| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| inwit |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 4:40:05 PM
The official story is that the Indians moved out on the 26th and the troops on Reno Hill knew knothing of Custer until the 27th when Terry arrived.
It is recorded that after the Indians left, the command changed its position on Reno Hill somewhat. (Besdide getting water, etc.)
My question is - was no scout or patrol sent out toward Custer's last known position on, say, the morning of the 27th? I find it hard to believe that with no Indians around Reno and Benteen would not have sought more information about the whereabouts of the rest of the command.
To me, the urgency to find out about Custer from Terry's men doesn't quite ring true. It seems to me (without historical evidence, I admit), that whole scene was a bit of "play acting." |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - July 14 2004 : 3:01:34 PM
If the names of these "individuals" (Wiggs is an untrustworthy source) were revealed, I think we would find that they are either (1) those who slandered participants in the battle based on weak/invalid evidence, (2) the insecure who resent having their statements questioned, or (3) those who just lie/make up the evidence.
Wiggs scores on all three. Serious, and SPECIFIC, accusations of deceit and plagiarism exist against you. You haven't provided sources to back up your claims, or apologies for the people you've lied to. It's still shocking to me that a cop ---if you are one--- would have such disdain for the truth, but then there's a lot about you that's more disturbing than a nun in a whorehouse.
R. Larsen |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 13 2004 : 01:42:00 AM
Your pride is misplaced: you've never risen to Larsen's instep, which is why you cannot answer his requests for proof for your contentions (start with the Benteen/Elliot friendship).
All you have to do is not lie, fabricate, or plagiarize and I, for one, would be happy. Lying, fabricating, and plagiarizing are serious faults, quite despicable indeed. To point these out is less so, by any standard.
And you haven't witnessed others getting hit as hard as you, because you are the only one who lies, fabricates, and plaigiarizes. You continue to try to a drape others under your shade, as if you were one of many, and speaking for the downtrodden, but there is nobody else. Just you, Wiggs. And well deserved. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 12 2004 : 9:42:05 PM
I have taken an immense pride, thus far, in not stooping to the slimy level of one R. Larsen. Unable to contribute any information of import, he and his cohort consistently disrupt this forum by evoking tirades of slander against all who may disagree with them. Like two little boys who have seniority in the sand box, they resent the intrusion of others who wish to play.
Some have described their insidious remarks as "passion" I see them as two, spoiled children who never learned to be adults. Is it possible that I am the only member of this forum who has grown weary of their "shark" attacks which, more often than not, appear in pairs?
I have witnessed other individuals who have made comment on this forum, then receive a volley of contemptible remarks from Tweedly-Dee and Tweedly-Dum and, refuse to return;thanks to the viciousness of the clone brothers.
Gentlemen, and I use that term loosely, I will cease to post when I am ready to do so. Your consistently boorish remarks do not offend me. In summation, to the other, graceful and mannerly members of this forum, I fervently apoligize for discussing issues that have nothing to do with this battle. Perhaps the dynamic Duo will do the same. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - July 11 2004 : 12:21:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
I have received numerous PM's encouraging me to continue and, continue I will.
Continue what, exactly?
Fabricating Indian stories? Plagiarizing the works of Gray and Fox? Bombarding us with multiple copies of the same post? Doctoring quotes?
I encourage these "past forum members," if they exist (Wiggs IS the source, after all ...) to come out of hiding and speak for themselves. Nobody'll bite them. It should be fascinating to hear them tell us why deceit is so good.
R. Larsen
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 10 2004 : 10:41:17 PM
More in the nature of character suicide. Olde school frowned on liars and pretentions. You aren't olde school. Olde school could spell. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 10 2004 : 10:25:24 PM
El Crab, I appreciate your comments. I guess I am from the old school and, admittedly, I get a little passionant about this battle. I realized a very long time ago that character assassination has been the tool of the small minded for eons. Please belive me when I say that I find such such characters and comments amusing. You may have noted that several, past forum members no longer attent our sessions due to the inappropiate comments made by a few. I have received numerous PM's encouraging me to continue and, continue I will. Thank you Sir. |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 08 2004 : 02:12:36 AM
All I truly glean from Wiggs is he surmises its possible that a large amount of firing in a short period of time resulted in many hits on Custer's men, shattering their morale and position. Probably happened in more than one place on the field. He is only guilty of novelizing the idea. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 07 2004 : 9:44:38 PM
Crab, I will take your advice with, I believe, the good intent meant in the giving of it. Thank you Sir. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - July 07 2004 : 6:12:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
Now, Wiggs has a habit of delving in fiction and/or conjecture. I don't see this as a reason to attack him (or whatever you'd term it) over doing so. Yeah, its a bit over-the-top, but it shows he has a passion for it. More for the what-ifs and the maybe-this-happeneds, for the stories and the myths than the facts.
I wouldn't care if he presented his fiction as fiction. Nobody here is smacking Thomas Berger over the head because he wrote a novel with Custer in it. But that's not what Wiggs does, and it's why people get on his case. Just look at the "Indian Perspectives" board for an example of his latest fraud. As that thread shows, the guy fakes things but intends people to take them for truth. And that angers me. It's how history becomes corrupted with lies.
R. Larsen
|
| wILD I |
Posted - July 07 2004 : 08:11:06 AM
It was a slow day Crab.So what the heck, I take a shot at Wiggs.Anyway DC has him so full of holes what's another one? |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 07 2004 : 03:44:11 AM
Except I didn't do that, Wild did.
|
| El Crab |
Posted - July 07 2004 : 01:22:49 AM
"At a critical moment in time, a massive discharge of Indian weapons..."
That's what he said. It doesn't point to a volley, organized by a chief. But coincidental timing. Of course, its all conjecture. But I get the feeling, despite the many easy opportunities to give Wiggs grief, you go for the more difficult ones as well.
Main Entry: mas·sive
Pronunciation: 'ma-siv
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English massiffe, from Middle French massif, from masse mass
(1) : large in comparison to what is typical
Main Entry: 1dis·charge
Pronunciation: dis-'chärj, 'dis-"
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French descharger, from Late Latin discarricare, from Latin dis- + Late Latin carricare to load -- more at CHARGE
transitive senses
1 : to relieve of a charge, load, or burden:
2 a : GO OFF, FIRE -- used of a gun
So...
Some warriors in a particular location relieved their guns of their charge/load in a manner that is considered large in comparison to what is typical firing. That probably happened all over the field. There were a helluvalot of warriors on the field. Its feasible that, at one point, more warriors fired simultaneously than at other points, or than what was typical.
Now, Wiggs has a habit of delving in fiction and/or conjecture. I don't see this as a reason to attack him (or whatever you'd term it) over doing so. Yeah, its a bit over-the-top, but it shows he has a passion for it. More for the what-ifs and the maybe-this-happeneds, for the stories and the myths than the facts. But then again, you don't seem to like anyone that is into that. Fair enough, but why rip on those who do? I will admit, I read Wiggs' posts and I think of me in 7th grade. Not that he has the mind of one, but that he has read the older stuff that's not so, well, new. Nothing wrong with that, he'll read more and things will change. But I don't understand why you have to give him so much sh!t over it.
Massive discharge = a large amount of firing, larger than normal. Only you would infer that Wiggs was pointing to central command and fire discipline with the words "massive discharge". You're really, really reaching this time. Reminds me of the 80s movies in which the blonde asshole with the Porsche would cheat to win at some ridiculous contest, when he didn't have to because he'd win easily anyway. And he'd get caught, and he'd lose. Stick with the easy ones, there are plenty. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 07 2004 : 12:36:06 AM
Crab, Wiggs said at a critical moment there was a discharge. He doesn't say firing increased steadily.
In any case, there is no evidence whatever that this proposed series of events took place. It is an attempt to meld in the found casings to some potentially believable scenario, but there is no evidence that those particular shells were fired in the battle and stayed there for over one hundred years, and no way to prove it even if they are. This is a pillaged and probably augmented and certainly disturbed site. The furrowed brow reverence given these attempts to justify the expense is long past interesting or amusing. It's becoming dangerous that people chat as if this stuff was proven, when it is no more believable than the Mary Adams affadavit. If the site had been recently found, yes, it would mean something.
Wiggs likes to write these melodramatic phrases, just about always borrowed. "At a critical moment in time..." is a cadence and wording from Marquis' Save the Last Bullet, and not to be mistaken for a critical moment in Detroit, or in fact, but somehow demands the redundancy of 'in time.'
It does, for example, take training and incentive to protect your loved ones or to do much of anything in life. That the Indians lucked out by being slightly less incompetent than the 7th this day isn't enough to exclude them for blanket condemnation for letting a large enemy force approach and attack the village in broad daylight four days after the longest, and then be so incompetent thay couldn't wipe out Reno inert in their laps. They were so concerned for their families unless it meant getting up early and posting boring sentry duty. |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 06 2004 : 10:02:07 PM
Basically, a large volume of fire was being put out by warriors at the soldiers on Finley, and the coincidence of a multitude of hits being scored shattered the contingent, in numbers and in moral? Seems reasonable.
Wiggs, I think you just need to work on how you word things. I tend to overexplain, reduces the risk of being misunderstood.
It wouldn't take a complex fire order to hit a bunch of soldiers on Finley. Just luck, numbers and/or coincidence. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 06 2004 : 9:40:26 PM
Excuse me if I error here, but your assumption that the Indians were incapable of exercising a simple fuction-fire you weapons at will-is confusing. I never implied that a senior drill instructor stood upon Greasy Grass Ridge and bellowed, in a commanding voice, "Fire upon my command." Hundreds of warriors discharged their weapons at an enemy who threatened their homes and family. It does not take a great deal of training, complex firing orders, or incentive to protect one's loved ones. A mob of determined, unprofessional, and non-trained individuals may easily do so. |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 03 2004 : 3:54:51 PM
At a critical moment in time, a massive discharge of Indian weapons from The Greasy Grass Ridge Sector towards the bottom of Calhoun Coulee shreaded a platoon of "C" troopers station there.
To achieve this would have required a complex fire order.The Indians did not have this fire control |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - July 03 2004 : 10:10:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
At a critical moment in time, a massive discharge of Indian weapons from The Greasy Grass Ridge Sector towards the bottom of Calhoun Coulee shreaded a platoon of "C" troopers station there. This resulted in a general panic of the troopers who wavered at the onslaught then reeled back towards Calhoun ridge. A large group of warriors armed with repeating rifles (at close range) turned the tide.
Who says this momentous volley took place, that it was at close range, and that it turned the tide?
R. Larsen
|
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - July 02 2004 : 10:17:34 PM
This was a long range fight, it was also a short range fight; unfortunantly for the troopers it was a combination of both. The soldiers were armed with the Springfield carbine with a single shot limitation. Even the most expert rifleman could seldom exceed four rounds per minute. Thus, this weapon was perfect for long distance fighting but, ineffective for close range combat. The Indians, however, were much better armed.
According to Fox, "Indian armament at the Custer battle ranged from obsolete muzzle-loaders to the then modern repeating rifles such as Winchesters and the Henry rifle." The key point here being "repeating rifles."
When one visits the battle field today, it is difficult to visualize how the field appeared in 1876. The knolls and slopes were covered by dense shrubbery and foilage; enough to conceal an army of warriors who utilized stealth to infiltrate the soldier positions. Indian testimony relates how the warriors would pop up, then fall to cover, confusing the soldiers with quickly dissapearing targets.
At a critical moment in time, a massive discharge of Indian weapons from The Greasy Grass Ridge Sector towards the bottom of Calhoun Coulee shreaded a platoon of "C" troopers station there. This resulted in a general panic of the troopers who wavered at the onslaught then reeled back towards Calhoun ridge. A large group of warriors armed with repeating rifles (at close range) turned the tide.
|
| wILD I |
Posted - July 02 2004 : 2:15:50 PM
If this was a long range fire fight the Indians were great shots because in less than an hour they had hit them all.If Custer had kept them at long range he could have organised some sort of defence or even an escape. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - July 02 2004 : 12:20:05 PM
That's in contrast to the current theories, where it was mostly or all long range firing. You know this, I take it, and have dismissed it? |
| wILD I |
Posted - July 02 2004 : 07:16:48 AM
Controlled volley firing is fine if there is one distinct target on which a fire order can be given and it is usually carried out at ranges over 100 yards.At LBH there were 1500 plus individual targets coming from all directions and I imagine that the troopers were using their pistols. |
| benteens brother |
Posted - July 01 2004 : 09:15:03 AM
What were the Indians doing while all this volley firing was going on? I would hazard a guess that they were shooting back. And I doubt it was in volleys. If 1/3 of the Indians had rifles it still gives them over twice the firepower of the cav. I have no doubt that firing was heard but what could they really make out from four miles away. The whole argument is pointless anyway. It's another attempt to discredit Reno and Benteen and call their actions into question. Perhaps they did hear heavy firing. Perhaps they knew that people would be questioning their actions from here to eternity so they decided to claim they heard nothing. Who knows? It's a pointless argument. The decision to sit tight was the right one. Nothing could have been achieved by trying to get through to Custer, except the destruction of the entire regiment. DC made a point in another thread some time ago that there were a lot of 50/50 decisions made and this time Custer got caught. I bet the survivors of the 7th didn't care if they had heard firing or not, they were probably just glad to have kept their scalps. |
| El Crab |
Posted - July 01 2004 : 12:48:07 AM
Perhaps the 7th wasn't in habit of ordering several volleys in a row. Its possible the normal operation was a volley on the initial formation of the skirmish line, followed by independent firing. Perhaps several volleys in a row were not as common... |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - June 30 2004 : 11:27:15 PM
Crab, I did: 0647 June 29th. First sentence.
Wiggs, you defy comment. Custerphile means someone who likes Custer, as Custerphobe means the reverse. Nothing more, and that's how I use it. Correctly. In any case, there has been no connection between its usage and whatever you mean by archaic platitudes of yesteryear, not to be confused with futuristic platitudes of yesteryear or archaic platitudes of tomorrow. Your retort conceptually could sound impressive, but you just didn't know the meaning of the term.
Second, volley fire indicates order and troops under command. Heavy firing doesn't. You don't read well, because your summation of Godfrey's relationship to the issue is not mine. We all know that people heard firing from the north, you're not revealing anything to anyone, even if your offered quotes are actually correct.
You are, however, correct on one point you haven't anticipated: you can't and they couldn't really be sure if it was volley fire or just shots coming in bunches coincidently. So we can use you to discredit all those who claim that this fire was by volley, or even that of soldiers at all, perhaps? And why did Godfrey think that a volley would be read as a signal of distress? Were there accepted signals, a secret only told to a chosen few? Shave and a haircut, maybe? Naw, too complicated. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - June 30 2004 : 9:25:35 PM
To insinuate that the importance of the volley firing, from Custer's battalion, became so only because Godfrey desired it to be, is inconceivable to me. The magnitude of such bizzare thinking is exceeded only by the equally inconceivable allegation that there exists a difference between a volley discharge and a discharge of heavy firing!
What listening device could be calibrated to such a height of sensitivity and accuracy as to be able to distinquish between the two?
The importance of this issue lies in the historical fact that the skirmish line on Calhound Hill fired their weapons heavily because they were ordered by Calhoun and Crittenden to do so! To twart the advancement of the the encroaching enemy; Indians. These orders were not issued to satisfy the abitrary whim of Lt. Godfrey. The men were under attack and fighting for their lives. Godfrey did construe the volley firing as a possible cry for help. So what? It very well may have been. The combined and simultaneous discharging of two companies of troopers would be heard from quite a distance and was.
When the two leaders of the Reno/Benteen conclave deny hearing the volleys, insisting that they heard scattered shooting only, one must question their statements and motive. For over an hour, heavy firing/volley firing was heard coming from the north. How do we know this. From the consistent testimony of numerous witnessess:
Lt. Edgerly - "Shortly after I got on the hill, almost immediately, I heard firing and remarked it-heavy firing, by volleys, down the creek."
Sgt. Davern - "Shortly after reachung the top I heard volley firing from down stream."
Herendeen - "After we had been in there (timber) some time, a half hour or less, I heard firing. It began in volleys."
Moylan - I heard some firing in the direction of the Custer Field, about an hour after reaching the hill. The sound was like volley firing."
Girard - I heard continuous firing clear on down as if there were a general engagement, down to where I afterwards went to Gen. Custer's battlefield. And I heard firing to the left of the village; 3 or 4 volleys as if there were 50 to 100 guns at a volley."
Time prohibits me from listing other witnessess, there were more. The importance in establishing that volly firing occurred is the resultant implication and realization that a group of men were fighting for their lives while others claimed they never heard the destinctive sound of volley firing.
Lastly, the usage of the term "Custerphile" for anyone who dares question the archaic platitudes of yesteryear grows increasingly tiresome.
|
|
|
