tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post7507371557848660084..comments2024-01-19T04:32:25.260+11:00Comments on Ned Kelly : Death of the Legend: And the Winner is....Deehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-9876362423737517942016-11-26T13:29:55.350+11:002016-11-26T13:29:55.350+11:00Mark, no, that was my post and I was the one who d...Mark, no, that was my post and I was the one who deleted it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-34220337090744943702016-11-23T14:33:52.071+11:002016-11-23T14:33:52.071+11:00was this your comment that was deleted Jim? Was i...was this your comment that was deleted Jim? Was it obnoxious toward me by any chance? Hope not. I am a fair and reasonable bloke. Mark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-26900206958345548952016-11-22T11:10:07.761+11:002016-11-22T11:10:07.761+11:00Hi Dee, what's happened to the blog?Hi Dee, what's happened to the blog?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-16972204311480963222016-11-20T11:08:53.471+11:002016-11-20T11:08:53.471+11:00'As for the image, I'd almost bet my hot c...'As for the image, I'd almost bet my hot cup of tea, that more than one professional was used in the research and verification process.' You may well be right on that James but the point I am trying to make is that nobody from the Vault, or elsewhere, has outlined how they have arrived at the conclusions about the photo. Why not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-55238086821331189332016-11-19T16:32:16.850+11:002016-11-19T16:32:16.850+11:00Hi Spudee, no I wasn't stating that you were q...Hi Spudee, no I wasn't stating that you were questioning harshly, but explaining the general tone through many of these posts. I actually made mention that I respected your statements.....thumbs up there!<br /><br />As for the image, I'd almost bet my hot cup of tea, that more than one professional was used in the research and verification process. <br /><br />From my limited knowledge of photography, I believe there really aren't many photos of Ned Kelly out there (certainly not without armour on ;-) ) to compare against, and images taken from different angles and distances will be (I'm sure) difficult to match up against. Weren't some of the images by the police at the time, modified anyway, with editing done on the pictures to give an impression of how he supposedly looked. Correct me, but how many "natural" looking pictures of Ned Kelly are there? <br /><br />James, MelbourneJames Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12689246286801919668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-13434199713859513262016-11-19T16:07:28.403+11:002016-11-19T16:07:28.403+11:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-3329247896754923912016-11-19T15:30:58.697+11:002016-11-19T15:30:58.697+11:00I agree with Mark 100 percent, "We all have o...I agree with Mark 100 percent, "We all have our own opinions and good points to make", and that doesn't mean people are going to agree, but we should at least be able to raise stuff for discussion without being howled down by a glee club. I have never been a regular blog poster anywhere, but I had a big run with Metcalf a few weeks ago, to use it like an online conference paper, putting my evidence up and seeing what questions and problems came up. A number of problems were raised, that forced me to work a lot harder than I thought I would have to, to sort the issue out. This is the only such blog I know of, where people are happy to challenge things without (generally) just shouting the poster down. I found the discussion very productive, and am now writing the Metcalf myth up as a proper article, to offer for publication somewhere. I think it is fair enough for people to ask for evidence about the various competing historical claims that are made about Kelly. What the Metcalf myth exposed was the deliberate misrepresentation of historical documents by 'experts' to push particular views of Ned. The facts are that Ned shot Metcalf and the police got wrongly blamed. It doesn't dramatically change Kelly history, but it does debunk one part of the often repeated myths - or lies - about how bad the police were. Those lies are part of a pattern that I think began with Kenneally's historically wrong "loaded dice" argument. The reality is that generally speaking, police go where the crime is. The Kelly clan were horse thieves preying mostly on fellow poor selectors. They weren't noble heroes, but a bunch of often thuggish self-interested larrikins. The police kept a close watch on them not because of some weirdo "loaded dice" vendetta, but because of the exploitation and suffering they inflicted across several districts as key players in the Baumgarten horse stealing racket. That is where the Kelly gang story begins, I think; the Fitzpatrick incident was well down the line and an accidental by-product of that. Kenneally, under the influence of Kelly's cousin Tom, thought he had discovered a secret 'inner history'; what he never realised was what good liars crooks are, and they got him hook, line and sinker. That's how I think the Metcalf story slots in. It wasn't in Kenneally, but see how happily it slots into the police-bashing FitzSimons book. And why are the police so bad? Just look at Fitzpatrick... And the negative bits of the Royal Commission... Just proves the Kelly gang were really good guys all along, hey what?Stuart Dawsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-86984958294536890232016-11-19T11:53:45.934+11:002016-11-19T11:53:45.934+11:00Firstly James if you are saying that I 'questi...Firstly James if you are saying that I 'questioned harshly' Mark Perry in my reply to his post, I have reread my post and for the life of me I can't see any question that I might have asked that could be considered 'harsh'. But if I have please enlighten me on this point. But I certainly haven't used words like 'gutless' to describe other posters! However, back to the point of my most recent post in answer to Mark Perry. <br />I challenged the provenance of the photo and gave my reasons why. Oh, the incorrect date I gave was simply a typo and for that I apologise. The Kelly Vault has made a big deal about this photo and as its validity has been questioned before, surely you can understand why others, including myself, can ask about its provenance? Why do we simply have to trust one professional without that person justifying and explaining his opinion? It seems to me that in a relatively important historic context, if you arrive at a conclusion, then it needs to be justified and not merely accepted as fact. By citing Prof Gale Spring, an expert in scientific photography, as the source of confirmation for the photo, I assume that the Kelly Vault was adding credence to the photos authenticity.<br />From what I know and have read, to arrive at a conclusion that a photo of a person is identical to another photo, the process usually involves the examination of the facial features of that person. That is unless of course there are other physical features (tattoos, peculiarities, scars or deformities) which can be used for comparison. The proportional distances and angles between specified facial features visible in the photographs are measured and compared. Sometimes one photo can be superimposed over the other and a visual inspection carried out. But even these techniques are questionable if the image/s are of poor quality or the facial viewpoints differ. Do we know if any of these procedures were attempted and if so what was the analysis? If not, what was the scientific process utilised by Prof Spring, or was it just guesswork that we should simply accept? <br />I have read articles regarding the photo launch but can find nothing that explains why the Kelly Vault and Prof Gale Spring specifically explains his actions and finding. Again, if I have missed this, then I would certainly be obliged if you can link me to the information.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-212605174909745312016-11-19T08:44:57.946+11:002016-11-19T08:44:57.946+11:00Spud Murphy you have some interesting statements a...Spud Murphy you have some interesting statements and I respect that, however, history and our past have been and gone, and we can't change that. So surely all individuals of this event can make an adult opinion about what they really think (without being questioned harshly, or have their mute button pressed) irrespective of what is said here. I'm sure the few that bicker here are only a speck in a tea cup, and ultimately really mean nothing to the rest of the populous. Many would go to a museum without knowing what is said online, read the onsite banners, look at the historical artiefact and say YES or NO, then move to the next exhibit. What more really matters in the end? From what I'm hearing outside of this eBlog world, many do agree that it is Ned, and surely by not trusting the professional knowledge, long earned skills and techniques of the experts used to verify the image, is very distrusting to say the least. If I take my car to a mechanic, am I going to question them each time, then take it to another, just to hear what you want to hear, I think not, because I'm no expert in cars. I really think that this image has upset the non Kelly supporters (mostly online), as they didn't want yet another piece of history out there for people to admire or build a case for. I'm not a supporter of either side, specifically (I'm a swinger if you will), but I do respect what I've seen, read, and heard about the already discussed and revealed launch statements explaining the image and the process. Did you read any of the articles about the launch, speak with anyone who went, or were you there? Because what you're asking here is like you're following people (and their statements) within this blog, even stating for example that the original catalogue picture was published in 2003 (as written within this blog), when elsewhere it has been written and stated as 2002. Small detail, yes, but many of the other facts you list were also from statements here, and knowwhere else, necessarily, or so it appears to me. My opinion though.......stepping back now lol.James Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12689246286801919668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-68780512285724111872016-11-19T06:52:46.196+11:002016-11-19T06:52:46.196+11:00It seems that J.J. Kenneally's dream of "...It seems that J.J. Kenneally's dream of "a small committee of censors" has finally come to fruition. These Kelly Country Commissars may be able to control what we write or, rather, what is allowed to be published on certain sites, but they cannot control our thoughts! Think about that. Sharon Hollingsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11500349415203451928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-48244432168053294632016-11-19T00:58:53.743+11:002016-11-19T00:58:53.743+11:00Identity is important as it makes us all more acco...Identity is important as it makes us all more accountable. Less bombast, less vitriol, better manners and more civility. And therefore a better environment for open, frank discussion. And an end to bullish and nasty posting, a depleted tone of condescending tone and a happier camp all 'round. What is so hard to understand about that? No need to be paranoid. We all have our own opinions and good points to make. Let's all make them a bit more nicely? And yes, I have said some less than savoury things myself. But I own them. And don't hide behind a blank label. As you can tell dee, this is very important to me. I have mentioned it often. Anyway, have a great weekend folks. I am tired. Mark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-66849040732024414402016-11-18T23:58:54.234+11:002016-11-18T23:58:54.234+11:00Your blog is becoming a bit disorderly, Dee.Your blog is becoming a bit disorderly, Dee.Nat Curtisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-52327816942660645262016-11-18T22:30:38.409+11:002016-11-18T22:30:38.409+11:00Mark do you think the anonymous person or persons ...Mark do you think the anonymous person or persons behind Ned Kelly Central are gutless? Do you think the person who writes behind the Vaults avatar is gutless, and is Captain Jack gutless, and me too? I don't understand why so many people think that a fact, a truth, a lie or an opinion is somehow different when spoken by a named person rather than an unnamed person. I accept that reflections can be made on the character of a person who attacks another person from anonymity, but in a discussion of historical truths and interpretations, the identity of the person making the argument should have no effect. Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-11254620094286005542016-11-18T22:22:08.789+11:002016-11-18T22:22:08.789+11:00Anonymous did you read what I wrote in the latest ...Anonymous did you read what I wrote in the latest Blog Post "Please explain..." before or after you posted this comment? Yes I did delete your post, but I Explained why and also tried to present the issues you were concerned with in the Post.Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14104818673788818740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-22256237323342126762016-11-18T19:07:56.085+11:002016-11-18T19:07:56.085+11:00sooksookMark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-41088364820868049752016-11-18T18:23:24.514+11:002016-11-18T18:23:24.514+11:00Mark you say that 'the provenance is sound'...Mark you say that 'the provenance is sound' but neither you nor anyone connected with the Kelly Vault has spoken about the photos provenance! You say that 'I don't believe Leigh, Matt or anyone involved have any explaining to do.' Why not? They have been very strong in promoting the photo but give no evidence of its authenticity apart from the fact that some Kelly descendants say it is Dan and Ned. Certainly Christie's were a bit sus about its authenticity back in 2003 and as I understand it was withdrawn from auction. And in 1995 didn't Ned's niece, Elsie Pettifer, say that the photo was of her father, Walter Knight and Jack Kelly/King? I would think that Elsie would know what her own father looked like. And it seems that even Ian Jones accepted this. Surely Ian couldn't have been wrong? It's been said before but if you look at the bloke on the left of the photo, the one claimed to be Dan Kelly, he looks a lot older than 19 years old. Maybe his hard life prematurely aged him. But I gather that you have the ear of Prof Gale Spring, so perhaps can you enlighten us as to what scientific process he used to come to the conclusion that the photo is the real McCoy? As for me setting up a museum to the Kelly gang, now why would I want to establish a museum to a gang of organised criminal, who stole from anyone, including their neighbours and carried out a mass murder?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-53849652529632940762016-11-18T15:17:52.014+11:002016-11-18T15:17:52.014+11:00Only gutless people post as Anon. Identify yourse...Only gutless people post as Anon. Identify yourself and dry your eyes. Love Mark. (wink..) Mark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-80694814876149724612016-11-18T14:38:57.945+11:002016-11-18T14:38:57.945+11:00Well done Dee.You delete my post which is 100% acc...Well done Dee.You delete my post which is 100% accurate (and yes I most certainly was at the launch) yet you keep these comments by James Gray and Mark Perry on your site (?),which when it all comes down to it is just their opinions on the photo.You fold to them of all people? These two old men need their eyes tested,and you are nothing but a lame excuse of an admin,you are starting to fall all over yourself to please these Kelly plebs.LOL talk about a turn around. Well,as one of your very few (former)genuine posters,I'm done.<br /><br />I have no doubt you won't be posting this,so I will leave by saying I hope you enjoy your big arse lick of hypocrisy to the low life Kelly plebs.<br /><br />Your sites days are numbered too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-81807277096138588532016-11-18T13:42:34.574+11:002016-11-18T13:42:34.574+11:00Who ISN'T prone to hyperbole when promoting th...Who ISN'T prone to hyperbole when promoting things? That's the nature of the process. However, he delivered in my opinion. People need to actually go and see it before judging or whinging about the pic. Matt, Patrick an d the precinct have done a fantastic job. Lets all be positive. Mark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-67482351560248231362016-11-18T13:37:28.401+11:002016-11-18T13:37:28.401+11:00I use whatever medication it takes to keep my MS a...I use whatever medication it takes to keep my MS at bay Spud. <br />I'm sorry if my colourful turn of phrase confused you.<br />Have a great weekend champ. <br />Mark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-58409996034280944532016-11-18T06:41:05.433+11:002016-11-18T06:41:05.433+11:00Dee shocked again!, and you allow this on your sit...Dee shocked again!, and you allow this on your site, and especially posted as Anonymous, I thought more highly of you. Certainly another one sided statement without substance. Having a strong opinion is one thing, but how it's said, and then allowing it to be posted here is something else. It's so easy to make comments about organisations, and named individuals, publicly, when one is anonymous, which could potentially open it up to much more, I fear. But, ignoring the people and not for profit organisation in question here, how can one seriously state with conviction that "photoshopping some features on the original to try and blend them to match Kelly's up close portrait image" statement... seriously, how empty is that comment, and is that what really has gone into the museum? Almost laughing, rolling my eyes, etc, I assume as they are anonymous, they can state anything they like... accountability and credibility means nothing here, and with this comment..(I feel like laughing and rolling my eyes, but I'm better than that). Where they really at the launch, I think not! Dismissing the many professional organisations and individuals used to help verify the many historical photos like this one, is again extremely un-thought about, and what about the need to help preserve this decaying original, the post is an absolute waste of digital energy......well done Dee and anonymous in question, you're making the underground Ned Kelly supporters grow further in respect for all things Ned, and well off track to accepting our past, and preserving its history. Get over targeting individuals, and get back to the Ned Kelly story, it's worth a lot more to your readers than this low level crud...I'm very disappointed!James Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12689246286801919668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-30187832675221515122016-11-17T20:33:39.708+11:002016-11-17T20:33:39.708+11:00No games were played dee. End of story. No games were played dee. End of story. Mark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-22639839744913627072016-11-17T20:29:14.746+11:002016-11-17T20:29:14.746+11:00It is him. Have another look. The provenance is ...It is him. Have another look. The provenance is sound. The clothing is accurate for the period. The facial features tally. I guess you believe gale spring doesn't know his stuff? Matt shore and Patrick watt have done a great job. the vault is going to be a stayer. Spud and yourself could perhaps suggest how you would set up a kelly museum? Some of us are all ears...Mark Perryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162533821220639075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-69488712825342115292016-11-17T11:25:18.470+11:002016-11-17T11:25:18.470+11:00I think that Matt Shore is sometimes prone to a bi...<br /><br />I think that Matt Shore is sometimes prone to a bit of hyperbole when promoting things.<br /><br />For example, in a 2003 article in the [London] Evening Standard, there was this -<br /><br />"We reach Glenrowan, the site of the dramatic shootout between the Kelly gang (in bizarre metal armour) and a hundred police officers, who had foiled being ambushed on the adjacent railway.<br /><br />The gang was holed up in the town's hotel with 60 hostages.<br /><br />"Bloody mayhem," says Matt, "Dead bodies everywhere, including the three accomplices." Kelly escaped, but was wounded in the legs. We find the exact spot, but nearby is a tacky funfair joint with ludicrous mechanical reenactments emitting startling bangs.<br /><br />"Strictly for boofheads," winces Matt, who, aided by sepia photos, aims for honest facts...."Sharon Hollingsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11500349415203451928noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2798312463652733622.post-52421564558625663822016-11-16T22:04:40.646+11:002016-11-16T22:04:40.646+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com