|
|
Post by El Crab on Aug 18, 2005 0:00:28 GMT -5
The horse on the Rosebud supposedly had 7th markings. It probably was a wounded horse that ran away from the field and died. Or it was abandoned after it gave out on the march. Who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Aug 18, 2005 2:56:14 GMT -5
If we believe Curley in his Russell White Bear testimony, we've still got that one last messenger unaccounted for: the chap on the sorrel-roan horse who was sent to the north. Why could it not be him?
|
|
|
|
Post by shatonska on Aug 18, 2005 7:13:23 GMT -5
If we believe Curley in his Russell White Bear testimony, we've still got that one last messenger unaccounted for: the chap on the sorrel-roan horse who was sent to the north. Why could it not be him? many don't believe curley , but i would like to have an answer to this question ? before 1928 findings on luce nobody said custer splitted companies , only curley , how could he know if he was not there ? |
|
Reddirt
Full Member
Life is But a Dream...
Posts: 208
|
Post by Reddirt on Dec 13, 2009 19:35:52 GMT -5
My thoughts on Curley is that he was but a seventeen year old youth in the battle and, must have been traumatized by what he saw. Unable to speak English, his "stories" were subjected to the veracity and talent of the interpreter. There were times when he may have been mis-quoted and , his actual action during the battle may have suffered as a result. Two distinguished persons felt that he was a honest witness to these events; Camp and Gray.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 14, 2009 22:30:42 GMT -5
Curley has been treated as fair as any involved in this battle.
On another issue it is good to see Wiggs agrees that Indian accounts are not the same as testimony due to in part the translators.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Dec 15, 2009 8:54:57 GMT -5
And with no admission of error, either. Just pretend to a different gender and User ID and hope nobody notices.
|
|
newn
Junior Member
Posts: 71 
|
Post by newn on Apr 12, 2010 7:22:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by martymil on May 5, 2011 18:14:52 GMT -5
As I'm sure many before me have done, I saw a show on the History Channel that centered around the book "Custer Survivor" by John Koster. I then did the old google searches that led me here. At the Amazon site about the book, there is a rather heated debate between the author and the late Michael Nunnally, which raised a basic question in my mind.
How many, if any, soldiers were not accounted for from the battle? I was surprised that this statistic was not pointed out (whatever it is) by either side in the sole survivor argument.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 5, 2011 19:19:48 GMT -5
Marty,
Nunnally-- who was a friend of mine-- was correct and the Koster/Ellison business is a bunch of bunk. They are nice fellows, I presume, but the whole thing is nonsense. Nunnally wrote articles and, I believe, a book de-bunking such nonsense.
As for your question, while not all identified, all bodies were accounted for, though the counts continually varied, e. g., 197, 209, 206, etc.
Best wishes,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by martymil on May 5, 2011 20:21:48 GMT -5
Fred,
Thank you for the quick response. If someone was missing (unaccounted for) I'm sure this would have been brought up very quickly after the battle and the press would have ran with it. It is my opinion that if Mr Finkel was the real deal, he would have carried a great deal of shame, warranted or not, and expressed that. He definitely would have remembered the name in which he received his pay, and of course, there would have been one less body found.
Thanks again,
Marty
|
|
