jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 19:12:32 GMT -6
The issue remains how could a rider cross a 10 foot wide gully at any speed other than a walk if it was truly a barrier? You are not paying attention and you are distorting what I have said. They did not "charge" across that ravine: they dismounted before it, then moved the horses of two companies into the timbered area. The troops crossed the ravine on foot, M Company's horses behind the men, walked across the ditch. No one said they "galloped" across anything but clear, flat, level land. If you want a lesson in horse speeds I have all the data you can stomach... just ask. The speed I quoted for the 11.81 miles was sl;lightly below standard cavalry practice: buy the book; read the book and you will see all the sources you want for those speeds. Standard cavalry: nothing too fast; nothing too slow. And... I make no representations that it was a constant, maintained, steady speed. I am quite sure-- from the eye-witness accounts-- the trip was made with slow-downs, speed-ups, and some walking. Furthermore, there isn't a single account that says Custer moved down the valley slower than a "fast trot." If you would like me to define "fast trot," I would be happy to do so. Your assumption is incorrect, and no, there is no chance these times are incorrect. Now... I am sure your eyes are spinning, but I can assure you the timelines are virtually unimpeachable. Again, however, you will have to buy the book and see the timelines for yourself. At the risk of being redundant... and risking you are not someone else... I will post this once more. The book contains 25 separate timelines. More than 60 pages worth. There are 800 timed entries (a number of which are duplicated for the sake of continuity), more that 525 of which are single. These entries are taken from more than 600 pages of Excel data, comprising more than 34,000 individual modules of first-hand, participant data, every one of which I have gone over, developed, read, studied, and vetted. If you-- or anyone else-- thinks you can "bust" it, just try. I am up for the challenge. Point. I have no issue with that... but read your own post again. Where does it say, "Reno was drunk"? Here is my take on Reno: (1) He was drinking... but not drunk. (2) His actions in the valley fight were extremely competent. (3) His decision to move into the timber was correct. (4) His decision to "break out" of the timber was the right one. (5) His choice of how to break out-- and his control of the situation-- can be questioned, but unless you or anyone else can come up with a better way, a way to have saved lives (elucidate, please!!) I cannot criticize him. (6) His control of the situation on the hilltop is highly questionable... and suspect... at least until the 26th. Reno was not well liked and some believed he should have stayed longer in the timber. To what end? And by the way, I deal with the "release of Indians to fight Custer" issue in the book. Best wishes, Fred. Fred: I think you misread my post. I did not claim you said Reno charged across the gully or that he even got into a charge. I thought I made it clear he stopped before the ravine. The question I posed and the one that has yet to be answered is if the ravine was a barrier which would have prevented a charge into the camp why did it not prevent a runaway horse and his rider from crossing it? It was not a barrier to them and there can be no dispute but that a runaway horse does so at a gallop or they are not a runaway horse. Am I incorrect to have reached the conclusion that you believe the ravine was a barrier to a Reno charge? Donovan in a Terrible Glory reached that conclusion writing "The next mile brought another problem. Several hundred yards ahead was a shallow ditch that had once been part of the river's course but was now a dry ravine about five feet deep and ten feet wide... If the command continued at a gallop, every horseman would be hurtled into the ravine." Apart from the fact that this author thought Reno was at a gallop, a contention even I disputed in an earlier post, he does see it as a barrier to a charge. If it is a barrier it would have to be a barrier to all. Now regarding the 8 1/2 mile pace for 11+ miles since I have not read your book yet I would have no way of knowing the time tables you put in the book or your support for the pace. Since these horses had only 4 gaits, walk, trot, canter, and gallop if they spent any time at a walk or trot they would have to have galloped at some point to make up the time to achieve 8 1/2 mile per hour. It did not seem to be a particularly important issue but I questioned it merely because it seemed a little fast to me. I have no interest in trying to "bust" anything you wrote and I am not sure how a 4 or 5 minute time difference could be so important. Again why is it even important whether or not Reno was drunk if he had good reason to stop his advance on the village? As I clearly implied before that issue seems only relevant to how he conducted his command after he formed a skirmish line. Once the advance was stopped for whatever reason Reno's conduct thereafter would not affect Custer's fate only the number of losses Reno's men sustained.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 19:27:29 GMT -6
The issue remains how could a rider cross a 10 foot wide gully at any speed other than a walk if it was truly a barrier? You are not paying attention and you are distorting what I have said. They did not "charge" across that ravine: they dismounted before it, then moved the horses of two companies into the timbered area. The troops crossed the ravine on foot, M Company's horses behind the men, walked across the ditch. No one said they "galloped" across anything but clear, flat, level land. If you want a lesson in horse speeds I have all the data you can stomach... just ask. The speed I quoted for the 11.81 miles was sl;lightly below standard cavalry practice: buy the book; read the book and you will see all the sources you want for those speeds. Standard cavalry: nothing too fast; nothing too slow. And... I make no representations that it was a constant, maintained, steady speed. I am quite sure-- from the eye-witness accounts-- the trip was made with slow-downs, speed-ups, and some walking. Furthermore, there isn't a single account that says Custer moved down the valley slower than a "fast trot." If you would like me to define "fast trot," I would be happy to do so. Your assumption is incorrect, and no, there is no chance these times are incorrect. Now... I am sure your eyes are spinning, but I can assure you the timelines are virtually unimpeachable. Again, however, you will have to buy the book and see the timelines for yourself. At the risk of being redundant... and risking you are not someone else... I will post this once more. The book contains 25 separate timelines. More than 60 pages worth. There are 800 timed entries (a number of which are duplicated for the sake of continuity), more that 525 of which are single. These entries are taken from more than 600 pages of Excel data, comprising more than 34,000 individual modules of first-hand, participant data, every one of which I have gone over, developed, read, studied, and vetted. If you-- or anyone else-- thinks you can "bust" it, just try. I am up for the challenge. Point. I have no issue with that... but read your own post again. Where does it say, "Reno was drunk"? Here is my take on Reno: (1) He was drinking... but not drunk. (2) His actions in the valley fight were extremely competent. (3) His decision to move into the timber was correct. (4) His decision to "break out" of the timber was the right one. (5) His choice of how to break out-- and his control of the situation-- can be questioned, but unless you or anyone else can come up with a better way, a way to have saved lives (elucidate, please!!) I cannot criticize him. (6) His control of the situation on the hilltop is highly questionable... and suspect... at least until the 26th. Reno was not well liked and some believed he should have stayed longer in the timber. To what end? And by the way, I deal with the "release of Indians to fight Custer" issue in the book. Best wishes, Fred. Thank you for finally acknowledging our brave Major was drinking, for raising concerns with his retreat, and his "highly questionable" leadership on Reno Hill. So he was drinking, his performance is that of a coward in the Hill but his performance in the valley cannot be questioned....... He should have stayed longer to keep the NAs fixed in the valley. His support was arriving. It is simply ignorant to suggest freeing the NAs in valley had zero effect on the Keogh/GAC sector.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 19:31:16 GMT -6
The issue remains how could a rider cross a 10 foot wide gully at any speed other than a walk if it was truly a barrier? You are not paying attention and you are distorting what I have said. They did not "charge" across that ravine: they dismounted before it, then moved the horses of two companies into the timbered area. The troops crossed the ravine on foot, M Company's horses behind the men, walked across the ditch. No one said they "galloped" across anything but clear, flat, level land. If you want a lesson in horse speeds I have all the data you can stomach... just ask. The speed I quoted for the 11.81 miles was sl;lightly below standard cavalry practice: buy the book; read the book and you will see all the sources you want for those speeds. Standard cavalry: nothing too fast; nothing too slow. And... I make no representations that it was a constant, maintained, steady speed. I am quite sure-- from the eye-witness accounts-- the trip was made with slow-downs, speed-ups, and some walking. Furthermore, there isn't a single account that says Custer moved down the valley slower than a "fast trot." If you would like me to define "fast trot," I would be happy to do so. Your assumption is incorrect, and no, there is no chance these times are incorrect. Now... I am sure your eyes are spinning, but I can assure you the timelines are virtually unimpeachable. Again, however, you will have to buy the book and see the timelines for yourself. At the risk of being redundant... and risking you are not someone else... I will post this once more. The book contains 25 separate timelines. More than 60 pages worth. There are 800 timed entries (a number of which are duplicated for the sake of continuity), more that 525 of which are single. These entries are taken from more than 600 pages of Excel data, comprising more than 34,000 individual modules of first-hand, participant data, every one of which I have gone over, developed, read, studied, and vetted. If you-- or anyone else-- thinks you can "bust" it, just try. I am up for the challenge. Point. I have no issue with that... but read your own post again. Where does it say, "Reno was drunk"? Here is my take on Reno: (1) He was drinking... but not drunk. (2) His actions in the valley fight were extremely competent. (3) His decision to move into the timber was correct. (4) His decision to "break out" of the timber was the right one. (5) His choice of how to break out-- and his control of the situation-- can be questioned, but unless you or anyone else can come up with a better way, a way to have saved lives (elucidate, please!!) I cannot criticize him. (6) His control of the situation on the hilltop is highly questionable... and suspect... at least until the 26th. Reno was not well liked and some believed he should have stayed longer in the timber. To what end? And by the way, I deal with the "release of Indians to fight Custer" issue in the book. Best wishes, Fred. A lesson in speed?? Really Fred?!? Didn't you recently just change up your speeds (from what you published in your book) for the Benteen scout when pointed out mileages and routes were questionable at best? Didn't you change speeds, doubled in fact just to hold your timeline?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 19:33:35 GMT -6
You are not paying attention and you are distorting what I have said. They did not "charge" across that ravine: they dismounted before it, then moved the horses of two companies into the timbered area. The troops crossed the ravine on foot, M Company's horses behind the men, walked across the ditch. No one said they "galloped" across anything but clear, flat, level land. If you want a lesson in horse speeds I have all the data you can stomach... just ask. The speed I quoted for the 11.81 miles was sl;lightly below standard cavalry practice: buy the book; read the book and you will see all the sources you want for those speeds. Standard cavalry: nothing too fast; nothing too slow. And... I make no representations that it was a constant, maintained, steady speed. I am quite sure-- from the eye-witness accounts-- the trip was made with slow-downs, speed-ups, and some walking. Furthermore, there isn't a single account that says Custer moved down the valley slower than a "fast trot." If you would like me to define "fast trot," I would be happy to do so. Your assumption is incorrect, and no, there is no chance these times are incorrect. Now... I am sure your eyes are spinning, but I can assure you the timelines are virtually unimpeachable. Again, however, you will have to buy the book and see the timelines for yourself. At the risk of being redundant... and risking you are not someone else... I will post this once more. The book contains 25 separate timelines. More than 60 pages worth. There are 800 timed entries (a number of which are duplicated for the sake of continuity), more that 525 of which are single. These entries are taken from more than 600 pages of Excel data, comprising more than 34,000 individual modules of first-hand, participant data, every one of which I have gone over, developed, read, studied, and vetted. If you-- or anyone else-- thinks you can "bust" it, just try. I am up for the challenge. Point. I have no issue with that... but read your own post again. Where does it say, "Reno was drunk"? Here is my take on Reno: (1) He was drinking... but not drunk. (2) His actions in the valley fight were extremely competent. (3) His decision to move into the timber was correct. (4) His decision to "break out" of the timber was the right one. (5) His choice of how to break out-- and his control of the situation-- can be questioned, but unless you or anyone else can come up with a better way, a way to have saved lives (elucidate, please!!) I cannot criticize him. (6) His control of the situation on the hilltop is highly questionable... and suspect... at least until the 26th. Reno was not well liked and some believed he should have stayed longer in the timber. To what end? And by the way, I deal with the "release of Indians to fight Custer" issue in the book. Best wishes, Fred. Fred: I think you misread my post. I did not claim you said Reno charged across the gully or that he even got into a charge. I thought I made it clear he stopped before the ravine. The question I posed and the one that has yet to be answered is if the ravine was a barrier which would have prevented a charge into the camp why did it not prevent a runaway horse and his rider from crossing it? It was not a barrier to them and there can be no dispute but that a runaway horse does so at a gallop or they are not a runaway horse. Am I incorrect to have reached the conclusion that you believe the ravine was a barrier to a Reno charge? Donovan in a Terrible Glory reached that conclusion writing "The next mile brought another problem. Several hundred yards ahead was a shallow ditch that had once been part of the river's course but was now a dry ravine about five feet deep and ten feet wide... If the command continued at a gallop, every horseman would be hurtled into the ravine." Apart from the fact that this author thought Reno was at a gallop, a contention even I disputed in an earlier post, he does see it as a barrier to a charge. If it is a barrier it would have to be a barrier to all. Now regarding the 8 1/2 mile pace for 11+ miles since I have not read your book yet I would have no way of knowing the time tables you put in the book or your support for the pace. Since these horses had only 4 gates, walk, trot, canter, and gallop if they spent any time at a walk or trot they would have to have galloped at some point to make up the time to achieve 8 1/2 mile per hour. It did not seem to be a particularly important issue but I questioned it merely because it seemed a little fast to me. I have no interest in trying to "bust" anything you wrote and I am not sure how a 4 or 5 minute time difference could be so important. Again why is it even important whether or not Reno was drunk if he had good reason to stop his advance on the village? As I clearly implied before that issue seems only relevant to how he conducted his command after he formed a skirmish line. Once the advance was stopped for whatever reason Reno's conduct thereafter would not affect Custer's fate only the number of losses Reno's men sustained. The ravine was not a barrier as evidenced by the two riders who made it over with no problem. One in fact went across and came back!! Reno only used the ravine "after" the fact as a reason for halting his charge and disobeying his order.
|
|
jaguar
Junior Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by jaguar on May 29, 2015 19:44:49 GMT -6
SSDD, jag, you begin to bore. You have talked much and said nothing of merit. Opinion is not fact. Have I been speaking in tongues? I provided direct testimony from the Board of Inquiry and witness statements. What opinion have I stated as fact? I have asked questions which by their nature cannot be facts. It seems like the "opinion is not fact" phrase is used here like a cult chant regardless of what is written. If I begin to bore too bad I am not here for your entertainment but because of my interest. Now it seems to me there are not many voices on this board and if one of you makes a mistake they are never chided for it I guess you believe someone new to the board represents a hostile invasion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2015 19:58:24 GMT -6
SSDD, jag, you begin to bore. You have talked much and said nothing of merit. Opinion is not fact. Have I been speaking in tongues? I provided direct testimony from the Board of Inquiry and witness statements. What opinion have I stated as fact? I have asked questions which by their nature cannot be facts. It seems like the "opinion is not fact" phrase is used here like a cult chant regardless of what is written. If I begin to bore too bad I am not here for your entertainment but because of my interest. Now it seems to me there are not many voices on this board and if one of you makes a mistake they are never chided for it I guess you believe someone new to the board represents a hostile invasion. Sums the board up perfectly. And they are surprised that so few post.....
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 30, 2015 7:41:15 GMT -6
The question I posed and the one that has yet to be answered is if the ravine was a barrier which would have prevented a charge into the camp why did it not prevent a runaway horse and his rider from crossing it? The Farley/Turley horse was already well beyond the ravine when he lost control. The ravine ran, basically, north-south, not east-west as most people think. Look at the map: it is still visible. If you want I will even post a picture of it today; it's in the book. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on May 30, 2015 7:53:33 GMT -6
Fred, the ravine was formed by an older bed of Shoulder Blade Creek and other streams and springs that drain from the benches where the pony herd was. Onion Creek also flows from the benches. In 1876 the streams flowed from south to north and enter the LBH above the village location.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 30, 2015 8:00:47 GMT -6
Fred I would appreciate a picture.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 30, 2015 8:24:26 GMT -6
Fred: It is rather annoying how you have this tendency to let facts mar theory. You too Tom. I suppose the next thing one of you will tell me is that Amelia Earhart does not live in Tennessee, using the name Dolly Parton, or the AVG didn't fly F model P40's. Very distressing.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 30, 2015 8:31:08 GMT -6
Fred: It is rather annoying how you have this tendency to let facts mar theory. You too Tom. I suppose the next thing one of you will tell me is that Amelia Earhart does not live in Tennessee, using the name Dolly Parton, or the AVG didn't fly F model P40's. Very distressing. Sorry to disillusion you QC, but Dolly Parton is the name Mae West took when she retired from Hollywood. Amelia is working as a hostess in a Big Boy's somewhere in Michigan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 30, 2015 8:34:09 GMT -6
Mae West retired, now that is news. Next thing you will tell me I suppose is that Tom Mix and Tony are not around anymore either, and I just saw him cavorting around with Wyatt Earp just the other day.
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 30, 2015 8:38:17 GMT -6
D's Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 30, 2015 8:44:17 GMT -6
Mae West retired, now that is news. Next thing you will tell me I suppose is that Tom Mix and Tony are not around anymore either, and I just saw him cavorting around with Wyatt Earp just the other day. Have you been scrying again? I know it's so tempting with the big modern HD devices everyone has now, but really you have to use them with caution. If they aren't tuned correctly you can get a total misinterpretation about what is going on in the world, past, present and even future.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 30, 2015 8:57:32 GMT -6
Ain't life wonderful, when fantasy is just a push button on the remote away. Sure ain't like the old days when you had to play with your pretend friend.
|
|