Impaled on the Horns Keogh's Dilemna

[Beth]

Fred has kindly giving his permission to post this article on this site. The first link will allow you to read the file online via dropbox, a file sharing location.


The pdf link will allow you to download the file to your computer. 

www.dropbox.com/s/13h2yclnuqelm77/WagnerArticle%20proof.pdf?dl=0

WagnerArticle proof.pdf (999.75 KB)

[mac]

This is the article that led to Fred leaving this board, when I used the timeline to show that the warrior accounts could not be eye witness accounts as they were all Sioux known to have at the Reno fight and so could not have been at Ford B in time to see anything other than Company L in skirmish line at Calhoun.
Their accounts are hearsay that they have transposed to Ford B from Ford D where Custer actually did approach the river with all 5 companies. For the proof of this see the Custer took 5 companies thread in the Ford D section.
Cheers

[quincannon]

Unless Wagner was present watch in hand and keeping a contemporaneous log of events, this article serves only to smear bovine excrement on perfectly good paper.

Another gallant attempt to tell the public something that you cannot possibly know. Fabrication, falsehood, lie, call it what you wish. It may have been a well meaning attempt on his part , but it is still, and I am being kind, fabrication.

If we ever collectively publish the work here that we have all contributed to, I certainly hope we do not start off by writing, at 3:07 PM on the 25th of June 1876. If we do it will all go down hill from there.

Should we ever publish though, it should be presented not as this is what did happened, but rather this may be what happened in accordance with the evidence collected. No one knows, and if anyone ever tells you they do, tell them they are scum sucking lying sons of bitches, or to be more kind, someone immersed in their own hubris.

[yanmacca]

Mac are you publishing something on this battle?
If so then this is news to me.

Fred sent me that magazine over [which contained that article] last year I think, it may have been called the Researcher.

[mac]

I am not publishing,other than here Ian. I was referencing when Fred linked the article here previously.
Cheers

[azranger]

Jul 11, 2017 14:09:46 GMT quincannon said:

Unless Wagner was present watch in hand and keeping a contemporaneous log of events, this article serves only to smear bovine excrement on perfectly good paper.

Another gallant attempt to tell the public something that you cannot possibly know. Fabrication, falsehood, lie, call it what you wish. It may have been a well meaning attempt on his part , but it is still, and I am being kind, fabrication.

If we ever collectively publish the work here that we have all contributed to, I certainly hope we do not start off by writing, at 3:07 PM on the 25th of June 1876. If we do it will all go down hill from there.

Should we ever publish though, it should be presented not as this is what did happened, but rather this may be what happened in accordance with the evidence collected. No one knows, and if anyone ever tells you they do, tell them they are scum sucking lying sons of bitches, or to be more kind, someone immersed in their own hubris.

So what I have discerned over time is that those who publish have formed a fixed opinion and are not subject to much change. It would mean that something was wrong in thier assimilation of the material that they used to form thier opinions. I have no problem with Fred using specific watch times to form the structure of his presentation of his opinion.  It is a good way to see if things fit together.

I personally view the times as informed opinion presentation. So for me they are not fact per se. Without some sort of time line and sequence of concurrent events you can stick any account anywhere you want or leave out anything you want.

Fred's contribution is huge in my opinion as it gives a look at what is going on currently at different locations at the same time.

So when I see 3:07 PM I see it as Fred's opinion of when something happened. It is most likely a range of time for us that have not formed a fixed opinion.

I learned this fixed opinion stance from Gordon Harper in personal communication. He was willing to discuss something but would very nicely tell you that his opinions would not change on certain events. His north to south flow was one of those opinions. Our Ford D thread is certainly heading in that direction to some degree.

I think Mac uses Fred's fixed opinion time line to see if events fit or have a probability factor conducive to occurrence.

 I think we should save all the negative descriptors for those that put forth opinions not based on training, experience, facts, accounts, and/or testimonies.

I don't see how you can make timeline and not use times.  Is there a real difference between 3:10 PM and 3:05 - 3:15 PM. Maybe?

If rate of travel of horse is involved than a range of time outside of normal horse rates of travel would be an issued. If 3:10 represents a time interval that is equivalent to a cavalry  gallop than it is consistent with know rates. If 3:15 represents slower than a walk you have dawdling. If 3:05 represents a rate of travel in excess of 20 miles per hour than it would have to be an event such as Reno's move to the bluffs. If some one tells me the range of time for the pack train includes rates of travel that would have them moving at 15 mph then I would not value their opinion.

So one key factor Fred included was the rate of travel which limits the range of time. So if you think his specific time is incorrect you could change overall speed for whatever the duration of the particular time line event.

That's my two cents.

Regards

Steve

[mac]

Here is my last response to Fred from the 5 Companies thread page 38 after the above link was posted. Fred deleted his account but his posts are still there.
Say again I have the greatest respect for him and his work.

I think this is a discussion that would be much easier if held on the battlefield and perhaps at Montana Brewing Company. Sadly the now option is via internet.
One problem with participant accounts is discerning what was actually seen and what is a description based on having been told by someone else. In my view all humans tend to do this and the problem is accentuated by the difficulties of translation. This makes me sceptical of many accounts of the approach to Ford B. Some warriors tell their stories as if they were everywhere on the field.
I think we can be sure Custer left some men on higher ground while a portion of his force approached the river and then withdrew up a ridge or watercourse to higher ground. I am not sure this happened at Ford B.
Originally I was happy with the conventional theory but there were always things that seemed to me to not quite make sense and the more I learned the greater this feeling. I am a scientist and as such as new evidence is presented to me I am prepared to alter my theories; this is the scientific method.
I have read the article Fred posted and it is in my view a very well written and referenced piece. Personally I am hugely indebted to Fred for his research.
I have said before that the timeline is crucial here so let me use these time points; they are Command's Watch Time as used in the article.

3:06 Smith begins moving away from Ford B

2:50 Crazy Horse begins to gather his warriors at the Reno fight

3:02 Indians still in full force in the valley estimates of 600 to 1000.

3:27 Compny L take up skirmish line positions

3:38 Crazy Horse and his band reach Ford B.


These are the warriors listed in the article as giving accounts of the retreat from Ford B. I have referenced them from Fred's great Participants in the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

Lone Bear was a follower of Crazy Horse ..arrival at Ford B 32 minutes after Smith left.
Two Moon (a man who was everywhere) fought Reno...arrival probably after Crazy Horse as Crazy Horse was an early leaver in the Reno/valley fight.
Foolish Elk with Crazy Horse ....arrival as above.
Two Eagles fought Reno...arrival after Crazy Horse
Lights fought Reno....as above
Hollow Horn Bear fought Reno ... as above.

It is entirely probable that none of these men saw anything at Ford B other than Calhoun's skirmish line up on the slope of Calhoun Hill. After the battle they were told that "Custer" came down to the river and then retreated to higher ground and constructed a memory around Ford B.
The idea in this thread is that the move to the river was by 5 companies at Ford D and has been wrongly interpreted as happening at Ford B. The timeline is correct but the time allocated to the Ford B excursion was in fact the window when the Ford D action was taking place as Custer went on the attack all the way to Ford D as in the John Stands in Timber account.
Cheers

Read more: greatsiouxwar1876.proboards.com/thread/406/custer-moves-ford-companies#ixzz4mcf3uoUI

[quincannon]

Steve: You are not the average reader of any material dealing with the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

The average reader is Joe Snuffy, someone who probably has never been there but finds an article like that written by Wagner, and many others, takes what they say as gospel, as if it were from the mouth of God Himself and puts that material in a high school or college term paper and over time what someone presented as fact without appropriate caveat in 2016 becomes the truth of 2050.

I think we are on the right track here, but the idea that any of this material should ever reach publication without the warning that it is opinion, based upon collective evidence, OPINION, to me does a disservice to the subject matter. Wagner does not do that, but Wagner does not know any more of what actually transpired after Custer turned onto the bluffs than any of the rest of us. The difference between this group and Wagner is that we do not know and admit the fact. Wagner does not know and will never admit it.

Our case is every bit as good as his from a time perspective. Our case is better than his from a best practices of tactics perspective. Our case I believe fits better with the totality of testimony, Our case fits better with the physical evidence gathered. Both cases are circumstantial. So the bottom line here is had Wagner placed somewhere at the head of his article a statement something like - This is what my research leads me to believe what happened, I would not have a bit of heartburn.

[yanmacca]

Mac, Keeping in line here with what you have posted above; here is another account made by a Cheyenne, who initially fought against Reno but got back to fight with his fellow Cheyenne. He mentions three locations, first the Cheyenne camp, second the river and third a narrow gulch.
Now the river in not important, but his location was the Cheyenne camp, which was the closest circle to where Custer tried to cross. And what is this narrow gulch, I cannot see a narrow gulch near ford B [well except for the one Kellogg was allegedly found dead in].
Now Brave Wolf is trying to tell just what he saw, without the guff which the others and selling us, and it sounds like he got late to the saw Custer's men pulling out and fighting their way from cemetery ridge to LSH, so these will probably he be F and E companies.
Here is his account;

Brave Wolf [Northern Cheyenne] Said that he was in the Cheyenne camp when Reno attacked and took part in the valley fight, when the soldiers reach the bluffs, he heard more shooting below and rushed down to the Cheyenne camp, were the fighting had already being going on for some time. The soldiers were right down close to the stream, but none were on the west side. Just as I got there the soldiers began to retreat up the narrow gulch. They were all drawn up in line of battle, shooting well and fighting hard. They still held their line of battle and kept fighting and falling from their horses, fighting and falling all the way up nearly too where the monument now stands. I think all of their horses were killed before they got quite to the top of the hill.

[mac]

Jul 12, 2017 15:30:31 GMT yanmacca said:

Mac, Keeping in line here with what you have posted above; here is another account made by a Cheyenne, who initially fought against Reno but got back to fight with his fellow Cheyenne. He mentions three locations, first the Cheyenne camp, second the river and third a narrow gulch.
Now the river in not important, but his location was the Cheyenne camp, which was the closest circle to where Custer tried to cross. And what is this narrow gulch, I cannot see a narrow gulch near ford B [well except for the one Kellogg was allegedly found dead in].
Now Brave Wolf is trying to tell just what he saw, without the guff which the others and selling us, and it sounds like he got late to the saw Custer's men pulling out and fighting their way from cemetery ridge to LSH, so these will probably he be F and E companies.
Here is his account;

Brave Wolf [Northern Cheyenne] Said that he was in the Cheyenne camp when Reno attacked and took part in the valley fight, when the soldiers reach the bluffs, he heard more shooting below and rushed down to the Cheyenne camp, were the fighting had already being going on for some time. The soldiers were right down close to the stream, but none were on the west side. Just as I got there the soldiers began to retreat up the narrow gulch. They were all drawn up in line of battle, shooting well and fighting hard. They still held their line of battle and kept fighting and falling from their horses, fighting and falling all the way up nearly too where the monument now stands. I think all of their horses were killed before they got quite to the top of the hill.

"Just as I got there the soldiers began to retreat up the narrow gulch." This sentence worries me Ian maybe it is the translation or transcription. The narrow gulch is mentioned by White Shield, I think, as the route many warriors used to get to the battle. I now agree with you and AZ that this is probably the narrow gap giving access to the bottom of CR. So maybe two thoughts in one sentence. "Just as I got there the soldiers began to retreat" is timing (anyone who fought Reno could only get back to see the last stages of the fight that began at Ford D.) and "up the narrow gulch" is his route.
Just an opinion.
Cheers

[yanmacca]

Mac, you know what I am like, I rush in from work sort out a few posts, eat something and then back out again [back out again shortly too], so here is the full story written as I found it;

[yanmacca]

Last one;

[quincannon]

Reading that story in its entirety leads me to believe that Brave Wolf spent that weekend in Sheboygan, and was nowhere near that battle.

[yanmacca]

That is your view, I myself couldn't possibly comment, I thought I better put it up for Mac.

[quincannon]

If you read it carefully Ian, and you understand the time distance factors it is apparent to me that Brave Wolf was not at both places. He could not possibly have been. The distances are too great. The time is not available. His own narrative inconsistent with known facts.

Little things like the civilian packers were already on the hill when Reno arrived, betrayed him. Where was the Cheyenne Camp? Reno could have stayed in the timber. All these things are inconsistent at face value, which forces you to doubt the voracity of the total story.

Now you know full well the civilian packers were not on that hill until well after Reno arrived and still well after Benteen showed up. You know that, but it is evident that Brave Wolf did not. You also know that if Reno had stayed in the timber he was toast. The Indians knew that as well. They thought they had him trapped. So in light of this you must look at the whole story. If a man is trying to pull the wool over your eyes in one event what makes you or anyone think he would not do it about another event. Also you must consider any agenda Grinnell may have had. Personally I don't know if he had any, but reading that story as written pokes a finger in Reno's eye twice - 1) He could have held the timber - which he could not have done, and, 2) the packs arrived more than an hour before they did - meaning that Reno and Benteen delayed in their rescue of the Golden Boy. 

If I told you I was in the Pusan perimeter with Walker, you may very well believe that until you looked at my birth date and realize that I was seven years old at the time, so doubts about what I was telling you may tend to creep in around the edges. Th moral of the story then is you must examine the narative totally, before you decide that one part may fit so use it.

He was most likely in the north, but I greatly doubt he was ever in the south. He was probably a late arrival in the north, and told what he heard from others about the south.