|
Post by herosrest on Sept 9, 2009 13:01:00 GMT -6
Ya missed the update, ya missed the point of Gray's book, have missed the point of the battle and its events, you don't seem to pick up on anything except the negatory and my posts. I updated the previous post and don't worry at all, you are a wonderful human being.
Gray attempted a relational database. He was ahead of his time and fluffed it. BUT - he did that on purpose. I salute him, he was not one dimensional. The problems he struggled with, remain today. Multi-core, multi processor technology that people cannot program or utilise properly for their potential because they are inhibited by one dimension of thought. Some not even that.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 9, 2009 13:14:59 GMT -6
I don't worry about being a wonderful human being.
The map doesn't show anything under discussion. You haven't read Gray, apparent to anyone who has, you don't understand the words and terms necessary - like time-motion study - and you lie.
You've lied about an army officer doing what Gray did before Gray, and have not provided any evidence of its existence.
You lied about Whitaker and Miles having done a time-motion study of the battle, and can provide no evidence either did what you say, because you haven't actually read them either.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 9, 2009 13:19:44 GMT -6
you can take a break shortly, i have to return to earth for a reality check. Ya missed the previous update again.
For your oustanding contribution here within my posts l recommend your promotion, to perhaps cruelcloud, whoops spelling error, l missed u. Corrected.
Warriors returning to their lodges would use a ford to cross the river, probably which is kinda related. Also, they may have been returning from Calhoun Hill although l doubt they were carry cameras with thm.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 9, 2009 13:30:32 GMT -6
Nonsense.
Really. What page is Coughlin's time-motion study on? What page is Curtis' on? You're being used, and you lie. Again, you don't know what time-motion study is.
Trying to hide stuff in previous messages is pretty desperate.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 9, 2009 13:37:28 GMT -6
you can take a break shortly, i have to return to earth for a reality check. Ya missed the previous update again. For your oustanding contribution here within my posts l recommend your promotion, to perhaps cruelcloud, whoops spelling error, l missed u. Corrected. Warriors returning to their lodges would use a ford to cross the river, probably which is kinda related. Also, they may have been returning from Calhoun Hill although l doubt they were carry cameras with thm. What about my enquiry earlier, it's ok if you are still considering an answer. it was part of post 13. We really should do this more often. Therapy is so expensive these days, so i'm told. Time and motion is an excercise in relationships.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 9, 2009 13:46:32 GMT -6
No more, Wiggs.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 9, 2009 13:47:38 GMT -6
cool!
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 9, 2009 14:18:12 GMT -6
Darkcloud, you attacked me for denigrating Gray. I have criticised what flowed from his work.
Quote - This, by the way, is the sort of stuff you'd run across far more often before Gray, because there was no logic structure to hold theories to reality, whatever they were. It's that confinement to structure that annoys the frauds and the disturbed, the children and the Custerphiles desperate for a construct to damn Reno and Benteen.
Quote - Your description of Gray makes him seem like a con man: smart, but applied his smarts to falsehood and fabrication. He was a highly esteemed medical doctor and amateur historian, and well regarded in that field as well.
Gray didn't confine himself to his own structures and disciplines, his logic erred as does it for us all. There were aspects of events he did not understand and his work didn't solve that problem for him. The scenario he chose, and the events could have as easily been the clockwise theory. He was proving a process not the result. He did not resolve the issues of the battle but worked a subset that suited him. His model was intuitive.
He used logical processes to construct an intuitive result that he designed. The results were the result of an intuitive process, his data was constructed intuitively. That IS a fact.
Gray was not a conman, your words not mine, he did apply his smarts to falsehood and fabrication and provided means to disseminate them from truth and realities hidden by falsehood. I have no problem with the guy, unfortunately he has been adopted by a generation who didn't understand what he was doing or offered.
footnote - there is an inhibition which taints study of this battle and it ruins its history, which is the story of quite magnificent struggles. That inhibition is peoples desire to be the 'one', a l'il yearning, deep inside, to be the one who unlocked it. To make apiece of history. It detracts completely from a wonderful story of human struggle.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 9, 2009 15:33:04 GMT -6
AZ Ranger - I didnt offer an opinion on COLONEL T. M. COUGHLAN's study or the man. The report indicates that Gray's study was not original and falls into a camp, or attitude towards the battle that derives from a factional approach to events. After november 1876 and publication of the Whittaker book, serious factional interpretations of events occur. Either or, for against, good and bad........ arguments developed in favor of factions with concerns and interests in perceptions of the battle. Pro Custer, anti Custer, fatalists, angels........... etc.
I have to agree with DC. You have not read Gray if you think that is the same kind of timeline as Gray's.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 9, 2009 17:53:31 GMT -6
Take the second book, it is an exciting read. His enthusiasm flows through the pages and and is soaked up, in a way it is very exciting and a very, rare skill that he was gifted. That does not make him correct. There are serious mistakes within the conclusions he draws because of the model he defines and bases the results upon.
He is feted, well remembered and respected for his work. He did not resolve LBH's problems, he did not address fundamental issues. He presented a set of analtyical tools, his own insight and methods and presented them in entertaining fashion to considerable applause. When the adrenalin fades and his work is studied, it should be apparent that the product of his second book is an 'unproven' theory. It did not answer the issues that dog study of the battle. He offered a solution that was accepted - l do not accept it because the times upon which he bases the flow of events are rubbish. That isn't said to annoy or aggravate. Misleading and innacurate time data exists for this battle. Gray chose to adopt it for his model of events. It doesn't matter how wonderful the end product, it is flawed ever more as it stands presented in the book. The tools are there to correct the matter. When l am so able to do, there is strong possibility l will do that.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 9, 2009 18:08:40 GMT -6
_______________________________________________________
Here's one for fun - Below is a LBH map. It is tiny and very simple.
Custer's troops were wiped out and the warriors began returning to camp - they engaged cavalry whom they met whilst crossing into Medicine Tail Coulee from the Custer Battlefield. The red circle is diameter 500 m. Somewhere within that range, there were dismounted cavalry who engaged warriors and then retreated. This was after the Custer battle. These troops were part of the advance to support Custer and were some 1500 Meters at least, down river from Weir Point.
Or a whole bunch of Lacota & Cheyenne are telling lies, which is something they had no need to do. Perhap's the entire warrior force was armed with Barrett 50's otherwise. It may be that the warriors rode a mile or so up MTC to fight. That is not how they read, they were heading back to their lodges with loot from the battlefield and to get food, riding 15 abreast. After 'Cheyenne 'Two Moons' led his band out to fight, 'Roan Bear' and a handful of warriors defended the Ford from an attack. Bands of warriors returned from another fight to support them.[/color][/color] [/quote] Could it be that 'Standing Bears' account of his fight at the ford relates with that of Roan Bear and others. Standing Bears party rode up and fought at the Ford after the Custer battle ended and warriors were returning to the village from Custer Battlefield.
The Sixth Grandfather: Black Elk's Teachings Given to John G. Neihardt, edited by Raymond J. DeMalle, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, 1985 p 180 - 184 "-After we wiped Custer out we started back in formation downhill, ten or fifteen riders abreast. At the mouth of the Muskrat Creek there was a little divide and before we crossed this creek we could see another band of soldiers here to help Custer. They began to fire on us......"
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 10, 2009 7:15:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 10, 2009 12:31:32 GMT -6
99 in 100, conclusion is false. A.E. John Gray used T&M to produce a theory. He took a supposition and built a model around it. lt does not stand up to test.
He knew, exactly, what he was doing and probably carries a wry smile at this moment. That, or, he belived we are all genius's. Gray touched very briefly on clockwise and anti-clockwise manouver with Bouyer, and breezed along. He was at play and had a point to prove with his second book. He understood his tools, not his audience. An interesting guy.
There are very practical problems with Curley carrying messages as he states. It is an interesting problem.
Apologies if l ruffled a feather or two.
On technical aspects - detail - Gray did not understand the manouver that occured upon Custer field, neither how the companies got there or what they did when they had. He guessed, the information is suggested at by Curly who details a tactical deployment that occured before he left to take word to Grey Beard. No one in Custers command knew that Gibbon had not taken the field because of illness. Nor would it be known that Terry was in his place rather than aboard the 'Far West'. When Curly arrived at Pease Bottom, he was in search of John Gibbon, not Terry, Gibbon had left 'Far West' and was riding back to his command, Curly was sent after him. The cartridge find on Luce ridge seduces assumption that cannot be justified by any, capable student of the battle yet everyone has to work it into theory. Rcoi indicates Left Wing were as likely on that ridge as the Right Wing. 1 in 2, 50-50, 50% chance. Nothing directly connects or places right wing at Luce Ridge it is intuitive assumption and unproven.
If the cavalry truly advanced to battle at avg. speed 4mphish, there lies the cause of problems which occured with their horses. They were bored to death.
|
|
|
Post by markland on Sept 10, 2009 12:37:04 GMT -6
I don't know where you picked the above up but it is incorrect. Gibbon was in the field with Terry.
Billy
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 10, 2009 12:40:41 GMT -6
Hi markland. - John Gibbon - was ill with Cholic. The conquest of the Missouri -J.H. Hanson(page 271) " General Gibbon by this time was sufficiently recovered to be able to travel and before the Far West started he set out after the cavalry advance, which the infantry also soon followed. "
|
|