|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 8, 2012 14:20:07 GMT -6
yantaylor,
That wasn't actually my point.
Although I agree that relevant stuff has been picked up and vanished, my point was that even stuff that meets the minimal basic criteria for consideration as battle evidence - manufacturing date, location of the find - still is not evidence to the exclusion of the numerous possibilities about. Don't worry about what might have been there, worry about the stuff we have that has nothing to do with the battle but was made previous to it and landed on it later. Few do that, and most just pretend that never happened.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Oct 8, 2012 22:23:41 GMT -6
I see we have another opinion from the school of logic defiance, with a post graduate degree from the college of let them kill me while I await orders I might ask you the same question in reverse. How do you know they were not? Simple enough. Do you have an answer based upon your vast experience in the overall subject, assuming your major in tactics of course. Jag, you betray yourself as another drunk at the bar as DC puts it. A person wishing to start a fight just because. I might ask an even better question. How do you define independent action? What is it Jag? You know so damned much, so define the phrase. Tell us all, so we may marvel in your lack of understanding of the easily understandable. Let the rest decide who is right and who is wrong. This is just another example of a person being so wedded to his own view of things that his mind is closed like a steel trap. Do you know that it was not an independent action on the part of Calhoun to stop and defend Calhoun Hill? No you don't, nor does anyone else. Do you know it was not an independent action that moved C Company off Battle Ridge and down to FF Ridge? No you don't nor does anyone else. Do you know that Company E was not engaged in an independent action on Cemetery Ridge, an action not under Custer's immediate control? No you don't, nor does anyone else. Therefore unless you have evidence not available to any one of us, the fact is that you don't know jack s**t about what transpired or what did not transpire. In fact you KNOW nothing. You like Richard are in the assuming business, another assignation in the bushes with Fido. You have no idea of what orders were issued, or if any orders were issued. If they were issued you have no idea at what level, regiment (-), battalion, company, or squad, do you? You assume that everything that happened happened as a direct result of one man issuing orders. Were this a court room, some smart lawyer would raise an objection based upon facts not in evidence. You have no idea of any facts upon which to base your assumptions, because there are no unchallenged facts, and you were not there to bear witness. Now it is OK for you to have in mind what you think happened, but it is also OK for others to do the same. If yours is not based upon logic and reason, expect it to be called out for what it is, pile upon pile of unsupported assumption. I would expect the same to come my way, if I venture to far out on a limb. The difference between you and Richard vice myself is that I have no intention of shooting the messenger when they can lay substanciated fact upon the table, vice my mommy told me so. What did you expect? Scattered corn. Tell me what would it look like when a couple of thousand hostiles took on 210 soldiers, having them cut off and cut up? I would suspect that it would look much like a field of scattered corn and that says absolutely nothing about the subject at hand. Military units are echeloned so that they may take independent action. Soldiers, particularly officers and NCO's are trained to use initiative and judgment in these matters in the absence of orders. Now the 7th Cavalry was not the poster child for sound tactical judgment in my view, but regardless of their faults, neither were they mindless statues. I have zero tollerance for crap like this, zero. There you go assuming. So don't go blaming me or others of doing the same thing you just did. Your presumptuous assumptions have shown what you don't know, which is much less than wild, me or for that matter the rest of those who would stand and challenge your a$$inine statements. And in the same vein presumed what I was trying to convey according to the same. You were wrong. What the evidence supports all the way around is the Indians bushwhacking them, putting many to fright and flight in less time than it took you to write that clap trap response. What it supports it them being ambushed and wilds statements supported that notion. It had nothing to do with what a commander did or didn't do, its what the damned Indians did. So take your zero tolerance and shovel it in Louisiana, I'm sure they'll appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 9, 2012 0:56:34 GMT -6
Drunk at the bar. From the looks of how you use the word, you would not know a bushwack, ambush or ambuscade from Fido's principle appendage.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Oct 9, 2012 1:35:02 GMT -6
Drunk at the bar. From the looks of how you use the word, you would not know a bushwack, ambush or ambuscade from Fido's principle appendage. Good god try using a dictionary Q, maybe it'll get you beyond your ignorance. It seems like nothing else will.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 9, 2012 2:05:06 GMT -6
Drunk at the bar. I have neither the time nor the desire to fight with you. Play with yourself.
If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it.
Richard, that goes for you too. Neither of you have open minds. Both of you have closed agendas. Neither of you are interested in discovery or finding the truth, Neither of you are interested in the exchange of information and ideas. Therefore you are both useless in this endeavor we pursue here. Neither of you know tactics from a bull's ass, so why should I bother with either of you. Just pass me by if you please.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Oct 9, 2012 4:41:56 GMT -6
Colonel You misquoted me twice,The unwritten rule is to at least acknowledge the error. Such curtesy was not to be extended to me instead my efforts were heaped with ridicule for no other reason tnan I take a different view. You make use of second hand insults from the DC box of tricks.Well I'm sure while you rummaged about in there you must have come across such old friends as illiterate and old man with a girl thingy cat. We have all heard of character assination but character suicide ? Bless me DC for I have sinned I misread your intentions then and hereby give you a long delayed apology for my intemperate words and manners. I now fully understand them in the way they were meant.That is the first time I'v seen a Colonel of the US Armed Forces or any man in fact, pick up another's man's spittoon and down the contents.
The tactics the Colonel has trouble with is the dispersion of units while under attack and outnumber 10 to one. The ironery is that his new found hero holds that this can only be explained by a dead Custer. What a crowd of big girls blouses.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 9, 2012 6:50:10 GMT -6
At several miles the duration of gunfire could be distinguished but I doubt any or all of it was above the sound level of car passing by you in close proximity. It could be covered by talking I would suspect. A person with poor hearing might only hear a few peaks or nothing at all. A person engaged in active conversation might not hear anything.
What I wonder is who had nothing to do and could listen intently to hear shots at several miles distance.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 9, 2012 7:07:51 GMT -6
As far as the archaeological findings they are not evidence as I would use the term. The site is contaminated both on that day and for many years. On that actual battle day the weapons changed hands entirely on the Custer battlefield. When did each individual weapon change hands?
The findings at best might give something consistent with a theory at worst misleading in nature. There were lots rounds fired on that battle field after the battle. Findings even included a .223 cartridge case.
Just as important is the removal of artifacts over a long period of time. One will never know conclusively that something did not occur or the indicators have been removed.
DC is spot on regarding period correct archaeological findings. Period correct only means it is not eliminated. Period correct does not mean it is a battle related artifact.
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 9, 2012 8:07:42 GMT -6
Yes AZ I agree. Luce ridge 150 cartridge cases found. Nye Cartwright ridge 100+ (maybe up to 400) cartridge cases found.
These ridges are crucial in determine what route part of the command may have took. If part of Custer’s command did use these ridges, then it may mean that Keogh’s wing never went down MTC at all or only partly down. Did any of the Couriers or Indian scouts say anything about the command separating after Cedar coulee, is there any evidence that the infamous F Coy detail went as far as Nye Cartwright ridge.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 9, 2012 9:02:56 GMT -6
The question is could that have been done at a latter time for some special event? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 9, 2012 9:04:22 GMT -6
Yantaylor,
You're in non sequitor heaven.
1. To what, exactly, in AZ's post do you agree? I ask because....
2. The cartridges found on Luce and NC were found by who, when, and where are they? Were they ever subjected to the same study more recent finds were? What, then, exactly do they prove, if anything?
3. Why are the ridges crucial to determine what route part of the command may have taken? Exactly why?
4. AFTER cedar coulee, what courier left from Custer? What Indian scout saw the command divide and exactly when did this story come to light?
Jag,
Nobody here 'knows' anything about how the battle played out. We only have theories based on what evidence might apply. Being a soldier doesn't automatically give anyone the truth more than someone who lives near the battlefield, which certainly doesn't either. You've routinely annotated your posts with silly, condescending remarks like "now you understand!", as if you held some secret vault of knowledge, except others show your numerous deficiencies.
Only I am perfect, as you know. Second tenors, more awe in your delivery during my morning Te Deums, please.
Now shape up. If you get off screaming at a guy who had a serious heart attack this year, seek help before you're sentenced to it.
QC, you're a soldier. Shape up. You should be above this. Wild has no function but to incite, as he has here and continues to do. Anyone who's read his vacillating opinions over the decade and his disgusting accusations towards America followed by nauseating, on the knee, apologies (that aren't, quite) should view him as the detritus from the shoe after a walk through the paddock.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Oct 9, 2012 9:32:40 GMT -6
Drunk at the bar. I have neither the time nor the desire to fight with you. Play with yourself. If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. Richard, that goes for you too. Neither of you have open minds. Both of you have closed agendas. Neither of you are interested in discovery or finding the truth, Neither of you are interested in the exchange of information and ideas. Therefore you are both useless in this endeavor we pursue here. Neither of you know tactics from a bull's ass, so why should I bother with either of you. Just pass me by if you please. Pass you by Q? Perish the thought. You have as much clout here as another pretend golden boy on the other playboy channel. And no one has to know anything about modern military tactics to know what happened in 676, 1076 or for that matter in 1876. The study of this history, as well as any other in the timeless past is open to everyone, whether they think they know a bulls butt from a sows teat is not for you to decide. And quite frankly I'm pissed as hell at your useless endeavors to endear our ears with layered cheers of modern crap and tears that had no application in that battle. Now if you want to talk about something they do today in military terms and same application, I'm quite sure youre experience should carry the day, but applying that supersilious knowledge to anything past is just as vain and ignorant as someone trying to impose the same upon the far distant future. And for your information it isn't me, wild or anyone else who isn't interested in finding the truth and open exchange of information and ideas. It's you! It's you that has the closed agenda and a closed mind. You sit there upon your porcelain throne and expect us to open the door and smell the odor as if it was the only thing in the world important enough to persuade us that you're 100% correct and we're nothing but something for you to flush once your done with the toilet paper. The possibility existed more than any other that Custer and his motley group were ambushed, ergo bushwhacked, and it being done so within a very very short period of time that no one should preclude the possibility that any commander had the time to issue any sane enough orders to prevent that certain destruction. Yet you not just preclude just the opposite, you won't accept it and call anyone who disagree's with you a damn drunk. And, at the same time expect someone to come to your support by claiming through veiled words that they don't know crap. It isn't me that doesn't have the time or the desire to find a damn dictionary and look up a word, or for that matter keep an open mind that someone not of the same ilk as you has as much if not more of the truth and discovery at hand and in thought than anything you ever contributed. You might be or have been a Colonel in the US Army or some other equally mentally debilitating, morally diseased and historically dumbfounded armed service, but it doesn't give you the credentials here or anywhere else to call someone a perverted drunk playing pocket pool with the motor pool you helped to create. I might not know a knat's butt from a elephants trunk, but I do know DC was right when he offered his conception of how it all came down. When you pare off on a one for one basis each company, about 50 men to the number of Indians, 1 for 1 they never stood a chance. Do I know it all, hell no and I'll be the first to admit it and the last to say I ever did. But closed minds and closed agendas are the usual proclamation by those who have nothing else to prove than those who already joined the motor pool and go off sulking in the corner with the other guys who play the same pocket pool game there. And DC I might offer suggestions as proof, but to get them to just listen, sometimes you have to whack them over the head with something. Specially in this place.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 9, 2012 9:49:21 GMT -6
Dark Cloud, sorry I was being a little vague, maybe this will help you follow my drift.
1/ I agree with AZ over the site being contaminated.
2/ Joe Blummer, Elwood Nye and Henry Weibert, but as you said this doesn’t prove anything.
3/ Concerning the ridges, did the two wings split up and take different routes, or did they all go down MTC, I remember you saying a while back that Keogh took his wing past Custer’s when firing started at Ford B, and I am trying to trace a route that they could have took, and theses ridges could have been route to Calhoun hill.
4/ I was asking if either Martini or Curly saw the command split into two and take different routes.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 9, 2012 9:53:45 GMT -6
DC: I would like to take a stab at why the ridge route is important. It is important because it may give an indicator that the two squadrons were split at some time after Cedar Coulee, and flys in the face of the line astern comment seen above. If they were operating seperately, and I think there would be good tactical reasons for them to do so, it may also be an indicator that were the two squadrons split that they may never have joined again even momentarily. Were that to be true you could then divide the battle into two seperate parts, earlier than most think, and it would go a long way toward shedding some light on the disjointed outcomes.
Were this to be true it would be very hard to prove in that, while Godfrey reports seeing trail evidence on the ridges, any such evidence in MTC I expect would be obliterated by the hostiles using MTC as an approach march route to Sharpshooter Ridge in the later confrontation with Reno/Benteen.
You are also correct about "being above". I never backed down from a good fight in my life. This is not a good fight and hardly worth the effort considering. I shall heed your admonition in future.
AZ: Have you a date or period on the photo you posted? Was it a celebration or was it some sort of exercise? I ask this because up until post WWII these battlefields were under control of the War Department and not the NPS and training exercises were often held on land such as this. Gettysburg is a good example for exercises, and the fact that Camp Colt was established on the field of Pickett's Charge during WWI. The same is true for Chicakmauga NBP, which for sixty or more years was the training area for Fort Oglethorp, GA and a temporary cantonement area during both the Span Am War and WWI.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Oct 9, 2012 9:58:45 GMT -6
Jag, when you say Custer was ambushed or even bushwhacked, do you think that the Indians were waiting for him around Ford B, or could it have been just a small group like Wolf Tooth’s band that were travelling in the area of MTC.
Ian.
|
|