|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 18, 2015 19:19:26 GMT -6
There is a potential for the new visitor center to across the highway and looking toward the bluffs.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 18, 2015 19:41:51 GMT -6
There is a potential for the new visitor center to across the highway and looking toward the bluffs.
|
|
|
Post by mchlwilson on Sept 19, 2015 6:08:11 GMT -6
Thanks and I still have to read your book. So if Martini is profiled there great. I do not "profile" Martini in the book. The "profiles" I put together were used to write the book. The Martini profile is a separate Word document about 12 pages long and it is a synopsis of what he said and testified to over the years. Also, I do not discount accounts told 40, 50 years later. I look at them a little more closely, but I do not arbitrarily shunt them aside simply because they may be 40 years after the fact. Some of the best stuff in the book falls in that category. What I do have an issue with, however, is when I have someone like Martini who gives sworn evidence 2 1/2 years after the fact, then tells a whole different story 34 years later and again, 44 years later. That is where I have the problem. It is especially suspicious to me when every time the tale is told, the teller-- Martini, in this case-- seems to get closer and closer to the action, closer and closer to being side-by-side with Custer. To me, that begins to fall into the "crock" category. Best wishes, Fred. Fred, I have often wondered if the discrepancies between Martin's various accounts can be be attributed (at least in part) to Camp making "suggestions" to Martin. Camp clearly knew the terrain better than Martin and it's easy to imagine Camp "overruling" or "correcting" Martin during their meetings. That kind of "help" could really wreak havoc on one's memory over time. Michael
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 19, 2015 6:24:25 GMT -6
I have often wondered if the discrepancies between Martin's various accounts can be be attributed (at least in part) to Camp making "suggestions" to Martin. Camp clearly knew the terrain better than Martin and it's easy to imagine Camp "overruling" or "correcting" Martin during their meetings. That kind of "help" could really wreak havoc on one's memory over time. Michael, That is a very good point and I would not doubt it for a moment. Camp had an affinity for interjecting his own opinions into other's accounts. My biggest issue with Martini lies in the discrepancies between his RCOI testimony-- which I consider quite accurate, simply because it ties in very well with so many other things: context-- and his later accounts. Each time Martini opened his mouth he was closer and closer to Custer and the action. You are probably quite right, however. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Sept 20, 2015 19:55:09 GMT -6
If you at the drainage across the freeway you will see where the original came from if I recall correctly. I think I was riding on a tractor spraying noxious weeds and could see where it lined up. There is certainly potential for agriculture practices along with highway building to modify the old runoff channel. Regards AZ Ranger Curious as I approached that ditch solely from Google Earth and Reno's report/testimony and wholly ignorant of it named Otter Creek and the History of controversy about it. I studied it a while on Earth afraid it might be man made. I put a lot of thought into. I've walked a lot of the UPRR and didn't remember seeing them ditch. I certainly saw it ran to the barrow pit of the Highway but if it was made by RR or Highway it would have cut straight to the river in least distance, least digging fashion. I finally found on the net a "topographical drawing" with just the RR and river on it that showed a waterway there. I then thought of all the trails that we straddled with the pick up that had been washed out and then a few cow paths I could remember that likewise washed out. On google Earth you can see all these paths heading straight for water. Ravines usually keep to the meandering V format while eroded trails are straight and ditch or trench like. So now with AZ Ranger we have boots on the ground down in the Canadian Thistle. So does it fit at least in part what Reno described 140 years ago: 10 yards by 3 yards and a horse obstacle that few horses could jump?
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Sept 20, 2015 20:01:31 GMT -6
I have often wondered if the discrepancies between Martin's various accounts can be be attributed (at least in part) to Camp making "suggestions" to Martin. Camp clearly knew the terrain better than Martin and it's easy to imagine Camp "overruling" or "correcting" Martin during their meetings. That kind of "help" could really wreak havoc on one's memory over time. Michael, That is a very good point and I would not doubt it for a moment. Camp had an affinity for interjecting his own opinions into other's accounts. My biggest issue with Martini lies in the discrepancies between his RCOI testimony-- which I consider quite accurate, simply because it ties in very well with so many other things: context-- and his later accounts. Each time Martini opened his mouth he was closer and closer to Custer and the action. You are probably quite right, however. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Sept 20, 2015 20:13:38 GMT -6
So then the beef is in Camp's books any particular one. I just have "troopers with Custer" (?). I kind of understood Grahams methodology with Martini but realize it could be problematic. I think Martini at the end had no need for embelishing his position where in the middle years there might be reason. I remember discussing with a friends Father that was in his late 70's about his Experiences in WW II not knowing he had not shared them. He said they were assigned a really tough job of taking a tank out, he described moving up and feeling the wire, waking up in a hospital the only survivor. He had two bronze stars. I think such memories would be etched in the mind for ever.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 21, 2015 6:13:44 GMT -6
I Think Fred has spent a lot of time there in the valley and wrote an article about it. We walked to it with a group that included Gerry, and Tori Harper. As to the condition of the drainages since there is more than one that would depend on particular flood events. Ford B changes also. bc has been there also.
What we observed fits the description of a not so friendly horse crossing for a formation. It is deep enough to be used for concealment. Whether it is in the exact same location or has changed over time I would vote for it has changed since that is the nature of flooding events. I do think the description they gave was accurate. Reno could foresee the future and know that some day that drainage would appear just as he described it.
Regards
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Sept 21, 2015 8:22:32 GMT -6
Thanks AZ: Certainly it's a changing environment especially with that highway barrow diverted to it. I think for the most part eventually physics, the angle of repose, will be established causing a V or swale and not a ditch. So if it's a ditch now it probably was a ditch then and Reno was in no position to lie about it as his superior officers had been over the ground after the battle in 76 and then again in 77 and had camped right next to it. Once that much earth is removed I think it would take a glaicer, a volcano, or a major land slide to erase it. Unless the bottoms are sand.
I am curious if the River at Ford B supports a long sand/gravel bar on the east bank that would allow horses to easily walk in and up or down the river to other west bank landings. My thoughts is how large a force I could hide behind the upstream "cliff" at Ford B awaiting Custer's approach. I have on ocassion in traversing difficult country entered the water and walked on the stream bed for considerable distance.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Sept 21, 2015 8:57:39 GMT -6
AZ Just a quick question. When Reno left the valley and was forced to move further (south?) of the original crossing, was there a better crossing near by than the one he used? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 21, 2015 9:18:40 GMT -6
I do not use Google Earth any more for any of this stuff: it tends to distort things way too much.
Otter Tail Creek... or Otter Creek... is also known as Kuhlman's Ravine. Charles Kuhlman wrote about it in his book, Legend Into History, but it was apparently discredited, though I do not know why. Kuhlman, however, was correct. I rely on the USGS topo maps and the creek shows up there as intermittent, as many of them are.
I would not be surprised if it has been widened by the locals, though it is largely overgrown today, but clearly still visible. Why they would bother to widen it, I have no earthly idea-- livestock control?-- but I guess it is possible.
Again, its presence is extremely interesting because it defies the usual logic in every account I have ever read about the valley fight. It seems people are mesmerized into believing the ravine/creek and the skirmish lines ran parallel to each other, and perpendicular to the general course of the river and the valley. It has become ingrained in peoples' minds and no one seems able to change, but when you read these accounts carefully, you can see why these 139-year old perceptions are incorrect. Even Reno's route down the valley is misunderstood: no one-- other than writers and historians-- ever said the command moved down in a straight line, but both Varnum and Gerard said they following the general course of the river. Think about that... and check out the river's course: meandering back and forth, into the valley and out back toward the bluffs. The Varnum-Gerard comments fit into the context of M Company's scouts sent to check out the verge along the river: why would the command move too far away from those men when they were the command's flankers? So to me, Reno moved in a series of S-type curves-- not dramatic, mind you, but swerving nonetheless-- and when he was confronted by a large timbered area jutting into the prairie in the distance, then saw the creek-bed/ravine with any number of Indians, he ordered his command to halt. All of this was compounded by the dust being raised deliberately, obscuring his sight off to the west and north beyond the timber.
That scenario fits the context of every single account pertaining to those events. No other scenario does.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Sept 22, 2015 16:39:36 GMT -6
Fred: I agree: every single one.
I am kind of stuck with Google Earth but I agree it's pretty hard to convert to 3D but so are the topo's. Best thing I've seen is Viola (1999) page 166 Aerial view at maybe 20 degree angle from surface.
On Martini closeness to Custer if proximity counts Sergeant Charles Windolph on the March has him directly behind Custer at daybreak on the 25th with 2 Sergeant "color" bearers ( according to Windolph one carried the 7th banner the other 3rd Calvary, Custer's old unit). He said Martini was a very small salty Italian. They were both in H troop. A jockey sized guy might come in handy for a dash.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 22, 2015 18:40:22 GMT -6
AZ Just a quick question. When Reno left the valley and was forced to move further (south?) of the original crossing, was there a better crossing near by than the one he used? Regards Dave I think Reno took the first clearing to the river and probably was looking at climbing the bluffs. A crossing is different than have a travel corridor once you cross.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 22, 2015 18:46:58 GMT -6
Here we are riding up to the crossing and you can see the Hodgson marker. Steve
|
|
|
Post by dave on Sept 22, 2015 21:38:28 GMT -6
Steve Thank you for the photos and answer. Looking at Hodgson's marker is so strikingly lonely. Beautiful scenery. Regards Dave
|
|