|
Post by Yan Taylor on Aug 28, 2014 9:00:59 GMT -6
Exactly Chuck, just because you don’t have artefacts as evidence of military movement in a particular area, doesn’t mean they weren’t actually there, anyway I thought you got put on a charge for losing army equipment, so anything and everything would be or should be secure. For all we know the whole of the Yates Battalion may have not gone the whole way, going on how these Companies operated, then there could have been a gap between these two units, even to the point that they may have moved along different paths, I can see nothing wrong with one hanging back and covering the other.
What one man does with his “Roscoe” is his own business, and who am I to ask.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 9:41:19 GMT -6
Ian: Let's take one example - a boot. If a boot is found at a place on the battlefield, it is first logical to ask, should it be here? Is there any other evidence found in the general area that is consistent with a boot find? Does the boot contain evidence of human bones within or nearby? Is the place it was found a logical place for soldiers to be? Is the boot from the period in question? Absent positive answers to these questions, there may very well be another reason for it to be there. I would suspect that there are artifact finds and potential finds all over that battlefield that are period consistent, but are not indicators of anything more than they were dropped, and the most probable culprit for the dropping was an Indian, deciding that he or she did not really need that trophy after all.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 28, 2014 13:17:15 GMT -6
Battlefield Artifacts Following up on your comment, what are the recent artifact discoveries that have been located in the area descending towards Ford D? How recent are we talking? Cartridge cases, bullets, and several articles of military paraphernalia; 1994. Regardless of writers, historians, movies and what you may have been taught in college, the battle did not unfold this way. So you are correct in rejecting it. It wasn’t. You would be wrong in assuming this. This is another assumption, and in fact, is far off the mark. At this point in the battle the only one doing any “bringing to” is Custer. Never happened this way. This is merely a variation in the “fatalistic” theory and it holds no water. He encountered none on Luce Ridge. The U. S. Army has an acronym: KISS. “Keep it simple, stupid.” Your scenario here is way too complicated. And just how long did it take 1,000 Indians to get their act together? You sound like Jack Pennington. And you ignore every shred of evidence and every account we have with this scenario. Where did you get this figure for the Indians? Oh, mulligan, mulligan, mulligan! The circumstances of Custer’s defeat are even more simple than you portray, and as far as I am concerned these scenarios are way off the mark. At least you are thinking, however, and that’s a good thing. I do agree with you about the maps, however. You would have to be more specific, but Michno’s “Indians” have stood the test of time, and more importantly, the test of corroboration. I have issues with Greg Michno and some of his cockamamie theories, e. g., the Yellow Nose guidon incident, the whereabouts of the LWM killing, his silliness with the battalion breakdown, his complete disregard of the Custer psyche (of course, this one is debatable), etc.; but his “Indians” aren’t part of it. He did an absolutely yeoman’s job with Lakota Noon. The thing I like about you is you are a thinking man with good ideas…. My friends and I have spent about a full month there, all told: six trips and next year will make it seven. Six of us. Ideas, theories, measurements, photos, interviews, tours, discussing the archaeology with both Scott and Fox, riding (by horse) the entire route from the divide to LSH (including the Benteen scout route)…. I have assembled 230 profiled accounts of participants and contemporaries (including more than eighty Indians)…. Sorry my friend; my certainty is in the 90+%-range. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 13:47:25 GMT -6
Sed nomini tuo da gloriam
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Aug 28, 2014 15:04:55 GMT -6
Hello Mr. Mulligan,
Let me clarify the status of WACC. They are not a research facility, they are a conservation center. They will not respond to research requests, rather they will forward inquires to the NPS site that might have data that could answer the inquiry. We do not have the data that was collected from the forensic studies following the archaeological work of the 80's. The Midwest Archaeological Center, Omaha, NB may have data about the forensic work. I talked to Doug Scott, the Lead Archaeologist on the digs, and he told me that the Nye-Cartwright artifacts were not analyzed.
I hope that this will be of assistance to your research.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:53 PM, <Spanielman@aol.com> wrote:
Email submitted from: Spanielman@aol.com at /libi/contacts.htm
Mailing Address:
Mulligan 13161 Reedley St. Arleta, CA 91331 USA
Dear NPS Little Bighorn Monument:
I would like to determine if cartridge cases found on the Nye-Cartwright ridge area in the 1920's through 1940's period (discovered by various individuals including Supt. Luce, Blummer, Weibert, et al) have been subjected to modern forensic laboratory analysis in the manner of the 1980's Fox study of LBHM Battlefield artifacts.
I would like to know whom to contact at the White Swan Library and the WACC to begin my inquiry. Thank you!!
Mulligan
-- Jerry Jasmer, Park Ranger Little Bighorn Battlefield NM Crow Agency, MT 406 638-3214
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Aug 28, 2014 15:07:58 GMT -6
RE: Nye-Cartwright (Blummer) Ridge
I'm only a newbie here but as I suspected all along no Nye-Cartwright cartridges have ever been subjected to forensic analysis, at least according to Douglas Scott (see my correspondence with NPS Ranger Jerry Jasmer, above). The sole claim these cases have to being battle related is that they are unstamped (77,78, etc.), which theoretically dates them to 1876 or earlier.
A 1920's era local Montana rancher, say like Joe Blummer, would probably know where the US Army cavalry forts had existed in that area. Even as late as the early 1880's I'd wager that regular firing practices at these remote outposts were going through many surplus boxes of unstamped, pre-1877 Springfield ammunition.
If a person were of a mind to perpetrate a Custer-related hoax based on cartridge casings it would be a simple matter to round up a bunch of these old firing range casings and cherry-pick out the unstamped shells.
By the 1920's I'm pretty sure even amateur western historians like Mr. Blummer were familiar with the date-stamping of cartridges as an identification technique.
It is clear from vintage photographs (early 1900's) that the whole Custer enterprise was a very, very big deal in those parts. Custer was a world-renowned local hero, of sorts, and you can imagine that many folks would have wanted to attach themselves to his fame. What better way than to locate important undiscovered battle artifacts? Especially if they are right on Custer's trail, but not so close to the actual battlefield as to be suspicious.
When Blummer revealed his cartridge discoveries on the ridge other interested parties (Supt. Luce and his wealthy friends) swallowed the bait like hungry trout going after a hatch of midges at dusk.
WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE FAMOUS!! We'll have our names on all the maps! It wasn't long before other locals like Hank Weibert joined the game and uncovered additional planted shells.
Fast-forward to modern times. Following a well-timed wildfire in the 1980's limited funds become available for a forensic analysis of battlefield relics. The archeologists in charge narrow the inventory to a selection that will produce verifiable results of national interest and scientific importance.
An educated guess is the Nye-Cartwright cartridge collections are rejected for study because of issues regarding provenance. Some testing was probably done to ensure that something wasn't being overlooked. Bottom line, the Nye-Cartwright artifacts don't pass the scientific "smell test" and only items from the NPS battlefield property are analyzed.
My takeaway is that Custer's men never fired a shot until they were nearly at Ford B, C, or D, and that relevant scientific minds are of the same opinion.
Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 28, 2014 15:12:49 GMT -6
You may be right here, but if not, everyone is entitled to a Mulligan or two.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Aug 28, 2014 15:36:09 GMT -6
Mulligan, I much like you think that Custer formed up his entire command for the move north. I have expressed this in the past, it is not popular theory here or in most circles. Artifacts and some NA accounts support the other theory, but do not rule out your theory. As we have all said at some time or another, dead men tell no tales.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Aug 28, 2014 19:21:03 GMT -6
There you go mulligan. Great to hear new thoughts and enquires. Interesting stuff on cartridges. Rather than necessarily a hoax, I expect forensics is also a matter of budgets. Follow montrose's sage advice. Be assured that QC does sometimes communicate in english! Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 19:46:12 GMT -6
Don't be so damned sure Mac. It's August. August is my Latin month. Next month, September, it is verbal communication in Croatian and all my written work will be in Hebrew. I will start with Paul's Epistles. I like Paul. He was the one I model my life on when it comes to my well known and much loved tolerance for twits and nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Aug 28, 2014 20:42:10 GMT -6
Thank you for your tolerance.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 20:50:52 GMT -6
My butt. No one has progressed further or faster than yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Aug 28, 2014 22:04:04 GMT -6
Fred,
Touching sabers. Thrust and cut.
First, I think it's going to take a thousand seriously angry NAs the same amount of time to organize themselves on the LBH river bottom and swarm up the flats to meet Custer head-on as it did for many of these same warriors to group together and engage Reno en masse about an hour earlier.
Estimates vary, but it was a matter of a few minutes.
I'm one who believes the NAs were fully prepared and expecting a cavalry attack from the day they returned from the Crook battle. Believe what you want, but my money is on the NAs knowing Custer's every move from June 23 forward, especially his maneuvers in the hours preceding the battle.
I will grant you that "We've caught them napping, boys!" -- whoever said it, Custer or Kanipe -- was clearly not to be taken literally, as in school children napping. Weibert's point was that the apparent subdued activity in the village should've been cause for deep suspicion -- if not outright alarm -- to an experienced Indian fighter like Custer. As mentioned, this comes from Hank Weibert's insightful "Sixty Six Years in Custer's Shadow".
Weibert's other point about the Bouyer hat waving was also dryly humorous. Of course no one would ever wave their hat in the air, thus revealing the location of Custer's five companies. It never happened!
I love it on this board that I can just state things like this categorically!!
It's more likely that what Reno's troops actually observed were NA "forward observers" just below the bluffs waving blankets as a signal to the village below that Custer was approaching. In fact, if you want to start believing NA accounts, one of Michno's "Lakota Noon" NAs actually recalls seeing this type of blanket waving, which initiated some hasty NA movement toward MTC.
Trust me on this one, because I was there at the LBHBM: If you stand at Reno's first skirmish line position and look east you can see the tall white bluffs, obviously, but picking out an object the size of a man on a ridge top is going to be difficult. NAs waving blankets, cavalry scouts waving their hats, horses waving their tails -- on a hot summer day it's all going to look pretty much the same unless you've got 20/10 vision, an expensive field glass, and several leisurely minutes to squint.
~~~
Fred, I think with your 90%+ level of certainty you would've fit well in Custer's Headquarters Company. They would've appreciated your confidence.
KISS:
1) Crook, Gibbon, Terry: 3 regiments converging on the Sioux.
2) Reno, Benteen, Custer: 3 battalions searching the LBH valley for the Big Village.
3) E & F Companies, C & I Companies, Headquarters Company: 3 mounted columns charging down to the river, creating an awesome cavalry front hundreds of yards wide.
No escape for the NAs today!!!
Mulligan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 28, 2014 22:45:07 GMT -6
You really don't know B from a bulls ass do you DO OVER.
I am not an expert on many things but one of those things I am an expert on is force structure of the United States Army and I assure you there were no headquarters companies in the United States Army until shortly before World War I. Additionally,I. C, AND L Companies formed the Keogh Battalion, and Calhoun commanded Company L not C as you previously stated. Harrington commanded C vice T. Custer.
Headquarters Troop , 7th Cavalry was organized, along with Supply and Machine Gun Troops on 28 July 1916, in accordance with an authorization provided by Act of Congress dated 3 June 1916,
Crook did not have one complete regiment with him, but a mixed force composed of elements of at least three and I think four. It was in fact a brigade
Gibbon did not have a complete regiment either, only a portion of the 7th Infantry.
About the only thing you got right were the fact that they were companies, not troops, and would not be until 1881.
I can't wait to see Freddie rip you butt open tomorrow when he sees this about the hat waving and you being at the Garryowen Gas and Slop. Man does that make you an expert.
Fred and his associates have actually measured the distance and tested the concept live and in person, and if you would heed what Montrose suggests and read here, and what Mac encouraged you to do twice you would know that and know the results of the test.
Now the rest of these fellows and the Blue Bonnet Lady are much to refined and polite to put this to you straight, but I suffer under no such restrictions.
You sir are a no'count peckerwood of the first water playing in a puddle way over your depth at present, and sadly inclined to being between a complete creep in your posts on mutilation to being a conspiracy theorist at the other extreme. You do know what a no'count peckerwood is don't you?
|
|
|
Post by Mulligan on Aug 29, 2014 0:41:20 GMT -6
Q:
My first stab at it would be it's a character's funny line you stole from a classic Sam Pekinpah movie, you cantankerous, self-important, plagiarizing old carbuncle!
And the next time Fred the Expert sends me on a wild goose chase searching through multiple archaeology books for non-existent ballistic evidence I'll nail him to this board high so everyone can note how he sometimes misdirects newcomers who don't subscribe to worn-out pseudo 19th Century military theories. IMHO, the Custer battle stopped being important Military History with the Charge of Flowerdew's Squadron in the Moreuil Woods.
If you haven't got the memo Custer and his exploits are now part of American Popular Culture.
Just like Elvis Presley.
And since you're such the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle fan I know you really won't want to miss the latest episode of Elementary, the TV show starring Lucy Liu.
Mulligan
|
|