|
Post by herosrest on Aug 29, 2009 14:51:53 GMT -6
Between 1877 and 1891 a significant loop of the Little Bighorn river disappeared. This was the probable result of tree felling for lumber that built Fort Custer and other construction works including the railway line.
The loop is shown clearly and precisely, verified by terrain data presented on his map by W.P. Norris, Superintendant of Yellowstone park. The map is dated July 5th, 1877.
The information relates directly to the battle fought a year earlier, a broad flat is shown present below the bluffs across the river from the valley. It was possible for cavalry to access this river loop from the mouth of Deep Coulee. There was a crossing place at this river loop, it was perhaps a half mile, 800 yards down river of Ford B and is the place so many talked of. The river by 1891 had cut the mouth of the loop to sit flush with the bluffs. Terrain where 7th Cavalry tried to cross the river is now part of the valley floor. It was warriors arriving at this loop on the valley side that Davern saw from Reno Hill and the gunfire was heard by Lt. Derudio in the valley timber where Reno's battalion fought.
This was the mystery, the loop disapeared from the terrain in the years after the battle and then passed from living memory over time. The river course can be identified from aerial and satellite photography as silted areas and treeline. The terrain around which the loop flowed is visible also being an island slightly higher than the old river course. Cavalry fought there, Lacota and Cheyenne repulsed them and warriors crossed the river both at this loop and Ford B. This was the location of Ford C. One decent geologist, a couple of days work and the loops existence is proven. The confusion over cavalry deployments is significantly eased.
There is much more to the story of this river loop and its implications, especially in relation to terrain which has been identified by visual reference to river loops. A photograph taken in 1877 showing the river loop, would be identified as a different location in later years because the river loop 'moved' significantly downstrean to the area of Deep Ravine. During 1876 the river loop below Deep Ravine was insignificant by comparison to that upriver nearer Deep Coulee. This shown in Norris's map.
Photographed terrain in famous pictures such as 'Custer Fell Here' by Huffman are incorrectly identified as being Last Stand Hill. They are not. The location is upriver and the error has persisted to this day and is the cause of misunderstanding and confusion over battle events and locations.
Mistakes happen with the best will in the world. Sorting them out is another matter entirely. Profit from these findings should be passed to 'Crazy Horse' & 'Lame White Man'. They previously reserved all rights. ;D
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 29, 2009 15:05:28 GMT -6
It's not Last Stand Hill. That loop was a half mile upriver in 1877. It has taken 130 years to get where it is now, river loops migrate slowly. Bring back the Beaver.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 29, 2009 15:19:44 GMT -6
There is nothing complicated to what may appear to be a conundrum. Huffman titled up a dramatic picture for consumption and introduced some confusion. He decided this was the one to sell titled so. Taking the lumber for Fort Custer displaced the beaver and nature did the rest. That is a portable lumber mill highlighted by blue box in the picture above - 1877, l believe. Huffman.
The implications are the crossing place below, Ford C. It unravels complications with 7th cavalry's manouver during the battle. As Norris's map shows, access to river from the coulees marked '4' was not possible. Norris knew what he was talking about as the Superintendent of Yellowstone Park and was at the battlefield when Officers remains were collected. He himself recovered Charlie Reynolds for burial. I assume he lies in Yellowstone Park. He had some kind of shack there.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Aug 29, 2009 15:30:58 GMT -6
Profit from these findings should be passed to 'Crazy Horse' & 'Lame White Man'. They previously reserved all rights. ;D [/color][/size] you're a real cool mistery guy bring back the beaver ;D so DC what do we have to say about this or having a nap wrestling with keogh's and benteen's supposed drinking problems
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 29, 2009 15:39:33 GMT -6
;D Not enough relevance is placed upon Custer's initial decision to lay over the 25th and strike at dawn next day, Reno, Benteen and Wallace had breakfast together, Reno did not even know the Regiment had pulled out at 8am, Benteen let him know when 'he' realised no one had told Reno.
They were for a time, looking at a long idle stay in cover keeping out of the way while scouting was done for a night approach.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 30, 2009 2:04:01 GMT -6
Here is a part of the confusion.
1 - files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/634358/Mystery.png
2 - files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/805954/Mystery.png
3 - files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/805954/CFHASH.jpg
BEHOLD - 4 - files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/634358/CFHhash.png
Huffman took more than one photograph of horse bones with a boot in the background and did so from different locations.
There is a clear and present issue with the locations assigned to these photographs.
You can see it with your own
I have mentioned it here & there - and apparently............... i'm nuts....... then i knew that already. Seeing IS believing. Huffman took some pics, labelled 'em up for the market place and that was that. For decades, many of them, the only view people had of the battlefield was these pictures reproduced around the world. Little Bighorn, everyone knows.............. Last Stand Hill......... there's the picture - It's LSH (not). That's it, people & the way we are. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
There is quite a bit of information to be gleaned from these pictures, viewed in a new light. River loop below Calhoun Hill, as per period maps. Marker positions. Dead horses and quite some much more with implications for manouver and how things went down.
I give you these. Though they are not tumbling. files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/805954/lf.jpgI'm looking at a picture of Nye-Cartwright Ridge at the moment,................. hmmm???
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 30, 2009 11:56:52 GMT -6
Here is a very simple analysis of battle evidence at N-C Ridge. Whilst such simple analysis is simple - that does not invalidate it or the fact of it. The concept of cavalry engaging opposition west of the ridge requires further examination. It is far more likely the engagement was local to terrain east and north.
This matter is critical to understanding events during battle. Well, it seems that way to me, at least. Who were the cavalry engaging?
Distance to the river from that ridge is between 6-7 furlongs, the distances modern flat horse races cover. That location offered the largest concentration of recovered goverment cartridges anywhere upon the field. It is as likely as not, this is where volley fire originated. Wolf's Tooth and Big Foot fought cavalry early, were they in Custer Coulee as cavalry rode N-C Ridge or parallel on ridges east? Is that the volley fire McDougall heard escorting the pack-train and pony stealers?
|
|
|
Post by bc on Aug 30, 2009 14:31:01 GMT -6
Interesting theory herosrest. I can see the correlation in your photo analysis that puts those horse skeletons on Calhoun hill or perhaps the Finley location.
Sandy Barnard in Where Custer Fell did not do a computer match up of photos but more of a general one. The terrain around Calhoun coulee and cemetery coulee are similar. I am glad that someone is doing more of a computer analysis of the photos. Sandy's analysis seem more to look at a big stake for Custer once in the ground and once on the ground and a boot on a stake and a boot on the bone pile. They are not the same boot according to my limited vision.
That 1877 photo you have by Huffman was actually one Huffman got from the 1879 Stanley Morrow collection which Sandy says was mislabeled.
Have you done the same photo analysis of the John Fouch 1877 photo that is in Where Custer Fell? Have you done a similar analysis against the present day cemetery ravine/south skirmish landscape so we can rule it LSH all together?
Seems to me that the analysis needs to be carried a step or two further.
Your Ford C theory is inconsistant with others I've read but it is just a matter of squaring it with Deep Ravine and Deep Coulee. If Ford D's were out of the question, I still wouldn't rely on MTF/Ford B as the crossing but probably down river at the Real bird crossing.
Morrow has this photo of these bluffs where he alleges that Custer's men were driven over the cliff and into the water. Where do you show this location at? The nearest matching bluff location I could find for that would have to be north of the present day trading post, casino, etc.
Another interesting issue is the location of Sanderson's cordwood monument in photos taken by Morrow. In the first photo the monument is clearly being filled with horse bones which Sandy said was part of Sanderson's orders to clean up the battlefield. East of the present day monument is where they found evidence of the horse remains being buried. It sure wouldn't make sense to put horse bones on top of human bones at the time. Since I believe they moved the human bones under the monument later on, it wouldn't make sense to put human bones on top of the old horse bone pile. Kinda suggests to me that the monument location has moved a little and maybe the present day location of where the buried horse bones are is where the cordwood monument was but maybe someone has studied that issue already. And what of the the horse bones in the Keogh and Calhoun sectors? Did they leave humans half buried and then go the trouble of hauling horse bones all over the battlefield or are there other piles of horse bones?
Keep up the good work here and we will see where it takes us. You probably need further photo analysis as suggested above.
bc
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 30, 2009 17:45:36 GMT -6
Regards bc. 'Where Custer Fell' is an excellent work but several of the photographs, plus others, don't sit right in my 'minds eye' in comparison with modern pictures. Quite sophisticated technique was practised on some of the photographs used in the book, l realise these people know the ground and history through years of work. The terrain though, is a series of repetitions and subltleties that must be unique upon this planet. Repeats of terrain features across horizons and intermediate ground that are startling once perceived.
As l said, that book is a wonderful piece of work and a part of its purpose was to stimulate interst in the period photography. They were real pioneers of the plains those lads with their cameras. Brust, Pohanka, and Barnard state quite openly that they did their best and leave it with us. They got my interest and l can see a thing or two that interest me. So i've called it. It is almost impossible to come to this battle without preconception. In studying events, i've had to just tear it all up and start again, more than once. The greatest wrench was village size and putting aside everything remotely based upon the encampment extending much further than an area opposite Deep Coulee. So much that exists is based upon that concept that everything has to be judged against that parameter, what was the student of given work actually assuming when they drew conclusion. It's surprising how jumbled the clearest of thinking actually is.
'Taming of the Sioux' was a read as a youngster. Turns out old Frank B. Fiske was quite a lad. Got up to all sorts during his time, interesting man.
www.digitalhorizonsonline.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2Fuw-ndshs&CISOPTR=669&DMSCALE=100&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMMODE=viewer&DMFULL=1&DMX=0&DMY=0&DMTEXT=%2520fiske&DMTHUMB=0&REC=1&DMROTATE=0&x=337&y=192
www.digitalhorizonsonline.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/uw-ndshs&CISOPTR=371&CISOBOX=1&REC=4
You are correct that things have a ways to go in regards analysis. Ford C theory, well..... the reason there are so many theories is that an obvious piece of the puzzle is missing. It doesn't get more straight forward than the 1877 map by P.W. Norris. Which l stumbled onto and it took a while for what he was imparting to sink in. There was no loop below Deep Ravine, therefore period pictures showing a loop cannot be of Deep Ravine. It is what it is. It's not theory.
Oglala 'Red Hawk', famous in the E.S. Curtis picture, left record of finding 8 troopers remains, in uniform with weapons and equipment, 'down there' a month after the fighting, which is an aspect of that matter. There is the fact as well that commercial photography was exactly that, marketing and presentation played a part. The picture of the cliffs is long range, twinset stereograph, one appears to contain some white anomolies at the foot of the cliffs, who knows.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 30, 2009 18:36:29 GMT -6
There's a view of N-C Ridge linked below that explains better than any words the point of the Cartridge finds on that terrain.
www.calconnect.com/newphotos/little_bighorn_battlefield/Weir%20Point%20View.jpg
You realise also that the slope upon which Keogh, Company I and others died is defiladed to view from Weir point. That event could not be viewed from Weir Point. Activity on battle ridge is in plain view but the Keogh sector beyond sight. It is also not exactly straight forward to get any views of the mouth of MTC and Ford B area.
Map exhibit evidence item 2, amongst the Reno Court of Inquiry transcript, is a very revealing document. Particularly Lt. Hares testimony. images.library.wisc.edu/History/EFacs/SetPerAmerInd/Reno/M/0583.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 31, 2009 11:05:28 GMT -6
Nonsense.
The water seen from LSH is not the Garry Owen Loop, which was, I was told, removed by the railroad by the epedient of digging a ditch to straighten the flow and not endanger the railroad line, which closely followed the stage road, both made after the battle. Loops do not move up and down the river line like a wave, although the bed bends over time. There are several loops to this day beneath LSH, but often blocked by renewal of tree growth.
There was never any confusion about the GO loop's location, since the dry bed of that portion was visible for years after and still is with effort.
Second, the photo from Weir Point towards the monumet marker shows the exact opposite of what you imply and claim. Sure looks like Calhoun Hill to the monument is open to sight. Further, the lush grassland was not there in 1876, with all but scrub nibbled down to dirt and dust. The dust cloud that had to have existed during that day cannot now be recreated. It was many years before it became lush, as the early photos document.
The map by McGuire is a joke, and he said it should be viewed NOT as a map but as something less. There are many errors, including the lack of Sharpshooter Ridge.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on Aug 31, 2009 11:48:57 GMT -6
don't worry herosrest non sense means hello thank you for participating and goodbye in DC language lush later on, wasn't there a drought period from 1880-1890?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 31, 2009 12:25:22 GMT -6
Hi darkcloud, the Garryowen loop is example of how the terrain has altered over time. That a loop existed upriver of Deep Ravine is shown by W.P. Norris's map, as he indicates, his intention was to correct the map of Lt. Maguire made a year earlier. Norris during that year was resident Superintendent at Yellowstone Park and all the Generals, Sherman, Sheridan, Miles, etc were through there that year and visited him and 7th Cavalry were there. l would guess his map was a talking point. Maguire vowed to improve on his first rushed attempt in '76 and l guess Norris may have had some to do with that desire of the young and very experienced Lieutenant. Maguire spent that summer improving river navigation at places like Wolf Rapids.
Norris's map is good, his detail of the Garryowen loop and that end of the valley stands up to scrutiny. That a loop would be misplaced by a half mile or so at the other end of the map, below Deep Ravine cannot be so. The map is good, Maguire surveyed the battlefield in 1879 to produce recommendations in respect land purchase for the National Cemetary and l suspect, buried away somewhere he remapped the valley. R.B. Marshall's work in 1891 offers further evidence supporting Norris. The bends below Deep Ravine are insignificant by comparison with the established course of loops upriver. You either accept Norris's work or not. He was an interesting guy, worthy of a little study and left his name on the land. It is what it is - he set out to correct Maguires map, was at the valley when Sheridan recovered the officers remains and made a map. Vast quatities of timber were removed from the valley and in 1879 quite a squabble broke out with the Absoroka over the army's initial requirements for land purchase. The river loop vanished. It's existence can clearly be picked out in satellite photography, just as upriver near Garryowen.
Like l said it simply is what it is. No big deal - just the way it was. Where the river flows into the bluffs just above MTC's mouth and the ford he identifies it, it is shown. Everything indicates Norris's work was accurate and correct. Maguire did his best, it might well have been better had he not bothered but he did, did his best and actually served the history of the battle well. The timber was heavier in '76 and much more difficult to pick out the river course.
In regards the picture view from Weir Point, l didn't refer to Calhoun Hill.
The Keogh sector terrain, where the markers are and l assume they fought to the death, cannot be seen from Weir Point. Thus depending upon the time that Weir arrived, what was to be seen? Viewing the ford B area and mouth of MTC is masked by intervening ridges. Similarly looking uphill east from the ford you don't actually see N-C Ridge but the intervening high ground forms the horizon. Same looking towards LSH.
As l mentioned, people think i'm nuts. l see what l see, that is because l looked. Life goes on. Bewell.
I can show you the stuff l mean- terrain and view, eyeball - files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/805954/LittleBiGame.jpg
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Aug 31, 2009 15:49:20 GMT -6
A topographic survey made in 1883 is reproduced at page 176 of Archaeology, history, and Custer's last battle: the Little Big Horn reexamined by Richard A. Fox.
No river loop anywhere near Deep Ravine exists. None are shown at all between the upriver bluffs at at the mouth of MTC for a distance of some 3-400 yards past the mouth of Deep Ravine . I do not know when in year the survey was made. No river loops shown at all in the relevant areas in 1883.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Sept 1, 2009 0:36:08 GMT -6
OK, so where is this Ford C? Do you have a photo of it?
I've been able to identify Morrow's 1879 reference to the ford by Sanderson's camp. I've found the wickiup in one of Morrow's 1879 photos in another photo so I have it cross referenced and know where that series of photos were taken from. The camp and wickiup are in the loop.
I don't have a photo of Calhoun coulee handy, but the right edge of the photo you claim is not from LSH but actually Calhoun hill (or if so most likely to me the end of Findley ridge) sure seems to match the side slope of cemetery ridge. You have to come up with more proof than just a similar patch of water.
There is no doubt that the river has changed course over the years and where it is flowing today more likely isn't where it was in 1876. So we can move past that point and concentrate on the river where the Morrow photos show it.
There has been talk of a ford at Deep Ravine. And it only makes sense as all the water flowing down Deep Ravine is going to form some sort of alluvial plain (just like at all the creek and coulee junctions with the lbh) and this alluvial plain usually makes for a decent place to ford. The only problem with a ford at Deep Ravine is where and how would Custer et. al reach it? As near as I can tell, the sloping ravine/cemetery ravine/south skirmish line appears to end in high cliffs overlooking the river as shown in the Morrow photo.
You are being awful mysterious here which gives me the impression you aren't to confident in your theory. Are you writing a book?
bc
|
|