Seven Missing Pieces: Slater’s Legacy Revisited
By Steven & Evan Strong,
Special Thanks to and Research by Belinda Rich
The Standing Stones Complex is either totally bogus or no less than the most important archaeological site in this country. There is no mid-point here, it has to be one or the other. Central to this enigma is that the complex was destroyed at least 60 years ago and what remains as opposed to what was originally standing, at first glance, is very little. For those of a doubting disposition or agenda that very little vanishes into nothing of consequence, for those open to an Original presence and guidance amongst all that is missing so much still remains for both the eyes to acknowledge and spirit absorb.
There are two diametrically opposing sides to this equation, one champions denial in every instance or approach, and the other the resurrection of what originally stood and what may follow. All official posts and political agencies will neither investigate nor enter into any discussion. They do not offer anything beyond a wall of red tape and silence, whereas other critics are more forthcoming in their patronising disdain. In recent times a prominent archaeologist, with the backing of others, has denounced the site to be of no consequence citing a paper by Fred McCarthy, a report compiled by two marine biologists and the concluding remarks offered in a feature article from the Brisbane Courier Mail. The farmer who destroyed the site did mention McCarthy’s appearance at the gate and equally their refusal of admission, the reasons were never given but of one truth he was adamant, that academic never saw the Standing Stone Complex. What is of no less dubious standing is any paper on archaeology compiled by marine biologists. It should have no more academic credibility than if it was written by a carpenter or car mechanic. So too the credentials of any information gathered from the Courier Mail used in academic papers or discourses is tenuous to say the least.
Contrary to this denial of authenticity are the words and assurances of three people who actually were on site/document when all the rocks were in position and standing tall. There can be no doubt that the farmer, when aged fifteen while acting under his father’s directions, actually destroyed the site and would have intimate knowledge of the stones that were so big they were moved then stored at the dairy. He openly admitted that many Standing Stones were massive, each was a solo journey to its temporary storage point. Mr. Fordham was the headmaster of the local school and a highly respected member of the Brunswick Heads community who spent every spare moment on the mounds and surrounds recording, drawing and measuring results to be sent to his mentor and expert on all things Original, Frederic Slater. A man of such standing would be mindful of who he kept company with and how he conducted himself and would only become so committed to this site because it actually existed.
Slater is the only one of the three witnesses that never actually saw the mounds and complex, he never came close to this place, but knew more about the intricacies and translations involved at this sacred location than any non-Original person in the country. It is his twenty one handwritten replies to Fordham’s queries, observations and measurements, that forms the foundation upon which the validity and credentials of the Standing Stones Complex revolves around. If he is, as the Courier Mail alleges, a dreamer and given to flights of fancy, then this site is both extensively lessened and open to question. Alternately, if Slater is correct and his interpretations are valid then this site is without equal anywhere, here or abroad.
Trick or Treat
Even at the most superficial level there are a host of ‘anomalies,’ if relying on the conventional pre-Cook historical narrative, spread all over the site. The mere idea that rocks weighing tonnes were positioned on the top of a 45 degree rise involves logistics and technology supposedly absent, so too is the arrival of close to 3,500 cubic metres of exotic fill which makes up the smaller mound yet is certainly not part of the local volcanic geology and is another feat in transportation that should not be present. The huge bounty of sandstone rocks present both inside the smaller 70 metre by 5 metre mound and all over the immediate area had to be imported onto the site, with the closest sandstone quarry 40 kilometres to the south. Moreover, many of these sandstone rocks have been extensively shaped, some with very sharp edges, yet none show evidence of the percussive bulbs that would be visible if this shaping was due to rock on rock technology.
Slater was aware of these technological inconsistencies, but was far more interested in the content and translations. What most certainly added to the impasse is his interpretation of what the shapes, arrangement of rocks and individual marks meant. He was adamant that this combination was the oldest record on the planet of what he referred to as “First Language.” In what only contradicted common expectations that the earliest human script would be basic in topic and crude in presentation, Slater’s take on proceedings was sublime in content and focused almost entirely on spiritual concerns. This philosophical discourse through rock is inspired and a seminal point in the getting of wisdom, but making such enlightened claims in the 1930’s is destined to end up poorly when the accepted stereotype of pre-Cook Original life was ‘primitive’ and ‘backward.’
Central to the acceptance of Slater’s translation as the genuine article is the claim he was ignored by the sensible and given no credence in polite educated circles. The Courier Mail assumed that the lack of an academic paper with Slater’s name found in any university, was a sin of omission that was enough to dismiss his work. That critique is flawed twice over. Undeniably Slater was proclaimed out of bounds in political and academic circles at sometime during 1939. His letters to Fordham make it clear that the Government, Australian Museum and representatives from Sydney University cannot be trusted and were not allowed on that site.
Even so, to allege Slater had no paper published as proof of entry into these hallowed scholarly halls, as the Courier Mail and other critics have, is actually still incorrect to this day. Despite the best efforts to purge Slater and his work from all academic records, that was not a complete success. One paper survived, we suspect the sequence of authors with Goddard’s name listed first followed by Slater was the reason it was overlooked. We have a copy of this joint paper dedicated to a site we are familiar with and have investigated, Burragurra. Goddard deals with the history, geology and geography in the first section of the paper, while Slater addresses the content and narrative he clearly read and understood.
Once this paper is factored into the prolific amount of newspaper articles on Slater we have discussed in the previous chapter, all of which are very positive, it becomes obvious the imposed vacuum in academic circles is a construct. Slater was “enthusiastically received” at the 1939 Science Conference, was the feature speaker at the 1937 Sydney Anthropological Conference and president of the Australian Archaeological Society, these facts cannot be disputed or censored.
The Missing Link
The only part of Slater’s legacy that never really made sense was only recently cleared up, it relates to the source material Slater used in translating the Original symbols and arrangements found at so many sites. There is one paragraph in an Adelaide newspaper where Slater made reference to the research made nearly one hundred years earlier by an enlightened woman, Eliza Dunlop. Acknowledged even by Wikipedia as an authority on Original language, she was in contact with Elders in the 1830’s while a lot of Old Way knowledge and protocol was still known. She won the trust of the local tribal leader who shared the details and grammar of the First Language, which was recorded by her and passed on to her daughter. Past that how it made its way to Slater, who is not related, was until recently unclear.
Evan’s continual research brought to light a very strong genetic connection through Goddard, who is her grandson. He was mentioned in newspaper articles by Slater as a colleague when investigating Original sites, which is only reinforced by his name appearing alongside Slater’s in the surviving paper. What also becomes a real possibility is that Goddard shared his grandmother’s research with Slater and was quite aware of the sensational, verging on career-destroying nature of her interpretations. Goddard’s contribution in this paper does not involve any translation, that task was left to Slater, he merely supplies the background setting to where the site was found. Since Goddard was family and must have had access to his grandmother’s work, yet equally had a secure academic post, it is reasonable to assume he decided to share her work with Slater and let him ‘lead the charge’ and stand nearby at a safe distance when the inevitable criticism did eventuate.
The Coast Still Isn’t Clear
Having established that Slater’s research was valid, his sources genuine and his intentions honourable does not necessarily mean he was right in everything he said about the Standing Stones Complex. Phrases like “man came to Earth” are used often by Slater, but it could be this off-planet sentiment was unintentionally imported into this narrative from the research and readings he did just before at Burragurra (Central Coast, N.S.W.). At that site Slater spoke of the wife of the central Sky-Hero, Biaime, being born not of the Earth but from the stars. Also mentioned is Biaime’s son, boarding a rocket with flames visible when launching along with many other references to off-world involvement in the first affairs of humans. It could be suggested that Slater continued in this vein at other sites and that the Standing Stones Complex was subject to a selective rendition.
However, for this to occur it has to be remembered Slater already had a visual manual of each symbol and what it meant as his sole reference. That the same icons and markings appeared at both locations is simply because they both dealt with the very beginning and that account has to include the recognition of the Sky-Heroes and their active involvement in the emergence and creation of humans.
The reality is that all that is left unresolved is whether there were 184 rocks placed on the central mound and thousands more used to mark out over ten acres of other stone arrangements. The map charted by Fordham just before the site was destroyed marking out position and meanings adds substance to the farmer’s admission that he bulldozed and removed at his father’s request, but for some critics this is not enough. They want more, and to that end we must thank Belinda Rich who has spent countless hours scouring trough the historical records of the Lismore Historical Society which led to the unearthing of three documents written after Slater passed away.
We received three documents from Belinda, the first was a letter from Fordham written in the early 50’s to the President and founding patron of the Lismore Historical Society, presumably in response to some further investigations taken after the Complex was bulldozed and before the larger Standing Stones, which were still stacked upright by the dairy, mysteriously disappeared. The next two are copies of the actual work, measurements, photographs and comments supplied when examining the larger stones still at the dairy. There is not a skerrick of doubt or questioning the authenticity in this correspondence, there is an absolute consensus that the site is unique, utterly important and totally genuine.
The party attending were all members of the newly formed Lismore Historical Society and had trained eyes, an educated disposition and no reason to be biased. Unlike all doubting critics they had one advantage, they actually saw and investigated the Stones that had stood on the main mound without any prejudice or agenda. By the time McCarthy stood at the farm gate requesting entry the larger stones, which are the crucial elements in this claim of legitimacy, were gone.
We feel the most effective approach and order is to present these documents in the same sequence received by us, beginning with Fordham’s response to seeing the two reports. His observations expand on avenues noted in the two documents that follow, and in some cases, add information not mentioned in Slater’s replies. Knowing roughly when the stones were moved to the dairy and when the reports were compiled, gives a date of at least a decade after the Complex was originally destroyed.
The farmer was always vague when separating the initial time of destruction from when the stored larger rocks were removed again to unknown locations, and to be brutally honest it was the only part of his confession that never gelled. Knowing this farm had the only earth-moving equipment in the district until the late 80’s, and that they had used such machinery when moving the rocks down a steep slope then moved them over one kilometre to the transitional site by the dairy, I had some problems accepting that unknown agents snuck on to their farm and secretly stole so many heavy rocks in the dead of night. Especially since the farm house was no more than 50 metres from the dairy and the considerable noise that had to be made if lifting and dumping each rock using machinery no-one but them owned, these factors only increase my doubts.
Equally, no matter who was responsible, after moving the rocks and standing them at the dairy why bother going to the trouble to move them again? Of course, those doubts were held before I read the two official reports on the site accompanied by the confirmation that the site is very important. Perhaps that public finding spurred the landholders on to the second round in feeling while the larger rocks remained so close the chances they could be put back with the site reclaimed and their land resumed. The concern when I met the farmer that the land could be taken by a Lands Council was foremost, and the reason why when we were given permission to closely examine the site for two days, no member of any Lands Council was allowed to attend.
How Could This be Known?
From the first time I sighted the map of the 184 Standing Stones, which was compiled just before the arrangement was destroyed, there were additions which never seemed to sit comfortably. There are rocks with their names added by Slater that were not charted by Fordham who was on site carefully recording the position of each rock. Slater never inspected the site, so how could he add to what he never saw? It was as if he either had a master-copy and was comparing the original against an inferior version or was making this up.
Until reading Fordham’s letter there was always the nagging doubt that his additions were at the very least unproven and at worse fabrications. The opening two comments really do clarify any remaining doubts over both authenticity and Slater’s right to add from a considerable distance.
To begin with Fordham makes it clear that this party was fully supportive of Fordham and Slater’s conviction that this site is unique and genuine. Fordham was “glad to gear that you have visited the Brunswick Head Mound, and “believe on present evidence that the site has great significance. “ Them’s my sentiments” That consensus is an agreed starting point and as all of the people involved were looking at the actual Standing Stones, whereas the critics came onto the scene after the stones were removed, these testimonies should take precedence and be acknowledged as the truth.
What follows Fordham’s praise of the conclusion of this investigation is a graphic example of the scope of knowledge Slater was privy to that gave him every right to add or subtract as he saw fit. Fordham was initially unsure of Slater’s insistence that all of the area up to the edges of both mounds was covered in water. The mere thought that the entire area was covered in water permanently runs counter to what Fordham saw. It was only because Fordham knew Slater really was a class above any other academic when it comes to Original matters and history did he persevere. That led to the revelation when talking to some older residents that he was right and the water was “waist-deep” some considerable time before. In keeping with Fordham’s vocational conditioning the “early mark” he awarded Slater was confirmation that Slater did indeed have access to Original knowledge of the First Language and the Standing Stones Complex.
“Mr. Slater could not understand the dry surroundings. He assured me that when the aborigines (sic) used it as a degree ground it was surrounded by water. I had noticed drains in the vicinity and correctly decided that they had been responsible for the dry condition; for I learned from some old hands that in their youth, the water surrounding it was “waist deep.” Another early mark to Slater!” (1)
Fordham then addresses something that seems to run against a custom that had no known precedent. This site alone was a place where tribes from all over Australia had the right to send Elders and men of high degree to dance and perform ceremonies that belonged to their tribal estate. Irrespective of who danced, sung or chanted the site was held in highest regard amongst those advanced in secret business
“I firmly believe that this place was the centre of perhaps the highest degree of aboriginal culture that existed in the central eastern parts of Australia. That belief is not wholly due to Slater. A full blood Dick, from Fraser Island-roughly at the southern end of the Barrier Reef-told Bashford that his father and other old men of his tribe used to come down to this ground, but they would not say exactly where it was. Old Dick said he and his fellow age and degree had been searching unsuccessfully for it for years. Beyond that he would not comment.
Another old full blood would not discuss it. To any questions concerning it he would reply “The old men would kill me if I talked to you about it.” Nothing we could offer him would change his attitude.” (2)
In what extends the notion of one shared ceremonial ground open to all tribes from unexpected locales is Fordham’s insistence, and that of Slater, of a continued ancient Egyptian presence at this site. This was not unknown to me as the farmer had mentioned the existence of a model Egyptian boat being found at this site, and I had heard the same story from others, but Fordham took this connection one step firmer and larger in his discussion of the discovery of an Egyptian boat and the anchors.
His major regret was that he did not make the actual discovery, and he did confide that “I wish I had done so!”(3) Fordham was in no doubt as to the origin of this boat in stating that it “was a perfect replica of the hull of a traveling boat used on the Nile some four or five thousand years ago.”(4) Fordham was far more specific when discussing the why, who and wherefores of the two anchor stones. “The stone anchors were in perfect condition until one was split by the mattock of the man who dug them up … When I asked to be shown the exact spot where they were dug up, I was told that it was ‘here somewhere,’ accompanied by a wave of the arm that covered several square yards. These stones were found about half a mile north of the mound on what was once part of an ancient coast line, well sheltered from any south-easter.”(5) Fordham continues this recollection of his sighting Ehyptian artefacts that are not supposed to be in any part of this continent by naming the person (“Mr. John Winward”) he gave them to when he “left Brunswick Heads.”(6)
Fordham’s concluding remarks bring back into focus my original concern over the fact Slater added rocks and names to the map compiled by Fordham. Fordham was lamenting that he had barely began recording the ten acres of accompanying stones arrangements grouped together, and if he did he knew it would mean very little unless Slater was the final arbitrator. “I say only Slater could restore them, for he knew what was there. I know I worked all my spare time and only uncovered the smallest part of the whole show.”(7) Once again here is an admission that although Slater never went near the site, he knew what was there even though it was never recorded, simply because the paperwork was already done and sitting on his desk.
“All Over Australia”(8)
Both papers received via Belinda relate to the Standing Stones second port-of-call when moved to the dairy. There is no explanation as to how the group from the Historical Society gained permission to investigate, but there is no doubt it was obtained, and as suggested elsewhere, it is possible this report could have been the motivation behind the stones removal to locales unknown.
What struck me above all of the research and commentary supplied was the personal bonds forged between the farmer at the time and Elders “from Fraser Island and the Northern Territory who came to see Mr. Bashford and stayed in the district for some time.”(9) He told the historians that the Original tribesmen from afar “took him fishing”(10) and that they became “friends with him.”(11) This sympathetic attitude only confirms the angst the farmer and his family faced once pressure was applied from high above.
Of even more importance is the serious nature of the site the Elders who came from so far away to honour, so much so they “asked him to promise never to disturb it as it had great significance to the aborigines all over Australia.”(12) The report makes it clear that Bashford spoke fondly of these Elders and he certainly would not misrepresent why they came and their parting plea. That it was of importance to all tribes only highlights how unique and sacred the site is and why all tribes and people in Australia should be involved in its resurrection and what flows after.
There were two days set aside to the investigation of the larger stones stored near what they refer to as “milking shed or barn.”(13) The first “expedition”(14) was on September 8, 1955 and involved the attendance of “Wm. Abbott, Mrs Kay, John Adam and L. T. Daley,”(15) the second inspection took place four days later on September 12 and had a different group of “Wm. Abbott, Mr Gowdie, John Alcorn, L. T. Daley and two boys Rodney Whipps and Leeson.”(16)
Their work was thorough in methodology and execution, where they “took photographs of stones-brought from aboriginal (sic) mounds.”(17) What is of significance was the way the stones were arranged in that the researchers classified the stones into “Group 1”(18) and “Group 2,”(19) of which both had a “front row”(20) and “back row.”(21) Supplying an exact count is impossible simply because the first three rows number eleven in total while the count of “back row” in “Group 2” is given as “miscellaneous”(22) and was covered in engravings or shapes described as “undefinable.”(23)
Some critics believe that there were rocks on the mound, but this was solely due to the geology of the area and the resulting basalt extrusions are entirely natural. That observation can be completely ignored once factoring in the presence of the first stone positioned on “Front row (left to right).”(24) The “stone is the shape of an alligator head, teeth carefully carved out and eyes sunken.”(25) The stone adjacent is “in the shape of a fish head,”(26) while another in the “back row” has been carved “in the shape of a long fish.”(27) Further on amongst the ensemble of “Group 2,” the third rock in the “front row” has been carved into the “shape of a human foot”(28) which they also referred to as “the keystone.”(29) There is nothing natural here and hence the reason why they spent two days studying these artefacts from the past is simply because the rocks were carved and shaped, sometimes into shapes they could recognise and on more occasions they were “undefinable.”(30) But as for being all due to natural forces, that was not on the radar.
Equally unexpected, but certainly not if in contact with Slater or Fordham, was the farmer’s description and acknowledgement of an Egyptian artefact found on this site. Such talk is not unfamiliar to us, but even so to have the farmer volunteer this information unprompted does add extra substance to what many would allege impossible. Nonetheless, the farmer told the investigating party of a “stone ship with a curved bow and stern like the Egyptian ships”(31) that was found near the mound. He then added more in advocating the same tact Fordham took when mentioning “stone anchors with a hole pierced through.”(32) Unfortunately “the ship had been removed”(33) to a location/person unknown, but irrespective of where it now lies this man had absolutely no reason the lie about its appearance or subsequent disappearance.
What is repeated throughout this research is that at the very least this site is extremely important to every tribe in this country, but with a recurring Egyptian presence could it not be said it is of equal importance to every tribe or person irrespective of current or past global address?
He Said, He Said
What was written on paper when in the presence of counts for a lot, but what is even more convincing is what is said face to face. I have had the pleasure and luck to speak to two people who actually saw the Standing Stones in situ. These oral first-hand accounts given by people with no incentive to mislead are invaluable, and from our viewpoint the final words on this topic.
To begin with it was only after many conversations with the current owner of the farm, where he was extremely forthcoming in sharing what the Complex looked like and the regret he still held for destroying the site, that I was given permission to conduct archaeology. Outside the mixed messages around the final disappearance of the Standing Stones, I have no doubt he was sincere in righting distant wrongs and clear in recollection.
The stones certainly were on the mound and many were extremely large and heavy, of that fact he had no doubt. It was his father who made decision to destroy the site and this man did as directed, but he was never told why. He spoke of tribal Elders from Stradbroke Island and Cape York turning up soon after ready for ceremony, but unaware the site was broken. He also confirmed this custom was in practice before the site was destroyed and was encouraged. This only confirmed what both Slater and many articles found in papers reported in relation to this site being open to tribes from all over Australia.
Any reference to Fordham or Slater was always positive as they actively endorsed the work of Fordham and gave him open access to all of the property. Slater also made many references to the sympathetic approach of the farmer in his letters, praising him for fencing off the mound lest the cattle disturb this holy site.
What needs to be appreciated is that the sole reason I was allowed to bring close to thirty people on to the farm for two days is simply because the farmer, and his wife and children, knew this was a very special Original site and that it had been badly damaged and sadly, almost forgotten. This was their concession to the truth and attempt to right a wrong. When the farmer spoke of what he did when under his father’s instructions the tears running down his cheek were genuine, as is this site.
The second eye witness oral account is much more recent and was due to the actions of a female Original Elder, singer and Culture-Keeper I hold in high regard, Jingkhi. She approached me when we were giving two presentations at Brisbane organised by Duncan Roads (Nexus magazine) and introduced me to a gentleman whose name I was given and forgot. Jingkhi had already made mention of this man and what he witnessed, so I had an idea what he was going to share, but beyond that he certainly had information that added a lot more to what I already suspected in relation to who should accept the blame, and to an extent shame, for destroying the site.
Slater’s letters made it clear that the farmer was under Government pressure, firstly through official correspondence then due to being visited at his farm by Government representatives. In both cases there was only one item on their agenda, the Standing Stones Complex. It appears that threats were made, and bearing in mind this took place during the Second World War, Slater’s concern in relation to talk of confiscation has considerable weight. Nothing is explicitly stayed in his replies, but Slater was very upset and told Fordham he intended to confront the department responsible and urged Fordham to approach the farmer and urge him to hold fast and not give in. Very soon after the site was destroyed.
This is where Jingkhi’s friend adds to the content and grief experienced. He was taken to the site by his father before the blades were dropped. He told me that the stones were in place and of a row of stones also standing that ran below the mound along the fence line. More importantly was the attendance of his father who was in deep conversation with the farmer. There was only one subject under discussion, the fate of the sacred Original site. My witness, although quite young at the time, was adamant this was a topic that caused consternation, both his father and the farmer were reluctant participants and patently unwilling to destroy anything. By his reckoning the talking went on for over an hour and did not reach a conclusion. He did remember the farmer mentioning that he tried unsuccessfully to contact Original custodians and was not happy about the prospect of desecrating the site.
After being so cooperative in assisting Fordham and careful in ensuring no damage was caused, the general demeanour and aversion to disrupt was central to this discussion and does suggest the visit of agents from the Government was the catalyst. Upon reading the lines and in between, it is our belief that the farmer was given two options/ultimatums, destroy the site or lose the farm to compulsory acquisition.
My third ‘face to face’ contact was not human in stance but basalt in complexion. Hunwi Howard contacted me in regards to a block of land being bought which is part of a subdivision that was an old quarry. It was during one visit inspecting the block they intended to purchase did Hunwi, and others accompanying her, notice around a dozen stones standing unsupported beside a track. Having already read our articles on the Standing Stones Complex she returned soon after to find that the twelve stones were now missing, but in return the entire slope above where they stood had been extensively bulldozed and cleared. What was now exposed was far greater in quantity and tonnage.
No less than one hundred stone columns/boulders were released from their earthly bondage. With suspicions now firmly aroused, Hunwi spoke to a local businessman of repute who confirmed that these rocks were dumped in the 50’s then covered in dirt in an attempt to conceal, and that they originally came from the Standing Stones Complex. We have seen Standing Stones taken from this location measuring over three metres in height with markings used in landscaping, and what is even more revealing is a darker patch of staining that looks so much like dirt, that runs across many of the hundred odd rocks recently unearthed.
Needless to say, every attempt to enter or line up experts willing to examine these rocks has been officially ignored. The only response was of a legal directive banning me from going anywhere near these blocks which are for sale to the general public.
Summing up the Cases for the Prosecution and Defense
The larger rocks originally standing on the main mound were written about in many newspaper articles before 1939, seen by people I have met, tallied, photographed and described by a panel of experts and moved by a person I spoke to on many occasions. All are first-hand accounts and share one fate, they have been ignored.
Those who dispute or deny never saw the rocks at either station and refer to archaeological reports that were compiled from the other side of the front gate or written by people with no expertise or educational training in any land-based archaeologically related content. Without actually sighting the large basalt rocks that once stood on the mound, as I have done along with many others, the only truth remaining is that there is no substance in any contrary opinion.
It comes down to this, the rocks were seen in situ, stacked at the dairy and hidden down by the quarry, the binding principle at each viewing is that they were seen. Those who object, deny or prevaricate have seen nothing. They may well have read the papers of those who also saw nothing also, but no archaeologist or geologist has been asked to investigate and no attempt has been made to delve into the history, press-clippings, Slater’s letters or speak to those with first-hand accounts.
We have the testimonies and reliable records of seven first-hand accounts (Slater, Fordham, the Lismore Historical Society team of investigators, press clippings pre 1939, a young five-year old witness, the farmer who destroyed the site and myself) that all verify the authenticity and international importance of this sacred site. In the opposition corner is one paper put together well after the stones disappeared, another report written without attendance, archaeologists relying solely on these second-hand reports and that of a newspaper unaware of the extensive coverage of Slater’s work in the press or of an academic paper bearing his name.
Seven who saw versus three who did not, and each negative case contains elemental flaws in their published critiques/condemnation. Seven were there and three were not, when factoring in logic and common sense into the number-crunching it always comes out with the same answer, only the seven add up.
(1) Fred Fordham, 1955. Personal Correspondence to William Daley, 15th Sept, p. 3.
(3)-(5) Ibid, p. 6.
(6)-(7) Ibid, p. 8.
(8) Ibid, p. 2.
(9)- (12) Ibid, 2.
(13)-(30) Richmond River Historical Society: Research Expedition for Traces of Former Aboriginal Population, 8th Sept. 1955, Case 15.
(31)-(33) Fordham , Pers. Corresp. …