|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Sept 14, 2011 16:20:52 GMT -6
I've posted a scan of Edward Maguire's Annual Report as well as the map that accompanied it. The map is in four pieces due to its size and is far from perfect, but it should be helpful when reading the report. See lbha.org/ |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Oct 21, 2011 13:49:42 GMT -6
I understand that Maguire actually indicated the body positions later ascribed to the SSL ?
He actually indicated, relative to the map he produced from Beckers data - where those troopers lay.
N'est pas?
|
|
|
|
Post by "Hunk" Papa on Nov 1, 2011 15:12:33 GMT -6
I understand that Maguire actually indicated the body positions later ascribed to the SSL ? He actually indicated, relative to the map he produced from Beckers data - where those troopers lay. N'est pas? The actual French phrase is, "N'est ce pas?" if you intend to use it again. The answer is "Ce n'est pas" because whilst in later maps Maguire detailed the position of officers and others bodies on LSH, plus Keogh on Battle Ridge, he never detailed the positions of the bodies of any enlisted men on any of his maps. It seems highly likely that a lot of your posts are fishing expeditions to save yourself the problem of doing your own research. I would therefore advise all posters here to ignore your posts unless you have the honesty to actually ask for information directly. |
|
|
|
Post by Moltke on Feb 1, 2012 14:24:21 GMT -6
I've posted a scan of Edward Maguire's Annual Report as well as the map that accompanied it. The map is in four pieces due to its size and is far from perfect, but it should be helpful when reading the report. See lbha.org/ Thank you for posting. Very nice map scans, and good reading. |
|
bull
New Member
Posts: 1 
|
Post by bull on Jan 3, 2014 8:14:16 GMT -6
Where should I begin...... Though I truly enjoy your enthusiasm of the massacre. It was and still is a passionate subject matter, shrouded with mysteries? Why does there remain so many questions about who, what, where, when, and why? Where's definitive sources that can rest some of these tired discussions? I am amazed by the diligence of some board members, however when these finest of details of the battle become knit picked, a viable question arises.. After over 100 years how can I believe the information provided on this forum, to be accurate or even true to the accounts of the matter? There are so many sources, good ones and bad ones! Unfortunately this is why history has failed us with the true story of The Battle Of The Little Bighorn. Fortunately for the readers here, there are sources, sources that will FINALLY resolve fallacies about this historic event. I shall not delve into them at this time, but I will promise you one thing... This will stomp out many regurgitations of what you may have already assumed to be true... I will keep you updated, thank you for your time!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 3, 2014 12:40:20 GMT -6
Bull: If you think some new single source document will "stomp out many regurgitations of what you have already assumed to be true" that in itself is BULL.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 3, 2014 13:32:25 GMT -6
Well... it ought to be interesting to say the least. I love it when I'm put in my place.
Best wishes,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 3, 2014 13:50:08 GMT -6
Hi Bull, when are you going to enlighten us with your new data? What brought you to this site and have you ever seen our sister board? Your name is not on their list, so I wondered why you haven’t shared your new information with our neighbours over there, have you ever been a member of either of these two boards?
Look forward to reading your new info.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 3, 2014 15:41:48 GMT -6
Ian and Fred: I think he is a matress salesman, where all your problems are solved for JUST $19.95, and if you call right now we will double the order, JUST pay separate shipping and handling and we will send you a Betty Crocker cookbook as our thank you gift. If not satisfied just send them back but postage will run you a grand apiece, and you may keep the cookbook, with our thanks for trying our product. Call Today. Don't delay. That number again is 1-800 BULLSHIT.
Always look at a guys birthday before you read the newbies. If it is January 1, chances are you have a spammer or phony. Keogh's site still openly displays birthdays and two days ago there must have been sixty on the list. For some reason displaying your birthday is the law, at least Keogh's site says it is. Maybe if Diane sees this she can tell us why. If all the people on these sites that say they were born on 1 January were actually born on 1 January the maternity wards across this great land of ours could close for the rest of the year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 3, 2014 17:42:40 GMT -6
Well spotted Chuck, as Holmes would say “It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important’’
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 3, 2014 21:12:31 GMT -6
Ian: There is a corollary to Holmes. - Take care of the little things and the big things will take care of themselves. Dr. Bell in his fictional persona of Holmes was quite a guy, and Conan-Doyle did the world a favor by bringing him to our attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Feb 25, 2018 5:31:12 GMT -6
Lt. Maguire provided a cursory report dated 10th July 1876, with the above sketch map, which was included to that year's Report to the SoW from the Chief of Engineers for the year to 30th June 1876. Annual report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary ... v. 3 (1876). Lt. Maguirre's report of the 'EXPEDITION AGAINST THE HOSTILE SIOUX INDIANS IN THE SUMMER OF 1876' was dated March 9, 1877; and included to the Annual report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War. Vol 2 (1877). Link to the Report, p 1338 In this report, Maguire referred to a map 'then' on file in the Engineer Department, Washington, DC. The matter of a series of maps attributed to Maguire was thoroughly studied and analysed by W. Kent King in MASSACRE: THE CUSTER COVER-UP. CUSTER TRAILS SERIES, VOLUME THREE. King and his conclusions are disliked but unfortunately, his research was outstanding. The Maguire maps were further covered by Donahue in Drawing Battle Lines. Tubman gave comment at Feb 16, 2016 at 8:38pm and venerated bhist's 'spit' conclusions. As I said - King's supposition is not everyone's saliva bucket but that aside - his research was outstanding and is not controversial. It is factual and based on the legal record, which is what the Annual reports of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War; are. They are the legal record. |
|
|
|
Post by nomann on Aug 30, 2020 18:07:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 28, 2022 10:00:35 GMT -6
I understand that Maguire actually indicated the body positions later ascribed to the SSL ? He actually indicated, relative to the map he produced from Beckers data - where those troopers lay. N'est pas? The actual French phrase is, "N'est ce pas?" if you intend to use it again. The answer is "Ce n'est pas" because whilst in later maps Maguire detailed the position of officers and others bodies on LSH, plus Keogh on Battle Ridge, he never detailed the positions of the bodies of any enlisted men on any of his maps. It seems highly likely that a lot of your posts are fishing expeditions to save yourself the problem of doing your own research. I would therefore advise all posters here to ignore your posts unless you have the honesty to actually ask for information directly. Well, well..... this was on an old 'to do' list and it's turn arrived  This is the thing about the map showing the bodies in the deep ravine. It was discussed in obscure literature by authors and as given by participants, is entirely obscured by time, and actual as in factual. A map was prepared, or possibly schemed in the sense of 'taking ownership of the matter', and I attach it. I didn't consider the knockback serious and had it been, then the issue would be for the author. He unfortunately expired before developing the final chapter of his excellent book on the battle. Here's an image of the map and I have infilled a blowup of the ravine section. The original image of the map wasn't too hot but there is enough there to show what I stated. A map, official map, indicating the location of dead in the ravine which was deep. Thank you. Enjoy (Bows. Exits proudly left) As I understand from the author, the marks were 'x's' in red ink. He had seen the map and obtained copy. DucemusIt is a very interesting, heavily researched work, and ground breaking in several ways but... you have to reach your own conclusions because the material researched was and is, obscure. It is a very good read and a beautifully produced book. Actually just lifting it off the coffee table is .... wonderful.  It is controversial but in different ways, to different people and biases. Terrific information with much more required to research conclusions. It is a real test. If he was losing it towards the end, I just think about Shipley Gray sitting there as Bouyer's skull was trotted out in front of him! In terms of cover-up, there were cover=ups and long lasting they are. Both R&B, certainly. Reno was firing off CYA all over behind Terry's back and in front of it, to Sheridan and Grant and there should be little doubt that family ties with Cameron were developed. These were exercises in guile and garnering sympathy. Others in the spotlight likewise looked to their own and particularly Patterson Hughes. Benteen quietly did his thing and a desire to avoid scandal and headlines simply kicked in. It's pretty normal really but unfortunately was a many tentacled mouse of self interests and machiavellian disdains. The crime was all those dead Indians and soldiers through an immense incompetence actually centred top to bottom, on Reno. The man was a joke and deadly. A fool on a hill.  Shining example of America's best. Doing Whittaker's Mother.  An anecdote attending the current state of Gray rather than play, is the unworldly coincidence attending the identification of skull fraagments attending marker 33, as the Little Bighorn reconstructed book, published. Book centre-staging Mitch Bouyer and hey presto, we've identified his skull. Of course it is known today beyond all conjecture that that skull did bot present Bouyer's resting place, or indeed, himself. Nothing to do with Mitch Bouyer other than an immense publicity stupidity. Of course, that validation is now an immense embarrassment which cannot see light of day. You cannot dream this stuff up. The image with which the skull fragment was compared, was given as being Bouyer by Earl A. Brininstool doing utter rubbish. I link to the source of the well known Bouyer image link and state that his reference to the source providing him (Brininstool) with the image is dubious beyond reason. The image is of a reasonably well known (at the time) minor Ute tribal chief. |
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 28, 2022 10:36:13 GMT -6
|
|
This is the thing about the map showing the bodies in the deep ravine. It was discussed in obscure literature by authors and as given by participants, is entirely obscured by time, and actual as in factual. A map was prepared, or possibly schemed in the sense of 'taking ownership of the matter', and I attach it. I didn't consider the knockback serious and had it been, then the issue would be for the author. He unfortunately expired before developing the final chapter of his excellent book on the battle. 
It is controversial but in different ways, to different people and biases. Terrific information with much more required to research conclusions. It is a real test.