|
Post by dan25 on Feb 11, 2018 19:08:00 GMT
I just couldn't resist a humorous reply guy's.
Nothing else ment. I know most are friends.
I do teach a coarse in how to zig zag while running.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 11, 2018 19:15:39 GMT
And watercraft and what they do on Lake Powell are irrelevant, unless these watercraft are designed for the purpose of combat. WE, at least I am speaking exclusively about recording combat actions, not some drunk ass hole doing something stupid like the people you are most frequently in contact with as a police officer. I don't give a rat's ass about what drunks do on Lake Powell.
WE are not conducting the RCOI here are we. The only evidence available from the other side is here say, as it is translated through a second party. I don't give a rat's ass what they did at the RCOI
I do recall the conversations on times. places, and methodology that I had with him while the book was in its pre-publication phase. I found fault with those factors then, and I still do. I don't give a rat's ass what others think of his work, or how they use it,what portions they believe, and what portions they do not.
I have seen him use those very words on both of the other boards, those exact words "I have done the work" So, having seen it I am not a here say witness.
I don't give a rat's ass what Merkel or Montrose have to say or think. I have no use for the former, and an ever lessening amount of use for the latter, and take neither one into consideration when forming my opinions.
And I think you ought to take your head out of your ass and realize that this is not a forum for police procedure or courtroom drama, but rather a place where anyone can express their opinion about the subject at hand. My opinion is that no one knows what went on between the time Custer departed for the bluffs and the time he died. We do not know timing. We do not know route, We have little information on events. What we do have is nothing but conjecture, supposition, and about a ton of bull shit.
That includes Wagner and most assuredly Donohue, for if you take what he says apart about approaching on BRE and returning on CR, the size of the artifact field on BRE betrays the fact that if there was that much to be found there forward motion would have stopped there and then, and there would be no going to Ford D or returning via Cemetery Ridge. That is the problem with both of these people. They are stuck with only one scenario, and they try to wedge that scenario into what factual evidence they have. I would not take Donohue seriously until he offers a plausible explanation for what he himself as written.
So you believe what you wish to, and I will do the some. I understand why you defend these people as they are your friends, a burden I do not bear.
D25: In every rose garden there must be thorns
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 11, 2018 19:43:40 GMT
I am really struggling with the timings, I have read what Benteen said about the time it took for the valley to be safe enough for a detachment to go forth and find Hodgson’s body, so if it was say 30 minutes for the Indian’s to leave and another 30 to find Hodgson’s body, then organize and move to Weir Peaks, then this could mean that we have well over an hour, maybe nearly two, between Reno reaching Reno hill and Benteen reaching Weir peaks.
So if we say that Custer was reaching the upper part of MTC when Reno rode his death ride, then two hours is a long time for Custer to get to ford D and be forced back to cemetery or even L Company to be defeated on Calhoun ridge.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 11, 2018 22:26:59 GMT
You are making the assumption Ian, that these two things, the Indians hanging around, and trying to recover Hodgson's body were sequential. You are also assuming that with Indians hanging around, and while recovery efforts for Hodgson were going on that nothing was happening in making preparations to move northward, and these soldiers were standing around watching. The whole time from Benteen's arrival to the first elements (not Weir himself) reached Weir Point was probably a little over an hour to an hour and a half. If the Indians were hanging around as Benteen said, then the point where they left his front and retired northward can be assumed to be the time when those facing Reno/Benteen first learned about Custer's presence in the north. You may further make the assumption that before these good feathered fellows down south got the word, Custer was already engaged up north. I commented on the 900 yesterday, and find that specific figure somewhat suspicious. I take Benteen's meaning to be that there were enough of them that he did not want to mess with them. Also. and it's unfortunate that you have never been there, but the ravine that leads from Reno's bluff position down to retreat crossing is fairly (not greatly) wide and offers good fields of fire down through that ravine and to a portion of the valley beyond. I don't know what caused Reno to go look for Hodgson's body instead of taking care of business, but if he felt he must go I would think that ravine would be pretty clear, and that those Indian's Benteen commented on would be further back. ??/// Now I am going to go back and make comments on what I should rightly have done earlier when I included Donohue within my comments on Wagner. I am familiar with Donohue's map that Steve originally posted, and Mac drew my attention back to, a couple of days ago via PM. That map shows two large artifact fields, one on Battle Ridge Extension (BRE) and the other on Cemetery Ridge(CR).. Both of those artifact fields are consistent with more than a one company battle position. Donohue it appears reasons indeed both positions are too large for only one company, so he tells us two (E and F) were first on BRE as they were going to the ford (D), and upon returning or being driven from Ford D, they returned via CR. From there each of those two companies somehow got to their final resting place. OK, on the surface that would sound plausible to someone that is experienced in examining the data. It is not at all convincing to a soldier or tactician. The problem here is that Donohue limits himself to only two companies (about 90 men), because conventional wisdom has it that way, and has had it that way for more than a century,generated long before the advent of archeological tools such as metal detectors and ground penetrating radar. So what does Donohue wish us to believe? Two companies (E and F) approach the Ford D area via the back side of Battle Ridge, then rise up and engage in a firefight in a large battle space on Battle Ridge Extension. We cannot determine the elapsed time that this firefight took place, but what we can determine is that the enemy was in such force to stop the forward progress of these two companies. We can also determine from the artifact field that the battle space was an elongated oval which in turn tells us that these two companies dismounted during the firefight. That of course was dragoon doctrine, but it is only mentioned to illustrate the fact that these two cavalry companies did not bull their way through and cast aside the Indians that they met. Therefore we must assume these Indians presented a serious threat, and were in greater numbers than the harassing band of Wolf Tooth. The next thing Donohue wants us to believe is that Companies E and F were able to clear their front, remount, and pursue these Indians for a little more than a mile to Ford D. From there the two companies were repulsed and returned to Cemetery Ridge, where they were first split then cast asunder. I am not blaming Donohue here. He is just trying to make bricks, and his straw supply (tactics and tactical judgments) left town. What Donohue does not tell us is what were those Indians from the villages doing during the time that E and F were skirmishing on BRE. They tell us they were building up in the flats and in force. So what are the chances of driving off the Indians that confronted you on BRE, driving through the numbers building in the flats, reaching Ford D (there are artifacts there as well), then returning to a two company battle position of CR. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Therefore one must I believe conclude that both of the artifact field/battle positions (CR and BRE) were occupied and fought over after the return from Ford D, and by the size of each alone indicate they were both occupied by more than one company.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 11, 2018 23:18:02 GMT
Guys, I'm putting on moderator cap, because we have at least 3 discussions going on in this thread that should be separated in their own thread.
The discussion on the surgeon assignments and perhaps extending on a bit about each surgeon should stay here However he discussion about timing, Wagner's book vrs Gray(Grey?) is also a great conversation and it should be in another. I have found in the past that moving discussion tends to bring them to an end so I will wait a few days to see how the discussion evolves.
Please though don't attack people who are not members of this board. Wagner's book is a published and therefore fair game both for its the contents and its methodology. Wagner. the person, however may or may not be a member of the board, (I can't remember if he removed his membership account), if he is not, please divide your criticism/critique of his work from the man him self.
Rini and Diane are not fair game and should not be brought onto this board.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 12, 2018 12:39:19 GMT
And watercraft and what they do on Lake Powell are irrelevant, unless these watercraft are designed for the purpose of combat. Your point was logs and charts and I am sure those commercial vessels that require a Coast Guard Captain's license have exactly what you stated. WE, at least I am speaking exclusively about recording combat actions, not some drunk ass hole doing something stupid like the people you are most frequently in contact with as a police officer. I don't give a rat's ass about what drunks do on Lake Powell. You are making my point when you state you don't care. Maybe if you met the families affected by drunks you would have a change of mind. That is similar to not reading the book in my opinion. WE are not conducting the RCOI here are we. The only evidence available from the other side is here say, as it is translated through a second party. I don't give a rat's ass what they did at the RCOI Hearsay is what you are doing when you pass on something about Fr*d that you did not hear yourself. I do recall the conversations on times. places, and methodology that I had with him while the book was in its pre-publication phase. I found fault with those factors then, and I still do. I don't give a rat's ass what others think of his work, or how they use it,what portions they believe, and what portions they do not. The methodology takes accounts and develops the timeline. Gray took rates of travel and fit accounts. Since you admit this is not a court such as the RCOI what do you care about the standard for the accounts. As far as I can tell there is less than legal standards including civil action for what is written in books. That the data is less than desirable does not reflect on the methodology only on the introduced error. I have seen him use those very words on both of the other boards, those exact words "I have done the work" So, having seen it I am not a here say witness. And someone stating that they have done the work was in reference to what? Without the context that statement means nothing. We can all state I have done the work for something we have done in our life. I don't give a rat's ass what Merk** or Montr**e have to say or think. I have no use for the former, and an ever lessening amount of use for the latter, and take neither one into consideration when forming my opinions. We get that you don't care what other's say or think. It is evident in how you treat Ian some times. It is evident how you treat Benteen (Dan) and as of lately how you treat Dave. And I think you ought to take your head out of your ass and realize that this is not a forum for police procedure or courtroom drama, but rather a place where anyone can express their opinion about the subject at hand. My opinion is that no one knows what went on between the time Custer departed for the bluffs and the time he died. We do not know timing. We do not know route, We have little information on events. What we do have is nothing but conjecture, supposition, and about a ton of bull shit. Your wasting you time with the comments above. You're an amateur when compared to a Marine Corps Drill Instructor and apparently don't have a clue about what is taught to law enforcement officers on dealing with the public and their comments. A wise person could see that I can and do survive on the other boards where some blow up like you do and get kicked off the board. You let a R*** get under your skin and he wins. That is what Fr*d does also so in fact you and Fr*d are alike. If R*** were the only one there I think you might have a point in blowing up and leaving. But he is not and that board is linked to the Little Big Horn Association so persons are drawn there. Your behavior allows R*** to be sole source for information. And yes we all know that you don't care.
That includes Wagner and most assuredly Donohue, for if you take what he says apart about approaching on BRE and returning on CR, the size of the artifact field on BRE betrays the fact that if there was that much to be found there forward motion would have stopped there and then, and there would be no going to Ford D or returning via Cemetery Ridge. That is the problem with both of these people. They are stuck with only one scenario, and they try to wedge that scenario into what factual evidence they have. I would not take Donohue seriously until he offers a plausible explanation for what he himself as written. So now you add Donahue into the same category as everyone except yourself. I am not sure what you are talking about with the artifacts on BRE. What source are you using? Is it Doug Scott's compilation?
I have no clue what ground rules that are attempting to play with. We can eliminate any police work that derives a degree of certainty to the level that a prosecutor would take it to court. We can eliminate any timely military court look at the battle. What we have is only opinions of what occurred and your statement is "my opinion is that no one knows what went on between the time Custer departed for the bluffs and the time he died."
So you're telling us that others can not attempt to construct a timeline that they can use to form their opinions? So you believe what you wish to, and I will do the some. I understand why you defend these people as they are your friends, a burden I do not bear. D25: In every rose garden there must be thorns I do defend their right to put forth their opinion and I look at what they use to form their opinion. You do not need to be friends with someone to consider their opinion and what they used to form it.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 12, 2018 12:58:10 GMT
I think Donahue did an update on his map that was published and that I posted. Sometime after I posted the map I was corresponding with Donahue and he told me that the large number of cases found on CR are essentially fake news and he was mislead. The source was assumed reliable but it turned out that in this instance it was not correct. So the hundreds of cases found on CR are not to be considered.
The site on BRE identifies 14 different carbines with 4 matching cases from carbines near the Calhoun area if I recall correctly. There is also and Indian artifact site on the other side of BRE toward highway 212. So it is possible that shots were fired by 14 carbines toward highway 212 at that Indian artifact site.
At the same site there are Indian cases found. These are consistent with firing toward CR. One the participants at the 10 year anniversary had soldiers placed on CR and firing toward BRE for a photo and also toward LSH for another photo.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 12, 2018 13:34:57 GMT
Guys, I'm putting on moderator cap, because we have at least 3 discussions going on in this thread that should be separated in their own thread. The discussion on the surgeon assignments and perhaps extending on a bit about each surgeon should stay here However he discussion about timing, Wagner's book vrs Gray(Grey?) is also a great conversation and it should be in another. I have found in the past that moving discussion tends to bring them to an end so I will wait a few days to see how the discussion evolves. Please though don't attack people who are not members of this board. Wagner's book is a published and therefore fair game both for its the contents and its methodology. Wagner. the person, however may or may not be a member of the board, (I can't remember if he removed his membership account), if he is not, please divide your criticism/critique of his work from the man him self. Rini and Diane are not fair game and should not be brought onto this board. Hi Beth
I don't recall Fred ever being a member here. I know William (Montrose) was a member but he does not show up in the list of members since he removed himself. I think you would have a full time job if every post not included within the thread topic is to be moved. Just taking care of the US Army comments would be a giant work.
I think whatever the current thread that is being discussed includes chit chat among members and it to be expected. I would suggest only moving those posts that would be relevant to another topic in a thread.
I would like to know where we can see in ProBoards rules who is subject to comment or not because that is interesting. Lots of non members who have not published anything have been subject to posts. If they are dead can we talk about them? If they publish something are we limited to the content of what is published?
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 12, 2018 15:07:19 GMT
Steve: For the record:
I have heard him say it and read what he said posted under his name. I would think that would qualify as direct evidence in any court in the land.
The map I referred to regarding Donohue was one you posted. Not I. In addition, you obviously did not read or if so did not understand the point relating to Donohue.
I expect high standards from everyone. When someone posts a positive statement I expect that they have researched that statement thoroughly. If not, then put their statement in the form of a question or another form of inquiry.
Do you know anyone that knows what went on between the time Custer turned onto the bluffs and the time he died, to a degree of certitude reaching 100 percent? If so name that person. If you don't, then I issue it as an open challenge to anyone who does.
Ignorance gets under my skin. Ignorance though can be fixed. Stupidity cannot.
The three men you mentioned are people that I admire. They give as good as they get, and they are not in need of a wet nurse to wipe their nose for them. They come back, fight for what they believe in and stick to their guns. No one could ask for more.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 12, 2018 20:35:18 GMT
I know I am making assumptions, but these assumptions are based on accounts by men who were there, take for instance Dr Porter, he said that they were only on Reno hill a short time, when he heard firing downstream and to the left. He heard sharp firing for a few minutes, then scatter shots. It got less and less. He then said that the packs came up between 30 minutes and an hour after Benteen arrived. So these volleys could have been fired over an hour before they moved out. I know that Weir went before the pack train arrived, but I cannot find any accounts of what his men in company D saw.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 12, 2018 22:54:04 GMT
Ian: Any study of battle forces you to make certain assumptions. What Porter said, should be believed, as long as other folks heard the same thing around the same time. You then have more than one person (witness) reporting the same event happening around the same time. Probably does not matter much if they called it a volley, or firing, or whatever, the tale is consitant with known events, and told by more than one person
From that information you can make the assumption that the firing was coming from the north and Custer, or a portion thereof was engaged. Nothing at all wrong with that sort of work.
Where it stats to go sideways is in taking Porter hearing firing shortly after arriving on Reno Hill, run with it and say. that means the firing was from Last Stand Hill or Calhoun Hill, or in the Valley of the Blue Nile. You have a valuable piece of information with Porters statement that can give you usable intelligence that something was going on and when, but like a piece of a puzzle, you must have a few more pieces to go with it, for you to to be able to make definitive statements as to what was happening up north and exactly where
Dan took that firing to mean that it was Company L, firing from Calhoun Hill, and has based an entire theory of events on it. What he did was completely logical, thinking Calhoun Hill was a place of known fighting, it was the closest area to where the firing was heard from by most that say they heard firing. Truth is we don't really know where that firing came from. It could very well have been from Calhoun Hill or any other place where we know fighting took place, or during what period of the Custer fight.
That does not mean Dan did not make a logical assumption though. So what Dan has to do is find some more pieces to fill in supporting his theory of the source of that firing. Were I Dan, I think I might be looking for those supporting pieces, from any of those people who were stuck in the valley after Reno left. As far as I know Dan was the first person on any of these boards that said a two company attack at Ford D, leaving three companies behind was insane. If I recall that was seven or so years ago.
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 13, 2018 11:47:04 GMT
Steve: For the record: I have heard him say it and read what he said posted under his name. I would think that would qualify as direct evidence in any court in the land. The map I referred to regarding Donohue was one you posted. Not I. In addition, you obviously did not read or if so did not understand the point relating to Donohue. I know I posted it and it clearly states that in my last post. I purchased it at the Annual Symposium Custer Battlefield Historical & Museum Assn., Inc. held at Hardin Montana last year (2017). The map I posted was from June 27, 2003. What I didn't know is exactly what I have stated. Some time after it was published Michael Donahue found out the error in regards the hundreds of cases on CR. So I did the same thing that Michael Donahue did. I posted it in good faith. After all it was published. And like Michael Donahue I later found out it that the source for cases found on CR was not accurate. The difference is time. Michael Donahue had already discovered the error years before. I was not aware of it.
I know Michael Donahue but do not know Donohue unless that is just a reoccurring spelling error. I make lots of spelling errors but I try not to repeat them. I expect high standards from everyone. When someone posts a positive statement I expect that they have researched that statement thoroughly. If not, then put their statement in the form of a question or another form of inquiry. I expect a discourse that leads to the formation of opinions based upon the best available information. I do not have the same expectation as you do. I believe that posters arrive all the time with less than a complete research effort before they post. I would encourage them to post and to gather information all the time.
Most of us will never have done the research that Gordon Harper did before he wrote his book. Even after all that some believe he didn't get it right regarding Custer moving north. Even the chapter not written by Harper does not follow what Harper had posted and written in details. Do you know anyone that knows what went on between the time Custer turned onto the bluffs and the time he died, to a degree of certitude reaching 100 percent? If so name that person. If you don't, then I issue it as an open challenge to anyone who does. What difference does it make. ( a line form someone sometime) What we are discussing here are opinions and they are subject to change with new information. The truth should always hold at least for an exact date, time, and location. Since we don't know the truth we can attempt to form opinions. What I see is a lot of opinions especially from new poster that fit a pattern based upon a smaller subset of available information.
Your test above is not relevant to the formation of opinion. At the 100% level it would be fact or truth. Anything less is opinion with different degrees of reliability. There is not even a 100% requirement for criminal matters let alone discussion on boards. A 100% standard does not exist except in absolute truth.
Ignorance gets under my skin. Ignorance though can be fixed. Stupidity cannot. I understand the difference but what makes you the determiner of fact at the 100% level to judge someone's level of ignorance? I would hope some come to these board realizing their ignorance and wanting to learn new information. I can say that when I began in 2009 in earnest to study information regarding this battle I without a doubt had a lot to learn. Custer was a hero, Reno was a drunk coward, and Benteen hated Custer and let him die was a common opinion among the ignorant.
I also think Clint Eastwood gave an example of how to fix stupidity in the movie Unforgiven. The three men you mentioned are people that I admire. They give as good as they get, and they are not in need of a wet nurse to wipe their nose for them. They come back, fight for what they believe in and stick to their guns. No one could ask for more. The problem is that they are not on this board to voice their opinion. For example if Michael Donahue had been here he could say Steve you need the information I discovered after I wrote that paper for the 2003 publication as a disclaimer to the map you posted.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 13, 2018 11:53:54 GMT
Ian: Any study of battle forces you to make certain assumptions. What Porter said, should be believed, as long as other folks heard the same thing around the same time. You then have more than one person (witness) reporting the same event happening around the same time. Probably does not matter much if they called it a volley, or firing, or whatever, the tale is consitant with known events, and told by more than one person From that information you can make the assumption that the firing was coming from the north and Custer, or a portion thereof was engaged. Nothing at all wrong with that sort of work. Where it stats to go sideways is in taking Porter hearing firing shortly after arriving on Reno Hill, run with it and say. that means the firing was from Last Stand Hill or Calhoun Hill, or in the Valley of the Blue Nile. You have a valuable piece of information with Porters statement that can give you usable intelligence that something was going on and when, but like a piece of a puzzle, you must have a few more pieces to go with it, for you to to be able to make definitive statements as to what was happening up north and exactly where Dan took that firing to mean that it was Company L, firing from Calhoun Hill, and has based an entire theory of events on it. What he did was completely logical, thinking Calhoun Hill was a place of known fighting, it was the closest area to where the firing was heard from by most that say they heard firing. Truth is we don't really know where that firing came from. It could very well have been from Calhoun Hill or any other place where we know fighting took place, or during what period of the Custer fight. That does not mean Dan did not make a logical assumption though. So what Dan has to do is find some more pieces to fill in supporting his theory of the source of that firing. Were I Dan, I think I might be looking for those supporting pieces, from any of those people who were stuck in the valley after Reno left. As far as I know Dan was the first person on any of these boards that said a two company attack at Ford D, leaving three companies behind was insane. If I recall that was seven or so years ago. I think there is an early map that shows Custer moving north with a heavy arrow and then a thinner arrow moving toward Ford B. So the foundation was there a long time ago. It even had them rejoining at LSH before moving north.
Regards
Steve
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Feb 13, 2018 12:17:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 13, 2018 12:35:51 GMT
I know it is impossible to pin down the location of this so called "volley fire", a lot of folks say it was on Nye-Cartwright ridge, mainly because the cartridge finds. But would the column actually dismount at this point to fire volleys, or fire from horse back. The other two places on this side of the battlefield are Calhoun and FFR, both of these areas could be the place. Looking at the images posted by Steve, does give a reason to look at E Company again, but not as a assault unit, as I think any river crossing was at Ford D [officer shot in the water etc.], but the grey horse troop really stood out and is mentioned a lot by the Indians. They could have swung round the ford to see what was going on in the area, just like in this painting by Pate. I would guess that if the column moved down MTC and traversed right onto the ridge line, that they could have used E Company as a flank guard and this company swung past the ford and met up with the column on battle ridge. The artist has added the scouts on Bouyers bluff, which could be artistic license, but who knows, they could have been brave enough to get that close, maybe Pate has read about the Crows witnessing the soldiers move down to this ford.
|
|