|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 22, 2013 6:27:12 GMT -6
Why would anyone want to build a saw mill (not only an average sized saw mill, but one about the length of a football field by the looks of it) in the middle of nowhere, there must have been wood supplies all over Montana, wouldn’t they be better building such a huge structure near to a large river source (the LBH River looks to shallow to me and not really fast flowing enough) so they could transport the logs by water, if they only needed a modest amount of timber to build a say a fort, why would they need a building that size, it would take up more wood then the fort. And how far was the nearest town, there must have been more trees in Montana then you could shake a stick at (sorry about the pun), so why go so far into the wilderness.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 22, 2013 9:25:28 GMT -6
It's a river boat ;D Thus that image was photographed prior to that at LBH and for what ever reason, that small area has ghosted onto the later picture. In regards need for timber, swathes of cottonwood were taken from the valley to build Fort Custer at the mouth of the river. After Sheridan's visit to the battleground in the July, it is noted that lumber was being taken along the river and floated down to 11th Infantry (Buell) at the mouth of the river. This is in the varioys diaries and notes of those. accomoanying Sheridan. Bourke, Poe, Brackett. Sherman, Crook, Miles and many, many officers were then present at July 25th, 1877 ~ Post number two (Fort Custer) on the Big Horn at the mouth of the Littlehorn. There was a procession of riverboats delivering supplies and at least three that day, plus others carrying Generals back and forth. The war was over, Crazy Horse had surrendered and the tribes with him, save those who moved to Cypress Hills. It's the ghost of a river steamer.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 22, 2013 10:36:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 22, 2013 10:47:43 GMT -6
HR, where is this leading, first you post a picture horse bones on LSH (I Think) and say there is a saw mill in the back ground, then when AZ pulls you up, you say it’s now a river boat, you have just Destroyed you theory by trying to prove it.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 22, 2013 11:46:19 GMT -6
Within the horses bones image is an area of detail which in close up is a man made structure, where it obviously doesn't belong and with only knowledge available indicating that lumber mills were active in the area, taking wood from the valley which was floated downriver to the fort Custer construction. The discussion turned daft and has been thrown in my face again by a mod, who should know better than to bully people. I have a story about bullying, if anyone is interested but l guess it's off topic. The view was given that the entity was simply river bank and lighting effects. That does not explain the entity, which clearly has the form of a riverboat but is in a location and to a relative scale that is unrealistic at that location. There are interesting notes from staff officers who were at the site of Fort Custer in 1877 and that was part of the topic, which was then jumped on as stupidity by DC, and this continues on his part. The guy has issues, l guess. Seeing tends to be believing except at LBH. The image is attributed to 1879 and Sanderson's burial of the remains of four men and construction of a cordwood monument. This is how a series of images including the Keogh marker with Wild I headboard, the Sturgiss grave, unknown marker and horse bones images have been dated. That may just be too simplistic. For Example, there are two images of the Keogh Marker stating where 38 men died, and wild's headboard in shot. That of the pair with people in it includes, facing the camera, George Herendeen. This dates the image to 1877 and it is speculative to assosiate it being taken during Sanderson's mission in 1879. That is definately George Herendeen, the officer foremost in the image may well be Nowlan, or M.V. Sheridan. Pictures of Nowlan are rare. DC is being a pain, small minded, and entirely rude. To my knowledge, which is not all encompassing, specific, broad and general awareness of the remodelling of the monument is not record or part of the memorial's history. I point this up and get insulted, and that did not sit well so l bit back. I'm easy going but DC overstepped the mark. It is my expert opinion that two, at least, images of the 1877 Keogh marker were made, and since George Herendeen stands in one, the images were made in July 1877.It is fact the markers shown were set in 1877 by the men of Company I, 7th Cavalry. A photograph of Lt. Sturgiss's grave exists and it is believed the grave was an effort on the part of Gen. Miles when his mother visited the battlefield in June, 1878. Her husband commanded 7th Cavalry and although Miles was given credit for the bogus grave, it is very more likely that the grave and that for Lt. J.J. Crittenden, were made and photographed in 1877. Crittenden knew Sturgis and his wife, and left his son lie on the field of battle with Sturgis. It is impossible to research because of the chaos with ownerships of the images over time but incredibly, it turns out that F. Jay Haynes was at Fort Lincoln early June 1877, photographing the fort and Bismarck. He also knew and met Huffman in either 77 or 78. My research is not complete but Haynes was married to Lily V. Snyder. Was it her brother serving with the 5 Infantry? ~
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 23, 2013 9:21:45 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. A heads up for DC. Most of todays professional study of LBH is plain and simple rubbish from professional idiots. Here is a simple truth, professionals and authors are lying about what took place. Here is why. It cannot be faulted. RIRO ~ The dominant supposed (l suppose, l guess, well... ok) theory behind Custer's planning, actions and maneuver for his fight at LBH. 'Having learned from Boyer and Curly that Reno’s force was in serious trouble, Custer knew he had to act immediately. Apparently intending to distract the Indians at his end of the village, Custer split his battalion into two parts: E and F Companies (76men) under the command of Captain George W. Yates and C, I, and L Companies (134men) under Captain Myles W. Keogh. He sent Yates’ command down Medicine Tail Coulee to the ford to make a feint against the village. Custer led the remainder of the force up the north side of Medicine Tail Coulee to Luce Ridge. From there, Keogh’s three companies could support Yates should he get into serious trouble, and at the same time, Custer could wait for Benteen’s battalion and the pack train. Yates made his charge toward the river and startled the village. Minor significant: The message sent to Capt. Benteen was despatched from the mouth of Medicine Tail Coulee near the river bluffs. see note 1 Major significant: The message sent to Capt. Benteen urged him to the 'Big Village'. Benteen was not ordered to march to the bluffs east of the river or beyond. Theory of the battle ignoring this basic and very simple implication of the order sent to Benteen, is a blatant sign of manifest lack of intelligence. ie low iq. The be quick route to the village for Benteen was across Ford A, where in fact his command rode to and saw Reno's command in flight across the river and away from the Big Village. In marching to join Reno east of the river and not going quickly to the 'Big Village', Benteen directly ignored written orders from his commanding officer. This matter was reported to Brig. Gen A. H. Terry on June 27th and Terry accepted Benteen's decision at Ford A to 'not rewew the attack in the valley'. This is a matter of record in Terry's official report. Reno was not ordered to retreat. Benteen was ordered to attack the village quickly. Benteen was sent to support Reno but found that command retreating from battle in the valley. Plain simple facts of the matter. Having ordered Benteen directly to the village before Reno retreated from the valley, how can anyone believe that Custer sat east of the river to await a battalion sent somewhere else. The written order carried to Benteen, superceded and countermanded that carried by Sgt. Kanipe to the pack train. Whether or not Benteen discovered a dilemma at the seperation of Custer and Renos' trail, he was ordered quickly to the village and not east of the bluffs. Reno had not retreated from the valley when trumpeter Martin rode past his lines, and no one on earth, let alone Custer, knew that Reno would retreat until. it occured. The order to Benteen preceded Reno's retreat. ~
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 23, 2013 12:52:51 GMT -6
Source material related to this Topic, damage to the monument. Contained in notes by Walter M. Camp from interview of Major Sam'l Burkhardt, Jr. January 16, 1913The following is an excerpt from an attachment to a letter from C. C. Walcutt, War Department, Office of the Quartermaster General, Washington, May 29, 1909, to Walter Camp:
On June 28, 1876, the remains of the killed were buried temporarily where they lay. In what year were these remains disinterred and buried permanently in the trench surrounding the four sides of the plat where the monument now stands? These remains were reinterred in the trenches in 1878.
In what year were the remains of the officers removed from the battlefield? In 1877.
In what year or years were the marble markers placed to locate points where the dead were found after the battle? In 1886.
In what year was the monument erected? In 1884.
A photograph taken in 1886 shows the monument mutilated by several large pieces of stone broken from the corners. I am told unofficially that these mutilations were removed by sending stone cutters who dressed down each of the four sides of the monument about three inches in depth and then recut the names and inscriptions on the monument. The monument now appears without any of these mutilations. Is the statement concerning the work of recutting correct, and when was it done? The statement of mutilation is correct. The monument was recut in 1888.
The monument now stands on a level piece of ground on top of the ridge, said level plat being about 150 feet wide. Veterans who assisted in burying the dead there on June 28, 1876, say that the top of the ridge at that time was much narrower, and that only a small level place then existed. An old-time photograph also shows such to have been the case. Apparently the top or peak of the ridge has been graded down at some time, and the grading operations must have been rather extensive. Do the records of your office show such to have been the case? When was the work carried out? Are there any data as to the extent of grading at this point? The records afford no information regarding this grading, but it is probable that it was done at the time the monument was erected or when the trenches were dug around the plot on which the monument stands.
(In Walter Camp Collection, folder 6, box 4, BYU Library.)Damage to joints of upper stones 1.2.3.11/bmi/files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/13454332/downloadfile-1.jpegRepaired joints (bevel) 1.2.3.12/bmi/files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/13454332/downloadfile-19.jpegSubsequent lintel damage 1.2.3.11/bmi/files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/13454332/3b38596r.jpg~
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 23, 2013 15:55:20 GMT -6
In a number of your posts, your pictures fail to appear. Instead, all I see is this: [image]
Do you see this as well?
I would like to see what it is that you are trying to show...can you repost the pictures?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 23, 2013 19:53:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 23, 2013 20:04:06 GMT -6
In a number of your posts, your pictures fail to appear. Instead, all I see is this: [image] Do you see this as well? I would like to see what it is that you are trying to show...can you repost the pictures? I've checked the image posts and links which display ok. Here is the monument ~ 1.2.3.11/bmi/files.myopera.com/herosrest/albums/13454332/downloadfile-1.jpegIf you examine the middle joint in any modern image, or in fact any since 1886, you will see that the monument was altered at its middle, a bevel or groove was cut into into it to prevent further frost and ice damage. It was rather a clever job of work that was performed. TOP CLASS. Reply #5 on page 1 of the topic, has a better image of the monument before the repair. You can try right clicking on image blanks, and show or view image. The vertical edges were also trimmed, it is an outstanding result, practical simplicity and quite beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 24, 2013 8:06:34 GMT -6
You can try right clicking on image blanks, and show or view image. That doesn't seem to work. The URLs for those [image] pictures won't connect either. The 1.2.3.11 server is inoperative. It seems you have posted a bad link. Try removing the 1.2.3.11/bmi from your link...then the picture may display.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 25, 2013 21:44:53 GMT -6
This is most disconcerting, and l can only believe it may be a problem with iPv6. I'll refer the problem to IETF and request a fix. Mean time i'll try another revelation as a new post. Hopefully the addressing issues will be sorted out for us. There is an image you can search out using google or bing, etc. Which is of the scout Curley sat on a horse beside the monument. In that image you can see the monument as it was originally and compare it to a more modern image. This addressing stuff will hopefully get sorted out sometime. You may have noticed the web is becoming a real mess these days. Sorry for the problems beyond my control and remit.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Jan 26, 2013 8:27:00 GMT -6
This is most disconcerting, and l can only believe it may be a problem with iPv6. I'll refer the problem to IETF and request a fix. Mean time i'll try another revelation as a new post. In the meantime, why don't you fix it yourself? Remove these from any image you are trying to post: 1.2.3.11/bmi/ 1.2.3.12/bmi/
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 26, 2013 11:12:33 GMT -6
HR
A few questions
What is the distance between the Ft Custer location and what you claim to be a lumber mill?
What is wrong with all the lumber between the Ft Custer location and the LBH battlefield that would cause them to move such a great distance?
Why would they process the timber on the opposite side of the river from FT Custer destination?
What is wrong with the trees along the Big Horn river?
Would the BH river not float timber as well or better than the LBH?
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 26, 2013 11:46:26 GMT -6
HR you mention your expert opinion have you gone through a voir dire process and qualified as an expert? Would you pass a Daubert challenge?
Thanks
AZ Ranger
|
|