|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 4, 2014 8:56:38 GMT -6
Mulligan,
1. You don't know what 'bona fide' means. It's an adjective, meaning sincere, or real. When someone is said to have 'bona fides' it's an abbreviation of the phrase including a noun for the subject at hand. What in God's name do you mean by yourself having bona fides in regard to Custer?
2. Custer's rep has gone through cycles of god to goat and back. That you think it's been all downhill for his rep speaks to you being near totally unread and uninformed.
3. He isn't important or worthy of separate study as a Man or soldier. As a type, he is not unique. But he doesn't need you even so.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Sept 4, 2014 9:26:18 GMT -6
Darkcloud,
The term 'bone fides' is used in special operations and by CIA as a term to establish the credentials of someone you have not met before. As a relevant analogy for this board, you want to know if your source is benteeneast or custerwest.
I have no idea what Mulligan meant by it.
Mulligan came in here, and made a few new guy errors, and got blasted. In my opinion, he is trying to be a meaningful contributor. This is polite talk for cut the guy some slack.
Attack the opinion, not the poster.
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 4, 2014 9:31:55 GMT -6
Mulligan came in here, and made a few new guy errors.... In my opinion, he is trying to be a meaningful contributor. This is polite talk for cut the guy some slack. I agree completely. C'mon, everyone, give the guy a break. He seems smart, savvy, willing to contribute and learn. We can at least show him the same respect he is trying very hard to show us. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 4, 2014 9:44:01 GMT -6
Mulligan,
Regarding Nightengale... and others.
It is important you make up your own mind regarding these characters. I am loathe to criticize the work of others, simply because I am doing a small amount of writing and I feel, personally, there should be an element of respect shown to those doing or trying to do the same thing I am. There are exceptions, especially when I feel someone is so far off the mark as to be historically "dangerous." If I am not mistaken, DC has brought up this point several times in the past, and this event is fraught with such dangerous misinformation.
I know Nightengale only by reputation, never having read anything he has written. That is the way it is with a number of these guys, the latest being the (late-) Gordon Harper effort put out by his daughter and a fellow named Gordon Richard ("Hunk-Papa," by name, on these boards). Gordon Harper and I went after one another on these boards-- though we became friends and had even planned on meeting at the LBH when he died suddenly-- and I know many of his theories and ideas. He was one of the most knowledgable people regarding the LBH, but when he came out with stuff like there were no bodies found in Deep Ravine, or Reno had no cause to stop his charge, or Custer used flankers riding up to Reno Hill, and a number of other things, that's when I draw the line and don't bother any more. Every one of those things defies contemporary accounts and is used for supporting personal prejudices and preconceptions. Then, when he eschews the Fox theory and his archaeological findings, that just does it for me.
Bottom line, however, is you need to make up your own mind.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 4, 2014 10:03:03 GMT -6
The man is only doing what every new person does, and that is ask questions and make assumptions, to me that what these boards are for, and if he is heading down the right path then someone can help him rather than kick him, so bravo Mulligan.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 4, 2014 10:09:55 GMT -6
Mulligan maybe I missed your response but I am interested in what you believed is possible when you posted something to the effect of a forensic look at Nye-Cartwright, Luce, Blummer and others? I work in law enforcement and know the limitations on what you can rely upon.
Thanks
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 4, 2014 22:09:19 GMT -6
This is a discussion board, not a meeting at Camp David, and I can take the heat for the things that I say that may reveal my intellectual naivete. There are no consequences in the real world for my errors here, so I may make more than the average bear. As I've posted elsewhere on this board, I consider the somewhat rough treatment I've encountered on the forum thus far to be merely a "rude baptism" into a new order of thinking. And that is meant as an expression of respect. I do feel sometimes, though, that I may have taken the wrong exit at Starbucks and wound up accidentally walking into the Situation Room of the Joint Forces of Military Command during a closed-door national security briefing. Thanks to everyone who has expressed support. Thank you, also, to those of you that have brought me up short for weak thinking, sloppy research, and generally poor soldiership. I seize that gauntlet. ~~~ When I said I had "bona fides" I believe I used the term correctly, at least colloquially. What I intended to imply was, I have enough sincere interest and demonstrable background in the study of Custeriana to stand apart from the busloads of tourists who visit the monument daily, and that this should be apparent to like-minded people -- such as this board's membership. Montrose was close, with the CIA analogy. I also have "huevos", if anybody wants to dissect that term. ~~~ AZ: My personal inquiry, my angle, about the Nye-Cartwright cartridge collections' cases revolved around the issue of whether their firing pin impressions and breech marks actually matched those of any of the shells found on NPS battlefield property. I've probably been watching too much NCIS but I felt that if there were no matches between the two samples it might indicate the cases found on NC were not fired by the same Springfield rifles that cavalrymen carried into the Custer battle. Maybe my logic is flawed. Even more curious to me, I could not find that any such laboratory-based cross-checking of NC/NPS Battlefield cartridge cases had ever been attempted. At my request, NPS Ranger Jerry Jasmer has recently asked Douglas Scott directly about this, and Mr. Scott verifies that this type of ballistic analysis has never been performed. Former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi, in his lectures on the JFK assassination, has discussed "proving things by other means", a technique that renders all other further questioning about a particular matter moot. The NC skirmish has possibly been "proven by other means", and I am too focused on my own naive ballistics methodology questions to understand that. At this point I am confused, and not really satisfied. I am listening carefully, however, and I'm willing to return to the Fox research, and the work of others. ~~~ The number of areas of expertise I'm having to familiarize myself with recently is truly mind-boggling, and I'm beginning to understand why LBH is, in some regards, a very deep game for serious military and law enforcement thinkers. Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 4, 2014 23:30:10 GMT -6
Mulligan: Play your hand as you see fit to play it. You have been tested. You are stronger for it.
If you have so far committed one fault, I would say it is your shotgun or scatter gun approach to the battle. Not an uncommon rookie mistake. There are so many things you want to know, finding answers become disjointed, not knowing where to fit them in the total picture. What I would suggest to you as an alternative is first concentrate on the flow of the battle, how it played out. Establish in your mind a base line, your baseline, not mine or anyone elses. Then as you proceed and gather new information do an analysis of that information based upon the established base line. If it fits, incorporate it into your total body of knowledge. If it does not, either reject it or dig some more. Right now your are grasping at isolated things and events, with no central theme to fit these things or events into.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 5, 2014 3:29:03 GMT -6
Thanks, QC. I'm old and I have no patience anymore. It would be better if the great mysteries of the battle could be unraveled like the Da Vinci Code. I'm always looking for the hidden lever that opens the faux bookcase that hides the secret inner chamber. Aha! Custer was on the field, in his element. His brilliance was available for strategic and tactical operations. It makes no sense that he would lose so dramatically. At the very least, he or Tom would realize they were in trouble early and create a redoubt where the men might survive. If it failed to hold, evidence that it had existed would remain. In the aftermath, when the dust finally settled, the picture would be clear. It appears to you that I am taking the shotgun approach, but to me it feels like I am building my beach one grain of sand at a time. Everyone more or less agrees on what took place up until the Cedar Coulee halt. There may be some lingering questions about Custer's motivations for the deployments of Benteen and Reno, and the wisdom of the decision. I'll come back to this at a later time. Now, I ride with Custer. Martin recedes into the distance behind us, carrying some kind of message. We edge forward from the halt, in columns four abreast, causing a muffled jangling of horses and equipment. The five mounted companies slowly take the gentle turn left at the opening of the big coulee. We're passing over dry, broom-colored grass, kicking up some dust. It is at this juncture that the General's plan begins to unfold. I can see him leaning in his saddle, speaking to Lt. Cooke as we begin to build speed and momentum -- they are only a few ranks ahead of me -- Cooke looks back and signals. I can't make it out. Are we dividing? Are some of us being directed onto the coulee slope, while the others are turning north, climbing the hill? Then I wake up, and I'm in a sweat. It's present day, 2014. The light is on. My wife is up late, reading a book on her side of the bed. She looks at me with a sad expression. "Hon," she says softly, "You went to Montana on that Custer expedition and you've never come back." Mulligan Medicine Tail Coulee
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 5, 2014 6:10:08 GMT -6
This is a discussion board, not a meeting at Camp David, and I can take the heat for the things that I say that may reveal my intellectual naivete. There are no consequences in the real world for my errors here, so I may make more than the average bear. As I've posted elsewhere on this board, I consider the somewhat rough treatment I've encountered on the forum thus far to be merely a "rude baptism" into a new order of thinking. And that is meant as an expression of respect. I do feel sometimes, though, that I may have taken the wrong exit at Starbucks and wound up accidentally walking into the Situation Room of the Joint Forces of Military Command during a closed-door national security briefing. Thanks to everyone who has expressed support. Thank you, also, to those of you that have brought me up short for weak thinking, sloppy writing, and generally poor soldiership. I seize that gauntlet. ~~~ When I said I had "bona fides" I believe I used the term correctly, at least colloquially. What I intended to imply was, I have enough sincere interest and demonstrable background in the study of Custeriana to stand apart from the busloads of tourists who visit the monument daily, and that this should be apparent to like-minded people -- such as this board's membership. Montrose was close, with the CIA analogy. I also have "huevos", if anybody wants to dissect that term. ~~~ AZ: My personal inquiry, my angle, about the Nye-Cartwright cartridge collections' cases revolved around the issue of whether their firing pin impressions and breech marks actually matched those of any of the shells found on NPS battlefield property. I've probably been watching too much NCIS but I felt that if there were no matches between the two samples it might indicate the cases found on NC were not fired by the same Springfield rifles that cavalrymen carried into the Custer battle. Maybe my logic is flawed. Even more curious to me, I could not find that any such laboratory-based cross-checking of NC/NPS Battlefield cartridge cases had ever been attempted. At my request, NPS Ranger Jerry Jasmer has recently asked Douglas Scott directly about this, and Mr. Scott verifies that this type of ballistic analysis has never been performed. Former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi, in his lectures on the JFK assassination, has discussed "proving things by other means", a technique that renders all other further questioning about a particular matter moot. The NC skirmish has possibly been "proven by other means", and I am too focused on my own naive ballistics methodology questions to understand that. At this point I am confused, and not really satisfied. I am listening carefully, however, and I'm willing to return to the Fox research, and the work of others. ~~~ The number of areas of expertise I'm having to familiarize myself with recently is truly mind-boggling, and I'm beginning to understand why LBH is, in some regards, a very deep game for serious military and law enforcement thinkers. Mulligan I think you will find here a wealth of knowledge and different approaches at looking at this battle. I would agree that television gives an impression that all cases can be solved using forensic techniques. When I started this job and took things to the DPS crime lab I expected those same results. When I got my first "consistent with" finding I realized there is not always a black or white answer. I got to ask Scott lots of questions along with Donahue on a recent visit to the battlefield. I admit that asking about Nye Cartwright was not one of them. I have long accepted this is a contaminated area to look for evidence of what happened. Wrong day, modern artifacts, planted artifacts, removed artifacts to name a few. If I were pursuing your line of thinking which has merit I would ask Scott has he been denied access to the Nye Cartwright artifacts? Is there concerns that the various collections have been mixed over time. Is there a basic assumption that what Scott collected is all from actual June 25 battle related firearms. Could Scott's findings be duplicated with period correct planted cases? It would be interesting to see of all collections how many different .45-70 firearms are represented. Once the number of distinctly different firearm tool marked identified cases exceed the potential of know firearm numbers that would give a finding consistent with salting in a particular area. The huge problem to overcome is the set of known firearms to have been in the battle. They left with the Indians in most cases and very few of those remaining are available form matching. The problem with salting for tourist is that the locations would be somewhere within easy access of the public I would think. So the battlefield and its road and trail system would seem prime areas to me. So if you picked up period correct range cases and put them on the battlefield in before the archeological recoveries then what? Your theory is that someone maybe wanted recognition and created a battle location that didn't exist if I have it right. Then I would not expect to find Indian locations and artifacts corresponding to soldier formations. Those have been found also. I would think it would be harder to create the Indian locations since they didn't use the military ranges. Again the only thing the forensics of matching of fired cases are findings that they don't match, are consistent with, or match within some probability. In fairness to the TV shows the crimes scenes are protected and the timing is close to the event being investigated in most cases unless your watching the cold case shows. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 5, 2014 6:30:01 GMT -6
I was at a trial in Camp Verde regarding a poached elk and the defendant was his own attorney. I testified that I believe the elk was shot with a .22 and possibly the defendants .223 that we found in his vehicle. The crime lab witness had testified that he could not make a determination that a hole in a rib bone was made with a .22 caliber bullet. The genius defendant attorney asked how could I make that determination and put it in my report when the crime lab could not make that determination.
I was sitting on the witness stand and with the rib bone that had at 3/4 of the .22 hole in bone and missing only a part of the circumference along with an unfired 223 cartridge seized from the defendant I turned to the judge and explained how I made my finding. I suggested that a larger caliber bullet would not fit into the whole and demonstrated with a .357 cartridge from my duty belt. I suggested that a snug fit would be sufficient for me to make the determination. I stuck the bullet end of the cartridge into the hole and it went in as far as the brass part of the case. It was sufficient enough to hold the bone fragment alone with the cartridge sticking out at a right angle. The judge stated let me see that and he duplicated what I had done and then looked at the crime lab witness.
It got worse for the defendant and in the end he was found guilty.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 5, 2014 6:39:06 GMT -6
Mulligan
For me looking at MTC from horseback and attempting to think about the big village I would have to cross it with at least some soldiers to clear the covered travel corridors and potential ambush locations across MTC. Those areas are where the soldier and Indian artifacts have been found. I have approached MTC from the extended SSR, Cedar Coulee, and my current favorite the drainage just below Weir Point. They all end up in relativity short stretch of MTC.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Sept 7, 2014 17:35:33 GMT -6
AZ: You are on target with regards to my earlier hunch about the Nye-Cartwright cartridge cases. My original feelings were that someone was trying to make a name for themselves. My mind is starting to work differently, and I am not so sure I feel the same way now. ~~~ Firing pin impressions have been analyzed on cartridge cases found in the Reno-Benteen defense area and these markings were later matched to a test cartridge fired in a Model 1873 Springfield 45/70 "Trapdoor" being consigned for auction at James D. Julia Auctioneers. This ballistic test authenticated the carbine as being a genuine LBH battlefield artifact. The Springfield was sold to the highest bidder ($126,500.00) in Fall, 2013 Of course, I had heard that Scott and Fox had performed a similar analysis for NPS cartridge cases, and the archaeologists were able to determine shooters' different locations as weapons moved about on the battlefield. I thought they would have chosen to do something similar with privately owned Nye-Cartwright case collections. As you pointed out, though, they must have encountered resistance to the idea. If NC shell markings don't match any NPS shell markings = high likelihood the rifles that fired NC shells were not firing cartridges on the battlefield. Sure, such negative findings might effect the value of the private NC collections. On the other hand, if matches between some of the cases were documented the forensic data could possibly tell us which cavalry companies on Battle Ridge had been the skirmishers on NC. If that's important to anyone to know. My guess is that it was Company L, who also left evidence of disciplined skirmishing on Calhoun Hill. ~~~ At the moment it makes little difference. LBH events have since become more clear to me. Nye-Cartwright doesn't make or break the battle flow as I'm beginning to understand it. Whatever action that occurred there, if any, was inconsequential. At this point that fits my jigsaw puzzle perfectly. Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 7, 2014 21:03:57 GMT -6
The problem may be that the Nye-Cartwright collection won't tell them very much other than they have artifacts from a certain area but not exactly where. They might know that they have 5 shell casings from gun B but they might not be able to tell at this time if those 5 shells were collected at one spot like you would find with a stationary shooter, or all over the ridge like someone in motion. I don't know how the Nye-Cartwright collection was archived. Did they just throw all then found one day in a box and label them where they were found on one day or did they just through everything together and seperate it out perhaps over the winter when things were quiet.
If you haven't read any of the books on the recent archaelogical studies, I really recommend them.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 8, 2014 9:14:40 GMT -6
The problem may be that the Nye-Cartwright collection won't tell them very much other than they have artifacts from a certain area but not exactly where. They might know that they have 5 shell casings from gun B but they might not be able to tell at this time if those 5 shells were collected at one spot like you would find with a stationary shooter, or all over the ridge like someone in motion. I don't know how the Nye-Cartwright collection was archived. Did they just throw all then found one day in a box and label them where they were found on one day or did they just through everything together and separate it out perhaps over the winter when things were quiet. If you haven't read any of the books on the recent archaeological studies, I really recommend them. I agree Beth. There is more than one person collecting to begin with in the area. These names are after the discover was made. The didn't go to NC rather they went to an area where others such as Blummer stated he found artifacts for example. Weibert found artifacts on his own and was not part of these other multiple discoveries groups. Mulligan you have to ask how many total weapons could have been there that fired a .45-70 cartridge. Since the known different firearm is less than 70 for found .45-70 cases published than there is over 140+ firearms that could have been used on the battlefield and those cases have not been determined. A case not looked at before from another location might match a case all ready looked at, may be a new firearm that was in the battle, or may be one that was not from the battle. That could be true of the ones (less than 70) that were looked at and published also. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|