|
Post by johnson1941 on Jan 31, 2024 13:33:06 GMT -6
"fooled" being key. Nope. You are wrong again. Hoffman didn’t lie. The Where Custer Fell picture book got stuff wrong - this just one of several. The 1916 postcard that is my avatar of one high hill Looking down on DeWolf and a Water Carrier route is exactly right, not their "match" attempt a 100 years later. Camp and Godfrey are COMING DOWN THE Hill. The same hill in the other picture visible beyond the horse. They admittedly could not find that high Hill of course, so they made one up. At a flat location. A mile away. That overlooks nothing. Where no one carried water. Where the river is not tight to the bluffs. Where 2 hills lined up like they propose would have the 2nd be in a 150' valley. {Goofier then Curtis point 2 trying to equate them.} The difference is quite clear. They did the same with Martin's Ridge looking AT Weir's HILL, which clearly is the same Weir Hill from the 1st postcard, Looking down on DeWolf, in it. Weir Hill - which has NO gap towards the plateau. Yet they came up with an image looking at Weir POINT, that is NO WHERE near the same view BECAUSE IT IS SO FAR AWAY. And HAS A gap. Magic cameras, those guys, but not magic enough if you just look. It too is quite clear, as seen on the left above. The right side page "match" above aint even close! Like your Barry skirmishes...they were totally wrong. Check out the Outlook - that too is a doozy. They get about a 60% rate. I suggest you learn again what you already knew - that not everyone is correct when trying to fill a book. Its a shame as it fools people doing research if you do not pay attention. Right. Weir Point is NOT Weir Hill. Shoud not be - in ANY book, that is fact-based, on the witnesses. As you know they are over 1/2mile apart. By now we ALL should know that. It is vital not to be confused over the 2 very different locations. The differences are quite specifc, besides the obvious distances between them, and their proximity to the river and the retreat up. Weir's HILL, used at the RCOI, identifies a specifc high(est) point about 1/2mile below Reno. WP is 1.2 miles away. Bottom line - NO one there places Custer at Weir Point. Everyone there places him on Weir HILL. Q. Did you see the place generally known as the point where Capt. Weir went to? A. Yes Sir I saw it . Q. Was General Custer on that point? A. No, on one nearer the river and the highest point on that side. Where I saw General Custer the river comes right under the bluff. A. It was on the highest point on the right bank of the creek just below where Dr. DeWolf was killed.
A. We kept on General Custer’s trail, and after we got on this ridge where I saw Major Reno fighting in the bottom. About this time we got there I saw Major Reno’s battalion retreating Q. Where was that point from which you first saw Major Reno fighting? Was it further up the stream than where he made the stand or at the same place? A. About at the same place. Q. When you moved down afterwards did some of the troops go on that high hill? A. No, sir.
Huh - so Weir's Hill/Martin's Ridge, where Custer was seen/viewing the viilage, and Martin saw Reno, is right near where Reno retreated. And as Martin/DeRudio said, no trooops with the after-Weir advance went there. Nice huh?! Thats is why we KNOW the Hoffman images capture that high place known as Weir's HILL...its right there overlooking DeWolf grave / Reno retreat /the river, where everyone there, and Hoffman himself, said it was! Wrong, again. Stop flailing. WMC is based on witnesses. As am I. The statements I present are not my opinion, Just about all these are facts provided from those that were there. I suggest yet again you read the RCOI. Everything you need is there. And still not sure, the scout interviews. And Edgerly. Heck just see all their statements, and more - I have already posted so often you have to have read them by now. Statements...Verifiable. Reliable. Related. Corroborated. Confirmed. WMC is indeed a fine source, great for confirmation, especially on distance/bearings/heights - surveyor stuff, and he provides lots of good details fromthose there. YOU can ignore him too, if you choose. I'll not, and neither does anyone else. It IS up to them how much they pay attention.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 31, 2024 13:34:23 GMT -6
This one is COFFEE..............
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 31, 2024 19:47:45 GMT -6
It's art, Jim.
Your Huffman avatar contains ESG and WMC, mounted and at a high point on the ridges running down to the valley floor.
The horses are stood upon terrain which is slightly lower in perspective than a hill distant behind and downriver. The crest of the hill downriver merges into that of the foreground crest upon which the horses stand.
The horizon of the hilltop upon which the horses stand - has another hill behind and the top of that distant hill merges into the top of the hill the horses are on. It looks like one hilltop but is actually three, repeating along the bluffs running downriver. It's that simple and you simply cannot see what is in front of your eyes.
The top of the hill the horses stand on has a higher hill behind but the black and white imagery merges two contours onto one from the perspective of the photographers view point.
It is a simple trick of perspective and photography. I recommend that you watch an old film called Blow Up which you will thoroughly enjoy and I will hold it against you, if you do not. A 1966 mystery thriller.
If you are facing downriver, is a different right from facing the valley. That means that directions which are not oriented by the teller, are candyfloss whisped and twirled in gentle breeze.
Since we know where Sgt. Ryan's company deployed their line on the perimeter of the corral, then where was the hill to his right which a sniper occupied?
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 31, 2024 20:09:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Jan 31, 2024 20:15:19 GMT -6
Its Ok - you can save your opinions. I like facts. I read their 'description' and saw their solution...its wrong, and so doenst make sense. Instead of going through it all yet again...Hoffman was correct. He took a good shot - but it’s not just art - it’s confirmation. Fortunately the SAME High Hill AKA Weir's Hill is seen in the rocky ridge picture, where you can see the same peak. The same river bend is seen in Hodgson's marker images. Yep. We know Weir's Hill is real, and we know it is located right there where Hoffman took his pictures and located it for us; right where Martin and Herendeen and Camp et. al. said it was. It matches exactly his title, matches exactly the descriptors given by primary witnesses. As does/was Martin's Ridge and SSH. Like Curtis - WCF is at times unreliable…Nice pictures though. Sure it is. I suggest you re-think what you are trying to sell. Yes yes…right is left and up is down and above is below and 1/2 mile is 1.2 miles and no one there is trustworthy and the RCOI is junk and Camp the surveyor/engineer can't measure things and Curtis the photo guy is the only viable source and the picture book explanations are spot on except when they're not and DeRudio lied though he was right on and Martin was wrong about the ridge and high Hill he was on and Herendeen had bad perspective and no one could turn their heads and Edgerly didnt know what he was saying and Ryan lied about SSH and the Maguire map was smudged and Hare didnt mark the map where he did and the elevation wasn't p-shopped and the USGS map was wrong and select horses needed wings to go uphill and the men there can't tell what place was higher since they were busy and an arikira mile is different then a real mile and east meant west and moving upstream isnt really heading upstream and north of something isnt truely north and Hoffman lied and the things on the maps shouldnt have been there and Wilson’s is the best but still not right and where the river is tight moved alot and down a ravine is the top of the summit and the pictures are tricks and the primary statements should be ignored and the scouts were right AND wrong but only 1/2 the time and horizon ridge really does exist just dont know where and G isnt 7 and 7 isnt THAT high and Weirs Hill isnt a real thing except the scouts were on it and the guys there couldnt judge heights and the guys there couldnt judge distances and Custer wouldnt have gone down a coulee and Custer wasnt where they all said he was and Custer and his troops werent where they were seen when they were seen and Custer did go where NO one ever said he was… Please stop. PLEASE try some positive reliable support-info for a change! Or move on. Move things along with facts instead of wasting our time with your same old made-up complaints, non existent 'arguments' and mystical data, and empty ‘reasoning’ in attempts to trash every statement & info provded by those who were actually there. You not backing any of it up with facts, just aint working for you.
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Jan 31, 2024 20:25:24 GMT -6
Sure it does. The engineer/surveyor measured the wrong hill a mile away. AND he rode his horse down the wrong hill too {even thought he and Hoffman actually located/described it exactly}. Ya know - another mystical place where the river isn't REALLY tight to the bluffs. Ya know - the hill that is not a peak, but flat, but is somehow still angled in the original pic, and can be viewed WITH THE RIVER curving in towards it. Lol! Holy cow. Yes indeed! Also all the distances and bearings WMC the surveyor measured must have been off too, even though they can still be verified to be correct. Of course WMC took altitudes as well. How much YOU rely on them is up to you. WMC seemed to provide very little opinion on what was high, higher, highest. I wouldn't think of him as the one to depend on too much for that. Actual data -yes. relative notions, not so much. As we know, he was great at gathering a LOT of data from a LOT of primary witnesses, often on site, with maps, surveyor tools, station chains, odometers, etc. etc. Use his info well. Rely on THE WITNESSES to tell you what was what. They were there. I AGAIN recommend you actually read the RCOI. Those guys nailed all that ‘highest hill’ stuff quite well. Hey - at least you came up with something new and quite imaginative! I REALLY think you should spend time finding actual statements from people who were there to try to back up your notions, instead of just always disputing everyone & everything posted in confirmation/support of what they said happened with your opinion alone. Other than Curtis, which unfortunately is unreliable because it is supported by - well - no one who was actually there (though a heck of a story); you have posted nothing but unsupported opinions and imaginative reasoning as to why every one else and every other source can’t be trusted. Interesting how Curley, Knipe, Martin, Benteen, and others who were with / on Custer's trail - some of them numerous times - do not mention anything about any place which can be related to what Curtis marked as point 2. The high ridge/highest Point 7/G/Weir's Hill though? Yep. Confirmed by all and more. i wonder why you can not provide more? Is there really nothing concrete out there you can rely on to back you up? NO one actually there that is reliable you can post in support of your ideas? Weird. Maybe time you did some more rethinking.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Feb 1, 2024 13:13:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Feb 2, 2024 6:07:32 GMT -6
Your opinions are fun.
Logic test time!
Person H: I've been in that neighboorhood a few times - Skelsdale House is the biggest house in the vicinity. It’s probably 1/2mile down from the park. Person D: I was at another party just across the river. I saw George, Bill, and another I didn't recognize partying at the biggest house on the bluffs across the river Person M: George and I started partying at a big house. It was near the park on the right bank. D: I saw George at the Blue house - its the biggest house in that neighborhood. D: That house is marked "7". It was maybe 600 yards from the park. M: Where I was 1st partying with George at the house marked 7, the river is right next to it. Its about 1/2mile down from the park - near the graveyard D: George was not at the Purple house. Where I saw him was at the biggest house on the right bank, just past the graveyard S1: We were 1st partying with George at the biggest house just north of the park. S2: We were partying with George at the biggest house, to the right of the park S3: We went to the big house, the biggest to the right of the park with George, to see what was going on, then they went down the trail heading north B: House "G" on my sketch is the big house where George first partied. I confirmed that was it with persons D & M. I've been there several times since. K & T: We were all partying with George when we got to the biggest house about 1/2 mile down the street from the intersection near the park M: George 1st partied at the biggest house marked 7, its the biggest house around there. I was there with B several times. D: George was at the biggest house; I was there with person B a couple days later. M: George 1st stopped at Skeldale House and partied. M: After 1st partying at the house marked 7, we went a few hundred yards more down the street, then took a right down the trail and went towards a creek that led to the river. S1-4: After partying at the biggest house, near the graveyard, George left us behind and went down the trail to the right to the creek. We kept going down the block to over-look the river/creek further down, near the Purple house. M: I left George going down the trail, then came back up near Skelsdale and saw another party across the river. I passed a couple of his friends on my way back up H: When the other party was ending, I'm guessing George would have been just passed Skelsdale, there's a nice trail off the right there that goes to the creek W: Skelsdale house is on the bank 1700' from the graveyard, and over 1/2mile from the Purple House much farther down
Question: Where did George 1st party? 1) Skelsdale House 2) the house marked 7 3) the house marked G 4) the Blue house 5) the biggest house in the neighberhood 1/2mile north of the park. 6) the biggest house overlooking the graveyard 7) the biggest house right near the river 8) the biggest house to the right of the park
The answer is #9 - ALL OF THE ABOVE! It was a trick question - THEY ARE ALL THE SAME THING.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Feb 2, 2024 9:17:19 GMT -6
The dialog between the two of you is getting very old. Let's move on to topics that will appeal to others.
Diane
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Feb 2, 2024 12:27:43 GMT -6
Agreed! Thank you!!
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Feb 3, 2024 17:46:09 GMT -6
I was preparing to offer and explain Edgerley's unpublished account of the battle which explains Weir's movements after the skirmishline was established on Reno Hill, and discuss where that line was deployed, but such is life.
|
|
|
Post by johnson1941 on Feb 4, 2024 5:17:04 GMT -6
New information about Reno Hill is a new topic and so calls for a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Feb 4, 2024 9:57:39 GMT -6
herosrest,
I've had these boards for 20 years. Believe me, when two people dominate them with an argument between themselves, viewership dies.
You are welcome to present your discussion about Edgerly but, as johnson1941 said, start a new thread and frame the discussion in a manner that will invite more people to participate. Firing shots at each other is not interesting to the rest of us.
Diane
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Feb 4, 2024 12:12:48 GMT -6
You are a very special lady.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 4, 2024 14:45:06 GMT -6
To be fair, is was getting as long as the iliad Ian
|
|