|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2013 14:32:20 GMT -6
Fred: Myles Keogh Ah Ha.
Fuchs: I hate war and all it's horrors, and study it only to remind myself of man's depravity to his fellow man. What was and what could have been are far different things. One of these days mankind may grow up.
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 22, 2013 14:48:28 GMT -6
QC,
Gotcha!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2013 15:22:41 GMT -6
Fred: You should have known that I could not resist stirring the pot of unbridled anticipation. Shame on me, and may all my progeny be conceived during an LBH reenactment.
|
|
|
Post by mac on May 22, 2013 16:21:18 GMT -6
qc Ha Ha...happiness is a family full of reenactors.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2013 16:28:25 GMT -6
Mac: I have made it a point in recent years to only attend reenactments that feature sixtyish, grossly overweight fellows portraying 25 year old studs. You know the ones, the ones that require a crane to hoist them aboard those poor horses. I really do treasure realism.
|
|
|
Post by mac on May 22, 2013 18:39:12 GMT -6
quincannon thanks for that mental image I'm eating! To return to the topic. Kellogg is a problem in logic and probability for alternate theories. I started from an alternative view and worked hard to fit it to the evidence but finally could not. For the event to be a catastrophic retreat under fire I would expect:- If Custer wounded or incapacitated. A group of officers that were inexperienced under fire or shown to be incompetent in command. The evidence is just the opposite. If Custer dropped there were several well regarded people to pick up the reins and deal with the situation. I really doubt they needed to convene a committee to work this out. If cavalry hit with shock and awe Evidence of large numbers of warriors at MTC to deliver the blow. NA accounts are the opposite. Tens of warriors, surprised by his appearance. Bodies! Surely there should be lots of bodies in and around MTC where this action took place. I even tried to put the 28 missing bodies in a coulee into this area. No luck! In the spirit of Sherlock Holmes when you eliminate alternatives what you are left with must be the truth. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 22, 2013 18:46:10 GMT -6
Fred Now you are an expert on "times," too, eh, wild? Where did you come up with this number? From "keogh"? You are off by more than an hour. Go back to "Alice in Wonderland"; it suits your knowledge and understanding quite a bit better than this topic
As per Gray 3:11: Custer Battalion arrives on the bluffs and views Reno's advance. 4:55: Left Wing and Headquarters Staff depart Ford D This makes 1 hour and 44 minutes as I posted.
As regards your system of odds and percentages;you fail to realise that your accuracy deteriorates as your error accumulates. If you judge action A to be 90% accurate the following action B will contain this initial error along with it's own % percentage error and so forth.So by the time you reach Ford D you are in la la land.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 22, 2013 19:01:08 GMT -6
mac Bodies! Surely there should be lots of bodies in and around Not at all.A withdrawal does not require casualties. It is the tactical situation which could have caused Custer to balk at an opposed crossing and turn tail. And the price for turning tail is paid closer to Calhoun Hill.Very much like most of Reno's casualties occurring close to the river.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2013 19:36:29 GMT -6
Mac: Alternative theories are the problem for alternative theories. They don't make sense. How for instance can someone quote Gray one minute, for whatever that is worth, then turn around the next and say it didn't happen? How come it takes the better part of an hour and three quarters to cover a distance of about four miles, but in nearly the same breath having hostiles cover about a mile in two or three minutes, while being shot at mind you? How does a man escape a maelstrom of savage bloodthirsty hostiles by riding through them on a mule, in the direction they came from, and nearly clear what to the paragons of short and sweet is a very restricted battle area? I don't know, and frankly if I never hear of it again it will be much to soon.
Of course I did discover on last week's "Elementary" that Irene Adler is Moriarty, or Moriarty is Irene Adler, and Sebastian Moran really does not like Moriarty. Now if Charles Augustus Milverton turns out to be an altar boy, I may read Gray again, pay attention, and then throw it in the trash can.
|
|
|
Post by bc on May 22, 2013 19:44:49 GMT -6
I have always been of the mind that Kellogg and a trooper and perhaps others was given the opportunity to skedaddle and head towards Terry with a message just before the north door closed. Just seems like something Custer would do but by then it was probably too late. Just the same way Custer took the time to release his scouts. Other than that, I don't think Kellogg would stray very far away from the HQ detachment.
bc
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2013 20:02:14 GMT -6
Neither do I Britt. Neither do I, anymore than I believe the Baker Street Irregulars washed themselves and changed their underwear on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on May 22, 2013 20:08:37 GMT -6
QC,
Why can't someone quote Gray on one topic, and disagree with him on another? I do. Besides which, who exactly are you referencing quoting Gray "...who then turn around the next and say it didn't happen?" Sub 'turns', insert 'day' after 'next', and explain what 'it' is, because I have no clue what you're on about here.
The time isn't sure. I don't know why you find surety in something hypothesized, not proven and with existing conflicting views. This is why I think you have to build your basic scenario on what was public record to the end of the RCOI and consider all else after in iffy terms.
Fred could be entirely correct in the book. I've not read it. But just announcing a new set of times isn't all that convincing as yet, and pretending they're the new standard isn't making folks - or me - more receptive. Primarily because I'm not sure there was an agreed upon standard previous.
Again: they could be totally correct, but trying to get agreement on parts of it and using polite concurrence of the possibility as a tool to wrench agreement for the whole thing isn't really cricket. Announcing it as fact upon which the whole new theory is based isn't going to fly - with me, at any rate. The whole thing has to be presented and considered before verdicts can be given, right or wrong.
I think the timing with Boston is an issue.
I look forward to reading it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2013 20:33:17 GMT -6
DC: You can agree with Gray on one thing, and disagree with him on another. I have no problem with that at all.
What I objected to is using Gray's work to prove a point one wishes to make one minute, and in the same instance take Gray's total body of work and say none of it happened and by extension it is all a fabrication. If one thinks the whole body of work is worthless, why would one use data from that body of work to prove the point one wishes to make. It is like having your cake and eating it too.
Suffice to say, it was not you. I have never known you to do anything like that and I would never expect it in the future. You and I often disagree, and that I think is very healthy for both of us, lest either of us become to complacent in our views to the point we become careless. As an example I followed your reasoning very closely on Boston Custer. I did not at first agree, but as I examined it more closely I came into agreement for the simple fact that had he seen what was speculated, that knowledge would most likely have changed the pattern of battle, and the pattern did not change, which leads one to one of two possible conclusions. He did not have the opportunity to see what was speculated, or he is the dumbest SOB on the planet for seeing it and not telling George about it. I conclude it was the former.
I do believe though that one can learn more of life's lessons from Doyle's fiction, than military lessons from Gray's version of fact.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 23, 2013 0:08:56 GMT -6
QC Ford D has Custer parading along the LBH for 1 and 3/4 hours. Was Custer blind that during that prolonged period he did not see the Indians massing? The above is my post which you are having some trouble with? The above timing is Gray's for the jaunt to Ford D. I'm not using the timing to prove a point but rather to highlight the weakness in it. I'm using the only timing I have available to highlight a tactical absurdity. Obviously you have a more "accurate" timing for that section of the march to Ford D?I look forward to seeing it posted.Maybe a quick pm to Fred is called for?
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 23, 2013 3:01:12 GMT -6
I used to think that Greys work was gospel, but around three years later I can see discrepancies in his time line, not the timings (even though there could be a chance that these maybe wrong) but the way he mentions things like ‘’F Company Detail arrives here and then moves onto this feature’’ has always left me confounded, how does he know what this F Coy Detail did after the last courier had left.
Thanks Chuck, I haven’t got to that episode of Elementary yet, got around six on the hard drive and will view them when time permits, I find it better that way because there are no add breaks.
I don’t know if you guys over in the states have heard the news about the off duty Soldier being beheaded on the streets of London by two Islamic fundamentalists, He was walking down a main street in broad daylight when these two scumbags struck, I not sure about all the details but some reports suggest that they first ran him over in a car, and then whilst he lay injured they attempted to cut his head off, the event was captured on film at the request of the two murderers, they waited for the cops to arrive and attacked them before being shot, they are now being treated in hospital for gunshot wounds.
All this on England’s green and pleasant land.
Ian.
|
|