman Ned photo was the real thing but this woodlot one was not. Was he wrong in one or both cases? In the rough draft I had made for a possible blog post on it I noted where Matt Shore and John Suta were interviewed and John Suta mentioned that Ned had a paunch in the find of the century photo (note the paunch in the suspected photo) and he mentioned 2 men in a woodlot and Matt even mentioned about a billy-can and a coat on a stump in the background. Take a close look and it would seem to be the same items in the same place in the suspected photo. He also said "It is quite incredible that such a photo could be held by the family for 130 years and the public not know about it." But, to be sure, wouldn't Matt have seen the 2002 auction catalog as he has has access to so many other Kelly things in the past, and would know that some of the public did know (that is, if this is the same photo he is touting)? I have been pondering on all this for a couple months and just can't quite wrap my head around it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the details are the same. The Vaults silence when it comes to the photo is getting a little awkward. If it's not the same photo, that's great. But let's be honest - are people going to be ok paying to see a photo they have seen here for free if it is the same one? I don't think so.
      I think Someone needs to say weather or not it is the same photo. They don't have to give away details if it's not the same. Just yes or no would do wouldn't it?
      Personally, I don't think it's them and agree with Stuart above.

      Delete
    2. Remember back when Dee first did a post on the upcoming photo a while back? An anonymous poster said that they had already seen the photo, so, why don't they come here and tell us if it is the same one or not?

      Delete
    3. Agreed. Ps though, that anonymous isn't me (good old blogspot lol). When I was having a look on the vaults page it seems a few people have seen the photo including Mark Perry. Any comments?

      Delete
  7. I reckon on right is Ned and his friend old Bill McMonigal because I have seen a photo of Bill at the sawmill. Perhaps Sharon can up load those close ups that Capt Jack so we can all see them???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you mean John (Jack) McMonigle Bill??

      Delete
    2. Don't you mean John (Jack) McMonigle Bill??

      Delete
    3. Bill, I have written to Capt Jack asking for permission to send the photos so they can be uploaded. One of the pics has a close up of the other man's face, another has the alleged Ned isolated and closer up in full, and the other has side by side comparison photos of the alleged Ned and the boxing Ned.

      Delete
    4. Hi Mark, yes my mistake. As you can see in my post above it was a rushed comment.

      What I meant to say, I had an occasion to meet Val and Bill McMonigle at Glenrowan and saw a photo of Jack McMonigle 'at the sawmill' and to me there is a stong likeness to the figure on left of the photo with Bill.

      On page 75 of Ian Jones' A short life' 2003, third Para mentions the sawmill operators Saunders and Rule and they had just secured a 'railway' sleeper contract for the Gippsland railway. Jack Mc was a leading hand with the outfit and here in the photo we see two men cutting sleepers. To me this photo above that Peter provided fits the scenario perfectly, even its provenance it would seem. So I'm suggesting its Jack Mc and Ned Kelly.

      Delete
    5. I have been informed of a naming mistake - and correct this regarding the person referred to as 'Jack McMonigle' in modern Kelly literature as the Forman at the Saunders and Rule sawmill. His name was actually 'John McMonigle' and was a mate of Ned Kelly. John Mc's son was 'Robert John McMonigle' and he served in the 13th Light Horse. RJ was known as Jack, so it would be incorrect to refer to Ned's mate John McMonigle as Jack.

      Delete
    6. I have been asked to make it quite clear that the photo I saw at Val and Bill McMonigle's place was of Robert John McMonigle at a sawmill, and who was known as Jack, and should not be confused with the twosome photo that was featured in the Christies catalogue of March 2002.

      The inference could be made that because I saw one photo of Jack Mc at a sawmill, a photo owned by Bill McMonigle, then that in the other twosome photo, the person left could be John McMonigle -Jack's father?

      I am told that there is no connection between the two photos. So, for some readers there remains confusion which comes from the fact one photo has a McMonigle in it and to suggest the figure on the left of the (attached) photo above could be John McMonigle with Ned Kelly (right) as they both worked for the sawmill company. This comparison may not be the case although my gut feeling says it could well be John Mc with Ned K.

      Delete
  8. I just heard from Captain Jack and he says the photos can be uploaded here. I tried that tinypic image thing for blogs but not real confident it would turn out right, so will send the scans to Dee to upload and size properly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sharon -Dee, might be best to try upload the images via a webpage like I had done with the threesome photo. I have found Blogger don't want external picture hosting finishing with JPG but does manage webpage links finishing with html or htm. Its all a pain, but unless Dee can fix something and it does not work, then if you want to sent the images to me with your instructions I will create a page htm link so you can post it here Sharon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ok, Dee and I have decided that I would load the photos at my blog and then link back here.

    http://elevenmilecreek.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-find-of-century-with-photo-scans.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great photos Sharon,
      For those accessing this on tablets or I pads here is a live link-

      The Find of the century with photo scans

      I have been informed of a naming mistake - and correct this regarding the person referred to as 'Jack McMonigle' in modern Kelly literature as the Forman at the Saunders and Rule sawmill. His name was actually 'John McMonigle' and was a mate of Ned Kelly. John Mc's son was 'Robert John McMonigle' and he served in the 13th Light Horse. RJ was known as Jack, so it would be incorrect to refer to Ned's mate John McMonigle as Jack.

      So by this information, if this photo is the find of the century, can we draw the conclusion that the figure on the left is John McMonigle ? If so the figure right may well be Ned Kelly as they were good mates.

      Delete
  11. I checked the Vault site yesterday in case of any extra info, and noticed this from the Vault staff on 17 September in reply to someone's question - "We'd have to ask our designer which software was used. In order to preserve the integrity of the original image, not all surface marks were removed. We have been very careful to enhance the image in a subtle way - essentially a 'digital clean-up and enhancement' for a photograph which has faded a little over it's lifetime (nothing unusual there). We considered colouring the photo and also producing a 3D version of it but decided against it. At this stage there are no plans to display the original print but that may change. Part of our visual presentation will feature a high-res scan of the original unedited image and mount - then the restored version. You will be able to see the photo in all its restored and enhanced glory - and we can tell you that it is a major improvement on the original."

    So: still no definite statement about what photo it is; and no original photo on display, just a high-res scan, plus a digitally enhanced image. Hmmm... I was thinking of swinging past on Sunday to see what the fuss was about, but have now lost all interest. Just put the image on the net, guys, and stop playing silly b's.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well the Vault have certainly 'done it again'.

    What a carry on,what a farce,what a waste of time. I (like a few other people now feeling jipped) traveled to Beechworth to see the 'find of the century' just to end up seeing what is a very touched up photo of two blokes that has been around for years. Anyone who seriously believes the man in the photo is Ned Kelly needs to go to Specsavers. Not.Even.Close.

    Thankfully the Beechworth Bakery pies and cakes somewhat made up for my long trip. But I have to say the Vault and the Kelly descendants (who have no more 'knowledge' about Ned Kelly than the average bogan) both need a good kick in the arse for planning this whole charade.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you tell us what information is given at the display anonymous?

      Delete
  13. A Google Alert has this The Face of an Outlaw
    http://wangarattachronicle.com.au/2016/11/14/the-face-of-an-outlaw

    The Face of an Outlaw - Wangaratta Chronicle

    If this does not work try name Bill with link

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what does this 'prominent academic' base his opinion on?

      Delete
    2. Who knows? But anyone with eyes can see it's not Ned Kelly.

      Delete
  14. So Mark I see you have seen THE photo at the Kelly Vault. What's your opinion as to its authenticity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More to the point Spudee, what is Professor Spring's opinion as to the authenticity of the photograph? I understand his opinion was given at the official Vault launch of the photograph, but I haven't seen any specific statement regarding the scientific analysis or process which led to his conclusions (or even what his specific conclusion actually is). My own view is that the photo is of Ned and I also have an opinion on the identity of the second person (and it is not Dan). However before I express my views I'd like to see what Professor Spring had to say about the photo given he is a Professor of Forensic Photography and I am just an amateur.

      Delete
  15. This morning I noticed on Ned Kelly Central FaceBook page
    https://www.facebook.com/NKCentral/posts/1811253812474370
    where Matt Shore submitted his answers to NKCentral readers questions.
    I made this posting-
    Interesting read Matt, but can you please explain this Para -
    " Of course we now know for certain the photo is from the 1880s or even 1890s, following a detailed inspection by photographic experts at the State Library of Victoria. Again, the photograph was never examined forensically until this year. "

    As I have stated on Dee's blog I do believe it is a photo of Ned and his leading hand John McMonigle, but if the photo is from 1880 or even 1890 how could Ned be in this photo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forensically examined by who? I don't think Matt or his pals are forensically qualified.

      More nonsense.

      Delete
  16. I've just added this comment to NK Central discussion on the photo.
    I post it here as I know not everyone goes to NKC.
    I wrote to Leigh Olver -

    " Thanks Leigh.
    The description of the photo in the catalogue # 123 - says a sepia print. If the original has a purple tinge to it, then this sepia print does not exhibit that.

    Besides, as said it's not a Carte de Visite' photo usually having a proportion of 1.616 to one, but this sepia print has a proportion of 1.36 to one.

    Photos with a purple tinge strongly suggest a Daguerreotype named after the inventor Daguerre a popular process circa 1840 - 1850s. This then suggests the original has been recently seen and is contrary to what's been made out that the photo was lost till a phone call to the Vault earlier this year. Are we talking about the original or the copy?

    To talk about a sepia print with a purple tinge means an original not a print, although what's been discussed is a copy print of the original. If this copy print has tonings of purple, it can only be a modern colour print copy of the original and not a copy made in the late 1890s for family and friends.

    So what's the point? There remains confusion as to the original date of the photo. If the Christies catalogue experts state the clothing belongs to 1890s, but the photo purple tinge belongs to 1850 -60 or 70s, then perhaps the owners of the original need to make the original available for greater scrutiny if it is ever to be identified as Ned Kelly's image.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the NK Central FB page linked here- Ned Kelly Central Vault photo

      Leigh Olver speaking on behalf of Matt shore and the apparent family who own the photo has answered some of my questions regarding the Purple tinge. That is to say 'the copy' we are discussing is made up of Sepia brown toning (pigments) that have some sort of Blue Purple separations apparently caused through age and the copy process.

      Leigh said its all straightforward and I noted Matt agreed but since then his comment is no longer visible.

      I'm still not certain about whether there is an original and a 'copy as shown in the Christies Catalogue' the one at the Vault in Beechworth.
      I say this because Leigh wrote " Matt said that the SLV and (Mr) Gale Spring have analysed the 'original' and its confirmed its not a Daguerreotype print but a 'Gelatine print' so they are talking about the Copy as the Original, still confusing.

      My last comment though, it seems too much of a co-incidence that the COPY ( from a 1870s original photo ) was made up to 20 years later- 1890s, the same era to that of the clothing style worn then according to the Christies Auction house experts.

      It would appear there are two factors that could help verify it is Ned Kelly in the photo, (1) Identify the other person in the photo,
      (2) Have expert clothing historians verify the clothing era.

      Delete
    2. Bill I find it curious that Leigh Olver has become the spokesperson for this Image even though at other times when questions are asked that he finds too awkward to answer he pretends it's the Vault who have all the answers. The reality of the situation is that the Image the Kelly's allowed the Vault to promote for their advantage is a copy of an original which has been lost. At least that's how it appears to me but be careful Bill as trying to get a straight answer from Mr Olver is likely to get you banned from NKCenter! But you're quite right to point out that as yet nobody has attempted to answer the question about the clothes being worn, which in 2002 were said to be of a type not seen till after Ned was dead! They need to answer that one really soon or else they might have to back away from the claim it could be Ned. And don't forget many THOUSANDS of dollars are resting on this being a pic of Ned!

      Delete
  17. I noticed in the 'Australian' paper today the photo is front page news.
    Dee you are almost correct predicting NKCentral FaceBook would ban me - they deleted my last comment.

    The irony is I was instigator of a discussion line suggesting it was Ned and his mate John McMonigle.

    However when it came to clothing style and date of the photo being suggested around 1890s they did not like my digging too deep.

    At the beginning I was being referred to as Bill but after some sticky questions, Matt called me Mr Denheld.

    I made Matt aware that I had known him from when he was a teenager visiting our neighbours house across the street and that he does not have to 'Mr Denheld me'.

    His reply was - " Oh Bill....you're mistaking me for somebody else. We were never neighbours!"
    This makes out as if I don't know what I'm talking about.
    I needed to reply with this so the readers know the facts-

    " Matt, I have not mistaken you for someone else. You used to visit our neighbours house across the street in Mount View Parade Croydon, where you and the other boys played music and practiced in their garage, that’s where we met. You were a teenager and school friend of our neighbours son Anthony who I think was the drummer. I have your 'Ned the Exhibition' business card, we have communicated over many years and you can call me Bill."

    This it seems was enough to have my post deleted and replaced with this-
    Ned Kelly Central "WE REMIND FOLLOWERS THAT YOU SHOULD KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ON TOPIC AND RELEVANT TO THE POST OR COMMENTARY MAY BE REMOVED."

    Was my comment to Matt Off topic?
    One admin should have seen calling me Mr Denheld when all along I was Bill is a sign of disrespect to the debate rather than showing respect, given our long term association and no mistake on my part at all.

    So we can all see its just not worth debating with these fellows. Its quite apparent Matt, Leigh, and James and others in the background are all admins of NKCentral and will only allow a debate what suits them.

    On a further post I will give you my conclusion about the photo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds pretty typical to me Bill - lots of shooting the messenger which seems to be NK Central's MO. But to me it is just another clear indication that some Kelly supporters don't want ant form of debate, even when it comes to their own identities! Sounds a bit paranoid to me. All the best for the season and let's hope 2017 is a better year for mankind.

      Delete
    2. Hi Bill, after sitting back in the early stages of the site, and seeing what comments actually appear on Ned Kelly Central, I think they do a reasonably good job, considering all the bullshit that can get posted there by various individuals. Facebook is a tough medium to use, as is this Blogger technology. Dee has pre-filtering turned on, but as far as I know, Ned Kelly Central does not.

      From memory Bill, your last comment was deleted, not for any other reason other than it wasn't relevant to the topic. You were trying to convince Matt that you knew him from his childhood, which to be fair to the site, wasn't entirely to topic (was it?). It appears to me you tend to come here to get sympathy, then dig in when you're over there, which is perhaps a little two faced. Plus, you're making predictions (here, with support) about getting blocked, which to me is a typical characteristic of a shit stirrer. I never got the impression of you getting close to being blocked, based on your conversations over there. Time to be constructive, not destructive, as a large number of us do follow and read a lot of sites related to Ned, and your tone does change remarkably.

      ...oh and as much as it could be a compliment, I'm going to have to burst your bubble and say that little 'Ol James Gray is not an admin of Ned Kelly Central, sorry! Another assumption that took me by surprise, but your statement did make me laugh.

      'Tis the season to be jolly!

      Delete
  18. Replies
    1. Interesting read Bill, thanks for sharing, but with no disrespect, I'm still strongly inclined to believe it IS Ned. You have "some" fair theories, but without seeing the original or detailed scan (as I've seen in Beechworth), you're only really guessing. Paper layers, fungi, glue, etc. are all wild guesses (albeit reasonable ones based on your images that you've only found from the net). I'm leaning well on the side of the professionals here, because they work constantly in the field, and with some seriously credible experience (more than perhaps Camera House). I know many here have grizzled (which is not surprising), about some of them 'not' wanting to be attached to any statement or public interview, but with the history of anti/pro Kelly individuals giving organisations and individuals a seriously hard time without any valid reasons, do you really blame their absence in this case? The Kelly world is often an controversial one. Once bitten, twice shy I'd say!

      ...and as for the original or high quality scan, not being public on the Internet, I say well done to the family for wanting to share, but at the same time keeping it not too public. If they really wanted it out there, public for all, to make money (as many here have already negatively judged), surely they would have gone straight to ACA or the Today show. By giving much attention on sites like this, we're all perhaps inadvertently giving it more value. I'm a FIRM believer that money isn't the owners intention, and keeping it private (to some degree) was a wise choice. I still get extremely pissed off when people demand more, drumming constantly at someone's privacy, when ultimately it's the owners choice. If you had something of historical significance (with an element of two scary sides), and potentially get bombarded by a lot of crazies, would you be out there (let it out there) into the public? I for one would not. Let those who want to come, come, and then the image gets viewed by those with an interest, and of some knowledge at least, not those wild uneducated, judgemental types.

      ...and although most of us will have already made our minds up, well before even seeing the image at Beechworth, (choosing to take our so called side) we will almost always tend to try and discredit or defend (many quite stubbornly) without that open mind. Some will even make a decision purely based on their relationship with those involved with the image, which is such a shame...history is worth much more than that.

      Delete
  19. Replies
    1. To me the bloke on the right certainly has a close resemblance to Walter King Bill.

      Delete
  20. Yes Spudee it resembles a Walter King from Shepparton in 1984 but who is Walter King by the way?
    As for resembling a blurry Walter Knight I would say not a very scientific analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very astute there Anon. My bad, I meant good old Wally Knight. He's the second cousin of Walter King and I always get those two mixed up. Must be because they look so alike!

      Delete

1. Moderation is back on. I haven’t got time to be constantly monitoring what comments are made and deleting the mindless rubbish that Kelly sympathisers have been posting lately. Please post polite sensible comments, avoid personal abuse and please use the same name whenever you Post, even if its a made-up name.


2. Do you want to provide an active Link in your Comment? The simplest way that I can suggest is to click HEREand follow the simple instructions. This site creates the Tag that you then copy and insert into your Comment.