|
Post by quincannon on Dec 30, 2020 21:50:40 GMT
I think what all three of you are missing is that Wagner's work is event driven, and between events he calculates distance and time.
Steve states that in law enforcement suspects can be eliminated based upon two known locations and the distance between them. Quite true and very useful in law enforcement I agree. What Wagner does is not that, exactly or otherwise. He has no idea in some instances if the events even occurred, so there can be no fall back on it being a "known location". In other instances the event may have occurred but the location of that event is different from where he thinks it is. Again there can be no fall back if the location itself is either unknown or suspect.
Time of travel between locations is, as Ian states,difficult to evaluate. One example of course is the speed of march. Wagner did not like Grays's four mile an hour rate of march, and that was the motivation for writing "Strategy" in the first place. He told me so. In fact he told me so a couple of times, and set out to do better. It also should be brought out that the travel of one horseman or a few over a piece of ground is not at all indicative of the time it takes for a military column of a couple hundred souls to travel that same distance.
Another factor of course is unexpected delay in route such as dealing with Wolf Tooth's band by establishing a skirmish line to shoo him away. We know that happened, and the approximate location where it happened. What we don't know is how long it took or if it happened more than once.
The third and final factor I will address at this time is the sequence of events. If any event in Wagner's time line did not happen, or did not happen where he says it happened then entire time line is completely worthless. The only thing left in the wreckage then is the approximate start and the approximate time that the whole affair finished. If you line up one hundred scholars, I mean real scholars, none of them would be in agreement on the later time and only about half on the former time, completely, that would fit into the tight corner Wagner painted himself in his book. All those scholars would be close, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. If anyone gets close in this battle, it's good enough, for it's never going to get any better.
Wagner's fault is that in his hubris he reckoned that he could elevate himself to godly status in the Little Big Horn world by being so precise that his book would be one for the ages. I applaud his research. I applaud his drive and focus on purpose. What I cannot applaud is his premise that he can apply times to this particular battle, where there are so many unknowns, that are so finite that there is no room to wiggle
So Steve. If your suspect travels directly from known location X to known location Y, you assuredly can calculate time based upon distance, BUT if that same suspect robs a 7-11 on his journey between X and Y, you can still clear him for the murder, but not necessarily the robbery, and the time it takes to commit the robbery throws off the time it took to travel between X and Y. The point here is that sometimes historical slight of hand can fool even the best of observers.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 30, 2020 22:01:00 GMT
I don't believe I misquoted you at all, Duane, and would not think of such a thing. I said Patton only said that in the movies, Patton being played of course by George C. Scott. All I wanted to do was bring it to your attention that Patton himself did not say that, and probably, knowing the man from reading several biographies of him, as well as his own work "War As I Knew It" is does not sound like anything he would have said.
Further I was not trying to use your words to do anything. You are really jumping the gun here when it is completely unnecessary to do so.
As I said I do not like Wagner, but my quarrel with him is purely professional, in that I believe his book is based upon a faulty premise. So where is this bitterness. Why should I be bitter? I reserve the right, as all humans do, to say I either like or do not like something and the reasons why. Vitriol, or is it an expression of dislike? I did not like "Gone With The Wind", or "Catcher In The Rye" either, and anything by Steven King makes me want to vomit. That does not mean you cannot enjoy, and find value in all three.
By the way if you did not like what I had to say in my post, why in heavens name did you push the "like" button? That is generally a mark of agreement rather than an indication that it's time to reach for the Rolaids
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Dec 30, 2020 22:01:10 GMT
Ian
I believe Fred used overall speed, which is what the Cavalry used to estimate how far they can travel at the march. So if you know the breakpoints for gaits while moving, overall travel rates would indicate a gait used. So if the rate is 7 miles per hour, you can assume they did not walk that distance. If you have a rate over 10 mph, they traveled faster than a walk or trot. Since they only had one more gait, the military gallop, there would be most likely some cantering and fast trotting. Does that mean someone stopping for whatever reason doesn't have to gallop to catch up? Nope, The important thing is could it be within ranges. If your overall average is over 20 mph, I would think it something like Reno's retrograde. If it approaches 30 mph, it might be Foley. If it's 1.5 mph, it could be walk up or down steep terrain.
There are hundreds of accounts for different points used in Fred's timelines. The accounts determine the points and times. The overall speed is calculated from that. I think one should see all the data Fred had to use to form his timelines. I suspect that those commenting have not read his book or seen his data. He carries huge data binders and computer-accessible data with him in the field.
If one is arguing, it's 4:30 rather than 4:27, so what? If your times are off by one hour, there are issues. Having enough time before and after a noted event is important for concurrent events, which act as checks and balances on each other.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 30, 2020 22:38:41 GMT
Steve, if Wagner used the word estimate in his timeline work I would only need half a pack of Rolaids to deal with him. The word is a good word and my argument is that is all that can be expected from anyone.
My other pack half pack of Rolaids is reserved for the events themselves. You know as well as I do that no two people can agree completely that an event actually occurred in many instances, and where it occurred in many others. If you take Wagner's scenario of events, which is completely conventional and mirrors most other that write on the subject, for instance leaving three companies behind, and it turns out that those events that have been outlined over the last hundred and forty years did not occur as Wagner reports them, then the whole timeline is a house of cards that falls in upon itself. In short then, if no one can agree about the events that occurred, and what sequence they occurred, within an total event that is still largely unknown, how can anyone prescribe any time, or time distance factor to them with the degree of accuracy that Wagner claims.
You and I disagree on routes taken for instance. I am not going to argue which route is better or which one was taken, but what both of us can agree on is that the time it takes to travel your route and the time it takes to travel mine will be quite different and that effects all of the other time lines associated with the total event.
There is a built in fault with trying to be too precise with history, and I believe that Wagner has both fallen into that trap and led others through the same looking glass.
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on Dec 30, 2020 23:08:31 GMT
I don't believe I misquoted you at all, Duane, and would not think of such a thing. I said Patton only said that in the movies, Patton being played of course by George C. Scott. All I wanted to do was bring it to your attention that Patton himself did not say that, and probably, knowing the man from reading several biographies of him, as well as his own work "War As I Knew It" is does not sound like anything he would have said. Further I was not trying to use your words to do anything. You are really jumping the gun here when it is completely unnecessary to do so. As I said I do not like Wagner, but my quarrel with him is purely professional, in that I believe his book is based upon a faulty premise. So where is this bitterness. Why should I be bitter? I reserve the right, as all humans do, to say I either like or do not like something and the reasons why. Vitriol, or is it an expression of dislike? I did not like "Gone With The Wind", or "Catcher In The Rye" either, and anything by Steven King makes me want to vomit. That does not mean you cannot enjoy, and find value in all three. By the way if you did not like what I had to say in my post, why in heavens name did you push the "like" button? That is generally a mark of agreement rather than an indication that it's time to reach for the Rolaids I hit the "like" button as a measure of respect and being able to see your side of things. And regarding the "Patton" quote, you stated that Patton never said that, whereas I clearly stated that it was a quote from the movie. So yes, you DID misquote me. I already KNEW that the real life Patton never said that, which is why I quoted the movie. What you BELIEVE is is just as valid at what I THINK, and I THINK you misquoted me. It's right there in blue and white.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I feel you misquoted me, you feel you didn't. That's just the way it'll stand.
Have a nice day,
Duane
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 30, 2020 23:12:15 GMT
While I am in the mood, Wagner and I had nearly weekly discussions about the data in his book as he was in preparation for publication. In fact I believe I may have been the first one to have discussed the gap with him. These discussions lasted over the course of a year or more.
During one of those discussions I recall him saying that Calhoun's Company L was in position on or near Calhoun Hill for either 15 or 17 minutes, before being hit by Indians crossing the river. I think it was 17 minutes but it could have been the former. Regardless, had either been the case it would have provided adequate time to throw out either a defensive perimeter or well established skirmish line. What commander does that at the bottom of a hill, in a coulee with high ground all around him on two sides? None that I know of. How about you? Now what we do know then is that Company L's action started on that low ground, and then drifted toward the top of the hill. Artifacts and then body positions tell that tale. In my view Wagner should have spotted what I have just related and it should have raised a red flag, unless he thought that Calhoun was an incompetent ninny. I don't believe he thinks that, but if the story was as Wagner relates it, that is exactly what Calhoun was, and you and I would both be in agreement on that particular issue.
So if Wagner saw this defect in logical disposition under the prevailing circumstance, why did he not investigate it further, and look for an alternative reason. That is what Mac did, and to the best of my knowledge, Mac has no formal military training, only what he has picked up through his research.
I expect excellence and professionalism for those who have been trained and who are supposed to know better, just as you expect excellence and professionalism from your brothers and sisters in the law enforcement community. To you if something said or something you see does not look or smell right, you are obliged to investigate it further until you are satisfied with the answer. If you remain unsatisfied and your report does not indicate your dissatisfaction you are negligent, are you not?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 30, 2020 23:21:12 GMT
No I didn't Duane, I did not quote you at all. Do you see any quotation marks or other indication of a quote in what I wrote. I made a statement of fact. Patton never said that. I did not say George C. Scott, playing Patton, never said that. He did, I have seen the movie ten times or more.
That's not a good reason to hit the "like" button. You can see my side of things without having to like them which you obviously do not. Does not hurt my feelings either way. What does hurt my feeling is that you saying I misquoted you, out of meanness or some other motivation, and it really hurt my feelings when you suggested I would use those words in some sort of death vendetta you imagine I have with Wagner or anyone else.
You can let it stand anyway you wish. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but I have no intention of doing anything you unjustly accuse me of, and ask yourself why would I. I do throw sticks in someone's eye on occasion, when I think they deserve it. I know of nothing you have done to deserve it. Certainly you liking Wagner's book does not warrant any such treatment.
TACT by the way has its root in TACTICS, which goes back to the Latin, meaning a way of doing something. A good example of tact is refraining from telling your drill instructor that his fly is unzipped/unbuttoned when he is in your face yelling at you for some minor infraction or other. A bad example of tact is saying yes sir, yes sir, three bags full when your commanding officer tells you to jump off a cliff. A really bad example of tact is when you pander to someone telling them what they want to hear rather than the truth as you see it. So if you think I am going to jump off a cliff or not tell the truth as I see it, think again. If you think I would ever tell a drill instructor that his fly is unzipped when he was yelling at me, you might want to think that over again as well
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Dec 30, 2020 23:39:41 GMT
I think what all three of you are missing is that Wagner's work is event-driven, and between events, he calculates distance and time. I think he measures distance and uses the account time. Steve states that in law enforcement, suspects can be eliminated based upon two known locations and the distance between them. Quite true and very useful in law enforcement, I agree. What Wagner does is not that, exactly or otherwise. He has no idea in some instances if the events even occurred, so there can be no fall back on it being a "known location". In other instances the event may have occurred but the location of that event is different from where he thinks it is. Again there can be no fall back if the location itself is either unknown or suspect. You are missing the checks and balances among the many timelines. There are 25 timlines. He has over 200 participants and eye-witnesses with 3,360 separate records. Included in the methodology; 37 topics containing 5,500 line item events-- almost 35,000 separate records. Time of travel between locations is, as Ian states,difficult to evaluate. One example of course is the speed of march. Wagner did not like Grays's four mile and hour rate of march, and that was the motivation for writing "Strategy" in the first place. He told me so. In fact he told me so a couple of times, and set out to do better. It also should be brought out that the travel of one horseman or a few over a piece of ground is not at all indicative of the time it takes for a military column of a couple hundred souls to travel that same distance. When I talked with Fred, I told him I believed Gray's approach was wrong. Used 4 mph and then found accounts that fit. He rejected those that did not fit. Fred used the accounts and determined overall rates of travel. His method would be preferred. Let the evidence (accounts, etc.) determine the rate of travel. I don't disagree but overall rate travel is not determined by one individual unless that is one individual by himself. I am certain that the overall rate of travel for Benteen's battalion is limited by the slowest and not some individual speedster. Weir doesn't get a different overall rate of travel for starting off fast unless he maintains that distance ahead of Benteen.
When I take my dogs out to run with the horses, some dogs run almost twice as far during the event but they all load into the horse trailer at the same time. So I know when I left and when I returned and we all have the same times for that. I am sure that Benteen's soldiers rode at different speeds and distances but the movement from the watering would be about the same time by the time Benteen caught up with Weir. What the big picture states is that Custer was faster down Reno Creek to the mouth of Noname than Benteen. Benteen was next and ahead of the pack train. The point is that the timelines have fixed events and then movements in between the events.
Another factor of course, is unexpected delay in route such as dealing with Wolf Tooth's band by establishing a skirmish line to shoo him away. We know that happened, and the approximate location where it happened. What we don't know is how long it took or if it happened more than once. Again, that doesn't matter since it's a fixed distance and things occurred in time between the locations. There are numerous accounts of contact as they left MTC and arrived on Calhoun. I do agree that there is room for another version to have occurred within the timelines. That is one of my arguments for the split of the command, as Curley tells it. Custer can't be chased by Sioux close to MTF if he didn't go that way. So sometimes the timelines could be for three companies instead of five, but it doesn't change the timeline for the three companies. The third and final factor I will address at this time is the sequence of events. If any event in Wagner's time line did not happen, or did not happen where he says it happened then entire time line is completely worthless. The only thing left in the wreckage then is the approximate start and the approximate time that the whole affair finished. If you line up one hundred scholars, I mean real scholars, none of them would be in agreement on the later time and only about half on the former time, completely, that would fit into the tight corner Wagner painted himself in his book. App those scholars would be close, but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. If anyone gets close in this battle, it's good enough, for it's never going to get any better. Again, I think you have not read the timelines. Such as Busby Halt, Divide, Halt on the flat, Benteen's Scout, Cemetery Ridge. There is nothing earth-shaking in the headings of the timelines. They are not built cumulatively. So if CIL crossed straight across toward Luce and Custer went toward MTF and sent Martin from there it would add an additional timeline that occurred simultaneously. The same would be true for travel to Ford Ds.Wagner's fault is that in his hubris if reckoned that he could elevate himself to godly status in the Little Big Horn world by being so precise that his book would be one for the ages. I applaud his research. I applaud his drive and focus on purpose. What I cannot applaud is his premise that he can apply times to this particular battle, where there are so many unknowns, that are so finite that there is no room to wiggle In talking with Fred, I am convinced that Custer moved down Middle Coulee. So is Michael Donahue who found the scout map that shows it. George Kush also believes it and has rode it like we have. What doesn't change is the timeline. The only difference is the rate of travel if the distance is shorter. Another change he made was after a conversation with Bill Rini, and it is the distance traveled from the divide. It changed the speed to less than 9 mph, and that is all. So it is flexible to those degrees. So Steve. If you suspect travels from know location X to known location Y, you assuredly can calculate time based upon distance, BUT if that same suspect robs a 7-11 on his journey between X and Y, you can still clear him for the murder, but not necessarily the robbery. The point here is that sometimes historical slight of hand can fool even the best of observers. I agree, but that is not how we would use information. If the distance is 10 miles and he is seen at the first location within 3 minutes of the robbery, he is eliminated. On the other hand, if he is seen 1 hour or even 15 minutes before the robbery it is consistent with him being able to be at both points. Too fast can eliminate a suspect; there is no limit on anything that takes a longer time. So, in this case, we could only eliminate for overall travel rates that are beyond what horses can do. If it takes longer, there are many possibilities but there is still time to be seen in one place and rob the 7-11 later. The hard part was that the accounts at first when Fred looked at it had a speed down Reno Creek of 10 mph. Not impossible, but more unlikely. When the measurement of the actual distance was used, it was around 8 mph, which would be a blend of gaits but a lot easier to do. I understand what you are saying, but I don't think the construction is that way. Fred has Benteen traveling a short distance (flat map) than I do (GPS). The start and endpoint are the same but Benteen travels faster because the distance is further on the GPS.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on Dec 31, 2020 0:05:33 GMT
No I didn't Duane, I did not quote you at all. Do you see any quotation marks or other indication of a quote in what I wrote. I made a statement of fact. Patton never said that. I did not say George C. Scott, playing Patton, never said that. He did, I have seen the movie ten times or more. That's not a good reason to hit the "like" button. You can see my side of things without having to like them which you obviously do not. Does not hurt my feelings either way. What does hurt my feeling is that you saying I misquoted you, out of meanness or some other motivation, and it really hurt my feelings when you suggested I would use those words in some sort of death vendetta you imagine I have with Wagner or anyone else. You can let it stand anyway you wish. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but I have no intention of doing anything you unjustly accuse me of, and ask yourself why would I. I do throw sticks in someone's eye on occasion, when I think they deserve it. I know of nothing you have done to deserve it. Certainly you liking Wagner's book does not warrant any such treatment. TACT by the way has its root in TACTICS, which goes back to the Latin, meaning a way of doing something. A good example of tact is refraining from telling your drill instructor that his fly is unzipped/unbuttoned when he is in your face yelling at you for some minor infraction or other. A bad example of tact is saying yes sir, yes sir, three bags full when your commanding officer tells you to jump off a cliff. A really bad example of tact is when you pander to someone telling them what they want to hear rather than the truth as you see it. So if you think I am going to jump off a cliff or not tell the truth as I see it, think again. If you think I would ever tell a drill instructor that his fly is unzipped when he was yelling at me, you might want to think that over again as well I come here to learn and share, not to be lectured by you. And your remark about "quotation marks" is just semantics. You took great pains to point out that Patton never said that quote, where I used the George C. Scott quote, knowing full well that the real Patton never said such a thing. You may not have misquoted me in your eyes, but from my standpoint you did. Then you go on to expound on how much you've read about the man, to prove you're POINT about my Patton quote being in error. Because you ASSUMED I did not know that. I suggest you re-read what you wrote and take it from the standpoint of the reader, not the writer. It is also clear that it's time for someone to be the bigger person and tender an apology IF one is warranted, so I guess I'll assume that role. IF I was wrong about you misquoting me, then consider an apology tendered. From my standpoint, it sure looks like you did. If I'm wrong, and you didn't, then I apologize. I respect your input and knowledge regarding the main topic of this board, which is The Battle of The Little Big Horn. On that I'll stand for a lecture. Because you know more about it than I do.
On other topics, i.e. what you THINK I know or don't know, I suggest you ascertain my knowledge base on a certain topic before you saddle up your high horse and talk down to me in a lecture. I'll stand for a discussion, but not a lecture.
Friends (which I consider us to be, albeit on line) know when to let things drop. Maybe one day we can meet in person and have a beer and talk things over, but I'd sure as hell hope we could find more interesting topics to discuss over a brewski than such trivial disagreements. We've each said our piece, (multiple times, in fact) so as far as I'm concerned, as the Cheyenne say- "Ish-Tay" (It's done) Or to quote Orry Main from John Jakes' "North and South"- " I've come to find this whole topic distasteful, and therefore closed." Or to use my own phraseology, "Points made, and points taken" so let's move the hell move on.
Believe it or not, I like you.
Aloha,
Duane.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 31, 2020 0:06:26 GMT
Steve: If Wagner had said in his book, or any other place, that these are the events and associated times AS HE SEES THEM, I would have no heartburn at all. AS HE SEES THEM means that anyway that is logical, that ANYONE ELSE SEES THEM, given the same amount of research as he put in, is then just as valid as Wagner's own viewpoint, and should be respected as such. He sees something his way, others see it differently. Everyone is happy, and no one is feeling that he is being told he is an ignorant human being for holding his or her own views. That is not how he operates and you know it. So it is not only his work and his methodology I dispute, but more than anything else it is his attitude toward his work. Anyone who cannot stand to be told he is wrong or could be wrong is a person to be avoided like COVID 19
It may turn out that a hundred years from now everything that Wagner says in his book, and every statement he has ever made on the issue is completely correct, down to the minute and the mile per hour. I don't know. Don't pretend to know. I just know what inconsistency looks like. If that turns out to be the case I will be the first to stand before his pup tent in Paradise, with an apology ready when he opens the tent flap. Until then I feel that it is both my right and responsibility to point to the smell of rotten fish when I smell it.
I don't agree with all your friend Gordon Harper, or any of the others that have written about this battle have to say, but while I may take issue with a point or two that they have written, I do not criticize them for their methodology or what the general intent of their work was. In fact my favorite on the subject is Stewart, a book written long ago, and whose flaws have been brought to light subsequently. He just tells a good story, that is a pleasure to read, flaws or no flaws. Stewart wrote AS HE SAW the battle, and I suspect did not much care, if someone disagreed with a point or two.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 31, 2020 0:22:32 GMT
I assure you that I did not go to great pains to do anything.
What I said, and I quote "Patton did not say that, only in the movies". I did not quote you at all and you can't misquote someone if you did not quote them in the first place, rightly or wrongly. It was meant as a slam at the way Hollywood over-dramatizes things in the movies for dramatic effect. Yes, I did go on to lecture (actually enlighten you) as to the real fact, that the movie went further astray by giving the viewer the impression that Patton, had Rommel's number (actually Rommel was not actually in command at El Guettar) by reading his damned book, which to the best of my knowledge did not have an English edition published in 1943. I thought you might be interested. I was mistaken.
I know a hell of a lot more about than most battles than you do Duane, because I have made battle itself a lifelong study, both for professional reasons and personal interest. You know a hell of a lot more about boat driving and diving than I do. We are all different. That's what makes the world interesting.
You were off base in your accusations. That is your issue not mine,and I will call it a day. I don't much care if I am liked on not, and I have very expensive tastes in beer.
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on Dec 31, 2020 0:47:49 GMT
I assure you that I did not go to great pains to do anything. What I said, and I quote "Patton did not say that, only in the movies". I did not quote you at all and you can't misquote someone if you did not quote them in the first place, rightly or wrongly. It was meant as a slam at the way Hollywood over-dramatizes things in the movies for dramatic effect. Yes, I did go on to lecture (actually enlighten you) as to the real fact, that the movie went further astray by giving the viewer the impression that Patton, had Rommel's number (actually Rommel was not actually in command at El Guettar) by reading his damned book, which to the best of my knowledge did not have an English edition published in 1943. I thought you might be interested. I was mistaken. I know a hell of a lot more about than most battles than you do Duane, because I have made battle itself a lifelong study, both for professional reasons and personal interest. You know a hell of a lot more about boat driving and diving than I do. We are all different. That's what makes the world interesting. You were off base in your accusations. That is your issue not mine,and I will call it a day. I don't much care if I am liked on not, and I have very expensive tastes in beer. Fair enough. If this new Dive Shop doesn't break me, I'll still sport your tab in the spirit of reconciliation.
Hoping to hit LBH next October, when the diving season in The Keys drops to almost zero. Maybe we could meet up and you can give me a tour, and a lecture. I'll pay you in beer.
Aloha,
Duane
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 31, 2020 2:05:32 GMT
You better damned sight go to Germany and get the beer then, because I don't drink any of that swill bottled here in the US with a German label on it.
I don't reconcile when there is no requirement to reconcile. Do you think you offended me to such an extent that I throw darts at your picture. Dismiss that thought from your mind
I'm not going to LBH or any place else short of a cure for my back problems. Would not be very good company. Even had to give up ushering at church. Cannot stand for long periods. It comes and goes, but lately, maybe it is winter weather, it comes a lot more than it goes.
Take good pictures and look at the terrain. Purchase a good map and pay great attention to it. See what the terrain tells you, then make up your own mind as to what happened based upon common sense, and the fundamental idea that what Custer did in turning on the bluffs was a grave error. Thinking that error persisted in his judgment in his execution of operations from that point on, in my opinion is just plain wrong. Doing the wrong thing the right way will get you beat far more often then doing the right thing the wrong way. Keep that in mind as you evaluate his judgment calls. It is a harder concept to wrap your mind around than it seems. Damned fools are not always damned fools about everything.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Dec 31, 2020 3:37:38 GMT
Steve: I don't think you understood my meaning about the journey from X to Y To whit
If you know a person passed Point X and was also seen at Point Y, you can calculate the distance between the two and come up with an estimate of how long it would take to get from one place to the other, if there was no event occurring along the way between those two points. It is the possibility of an event in between that you have no knowledge of that throws any timing completely off. The journey of what would ordinarily be say ten minutes may very well have been extended to twenty five because of the event in between.
So, if you do not have a complete and accurate as to exact location of all events, it would seem to me to be completely impossible to construct any time line. Given the fact that you have all of the events and their exact locations in the sequence they occurred is the only way you can construct a time line in the manner in which Wagner constructs his. You miss one event (or more) or if those events occurred in a location other than where Wagner thinks they did, then the entire time line is off, and as events proceed they become exponentially off. That's one reason that the last two minutes of a football game can last ten or more minutes of actual elapsed time. Were there no time outs, not incomplete passes, no penalties, no whistles blown, no huddles, the last two minutes of the football game would last two minutes.
What I can also tell you, about first person reportage, diaries, logs, memos, and messages about events from experience, is that most if not all of these do not accurately depict the time of the event. They depict the time the event was recorded. LBH is different, quite different. There is not one piece of evidence, or testimony that was produced in recorded written form during the event. The time Chief Thunderthud says something happened is when he remembers after the event that it happened, not something he recorded in real time. Even one such mis-remember throws timing off to some degree, so I can't place much faith in testimony, and thus charts constructed using that testimony as a basis no matter how much work was put into them when it comes to using them as a basis for constructing time lines. Modern history is hard enough to unwind given all the advantages we now have.
It all comes down to this in my mind. Do you believe that five companies went north. Don't want to talk about routes taken, or where they were up north, just do you believe that all five went north. If the answer is yes then several of the events that Wagner outlines along with their associated times did not happen. So yes or no is the only answer I seek. If the answer is yes then I do not understand your defense of his methods and timelines. By admission, you don't believe them yourself. If the answer is no, that you do not believe five companies went north and Wagner's reprisal of the conventional theories of others is completely accurate in all respects, then embrace everything the man has to say and we will be done with this affair. What you cannot do though is have a foot in both camps, saying that you are open. This is a matter you cannot be open to. You can be open to Company L being on Cemetery Ridge or Battle Ridge extended, each were possible, but as I outline it above you must chose between one theory and another that is nearly 180 degrees opposite. If one occurred, the other could not have. It's time to either do your business or get off the throne. Time to fish or cut bait. It's time for you to make a decision, and no one can make it for you.
YES OR NO are the only two acceptable answers. If the answer is no then I do not want to hear another word from you about any activity up north involving Companies C, I, or L. To do so would be lying to yourself, and from this point forward we here would all know what you are doing. The only thing in question then is why are you doing it.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Dec 31, 2020 20:28:54 GMT
Chuck, the Belgians, Danes and Czechs all make great beer, but I too like German beer.
I must add to this that Fred is the most focused and passionate person I know when it comes to this battle, when he gets involved in something it turns into an obsession and he still approaches this topic with zeal.
I remember him asking me about the German divisions on my website, some of mine differed to his and I showed him where I got my info, and he was amazed at what these guys knew about German divisional commanders.
It was a sad day when the other site went tits up, all caused by one man, I wish I could turn back the clock, but….
But like I said, I can’t except what was written about Keogh and his battalion, but Fred doesn’t write stuff without having a source, but that said, I still need convincing.
|
|