| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - October 02 2009 : 9:04:48 PM
Did Lt. Wallace give false testimony at the R.C.O.I |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 09 2009 : 5:59:48 PM
You are profoundly correct as evident by any un-biased individual who may be perusing this forum. Unable and/or unwilling to respond as adults, certain individuals create an enormous "smoke screen" to evade real issues. Unable to discuss issues intelligently they, instead, rant and rave inconsequential innuendos at their intellectual betters simply because they disagree with them.
Fortunately, when ignored, these pathetic individuals grow weary of shouting obscenities when no response is achieve. Like a tree failing in the woods with no one near to hear, does the tree (or jerks) make a sound? |
| Benteen |
Posted - December 08 2009 : 09:39:27 AM
Joe, I repeat:
I think exhange of information and differences of opinion are a basic essential necessity of any good forum. The "heated discussions" you mention are usually produced because of some essential need to prove one or the other side 'totally wrong', which of course leads to the ever present "animosity" of which you speak. What we all forget is that there really is not that much that is "known" for certain. But to argue a single point to death doesn't stir enough emotion in me to contain enough interest in me to post. Case in point: I could state to you that Shaka Zulu was in my humble opinion really Adolf Hitler. Now then Change my mind. Argue with me till hell freezes over, and in the end i'll still tell you the same, that I believe that Shaka Zulu was Adolf Hitler. Now whether it makes sense to anyone else or not; whether it matters to anyone else or not; whether anyone calls me names or not: Will it change my mind? Now superimpose this 'case in point' discussion on any thread here, and tell me what happens. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 08 2009 : 08:33:41 AM
Joe you need to speak for yourself and all your alias alone. I am not sure you meant excepted. You actually think when you're challenged for facts that your antics diffuse the fact that you have lied and misrepresented? It would have been easier to state that you erred but I don't see it. You did admit you lied about one of your aliases but that is conformation that you lied. It really didn't count as an admission since the administrator outed you.
So Joe, do new posters need the dynamic duo seal of approval before they can post?
As far as DC's posting your only complaint is he is a better poster than you. You never show where he erred when it comes to the accusations because you know he can produce them. Your only hope is to create different alias that support you but the writing styles are easy to pick out. Your feeble attempt to create a different Benteen's Orders thread to mislead others as to the evidence of your past posts is noted.
So why did you start this thread with "Why did Wallace Lie?" without any evidence that Wallace lied? Show us that he recorded different times in 1876 than what he used at RCOI. If his notes show the recorded times as he testified it would have been impossible for him to know the outcome at the divide for instance.
I think we could all entertain the theory that Wallace's times were incorrect or not. Stating that he lied about the times requires proof not just theory to be accepted. It is obvious to me that there are very few facts and lots of theories. One does not need to create false facts or make statements that have no proof to back them up in order to attack a dead soldier.
"Why did Wallace Lie?" assumes that it is fact that he lied and you have not provided proof that it was a lie. Proof is not what you believe in your theory of the events for we all can have opinions and theories that differ without being liars.
How about are there errors in Wallace's testimony and let personal opinions derive the intent of the errors. If it was your opinion that he intentionally lied than others could challenge you basis for forming that opinion. Instead we start with your "Why did Wallace Lie?" and only have one option that being coming up with the reasons for Wallace's lie. Since I reject that without proof we end up with your lack of proof that he lied.
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 07 2009 : 4:53:52 PM
dc, your uninformative posts are no longer excepted by the members of this forum. Your inability to post sans personalization is ancient, tiresome, and of no interest to anyone but you.
Apparently the members of the other board have finally become disenchanted with your obnoxious and worthless rhetoric thus, your occasionally visit of scorn on this site.
When you find the capability to discuss issues like a mature adult, feel free to share that information. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - December 07 2009 : 10:31:23 AM
After years of Wiggs' fabrications, it should be remarked that the appearance of either near-coherence or arguable substance in his posts means they were lifted from elsewhere, sometimes word for word. Examples - numerous examples - are here on this very board.
So empty is his quiver, his efforts do not go to improving his content but to getting to use similar phrasing himself later. Typically, he even gets that wrong.
It's like the old saw was written directly for Wiggs: "What you say is both good and original, but what is good isn't original and what is original isn't good." |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - December 07 2009 : 07:51:41 AM
I wouldn't put yourself down Joe. Your insights are in fact really astounding. It takes someone like yourself to spot the difference in Benteen's testimony about when he thought Custer's command was "all dead".
And you two wonder why no new person wants to post here? You can't even recognize the difference between believe-I think and believed-I thought. You're correct Benteen in your statement that Joe's "insights are in fact really astounding." At least we agree on something even if not for the same reason.
In all of this thread neither of you have presented evidence that Wallace lied. You have not produced any record showing that Wallace changed times as recorded by him in 1876.
The title of thread (Why Did Wallace Lie?) is offensive in that assumes Wallace lied and the dynamic duo will show us what he lied about. An experienced investigator would know that there are a multitude of errors than can be introduced without the intent to deceive or misrepresent.
AZ Ranger
|
| Benteen |
Posted - December 07 2009 : 02:27:46 AM
Well there's some who would say that i'm a certified 'something or other'  If it has an ologist on the end of it, usually although not always, it involves something the mind doesn't always comprehend through extended leave. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 06 2009 : 5:24:02 PM
thats it. I was not sure before but, I am certain now. In real life you are a certified Psychologist aren't you. No layman can constantly "get it right" as many time as you do. I'm okay with it. there is no shame in me by admitting that I utilized the services of a psychologist in my past due to post trauma stress resonated by Police work.
Fortunately I have over come past experiences and am doing just fine now. The above example of what has been going on at this board is extraordinarily correct! Again, a great, damn job! |
| Benteen |
Posted - December 06 2009 : 12:31:40 AM
I think exhange of information and differences of opinion are a basic essential necessity of any good forum. The "heated discussions" you mention are usually produced because of some essential need to prove one or the other side 'totally wrong', which of course leads to the ever present "animosity" of which you speak. What we all forget is that there really is not that much that is "known" for certain. But to argue a single point to death doesn't stir enough emotion in me to contain enough interest in me to post. Case in point: I could state to you that Shaka Zulu was in my humble opinion really Adolf Hitler. Now then Change my mind. Argue with me till hell freezes over, and in the end i'll still tell you the same, that I believe that Shaka Zulu was Adolf Hitler. Now whether it makes sense to anyone else or not; whether it matters to anyone else or not; whether anyone calls me names or not: Will it change my mind? Now superimpose this 'case in point' discussion on any thread here, and tell me what happens. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 05 2009 : 9:55:45 PM
Thanks Benteen, sometimes we get so caught up in heated discussion we begin to become puzzled by some of the animosity we receive. Benteen was a gallant soldier but also a very vindictive one. if he didn't like you look out! |
| Benteen |
Posted - December 05 2009 : 10:29:33 AM
You welcome Joe,
quote:
"I'm not the brightest bulb in the closet and have never claimed to be."
I wouldn't put yourself down Joe. Your insights are in fact really astounding. It takes someone like yourself to spot the difference in Benteen's testimony about when he thought Custer's command was "all dead". Benteen tripped up like this all through the COI in fact. It just isn't as noticeable because everyone wants to believe him the hero and not see him for what he really was. His enigmatic, and enchanting and yes even at times charming words tend to make one drawn like a magnet to him. One listen's the the cadence, but rarely if ever the words.
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - December 04 2009 : 8:35:04 PM
That's exactly what I've been talking about. I'm not the brightest bulb in the closet and have never claimed to be. However, sometimes I just didn't get azs' interpretation of what was actually posted by Benteen. This is not meant as an attack against anyone. It is a sincere effort to understand why "we" can't understand each other. Thank you for the clarification Benteen. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 30 2009 : 10:46:11 AM
Is this being represented as occurring before Wallace left with Reno down Reno Creek? Even if a message was sent and delivered at the crossing what would "press forward" from that point mean? Reno had not at best begun his movement down the valley. I don't buy that it meant for Reno to form a skirmish line before Custer sent the note of Big Village. Custer had not seen the Big Village when Reno was sent on the advance.
|
| Benteen |
Posted - November 30 2009 : 10:16:53 AM
Joe,
quote:
I am at a total lost as to where you found Benteen saying "Reno was so charged up that he attacked early." I don't see it.
It stemmed from the fact of how it was stated as a part of a coordinated attack. It was misinterpreted as a "hold off" until, which was not what Lemly's statement said, read again. "His attack was to be the signal for Reno, just as soon as the latter "saw or heard" him (Custer's attack), "to press forward, in the reasonable expectation that the combined pressure would stampede the Indians out of the village." The underlined portion of this explains it all. Custer fully expected Reno to be engaged at the time with the Indians, which does explain Custer's "we've got them now statement". Reno was to "Bring them to battle", and then when he, Reno "saw or heard" Custer's engagment, he was supposed to "press forward, in the reasonable expectation that the combined pressure(of all elements, including Benteen's battalion) would stampede the Indians out of the village." But, Benteen was not where he was supposed to have been, Reno retreated the opposite direction at the very moment that he was supposed to have been applying the needed pressure and everyone knows the rest of the story. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 30 2009 : 09:46:07 AM
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Wallace did not testify to any plan at the Inquiry. If you would read Benteen's post again you will see that he did not say that.
I am at a total lost as to where you found Benteen saying "Reno was so charged up that he attacked early." I don't see it.
That because it is a response to your post Joe.
Major henry Lemly, formerly of the third Cavalry, told me that day in a conversation which he had with Lt. George D. Wallace, Seventh Cavalry, he[Wallace]said, with tears in his eyes, that when Custer separated from Reno, his plan was to march to the lower end of the village, crossing one of the lower fords, and make an attack there. His attack was to be the signal for Reno, just as soon the latter saw or heard him, to press forward, in the reasonable expectation that the combined pressure would stampede the Indians out of the village
Please post your resource that established Custer was using "re-con" in force. I have no problem with you thinking that but, you post this information as though it was a fact.
Benteen's scout to the left could be accomplished by the small advance unit that actually did the recon. The in force is because it was a whole battalion with orders to pitch into anything they found.
Custer sent those very orders you described when he, in fact, discovered the exact location of the village and its disposition. Unfortunately, the order was disregarded.
So you agree that there was no plan until Custer located the Big Village and then the plan stated what Custer would be doing and where the pack train should go to? How was the plan shared with Reno after Custer observed the Big Village?
AZ Ranger
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 29 2009 : 7:25:30 PM
Wallace did not testify to any plan at the Inquiry. If you would read Benteen's post again you will see that he did not say that.
I am at a total lost as to where you found Benteen saying "Reno was so charged up that he attacked early." I don't see it.
Please post your resource that established Custer was using "re-con" in force. I have no problem with you thinking that but, you post this information as though it was a fact.
Custer sent those very orders you described when he, in fact, discovered the exact location of the village and its disposition. Unfortunately, the order was disregarded. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 29 2009 : 11:47:32 AM
Exactly what did Wallace testify that he thought the plan was at the RCOI?
Basic military tactics have a smaller advance unit to make contact and the larger main body then attacks once the enemy is fixed or brought to battle.
Interesting theory that Reno was so charged up that he attacked early. So if there were a Benteen plan of action other than what he stated why then Martin's note? If Benteen was to be part of the attack force crossing the river would Custer want him recalled across the river to bring packs?
Obviously to me the recon in force was over and the Big Village had be discovered but the recall and regroup orders were not sent from Reno Creek. The orders were sent after Reno had crossed the river and Custer had observed the Big Village.
It would be a huge tactical mistake if Custer knew of the Big Village and did not send orders to the pack train or to Benteen from Reno Creek. Custer would not have erred he was to good a commander. He did not have plan at that time and sent for Benteen and the pack train after Reno had been sent as soon as he discovered the Big Village.
Regards
AZ Ranger |
| Benteen |
Posted - November 28 2009 : 8:30:46 PM
This is very good Joe.
quote:
that when Custer separated from Reno, his plan was to march to the lower end of the village, crossing one of the lower fords, and make an attack there. His attack was to be the signal for Reno, just as soon the latter saw or heard him, to press forward, in the reasonable expectation that the combined pressure would stampede the Indians out of the village
It seems as though Custer told Reno a great many things that Reno never admitted at the COI. For example he also told Reno at this time that Benteen would be on his (Reno's) left, and that he (Benteen) would have the same insructions as Reno had. What was Reno's instructions? While many can weigh in on this one, it was in one form or another to attack some Indians somewhere, whether it was just a small band of 40 to 50 or the Indians in the Village is left to interpretation. But what is evident by the evidence we have is that Benteen then did have what instructions from Custer? That's correct, the same one's Reno had. What was the objective that day? What then was the plan that day? Now ask yourself, why did Benteen not follow those instructions? Was his failure to comply the cause of Reno's failure? And ultimately Custer's?
Indeed, what did Reno know as he marched forward that day and crossed the LBH? What did he know that he never told? One thing that does match with Lemly's statment is Reno's statement to the court. "his plan was to march to the lower end of the village, crossing one of the lower fords, and make an attack there." This is almost exactly what Reno said to the court about why Custer had went downriver the way he did.
The next part of Lemly's statements can be accounted for, "His attack was to be the signal for Reno, just as soon the latter saw or heard him, to press forward, in the reasonable expectation that the combined pressure would stampede the Indians out of the village." From the sound of this it would appear as though Custer was trying to coordinate some kind of attack that would cause a "stampede" of the Indians. The key to all of this was Benteen's battalion and what role his was to play in that "coordinated effort" and "combined pressure". What is evident is, that it wasn't there when it was expected and/or needed. |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 28 2009 : 6:36:18 PM
Wallace may have regretted his testimony years later as signified in a statement he allegedly made to a good friend years later. the friend told told Captain R.G. Carter the following:
Major henry Lemly, formerly of the third Cavalry, told me that day in a conversation which he had with Lt. George D. Wallace, Seventh Cavalry, he[Wallace]said, with tears in his eyes, that when Custer separated from Reno, his plan was to march to the lower end of the village, crossing one of the lower fords, and make an attack there. His attack was to be the signal for Reno, just as soon the latter saw or heard him, to press forward, in the reasonable expectation that the combined pressure would stampede the Indians out of the village
Lemly was emphatic as to his recollection of what Wallace told had him and, of the latter's knowledge of Custer's plan." |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 26 2009 : 10:20:02 AM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Tsk, Tsk,Tsk. The context of your post has not one iota of information that any one can use except yourself. Please,with all sincerity if you can not post like an adult go back to your other forum and stop wasting time here.
So where is the " one iota of information" in your above post?
Actually this is where I started not the other forums. Never paid much attention to directions from blowhards myself.
AZ Ranger |
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 25 2009 : 2:35:09 PM
Tsk, Tsk,Tsk. The context of your post has not one iota of information that any one can use except yourself. Please,with all sincerity if you can not post like an adult go back to your other forum and stop wasting time here. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 8:05:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
It is quite amazing that you have not comprehended my spelling of "az" perhaps you will, eventual, figure it out. Anyway, we are we going to continue discussions regarding the battle.
I ignore it. I consider the source. With you spelling skills are not very high. Not a problem just calling it like it is.
Are you responding as Joe or Benteen?
|
| joe wiggs |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 5:44:53 PM
It is quite amazing that you have not comprehended my spelling of "az" perhaps you will, eventual, figure it out. Anyway, we are we going to continue discussions regarding the battle. |
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 5:08:12 PM
Perversion of the word of my name here means nothing -Anger.
Really what is Az and az spelling errors. Don't you get tired of making youself look silly. I did notice that when I called you on using Az like Joe likes to use instead of Ranger that you had been using you started using Az more often.
AZ Ranger
|
| AZ Ranger |
Posted - November 22 2009 : 5:01:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Unfortunately Benteen, there is a small percentage of adults who, for various reasons, never matured sufficiently to debate issues in an adult manner. Trapped in their self imposed paradigms of beliefs, to suggest that they "think out of the box" is abhorrent to their thought process. When pressed to alter their though process by facing viable information that is clearly reasonable, anger is often a by-product.
What a great self review of yourself Joe. Glad to see you recognize yourself.
AZ Ranger |
|
|
