|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 9, 2018 21:32:02 GMT
So Steve, who's speeds did Fred use for Benteen's foray? As well as some other locals?
Regards, Tom
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Feb 9, 2018 22:27:22 GMT
. I served during peace time when I was young and wild. Never learned anything except where the beer hall and em club was. Dan,
That is the important thing. You can learn all the other stuff later.
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Feb 10, 2018 0:27:27 GMT
Young Dan, thank you for the welcome
I appreciate that you enjoy humor as I do, without it life's is to serious.
Look forward to learning enough so I can participate in the big discussions.
regards dan25
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 10, 2018 14:48:19 GMT
Steve, when you state categorically that such and such an event took place at exactly 2:04 PM you cannot use average speeds or any other calculation to determine that with any degree of precise accuracy. Fred built his model and it has opinioned times. Apparently you have not read it or you would have read the following.
"It should be understood we are making no claim for definitive here....much of this is not known as fact. We play the percentages, probabilities and possibilities supported by as much participant as we could muster. We do not know with certainty what happened here, but we can use the accounts left us to arrive at likely conclusions, and while we make assumptions, those assumptions fit the participants accounts. This book is written that way, with that in mind."
I think in order to voice an informed opinion of a book one should read it first. That is where I got crossed up with Robb because he was making comments about Fred's book without reading it. I think after reading that statement above you might want to amend your comments. That is far different than someone saying the event happened around 10:00 in the morning. The around ten puts the event in the overall perspective that the author wishes to paint on the canvas of his work No one, and I mean NO ONE on Gods green earth knows or can determine the elapsed times for Custer's movement on that particular day. To say they do and can, based upon averages, calculation, soothsaying, or black magic is just plain bull shitting, and it is a disservice to the reader. Again you may want to amend your comments after reading what is actually in the book.
"It should be understood we are making no claim for definitive here....much of this is not known as fact. We play the percentages, probabilities and possibilities supported by as much participant as we could muster. We do not know with certainty what happened here, but we can use the accounts left us to arrive at likely conclusions, and while we make assumptions, those assumptions fit the participants accounts. This book is written that way, with that in mind."
Of course he stands by his work. It is by far the best that has ever been attempted, but that does not change the fact that in doing so, he has become far too precise, and all that serves to do is delude the reader into thinking that the collective WE knows more about this battle than we do, or that can ever be known. "It should be understood we are making no claim for definitive here....much of this is not known as fact. We play the percentages, probabilities and possibilities supported by as much participant as we could muster. We do not know with certainty what happened here, but we can use the accounts left us to arrive at likely conclusions, and while we make assumptions, those assumptions fit the participants accounts. This book is written that way, with that in mind." When an author is forced into making choices and opinions, that is OK. We all do that, but we cannot make choices and opinions about precise times. We must have a factual account that something happened at that exact time. A good example is the attack on Pearl Harbor. We can factually state when the Japanese aircraft appeared over the harbor itself, and exactly when they departed, for those exact times were recorded in the Pacific Fleet command logs, along with several other specific times for events that occurred during that attack. Compare that to the non precise time reporting of the concurrent attacks on Wheeler, Hickham, Schofield Barracks, Eva, and the rest. We have decent guesswork for those places, but nothing precise. I am arguing that no one on this earth can compute exact to the minute times lines period. Further I argue that no one is even certain that any of these events occurred. So it is a two pronged argument, and either end of it spells out the fact that precise to the minute times are impossible to determine without a person being there that day and recording the times and events. "It should be understood we are making no claim for definitive here....much of this is not known as fact. We play the percentages, probabilities and possibilities supported by as much participant as we could muster. We do not know with certainty what happened here, but we can use the accounts left us to arrive at likely conclusions, and while we make assumptions, those assumptions fit the participants accounts. This book is written that way, with that in mind." There is also the historians rule, that we seldom see put in practice regarding LBH ---- ONE WITNESS EQUALS NO WITNESS
Just how many witness accounts in Fred's book have you read that he used for his sources. As Tom can attest Fred carries a loose leaf notebook full of witness accounts and references them when engaging in conversations. That being said his timeline gives a great resource to see if something fits. It not just a single timeline. There are concurrent timelines with different sources. So changing one could also change another.
One of things Mac did if recall correctly is to see if the 5 companies moving north could fit within the timeline. I think he posted it could. So that makes it consistent with all the sources that are included in Fred's work. Fred concurs with Donahue that E, F, and HQ went north of LSH so there is nothing in the 5 companies moving north that is refuted absolutely by Fred's timeline. I think that is significant.
A perfect example of a Gray type timeline is Bill Rini's participant timeline where he selectively uses accounts to extend the time on Reno Hill before they move north.
The exact time use in Fred's timeline are put there with the disclaimer that you may have not read.
"It should be understood we are making no claim for definitive here....much of this is not known as fact. We play the percentages, probabilities and possibilities supported by as much participant as we could muster. We do not know with certainty what happened here, but we can use the accounts left us to arrive at likely conclusions, and while we make assumptions, those assumptions fit the participants accounts. This book is written that way, with that in mind."
So that being said the various timelines have different accounts. So instead of a cumulative error of +/- time there are opportunities to adjust time. An adjustment in time would require the speed to be within acceptable time ranges. For horses that would range from 0 mph to a charge speed of over 20 mph.
This makes Fred's timeline no more accurate than what he states which I don't think I need to repeat.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 10, 2018 16:10:45 GMT
So Steve, who's speeds did Fred use for Benteen's foray? As well as some other locals? Regards, Tom In that portion of the book he has several pictures that either I took or Terry Craft took. I sent him our GPS ride data. The GPS data has the ride longer than the 7 + miles that Fred used in his calculation of distance traveled. Fred derived an overall average by using a flat line distance 7 + and overall speed of 4.2 mph. I would have the distance further and therefore the speed faster. But it doesn't matter since the timelines have to have Benteen reaching Reno Creek after Custer and ahead of the pack train. The shorter the route the slower the overall rate of travel.
What I do know is even if it is only 7 + miles to average 4.2 miles per hour the actual rate of moving speeds would be close to trot speeds. Defiles alone would be slow with stops to go single file and reform on the other side. Some of the downhills could easily be less than 2 mph. Horses are not like a vehicle on cruise control and the speeds vary greatly.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 10, 2018 17:10:08 GMT
Steve: I have not read Wagner's book, but you forget I suppose that Wagner and I carried on phone conversations on a near weekly basis, sometime for hours, while the book was in the pre-publication phase and I am quite familiar with both his content and methodology.
That said I disagree with it because he does not follow his own "we make no claim of definitive here" in his conversations on the various other forums. He is a victim of his own hubris, regardless of whether he realizes it or not. In his speech he makes specific claims as to exact times without the disclaimer that you have noted from the beginning of his book.
I don't give a rat's ass if he would state something happened at approximately 3:03. I mind him definitively saying that it happened at 3:03 and calling someone a fool if he is not believed. It is not the written material that is offensive it is the manner of the man behind that material.
Now I do notice that you chime in on any discussion of routes used. Your body of work in that regard is remarkable and worthy of note, something that could only be accomplished by an experienced horseman. What you do not know, what no one knows, is the exact route Custer took to his demise. Every source differs in at least some small detail. So how does one derive exact or even closely approximate times if the route(s) themselves are unknown? No way that I know of .
Wagner has set himself up as the Wizard behind the curtain in OZ, and I am saying that it is time that the curtain be pulled back, and he is exposed for just what he is, a man with great knowledge of the subject matter, but not one who has all the answers. His grasp for the brass ring of immortality falls short.
What Mac did at the outset of the 5 Company north theory is insist that Wagner's start and stop times for the battle be used, and the alternative theory of five companies going north must fit into that start and stop time frame. If at the end it would not fit it was Mac's intention that the whole theory would be invalid. In the end after a couple of years at it, it was proven that indeed it would fit, and fit just as well as the conventional scenario. What was rejected by Mac and the rest of us that tried to build that alternative theory were the internal timelines, which given the difference in scenarios, would be irrelevant.
One witness equals no witness. That is the guideline of historians who study battle for a living, U S Army Historians, and I follow that guideline religiously, although I make no claim to be a historian. How many "one witness" accounts does Wagner use? I don't know. What I do know is that if he does use a one witness account of an event, he is jumping off of a cliff. And no, I do not want to hear about what is done by law enforcement officers. That is irrelevant in this context. When law enforcement only has one witness to an event, they are put on the stand during a trial, and it is the jury that decides if they are telling the truth or not. Historians only have what they have, with no jury to back up their judgment. Sometimes One Witness equals no witness is unfair and good information may be lost, but in the vast majority of times it is proven methodology. Try being awarded a combat decoration sometime, where there is only one witness. It's not going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 10, 2018 17:46:26 GMT
Steve, I forgot you were mentioned in the acknowledgements, I just went back and looked. I knew you had done some of those tests.
Regards, Tom
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 11, 2018 14:14:55 GMT
Steve: I have not read Wagner's book, but you forget I suppose that Wagner and I carried on phone conversations on a near weekly basis, sometime for hours, while the book was in the pre-publication phase and I am quite familiar with both his content and methodology. Well we all know that what someone writes can be different then there spontaneous personal responses. So let's agree that Fred has a self defensive response in person and on boards. That said I disagree with it because he does not follow his own "we make no claim of definitive here" in his conversations on the various other forums. He is a victim of his own hubris, regardless of whether he realizes it or not. In his speech he makes specific claims as to exact times without the disclaimer that you have noted from the beginning of his book. Let's not confuse a committed written opinion with a verbal or board comment that provokes an author to respond. There is a reason that most authors would not come on these boards. My difference is that we do a lot of training that allows us in law enforcement to ignore what people say or write if it meant to be offensive. I don't give a rat's ass if he would state something happened at approximately 3:03. I mind him definitively saying that it happened at 3:03 and calling someone a fool if he is not believed. It is not the written material that is offensive it is the manner of the man behind that material. Well you have to live in a world where there are lots of different people and personalities. So a wise person would learn what they can without provoking someone that is inclined to be provoked. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how someone responds and figure out how to avoid it while continuing a conversation. When I first encountered DC on the against all odds board we had those confrontations. As a good Marine I learned to Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome. We became good friends.
Some people have a short fuse and don't suffer fools well. I say so what. Now I do notice that you chime in on any discussion of routes used. Your body of work in that regard is remarkable and worthy of note, something that could only be accomplished by an experienced horseman. What you do not know, what no one knows, is the exact route Custer took to his demise. Every source differs in at least some small detail. So how does one derive exact or even closely approximate times if the route(s) themselves are unknown? No way that I know of . Nor do I care what the exact route was for I am sure if Custer did it again he might change things himself. I think horseback is in some ways similar to a boat. You can get to point B from A in many different exact routes. What matters in some terrain are obstacles that force a deviation or slows your speed. What we can figure as horsemen is what seems to be the best available choice which is close enough for me. A defile that forces you to jump off a rock ledge at a certain point is more likely on a route then say the exact route Reno's horse moved in the valley. I don't think even Reno could go back and travel the exact same route he took.
So part of what we did for example is match accounts with specific locations that we were at. There are not many locations that you can see down toward Reno Creek. So first you must have a clear view and second timing wise both Benteen and Custer have to be in that viewscape. Since we are not providing evidence in a criminal case the only thing you look for is it "consistent with" for whatever you are attempting to look at. We know that all the horses were not single file so the route has width to it and most likely wider in some locations than others. We also know that there were defiles and the route narrows to single file. Wagner has set himself up as the Wizard behind the curtain in OZ, and I am saying that it is time that the curtain be pulled back, and he is exposed for just what he is, a man with great knowledge of the subject matter, but not one who has all the answers. His grasp for the brass ring of immortality falls short. I say that you are taking the wrong approach. I want to learn what Fred has discovered an use it to form my own opinion. I don't have the time or patience to gather all the information that he collected. If you take your approach then you lose out for Fred doesn't share with persons taking such an approach. All you have to do is look at Saint Patrick on the black board and see that what you suggest will not work. What Mac did at the outset of the 5 Company north theory is insist that Wagner's start and stop times for the battle be used, and the alternative theory of five companies going north must fit into that start and stop time frame. If at the end it would not fit it was Mac's intention that the whole theory would be invalid. In the end after a couple of years at it, it was proven that indeed it would fit, and fit just as well as the conventional scenario. What was rejected by Mac and the rest of us that tried to build that alternative theory were the internal timelines, which given the difference in scenarios, would be irrelevant. I believe the more things that are "consistent with" what is available is a good thing and tends to increase the probability of being correct. An individuals timeline require you make a decision to place someone somewhere at a time certain. So all you are saying is that the Individual Timelines for each of the 5 companies fits within an overall timeline with the same starting point for the 5 companies and the same end point for the 5 companies.
Fred's timeline allows for E, F and HQ to go north of LSH and so of course the times for individual companies could fit. Donahue at that the last time I talked with him he has E and F moving north on BRE and returning on CR. So he covers all the artifacts found on BRE and CR. So the only theories that are not "consistent with" the current knowledge base are those that claim no one in Custer's five companies moved north of LSH. There are lots of persons that hold that exact opinion. Custer was driven to LSH and fixed and destroyed there pretty well sums up that theory.
So I look on the bright side and say Donahue and Fred believe there was movement on offense north of LSH now we attempt to decide how many companies took that offensive action. One witness equals no witness. That is the guideline of historians who study battle for a living, U S Army Historians, and I follow that guideline religiously, although I make no claim to be a historian. How many "one witness" accounts does Wagner use? I don't know. What I do know is that if he does use a one witness account of an event, he is jumping off of a cliff. And no, I do not want to hear about what is done by law enforcement officers. That is irrelevant in this context. When law enforcement only has one witness to an event, they are put on the stand during a trial, and it is the jury that decides if they are telling the truth or not. Historians only have what they have, with no jury to back up their judgment. Sometimes One Witness equals no witness is unfair and good information may be lost, but in the vast majority of times it is proven methodology. Try being awarded a combat decoration sometime, where there is only one witness. It's not going to happen. I think anyone can write a book and yet some have a better resource base then others to derive their information. I was not taught in Jr. High School from a US Army History book but whomever wrote the book I used it had the whole 7th cavalry wiped out by the Indians. My grandfather told me something different I believe in 1956 and that may have started me being curious about the LBH battle.
I like to form my own opinions but listen to others and especially the information they used to form their opinions.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 11, 2018 16:58:10 GMT
The difference is that with a ship (boat) we have logs kept and charts maintained giving us exact course, speed, and time. Had we this for LBH this conversation would not be taking place.
Therefore, we have ways to determine the truth of what is being represented in the narrative of a naval battle, whereas that was not possible at the time of LBH, or at least not possible when the entire force is lost and there are no witnesses to the event that can present more that what would be considered here say evidence in a court of law.
I suppose you might say my approach to truth is a bit more discerning than yours, in that there is only one truth, close enough is not good enough, and I do not try to bull shit my reader/listener by saying something that I can not possibly know as complete truth. If I don't know something, for whatever reason I say - I don't know - I do not recall, but will try to find the best available information - or finally I don't know, but I speculate that this or that is closest to the truth.
It is all in the way you present yourself in writing, and it is how you present yourself verbally that makes all the difference in how that information is received by the reader/listener. You can include a disclaimer on every page of your work, but if you speak or write as if you have positive information, the take away will be the positive, not the disclaimer.
Do you realize how condescending and insulting it is every time he opens his mouth and says - I've done the work, - as if no one can reach the Olympian levels he thinks he has, and no one other than he has ever spent any effort on the subject. In this regard what makes him any different than Rini? None that I see, with one proviso. Wagner does not set out purposefully to deceive, where there is little else the other does.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 11, 2018 18:08:32 GMT
Wow, no difference between Rini and Fred Wagner. I guess I won't take issue with your opinion, as that is what is. Others may want to, however. I guess, this to some degree, puts you in line and good standing with the "Spanky and Our Gang" board.
Regards, Tom
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 11, 2018 18:22:49 GMT
The difference is that with a ship (boat) we have logs kept and charts maintained giving us exact course, and time. Had we this for LBH this conversation would not be taking place. We classify watercraft under 65 into four classes A,1,2,3 anything over 65' must be registered with the US Coast Guard. For Lake Powell there are 2,000 miles of shoreline and safe channels depend on water elevation. Of the million plus launchings per year at Wahweap launch alone very few are documented vessels over 65' in length. The problem is that a drunk boater does not show up on any log or chart. Therefore, we have ways to determine the truth of what is being represented in the narrative of a naval battle, whereas that was not possible at the time of LBH, or at least not possible when the entire force is lost and there are no witnesses to the event that can present more that what would be considered here say evidence in a court of law. No we don't. We have take what is offered rather than preferred. The only court action was RCOI and it appears they allowed hearsay and opinions.I suppose you might say my approach to truth is a bit more discerning than yours, in that there is only one truth, close enough is not good enough, and I do not try to bull shit my reader/listener by saying something that I can not possibly know as complete truth. If I don't know something, for whatever reason I say - I don't know - I do not recall, but will try to find the best available information - or finally I don't know, but I speculate that this or that is closest to the truth. I would consider anyone thinking there could be truth in findings of fact for a contaminated battlefield is most likely to be in error. As we know there are expert witnesses that testify in courts and quite often experts from both sides differ as to formed opinions. So the only question is who qualifies as an expert witness. Once they meet whatever standard the court decides is sufficient they are allowed to testify. If an expert witness asked to present his opinion stated I don't know then it would be a waste of time to call them as your expert witness.
So I think we should view most of things we discuss the same as we treat expert witnesses in court giving expert testimony and forming opinions. If an expert stated he doesn't know I would not give him two cents for his opinion. There is clearly a difference of testimony by an eyewitness as to what they saw and testimony of an expert witness that bases their opinion upon the research they have done.
I think you are failing to understand that in courts expert witnesses can disagree and the judge and/or jury are the finders of fact. So just as in courts when allowing expert witnesses to testify to various opinions when can look at what is written and use the same discernment as does a judge and/or jury in making a decision. So to carry this out the reader is the finder of fact not the author. You can chose to agree or disagree. It is all in the way you present yourself in writing, and it is how you present yourself verbally that makes all the difference in how that information is received by the reader/listener. You can include a disclaimer on every page of your work, but if you speak or write as if you have positive information, the take away will be the positive, not the disclaimer. Which goes more to the point. Since you have not read the book the only thing you can state is "I don't know". You can't even state you don't recall because you have read nothing to recall.Do you realize how condescending and insulting it is every time he opens his mouth and says - I've done the work, - as if no one can reach the Olympian levels he thinks he has, and no one other than he has ever spent any effort on the subject. In this regard what makes him any different than Rini? None that I see. So it is apparent that you a personal issue with Fred and that's fine. What I read of your posts with Rini assumes that you read his post and responded to his post.
Where are you hearing Fred say that? Are you stating what you have heard or repeating hearsay? I would say that in court an expert witness is expected to give a vigorous defense to a challenge to their opinions expressed which include sometimes include timelines.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 11, 2018 18:31:50 GMT
Maybe we should ask Diane her opinion of the statement that there is no difference between Fred and Rini or better yet lets ask Montrose.
Again I think we simply need to look at what is used to form opinions. At some point those that have written opinions are similar to those appear in court as expert witnesses. I don't think one of the above would make it through the voir dire.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by dan25 on Feb 11, 2018 18:38:49 GMT
With my next post I will issue helmets and body armor.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 11, 2018 18:53:01 GMT
No need to old chap, these guys are all friends, really! and are just clearing their chests. All the names you see mentioned above, like Rini and Fred, all used to post on the same board together, so they know each other well. Others like DC are no longer with us and Rini has his own board, which you may or not know, as he goes under the name of Keogh! If you have been a member of his board, then you will know that he censors stuff, a bit like North Korea does. Fred is an author who you probably know, he used to post here, but disagreements caused him to jack it all in.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Feb 11, 2018 18:56:13 GMT
Don't be concerned Dan, this is just the boys getting ready for Spring Break, in the Frat House! I spent quality time with Quincannon last Summer, albeit short, he is a class act and can take more or as much as he gives. Also Joan may be harder on him than we are.
Regards, Tom
|
|