| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Anonymous Poster6298 |
Posted - September 16 2003 : 3:44:50 PM
What might have happened if Reno made an atempt to join custer from Weir point? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| bhist |
Posted - July 25 2004 : 02:03:37 AM
Actually, I posted the comparison photos of Weir Point on my website a long time ago. I noted it in a new thread which is now buried on page two of the threads on this site.
Here is the link to the thread and the photo -- http://www.mohicanpress.com/messageboard2/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=119 |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 24 2004 : 9:44:47 PM
Good work Bob, I can't wait to see the picture! |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 08 2004 : 02:15:31 AM
I had a dream I was at Weir Point, but the field was ridiculously compressed. Like Custer's field was practically down the slope from Weir Point, and same with Reno's hill. Standing at the gap on Weir Point, I realized I hadn't taken any pictures in the several days I was at the field and it was too late to make up for lost time. Then I woke up.
Just thought I'd share. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 07 2004 : 10:04:42 PM
This original thread: "What might have happened if Reno made an attempt to join Custer from Weir Point.?"
Several options were listed, my option was not; ergo I did so. My response is, therefore, appropiate. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 07 2004 : 12:43:28 AM
What in the world is this in reference to? Not this thread. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 06 2004 : 9:24:45 PM
How about an option wherein the approach of Benteen's three companies cause enough consternation among the warriors that they, at the least, pause for thought which may enable Benteen to save the command, or a portion thereof? |
| bhist |
Posted - October 21 2003 : 6:59:09 PM
Frank:
Coming Soon to a Friends' website near you -- never before seen photo of Weir Point taken in 1901!! And, beside it for comparison a beautiful photo taken from very near the same spot in 1995. Stay tuned -- it may be a week -- waiting for photo from collector.
I will note here when it's online. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - October 15 2003 : 11:19:11 PM
 Bhist: 'nuff said. Looking forward to the pictures. |
| bhist |
Posted - October 15 2003 : 5:11:15 PM
Let me try to help you avoid any more confusion. I have the photo in my possession, but I don't own the copyright to it. In order for me to publish it on this board or my website, I need to get permission from the owner. Sometimes that permission may be granted freely and sometimes at a cost. Hopefully, this clears things up. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - October 15 2003 : 4:37:21 PM
 bhist: What you're reading into my posts in confusion over the rights of the picture. You said a couple of posts above that if you have to purchase the picture to publish it, you wont; then you say that you have it in your own private collection. It just seems confusing. No, I don't feel an apology is necessary, and I don't request one from you. I think if you look at other posts of mine you'll see how much I thanked you for your efforts in pointing me to the photos of the early Ft. Phil Kearney burials near the LSH monument. So I do appreciate your efforts; just confused as to the Weir Point pictures. |
| bhist |
Posted - October 15 2003 : 1:49:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
 bhist: Boy, you sure get worked up over such a minor posting. Nowhere had I ever seen that the road was built by the Army, so I simply shared the info and was not questioning the NPS or even you. You need to calm down a little and not read things in a post that weren't intended. There are many of us who are members of the LBHA or CBMHA who are interested in what Weir Peaks looked like before and after the construction of the road, which of the three peaks Custer went to, which one Weir went to when they made their observations. It's nothing to get so worked up over. Also, I'm just interested in seeing the pictures as it would be really interested to see, and that's all. I could give a hoot if the notch was or wasn't there, but just wanted to see what it looked like before and after the road construction. And it's just a little hard to understand why it's something you have to get permission to show the pictures if you already have a copy for your own collection. I didn't know that if I wanted to scan or somehow send a picture online from one of my Custer library that I'd have to track down the original owner of the original picture to get permission to share it with others whose only interest is to learn as opposed to profit by my innocuous posting it and sharing it. Jeeeesh, maybe a valium is in order. We'll all be looking forward to seeing the pictures, not to prove you've got it, because you say you do, and I believe you, but as a learning tool.
Frank: I really think you need to re-read your posts and most of your posts on this message board to see who gets worked up. In this particular case the LOGICAL response from you should have been something like, "Thanks, Bob for trying to get us the photo of Weir Point. I hope we can see it." That's how I would have responded. Instead you stated...well, heck you can read it for yourself.
My goal with this question; your question that you’ve “wanted answered for years” was to help you. I went to a lot of effort to locate this photo and was terribly disappointed to find I couldn’t publish it here or on The Friends’ website. I’m in contact with the collection owner in hopes I can get use of it for free (for non-profit use) so you and others’ can view this photo. I also have a great photo taken in 1995 from the exact same spot that the 1901 photo was taken. So, I make this concerted effort to resolve this question and what do I get from you – another condescending note like the one I pasted here in this note. I deserve an apology from you, Frank. And, I expect a lot more civil notes from you in the future.
|
| frankboddn |
Posted - October 15 2003 : 12:49:49 PM
bhist: Boy, you sure get worked up over such a minor posting. Nowhere had I ever seen that the road was built by the Army, so I simply shared the info and was not questioning the NPS or even you. You need to calm down a little and not read things in a post that weren't intended. There are many of us who are members of the LBHA or CBMHA who are interested in what Weir Peaks looked like before and after the construction of the road, which of the three peaks Custer went to, which one Weir went to when they made their observations. It's nothing to get so worked up over. Also, I'm just interested in seeing the pictures as it would be really interested to see, and that's all. I could give a hoot if the notch was or wasn't there, but just wanted to see what it looked like before and after the road construction. And it's just a little hard to understand why it's something you have to get permission to show the pictures if you already have a copy for your own collection. I didn't know that if I wanted to scan or somehow send a picture online from one of my Custer library that I'd have to track down the original owner of the original picture to get permission to share it with others whose only interest is to learn as opposed to profit by my innocuous posting it and sharing it. Jeeeesh, maybe a valium is in order. We'll all be looking forward to seeing the pictures, not to prove you've got it, because you say you do, and I believe you, but as a learning tool. |
| bhist |
Posted - October 15 2003 : 01:51:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
bhist: I have it on good authority that the present road everyone refers to at the NPS road was actually built in 1938 by the Army, not the NPS, and that prior to this road being built, there was a road that went around the east side through Cedar Coulee. I would love to see the picture from 1901 you spoke of. Isn't a picture like that open to the public, unless it's in a private collection? Let us see it as soon as you can. Thanks.
Frank: Yes, I'm very aware of when the road was built and that the Army administered the battlefield then. I never stated the NPS built the road. Does that change anything about the V Notch on Weir Point? No.
Why do I have a sense you don't believe me? I'll publish the picture if I can get permission. Why do I get a sense that you don't believe me when I said I need permission? Yes, it's in a private collection. But, if I have to purchase the picture in order to publish it, I won't. Yes, I have the photo in my private collection now and it's very obvious that there was no V notch before construction.
The NPS is very aware of when the Army administered the battlefield and they understand the administrative history of the battlefield (which is being researched for a book as we speak). The NPS staff (very reliable and have a lot more information than you do) told me of the construction and the photo proves their point. However, I'm not going to keep harping on this in this thread. I'm getting a little tired of having to explain this over and over to such a skeptical audience.
|
| frankboddn |
Posted - October 14 2003 : 7:27:27 PM
bhist: I have it on good authority that the present road everyone refers to at the NPS road was actually built in 1938 by the Army, not the NPS, and that prior to this road being built, there was a road that went around the east side through Cedar Coulee. I would love to see the picture from 1901 you spoke of. Isn't a picture like that open to the public, unless it's in a private collection? Let us see it as soon as you can. Thanks. |
| bhist |
Posted - October 14 2003 : 09:55:01 AM
I received two great photos showing the before and after shots of Weir Point and you can definitely see how the V notch is man-made. The original Weir Point has a saddle back in place of the V notch. Problem is I can't publish the early photo, taken by Moorhouse in 1901 because I don't have permission yet. I'm working on that. In the meantime, you'll just need to take my word for it. |
| pjsolla |
Posted - October 13 2003 : 03:26:18 AM
Frankboddn: Fouch's picture from 1877 shows Weir Peak(s). I guess you could call it a "saddle trail", though it is not what todays road is. And the trail is not deep. Almost at the top of the peaks. I believe that the NPS preserved it as best they could while making the access. Regardless, it has no effect on the battle anyways. And the integrity of the site is preserved even with the road. |
| bhist |
Posted - October 13 2003 : 03:06:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
Bhist, I think we're quibbling over terms here. No, I don't believe there was a road as we know it in 1876, and yes, I do believe that the park service had to do some construction, cutting through the saddle to make the road. So I think we're saying the same thing, but using different terms. The "blasted through" part of your original statement is what I disagreed with, and you cleared that up by stating it was more a figure of speech as opposed to blasting tons of dirt and rock, etc. to build the road. So I think we actually agree on the thing.
Yes, it does appear we agree. Sorry that I misunderstood you. I'm going to contact the battlefield tomorrow and see if I can get some photos of Weir Point before the road was built. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - October 13 2003 : 02:56:56 AM
Bhist, I think we're quibbling over terms here. No, I don't believe there was a road as we know it in 1876, and yes, I do believe that the park service had to do some construction, cutting through the saddle to make the road. So I think we're saying the same thing, but using different terms. The "blasted through" part of your original statement is what I disagreed with, and you cleared that up by stating it was more a figure of speech as opposed to blasting tons of dirt and rock, etc. to build the road. So I think we actually agree on the thing. |
| bhist |
Posted - October 13 2003 : 02:20:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
As for the park road, I also don't believe there was much damage done to it to make the road. I think it looks much today as it did in 1876, except for the asphalt, of course.
Think as you may, but when NPS staff who understand the history of that place and have experienced it first hand tell me that they had to cut through Weir Peak to build the road that is who I'll believe. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - October 12 2003 : 9:16:06 PM
Bob, I've been reading a bit about Weir Peaks or Point lately, and in one of the books I read they spoke of Weir Point as consisting of two peaks connected by a low saddle. I was looking at my tapes I took out there a couple years ago, and it suddenly occurred to me that I think the Weir Peaks referred to are the two peaks, as were described, that run north and south connected with a low saddle type ridge and are on the west side of the park road, and that the peak on the east side of the road either isn't part of Weir Peaks, or if it is considered to be part of Weir Peaks, any observations made from them as far as viewing the whole village are obscured by the higher twin peaks just across the road from it. From the eastern side, sure, you can see to LSH to the north and to Reno Hill to the south, but if you want to see what's in the valley, you need to hop on that horse and take the 30 second ride across the road that exists today and to the saddle on the west side and then up either the north or south peak and you can see everything. Some say Custer made his observations from SSR. I say why the heck would he do that when his view of the northern part of the village would be obscured by Weir Peaks? He went to the Crow's Nest to see for himself; he'd have gone to the peaks that would have given him the best vantage point: Weir Peaks west of the park road. As for the park road, I also don't believe there was much damage done to it to make the road. I think it looks much today as it did in 1876, except for the asphalt, of course. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - October 12 2003 : 10:30:51 AM
It's not National Enquirer. Personal lives drive public ones. Further, Custer and his wife always made big shows of their physical attraction to each other in person and print, so they opened the curtain on a show nobody was clammering for. It's a valid question why they did it, and overcompensation certainly is a valid conjecture.
In the middle of WWII a British general's wife ran off with his Chief of Staff. Oddly enough, he was less enthused ever afterwards and was scoffed at by history, but nobody knew why for decades. Is this National Enquirer? If an officer was having an affair with Libby, and he was one who hesitated to 'rescue' Custer or even try in a 50/50 call, would THAT be National Enquirer?
That mentality is more likely found in the devotion to working in loving descriptions of corpse genital desecration apropos of nothing.
For example, Custer had blown Libby's inheritance, he was bankrupt as revealed after his death, he had been relieved twice of his command by the army and put back in the 7th with less than unananimous approval, and if he had a non-descript battle with iffy results or a failure, what were the chances he'd be relieved? I'd say rather more than not, wouldn't you? Especially with Merrit and Miles and Ranald MacKenzie and some others drumming their fingers on the table. They removed Crook to elevate Miles years later, recall. This was a top-heavy military, and they were always looking to trim the pool.
I don't see what great advantage has been obtained using arbitrary names over numbers, both verified by computer to computer contact anyway. Music's there either way for me. |
| bhist |
Posted - October 12 2003 : 09:33:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by frankboddn
 bhist, when you say they blasted through, what exactly do you mean? Who told you they blasted through? If someone told you, how do they know? I'd really like to know because this has bothered me for years.
Frank: NPS folks at LBH told me. There is NO NEED for me to name names -- I always respect the privacy of the NPS staff on this message board. I use the term "blasted" figuratively. The huge V-shaped notch that is so predominant on Weir Point wasn't always that way. |
| frankboddn |
Posted - October 12 2003 : 04:59:26 AM
bhist, when you say they blasted through, what exactly do you mean? Who told you they blasted through? I can see if it was just a small saddle or depression, like there is on the west side of the road a saddle between the north and south peaks on the west side. It goes down quiet a bit between the two peaks on the west. That's how I see where the road now is: A saddle between the east and west peaks. Where did you hear or read it was blasted through? If someone told you, how do they know? I'd really like to know because this has bothered me for years. |
| bhist |
Posted - October 12 2003 : 04:23:56 AM
Hey Dark Cloud. It's nice to see your name posted as opposed to Anonymous. Now, if only all the other Anonymous posters would do the same. |
| bhist |
Posted - October 12 2003 : 04:21:00 AM
The road was blasted through that part of Weir Point. NPS staff at the battlefield that would know told me personally. Like any running ridge, hill or mountain there will be flowing peaks as well. This would account for the officers mentioning going to the higher peaks. |
|
|
