|
Post by AZ Ranger on Dec 24, 2010 8:21:05 GMT -6
Merry Christmas to you Billy and Merry Christmas to all
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Dec 24, 2010 16:57:22 GMT -6
Merry Christmas, Ranger!
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 16, 2011 7:28:30 GMT -6
Hi all. AZ Ranager, l know you to be very much brighter than the arguments you put up page previous, Terry did the research on June 27th 1876, eye to eye, talking to Benteen and then writing his report to Sheridan, which became part of the official inquiry into the battle, that was ordered as soon as news reached the senate and Congress. Gall stated to Barry where the skirmish lines were located on 25th June 1876. Where Gall saw them, is the point of the photographs and research that has been done into them. Taking up on some of the gripes on format - here's a teaser change - how does this seem?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 16, 2011 9:16:55 GMT -6
That format works better on my computer.
Here's a portion of Terry's report:
Major Reno, with three companies, A, G, and M, of the regiment, was sent into the valley of the stream at the point where the trail struck it. General Custer, with five companies, C, E, F, I, and L, attempted to enter about three miles lower down. Reno, forded the river, charged down its left bank, and fought on foot until finally completely overwhelmed by numbers he was compelled to mount and recross the river and seek a refuge on the high bluffs which overlook its right bank. Just as he recrossed, Captain Benteen, who, with three companies, D, H, and K, was some two (2) miles to the left of Reno when the action commenced, but who had been ordered by General Custer to return, came to the river, and rightly concluding that it was useless for his force to attempt to renew the fight in the valley, he joined Reno on the bluffs. Captain McDougall with his company (B) was at first some distance in the rear with a train of pack mules. He also came up to Reno. Soon this united force was nearly surrounded by Indians, many of whom armed with rifles, occupied positions which commanded the ground held by the cavalry, ground from which there was no escape. Rifle-pits were dug, and the fight was maintained, though with heavy loss, from about half past 2 o'clock of the 25th till 6 o'clock of the 26th, when the Indians withdrew from the valley, taking with them their village.
Reno was sent forward on Reno Creek and at that point Benteen would be to the left. Notice that when Reno retrogrades and crosses the river that is when Benteen comes up.
Kanipe and Martin put Benteen in Reno Creek when make contact. So whatever one believes about Kanipe the meeting place is in Reno Creek.
Benteen comes to the river after contact in Reno Creek with Kanipe and Martin and observes lots of Indians and Reno moving up the bluffs and joins him.
So where do you have Kanipe and Martin meeting Benteen?
Do you have the pack train also in the valley?
Notice that Terry states that Custer ordered Benteen which is evidence that Custer dissolved the wing formations used while escorting the wagons.
Reno claims to have no command while moving up the Rosebud and Captain Benteen only has his company.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 22, 2011 12:03:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 22, 2011 12:29:20 GMT -6
Miles was married to Sherman's niece, not Sherman's sister. So much for your accuracy. Like too many, the attachment of these details - right or wrong, accurate or not, relevant or not - serves to provide cover for whatever series of shorted synapses are offered as 'thought.'
There were horse bones across the field for decades, also in WCF. Of course, this comes down to the flexibility in the word 'field' which you exhibit and nobody wants to prune to consistency and back track. In general, that you do not understand something is not proof there is a mystery, only that you and possibly you alone don't understand.
Atop not being able to see, your willingness to distort and inability to achieve coherence, you can't read, either.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 24, 2011 6:58:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 24, 2011 11:56:41 GMT -6
This isn't independent research; it's not even research at all. It's nonsense badly illustrated, which does not elevate it to worth. A section devoted to actual content has been sabotaged beyond recall.
It's not even opinion, because you clearly don't understand your references. Just nonsense. Cut and pasting other's work, or rewriting it badly, only highlights the immense deficiencies of the small portion that is your's. It suffers in comparison.
You don't know much about photography, and seem not to understand how different lenses affect image over distance, which can make two photos taken from exactly the same spot look different. This atop previous fiascos when you mistook dirt for structure.
You have no point to make other than hoping someone will see something of substance which nobody, including yourself, can currently make out, much less coherently express. Because it does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 24, 2011 14:28:47 GMT -6
Who the hell is this guy? What is he trying to prove here? And where does he get this stuff? The whole thing is more annoying than anything else. The stuff reads like it was written by Houston Stewart Chamberlain.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jan 24, 2011 15:50:13 GMT -6
OK Fred, you made me look up Chamberlain. I assume he was a classmate of yours at Georgetown?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 24, 2011 17:37:47 GMT -6
Good heavens, no! He was Hitler's front man, a lunatic with all sorts of racial superiority theories.
He also believed that the future soldier of the 1960s would be better than the soldier of the 1990s-2000s, so at least he wasn't totally wrong. <g>
Well...
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by sfchemist on Jan 24, 2011 18:47:44 GMT -6
herosrest,
I'm relatively new to this board and I am having a difficult time reading and understanding your postings....the colors you have chosen for the text and background seem to neutralize one another making it very difficult to read on my monitor. However, maybe it is just my pc settings and others are not having the same difficulty.
I'm also trying to understand your signature line: "You prove theory by destroying it." I come from a scientific background and it sounds as if you might be misquoting one basic tenant of a scientific theory and are misusing the word prove.
A scientific theory has to be what is termed "falsifiable." In other words, an accepted scientific theory has to have the capacity of being proven wrong. For example: Newton's theory of gravity was changed by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. In a similar fashion astrology is not a scientific theory because it cannot be proven wrong. Notice, I did not say astrology is wrong, it just cannot be considered a scientific theory. (But it is wrong).
So "you prove theory by destroying it" seems puzzling to me. Theories are not proven in the normal sense of the word, they become accepted by the process of making predictions that can be tested and verified. No one has 'proven' gravity, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna step off a 6 story roof to test it. I accept that gravity exists. Theories are accepted not proven.
Food for thought.
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 25, 2011 15:51:52 GMT -6
Regards, sfchemist. Theory can be proven by attempting to destroy it. What more is there to say?
Gravity is not a theory, it is mathematically proven.
Nelson A. Miles investigation of the battle, produced what has become accepeted as a manouver by forty or so men of Custer's command and based conclusions upon lack of animal bones. Miles conclusions are flawed. There is a question to which monument he related his much later published work.
Fred, you don't have to read the stuff. In regards hades and i.d. - who are you?
The assessment made of the military campaign, is not perhaps going to please everyone, pride is a stubborn facet and entirely wothy in respect the U.S. armed forces. The summer campaign of 1876 was disaster, entirely. It was turned around and it was sorted out. How and who did it, is the context of my reply to DC.
Miles and Sherman were related in some way or other, what could it possibly have been, besides - Brothers in arms.
There was rampant corroption during the time of Grant's administration - plain fact. Thousands died in consequence. That has utterly nothing to do with philosophy, does it?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 26, 2011 9:32:29 GMT -6
Regards to one & all.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 27, 2011 12:04:25 GMT -6
|
|