|
Post by Jim on Jan 29, 2006 12:03:21 GMT -6
Can't teach those Brooklynites ANYTHING!!!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 29, 2006 12:08:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by greenpheon on Jan 29, 2006 13:27:55 GMT -6
Alfuso; Is codswollop the same as balderdash? ;D
Greenpheon
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 29, 2006 15:24:49 GMT -6
Hey, Stretch!
Nice guidon! Shouldn't it have the bar sinister across it?
Der Grosse
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 29, 2006 16:10:07 GMT -6
Der Grosse,
That's for another Board!!!
Der Hohe
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Jan 29, 2006 16:39:16 GMT -6
greenpheon
codswollop is a neat Brit term that's closer to crap than balderdash.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jan 29, 2006 16:57:50 GMT -6
For those interested - Codswollop - (Variation - Codswallop) is defined as: "The story goes that a gentleman by the name of Hiram Codd patented a bottle for fizzy drinks with a marble in the neck, which kept the bottle shut by pressure of the gas until it was pressed inwards. Wallop was a slang term for beer, and Codd's wallop came to be used by beer drinkers as a derogatory term for weak or gassy beer, or for soft drinks."
|
|
|
Post by pjsolla on Apr 6, 2006 1:57:56 GMT -6
"the airplanes didn't kill him. Twas beauty killed the beast!" (fanfare) The End
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Apr 6, 2006 2:47:14 GMT -6
Jim
a Brit once told me "codswollop" is another term for "crap"
A site I googled says it's Irish slang for nonsense.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by gnelson on Oct 1, 2018 13:46:12 GMT -6
I had the great pleasure of having Henry Weibert come to my classroom for several years including one battlefield trip. He did not completely make up the Mitch Bouyer theory. He had a rare copy of a book by an Indian Agent. In that book it was stated that the battle was a trap and Bouyer had killed Custer. He worked backwards from that to prove it possible. He always kept an open mind as he swept over the battlefield. His personal collection was amazing. His knowledge of the battlefield and his personal connections with relatives of participants was astounding. He and his father actually found the partial skeleton of a soldier while farming on the Reno site. He rode that battlefield on a horse imagining where you would go with 200 soldiers and then went back and metal detected. As a rancher and farmer he was ignored by academics and roundly rejected. No one spent more time on that battlefield and understood it more than he. One of his favorite things was to find something new at the battlefield you did not know and share it. It is too bad everyone ignores or laughs about this serious scholar.
|
|
|
Post by brahms4 on Oct 2, 2018 7:16:30 GMT -6
Bouyer also famously warned Custer that he would encounter more Sioux than he had ever seen in his life.Bouyer said if he was wrong then Custer could hang him.Custer exclaimed "Hang you?!-a hell of a lot of good that would do"!I love the headgear that Bouyer wore with the two pileated woodpeckers.I wonder what happened to it?I don`t believe he was wearing it at the battle.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Oct 2, 2018 9:05:01 GMT -6
Bouyer died doing his duty, an American hero.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 2, 2018 10:00:41 GMT -6
I had the great pleasure of having Henry Weibert come to my classroom for several years including one battlefield trip. He did not completely make up the Mitch Bouyer theory.... One of his favorite things was to find something new at the battlefield you did not know and share it. It is too bad everyone ignores or laughs about this serious scholar. I think you miss the point here with Weibert. He is greatly respected by the older members of the various LBH groups, i.e., the LBHA and the CBHMA. Having said that, his knowledge of the battlefield, his riding around, and even some of his exploratory finds are almost irrelevant to what actually happened. To put it in a different perspective, not even men like Godfrey or Benteen would be any more accurate about events that happened on the Custer field than you, me, today's archaeologists, the any novice pontificating about the events. Why? Because they were not there. Godfrey and Benteen would be the ultimate experts on what they did and saw, but even Godfrey was way out of bounds in deciphering Reno's actions in the valley. And for more than one reason: (1) Godfrey was there, either!!!!, and (2) Godfrey couldn't stomach Reno (read Godfrey's field diary). Webber's metal detecting finds are only relevant in where he found them and in supposition to why they were there, very much like what we do on this site or in modern-day writings. Quite personally, I have not read anything Weibert wrote, but I am somewhat conversant in his theories and from everything I have heard, they are, in essence, a lot of hogwash... but that is just me. Again, his exploratory findings are priceless: it is the interpretation that lacks substance and academic rigor. The Boyer theory of killing Custer is utterly preposterous and should be dismissed out of hand. Once again, modern scholarship-- probably an "era" defined as beginning in the late 1980s to present day, affords us more and better data than Weibert was ever exposed to. I envy you, however. I would have loved to traipse the battlefield with him. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by gnelson on Oct 3, 2018 15:09:28 GMT -6
Once again, I will reiterate what he did. He had been an avid Custer Buff for years. He was given a very rare book written by an Indian Agent. In that book it described how the Lakota had set a trap for Custer. Until the 80's no one gave Native Americans much credit for being great generals. That book also claimed that Bouyer had killed Custer. Remember he made that claim- before His jawbone was found on the battlefield... kind of where he thought it should be. He could not prove his theories completely, but he always felt Custer was killed early in the battle and he was carried to last stand hill. The book also claimed the Indians had only enough ammunition for a three day fight. His biggest find was split shells at the Reno-Benteen site. Running low on ammunition the Natives were using the wrong size calibers for their guns. This showed him there was some truth to that book. He found none on the Custer site. I think everyone was right in assuming that the entire Bouyer thing was not completely full of merit, but his attitude was.. prove me wrong. With a horse and a metal detector he swarmed that battlefield. A horseman will go out of his way to miss some obstacles that someone on the ground would not. He spent a great deal of time with serious authors.. at a time when metal detecting was legal and not even frowned on. His collection was larger than anyone's. This was a lifetime passion. He had every book written on the battle and had spent years in the battlefield archives. His one regret was putting one chapter in.. Government Foul-ups. It kept his book out of the bookstore. he was a little rough around the edges, but he would quiz you a little to see how deep your understanding was. One of my favorite things he did with me was find Indian positions.. after metal detecting. He knew how to read that ground. Not one archeologist, Custer buff, Park Ranger has put even 1/10 of the time he spent on every inch of that place.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Oct 3, 2018 16:12:12 GMT -6
Just curious, what was the name of the Indian Agent, did you see the book? I am not here to dispute your claims, simply to substantiate. If it can be done. Thank you for your contribution and avid support of your position. By the way what school are you talking about, GN?
Regards, Tom
|
|