|
Post by quincannon on Nov 3, 2011 19:35:28 GMT -6
OK Dark Cloud. I admit it. You are a better man than I. I would rather be flogged that try to debate this idiot on points.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 3, 2011 20:11:48 GMT -6
Hey, you've been polite to engage - well past sell date - conz, keogh, and strange. I can't believe anyone can do that. Doing so IS being flogged.
Am glad Costume Lad with his purse lipped writing style and totally delusional self image has made another convert. He IS crazy: world class, letter sweater, chronic bin bound. "That is exactly my point Chuck. An infantry mind will never understand.....neither my own thinking, nor the mind of a Custer, a Patton, a Wood or a MacArthur." Who could possibly object to the name Bill Rini appearing with that quartet, by his own choice as well? Aside from soldiers, adults, and everyone else, of course.
Didn't know MacArthur ever served in the cavalry. He graduated into the engineers and then into the infantry so far as I know. Did ride, though.
Tolerating it unremarked is dangerous. On this we seem to agree, and I'm appreciative when people pick up the hammer to that crap.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 3, 2011 20:33:51 GMT -6
MacArthur did not serve in the Cavalry, nor did his father Authur to my knowledge. I understand he was around a lot of cavalry in his youth though and had an afinity for the mounted branch. Well it was not an afinity exactly it was more like saddle blacket sniffing. The First Cavalry Division was his favorite division, and almost always guarded the palace in Japan. I believe old Doug was caught up in the pagentry which he mistook for adoration of the most high - himself.
The stuff on the other board is the product of people who think of what an army should be like. In the case of Clair it is what he wishes it would be like. To them it is all a great romantic adventure. The reality is much different. Like I said over there, that vision is about as close to reality as a soap opera is on daytime TV. In my entire career I never encountered one soldier who felt ill equiped because he was not issued a leopard skin saddle blanket. The only difference between all of them is that all, except Clair, have no clue as to what is real, what is romance, and what is false. Clair does, yet he chooses to live in a dreamland of what once was, instead of the reality of the present.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Nov 5, 2011 8:35:22 GMT -6
Regards all, things seem to be humming along. Those finding afterbirth problematic, might consider implications of poor guidance in the matter of swallowing during excited physical exertion which inflicted them on the world. DC - I reckon you know that the reference was to Allen and not Graham. Was Graham a grand-dad of yours or just a hero you worship? As you constantly remind one and all, no one is perfect. John Stands in Timber was born after the battle, and brought about devastating mis-presentations of what took place. There were several monuments, over time, upon the Custer field and no-one can positively and accurately deduce which monument or cemetary, Cheyenne accounts of the battle refrer to. JSIT was given the tribal history and then visited Lima Bravo and oriented his learning to changed features, such as the monument and cemetary. His subsequent teachings are Gobbledeegook in dulcet tones, which an entire academic generation leapt upon as revelations. Graham did exactly the same thing, motivated by an urge to polish up Benteen's suit of armour. You have queried in particular - 'How is it remotely possible that this 'strongly suggests' anything? Even if this camp existed on June 25, 1876 - and good luck with that, given how popular this area was with the tribes - how do items that could be Indian along with soldier bullets somewhere else suggest there is a connection on that day alone? How does the camp, along with potential relevant artifacts close by, suggest whatever that they fired uphill at Weir Point? What troops were these? What you have, at most, is evidence that does not conflict with that theory. That's all. How would 'researchers' distinguish cases fired by soldiers at Indians - as opposed to Indians firing at soldiers with their new Springfields recently obtained at Custer Discount? Again, evidence that may not conflict with the theory. Is all. Neither suggestive nor proof. This doesn't seem to occur to you, and you match supposition on supposition and obtain nothing whatever. You jumped the gun on this, DC. Honestly. My point was the location and hence timing of the clash between Standing Bear and Edgerley's troops. The text you queried was 'quoted' to indicate the extent of knowledge existing in regards movement by Company D and in quoted directly from Doug Scott's research, which relates the done by Scott & Bleed, to which I did drop a link. You shot from the hip on what is actually, interesting stuff that goes to the heart of timing issues of the battle and the endurance of the Custer fight. Ask Doug Scott to justify the matters to you - I accept what he offers but believe that Edgerley advanced further, or the scouts were in advance of his troops. Further there were by research mentioned by Scott, lodges east side of the river, although lieing to the north of the troops and scouts. It's coffee break stuff, mellow out. Enjoy reality and truth.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 5, 2011 12:11:55 GMT -6
Whose version...? Yours?Somebody help me out here... who is this lunatic? Where does he dig up this trash? Hey... "herosbedrest," stay home, will you... haunt something else, for heaven's sake. You are a fruitcake who has no clue. There are enough idiots involved in this mess without complicating things with a male version of Nurse Ratchett. Have you tried the "Custerwest" Website? You'll love it; go there... spend a few years. Sit around the campfire... commiserate... don't forget the sheets. Best wishes, Harry the Horse
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Nov 5, 2011 14:04:22 GMT -6
What do you object to Fred? It must have been that map from the New York Tribune dated July 14, 1876 that he posted, eh? Or maybe it was because he didn't post the entire legend of that map ... A. shows Custers line of advance to the ford B. shows the retreat of companied F, I and L C. shows the retreat of companies C and E D. shows the ravine where 28 soldiers were found E. shows the skirmish line of company L. F. shows the position of company I. G. shows the position of company F. H. shows the position of companies C & E. I. shows Custer's Last Stand J. shows the ford where Custer attempted to cross. K. shows the Indian village of 1800 tepee's L. shows the bluffs. M. shows Timber (wood) N. shows Little Big Horn River 1. shows Col. keogh's body 3. Lt. Calhouns body 4. Lt. Crittenden's body 5. Gen. Custer's body 6. Col. Custer's body 7. Capt. Yates body 8. Lt. Riley's body 9. Lt. Smith's body 10. Col. Cooke's body 11. B. CUster's body 12. A.H. Reed's body Or maybe it was because he didn't quote the part of the article that really meant something... "Approaching from the south on the east side of the Little Big Horn, Gen. Custer divided his little army into three columns, and gave orders for an attack upon the Indian camp from three different points. One of these divisions consisting of three companies under the leadership of Capt. F.W. Benteen, crossed the river, marched west, and attempted to ascend the bluffs bounding the valley on the west, with the intention of passing along a ridge and descending into the Indian village further down the valley. Another division, composed of three companies, French's, Moyland's, and McIntosh's - under the command of Major Reno, also crossed the river, and proceeding north, close to the banks, soon entered the meadow. Along the plain for 3 miles in front of them the soldiers saw the 1800 tents of the Indian village. They had scarcely formed into line of battle, prepratory to marching into the village, however, before they were fiercely attacked by hundreds of Indians and forced back into a grove of trees fringing the bank of the river. Then they were soon driven across the river and up the steep bluff and were threatened with destruction. Capt. Benteen's division, however, was unable to scale the west bluffs as intended, and following Reno's trail discovered the perilous position of that division and rescued it...." "Meanwhile Gen. Custer with five companies-- Yate's, Keogh's, Tom Custer's, Smith's and Calhoun's-- had marched 3 miles northward in a ravine running parallel with the bluffs on the east side of the Little Big Horn, and had reached a break in the bluffs where an Indian trail toward the river indicated a ford. Suddenly, before it was reached, the Indians appeared on the trail behind them and on their left flank, cutting off retreat in the direction of Reno's force. Apparently Custer did not descend to the level of the water, but, percieveing that his little band was outnumbered 5 to 1, ordered a retreat to the north in the direction of Gen. Terry's infantry, then marching up the Little Big Horn..." "Custer divided his force, leading companies C and E into the ravine nearer the river, while the upper gully formed the line of retreat for companies F, I and L. As the Indians were in hot pursuit it became necessary to make a stand at the head of the gully. Company L halted at the head of the upper ravine to defend the entrance, the men being deployed as skirmishers. Companies F & I passed on up the ravine. Midway in the lower gully a stand was made, and 28 men were killed. Two companies fought their way in the direction of higher ground, and were cut to pieces. Stragglers of the 5 companies joined Custer and his brothers on the crest of a little hill, and here the last stand was made." There, is that better? Jag
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Nov 5, 2011 14:28:50 GMT -6
Jag,
There are no possible verifications for this newspaper's often idiotic contentions. The Benteen task description is void of logic and comparable terrain. If indeed you believe this, you must believe all of it, including the 1800 tipis which provides way more warrior force than any plan whatever could deal with.
I say this even though it conforms in general to what I suspect happened, but it's all guesswork.
And it reflects nothing upon herosrest's illiterate nonsense, except that what he quotes offer the best chance for coherent writing in his postings. Even here.....
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Nov 5, 2011 14:59:45 GMT -6
Sit around the campfire... commiserate... don't forget the sheets.
Rat/Weasel
Why sheets Fred? Eye holes in those sheets. I thought you didn't want your good name associated with this sort of thing. You throw a fit like a little child and then you bring it up.
You really should wait for your temper tantrums to subside before you post and call people all kinds of names. It is unbecoming of you.
Best Wishes Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 5, 2011 15:00:14 GMT -6
... you must believe all of it, including the 1800 tipis which provides way more warrior force than any plan whatever could deal with. I say this even though it conforms in general to what I suspect happened, but it's all guesswork. Totally agree. And Jag... you are some piece of work! Next toast is to you! Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Nov 5, 2011 16:12:36 GMT -6
Fred, I kinda figured you'd appreciate the little nudge there a bit. DC. Aw heck, it don't matter whether I believe this stuff or not. What I do enjoy is going back over those old newspaper articles and reading them, they do provide a lot more info than what we have today. Who'd have thought that Custer after his separation with Reno, following the Indian trail, as reported, would have been doing it knowing that there was a ford at the end of it? This newspaper article jolts one back to the reality of such a move. To hell with Bouyer or any of those Crows, "I'll just follow this trail and it'll take me where I need to go." Here is another article I'm sure you all will appreciate, or not, but I do know someone who will use this time and time again to prove his point. Nope, not saying who, but you'll know New York Tribune, July 15, 1876 A letter from Gen. A.F. McReynolds a General of Michigan troops in the late rebellion and a Captain in the Mexican war to Gen. Rosser. Gen. Custer may have been too impulsive, but after all the great force of cavalry in reckless dash. Custer's only fault, if fault it may be termed, consists in failure. If it had been a success, as doubtless he had every reason to anticipate, imperishable laurels would have crowned his brow. His charge on the Indians could not possibly have been more reckless than the charge made by Kearney and myself at the gates of Mexico, where, with 100 dragoons we charged on 3,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry, covered by a battery, with Santa Anna at their head, and drove them into the city, with a loss of more than our entire number. Our charge chanced to be a success, the Mexicans having been demoralized and on a retreat from their terrible slaughter and defeat at the battle of Cherubusco. For this charge Kearney and myself each received the brevet rank of Major, whereas, if it had been a failure, and we escaped the Mexicans, we would doubtless have been courtmartialed, and perhaps dismissed the service. Would it not be a grand opportunity for you to rally around you a mounted force of mounted force of Minnesota men accustomed to the horse and the rifle, which you could readily do, and tender your services to the Government to avenge the death of the brave boys of the 7th cavalry who so nobly fell on the field of duty.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 5, 2011 17:35:17 GMT -6
Based upon this no doubt accurate reportage, I shall take an Alka Seltzer, and go back to painting the deck on Prinz Eugen.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Nov 5, 2011 19:11:47 GMT -6
Based upon this no doubt accurate reportage, I shall take an Alka Seltzer, and go back to painting the deck on Prinz Eugen. I've just got to ask, what color? ;D Also I don't think you have to worry much, I don't think there was any mention of a square in the records, at least as far as I can find. Kearney and McReynolds exploits are told in the History of the Mexican War By Cadmus Marcellus Wilcox and can be found on pg's 390 to 393. Yes you can Google it and use Google books to review the relevant parts.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Nov 5, 2011 20:15:09 GMT -6
It's called Modern Armor Sand - a dead ringer for a natural teak with a slight greenish cast. It resembles Bill's jowels when I pee on his sabre.
Not slamming your repetion of published accounts here JAG. It is the flowery language, almost like Ivanhoe or Lady of the Lake, that makes combat seem like such a glorious adventure that I was refering to. Someone ought to go back in time and arrest those people for contributing to the delinquency of modern day minors.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Nov 6, 2011 15:02:49 GMT -6
Fred - I fail to understand where your attitude on the serious matters of the battle and its history, come from. John Stands in Timber was taught the Cheyenne history of the battle as he grew up. The Cheyennes were nowhere near the battlefield as JSIT grew up.
When he did journey to Little Big Horn, the cemetery was a National cemetery and not the original cemetery. If that seems odd, so be it but that was the way of it. The monuments known by those who fought before being moved onto reservations, were long gone and replaced by the needle. The were several cemeteries, the fenced in battle ground was a cemetery. There were the Fetterman re-internments, there were the reburials of Custer's command. There were several monuments, starting with Keogh's in 1877.
JSIT oriented what he was told by his family, to the battlefield he found years afterward. That is straight forward to understand. I can't imagine you have a problem understanding the words, the concept of it or the fact of it. You understood the point I made - yes?
Cavalry in troop or company strength, riding to what has been developed as Fords D, D1, D2... is rubbish.If you disagree me, then show me the evidence that cavalry were there. You will be sorely challenged to accomplish that, because there is none.
Do not throw any more of your lunatic garbage at my posts. Enough is enough from you - What evidence, factual evidence such as artifacts, is there to support cavalry maneuver in troop or company strength at the National cemetery terrain or the supposed fords below them, referred to as D, D1 & D2.
You have some very interesting stuff on the battle, much of it is seriously flawed, for example your 'leaning' toward an extended period of combat, say upto 4pm or later. Custer's battle was was over by 3.15 or so.
Your view, as I understand it, is that the scout Curley was a flake, unbelievable and untrustworthy. That view is rubbish - not the elegant, factual and exceedingly insightful information, insight and fact, that I post.
Get over your infatuations and the crazy desires to define your version of what 'you' think happened, using pedantic, minute by minute, linear illogicals. The Custer fight was over by 3.15 and yet you are shoe horning up to another hour into the equation and shouting that your times are the best. Time is a tool - a very poor one.Put some facts, where your idly tapping fingers seem to have run away with your silliness. That is enough from you, unless you intend to take matters seriously. I'll tell your mummy what a naughty little so and so you have been, otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 6, 2011 17:20:44 GMT -6
Good grief! Little Casper responds!
Well, I guess I have been one-upped by the latest LBH expert... my "linear illogicals" by damned.
So you know what... you keep believing the stupidity of Curley; you keep believing the Custer fight was over by 3:15... you keep believing whatever you want, because none of your nonsense-- and believe me, it is sheer nonsense!-- is driven by anything more than wishful thinking, utter stupidity, and the works of dreamland.
While I have never wasted my time reading the crap you keep insisting upon cutting and pasting on these boards, I have read enough of your personal drivel to have sought out an optometrist to help me keep my eyes from their uncontrollable rolling. If you ever took the time to read the first-hand accounts of participants and stop relying on the belching and gas-passing of wannabes like yourself, you would come a lot closer to something called truth than what I see up here. Let me be clear: anyone who believes Curley's delusional, contradictory, "made-for-TV" tales and accepts them as truth to what happened is an absolute idiot, for he does so at the expense of so many others. As for timing, your attitude is exactly what I would expect from someone who isn't smart enough, or is just too lazy entirely to do the work. It is people like you who laugh at the work of those who have long since passed you by, simply by dint of your own stupidity and incompetence.
Now go haunt a house.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|