Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Jan 11, 2023 18:50:16 GMT -6
HR- Can you elaborate on the Mitch Bouyer skull fragment debacle for those of us who are new to this knowledge? Here's a quote of yours I pulled from one of the final posts on this thread: "... immense publicity stupidity. Of course, that validation is now an immense embarrassment which cannot see light of day. You cannot dream this stuff up."
How did it even get tested forensically in the first place? Or is that part of the b.s.? Thanks! Jenny
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 12, 2023 11:51:00 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/Thanks AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jan 13, 2023 10:12:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Mar 3, 2023 13:59:10 GMT -6
HR- Can you elaborate on the Mitch Bouyer skull fragment debacle for those of us who are new to this knowledge? Here's a quote of yours I pulled from one of the final posts on this thread: "... immense publicity stupidity. Of course, that validation is now an immense embarrassment which cannot see light of day. You cannot dream this stuff up."
How did it even get tested forensically in the first place? Or is that part of the b.s.? Thanks! Jenny The recent research is here amertribes.proboards.com/thread/753/mitch-bouyer-acapore-ute-indian?page=1 and flags the work done with markers 33 & 34. THIS co-incided with Gray's Reconstruction book and a presentation on the Bouyer skull. Part of the story friendslittlebighorn.com/Mitch%20Bouyer.themIt's a very interesting twist, if you like, to the chemistry of modern science into archaeologies disciplines and the practice of speculation and speculation being wrong. The misidentification can be traced back to 1925 and a battle author upon whose bandwagon many morejumped. There was a spate of battle related skull comparisons and forensic facial reconstructions such as Sgt. Bother, and then also Lt. Harrington from the 1877 Schufelt skull, which patently cannot be Harringtom, and is quite possibly the skull missing from the skeleton found in1925, and placed in the Garryowen. One of Reno's men. regards
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Apr 5, 2023 6:22:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Apr 5, 2023 6:31:04 GMT -6
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Oct 1, 2023 13:54:28 GMT -6
....the 1877 Schufelt skull, which patently cannot be Harringtom and is quite possibly the skull missing from the skeleton found in1925, and placed in the Garryowen. One of Reno's men. regards OK HR... I've been Goggling Schufelt skull and ..... zip. Info? Thanks! J
|
|
Jenny
Full Member
Posts: 200
|
Post by Jenny on Oct 1, 2023 13:56:30 GMT -6
Hi J1941 -- can you advise on this link? No file found. Thanks, J
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Oct 1, 2023 17:00:00 GMT -6
The Schufeldt thing was related to Walt Cross and his work on Harrington. www.goodreads.com/book/show/8057387-custer-s-lost-officerThere was a recent general discussion on another board which mixed in Amelia Earhart's fate. Your link to the 'Maguire map' has messed up the url which is a syntax problem with software. I'll hand code so it should work - commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_on_the_Little_Big_Horn_River,_Montana_bet._Gnl._Custer_%26_Col._Reno_and_the_Sioux_Indians._June_1876_-_NARA_-_102279434_%28page_1%29.jpgThat went well. I'm on cell. Heading to a PC. This should work linkcommons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_on_the_Little_Big_Horn_River,_Montana_bet._Gnl._Custer_%26_Col._Reno_and_the_Sioux_Indians._June_1876_-_NARA_-_102279434_%28page_1%29.jpg you can see immediately above that the coding ouf URL is broken syntax. So....... Cut and paste the green test below, into your browser, and it will go to the web page. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_on_the_Little_Big_Horn_River,_Montana_bet._Gnl._Custer_%26_Col._Reno_and_the_Sioux_Indians._June_1876_-_NARA_-_102279434_%28page_1%29.jpgThis map was maybe.... number four in a series of revisions made over time to the original, which I believe was drafted at St. Paul which was HQ (The Office) for Terry, Sturgis sometimes, and Maguire's boss Gillespie Corps of Engineers/ The maps were drafted and then litho'd on mtal plate for printing. In most cases the production runs were in the hundreds issued to the army. This guy really got into it all with his research and is not a popular author but it's fascinating stuff which by timing, I guess, got Donahue on his road of research. King died before he could publish. The book is worthwhile but hard on the mind The official (printed) maps and drafts, were not prepared at the battlefield, which should be obvious but fools everyone. Such is life and it is incredibly obscure stuff which interests........... no-one and hence 147 years on, we have what we have. You do believe me, don't you???
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Oct 1, 2023 17:37:00 GMT -6
I've got another one for you. It's a tracing of Maguire's sketch map which he sent to A.A. Humphreys Corps of Engineers, with a private letter dated July 2, 1876. It is based on Maguire's battlefield sketch made on the ground when he arrived with Terry. Somewhere or other, I recently posted the initial sketch map which came to light recently. On the hunt.............. The following post comes courtesy of the research of Jeff Wahl:The following hand drawn map was included with Lt. Maguire's Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1876, to Brig. Gen. A. A. Humphreys, July 10, 1876 from camp on the Yellowstone River. Lt. Maguire mentions the sketch/map in his report... "When the village was sighted he ordered Reno to charge with his three companies, telling him that he would be supported. Reno crossed the river at point A (See sketch herewith) and moved down the woods at C without encountering much opposition...".
|
|
|
Post by lakotadan on Oct 3, 2023 8:43:31 GMT -6
Hello all! I have a question about Maguire's map (included below). It has a scale of miles on it, in 1/2 mile increments. When I try to compare the scale on Maguire's map to the measurements I get on a Google earth map of the area, it is way off. Almost as if his 1/2 mile scale should actually equal only a 1/4 mile. Was he wrong? Am I wrong? Is anybody right! Ha, ha, ha, etc! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by lakotadan on Oct 3, 2023 9:36:46 GMT -6
Thanks rosebud!
What do you get from point "E" in a direct line to the river (straight down the middle of that ravine)? By Maquire's map and scale I get about 1 mile (5280 feet). By measuring on Google earth I get about 3117 feet. A difference of about 2163 feet!
|
|
|
Post by lakotadan on Oct 4, 2023 9:31:38 GMT -6
Thanks rosebud for the assistance! Yes, I noticed the "my quote is better than your quote" thing going on in a thread. At times it is interesting, and humorous! Anyway, did you mean "the East-West measurements are off, but the North-South miles are accurate"? I have included a markup of the directions on the Maguire map, and my interpretation of the "new scale of miles". How would you interpret the directions and scale on the map? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by lakotadan on Oct 4, 2023 10:14:25 GMT -6
rosebud, So, I tried to get a better reading on a larger map of the directions. You were correct in your first post of the mileage being off in one direction, and then on in another direction. As you stated "The East -West miles are accurate but the North -South measurements are off." Have included a Maguire map with a new markup of directions. Hey, now I think that puts us on the "same page"! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Oct 9, 2023 9:13:53 GMT -6
Check. North is up, with variance…
|
|