|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 29, 2014 5:44:51 GMT -6
It is breakfast time, nothing better than eggs up and cold rehash.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 29, 2014 6:45:35 GMT -6
RE: Nye-Cartwright (Blummer) Ridge I'm only a newbie here but as I suspected all along no Nye-Cartwright cartridges have ever been subjected to forensic analysis, at least according to Douglas Scott (see my correspondence with NPS Ranger Jerry Jasmer, above). The sole claim these cases have to being battle related is that they are unstamped (77,78, etc.), which theoretically dates them to 1876 or earlier. A 1920's era local Montana rancher, say like Joe Blummer, would probably know where the US Army cavalry forts had existed in that area. Even as late as the early 1880's I'd wager that regular firing practices at these remote outposts were going through many surplus boxes of unstamped, pre-1877 Springfield ammunition. If a person were of a mind to perpetrate a Custer-related hoax based on cartridge casings it would be a simple matter to round up a bunch of these old firing range casings and cherry-pick out the unstamped shells. By the 1920's I'm pretty sure even amateur western historians like Mr. Blummer were familiar with the date-stamping of cartridges as an identification technique. It is clear from vintage photographs (early 1900's) that the whole Custer enterprise was a very, very big deal in those parts. Custer was a world-renowned local hero, of sorts, and you can imagine that many folks would have wanted to attach themselves to his fame. What better way than to locate important undiscovered battle artifacts? Especially if they are right on Custer's trail, but not so close to the actual battlefield as to be suspicious. When Blummer revealed his cartridge discoveries on the ridge other interested parties (Supt. Luce and his wealthy friends) swallowed the bait like hungry trout going after a hatch of midges at dusk. WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE FAMOUS!! We'll have our names on all the maps! It wasn't long before other locals like Hank Weibert joined the game and uncovered additional planted shells. Fast-forward to modern times. Following a well-timed wildfire in the 1980's limited funds become available for a forensic analysis of battlefield relics. The archeologists in charge narrow the inventory to a selection that will produce verifiable results of national interest and scientific importance. An educated guess is the Nye-Cartwright cartridge collections are rejected for study because of issues regarding provenance. Some testing was probably done to ensure that something wasn't being overlooked. Bottom line, the Nye-Cartwright artifacts don't pass the scientific "smell test" and only items from the NPS battlefield property are analyzed. My takeaway is that Custer's men never fired a shot until they were nearly at Ford B, C, or D, and that relevant scientific minds are of the same opinion. Mulligan There is no scientific smell test for this battlefield and who determines scientific relevant minds? Not sure what you mean by forensic analysis and what it determines. Since the firearms are not available to match or not than I am not sure of your point. The only analysis that I have read involves matching cases to each other. There are a rare few firearms that match the cases I believe. So even the original cases that have been looked at could be ones from some fort and if more than one is placed at different locations the results and conclusions would be the same. Your relevant scientific minds would need to have all the firearms of the battle and cartridge cases and bullets fired from each for comparison to do what I think you are suggesting. Currently the forensic show only less than 70 total different .45-70 firearms that have made tool marks on cases. That means there are a lot more cases to be found that were fired by the rest of the captured .45-70 and those that remained with regiment. There is also a chance that the Indians had captured a rifle or carbine prior to the battle. In order for your theory to be correct than there would be no corresponding Indian locations and recovered artifacts at those locations. I think you need to get Weibert's book on Cartridges and Cases and see the proximity of Indian locations. The cases found are not just those that could be found at some fort range. There are Indian cases found also and I don't think they used the fort range. It would seem to me that you would have to have cases identified as being fired from distinctly different firearms and that number would have to exceed the total available firearms during the battle. If someone were to fire a period correct carbine and use period correct ammunition they would have passed the current forensics test as being fired a distinctly different firearm. There majorly of the forensics discussed and written about did not match cases to a known 7th cavalry firearms. Without that your relevant scientific minds have to no forensic legs to stand on in my opinion. There can be no finding of fact that cases looked at were not fired from a firearm that could not have been at the battlefield. At best we have a location where found and a separation by tool marks on a case. There is no verification or scientific finding of all the firearms that were in the battle. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 29, 2014 7:11:02 GMT -6
And the next time Fred the Expert sends me on a wild goose chase searching through multiple archaeology books for non-existent ballistic evidence I'll nail him to this board high so everyone can note how he sometimes misdirects newcomers who don't subscribe to worn-out pseudo 19th Century military theories.
I think you owe Fred an apology, and make it a good one, don’t you, why you would think that he would “send you on a wild goose chase” when he has put himself out to help you.
IMHO, the Custer battle stopped being important Military History with the Charge of Flowerdew's Squadron in the Moreuil Woods.
Then why on earth are you here?
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 29, 2014 7:25:19 GMT -6
And the next time Fred the Expert sends me on a wild goose chase searching through multiple archeology books for non-existent ballistic evidence I'll nail him to this board high so everyone can note how he sometimes misdirects newcomers who don't subscribe to worn-out pseudo 19th Century military theories.
I went to Fox's AH&CLB page 139 and it covered Nye Cartwright and the findings of cavalry and Indian cases and locations, You seem to believe there are some forensic tests that could be applied that wasn't. Care to share that test with us? Of the cases that were looked in your "forensics" what firearms did they use to determine that they were battle related?
What we have is observation from forensic procedures that one case matches another. No more no less. That they used the word forensic somehow means proof of something to some laymen. It worked because you bought into it.
The information in Fox as Fred pointed out is there.
Don't be fooled that by using the word forensic that it would give you location, date placed, firearm that was at the battle or one that was not. Forensic only means they used a scientific repeatable technique that is acceptable in court to distinguish tool markings on a case or rifling on a bullet. I think you should consider the test like taking fingerprints. What the forensic method looked at would be a multiple fingerprint set and they would compare them to see if any matched each other within the set.
What is missing is that we don't have finger prints from all of those battle participants to make a comparison. (the actual battle firearms) There is no way to determine what day the finger print was made. (only battle day artifacts are significant) There is no way to determine the location were placed from a fingerprint. (that location is recorded by the investigator)
Fred gave you good information but you did not understand how they used the word forensic and apparently thought it means more than it really does.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 29, 2014 8:41:26 GMT -6
And the next time Fred the Expert sends me on a wild goose chase searching through multiple archaeology books for non-existent ballistic evidence I'll nail him to this board high so everyone can note how he sometimes misdirects newcomers who don't subscribe to worn-out pseudo 19th Century military theories. IMHO, the Custer battle stopped being important Military History with the Charge of Flowerdew's Squadron in the Moreuil Woods. Well now… I think I have heard this tune before. First of all Mr. Mulligan, I have never, not once, here or anywhere else, claimed to be an expert on George Custer or the battle of the Little Big Horn. You can dig through here, the other boards, or anywhere else you would like and you will never find such a claim. If you wish to attach that label to my name, you do so at your own risk and embarrassment; I am sure there are many experts out there who simply laugh at the mention of my name, if they have even heard of it at all. As far as I am concerned, I am a mere student, just another LBH hack who knows far less than the likes of AZ Ranger, DC, Quincannon, Montrose, Ian, and many others. As for sending you on a “wild-goose-chase,” I must apologize… seriously: I thought you were interested in the archaeological findings and cartridge analysis of what the archaeologists found in their various searches. I read all the books some time ago and had forgotten whether or not they dealt with the Nye-Cartwright and Luce Ridge finds. After reading your response, above, I realize you are the expert—certainly not me—and I should probably include you in the names of those who know considerably more about this subject than I do. I am rather surprised, however, you read them all so quickly!! Wow! I am impressed!! Next… I do not take very kindly to threats—never have, especially since all I did was try to help you, however astray that may have led one. And from what I have seen so far, you have neither the capital nor the accomplishment to be “nailing” anyone. What I am expert in, however, is “board fights,” so I would be real careful in who you think you can nail anywhere. Also, I find it rather counter-productive to engage with naïfs, so you are wasting your time. Next… (sorry for the repetition)… as long as you keep mentioning Philbrick, you are losing credibility here. No one who knows anything about this matter holds Philbrick in anything but the lowest esteem. Also, as long as we’re doing this, I do not subscribe to any of the so-called “worn-out pseudo 19th Century military theories” about this battle. I have, through some modest research, developed my own theories: all of them in the 21st century, and they are a lot less hackneyed than many others I am sure you have come across—at least to me. If you do not subscribe to mine, that’s fine—if you even know what they are!!—and regardless, I couldn’t care less. If, however, what I have read of yours indicates your current thinking, then it is clear to me you have absolutely no military background, no experience or knowledge of military tactics or even of the military in general, and not much of a background in LBH research. Now, if you will kindly accept a word of advice. Simmer down; read what these fellows here have to say, digest it—Montrose and Quincannon retired as senior field-grade officers with probably 50 years service between them, including combat experience; forget the Philbricks and Donovans and the other opinionated claptrap of this world and read some first-hand stuff; and be open to constructive criticism, eschewing the snide remarks—if any. Personally, I learn something new every time I read one of their posts. No one gets attacked here first: wise-asses bring it on themselves, and everyone on these boards is willing to provide you with whatever data they can. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 29, 2014 9:16:01 GMT -6
Fred: You do remember the other guy who read all those books in the same seemingly twinkling of an eye don't you? You remember, the one who was a member of the 1st Earth Brigade, Battalion, Company, Platoon, Squad, Section, whatever, who would defeat the enemies of the realm by thought transfer.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 29, 2014 10:10:22 GMT -6
That's really funny, Chuck, because I was thinking the exact same thing earlier this morning. Especially with the flinging around of certain names.
I know you had issues with Henk, but he is the kind of poster needed here and in other places as well. Plus, I think you misunderstood his intentions or the way he presented thinks. Henk is from the Netherlands, so his English-- while better than mine, certainly-- is not his first language.
I wonder if we are correct about this one, however.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 29, 2014 10:16:01 GMT -6
I had but one issue with Hevat. I think in the end he understood my heartburn. Understood does not mean like, but so what. I don't know what prompted him to leave. That was not any desire of mine.
The only thing firmly established about this one is that he suffers from penis-arrow envy. Maybe he feels cheated.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Aug 29, 2014 18:02:03 GMT -6
Well, everyone, a pleasant good afternoon to you all!
~~~
Thank you, Montrose, especially, for being a calm voice of reason today. I've accidentally tipped a small beehive over, I know it, and I must make some amends.
Fred has helped me immensely to acclimate to this board with sage advice and helpful commentary on my posts. Initially, I wasn't particularly upset that he directed me to the battlefield archaeology library when I inquired about the vetting of NC casings. A lot of good information in the books. Also viewed Battlefield Detectives episode concerning LBH findings. Just never seemed to square that NC collections were not included in the original Scott-Fox analysis and I wondered why not, or if I had missed it.
I have a thick skin, but it's irritated me that QC is so quick to use swagger and insult to make his points, valid or not, and his idea that Fred "would rip my ass wide open" for making some innocuous observations about sight lines at Garryowen was finally a bit much. I wondered when, exactly, did QC lose his perspective and when did Fred become his attack dog?
So my response regarding "nailing" Fred was to that attempt at initimidation, and to QC's insistence on sometimes channeling Peckinpah stock player Strother Martin in his posts for effect. QC was apparently once a respected military officer and I would think he'd choose to write with the persona of a more cultivated actor, say George C. Scott, if he wanted to roll that way.
"It's not important that they know I'm acting, it's only important that I know I'm acting!" -- GCS, in Patton
~~~
That said, let me introduce a bit more about myself.
I am a conservative California Democrat, retired from the hotel beverage industry, with seven grandchildren.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, by any stretch, although I have a sense of alternate possibilities. I believe the Warren Commission had it pretty close to right. There were no other shooters than LHO. But, of course, you have to ask that question yourself and make up your own mind.
I was a big fan of Ronald Reagan -- in fact, I knew Ronald Reagan. He was a witty conversationalist and was extremely interested in all aspects of the West. He imagined that certain political principles he espoused had their beginnings in frontier hardship and the pioneers who met those challenges.
I have trained and handled Springer spaniels in the field. If nothing else I think this gives me a good grasp of how to hunt over vast, undulating terrain.
My folks grew up in Montana, not that far from the LBH battlefield.
~~~
I have, obviuosly, come to this board without the prerequisite experience in military tactics and philosophy to acquit myself well from the beginning. I hope to learn here how battles are won, as well as lost, and to perhaps contribute something useful in the end.
My experience on discussion boards is limited, which I admit. I look around and see a lot of knowledgeable characters here. Some cool, others not so much.
"You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had." -- Donald Rumsfeld, The Fog of War.
Suos cultores scientia coronat.
Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 29, 2014 18:37:54 GMT -6
You are obviously not from Virginia or you would know that no'count peckerwood predates Strother Martin by several centuries. I am.
When I attack, I know only one way, go for the vitals. That does not make it personal. Only you can make it personal.
No man is my attack dog. I don't need one. I do perfectly well on my own. Fred is my friend. The first I had here. When you attack him, you attack me.
I am easy to get along with. There are two ways. Join in, accepting and rejecting as you wish, or stay out of my way.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 29, 2014 19:11:00 GMT -6
... it's irritated me that QC is so quick to use swagger and insult to make his points, valid or not, and his idea that Fred "would rip my ass wide open" for making some innocuous observations about sight lines at Garryowen was finally a bit much. I wondered when, exactly, did QC lose his perspective and when did Fred become his attack dog? Well, I think your post here, overall, has cleared the air. I hope. Just so you know who you are dealing with however, I will be as candid with you as you have been in this post. I see no useful purpose for anyone to be a so-called "troll" and I have seen plenty of them on these boards, on others, and on my very limited experience with Facebook, a medium I joined, left, re-joined because a friend asked me to, and am now withdrawing from except on a very limited basis. I think trolls are just stupid fools, ignorant, and very, very insecure, in all likelihood people who have failed at everything they have tried. So as of right now, I do not see that of you. I hope it stays that way. I didn't see QC's comments about me, so I will take your word for it... I am old; have no patience; and am not interested in going back over old posts to ferret out something of no real interest. If you attacked me personally, that would be a different story, but apparently you haven't. “Nobody throws me my own gun and says run.” James Coburn, The Magnificent Seven.And believe me, while QC and I are friends and distant comrades-in-arms, I will never attack anyone for their honest lack of knowledge or for making innocuous observations, however trite they may have been. And quite frankly, I do not recall you making any such trite observations. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves...” Cassius, I, 2, Julius Cæsar—Shakespeare As for your postulated theories, Montrose dealt with them far better than I could or would have. So if you wish to discuss them further, that's fine, only let's piecemeal it and deal with specifics rather than some overall set of generalities. Also, I never steer anyone wrong. I have never led anyone astray with this business and I share data, maybe more than anyone. These boards are crammed with my work and I think others will support me making that comment. I am a liberal New York Republican (I think that is the East Coast version of "a conservative California Democrat"), retired from Wall Street, with three children, seven grandchildren, and two great-grandchildren. Nor am I. To me, anything more than two people in a conspiracy is nothing but a frat party. So was I. I have owned six Dalmatians, a little toy poodle, and currently a Yorkshire Terrier. I learned "to hunt over vast, undulating terrain" through ten years in the army, some of it in Germany, some of it in Georgia, some of it in Virginia, some of it in New York, and some of it in Vietnam. The most difficult terrain was in the Pentagon. [quoteMy folks grew up in Montana...[/quote] New York and Massachusetts. There is no such prerequisite here. The only requirement is a passion to learn and a commensurate passion to contribute. Us too, of that you can be assured. A word of advice: as close as some of us become-- and I have made several very serious and fine friendships from these boards, fellows I travel with out West-- this is a very impersonal medium and many times things are taken for something other than what they mean: it can be very destructive. Watch for that and don't always jump... like I have. But take it from me: these are top-notch people here, even though several of them do not get along. There isn't a soul on these boards I would like to see somewhere else. Ira furor brevis est. Horace Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 1, 2014 12:54:18 GMT -6
RE: Recent Battlefield Artifacts -- 21st Century? Several posts back I had asked here about information regarding recent battlefield discoveries. This was not an idle or general inquiry. I was at the LBH Battlefield only a few months ago. The NPS ranger giving the afternoon patio lecture, or "Battle Talk", had mentioned it. Something about private individuals uncovering "small military items" (not evidence of human remains) on property north of the battlefield. At the time I didn't think much about it. The "Custer Bug" had not bitten me yet, I guess. Since then I have come across an archival reference to this recent find. Recent, meaning maybe the early 2000's. The source was none other than the former Battlefield Superintendent, Darrell J. Cook. Mr. Cook served in that position between 2002 and 2008. His quoted comments appeared in an article in Wild West magazine in August, 2005, and on a related website, Historynet.com, on April 6, 2007. The article is Custer's Last Stand Still Stands Up, written by Robert Nightengale. www.historynet.com/custers-last-stand-still-stands-up.htmCaveat: author Robert Nightengale appears to be a somewhat controversial figure. He is or was part owner of the main building at Garryowen. He is a member of the Custer Battlefield Preservation Committee. He and his associates have been involved in legal proceedings involving Gary Kortlander, another owner of Garryowen property. There have been allegations of physical violence between the two men and other accusations. There are various court orders attesting to this. www.custermuseum.org/Battlefield%20News/Nightengale%20found%20at%20fault%20for%20stalking%20Museum%20Director.htmBecause former Supt. Cook is featured prominently in Nightengale's magazine article I will assume there is some intellectual alliance between them, and that the text has been vetted to some degree by Mr. Cook. There is a sense that the article puts forward Mr. Cook's version of LBH battlefield events. ~~~ In any case, in the Wild West article the LBH artifact discovery was described by Supt. Cook as revealing "a previously unidentified cavalry combat position north of Last Stand Hill". That would've been fairly spectacular news to the Custer aficionados on this board, I thought, so I asked the membership if anyone knew anything about it. Fred, the most organized of us, was the only member who replied to the question directly. He said to the best of his knowledge the most recent relics were unearthed in 1994. ~~~ But what, exactly, were these more recent discoveries? It was an intriguing concept. I thought these "small military items" could very well be significant material that hadn't yet seen the full light of day, and I set out on on their trail. I anticipated that I might have to contact shady antiquities dealers or other criminal types who trade in illegally plundered artifacts on the black market. Investigating undisclosed, privately-held Custer Battlefield memorabilia might be like entering a vast, labyrinthine game of "Tomb Raiders". Then again, I might just find these items listed for auction on Ebay. It was somewhat disappointing to learn from my friends at NPS that Fred was correct, and that the most recent artifact discoveries they're aware of -- including those outside the boundaries of the battlefield -- were catalogued by Doug Scott in his 1995 publication, A Good Walk Around the Boundary. I'd love to read Scott's book, but the closest copy available is in the library at UC Berkeley -- 400 miles away. Public interest in Little Bighorn Battlefield archaeology is apparently not at an all-time high. However, I was able to locate a synopsis of A Good Walk Around the Boundary, with information about how to order a special reprint of the 77-page report. nebraskahistory.org/archeo/napa/special1.htmMulligan
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 1, 2014 19:19:29 GMT -6
The article is Custer's Last Stand Still Stands Up, written by Robert Nightengale. Mulligan, I may be wrong here, but I wouldn't trust a thing Nightengale writes or says. As I said, I may be incorrect and I may be misjudging the man, but I do not believe his rep is as sterling as it should be. Check him out better before you start flinging his name around as some sort of LBH guru. The fact the guy lives or lived there means nothing. Also... for personal reasons that may color my comments here, I would not put too much stock in what you read in Wild West magazine. Again, I have personal issues with its management and one of its contributors so I may not be quite as objective as I should be, but the mag smacks too much of comic book history than serious, well-vetted research else. I do not believe they are as interested in good historical articles, preferring to cater to a commercial audience of quick hit, "oh yeah!"-type readers. This is precisely the publication I was referring to when I told you the 1994 date. The pamphlet is superb. It was a joint effort between two Ph.D's, Scott and Peter Bleed. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 2, 2014 0:09:07 GMT -6
Fred,
The Nightengale article was thoughtfully written, with lots of interesting military minutiae, and I was drawn to it initially because of former Supt. Cook's involvement.
Of course, the more I heard about Mr. Nightengale the more I sort of threw my hands up in the air, rolled my eyes, and asked myself, "Why is everyone involved with Custer such a ******** nutcase!"
I am sure, for the most part, this is also true of the JFK assassination. For every person seeking honest answers to a great national mystery there are a hundred others who are in it for unsavory reasons. It is a challenge to sort out the Vincent Bugliosi's from the conspiracy crackpots if one is just getting into the game.
I'm sure I have more bona fides than the average tourist falling out of the bus at LBH Battlefield. I believe the General has gotten a bum wrap for a hundred and thirty-eight years and I support every effort to rehabilitate his legend for the contemporary era. He strode like a giant across the West. He has historical charisma to burn.
I think it's an American tragedy that, currently, one is more likely to read of his life in Wild West than in Smithsonian.
I wish I could be referencing a lot of high-brow Custer material on curved-television, Ultra HD, 4K media platforms -- but that's just not the marketplace today. I pull out old PBS discs and sit at David McCullough's knee, or I watch Custer Apollo on Youtube.
Anticipating your next book in 2015.
Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 4, 2014 7:27:36 GMT -6
There was a more recent finding of part of a carbine in drainage on the back side of LSH and close to where it intersects with highway 212. Scott mentioned it on our walk around. On our ride skirting and through the private parts of the battlefield it would be close to where we met the horse trailer just off 212.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|