Post by quincannon on Sept 28, 2022 16:16:32 GMT
Divine intervention HR. Schultz's story sure sounds like that may be the case, but I highly doubt if the Almighty gives two hoots about what happened.
What I believe is that Schultz wanted to believe Thompson, and that is about the worst mistake one can make when examining things like these - wanting to believe. It is like Rini wanting to believe 3000 meters is support by fire distance. It skews your perspective, to the point where the wanting obscures the facts, and in many cases common sense.
The main point here is that one is free to believe Thompson, or not. I don't, at least not all. Too much Victorian era garbage within the story for me. Problem is with stories like these, you find one disconnect, one very unlikely, and it brings the entire story into question. The second thing that greatly troubles me is that there is absolutely no contemporary verification in the record. Had the event actually happened the way Thompson later presented it, he was in possession of vital intelligence, that should have been relayed to his superiors as soon as Thompson and Watson were back in friendly hands. There is no record of that taking place, and it was his duty to report that to his superiors as soon as possible. That's what soldiers do.
What we do not know is what Thompson learned of the theoretical story of Custer's adventures speculated upon contemporanious to the event, and what he learned of the terrain his story takes him over when he was first there on the 27th and in later visit(s) for reunions and such. Such information gleaned by Thompson on those occasions could very well provide the detail in Thompson's later story that Schultz relies on for verification of the story itself. This whole thing could have been settled on 25 June if Thompson reported what he later said he saw, and Watson standing beside him said - that's right. That did not happen. It is not in the record, and logic tells you it would be if such a report were rendered. No verification means to me that what Thompson later related did not happen. If someone finds some record, heretofore unknown, that indicates that these doubts of mine are false, I will then admit they were, buy into what Thompson had to say, and move on, but not without indisputable proof of story verification. I am not one to sit around camp fires and listen to stories without a jaundiced eye focused in the storytellers direction.
What I believe is that Schultz wanted to believe Thompson, and that is about the worst mistake one can make when examining things like these - wanting to believe. It is like Rini wanting to believe 3000 meters is support by fire distance. It skews your perspective, to the point where the wanting obscures the facts, and in many cases common sense.
The main point here is that one is free to believe Thompson, or not. I don't, at least not all. Too much Victorian era garbage within the story for me. Problem is with stories like these, you find one disconnect, one very unlikely, and it brings the entire story into question. The second thing that greatly troubles me is that there is absolutely no contemporary verification in the record. Had the event actually happened the way Thompson later presented it, he was in possession of vital intelligence, that should have been relayed to his superiors as soon as Thompson and Watson were back in friendly hands. There is no record of that taking place, and it was his duty to report that to his superiors as soon as possible. That's what soldiers do.
What we do not know is what Thompson learned of the theoretical story of Custer's adventures speculated upon contemporanious to the event, and what he learned of the terrain his story takes him over when he was first there on the 27th and in later visit(s) for reunions and such. Such information gleaned by Thompson on those occasions could very well provide the detail in Thompson's later story that Schultz relies on for verification of the story itself. This whole thing could have been settled on 25 June if Thompson reported what he later said he saw, and Watson standing beside him said - that's right. That did not happen. It is not in the record, and logic tells you it would be if such a report were rendered. No verification means to me that what Thompson later related did not happen. If someone finds some record, heretofore unknown, that indicates that these doubts of mine are false, I will then admit they were, buy into what Thompson had to say, and move on, but not without indisputable proof of story verification. I am not one to sit around camp fires and listen to stories without a jaundiced eye focused in the storytellers direction.