|
Post by yanmacca on May 24, 2018 11:11:18 GMT
Take your pick from these Mac, there maybe some ringers included as they are mainly from Camp interviews; Private. Pigford (Washington Observer Interview): Outlined against a blue sky on a far distant hill, back over the Little Big Horn, they beheld the figure of their commander. He sat on his horse, waving his hat to them for an instant, and then disappeared over the ridge. Private Petring (Camp Interview): while in the bottom going toward the skirmish line, I saw Custer over across the river on the bluffs waving his hat. Some of the men said, "There goes Custer! He is up to something, for he is waving his hat." Private O'Neill (Camp Interview): Custer came within 300 or 400 yards of the river before he turned up to the right. . On other side of river, there were timber and fallen logs, and took some time to get through. When were about half way down to where the skirmish line was formed, he saw Custer and his whole command on the bluffs across the river, over to the east, at a point which he would think was about where Reno afterward fortified, or perhaps a little south of this. Custer's command was then going at a trot. Corporal Roy (Camp Interview): After passing the ford, we formed in line and while forming up, I heard some of the men say, There goes Custer. He could be seen on hills to our right and across the river. But I think that this one below is fairly good as it is from Lt. Varnum;
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 24, 2018 15:12:29 GMT
What I would love to know is how these first four people who claim to have sighted Custer, or Company E, or anyone on these bluffs had the opportunity to do anything but focus on what they were supposed to be doing, which was riding north, with the prospect of contact staring them in the face?
For those who have not had the experience of barracks life, rumors abound, stories are told, the embellishment of one's own actions become rampant. From what I see of these first four statements they all seem to be slightly different versions of the same thing. The Pigford statement sounds like the current commercial for Comfort Inns, where "they glowed" is a substitute for Pigford's beheld. Does anyone "behold" anymore? Do privates "behold" their commander?
The only one of the five that rings of complete truth, and not the product of latrine gossip, is the statement of Lieutenant Varnum. He completely describes where he was, what he was doing, and what he saw, Company E identified by their horses, moving northward. Note what he was doing, and add thirty to forty five minutes travel time to that, and at the same time noting that during that period of time there was no indication that there were any soldiers at Ford B, as they could have been easily heard by troops in the valley. Also please note that he only says he saw Company E, and says nothing about any of the rest. Is that possibly an indicator that the rest had already gone by when he chanced to see Company E. Maybe? Also carefully read his last sentence. "As I know now" that Company E was with Custer, as if he learned this after the fact, which presumably means he had no knowledge of the task organization when he sighted Company E.
As to Mac's statement about routes, he is correct, there is no critical knowledge to be gained by knowing Custer's exact route . We know approximately where he started to go onto the bluffs, and we know that somewhere on L-N-C they paused to fire at Indians. What is between those two events, be it any of, I believe four, possible routes discussed any and all of them could connect those two places. Having knowledge of just which one, a combination, or none of these discussed routes would be nice to know, but certainly not really important or essential to what later transpired
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 24, 2018 19:35:00 GMT
Its any ones guess if these EMs are adding their own take and maybe even embellishing an old story to juice up their own personnel account. I am hoping that these accounts are of any use to Mac, who requested them.
I did also mention that Varnum's account would be the most credible.
Do we know exactly where Custer turned to mount the bluffs? We know from survivor accounts that they watered their horses before the climb, but I have found to point on any map to show where this place was.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 24, 2018 21:01:41 GMT
In the intelligence business you rate a source from not reliable on one end to most reliable on the other. How do you rate those first four Ian, and how do you rate Varnum, and more importantly why do you do so.
Is knowing where that place is important, or is knowing that he turned at sometime before he got to Ford A? We don't know the exact location of where he ran into Indians on L-N-C, at least I don't, Steve probably does, but knowing it was somewhere up there is all I or really anyone needs to get a general idea of his journey north,
There is a point one reaches where pursuit of these "can't possibly know" items does one of two things. It either drives you bat shit, or you become one of those locked in your own coffin of stone guys like the ones who write books or run certain discredited web sites. Don't do it. No good can come of it.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 25, 2018 13:20:36 GMT
In the intelligence business you rate a source from not reliable on one end to most reliable on the other. How do you rate those first four Ian, and how do you rate Varnum, and more importantly why do you do so. Intelligence doesn't come into it because to me it is a straight forward case of men selling their accounts or a man giving evidence in a court. It also doesn't matter if they are officers or EMs, to me they are just men and will be treated equally. So why I choose Varnum is because he gave his testimony under oath in a court room. The other four were I guess selling there story to anyone who flashes the cash.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 25, 2018 13:34:18 GMT
There is a point one reaches where pursuit of these "can't possibly know" items does one of two things. It either drives you bat shit, or you become one of those locked in your own coffin of stone guys like the ones who write books or run certain discredited web sites. Don't do it. No good can come of it. If you are saying that the route taken by Custer is of no consequence to our theories, then fair enough, but I think that if we can locate the starting point of this route, then we can find out if he hugged the edge of the bluffs or moved more eastwards.
The only real account of this came from Martini at the RCOI;
Q. How near did he go to the river there? A. He did not go near the river at all; we struck a little creek where we watered our horses. That was the only place we halted.
A. After I started from Gen. Custer to go back, I traveled 5 or 600 yards perhaps 3/4 of a mile. I got on the same ridge where General Custer saw the village the first time. On going back over that ridge I looked down into the bottom, and I saw Major Reno's battalion was engaged. I paid no further attention to it, but went forward on my business. Then I went on to the edge of the stream and about 3 or 400 yards above the creek where we watered our horses, I met Capt. Benteen.
So if we know the trail Benteen followed to reach Reno Hill and if it crosses a small creek, then this should give us an idea of where Custer went. Steve, did Benteen say he follow any trail going up the bluffs, or did Martini lead him. I wonder if Benteen followed Custer's trail and this brought him to Reno?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2018 15:05:19 GMT
Ian: I was speaking about how military and national intelligence agencies rate their sources, that being from not reliable on one end to most reliable on the other. I was not speaking about the intelligence levels or expectation of truthfulness of one type of person or the venue in which was speaking. Do you believe everyone under oath always tell the truth?
I would rate Varnum probably reliable because of the detail contained in his statement, not to whom he gave the statement to. I would rate Godfrey as being probably reliable as well and he gave his statement to a popular at the time magazine.
Any or all of those other men could have very well been telling the truth. What the listener and those evaluating what was said then must look beyond the statement itself and evaluate what they said, by looking at where they were, what they were doing, did they have an opportunity to observe what they are telling, and finally their reputation for telling the truth in instances both before and after the event reported. What I consider most relevant in Varnum's statement is that he said he was coming in from the left, therefore he was heading in the right direction to see anything on the bluffs. What I find detracting about the statements of the four privates, is that they should have been completely focused on what lay ahead of them, and there would be little opportunity to be looking around and observing the event.
Yes I am saying that the route taken is of no consequence to anything, including our theories. It is inconsequential because it adds nothing of value to what transpired after L-N-C Ridge, and that ridge is the place of first contact. If you find the starting point to 100 percent certitude it tells you nothing of that same certitude about the route taken thereafter. Therefore if you know the exact spot on the ground anything you continue to say about a route is still speculation.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 25, 2018 16:12:18 GMT
Chuck; If someone swore an oath to tell the truth, then I would have to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially over an individual who was giving you the same info for cash.
Varnum must have been up to the job of being Custer's chief of Scouts. He had been on an a couple of jobs like this before as he took part in the Yellow Stone and Black Hills Expeditions.
I know that the routes prior to N-C-L are not of any real value, but everyone has to start somewhere and I think that tracking the three battalions is very interesting, especially when tracking Benteen's command.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2018 16:33:54 GMT
I would too, but that does not mean they were telling the truth even under oath.
What does Varnum being the Chief of Scouts have to do with telling the truth. It only means that he was apparently a good scout and moreover had the ability to lead other scouts.
Don't you think Godfrey gave his statement for cash?
Interesting of not, NO ONE can track Custer's route to L-N-C because there is not enough information available to do so.
We in this latter day expect all too much of the detective work that must be done. Regardless of whether we realize it or not we are effected by modernity. We in our sub-conscience expect a camera on every street corner to track movements, DNA in having the dead speak to us, all questions being answered at the end of the hour we have invested in it, and justice done, each and every time. We can't help it. It is the environment we are in. We should know better though, for as we often see portrayed in a cold case story, investigators at the time the incident was first investigated did not have the same tools with which to solve the case, as those who reopen these cases ten, fifteen, twenty or more years later. We are involved in the coldest of cold cases, and what differs us from the modern cold case detective is the fact that all the witnesses are dead so we cannot again question them. We cannot examine all the evidence. We cannot completely test the truthfulness of what has been said. We are at such a disadvantage that going beyond a certain point is fruitless.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 25, 2018 16:38:08 GMT
I should have added that with Varnum being appointed chief scout would mean that to be a scout you must be sharp and very observant, to him scanning ridge lines for possible attack or avenues of attack would be part of his job and not the job of any jolly Joe who should be watching his front.
For professional soldiers like Varnum, spotting a column on a ridge line would be or should be second nature, because his Lt. Col gave him the job and I don't think Custer would hand this trusted and skillful mission to just any one.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2018 16:41:34 GMT
Being sharp and very observant, being a scout does not matter a hill of beans, Being all those things and being pointed in the right direction is what means something. He could have been all the things you attribute to him, and had he not been in a position to see what he reported then what he reported has no value,
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 25, 2018 16:45:25 GMT
I don't know where you are going with this, I made some very valid claims for Varnum being the soldier I would lean to rather than the others, none of which you have taken in, why?
Are you saying that it was by chance he saw those troopers on the bluffs? was his scratching his ass and thought, is that our men on that hill?
Or was it because he was actually good at his job.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2018 16:52:42 GMT
Yes you made some very valid claims about Varnum and his abilities. I would tend to value any information he presented as well. AS LONG AS Varnum was in a place to provide that information. It is the fact that he was IN THAT PLACE, and reported what he saw that makes his information of value, not that he otherwise possessed the abilities of a good scout.
So where I am going is telling you that Varnum's abilities would be totally worthless had he not been at the right place at the right time. HAD HE SAID I was well off to the left, and facing northward when I saw the Gray Horse Company on the bluffs, wouldn't you conclude that he was in no position to make that observation.
Would you not conclude that a deaf man could not hear, that a blind man could not see? What is the difference then between Varnum and a blind man to see something had he not been in the right place at the right time to observe? Therefore it has nothing to do with his abilities as a scout, but everything to do with his eyesight and opportunity.
You are a good guy and accomplished man in your own right as well, but if you told me you could see the Statue of Liberty from your bedroom window in Widnes, I might say that would not be quite as reliable, as saying you could see that same statue from your bedroom window on Staten Island.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 25, 2018 19:55:13 GMT
why thank you Chuck, that is nicest thing you have said to me in eighteen months
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 25, 2018 20:28:38 GMT
I don't intend being nice. My intention is to be both accurate and informative.
My specific intention in this instance is to get it through to you that no matter how good a person is or how good a job he does, what he says about seeing something is totally worthless, unless that person is in the place, and at the right time to see what he says he saw. The Varnum statement you posted yesterday, places him at the right place and time, and facing in the right direction to see what he says he saw. That does not conclusively prove he saw anything, but when you couple the right place, time, and direction, with the fact that he was a well respected person who had proven his competence time and again it would place any observation he made high on the reliability scale.
Your thin skin Ian, makes you your own emotional worst enemy, and it tends to close your eyes and ears to what is being said. There is more than one way to be nice, and that is the nicest thing I have said to you in eighteen months.
|
|