azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jan 2, 2022 18:45:38 GMT
I did not say they were involved in your research. I said they were your friends. You mention them often Donahue, Wagner, Montrose and a few others. It is the crap that these people have put in you head that I refer to as having fixed, no alternative opinions, and you have bought into those opinions in part. That's your privilege of course, but what I am trying, unsuccessfully, to tell you, is that if you are going to form an opinion, a theory, or idea, it must be fresh, all your own, unbridled by the opinions, ideas, and theories of someone else. What is honesty and dishonesty. Honest seems to be what you agree with, and everything else is dishonest. It will be a long time until I can overlook your use of that word directed at me, if ever. You can call me all sorts of sons of a bitch, disagree with me on everything I say. Call me dishonest again and it will be at your peril Making threats is a crime so I will not take you seriously. My whole life has been at my peril. A Marine in Vietnam and a Law Enforcement Officer for 43 years.
Here is what you stated: The reason being that they are your friends and you have this rather convoluted idea that telling your friends they are wrong, when they are feeding you horse poop, is something you should not do. It's OK to tell your friends they are full of crap, if indeed they are full of crap. Fred has in writing acknowledged that I have given him a route to MTC that he accepts. So the fact is that I did disagree with Fred and he accepted it because I presented my research and rode it horseback. That statement you made is in contradiction to what in fact was done by me. Since I have shared findings and looked at the battlefield none of which meet the statements you make regarding your listed friends of mine. Your lack of knowledge does not mean things are as you say.
It is fact that I do not follow anyone's theory in total. What I do as an investigator is look at their literature cited and other sources. So your whole basis of what you state is wrong. I clearly disagree with Donahue, Fred, and Montrose in regards to CIL staying in the Calhoun area and not going any further than the few heading toward LSH.
Your basis for your statement is wrong in that I do not consult my friends that have written books regarding theories that I hold different than theirs. I share what I find. Since the only survivors north of MTC were Indians I invest my time in their drawings, oral accounts, and family history for most of the research.
Michael Donahue has been a leader in soldier movement north of LSH. For that we should give him credit. Douglas Scott revealed to us some of the locations. Fred agrees with Michael and they are consistent with Montrose. The expert opinions that I relied on from this board give impetuses to my current theory. In my theory neither E or F were ever in the Calhoun Area. If that is so then only carbines from CIL could be have been on BRE. I think Tom makes a point that Indians could have done both. My reason for me to reject that is I don't believe their were 10 Indians with carbines on BRE. Bullets found show firing in the direction of the new entrance road and the trading post. So Tom could be right and I don't throw it out but reject it because my current theory is the soldiers engaged American Horse (Cheyenne) who was with a returning antelope hunting party coming from the Hardin direction.
For me it is the Indians to the east of the river that were a major factor for Custer not being successful. Add the Southern Cheyenne and Southern Arapaho and it is game over.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 2, 2022 23:10:09 GMT
If I had said Wagner, Donahue, and Montrose. perhaps then you would know who Tom, Dick, and Harry are. Please tell me that you are at least that smart.
You dumb ass. You just did it again - Intending to mislead is a violation of honor, and integrity. Keep digging.
The peril you face is being consumed by your own arrogance. All I have to do is sit back and watch.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jan 3, 2022 11:58:03 GMT
For you to be correct, I would have to actually be following their theories rather than being aware that their theories exist and the information they used to form them. If you can't discern the difference, it is your problem. Except for Indian accounts, the Maguire's map, and the current markers, I don't think anyone else shares my theory. Tom leans toward Custer moving to the Calhoun Area before moving north. So my fellow researcher has his own and different theory.
This thread is about moving north across MTC and whether five companies move to Ford D. There are numerous theories but only a few eyewitnesses. The majority of the eyewitnesses are Indian and were temporarily gathered in one location. So if you want to know where Southern Cheyenne and Southern Arapaho were camped and who was there, you need to ask them.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 3, 2022 13:12:51 GMT
But you do follow their theories, theories held by every one of the people I mentioned above, as it concerns Companies E and F. Each of those theories these others have has Companies E and F operating together. Therefore the only three companies any theory of your's has to contend with are Companies C, I, and L. Each of the theories expressed by those others I mentioned constrict your thinking to C, I, and L, simply because all of them have E and F operating together, and you go along with that. Therefore their theories have an impact on your theory.
The truth is that neither you or they know if E and F operated together. There is terrain and tactical reasons that you can readily see, if you took a moment to look, that would suggest they did not. So in a sense, with the exception of your theory having C,I, and L moving north, and their not having that move, you are presenting their theory of E and F, with a variation.
Frankly I do not understand your reluctance to take a fresh, clean sheet of paper, look at this. By that I mean the dismissing of what everyone has said, every map ever drawn, then look at the markers and artifacts alone, see what they tell you. Then apply the tactics and techniques in use for cavalry of that day. Absent that you are cherry picking theories from hither and yon, a bit from this person or that, or a tidbit of some map that may be wrong. God gave us all a brain, and in so doing the gift of independent reasoning and thinking. Use that brain of your's to think independently, and never question my honor and integrity again. My opinions are fair game. My grasp of the required knowledge is fair game. How I pick my nose at the dinner table is fair game. My honor and integrity are not.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 3, 2022 20:37:24 GMT
Steve, I think if you look at this move north with the idea of the Custer battalion separating into two, then having a two-company group along with the RHQ, would be sound tactically and also using various techniques to cover each other in any move to the river. As I mentioned a while back, E could cover F and the RHQ from the high ground as they moved down to the flats below, once there F could form skirmish as E remounted and moved down to join them. This would allow for one company in skirmish and another mounted, which I guess is tactically sound and in keeping of the techniques of that period.
This could all be taking place as the other three companies are still on the move north, there trek could have been longer and slower and instead of waiting Custer took the initiative.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 3, 2022 23:12:40 GMT
This thread is locked for 24 hours for clean up.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 4, 2022 20:16:37 GMT
I am sorry if I over edited. Please don't take it personal. I am using a @#&* frustrating borrowed chromebook that over clicks and deleted entire posts instead of a few lines. Thankfully my new computer is due to arrive tomorrow.
Hopefully the conversation can resume from this point.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 4, 2022 20:30:19 GMT
Thanks Beth, look after yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 4, 2022 21:40:18 GMT
Thank you Ian. To others in the group I sort of tripped over my own feet or perhaps it was my shadow and took a fall. Thankfully I am bruised and bloodied but not broken. Falls at (soon to be) 65 are not as simple as they were at 25.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jan 6, 2022 3:44:20 GMT
But you do follow their theories, theories held by every one of the people I mentioned above, as it concerns Companies E and F. Each of those theories these others have has Companies E and F operating together. Therefore the only three companies any theory of your's has to contend with are Companies C, I, and L. Each of the theories expressed by those others I mentioned constrict your thinking to C, I, and L, simply because all of them have E and F operating together, and you go along with that. Therefore their theories have an impact on your theory. The truth is that neither you or they know if E and F operated together. There is terrain and tactical reasons that you can readily see, if you took a moment to look, that would suggest they did not. So in a sense, with the exception of your theory having C,I, and L moving north, and their not having that move, you are presenting their theory of E and F, with a variation. Frankly I do not understand your reluctance to take a fresh, clean sheet of paper, look at this. By that I mean the dismissing of what everyone has said, every map ever drawn, then look at the markers and artifacts alone, see what they tell you. Then apply the tactics and techniques in use for cavalry of that day. Absent that you are cherry picking theories from hither and yon, a bit from this person or that, or a tidbit of some map that may be wrong. God gave us all a brain, and in so doing the gift of independent reasoning and thinking. Use that brain of your's to think independently, and never question my honor and integrity again. My opinions are fair game. My grasp of the required knowledge is fair game. How I pick my nose at the dinner table is fair game. My honor and integrity are not. This thread is labeled "Custer Moves to Ford D with Five Companies Part B." All my friends believe that CIL never left Calhoun area. It is misleading to suggest I follow them, and my opinion hasn't changed. E and F had an overlapping field of fire with E on Cemetery Ridge capable of firing at Indians concealed from F on LSH. I was on CR a few years back with my friend Will Hutchison. We went to where those pictures were taken at the tenth anniversary of kneeling soldiers. The surviving Indian placed the kneeling soldiers in two positions. One was firing toward BRE, and the other was firing toward the west slope of LSH. So we have a battle surviving Indian showing E locations in mutual support of F. That location is the same as shown by Maguire on his map four. He shows one line moving up from the western corridor and the other further north from CR to the Deep Gully.
I don't know anyone having a theory that E and F weren't as far north as LSH and CR. The only real discussion is CIL, and that is where my friends differ from this thread and my opinion. E could fire at those Indians firing toward LSH from BRE and the western slope of LSH. The Cheyenne pushed E Company off CR, and the Sioux came across the west corridor to fight at Deep Ravine and LSH.
Everyone agrees E and F were on LSH and CR. So to claim that is their theory that I follow is not correct. I don't know of anyone that doesn't hold that opinion. My opinion differs because I believe E and F went together across CR. The Cheyennes talk of one company losing their horses. So if CIL remains at Calhoun, it seems the Indian accounts make it F by default for anyone believing CIL remained on Calhoun.
Again you keep stating their theory as if you have something different regarding E and F. E and F in their final locations have overlapping fields of fire in two directions. Do your research and take measurements using a range finder as I did, along with the knowledge of the ballistics of the .45-70 carbine using loads of 55 grains.
Most importantly, my research efforts have nothing to do with my friends or their theories, and you know that. I meet with relatives of the survivors and focus on their family accounts. They are different than an overall account such as Sitting Bull's narrative. For example, I used the Indian scout's map to ride down Middle Coulee and found out that the egress to Luce and NC is straight across from Middle. I went with my Crow friend to look at Curly's locations since he never crossed MTC, and we could see the areas where he said what he observed.
So you are suggesting a fresh look, which I am doing in my research. I am approaching this by using family accounts and Indian maps and drawings. For example, the western corridor comes from Crow and Sioux drawings. They happen to align with Maguire's maps and the current markers.
The issue is I believe you mislead on what I am doing and fabricate a connection to my friends, particularly Donahue and Fred. Stop trying to make a connection there in your posts, and I can stop disagreeing with you. You can say whatever you want about my theory, but it does not include what you suggest is the connections to my friends that have written books. There is zero connection between the friends you offer and my research in Indian accounts. Indeed, what I have presented here comes clearly from my investigations and literature research. My comments that you don't like are based on your connection statements. I will never again have to say it if you don't make the same statements. You are in control, and I only respond to your posts.
I post my theories and have never claimed they are fact. Instead, I share how I derive them. Of course, some have more accounts and evidence than others, but that is the nature of investigations.
Regards
Steve.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 6, 2022 8:25:17 GMT
Please look at what I said. What I said was that everyone has E and F operating together. There is no such evidence to back that up. They may have but there is no evidence that this happened.
All the people that you mention as being your friends share the theory of E and F operating together, do they not? That is the connection to what you refer to as your theory. You share those views, and those views are incorporated into your theory, and those views are unsubstantiated by facts.
The only person(s) that can refute what I just said legitimately, were all dead by 1700 hours on 25 June 1876.
Nowhere in the above post of mine that you quoted did I mention your activities among the Indians. That is a separate matter altogether, and has no relevance to this discussion.
You are still avoiding what I suggested you do in taking a completely fresh look. You certainly have the intellect to do this, so I do not understand your reluctance to do so. If at the end of such an activity you still reach the same conclusions what harm can it possibly do?
You seem troubled by my insistence that there is no proof that E and F operated together, to the exclusion of all other possibilities of task organization, using the then standard technique of the dragoon. The operative words here are "to the exclusion of all other possibilities of task organization". I am equally troubled by the lack of any rational explanation of, if that is so, how did these two companies manage to get so far apart as indicated by where the bulk of those two companies were found. I have repeatedly asked for your explanation of this, and no explanation has been forthcoming. It would seem to me that if these companies had been operating together, per the prescribed method of operations then in force, on Cemetery Ridge, one of those companies making it back to Last Stand Hill, under the prevailing circumstances, would be extremely problematic, if not impossible to achieve.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jan 6, 2022 16:50:08 GMT
Please look at what I said. What I said was that everyone has E and F operating together. There is no such evidence to back that up. They may have but there is no evidence that this happened. Again theories are subject to change. Things can be based on evidence to form various opinions. Here is my basis. The gray horses went toward MTF about as far as where Martin was sent back from. Martin says nothing about being with E company only. Thompson sees fighting and does not distinguish that it is only the gray horses.
My theory is based mostly on the route up the western corridor. It is more selective for information regarding the gray horses. If it were only the gray horses it would not change my theory one bit. Custer was with them in order to give the order to Martin. F company was known to have a detail in advance. To make an issue of F disregards the theme of this thread. If it was some other company it would not change my theory one bit. Fred and Donahue did not the origin of E and F being assigned to Yates. All the people that you mention as being your friends share the theory of E and F operating together, do they not? That is the connection to what you refer to as your theory. You share those views, and those views are incorporated into your theory, and those views are unsubstantiated by facts. Where do you get that from? Donahue has all 5 companies moving toward MTF. So they would all be operating together under Custer. The split comes from Curly. My theory deviates by having soldiers travel the western corridor. That is what makes mine different along with the split as noted by Curly. You can pick any company to be with the gray horses or chose none but it would not effect where the gray horses and Custer traveled in my theory.The only person(s) that can refute what I just said legitimately, were all dead by 1700 hours on 25 June 1876. If I follow your logic than the only person(s) that can legitimately state that you are correct are now dead. You have no way to know they were all dead by 1700 hours on 25 June 1876. Nowhere in the above post of mine that you quoted did I mention your activities among the Indians. That is a separate matter altogether, and has no relevance to this discussion. It absolutely does have relevance. My theory starts with Curly an Indians. I have spent several days with my Crow friend going over the ground before crossing MTC. Another Indian scout provided a drawing showing the soldiers moved down Middle Coulee. Middle Coulee is straight across form the egress to Luce and NC. A Cheyenne showed Chris Dixon where the account of a returning hunting party made contact in the north fork of MTC. The Real Birds provide the horses for their tour of the battlefield. The only persons that I have ridden horseback that are not Indian are Chip Watts (former owner of the 7th Ranch) Tori Harper (Gordie's daughter), Terry Craft (an original member of Gordie's ICE team), and Will Hutchison (Marine, LE officer, photographer, and writer). Never ridden with Donahue or Fred. Gilbert Birdinground rode with us and his property is own the west side of the river at Reno Retreat Crossing. You are still avoiding what I suggested you do in taking a completely fresh look. You certainly have the intellect to do this, so I do not understand your reluctance to do so. If at the end of such an activity you still reach the same conclusions what harm can it possibly do? You don't get to define a fresh look. I am following Indian accounts all the way through. That Curly divides the command in MTC allows for events to occur simultaneously at different locations. That is a fresh look as compared to all 5 companies staying together and either moving down MTC or going straight across toward Luce and NC. If you don't like F with E then you can choose any company that among the five. It would not change my theory of the gray horses with Custer moved to within 600 yards of MTF and then traveled the western corridor to Deep Ravine turning north to LSH. All five companies were there on offense in my theory and they moved north across BRE and CR as you and Colt described the military movement. You may have changed your mind but I haven't. Indian accounts have contact with soldiers almost simultaneously near Ford Ds and north of BRE.
You seem troubled by my insistence that there is no proof that E and F operated together, to the exclusion of all other possibilities of task organization, using the then standard technique of the dragoon. The operative words here are "to the exclusion of all other possibilities of task organization". I am equally troubled by the lack of any rational explanation of, if that is so, how did these two companies manage to get so far apart as indicated by where the bulk of those two companies were found. I have repeatedly asked for your explanation of this, and no explanation has been forthcoming. It would seem to me that if these companies had been operating together, per the prescribed method of operations then in force, on Cemetery Ridge, one of those companies making it back to Last Stand Hill, under the prevailing circumstances, would be extremely problematic, if not impossible to achieve. That is not correct. The only one the Indians can identify is the gray horses you can feel free to choose as I did F or any of the other three CIL. It doesn't change my theory. Cemetery Ridge would be a good defensive site if Custer chose for all five companies to go on defense. I don't believe they ever went on defense. What you can't do is state the E was not on Cemetery Ridge and F on LSH. So slowing the advancing Indians would have to fire in two directions. CR for those following Custer from the Ford Ds area. LSH for those Indians that were already east of the river when Custer crossed MTC. They would be the Cheyenne hunting party including American Horse coming from an antelope hunt up towards Hardin. Notice that these are all Indian accounts.
In conducting investigations all theories exist until eliminated. Once you write a book like Michael and Fred have done you are committed to only one. So they eliminate the others by selecting whatever they choose.
I find it hard to believe that two Marines can stand on CR and see that LSH is higher ground and not want to occupy both. The CR location for E fires toward BRE and to western slope of LSH in support of F. E would also fire north to slow the advancing Cheyennes that ended Custer's offense movement. F on LSH can address the northern Cheyenne hunting party and the Cheyennes with Wolf Tooth. The final E location is just about where the trail starts up toward LSH both the Maguire map and the location of the soldiers done at the 10th Anniversary.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 6, 2022 17:01:39 GMT
Oh well, and it is the Feast of the Epiphany. No Magi in the house.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Jan 6, 2022 17:10:58 GMT
Chuck from the site on CR to the fence line around LSH is approximately 149 yards. To the BRE site, it is less than 300 yards. Therefore, the best cover that Indians could use while crawling toward LSH on the west is 75 yards to the E site on CR.
I think all of those distances are within overlapping fields of fire. Since we know the Indians had shooters that made hits at 600 yards, there would be a need to hold LSH for a short period. I believe E was pushed off and that they were attempting to go back the way they came, which was further south. They stayed in Deep Ravine too long. If you recall walking the Deep Ravine trail, you will see markers to the south before reaching Deep Gully. I believe those are on the route over to LSH, and they avoided the Deep Gully area of Deep Ravine. You can see it on the Maguire map. His line turns east before reaching Deep Ravine and moves further to the east to avoid the Deep Gully. I am sure the view on the way over horseback was much better than on foot after being pushed off CR.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 6, 2022 17:57:21 GMT
I am not disputing your distance measurements at all. They seem reasonably accurate. I do dispute fields of fire from LSH to Cemetery Ridge though, for I do not think you have made allowances for the dead space between the two places caused by the folds in the terrain.
I do not dispute the distance from LSH out on BRE either. They too seem reasonable, and the fields of fire are for the most part clear.
What is in dispute is Company E and Company F operating together as if they were an old style dragoon squadron. The only judge we have in this instance is the distance between where the bulk of E and the bulk of F were found. Dragoons, as I am sure you know by now operated while skirmishing with one company dismounted, and the other mounted, the dismounted company placing fire on the enemy, while the mounted company stood in over watch. When they were forced to withdraw the mounted company covered the remount process of the other, by either fire or maneuver. Therefore it would seem to me that the fact that Company E lost their horses would indicate there was no mounted over watch looking after them.
Now there are a couple of possibilities here. Company F was on CR and left E too early, which is highly possible, but then F only falls back to LSH, a place where they cannot perform their dragoon style over watch function, The other possibility is that there was some other unidentified company on CR with Company E, and that they pulled out leaving Company E alone, but not to position themselves to over watch E, but rather as part of a general withdrawal southward. As we can see, again from the marker placement that company that pulled out could only be one of C, I, or L. I tend to think that this latter scenario is the more likely one, but my thinking that it is more likely does not make it fact.
I think you also must contend with a couple of things that do not seem readily apparent at first glance. Doctor Lord was quite ill on the morning of the 25th and advised to stay with the trains. He refused and was throughout the day at his place of duty. Doctor Lord was found on the slope of LSH or at least, depending on how far and under what circumstances his body was later mover for burial, in that general area. WE can assume that a man so ill, but still duty bound, would practice his profession, and administer to the wounded. Therefore we can make a fairly good assumption that there was some manner of aid station in the immediate LSH area. We already know that at least in the last extremity the battalion command post was also there. Aid stations and command posts are normally located in a place of relative safety, and regarding the CP - observation.
With the above paragraph at the forefront of my thoughts, I would think there is an unexplored possibility that the battalion was operating with two two company groupings, one on CR, and the other on BRE, and Company F was being held in battalion reserve. That would seem to me to be a fairly good plan for an attack on Ford D, and would have remained in place at least through the early stages of the repulse phase. Company F under those circumstances would be the cover for the battalion command functions, until other circumstances overcame intentions. You recall the Indian story posted by Rosebud many years ago on the other forum of - four guidons coming over the ridge. Four not five, and the ridge in question was not further identified. That would seem consistent with what I stated here as it relates to two, two company grouping and a fifth company held slightly back in reserve. It is a cardinal sin in tactics to not keep and hold a reserve back until needed to either reinforce, counterattack, or exploit success.
The key to my argument is that phrase - to the exclusion of all other possibilities of task organization" We do not know, and have no way of knowing anything about the internal task organization of Custer's battalion, for there was no one left alive to inform us.
|
|