|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 14, 2013 14:40:06 GMT -6
Walter M Camp's notes mention damage to the monument in 1886, which was repaired two years later. 1886 produced a flurry of photography, here the damage can be seen. cdm15330.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15330coll22/id/69338/rec/2 the zoom tool magnifier works rather well. The image is attributed to D.F. Barry. 1886 was the 10th anniversary but the fence is obviously not in place, and the base and foundations exposed, which is odd five years after erection. Any sources on this matter, please. Markers were placed in 1890and Capt. Sanderson according to his report of April 1879, interred remains of four men to a mound, completed with a cordwood monument. By June 1886 a fence was in place around the monument, seen in a well known picture. Is the picture linked, related to the fencing? Yes it is, www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3b38596/Very next image that l found. This I believe was later damage again to the base and known of, but gives an idea how lintels, visible in 10th anniversary picture, were part of the process of raising to level the floor. |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 14, 2013 20:01:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 15, 2013 11:41:52 GMT -6
Interesting picture. It enlarges quite nicely to provide considerable detail on the wooden markers...and also shows that the monument is engraved. AK |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 19, 2013 12:27:38 GMT -6
He's getting better.
Previously he mistook a ravine for a building. He now reveals he thought the monument would be shipped without names and that a genial stonemason might 'carve' out at leisure on the field itself hundreds of names rather than hammer them in back in the workshop as has been done for thousands of years.
Having revealed himself as an idiot of impressive proportions, his method is to pretend to an anarchistic shriek and hope that flies as a creative contribution, and that he knows everything but inserts idiocy on purpose because.....well, just because he read somewhere that someone did it and something happened. In any case, it's all he can do atop reposting well known and often well debunked sections of text.
The poor dead of the 7th and the tribes deserve better than this.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 19, 2013 19:12:35 GMT -6
Erm, the monument was recarved. EDGES of the joints between the 3 and 4 stones were reduced by bevel, and the names removed in that process were recarved into the stones. I did not read this anywhere, honest. It isn't on record anywhere other than Walter M. Camps notes after he noticed damage prior to 1886 and enquired about it. An obvious thought is that that the entire monument was reduced and recatved. Not so, but the stone removed carried names of the dead, which was carved into the bevel. Next time you are looking at the monument you will notice that carving to be very slightly less weathered. The joints were beveled and recarved. This took place before the 10th anniversary and Benteen does look chubby. View ~ files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/10428862/CB.pngView ~ files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/10428862/iz305.PNG |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 20, 2013 15:59:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 21, 2013 17:35:38 GMT -6
He's getting better. Previously he mistook a ravine for a building. He now reveals he thought the monument would be shipped without names and that a genial stonemason might 'carve' out at leisure on the field itself hundreds of names rather than hammer them in back in the workshop as has been done for thousands of years. Having revealed himself as an idiot of impressive proportions, his method is to pretend to an anarchistic shriek and hope that flies as a creative contribution, and that he knows everything but inserts idiocy on purpose because.....well, just because he read somewhere that someone did it and something happened. In any case, it's all he can do atop reposting well known and often well debunked sections of text. The poor dead of the 7th and the tribes deserve better than this.  Dark Cloud, you do tend to go on in numpty fashion and it was uncalled for. Now it's dumb insolence from you. The images supposedly taken by Morrow and dated by being included to a report by Sanderson, supposedly, show a structure where one should not be. There were two portable saw mills at Post Number two at the mouth of the Little Bighorn by July 1877. That image has perplexed far greater minds than your own, and I ask you plain and simple, who decided for you that the entity in the image was a river bank? One of your experts, perhaps or even just your own simple conclusion. You seem to do a reasonable job as moderator, thus l put up with you, but now l wish to know how you came to the conclusion that the structure in the picture supposefly taken by Morrow is river banks and why you have the gall to sling perfectly reasonable consideration at the wall as mud. Answers please. I asked you politely to remove your slur. I ask again and require answers to my questions above. A river bank....... haha! ~ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2013 18:27:48 GMT -6
"thus I put up with you,..." Damned difficult to type while laughing but here goes.
Perfectly obvious to the most casual observer that's a Georgia-Pacific sawmill. Ray Charles could have seen it.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 21, 2013 19:04:29 GMT -6
I had a solution to the entity problem, when that topic was going but matter's took an odd turn. ;D
I may just request a court of inquiry ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 21, 2013 19:42:17 GMT -6
Looks to me to be water in a channel(lighter color)in the background and a river bank (darker color) in the foreground. Notice how the trees follow the river bank and make a bend following the lighter color in the background. the dark color above the light color of the water would be the bank just like that in foreground.
Where is the rest of the picture?
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 21, 2013 19:58:34 GMT -6
Did a little searching what do you think? Looks like you cut yours from this picture look in upper right quadrant and see if it is not the same. Not bad guess at being a river channel. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 21, 2013 20:15:47 GMT -6
OK lets see if anyone thinks this looks similar to HS buildings or is a river bank and water as I thought it looked like. I cut this out of the picture above and it appears similar to HS picture. AZ Ranger Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 21, 2013 20:35:53 GMT -6
There are five matching points between those pictures and it is my opinion that HS picture was cut from the Morrow picture I posted. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 21, 2013 20:57:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 22, 2013 6:00:18 GMT -6
Apparently not chewed enough since you posted it again.
There is nothing altered. You are looking at magnification of over 400% and highly pixelated. Even at that I believe I was right in what I thought I saw in that picture and when I found where it is cut from it was consistent with my observations.
The dark color of the bank is similar to the dark color on the pile of bones in the foreground. Could be time of day causing a shadow effect or a photography effect but the trees along it give it away as a river bank.
AZ Ranger
|
|
