|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 19, 2016 16:08:13 GMT
I was scanning the net and found this file about deep ravine, it is only a short document but some of the photos and images are good and some may benefit from such data, please checkout the colour photos near the end of the document as it shows some good shots of deep ravine and surprisingly it shows that its location was in some instances wrongly mapped. Just hope you can all open "pdf". link
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 19, 2016 18:17:06 GMT
Ian, Read this guy's recent article on D.'s board. He claims that the original map was not used at RCOI. He claims the army still has the original map and it should be released. Interesting stuff!
Regards, Tom
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 20, 2016 0:08:47 GMT
Yan Thanks for the article. Very interesting. Regards Dave
Deadwood In which thread is his post located? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 20, 2016 9:53:50 GMT
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 21, 2016 1:05:01 GMT
Does Nightingale have a sound argument? Is Deep Ravine incorrectly marked and positioned? Are there 28 men buried in Deep Ravine? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 21, 2016 7:48:52 GMT
Dave, who knows, some are not real impressed with him, but there are still 28 bodies supposedly still missing.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Mar 21, 2016 11:13:25 GMT
The maps look fairly consistent to me with Deep Ravine entering the river parrallel to an upward swing in the course of the river. The other ravine shown in the later photos could be Gibbon's ford which is near where Kellogg was found. Not sure this could be further north. AZ is the man who might have a better take on this. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 21, 2016 16:24:52 GMT
I am not all that impressed. I have an ingrained bias about those who think they have the "real" story that has escaped everyone for the last 140 years. My level of bias rises when it has even a marginal association with the history channel.
The idea of a giant ambush is just beyond the pale. Preplanned ambushes must have knowledge of the opponent that the Indians had no way of obtaining.
What I would buy however is the idea that there were more Indian occupied sites than we may know about and would consider if known.
Neither Reno not Benteen can be held without some blame. There were fairly large holes in their performance, BUT they bear no responsibility for what occurred, nor should they be held to blame, for the two critical decisions that were made in turn by both of them, the breakout, and falling in on Reno. BUT FOR the actions and orders of their commander those decisions would not have to have been made.
IF these things that Nightingale points to are the absolute, unvarnished truth then George Custer was a criminal level idiot, above and beyond the Tom Fool Idiot I already believe him to be.
Always beware of that new bit of information that will set the record straight, especially if it is contained in a book, and especially if that new bit is the bait to pimp the book. Ask yourself how many times you have been disappointed following these false for sensational purposes trails/
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 21, 2016 17:16:43 GMT
I must say that the thought of the Indians just using ford B, D and deep ravine is utter rubbish and they would have crossed the river at more locations that you could point a stick at, the numbers committed by the Indians would allow for every avenue to be used as a attack point and if you walked along that river bank and saw a draw, then you could be sure that if it was there in 1876 then they used it.
These move to contact attacks were made mainly on foot and according to the Indians there were three charges that broke the cavalry's back, and these were Lame White man's, the Suicide Boys and Crazy Horse, now I am not 100% sure that only CHs attack was mounted and the others were on foot or in the case of LWMs charge maybe a mixture of both, with the majority being on foot. So in that case I would say that any mounted attacks would come via deep rave and the two fords.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 22, 2016 1:05:55 GMT
I've gone over those maps quite a few times and frankly I am stumped about the author's point. None of those maps were made with the type of precision we have in modern maps so angles between locations were not set in stone, nor are exact placement of ravine in relationship to others. Many of the differences in the older maps might just have to do with the personal style of the person drawing the map.
I don't know from his pictures of the area today if he is taking into account how the area has changed with time. A ravine that exists today might not have been there 140 years ago because the way the area drains has been changed.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Mar 22, 2016 13:21:34 GMT
Agreed, Beth, that the maps from 1876 do not have the precision or detail of today's maps. The ravine he alleges is the true deep ravine might not have been there at the time. None of the maps from the period indicate two ravines, just one that resembles today's deep ravine.
It would be interesting to know if any research into the ravine west of deep ravine was ever explored with the intent of searching for the missing 28, just in case he is right.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 22, 2016 15:12:00 GMT
There might be no need to search it, if they know when it developed or if it was around in 1876 how big it was. Something else to consider is what is the oral history--did any Native Americans, survivors of the 7th, or those who came later to 'clean up' the field identify which ravine is the correct one.
I have to admit I am confused by his appeal to the Army to change the map used at the time of the RCOI. It's really a none issue. I seem to recall everyone the RCOI agreed the map used was good enough for their purpose.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Mar 22, 2016 15:26:44 GMT
Seems to me that what he is describing is the drainage on the other side of SSL toward the cemetery. The head of it would be just below LSH . The trail to Deep Ravine makes a turn to left or south. The markers are along that drainage also. On the Little Bighorn Map Archeological Finds and Historical Locations map it is called cemetery ravine.
I don't buy it because I believe that Scott has found something in the current Deep Ravine but it would cost $100,000 to do the work.
Hopefully we will never get everything resolved. My grandsons want to go there.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 22, 2016 16:34:37 GMT
Agreed, it is Cemetery Ravine, and that is a non-starter.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Mar 22, 2016 21:13:06 GMT
When I was there last year, I now remember, a ranger said there was some recent data from ground penetrating radar that suggested there were some interesting things buried quite deeply in Deep Ravine. Cheers
|
|