|
Post by Beth on Feb 6, 2015 1:21:36 GMT -6
The box was left behind at Halt 1 and reported missing by Curtiss some 20 minutes after the command left Halt 1 in the direction on the Crows Nest. The pack was found at Halt 1 with Indians rifling through it. Mark, Don't get this confused. It was not a box of hardtack... or anything else. It was some of SGT Curtiss' personal belongings. Best wishes, Fred. What personal belongings did he leave behind? Was it ever recorded? It's those trivial facts of history that can give it the human face. Beth
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 6, 2015 7:36:25 GMT -6
What is disappointing is that Custer must not have observed a large number of animals at a distance. You got to know what you are looking at right Beth. In 1979 I saw my first large herd of elk after the wildlife manager told me what I was looking at. It was around 2,000 head of elk and the whole hillside was moving. At first all I saw was a color and then after explaining what to look for I observed it moving. The worms make perfect sense to me. The same goes at the other end of observability. You look for a part of animal or different color. If you look for whole animal you will miss a lot. Regards AZ Ranger I think that is possible that the scouts also just had better vision. I did a Google search just now and couldn't find anything about it, but I recall seeing an article/study or two in the past that concluded that "illiterate" people and societies have better vision than literate ones, since they have not spent a lifetime of straining their eyes in reading, etc. The scouts weren't describing individual animals being observed. They were describing the color changes on the bluffs due to moving horses. Because of the various drainages leading into the LBH valley it would appear as fingers or a pile of worms. I don't know how bad your vision would have to be to not see the changing colors of thousands of horses moving on the bluffs. If we're considering only a few horses or even several hundred than I would agree with you. When it is over ten thousand then your vision would have to be so bad that you could not distinguish the riparian vegetation either. You might not be able to distinguish the green of the trees but you could still see that it never changed shapes and remained in the same location. When we did an antelope fawn study and placed radio caller on them I could observe parts of a fawn at distances over 1 mile. I would have been around 36 years of age. The camera crew and some of the Department persons thought it was amazing. I thought it normal. I even tried to explain what I was looking for to them. I would suggest that a predator looking for buffalo would learn the technique of observation of herds at a distance. I think it more likely that the scouts had more experience at observing animals at a distance. You could be right but I don't think seeing thousands of horses at 15 miles would be a good test of vision differences. Regards AZ Ranger PS A quick search would indicate that near sightedness would be the vision factor according to a study of lower class and middle class persons in China. Could find nothing yet regarding distance observations. Myself at 66 I use reading glasses but still have great distance vision.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 6, 2015 8:18:14 GMT -6
What personal belongings did he leave behind? I don't know... I do not believe he ever said. This is a perfect example-- what I continually allude to in the book and articles I have written-- of how authors easily let things slide, do not do the proper research, and are just plain sloppy. Curtiss never said "a box of hardtack." He reported the missing items to his commander (Yates), who then sent him back with a couple men to retrieve whatever it was. When Curtiss came back, he reported to Yates; Yates told Keogh, the OD; Keogh told Cooke, the adjutant; and Moylan overheard the conversation. Two and a half years later, Moylan claimed at the RCOI, that Curtiss went back to retrieve his personal belongings. Without doing the necessary detail work, others have transposed that all into a box of hardtack. This may seem trivial, but it is-- to me-- a perfect example of how things morph into something different over the years. Participants say one thing, writers and historians say something different. Again, small, but to me, significant. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 6, 2015 8:44:42 GMT -6
Is that like a rocket hitting your helicopter?
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 6, 2015 14:49:36 GMT -6
I think that is possible that the scouts also just had better vision. I did a Google search just now and couldn't find anything about it, but I recall seeing an article/study or two in the past that concluded that "illiterate" people and societies have better vision than literate ones, since they have not spent a lifetime of straining their eyes in reading, etc. The scouts weren't describing individual animals being observed. They were describing the color changes on the bluffs due to moving horses. Because of the various drainages leading into the LBH valley it would appear as fingers or a pile of worms. I don't know how bad your vision would have to be to not see the changing colors of thousands of horses moving on the bluffs. If we're considering only a few horses or even several hundred than I would agree with you. When it is over ten thousand then your vision would have to be so bad that you could not distinguish the riparian vegetation either. You might not be able to distinguish the green of the trees but you could still see that it never changed shapes and remained in the same location. When we did an antelope fawn study and placed radio caller on them I could observe parts of a fawn at distances over 1 mile. I would have been around 36 years of age. The camera crew and some of the Department persons thought it was amazing. I thought it normal. I even tried to explain what I was looking for to them. I would suggest that a predator looking for buffalo would learn the technique of observation of herds at a distance. I think it more likely that the scouts had more experience at observing animals at a distance. You could be right but I don't think seeing thousands of horses at 15 miles would be a good test of vision differences. Regards AZ Ranger PS A quick search would indicate that near sightedness would be the vision factor according to a study of lower class and middle class persons in China. Could find nothing yet regarding distance observations. Myself at 66 I use reading glasses but still have great distance vision. I never have understood how they didn't see so many horses either. The only thing I can think of is the possiblity that since horses come in a wide range of the colors They just sort of blended in as splotches of sunshine and shadow--sort of like a natural camoflage or even dazzle paint.. If the horses drifted around the area grazing, you wouldnt really notice the movement as much it might be more like the wind moving praire grasses. I remember reading someone's account from Reno's Hill on the 26th when the Indians started moving the horses in mass in one direction, they were shocked at the size of the heard. I suspect that a large buffalo herd or other herd where the animals are all more uniform in color and pattern would have been more visible. Of course that is all just speculation on my part. Beth
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 6, 2015 14:58:50 GMT -6
What personal belongings did he leave behind? I don't know... I do not believe he ever said. This is a perfect example-- what I continually allude to in the book and articles I have written-- of how authors easily let things slide, do not do the proper research, and are just plain sloppy. Curtiss never said "a box of hardtack." He reported the missing items to his commander (Yates), who then sent him back with a couple men to retrieve whatever it was. When Curtiss came back, he reported to Yates; Yates told Keogh, the OD; Keogh told Cooke, the adjutant; and Moylan overheard the conversation. Two and a half years later, Moylan claimed at the RCOI, that Curtiss went back to retrieve his personal belongings. Without doing the necessary detail work, others have transposed that all into a box of hardtack. This may seem trivial, but it is-- to me-- a perfect example of how things morph into something different over the years. Participants say one thing, writers and historians say something different. Again, small, but to me, significant. Best wishes, Fred. Such is the nature of studying history. Also you find that details that might have been common knowledge in 1876 have become obscure to us. Can you imagine in another 100 years how obscure the words that we grew up with concerning music albums would be. We all understand platter, LP, 33, 45, 78, singles and vinyl mean but in the future they will only have meaning perhaps to students of music. I don't think my own daughters know many of the terms. Beth
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 15:28:25 GMT -6
I don't know... I do not believe he ever said. This is a perfect example-- what I continually allude to in the book and articles I have written-- of how authors easily let things slide, do not do the proper research, and are just plain sloppy. Curtiss never said "a box of hardtack." He reported the missing items to his commander (Yates), who then sent him back with a couple men to retrieve whatever it was. When Curtiss came back, he reported to Yates; Yates told Keogh, the OD; Keogh told Cooke, the adjutant; and Moylan overheard the conversation. Two and a half years later, Moylan claimed at the RCOI, that Curtiss went back to retrieve his personal belongings. Without doing the necessary detail work, others have transposed that all into a box of hardtack. This may seem trivial, but it is-- to me-- a perfect example of how things morph into something different over the years. Participants say one thing, writers and historians say something different. Again, small, but to me, significant. Best wishes, Fred. Such is the nature of studying history. Also you find that details that might have been common knowledge in 1876 have become obscure to us. Can you imagine in another 100 years how obscure the words that we grew up with concerning music albums would be. We all understand platter, LP, 33, 45, 78, singles and vinyl mean but in the future they will only have meaning perhaps to students of music. I don't think my own daughters know many of the terms. Beth What is a platter, LP, 33, 45, 78???
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Feb 6, 2015 15:36:06 GMT -6
The old vinyl records. LP means long playing. 33, 45, and 78 are the turntable speeds.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 6, 2015 15:55:10 GMT -6
Scarface, love the pic., but I am partial. Army Air Corps, part of the parentage.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 6, 2015 16:37:29 GMT -6
Scarface, love the pic., but I am partial. Army Air Corps, part of the parentage. Regards, Tom I wish it was bigger so I could make out what the planes are. Beth
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 6, 2015 16:48:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 6, 2015 16:56:21 GMT -6
ok chris you are slipping shouldn't Fred's 33 be 33 1/3
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 6, 2015 16:58:59 GMT -6
You are right on 17, I think the fighter is a 47, the nose is to blunt for a 51. I need better glasses. Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 6, 2015 17:00:03 GMT -6
ok chris you are slipping shouldn't Fred's 33 be 33 1/3 Due to the hair plugs!
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 6, 2015 17:01:20 GMT -6
Thanks! I was about 90% sure that was what it was but since it doesn't show the belly gun I wasn't totally in my comfort range to be certain, like I think the German plane might be a Fokker. All the trips to airshows with hubbby have proven useful. Editted to add. Cool site! Beth
|
|