Sorry Mystic, but I for one must beg off this one!
I have read more than one of Pennington's works, including his Opus Dei, and I have enjoyed about all of him I can stand. He may be nice enough personally, but he is the most arrogant, the most abusive writer in this arrogantly abusive event I have ever read. His assumptions are utterly mind-boggling, his supporting evidence is the most outrageously contrived I have ever read-- in any subject-- and his conclusions are so far-fetched as to have swung the pendulum back to a first-grade spitting contest in the playground.
Even with the good points he discusses, he fails to follow through properly, so why should this new endeavor be any different? His other work is a complete indictment of every officer at the battle and he reads like he would like nothing better than to do away with the American officer corps, replacing it with old staff sergeants. Until the man comes to grips with his prejudices, his works will remain on their shelves as far as I'm concerned. He would do well to meet David Cornut, a like-minded young man from another world... er... country.
I also detest the arrogance in his book, The Battle of the Little Bighorn: A Comprehensive Study. He dismembers-- or attempts to-- everyone who has ever written anything about the battle. Only Jack is right; only Jack has the answers; only Jack knows what happened. Jack interprets the Indians; the officers are all liars; all the other authors have it wrong. He also misinterprets some of these authors, claiming they write things they didn't. That's not only sloppy, it's cheap.
I don't mean to offend you, Jack, but... even I have my limits. Thank you; I'll pass.