|
Post by wild on Aug 29, 2017 12:24:02 GMT -6
Az The map published by Mike Bonafede 1999 LBH Battlefield map. CHEERS
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 29, 2017 15:12:54 GMT -6
Hi Richard
Well that could explain it some. The maps he got his data from are Scott, Greene, Pitsch, and Weibert which would be the original sources. For instance Pitsch did not (according to Scott) record location for each artifact just a general description. So we don't know if Bonafede is making his best guess or actual locations.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 29, 2017 21:14:56 GMT -6
Hi AZ Ya mean the offical battlefield artifact map is inaccurate ?
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 30, 2017 6:32:44 GMT -6
Hi AZ Ya mean the offical battlefield artifact map is inaccurate ? Richard It is not an "official" battlefield map. It was made by an attorney , Mike Bonafede, out of Colorado. You do not see anything on it that claims anything other than that. It is not published by the National Park Service. It helps people to visual some of the research done by others but the marks themselves do not match with locations of individual artifact finds. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 30, 2017 10:01:49 GMT -6
Hi AZ The map clearly states the following....
This maps presents as accurately as possible, the artifacts and historical locations relating to the battle at the LBH River . Several individuals have been especially helpful .....and it goes on to name these individuals including Doug Scott.Doug he claims was most helpful providing locations for the artifacts. He (Bonafede)further states .....the locations of artifacts give an aditional dimension of information in trying to determine what happened and where.
Now how could he make the above claim,and how could people such as Doug Scott lend their name to what you claim to be inaccurate and no more than best guess.
The chief historian John Doerner and museum curator Kitty Deernose also lend their names to the publication.
Further....the ridge in question is so well defined and the artifacts so numerious that even a cartoon map would give rise to the question "were the Indians engaging the military at a distance 3 times the effective range of their fire arms?
Cheers RICHARD
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Aug 30, 2017 14:26:02 GMT -6
Hi AZ The map clearly states the following.... This maps presents as accurately as possible, the artifacts and historical locations relating to the battle at the LBH River . Several individuals have been especially helpful .....and it goes on to name these individuals including Doug Scott.Doug he claims was most helpful providing locations for the artifacts. He (Bonafede)further states .....the locations of artifacts give an aditional dimension of information in trying to determine what happened and where. Now how could he make the above claim,and how could people such as Doug Scott lend their name to what you claim to be inaccurate and no more than best guess. The chief historian John Doerner and museum curator Kitty Deernose also lend their names to the publication. Further....the ridge in question is so well defined and the artifacts so numerious that even a cartoon map would give rise to the question "were the Indians engaging the military at a distance 3 times the effective range of their fire arms? Cheers RICHARD Richard Still the same answer. Mike Bonafede an attorney produced this map. If the artifacts were not each identified as to exact location in the source documents then someone else placed them there on a map. Of course at accurate as possible could mean not very accurate because the source was not precise. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 30, 2017 14:39:05 GMT -6
Hi AZ The locations were provided digitally by Doug Scott. CHEERS Richard
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 31, 2017 5:16:58 GMT -6
Surprising that none of our resident artifacts experts have shone any light on this issue. It is important because if the shells are not authentic battlefield shells then it undermines the authenticity of all battlefield finds.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Aug 31, 2017 16:03:06 GMT -6
Wild When you talk to AZ you are talking to one of the best practical archaeologists there is; his work on Benteen’s movements being stunning. I on the other hand, not so worthy. You reference the Bonifede map and I cannot be much help as it was already out of print before I began my analysis of the battle so I have never actually seen a copy, just extracts on line. Certainly I have literally not seen the anomaly you mention. I might have a couple of ideas but without the data there is no point to mentioning them. Your bigger point is the desire to dismiss all archaeology. That does not impact particularly on the evidence I have posted for my model of the Custer force action. Here is a brief example. Godfrey and Benteen are two sources that were present at the field and from whom we have no doubts over what they communicated. They both felt that Custer did not go to Ford B. The archaeology does not refute that opinion but so what? We have their observations of the field and hence their opinions. Henry Freeman arrived two days after the battle and records a point in the Ford D region where he observed that the cavalry had dismounted and made a stand. The archaeology supports this, but so what? We have his map and text. As I remember your view was always that Custer was forced away from the ford and gradually enveloped and defeated. I am simply saying that the evidence leads to that ford being Ford D. I am also asking for any evidence, not already addressed, that refutes this…..silence. I feel your archaeological pain mate but it is a Reno, Benteen sideline. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by wild on Aug 31, 2017 16:47:02 GMT -6
Hi Mac, All military equipment was taken and scattered everywhichway by the Indians. This resulted in the link between object and location being distorted. The one exception being shells and rounds. However the artifact location map which I'v referenced shows what seems to be the main Indian firing position. But it is located 1000 yards plus distant from Reno's position. This is over 3 times the effective range of the firearms of the day.If these finds are spurious then all ammo finds are called into doubt.
My main problem with Ford D is that it is a tactical aberration and gives rise the most entertaining of reasoning for the final positioning of companies. Cheers Richard
|
|
|
Post by mac on Aug 31, 2017 18:20:27 GMT -6
How is it an aberration? Many better versed in tactics than I consider it the best option.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 1, 2017 1:29:39 GMT -6
Hi Mac Start with presenting open flank to enemy 3 minutes away and at negative odds 10 to 1 and it gets worse
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Sept 1, 2017 6:10:49 GMT -6
Hi AZ The locations were provided digitally by Doug Scott. CHEERS Richard Richard Then you should read what Scott says about some of the data. For example Pitch collected cases in the timber area but did not record the locations. I took a class from Scott and we marked each find with a flag and then the recorder for the BLM came up with GPS recording device. That is not how all the data on the Bonafede map was recorded. The Reno-Benteen site was first metal detected in 1956 and several times after that. When do you think that Douglas Scott went to work at the battlefield? Take a look at page 91 of Uncovering History by Doug D. Scott. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 1, 2017 13:19:22 GMT -6
Hi AZ Am I to take it that there is a map in circulation for which Dough Scott provided information and to which he has lent his name and you state that it is unfit for purpose? Best Richard
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Sept 2, 2017 13:31:08 GMT -6
So the carbine was not required by cavalry.
|
|