Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 13:19:47 GMT -6
So the distance of the scout increases 43% (an additional 3 miles over rough terrain) therefore you increase the speed of Benteen by 50% so the timeline remains fixed. If you are comfortable with that explanation, I will drop it. The time doesn't change SF. The time is set by eye witness testimony, it is a set point. An estimate that the distance he traveled is also I believe set by testimony. The fact that when you find that the actual ride is longer than the straight line estimate just shows that Benteen rode at a faster speed. The only place that it is important is in the argument that Benteen was dawdling. The fact that he traveled even further in the time gives more proof to the fact they were moving quickly and covered more ground--in other words they didn't dawdle. From " The Strategy of Defeat at the Little Big Horn", "If we accept a seven-mile-plus-a-fraction, flat-line distance, and a travel time of one hour 40 minutes, that would equate to an overall speed of 4.2 miles per hour, rapid indeed, considering the terrain and the fact there had to have been a few pauses to valley-gaze" (Ch 7, pg 51). We are now accepting a 10 mile distance (at a minimum) over the same rough terrain and a new increased speed of 6mph just to hold the same arrival time. If 4.2 is rapid, what does that make 6? Like I said, 3 miles further and an increase in speed of 50%. All of this is just accepted so the timeline remains as is? It deserves a closer look than just simply adjusting the speed.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 24, 2015 13:22:30 GMT -6
If the consenus is that Benteen's scout was 10 plus miles, what does this mean to the timeline presented in "The Strategy of Defeat at the Little Big Horn"? It does absolutely nothing. The important things are the start time and the end time. The end time is corroborated by two first-hand accounts and by the speed and appearance of the pack train. Because the variations of climbing and descending are virtually impossible to compute, you simply use a flat-line distance and gauge the speed based on all that data. In reality-- because the departure and arrival times are fixed, if there is a variation in distance, then you simply adjust the speed. In reality, Benteen moved more quickly on his scout than I give him credit for. That increased speed is quite easy to understand because of the beginning terrain (from the divide) and the ending terrain (along No-Name Creek) and the fact Benteen had a very fast-moving horse. Best wishes, Fred. I don't understand how this can be so confusing. If you know the start from the separation and end point on Reno Creek and those times are fixed then the distance traveled determines the overall average speed. Seems theses comments want to make it appear like Gray did and from a starting point use 4 mph and find accounts to match and reject those that don't. Fred did it the right way in my opinion as an investigator. Use all the accounts available and have a start location/time and end location/time. The route effects only the rate of travel for the actual distance traveled. The start and end point remain the same and the times remain the same. The degree of difficulty could effect the sideways travel and the effect upon the horses. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 24, 2015 13:31:28 GMT -6
Beth, War is a combination of art and science. For movement to contact, a commander must balance speed and fatigue. Getting to a battle as fast as you can, with the cost of exhausting your force, is moronic. Commanders must balance speed with combat ability ion arriving at expected battlefield location. Is this hard to understand? I can give numerous examples from military history. In my opinion, the facts are self evident. Folks who deny just don't want to see their pet theories overcome by inconvenient facts. But if I am wrong, discuss the reasons why with facts, not emotion. I have had to change hypotheses numerous times on theses boards. Just want to see fact based arguments, not emotion. This is an important concept. Its easy with hindsight to know just how much further you need to go and then state you could have gone faster. That is not the same as traveling blind and not knowing when you will need to put your horse to speed and keep the battalions together in formation. When Reno's horses reached the top of the bluffs a lot of them were blown and unable to travel without recovery time. Could be over a half an hour or more to recover for some. You can't fuel them with grass and then just take off again. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 13:31:56 GMT -6
It does absolutely nothing. The important things are the start time and the end time. The end time is corroborated by two first-hand accounts and by the speed and appearance of the pack train. Because the variations of climbing and descending are virtually impossible to compute, you simply use a flat-line distance and gauge the speed based on all that data. In reality-- because the departure and arrival times are fixed, if there is a variation in distance, then you simply adjust the speed. In reality, Benteen moved more quickly on his scout than I give him credit for. That increased speed is quite easy to understand because of the beginning terrain (from the divide) and the ending terrain (along No-Name Creek) and the fact Benteen had a very fast-moving horse. Best wishes, Fred. I don't understand how this can be so confusing. If you know the start from the separation and end point on Reno Creek and those times are fixed then the distance traveled determines the overall average speed. Seems theses comments want to make it appear like Gray did and from a starting point use 4 mph and find accounts to match and reject those that don't. Fred did it the right way in my opinion as an investigator. Use all the accounts available and have a start location/time and end location/time. The route effects only the rate of travel for the actual distance traveled. The start and end point remain the same and the times remain the same. The degree of difficulty could effect the sideways travel and the effect upon the horses. Regards AZ Ranger At what point do the suggested speeds across the terrain become untenable? Is 7mph out of the question, 8mph? At what speed would you have to reconsider the departure or arrival time? Is an average speed of 6mph for an hour and forty minutes up and down, left and right, stop and start reasonable? I don't think anyone is suggesting Fred approached it the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 24, 2015 13:36:14 GMT -6
It deserves a closer look than just simply adjusting the speed. Well then, you adjust it; 4.2 is rapid and 5.9 is even more rapid. And neither is too rapid, nor impossible to do. Take a look at the photos displayed and tell me horses couldn't travel at a speed of 7 or 8 MPH. Hell, I can run faster than that and do so over terrain rougher than that. It is only when you get into the defiles that it becomes tough. Once again, this was the military doing this, not a Troop of Brownies howling for mama. And when you have leaders of Custer's, Benteen's, Weir's ilk, you perform as they direct and as the example they set. Notice, at all times each was way in the forefront of their respective commands. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 24, 2015 13:42:29 GMT -6
The time doesn't change SF. The time is set by eye witness testimony, it is a set point. An estimate that the distance he traveled is also I believe set by testimony. The fact that when you find that the actual ride is longer than the straight line estimate just shows that Benteen rode at a faster speed. The only place that it is important is in the argument that Benteen was dawdling. The fact that he traveled even further in the time gives more proof to the fact they were moving quickly and covered more ground--in other words they didn't dawdle. From " The Strategy of Defeat at the Little Big Horn", "If we accept a seven-mile-plus-a-fraction, flat-line distance, and a travel time of one hour 40 minutes, that would equate to an overall speed of 4.2 miles per hour, rapid indeed, considering the terrain and the fact there had to have been a few pauses to valley-gaze" (Ch 7, pg 51). We are now accepting a 10 mile distance (at a minimum) over the same rough terrain and a new increased speed of 6mph just to hold the same arrival time. If 4.2 is rapid, what does that make 6? Like I said, 3 miles further and an increase in speed of 50%. All of this is just accepted so the timeline remains as is? It deserves a closer look than just simply adjusting the speed. You must not do investigations in your work. If you want to read how we got here go to the other board. I know that you have looked there since you stated it. Read the Benteen's Dawdling thread as your homework assignment. The facts are that Benteen arrived at the Reno Creek junction with noname after Custer past and before the pack trained arrived. The times Fred uses come from the accounts. The times Gray used was 4 mph for a walk for Custer. So if Custer walks at 4 mph and passes the Reno Creek -- noname junction then Benteen's time is increased and rate of travel decreased. If you want to believe that Custer only went 4 mph than that means Benteen had to go 3 mph. That is the approach Darling used when he accepted Gary's work. Darling flew the route in an airplane so the terrain, vegetation, and defies had not effect on his mode of transportation. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 24, 2015 13:52:43 GMT -6
WO I think Benteen had to go at least the distance of the route we travel with the except of riding up on top of the last ridge. I think Gibson could easily have traveled 14 miles on the scout. There were too many side drainages that we could not look into without deviating from the ordered route. Regards Steve AZ,
What were the Gibson factors?
(1) He had to sweep the drainages ahead of the battalion, especially to the right and where the village located from the Crow's Nest was situated.
(2) He had to ascend the ridge lines ahead of the battalion.
(3) He had to deviate to achieve the best terrain route to every ridge line.
(4) He probably also had to further deviate to achieve the best terrain route to any ridge line compatible with a possible hasty retreat upon reaching it.
That would all have added up.
WO
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 24, 2015 13:56:51 GMT -6
Here is look at what my horse patrol data on map for a particular year and location.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 24, 2015 14:07:53 GMT -6
WO I think Benteen had to go at least the distance of the route we travel with the except of riding up on top of the last ridge. I think Gibson could easily have traveled 14 miles on the scout. There were too many side drainages that we could not look into without deviating from the ordered route. Regards Steve AZ,
What were the Gibson factors?
(1) He had to sweep the drainages ahead of the battalion, especially to the right and where the village located from the Crow's Nest was situated.
(2) He had to ascend the ridge lines ahead of the battalion.
(3) He had to deviate to achieve the best terrain route to every ridge line.
(4) He probably also had to further deviate to achieve the best terrain route to any ridge line compatible with a possible hasty retreat upon reaching it.
That would all have added up.
WO
I agree and that is why I think he went a lot further and faster. There were drainages that ran into Reno Creek and I would think Gibson had to check those. They were no visible enough to clear by sticking to the route we traveled.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Feb 24, 2015 14:24:27 GMT -6
AZ,
Good photos, which nicely conveys the land to be scouted.
I suppose Gibson might have also been further deviating to try and find a ridge line giving him a possible view into the upper LBH valley.
WO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 15:11:36 GMT -6
It deserves a closer look than just simply adjusting the speed. Well then, you adjust it; 4.2 is rapid and 5.9 is even more rapid. And neither is too rapid, nor impossible to do. Take a look at the photos displayed and tell me horses couldn't travel at a speed of 7 or 8 MPH. Hell, I can run faster than that and do so over terrain rougher than that. It is only when you get into the defiles that it becomes tough. Once again, this was the military doing this, not a Troop of Brownies howling for mama. And when you have leaders of Custer's, Benteen's, Weir's ilk, you perform as they direct and as the example they set. Notice, at all times each was way in the forefront of their respective commands. Best wishes, Fred. Fred, In your book you make a point of noting the speed of 4.2mph as being " rapid indeed". Based on discussions today and your comments, " rapid indeed" seems a rather strange choice of words. One would think there may be an underlining agenda. In the book, you specifically note how fast Benteen moved considering the terrain and the start/stop nature of the task. Now that the distance has increased 3 miles, you willingly accept a speed of 6mph (50% faster and three miles further over this rough and exhausting terrain) so as to maintain your timeline. You now would have me believe that 8+ mph would have been more than doable (double the rapid speed portrayed in the book). You claim you can do 8+ over rougher terrain. After noting in the book the rapid speed and terrain you now remind me that this wasn't a troop of brownies and they were military men led by great leaders galloping across the terrain, up and over steep ridges and down valleys in an effort to explain the 6mph and hold the timeline. Has a hint of square pegs and round holes to it all, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 24, 2015 15:46:29 GMT -6
Well then, you adjust it; 4.2 is rapid and 5.9 is even more rapid. And neither is too rapid, nor impossible to do. Take a look at the photos displayed and tell me horses couldn't travel at a speed of 7 or 8 MPH. Hell, I can run faster than that and do so over terrain rougher than that. It is only when you get into the defiles that it becomes tough. Once again, this was the military doing this, not a Troop of Brownies howling for mama. And when you have leaders of Custer's, Benteen's, Weir's ilk, you perform as they direct and as the example they set. Notice, at all times each was way in the forefront of their respective commands. Best wishes, Fred. Fred, In your book you make a point of noting the speed of 4.2mph as being " rapid indeed". Based on discussions today and your comments, " rapid indeed" seems a rather strange choice of words. One would think there may be an underlining agenda. In the book, you specifically note how fast Benteen moved considering the terrain and the start/stop nature of the task. Now that the distance has increased 3 miles, you willingly accept a speed of 6mph (50% faster and three miles further over this rough and exhausting terrain) so as to maintain your timeline. You now would have me believe that 8+ mph would have been more than doable (double the rapid speed portrayed in the book). You claim you can do 8+ over rougher terrain. After noting in the book the rapid speed and terrain you now remind me that this wasn't a troop of brownies and they were military men led by great leaders galloping across the terrain, up and over steep ridges and down valleys in an effort to explain the 6mph and hold the timeline. Has a hint of square pegs and round holes to it all, in my opinion. Enough of wasting my time with you I am finished with playing your stupid games. Yes I agree and you are the square peg in my opinion. That being said Fred didn't need to take any of this into account since his timelines are account and not based upon guesstimates of routes and speeds. I can assure that if anyone maintains an average rate of 4.2 mph over the route they are still tired and horses worn. Regards AZ Ranger
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2015 16:02:45 GMT -6
Fred, In your book you make a point of noting the speed of 4.2mph as being " rapid indeed". Based on discussions today and your comments, " rapid indeed" seems a rather strange choice of words. One would think there may be an underlining agenda. In the book, you specifically note how fast Benteen moved considering the terrain and the start/stop nature of the task. Now that the distance has increased 3 miles, you willingly accept a speed of 6mph (50% faster and three miles further over this rough and exhausting terrain) so as to maintain your timeline. You now would have me believe that 8+ mph would have been more than doable (double the rapid speed portrayed in the book). You claim you can do 8+ over rougher terrain. After noting in the book the rapid speed and terrain you now remind me that this wasn't a troop of brownies and they were military men led by great leaders galloping across the terrain, up and over steep ridges and down valleys in an effort to explain the 6mph and hold the timeline. Has a hint of square pegs and round holes to it all, in my opinion. Enough of wasting my time with you I am finished with playing your stupid games. Yes I agree and you are the square peg in my opinion. That being said Fred didn't need to take any of this into account since his timelines are account and not based upon guesstimates of routes and speeds. I can assure that if anyone maintains an average rate of 4.2 mph over the route they are still tired and horses worn. Regards AZ Ranger If they maintained the 4.2mph over 7 miles and were tired and horses wore, what would a rate of 6mph over 10 miles do? You cannot hold the time of the scout to 1 hour and forty minutes and increase the speed and mileage by 50% and 43% respectively. Benteen would either have to have left earlier or arrived at Reno Creek later. One or the other.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 24, 2015 16:10:22 GMT -6
In your book you make a point of noting the speed of 4.2mph as being " rapid indeed". Based on discussions today and your comments, " rapid indeed" seems a rather strange choice of words. One would think there may be an underlining agenda. I am getting sick and goddam tired of defending my work to someone-- or some-- who clearly has an agenda... and that has never been something I have been accused of. If you read the book with a clear head and no gleeful preconceived agenda you would remember my caveat in the Preface, page 3, righthand column, last paragraph: "Another issue needing to be addressed was the discrepancy between actual terrain and terrain measured on a flat-surfaced map. This turned out to be easier than I imagined at first, simply because time ruled all! For example, if the map distance showed Captain Fred Benteen traveled seven miles between noon and 2:00 PM, we compute that speed at 3.5 miles per hour. The distance Benteen traveled, however, would be somewhat greater because of the constant up-and-down over the hills and valleys he encountered. That would mean his speed was actually greater as well, but overall, irrelevant, because other events dictated when he began, and when and where he wound up at 2:00 PM. Nothing is made up, contrived, or jerry-rigged for convenience; everything is driven by accounts of those who were there! It is merely a matter of degree; e. g., does “gallop” mean eight miles per hour or fifteen miles per hour? Speed, therefore, would become the least relevant constituent in the analysis, everything else dictating that particular facet of the timeline."For guys like you and some of the idiots on the other boards, the slightest explanation that doesn't fit with your mindset is enough to invalidate the entire study. I resent and reject that type of bullshit analysis-- if I even dare denigrate the word to explain that sort of nitpicking, invalid claptrap-- as nothing more than a feeble attempt to justify your obvious agenda. Here you go and make no bones about it: I stand by every single word I wrote in that book and I have provided all the evidence extant to support every single word of it. The timeline alone contains more than 1,000 accounts of support, none of which you or your buddies will be able to break. Any deviations from reality were made to ease the difficulty of reading and are explained fully like the explanation above. Deal with it or else throw the book away: you have wasted your time, my time, and the time of everyone on these boards. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 24, 2015 16:12:41 GMT -6
SF, This assumes that they are moving the same speed the entire time, does it not? How fast could they have moved at the beginning and again moving down NNC.
|
|