|
Post by mchlwilson on Sept 28, 2015 18:34:44 GMT -6
Does anyone here believe that there is any meaningful physical evidence remaining to be discovered that would shed new light on the events of June 25th?
Examples:
- A large number of soldier cartridge cases in a new location;
- Written statement from a 7th survivor revealing previously suppressed information;
- A grisly find, like a Caucasian skull in an unexpected location.
What do you think? Is there anything left?
I harbor suspicions that Godfrey bungled the job when he searched the Luce-Nye-Cartwright area while the burials were underway. He couldn't have been looking very closely. He even saw a trail but fail to recognize it as Custer's. No telling what clues may have been found if he had been open to seeing them.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by edavids on Sept 28, 2015 18:47:46 GMT -6
Great question Michael..no one can say for sure but wasn't there a somewhat recent discovery more or less proving the Ford D excursion? It is always possible. David
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 28, 2015 18:55:49 GMT -6
I don't know if there will be any great discoveries on the battlefield but perhaps the new discoveries will come from future studies of artifacts as new techniques are developed.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Sept 28, 2015 18:56:00 GMT -6
Michael Of course there are still mysteries to be discovered on the Montana hill sides. I would cite the recent 2009 (in relative terms) reburial of a unknown soldier from the Battle of Franklin in November 1864. It was not determined which side he fought for but he was reburied as an American hero. Ian and other Brits could mention the recent discovery of Richard III's remains and reburial. There are continual discoveries of letters from the War of 1861-1865 in attics and old trunks. I eagerly await the next discovery. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Sept 28, 2015 19:02:22 GMT -6
Great question Michael..no one can say for sure but wasn't there a somewhat recent discovery more or less proving the Ford D excursion? It is always possible. David David - I can't recall specifics at the moment but my impression is that the physical evidence for Ford D was a bit thin, and could only be rendered useful by the JSIT tribal history and Kellog's body. But Fox thought that Ford D happened and I give great weight to his opinions.
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Sept 28, 2015 19:09:37 GMT -6
Michael Of course there are still mysteries to be discovered on the Montana hill sides. I would cite the recent 2009 (in relative terms) reburial of a unknown soldier from the Battle of Franklin in November 1864. It was not determined which side he fought for but he was reburied as an American hero. Ian and other Brits could mention the recent discovery of Richard III's remains and reburial. There are continual discoveries of letters from the War of 1861-1865 in attics and old trunks. I eagerly await the next discovery. Regards Dave Dave, I hope so ! On the other hand, the battle only lasted a couple of hours, so how much could there be? It's a shame that the cartridge finds of the 1920s - 1940s and the Weibert era weren't discovered by a proper archaeological team. What a missed opportunity to gain historical insight! And I wish we had a better statement from Godfrey about where he searched while the burials were underway. The finds of skeletons decades later in Deep Coulee and North MTC make me think it was a very perfunctory search at best.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 28, 2015 21:43:30 GMT -6
Personally given the circumstances, missing a few isn't surprising. I am sure you have read about the conditions of the battlefield, they had injured that they had to evacuate plus they were in the middle of enemy territory in the middle of a military campaign.
I believe that there are still casualties unaccounted for so perhaps it's possible that someday some trace might be found.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 29, 2015 6:25:01 GMT -6
... my impression is that the physical evidence for Ford D was a bit thin, and could only be rendered useful by the JSIT tribal history and Kellog's body. But Fox thought that Ford D happened and I give great weight to his opinions. There is no question it is "thin." Then again, so much more is thin as well. If, however, you place the idea of a movement to a specific "Ford D" within a specific context, you will see it makes eminent sense. First of all you have the "connect-the-dots" evidence: Dot 1: Custer left Keogh on Calhoun Hill so we know in all likelihood Custer had been there. Dot 2: we know from Indian accounts Custer passed by LSH. Dot 3: archaeology post-1984-1985 shows government presence along the Battle Ridge extension, leading in the direction of the river. Dot 4: that same archaeology shows the presence of Indians along that way; in both cases the ground was reasonably undisturbed and the artifact presence shows minor skirmishing, something one would expect of a fairly large moving column meeting with minimum resistance. Dot 5: Marc Kellogg's body. Dot 6: Indian accounts of troops near the river, stopping, someone shot; and this includes the John Stands In Timber account from other Native American sources. Dot 7: troops' presence on Cemetery Ridge. Dot 8: LSH. Now connect all those dots and see where they lead.... If you accept the Fox premise-- and my premise, as well-- that Custer was still on an intelligence-gathering mission, i. e., to find the farthest extent of the "scattering" Indians, then you must accept some sort of move toward the river to find that extent. This premise includes and accepts Indian accounts claiming the initial resistance to the troops was mild, but growing. This is also the only scenario that does not exclude any of the facets making up the jewel, i. e., Indian accounts, archaeology, body locations, military exigency, etc. So to me, this is fairly conclusive evidence a nearing of the river at some location we call Ford D and a location we believe we know, took place. It also gives Custer some overdue credit and it eliminates the fatuous comments about Custer not doing a proper recon. It does not mitigate or exclude his other bungling. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Sept 29, 2015 11:34:53 GMT -6
Mike There is new speculation that King Tut's tomb may have 2 additional rooms. I have the link posted below. Seems that new discoveries are being made daily. Regards Dave
news.discovery.com/history/ancient-egypt/king-tuts-tomb-reveals-two-secret-chambers-150929.htm
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Sept 29, 2015 12:23:25 GMT -6
[quote author=" fred" If you accept the Fox premise-- and my premise, as well-- that Custer was still on an intelligence-gathering mission, So to me, this is fairly conclusive evidence a nearing of the river at some location we call Ford D and a location we believe we know, took place. It also gives Custer some overdue credit and it eliminates the fatuous comments about Custer not doing a proper recon. It does not mitigate or exclude his other bungling. Best wishes, Fred.[/quote] Hi Fred, It is indeed a very persuasive argument. One interesting thing is the location of Kellogg: 1. He either made it down to the ford and then his mule couldn't keep up on the return trip, Or 2. He was trying unsuccessfully to keep up on the way down to the ford, and then was passed by as Custer retreated from the ford. If the answer is (1) then Custer's rate of travel must have been sufficient for a mule to keep up.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 29, 2015 17:07:41 GMT -6
1. He either made it down to the ford and then his mule couldn't keep up on the return trip... Michael, This is the one I believe happened. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 29, 2015 17:27:13 GMT -6
1. He either made it down to the ford and then his mule couldn't keep up on the return trip... Michael, This is the one I believe happened. Best wishes, Fred. It it at all possible that Kellogg might have been moving away from Custer to a safer point so he could observe the coming battle? Possibly based on where Custer directed him?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 29, 2015 18:49:59 GMT -6
It it at all possible that Kellogg might have been moving away from Custer to a safer point so he could observe the coming battle? I don't see why not. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Sept 29, 2015 20:22:20 GMT -6
It it at all possible that Kellogg might have been moving away from Custer to a safer point so he could observe the coming battle? I don't see why not. Best wishes, Fred. I've never been to 'Ford D' is there a possibility where if Custer was planning an action, Kellogg could watch but be out of the way? Other than Cemetery Ridge?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 30, 2015 6:40:35 GMT -6
To be very honest, Beth, Ford D has always been one of our unachieved goals. The problem there is as with many of these places: it is privately owned and not terribly accessible. I do not even think when the organized excursions took place, they went that far. It is one of my goals for 2016. To answer your question, however... I would assume one could see the ford area from Cemetery Ridge... but I am not sure. Plus, that area is loaded with trees and shrubs... at least today... and I would suspect then, as well.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|