|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 7, 2009 9:07:26 GMT -6
1. does anyone think the photos of Fouche and Morrow presented here are NOT taken from LSH?
2. does anyone actually think that's a building; a saw mill?
3. is there anyone confused about the fords? A, was where Reno crossed over to the west bank. B, is Medicine Tail Coulee Ford. C is the retreat crossing point heading east to Reno Hill. D is the hypothetical crossing point up north, albeit the river can be crossed anywhere, being shallow. Have those denotations changed? If not, what is this about Ford C on this thread?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 7, 2009 10:12:23 GMT -6
darkcloud, the question of naming convention for fords is not a straight forward concept or as easy to grasp as desire to uncomplicate matters today can present matters. You've offered Ford C as the Reno retreat. Completely at odds with the 1877 Clark map. If it seems l'm being awkward for the sake of being such, chill.
Clark presented and identified a series of crossing places in 1877. Maguire previously by his 1876 map. Then Norris made his offering.
The A, B, C, D thing, disregards the Clark map and there, like it or not, is a problem with interpreting the crossing places indicated, because Norris state clearly Deep Ravine offered no access to the river.
That the only river crossing between the Reno retreat and Deep Ravine is Ford B is not fact. That a further crossing was as far down as Deep Ravine or beyond has never been properly addressed or even seriously considered in modern research, which is rather light weight and takes very much that it shouldn't, for granted.
There are some fundamental problems with the way way early data, information and maps, are considered. Photographs also. A very clear example is about the battlefield in W.A. Allens book. Present 3 days, 13 months after the battle and his experience and views laid bare. He knew nothing of 7th Cavalry or army, was a life long resident of the area, visited and collected the battlefield whenever he chose and new the population for miles around, even producing a biography based on interviews with 'Plenty Coups'. The Crow chief whom he visted and spent time with.
The broader field of view of the picture l found is poor but may offer resolution ;D to the matter of which hill is part of the photo. If i'm right, well l prove a very serious point if not, l wasted some time, raised a few eyebrows and hopefully have generated some interest and concern for the period works which truly are scattered to the four corners of the earth.
I say again, l remain convinced, that despite 130 some years of, ooh look, its LSH - that terrain is at Deep/Calhoun Coulee. Hold on tight, the earth may move under you and quite a few others. People take things for granted. It is a great strength of intellect that allows progress. It can also be a mighty powerful curse. It's no ones fault, it isn't a deliberate occurence when it happens, which actually is very often. It is life, it is people. There is no direct or related bearing on who died where, it is just a photograph that is an icon of its era.
The significance of fords is that the cavalry could not cross anywhere they liked. That problem followed them everywhere throughout the years of the Plains campaign and many men and horses drowned attempting crossings. Gibbon went after the first large village located, got his column in motion and could not cross the river, horses and men drowned. That is why so much time was lost on the Yellowstone by Terry as Custer closed on the village. Terry did not envisage the time required to get his forces across and the Far West was a bit slow because of some lost mail and a drowned crew of the skiff carrying it. The river banks at the mouth of Medicine Tail and Deep Coulee were the problem Right wing faced. Obviously there were no breaches and as was stated, a crossing had to be done in column of fours. That shouldn't have been a problem, even opposed, if the area was as today barren of trees and brush. Put a company out as cover and blast the opposite bank clear of enemy. That that wasn't done suggests the area was timbered, the timber being removed later. There are pictures which give an idea of what the river banks may have been like. They are in Dixon's 'The Vanishing Race'.
The Rain in the Face map and Norris map agree, they make sense and give some substance to the E.S. Curtis map, which was based on Marshalls map. Taking Curtis's route data of the journay along the bluffs and interpreting the fleeing families to the Norris map rocks. It's all leading edge stuff that was around 100 years back and no-one wanted to listen to it then. What is beyond me at the moment is interpreting White Bull's map of his coups and fleeing women.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 7, 2009 12:43:48 GMT -6
You're playing pretend and asking adults to play with you.
First, yet again, the early maps are bogus and are not, absent scale if nothing else, really maps. Apparently, you cannot read actual maps and prefer what were little better than quick sketches, near cartoons. Easier to pretend. That people based newer renditions on falsehoods - false maps based upon previous false maps - does not elevate their reliability. You're dead in the water right there. When did Rain in the Face draw his, eh, map and what was he looking at?
Second, MacGuire's Sharpshooter Hill less map says what is now MTC was then 'Reno Creek.' That soon wasn't true, and for the last several decades the fords were referenced as noted previously. To create artificial confusion by using different terminology and pretending the earth is shifting is fairly dumb. Not a few people have said they've walked the river and it can be crossed at any point, starting with Benteen. That you might not be able to ascend the dirt wall immediately before you on the east doesn't negate that. That horses drowned in other rivers - like Gibbons' in the Yellowstone - isn't relevant to the LBH, a lizard lethargic stream for the most part.
Third, it doesn't matter what you claim Norris says: Deep Ravine empties into the river, <this part is incorrect, confused myself with deep coulee, but it changes nothing or rather the sorta delta formed by itself and MTC> because water created it. Water flows downhill.
YOUR OWN GRAPHICS PUT THE LIE TO YOUR CONTENTION. It's not Calhoun Hill. The topo maps conform to LSH in your offered photo. You can't wish that away. If you've been to the field, it's hard to believe you're contending this.
That Custer didn't cross at MTC suggests many things, but doesn't reflect on foliage or arboreal content of the west or east bank.
I would also point out that previous to John Gray's last book, this sort of pick and choose accounts plus the entire 'let's pretend' mindset was far more common and sometimes taken seriously. Regardless of whether Gray himself was correct in his scenarios, his insistence upon a baseline for time and that things had to conform to it or be discarded should be brushed off and admired, and thanks to his shade. Pretending something is something else and see what happens is generally left behind by age 12, but not in Custerland.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 7, 2009 18:56:11 GMT -6
You are playing - not sure what at, though. What have the last several decades of reclassification and abysmal attempts to regulate (what was perfectly well understood 130+ years ago), got to do with my topic. Stop ramming your gospel down my throat.
Gray's work is more than flawed.. he was too bright, seriously clever to make the errors he made. The disciplines he instilled are techniques, to study and analyse, to provide concrete and repeatable tests for experiment. Provide a theory and here are the tools to test it. What he then did, was take a completely preposterous outline, that had been put forward previously and offered it as an example to test upon. He was a seriously clever guy trying to show people interested in the fact of what happened, how to deal with the matter themselves, rather than rely on the partisan schisms which mean you cant believe one if the other says something different. It's about people and the layer upon layer of doings they did. Science is schmaltz, a tool, and look what rigor brings to the field......... mortis. Get off my case. Gray made the error of thinking all of us think as he did - it is blatantly obvious from the mess that flowed from his novels that that is not the case. The people who lived there and mixed and existed as the local population knew what happened and that was 133 years ago. The rest is.............. put it into your own vocabulary.
Click the images. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [/URL] and work out, what the guy heading a sizeable bunch of bad Hunkpapa warriors was saying about what happened. I'll bet you can't be bothered. You may know it all. Fat lot of good that is.[/color] Gray took an existing theory and held it up for ridicule.[/b][/center]
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 7, 2009 19:46:31 GMT -6
It's what happens in the grown up world. People don't get off your case. Ever.
Gray didn't write novels. Do you even know what a novel is? Bulging your posts with irrelevant graphics doesn't make them more coherent. You have made several contentions that can politely be called false, and when queried, you fall apart.
What people called the fords 130 years ago was adjusted to what they're referenced as today, apparently by common agreement, a long time ago. Nobody calls MTC Reno Creek, for example.
Combative assertiveness atop nothing attracts vultures, a role I'm happy to play, perhaps was born to play. It's no stretch.
So, we'll just start with one question to demonstrate. You say: "What he then did, was take a completely preposterous outline, that had been put forward previously and offered it as an example to test upon." What are you thinking is this ' preposterous outline', who put it forward previously? When?
And did you actually read Gray's last book? Or just read about it?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 7, 2009 19:55:31 GMT -6
Before you come back again, popping away, take this onboard.
D.F. Barry lived in the middle of the reservation Hunkpapa. He knew them all as he carried on his trade. Gall and he got on ok after a while, Rain in the Face was a good friend. He bumped into 'Sitting Bull' every day. They made money out of him, he got wealthy. They came to his home Sunday's for dinner. He knew James McLaughlin, the army and 7th Cavalry. He was right in the middle of it all , able to watch and listen to all that occured. That is why a different version of Galls account on 10th Anniversary exists. That is why he photographed skirmish line positions and other stuff besides. He asked the warriors what happened over sunday lunch and they told him.
You obviously hold the opinion that Gray's timelines were revolutionary and a clean start, his inspiration. Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 7, 2009 20:26:48 GMT -6
1 -Righteo - Axe or saw cut?? - CLICK - 2 - mapping - YT observation errors- & picture of Grey horse troop, 7th cavalry at FAL. - CLICK - YT ERRORS - CLICK - E Company, mounted, lined front, at FAL before LBH3 - Morrow photographed the ford - it was timbered. That the image is of Ford B is total conjecture. Views of a timbered river crossing place - CLICK - The fallen tree at foreground in the Morrow picture, looks neatly felled, n'est ce pas? Axe or beaver?? There may, just possibly be remains of a beaver dam in the picture. " pyhä hasis, sotilaspalvelija" Time to nose through Dixon's photo's of the river in 'The Vanishing Race' and the shots E.S. Curtis took of stuff when he was there. I guarantee, cast iron, Morrows picture was not taken from LSH. He's at a river ford, on the river bank. 4 - Here is Camp Baldwin which was built at LBH.Those believing that John S. Gray researched, developed and created original work are mistaken and have not researched the subject or analysed correctly his interpretations and disregards.
Simply accepting his presented conclusions of '4mph' is childish.Copying someone else's homework is full of risk and stupid. - CLICK -
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 8, 2009 8:24:50 GMT -6
You haven't read Gray, obviously. I'll have to start another thread, though, being on Independent Research, but this is just absurdity upon absurdity.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 8, 2009 9:12:57 GMT -6
The time scheme and conclusions were published previously to Gray's work. He was aware of the study undertaken by an army officer and Grays published work mimics the military assessment. l am aware you are critical of aspects of Gray's work. He did not invent the techniques he uses or develops. What he does provide is learned insight and considerable research. He did not produce a reliable or defensible time & motion analysis. For a work dealing with Mitch Bouyer, he glossed over some mighty big holes. You, agree with some of what l have just posted. l know that.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 8, 2009 9:22:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 8, 2009 9:41:29 GMT -6
l'll argue the matter here, it is part of the topic and moving discussion makes no sense. The advance and arrival are fundamental to discussion of the topic - Ford C. Gray, timing and interpretations of events by battle students are relevant here. eos.
There are schisms within study of the battle. Many within the military at the time considered that Custer had let the side down becoming embroiled in matters that did not concern him. That was a widely held view. Custer embarrassed some important people who were well regarded and influential in the middle of an important military endevour. Reno and Benteen will have held little regard for the shenanigans in Washington and were perfectly happy with GAC, out of the way. Much study and analysis of LBH falls into camps of opinion for and against the various players. It is ridiculous for historians to participate, students and hobbyists and media, angling the thing fine, that is not though dispassionate assessment. The amount of first hand detail, simply ignored or passed over or discredited to various ends is astounding and again, is, a matter you fully comprehend. Parties were at work with axes to grind.
It took off with Whittakers book and l have often wondered if he forwarded copies to Reno, Benteen and Grant for their crimbo stockings. Whittaker was that much off the wall. He did however, throw together the first critical assessment of events and affected matters after beyond all reason. Huge issues were at stake and in play. He didn't have a clue what he dipped a toe into and everyone else except Reno, just wanted the entire mess forgotten and buried.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 8, 2009 11:01:44 GMT -6
7th Cavalry conducted an assault upon an identified target in the lower valley of the Little BigHorn valley during the forenoon and early afternoon of June 25th, 1876. At morning officers call the CO imparted his decision and ordered his regiment forward to battle. All officer testimony agrees this as fact, a target was identified, an objective set and the attack underway. All subsequent cavalry activity and process is subject the fact of an advance to battle against a force known to signicantly outnumber 7th Cavalry, if it was able to concentrate force against them.
That the regiments scouting force were ordered forward into attack, indicates clearly that scouting was completed and had ceased. Over to the Capt '/' F. Benteen. Well, Fred............. what happened?
We think Custer tried to cross the river......... possibly to get into the valley. Can't think why, though.......... why do that? It was a job for the Marines.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 8, 2009 11:27:22 GMT -6
Again, it was Markland's insistence that this be kept to simple research presentation, often violated by error, by me among others. I violate that by attacking this presentation, but you violated it by substituting wild conjecture and absurdity for research of any sort whatever. However, continuing to argue this on this thread is in violation of section instructions and actual researchers' desire. There is a thread for this at: lbha.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3618&page=1In any case, you can't hide here unattacked.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 8, 2009 11:39:42 GMT -6
darkcloud, never have l doubted your honest interest or concern, if you find my approach flippant - you'd not be wrong. That does not detract from my intent. Raise a glass to 'White Rabbit', eeeeeeyo.... lead out! Be well. wa yan ka strum...
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 8, 2009 12:39:52 GMT -6
|
|