lens
New Member
Posts: 24 
|
Post by lens on Mar 20, 2017 12:55:11 GMT -5
I just wasted an hour of my life watching this on Military History channel.They debunk the mans story, the name he enlisted under did not exist on the roles, the horse found, while he never claimed that was his horse it had a perfect carbine and was shot in the forhead, the alleged survivor never claimed to have shot his horse and he had taken a round to his rifle. They did not bother to disclose if he had scars to match his story. After they debunked his version they made up excuses as to why he was still telling the truth. How could he know what he knew about the battle and the country? Maybe he visited there, it was a tourist destination at the time, maybe he read the accounts, or maybe, and this is pure conjecture but holds as much water as History Channels version. There were reports of a white man in league with the Lakota. Some reports of the troops on Reno Hill being called and challenged by a white man. I do not know if that actually happened but in the spirit of the History Channel. Could there have been a White man helping the indians at the Little Bighorn? If there was a white man helping could this be him? Dramatic pause comercial break.....
|
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Mar 20, 2017 13:57:35 GMT -5
I just wasted an hour of my life watching this on Military History channel.They debunk the mans story, the name he enlisted under did not exist on the roles, the horse found, while he never claimed that was his horse it had a perfect carbine and was shot in the forhead, the alleged survivor never claimed to have shot his horse and he had taken a round to his rifle. They did not bother to disclose if he had scars to match his story. After they debunked his version they made up excuses as to why he was still telling the truth. How could he know what he knew about the battle and the country? Maybe he visited there, it was a tourist destination at the time, maybe he read the accounts, or maybe, and this is pure conjecture but holds as much water as History Channels version. There were reports of a white man in league with the Lakota. Some reports of the troops on Reno Hill being called and challenged by a white man. I do not know if that actually happened but in the spirit of the History Channel. Could there have been a White man helping the indians at the Little Bighorn? If there was a white man helping could this be him? Dramatic pause comercial break..... Lens, There is a man named Koster who came up with the idea that Finkel was a survivor and tried to make everything fit into his idea. He failed. The story is nonsense. He was asked to come to a V.A. meeting by one of our former posters Joe Kelly, so he could answer some questions but he refused to go. Be Well Dan |
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Mar 24, 2017 10:31:59 GMT -5
Long-time members of these boards will remember Mike Nunnally, our resident "Sole Survivor" expert. He especially disliked Frank Finkel.
Koster fell into a trap that is common for a lot of amateur historians: They have a conclusion and try to make the facts fit it rather than follow the facts to arrive at a conclusion.
BTW, a use the term amateur historian with respect. Most of us are amateurs and do great work. A lot goes into being a "real" historian besides reading and exploring our favorite topic, which is what most of us do.
Diane
|
|
|
|
Post by brahms4 on Mar 25, 2017 14:32:34 GMT -5
Google "Who was August Finckle"?and you will see a short article(from the Custer Battlefield web site) by a gentleman named George Kush.He completely dispels Koster`s story and provides a photo of the real Sgt.Finckle (Finkle).There is one picture of the fake Finkle as a young man that you will see on google images with a mustache.They are two different people.Head shape and nose are completely different!
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Mar 25, 2017 15:02:59 GMT -5
Koster is a con artist. He knows the story is not true, but he is trying to make a living. His Finkle book has made him a reasonable return, five figures.
He is not a historian, most of his published work is in detective magazines, where he lives off plagiarism.
He is a total scoundrel, but a likable one.
Many posters here chase an agenda, with no basis in fact. Koster just chasing cash. I recommend not getting excited on the fraud, when even the author has admitted the scam.
My issue is the scam smears the reputation of the real Finkle, and the men of C Company.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 25, 2018 20:05:03 GMT -5
Agree about Koster, it's historical fiction wrapped up in historical fiction but he did not commence the story, Kuhlman investigated and decided it was worth a book. Massacre Survivor: The Story of Frank Finkel by Charles KulmanOne I prepared earlier.  The background image is Finkle at the monument before 1886. The images with the dog sitting on the mound. |
|
|
|
Post by brahms4 on Jan 26, 2018 9:22:46 GMT -5
I previously made a post regarding a picture of the real Finkle-August Finckle.To see the photo you would have to google "George Kush Finckle"then click on the top result that says "Who Was August Finckle?-Custer Battlefield" to see photo and article by George Kush.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 27, 2018 14:41:47 GMT -5
There are several images around of him. cdm17097.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/MS035/id/167/rec/22 is the monument image which is zoomable to fine detail. That's Finckle as sure as a grasshopper. You ca also find the actual sergeants name carved into the face of the monument. That's Finckel at some date from Roe setting it up to 1886 when the fence went around and the damaged corners were worked on before the 1886 anniversary. That helps explain how the survivor gained some knowledge of the locale, especially if he was there with Roe. The biography places him elsewhere when I nosed around it. ?? California ?? Regards. Let me try this |
|
|
|
Post by nomann on Nov 1, 2019 19:25:31 GMT -5
|
|
mage
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by mage on Feb 18, 2020 9:36:26 GMT -5
The picture at the monument doesn't look like FF to me. Face is more narrow and the ears stick out more. I've never heard anyone explain why FF would wait 45 years to come out with a fake story, and then only when prompted by a comment he found offensive. If he visited the monument in 86 and gathered all the information for his fraud, why wait another 30 years? Not sure yet where I fall on the FF fraud vs survivor issue but there are a lot of inconsistencies on both sides I would explore. As far as the timing goes here is one theory. If he was a survivor the delay may have have been survivors guilt, but I think he was more worried about the desertion aspect. I've seen the Army get pretty vindictive when it comes to punishment and he may have had a great deal of fear that kept him silent. So why 1921? By that time the "Great War" was over and I'm sure even in FF's hometown ther were heroes bragging about their exploits. He knew there were Army heroes long before WWI and when the chance came up he let his secret slip out. Doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would say it for himself, but maybe for his fallen comrades.
The August Finckle bio seems a little short on facts. Everything comes right out of the enlistment form. Did anyone ever match an immigration record or document to Sgt Finckle? Why did he go from NY NY to Chicago? Is there any records of his existence before joining the Army? I think the Koster book is a lot of fiction but one thing he did was have a "historian" look at the "prussian" handwriting. The script or font that August Finckle used is said to be inconsistent with the cursive taught is Prussia but is consistent with that taught in America. Maybe that "expert" is blowing smoke, but where is the expert to counter the argument? Having said all that I'm not convinced the FF was August Finckle. The whole name and rank debate is a losing issue. I think he did give an alias on the enlistment form and it could have been anything. If FF was worried about desertion and Army retribution he would not have given a correct name or rank to any reporter. Maybe he came up with Frank Hall because he remembered hearing that there had been a Frank Hall in the 7th. I think the name debate can be a desperate issue but the story needs explaining. How did he know correct cavalry jargon if was never in the Army, especially living in Dayton? If he had visited the monument and even knew the local area, I still don't think that would give him knowledge of the water quality in the local creeks unless he was actually there. Did anyone walk the ground from Cedar Cooley to MTC and see if there was a swail blocking view of the river? It's close enough to the monument to where he could have actually walked it, but once again it begs the question why he walked it in 1886 but waited 30 years to tell the story details.
There were some comments on the horse I thought were interesting. He never claimed to have shot the horse, but it was wounded so a mercy killing wouldn't be unreasonable, but it won't explain the full bag of oats. The carbine was said to be in perfect condition. Unlike D.E. I don't think he dropped his carbine on NC ridge. I think he would have had a death grip on his rifle besides the fact that it was on a sling. Isn't the sling's purpose to keep you from dropping the rifle? He never said the stock was splintered. He said a splinter hit his forehead. What if an NA roundball hit the barrel and shattered sending a splinter to his head. I shoot blackpowder at metal plates and have seen balls splinter with spectacular effects. I agree that abandoning the rifle doesn't seem like a good decision unless there were no ammo or the rifle was non functional. Maybe the hit to the barrel put a slight bend in it? He said he recovered his ammo from the NA who stole it after he shot him. He didn't say if it was the pistol or rifle ammo. Maybe the other NA got away with the rifle ammo, but there should have been more ammo in the saddle bag. So how did a 7th Cavalry horse make it to rosebud creek / Yellwstone R. and then get shot? The deserter story seems most plausible but why would the deserter have gone that direction from PRC? Seems like North or East would have made more sense rather than straight into hostile territory.
Just a newbie looking for answers and a better education.
|
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Feb 6, 2023 19:11:38 GMT -5
The image(s) do not relate to 1886 or the 10th annieversary but rather to a different story which will unfold. Little clues over time. The monument seen in the image is not as seen today since 1886, it was altered. Mr. Finkel was there before the 10th anniversary. In the image and verso linked Jay Haynes (photographer) identifies Harry Yount who after some fashion had travelled from or was enroute to Yellowstone and full of frontier tales. I wonder how he crossed the Yellowstone. In the image, Yount is doing well for age 45. Custer scout Curly (sitting) is 27-28 years of age. linkThe real probem with Frank Finkel's recollections is this, he didn't say he was Sgt. Finckle or that he was a sergeant and thus it does not matter what weight of research, insight and opinion is poured over the jelly, it never set and never will. Here's a US Army Sergeant - link. Finckle was a sergeant. Finkel was not and the rest is the stuff which dribbles out of males cows.  The Yellowstone bodies are difficult. If you substitute Rosebud with Bighorn, then link. This doesn't get much play 'cos of comments from the 22nd July for Gibbon placing Reno in arrest. This was at Ft. Pease. Still there on the 25th, Godfrey noted: ' Tuesday, July 25. One of the pickets was drowned this a.m. whilst going out to his post a ravine had about 3 feet of water when he came to his Breakfast. but when he went back there was nearly 10 feet of water & swift - he could not swim & it seems he was thrown from his horse - Col Reno got a copy of charges against him. It all comes from Col R sending out some scouts as videttes Saturday eve after we got into camp. I presume however Col Reno ' s manner has as much to do with the results, as his manner is rather aggressive & he protested against the scouts being taken from the Reg't ........... There has been a lot of interest, intermittent ober 146 years on these remains and stories. Brockmeyer and one of the battle's wounded who died on Far Wst were buried at Powder River depot area. It'a a real can of worms. Quite a bit was done by researcher's at Miles City. Nathan Short grave after Little Big Horn Posted by Amorette Allison 7 years ago - milescity.com/forums/posts/view/53953A grave marker will be dedicated next week to the last man thought to have left Lt. Col. George A. Custer's regiment before the Battle of the Little Big Horn on June 25, 1876. The grave marker for Nathan Short is on County Road 447, 6 1/2 miles south of Interstate 94 and 10 miles east of Forsyth. Mystery solved - Richard A. Wallace drowned on July 25, 1876, near the mouth of the Bighorn River in Montana Territory while attempting to cross the river for picket duty. He was eventually interred in the mass grave on Last Stand Hill. He was a Private with Company B who was with the pack train and participated in the hilltop fight. Link 2nd August 2017On a broader front - link interesting comment about Benteen's role. Godfrey specifically mentions Short, Company C rumour link on August 8th. Done. |
|
Yey! 