|
Post by fred on Oct 14, 2011 13:46:46 GMT -6
... but would you say that the release of the horses would have come about as result of a direct order, or had it more to do with the horses breaking free or in some cases being run off. If the former, then I have to say I cannot see what was to be gained by moving towards the river dismounted. Surely that would leave you far more vulnerable on several counts; slower moving thus, easy targets, secondly, leaving yourself open to mounted men running you down or causing you to scatter. Shan, It is my opinion they lost control of the horses... no cavalry command in its right mind would order off their horses, then bolt for the river on foot. Remember, as well, there were several riders in that group, four or five I think. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 14, 2011 13:54:51 GMT -6
For all some, try as they might, the proof is before them, not about them. I would be really interested in seeing this. Who would you ask?... you certainly couldn't figure it out. As for the rest... well, exactly what I expected from such a dolt. I checked your profile and see you aren't too much younger (seems to me, it makes my "striping" comment even more cogent). What do you think? The interesting part about that is that I have already made it there... you only have prayers. Oh... and the teeth. I just double-checked; they're all there... and no cavities!I guess I am still waiting for something either intelligent or useful to be posted by you. You know, I was thinking about it... if you Google "Looney Tunes and Merry Melodies," you might find a subject more in balance with your abilities. Maybe I shouldn't hold my breath. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Oct 14, 2011 17:34:07 GMT -6
That's one thing Michno proposes that I can't get behind: that near the end, Custer's men released their horses in hopes of the Indians chasing them, allowing the troopers to escape.
Of course, to at least some Indians, it appeared they let them go at that point. And came running down the hill after.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 14, 2011 18:50:48 GMT -6
Regarding GPR, the impression I have is that it's good in certain types of ground and not others. I'm under the thought a runoff gully is packed full of rocks the size and shape of bone bits and compacted in strata all under larger rocks from the collapsing sides and this wouldn't be so easy since that all has to be distinguished.
Atop that, it's not something that weekend metal detector types can master in off moments, or I in a lifetime. Also, expensive and power hungry. Just saying it's possible it was discussed and avoided.
To the point, if some bones were found, what would it prove, exactly? Not where they fell or where they were buried, and absent expensive DNA testing of unknown relatives, difficult to associate with this battle. Even if so associated, wha? If we knew how many skulls were in the common grave, it might be informative but we don't and it wouldn't be. For all we know there's only 180 bodies under the monument in whole or part, and if the 28 or so of the SSL were found in Deep Ravine that would prove.......what?
Can we prove there weren't bodies under all the markers at one point? No. This is accumulation of data to no actual benefit for questions to which nobody wants answers.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 14, 2011 19:31:00 GMT -6
That's one thing Michno proposes that I can't get behind: that near the end, Custer's men released their horses in hopes of the Indians chasing them, allowing the troopers to escape. I don't buy that either. Anybody ever measure the distance those men would have to run? In that heat... in those uniforms... in those boots? I would also doubt the horses were released "all at once." Indians made a point of aiming at the horseholders, but I wonder about that as well, especially with all the mayhem, dust, and smoke. I would think that with more and more men falling, horseholders needed to defend themselves and take a more active part in the fighting. I would think they merely let go of the horses, four here, eight there, a couple more someplace else, and pretty soon you have a stampede. The E Company move had to be planned (in all of 30 to 60 seconds!), otherwise men from "F" would have been amongst them... for whatever purpose. Scatter Indians; leapfrog to the river; cut a swathe for "F"... who knows? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 14, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -6
Can we prove there weren't bodies under all the markers at one point? No. This is accumulation of data to no actual benefit for questions to which nobody wants answers. I agree. To what purpose? They died there; it was the end of the battle... certainly for them. Some bodies were lifted out; others weren't. One hundred eight years later-- 1984-- nothing is found. Again... a very deep ravine, obviously formed by excessive water run-off... where's the secret? Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Oct 14, 2011 19:46:10 GMT -6
For all some, try as they might, the proof is before them, not about them. I would be really interested in seeing this. Who would you ask?... you certainly couldn't figure it out. As for the rest... well, exactly what I expected from such a dolt. I checked your profile and see you aren't too much younger (seems to me, it makes my "striping" comment even more cogent). What do you think? The interesting part about that is that I have already made it there... you only have prayers. Oh... and the teeth. I just double-checked; they're all there... and no cavities!I guess I am still waiting for something either intelligent or useful to be posted by you. You know, I was thinking about it... if you Google "Looney Tunes and Merry Melodies," you might find a subject more in balance with your abilities. Maybe I shouldn't hold my breath. Best wishes, Fred. This is not the high standards of a professional writer anyone would expect from someone who is now in your esteemed profession. I'd think acting with integrity, honesty and professionalism to enhance your work and reputation among other authors of like standing, and over the book buying community at large would be proferred over this. Any company that publishes a book I'd think would expect of its authors to behave professionally, ethically and with dignity when dealing with others. All other authors I've been in contact with, have sought out and accepted gracefully, genuine and well-intentioned criticism of their work. They all, one exception noted - you, have provided honest unbiased advice and encouragement for those who ask them questions whether critcal or not. I have never observed any author who has went on any media forum and has felt compelled to defend their work in such a manner as yours. I might not think what you think, believe what you believe, or see/hear what you do, but one supposes this forum isn't banned from any family member, anywhere from viewing it. I'd think your writers standing above anyone else here who isn't, in that regard would give rise to the dignity some have displayed elsewhere, some here and very recently, and with more flair by example than you have. You have neither been objective or fair in your criticisms of those who disagree with you or your work, which to all intents and purposes are now one and the same. In these matters appertaining to your professional status as a writer, such conduct does nothing for your reputation.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Oct 14, 2011 20:41:57 GMT -6
Regarding GPR, the impression I have is that it's good in certain types of ground and not others. I'm under the thought a runoff gully is packed full of rocks the size and shape of bone bits and compacted in strata all under larger rocks from the collapsing sides and this wouldn't be so easy since that all has to be distinguished. Atop that, it's not something that weekend metal detector types can master in off moments, or I in a lifetime. Also, expensive and power hungry. Just saying it's possible it was discussed and avoided. To the point, if some bones were found, what would it prove, exactly? Not where they fell or where they were buried, and absent expensive DNA testing of unknown relatives, difficult to associate with this battle. Even if so associated, wha? If we knew how many skulls were in the common grave, it might be informative but we don't and it wouldn't be. For all we know there's only 180 bodies under the monument in whole or part, and if the 28 or so of the SSL were found in Deep Ravine that would prove.......what? Can we prove there weren't bodies under all the markers at one point? No. This is accumulation of data to no actual benefit for questions to which nobody wants answers. You could always ask Doug Scott. He did an excavation a few years back that was on the village side just across the river from where Benteen described the ford to be in the Deep Ravine area.
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Oct 14, 2011 23:16:56 GMT -6
That's one thing Michno proposes that I can't get behind: that near the end, Custer's men released their horses in hopes of the Indians chasing them, allowing the troopers to escape. I don't buy that either. Anybody ever measure the distance those men would have to run? In that heat... in those uniforms... in those boots? I would also doubt the horses were released "all at once." Indians made a point of aiming at the horseholders, but I wonder about that as well, especially with all the mayhem, dust, and smoke. I would think that with more and more men falling, horseholders needed to defend themselves and take a more active part in the fighting. I would think they merely let go of the horses, four here, eight there, a couple more someplace else, and pretty soon you have a stampede. The E Company move had to be planned (in all of 30 to 60 seconds!), otherwise men from "F" would have been amongst them... for whatever purpose. Scatter Indians; leapfrog to the river; cut a swathe for "F"... who knows? Best wishes, Fred. The only thing that makes sense to me would be killing horses for a barricade, releasing the leftovers. But why not attempt to keep at least some of them. And why run on foot after releasing horses? They must've been released accidentally or out of necessity on an individual basis. Because if a move down from the hill was planned, horseback would've been preferred. A mounted charge displaces Indians, if only temporarily. Mounted, a man has a small chance of escape. A charge on foot did not allow for either. Of course, we have Benteen leading charges off Reno Hill, but I believe the proximity of the Indians was closer, and the amount of troopers and the situation was different. The Indians when fighting Custer could smell blood. When fighting Reno, it was a stalemate.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Oct 14, 2011 23:33:38 GMT -6
I agree, Crab--the horses probably broke loose rather than being released on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 15, 2011 6:24:48 GMT -6
This is not the high standards of a professional writer anyone would expect from someone who is now in your esteemed profession. I'd think acting with integrity, honesty and professionalism to enhance your work and reputation among other authors of like standing, and over the book buying community at large would be proferred over this.... You have neither been objective or fair in your criticisms of those who disagree with you or your work, which to all intents and purposes are now one and the same. In these matters appertaining to your professional status as a writer, such conduct does nothing for your reputation. First of all, I don't need you or anyone else on these boards to preach to me or lecture me on high standards, morals, or ethics. If you held yourself up to your own so-called standards, you would see exactly what your own problem is. Secondly, "writing" is no more ethical or demanding of high standards than working on an assembly line, so please, disabuse yourself of that notion. One could say the same thing about politics or the Catholic Church... and I can scream about the latter, simply because it is my Catholic Church and I am a Jesuit educated Roman. (I put that in to fend off any preconceptions of religious bigotry.) Your problem, "jag," is not your intelligence. I perceive that to be rather high and rather stimulating as well as interesting. My jabs in that regard are peremptory and designed to bring you into the fray. My problem with you is that you are-- or certainly have exhibited to me-- a "tear down." By that I mean you come in here, tear down what someone else has written or said or believes, and you substitute nothing in its place... and you do it viciously, sniping as you go, using mockery all along the way. Maybe it's an "Internet" or writing problem, but I am quite sensitive to it because it has formed the basis of any number of battles I have had over the six years I have been on and off these boards. If you do not believe me, I would suggest that you PM Diane Merkel. Diane is a straight-shooter who would give you the good and the bad about me. I do not want to continue this bickering, but I do not walk away from a slap across the back of my head. I accept the opinions of others, just as I would like them to accept mine. It doesn't mean we have to agree, and I take issue with your comment, above, about not being objective regarding other's opinions. You are relatively new to these boards, and you have no idea how many times I have changed my views based on the writings of other members. No idea!You do, however, reach a point where your views gel because of all the work you have done and I am reaching that stage with a lot of my opinions. It is rather ironic, I think, that you and I are addressing this issue right now because I am mulling around the idea of putting up a post or new thread about a book I am finishing, asking for ideas of what others would like to see addressed in a "military and timing" analysis of this battle. I am interested in doing this so I can address other viewpoints. I have already done so in the manuscript, but the opinions of others are extremely valuable to me, and I find there is so much brainpower on these boards, that I prefer people here to other published authors and their opinions. That includes you.... And I value your objective opinion, but not some "tear down" crap with nothing inserted as a substitute. It's sort of like politics, again, you know... "Your idea stinks... but I have nothing better." Well, guess which stinks more? I don't want to continue this, "jag." Not in its acrimonious form. My hand is out to you in friendship and it will come with my own apology for offending you... but it is conditioned on a similar handshake and apology. Without passing the buck, the ball is in your court. Again, to make myself clear, I am not offended by criticism; all I ask is for someone to include a reason and a better idea. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Oct 15, 2011 7:41:48 GMT -6
This is not the high standards of a professional writer anyone would expect from someone who is now in your esteemed profession. I'd think acting with integrity, honesty and professionalism to enhance your work and reputation among other authors of like standing, and over the book buying community at large would be proferred over this.... You have neither been objective or fair in your criticisms of those who disagree with you or your work, which to all intents and purposes are now one and the same. In these matters appertaining to your professional status as a writer, such conduct does nothing for your reputation. First of all, I don't need you or anyone else on these boards to preach to me or lecture me on high standards, morals, or ethics. If you held yourself up to your own so-called standards, you would see exactly what your own problem is. Secondly, "writing" is no more ethical or demanding of high standards than working on an assembly line, so please, disabuse yourself of that notion. One could say the same thing about politics or the Catholic Church... and I can scream about the latter, simply because it is my Catholic Church and I am a Jesuit educated Roman. (I put that in to fend off any preconceptions of religious bigotry.) Your problem, "jag," is not your intelligence. I perceive that to be rather high and rather stimulating as well as interesting. My jabs in that regard are peremptory and designed to bring you into the fray. My problem with you is that you are-- or certainly have exhibited to me-- a "tear down." By that I mean you come in here, tear down what someone else has written or said or believes, and you substitute nothing in its place... and you do it viciously, sniping as you go, using mockery all along the way. Maybe it's an "Internet" or writing problem, but I am quite sensitive to it because it has formed the basis of any number of battles I have had over the six years I have been on and off these boards. If you do not believe me, I would suggest that you PM Diane Merkel. Diane is a straight-shooter who would give you the good and the bad about me. I do not want to continue this bickering, but I do not walk away from a slap across the back of my head. I accept the opinions of others, just as I would like them to accept mine. It doesn't mean we have to agree, and I take issue with your comment, above, about not being objective regarding other's opinions. You are relatively new to these boards, and you have no idea how many times I have changed my views based on the writings of other members. No idea!You do, however, reach a point where your views gel because of all the work you have done and I am reaching that stage with a lot of my opinions. It is rather ironic, I think, that you and I are addressing this issue right now because I am mulling around the idea of putting up a post or new thread about a book I am finishing, asking for ideas of what others would like to see addressed in a "military and timing" analysis of this battle. I am interested in doing this so I can address other viewpoints. I have already done so in the manuscript, but the opinions of others are extremely valuable to me, and I find there is so much brainpower on these boards, that I prefer people here to other published authors and their opinions. That includes you.... And I value your objective opinion, but not some "tear down" crap with nothing inserted as a substitute. It's sort of like politics, again, you know... "Your idea stinks... but I have nothing better." Well, guess which stinks more? I don't want to continue this, "jag." Not in its acrimonious form. My hand is out to you in friendship and it will come with my own apology for offending you... but it is conditioned on a similar handshake and apology. Without passing the buck, the ball is in your court. Again, to make myself clear, I am not offended by criticism; all I ask is for someone to include a reason and a better idea. Best wishes, Fred. Fred, I only had to read the first few words of your overly written excuse to know what the rest was. And didn't bother to read the rest of what you had to say and won't. I can sum up my thoughts on this entire matter in a few words. I share only a casual hobby-like interest in this subject. And I have nothing to gain, nothing to lose by sharing my thoughts on the subject. It matters little to none what happened in the old west in 1876 to me. I have no prediliction of thought that would lead me to be obsessive-compulsive about anything so trivial to my real life. If I was the only one who was right about any of this, I still wouldn't feel the obsessive-compulsive need to belittle, trample upon and call someone names because I thought I was. Been there, done that, and it still didn't do me a plug nickels worth of good, and there are those here who do know this. If you'd think for a moment that any of this, any of it, advances your cause, whether for monetary gain or glory, you'd be wrong, and I'm not afraid to be the first to tell you that. And I am confident I won't be the last, more's the pity.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 15, 2011 9:42:07 GMT -6
Jag You need to regroup and rethink your position. What part of the first amendment are you not understanding. I find your argument on what consitutes a writer's basic standards, morals, and ethics without substance. The only thing you need is to be able to write or have someone write it for you. You don't need to respond to this because my opinion is firm on freedom of speech and without qualifications of those that exercise it.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 15, 2011 11:00:16 GMT -6
I only had to read the first few words of your overly written excuse to know what the rest was. And didn't bother to read the rest of what you had to say and won't. Uh-huh! Right! I guess that's why you quoted the entire post. And that's fine with me; we'll keep it as it is. It is a shame, though. I took you for having more of a mentality than what is clearly a Tea Party philosophy... a one-word mantra: NO! I am not interested in whether or not this is a casual hobby to you. If it is, then you should be clearly re-thinking what you post. As for your psychological understanding of me, you need to find another profession because I make no excuses for anything; I take full responsibility for everything I do and everything I say. I also listen to reason and I am not afraid or ashamed to admit my mistakes and my errors, whatever they may be. I am not sure there is a soul on these boards-- or the others-- who would disagree with that comment. And please... you needn't flatter me or yourself by claiming I might have any monetary "gains" in writing whatever I write. No one ever got rich writing about the LBH, believe me! I also could care less regarding who would be buying whatever I do. I try to make it as fair and as reasonable as I can, supported by as much "evidence" or testimony as I can, and I choose my subject with my own experiences and understandings in mind. If you were to never see what I write, I couldn't care less. It would just present you with another opportunity to criticize something you have no idea about. That seems to me to be your mantra: tear it down and leave it void; don't substitute anything... because we have nothing better to add. It's a shame. I just hope someone like you has no responsibility for anyone else. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Oct 16, 2011 15:03:39 GMT -6
Again, to make myself clear, I am not offended by criticism; all I ask is for someone to include a reason and a better idea.
Best wishes, Fred
Like hell your not. You can't stand a shitkicker setting you on the right track with the Indians.
Geronomo surendered to Crook....I wonder when you will put him in the LBH?
More on this later and I do have much more. Ephriam warned you and you decided to go ahead with your project anyway.
Best wishes Justin
|
|