| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 06 2008 : 5:17:54 PM
|
AZ, you have hit upon a critical and, often, overlooked aspect of this battle. Had Custer not turned towards the village,instead of traveling further south as requested, Terry would have met the Indians;alone!!! When Herendeen requested permission to scout the region of
Tulock's Creek and, subsequently, report to Terry Custer denied him his request. The rationale for doing so is that he had personally checked that area out from the Crow's nest earlier and observed no village the area of Tulock's Creek. Further he was on a hot and fresh trial of a very large Indian encampment already. Thus any deviation towards another direction would be futile.. |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 09 2008 : 09:22:11 AM
|
| Custer originally asked if Herendeen was ready yo go and he replied not yet. Once they reached the divide it would be useless since they knew they had found the Indians and would engaged shortly. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
clw
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2008 : 6:05:29 PM
|
A couple of comments from a newbie...
I don't think Terry would have met the Indians alone. Terry's letter of June 22 states that "The supply steamer will be pushed up the Big Horn as far as the forks if the river is found to be navigable for that distance, the Department Commander, who will accompany the Column of Colonel Gibbon, desires you to report to him there not later than the expiration of the time for which your troops are rationed..." Terry would not have gone down the LBH if he hadn't met the Crows and seen the smoke. He would have parked his command near his supply base (Far West) and waited for at least a few days to see what developed. Even if he'd started down the LBH then, the NDNs would have been gone.
As to the content of Terry's letter of the 22nd to Custer, it's a work of art and obviously written by an attorney. Consider that no matter what Custer did or didn't do, that letter placed the responsibility on Custer and gave Terry the framework to spin the outcome however he pleased. Which is exactly what he did. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2008 : 7:56:43 PM
|
| How does one shake another member's hand through cyber space? Your passage, "it's a work of art and obviously written by an attorney" is superb. Can you believe that we actually had a senior member of this forum state that attorney's were terrible writers thus, Terry's lack of clarity? Terry knew exactly what he was doing. If Custer had been successful Terry would have garnered some of the accolades. If Custer failed, Terry would be exonerated, as he was. You may be a newbie but, you sure make sense. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 22 2008 : 8:22:14 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I have long smirked about people who discuss Indian 'testimony' about the LBH. This is not because I think Sioux or Cheyenne lie - best.
First of all allow me to congratulate you on a serious effort to substantiate your position with what appears to be valid information. I took the liberty of deleting all of it, hope you don't mind. A job well done though.
You are aware that the first colonist who arrived upon the shores of what was to become the greatest Nation on the world could speak English (among other languages as well). For hundreds of years, these men interacted, exchanged ideas, and were succored from starving to death by Indians. Are you suggesting that during all this time these people could not learn to understand each other y utilizing language?
If you were not so hopelessly ethnocentric you would realizes how patently ignorant your beliefs are.
Tell me Dark Cloud, how was the bible translated from Arabic, to Greek, to Latin, then English. I mean with all those Idioms and all. Oh I get it, no Native Americans were involved. I find you utterly amazing. Not having the guts to make a racist claim you just "infer" the hell out of it over, and over, and over again. |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 06 2008 : 7:09:15 PM
|
[quote]Originally posted by Dark Cloud
I have long smirked about people who discuss Indian 'testimony' about the LBJ. This is not because I think Sioux or Cheyenne lie - or are stupid -in greater proportion to anyone else. It's that there is no indication ANY of them spoke English, at least till much later, and that therefore the 'testimony' has been sieved through translaters. Sometimes after that it goes through relatives or tribe for the then-concurrent PC treatment, which is why so many of the accounts sound so awkward at best.
But there is another problem: the nature of Indian languages themselves, which is VERY different from English not only in vocabulary and grammar but the way the language reflects a different sense of time AND MANNER OF THINKING.
While I certainly disagree with D.C., he certainly has a right to post his opinion. What I do not understand is his position. To infer that a group of human beings, any group of people are incapable of learning a language is incomprehensible; "idioms" aside.
Please review the following:http://www.bethelks.edu/mla/holdings/scans/petter_dict/ for a more open and reasonable perspective. This site was found, by my beautiful wife, on a most interesting web site listed as:
www.American-tribes.com This is a wonderful site dedicated to the Native American perspective. I recommend that each and everyone of you visit this site.
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on July 06 2008 7:26:31 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 10:23:40 AM
|
This is not about race it is more basic. Does an account equal testimony.
I think not and support the idea that testimony is something sworn to by an individual. Testimony is usually subject to cross examination which would help clarify a statement or challenge the statement.
Accounts are at best what someone says happened written first hand by the individual. The worse is that another person recording the account has an agenda and doesn't ask all the questions that would help to understand the account or does not record the actual statements made either intentionally or a misinterpretation.
For example Crazy Horse's account after his surrender. The account has Crazy Horse stating he had 6,500 warriors at the LBH battle.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 11 2008 : 10:27:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by clw
A couple of comments from a newbie...
I don't think Terry would have met the Indians alone. Terry's letter of June 22 states that "The supply steamer will be pushed up the Big Horn as far as the forks if the river is found to be navigable for that distance, the Department Commander, who will accompany the Column of Colonel Gibbon, desires you to report to him there not later than the expiration of the time for which your troops are rationed..." Terry would not have gone down the LBH if he hadn't met the Crows and seen the smoke. He would have parked his command near his supply base (Far West) and waited for at least a few days to see what developed. Even if he'd started down the LBH then, the NDNs would have been gone.
As to the content of Terry's letter of the 22nd to Custer, it's a work of art and obviously written by an attorney. Consider that no matter what Custer did or didn't do, that letter placed the responsibility on Custer and gave Terry the framework to spin the outcome however he pleased. Which is exactly what he did.
Hi clw Welcome
I still think that Terry would have met the Indians at the Junction of LBH and BH. They were planning moving that direction is my understanding when interrupted by Custer.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2008 : 12:31:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
This is not about race it is more basic. Does an account equal testimony.
I think not and support the idea that testimony is something sworn to by an individual. Testimony is usually subject to cross examination which would help clarify a statement or challenge the statement.
Accounts are at best what someone says happened written first hand by the individual. The worse is that another person recording the account has an agenda and doesn't ask all the questions that would help to understand the account or does not record the actual statements made either intentionally or a misinterpretation.
For example Crazy Horse's account after his surrender. The account has Crazy Horse stating he had 6,500 warriors at the LBH battle.
AZ Ranger
Perhaps we are saying the same thing, perhaps not. First of all, sworn testimony has nothing to do with the issues of Custer's demise. There was none. No "White" survived and Indian testimony is often over looked. An integral portion of what we know today came from the Indian side. They were the only surviving witnesses. Their information is often mis-leading, self serving, garbled from inadequate interpretations and, convoluted. As a result, extreme caution must be used when decipher their testimony.
An account is testimony, it is not sworn (legal) testimony. That does not mean it has no value. A substantial part of our history is based upon "accounts" rather than sworn testimony. What "value" do you place upon American historical accounts?
Unfortunately, there are some who would discard Indian testimony because they feel it is impossible to sort through the mess. No credibility nor accounting is given to the few "good" interpreters who did a reasonable job. Testimony corroborated by "white" testimony and archeology should not be devalued. I guess it is quaint to "smirk" at the term, Indian testimony for some folk. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on September 14 2008 12:38:28 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 14 2008 : 5:46:00 PM
|
Testimony should be reserved for being sworn and from an individual or else it has no significance in using the word. Only if one was trying to mislead would it serve of value. By your use Joe, Indian testimony would be equal to Indian account. What value does it serve? Further misleading is that a written account might be first hand but does not mean it is and calling that testimony is misleading.
Joe you are still trying to make a distinction where there is none as if someone is saying Indian testimony is less than white testimony. There is no Indian testimony to begin with is the point. There are many Indian accounts.
quote:
An account is testimony, it is not sworn (legal) testimony.
I think of testimony as being a subset of accounts that are first hand and sworn. So accounts may not be testimony unless first hand and sworn. Certainly all accounts are not testimony.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on September 14 2008 5:51:17 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 16 2008 : 6:32:24 PM
|
| Az, Please give us a break. There are three definitions in Webster, two of which do not include the term, "legal." |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 16 2008 : 8:19:36 PM
|
Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary:
Testimony 2a - Evidence based on observation or knowledge; authoritative knowledge." Please note that the term "legal" in not included. However, it is used in definition b if one wished to use that definition.
Account 7a - A statement of reasons, causes, or motives.
8-a statement of facts or events. Both terms could be equally utilized to describe Indian testimony.
Before your incoming rush of volatile retorts (Lord knows they're coming) your anticipated disagreement is with a dictionary, not me.
P.S. I know you can not believe everything you read out of a book but, since I did not participate in the battle I'm left with limited options. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on September 16 2008 8:43:49 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 17 2008 : 07:22:00 AM
|
Joe evidence is a legal term and a court decides whether it admitted or not. I doubt that most accounts would stand the test to be considered as evidence.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 18 2008 : 8:23:52 PM
|
Az, evidence may be both. In the legal sense we are referring to documentation, objects, physical remains, DNA etc. that must pass a stringent analysis in order to meet a prescribed standard set by the judicial system. I'll go you one step further, none of the accounts would pass such a stringent test.
In a non-legal sense the same word may be interpreted as an "outward sign:Indication. Something that furnishes proof." Such is Indian testimony, an outward sign, an indication of truth. An indication that must not be accepted at face value but, scrutinized, corroborated, and challenged for credibility. The two meanings are extremely similar but one excludes legality. Both are valuable commodities.
If you wish to try a trial case by all means use the former. If you want to learn more about history use the latter. Indian testimony is too often treated as inferior information that can not be deciphered to make sense. Meanwhile, I came name a few men who have made a pretty penny on "Indian Testimony."
No AZ, the term evidence is not just a legal term; it is much more. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - September 19 2008 : 11:15:17 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe wiggs
Az, evidence may be both. In the legal sense we are referring to documentation, objects, physical remains, DNA etc. that must pass a stringent analysis in order to meet a prescribed standard set by the judicial system. I'll go you one step further, none of the accounts would pass such a stringent test.
In a non-legal sense the same word may be interpreted as an "outward sign:Indication. Something that furnishes proof." Such is Indian testimony, an outward sign, an indication of truth. An indication that must not be accepted at face value but, scrutinized, corroborated, and challenged for credibility. The two meanings are extremely similar but one excludes legality. Both are valuable commodities.
If you wish to try a trial case by all means use the former. If you want to learn more about history use the latter. Indian testimony is too often treated as inferior information that can not be deciphered to make sense. Meanwhile, I came name a few men who have made a pretty penny on "Indian Testimony."
No AZ, the term evidence is not just a legal term; it is much more.
I fully understand the various meanings of evidence but you used this:
quote:
Testimony 2a - Evidence based on observation or knowledge; authoritative knowledge." Please note that the term "legal" in not included. However, it is used in definition b if one wished to use that definition.
How is it determined to be authoritative knowledge? How do we know it is based on observation? How would you know it was based upon observation if not written by the person himself. Once a translator enters then it is subject to the bias of the questions, the quality of the interpretation. Then you must also consider the closeness to the event and possible agendas of the person giving the account such as being more important or afraid of telling the truth.
It has no bearing on race. I have given to many accounts to reporters to no the don't always report what I said. If were testimony than a court recorder would be taking the statements as I said them but not asking the questions.
So what is missing in a account? It is not sworn, it is not subject to cross examination, and it is not usually written by an unbiased recorder that does not ask questions.
So Joe believe testimony is equivalent to account. It would not be the worse thing you have stated. I would prefer to use testimony as sworn and accounts as not for clarity. Realize that both testimony and accounts can be false. So it has nothing to with your point about using the words testimony and account to lesson Indian accounts.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 23 2009 : 8:10:18 PM
|
I have always found it puzzling regarding the antics of those who profess bewilderment of all Indian testimony and, who dismiss all Indian statements as being irreconcilable, while then tossing all of the Indian information out of the second floor window;useless data to be scorned and disregarded. Yet, these same individuals do not address the unabashed contradictions in the officer's testimony given at the R.C.O.I.,a mere three years after the battle.
Let us peruse the statements of these seemingly intelligent "White" men. Lt. Charles Varnum heard heavy firing, a "sort of crash-crash," and he shouted, "Wallace, hear that - and that!. However, Lt. Wallace testified he heard no volleys, but only a few scattering shots from the west side of the river.
At the same time, Lt. Edgerly remembered hearing very heavy volley firing coming from down stream.
Benteen heard only 15 to 20 shots and Reno heard nothing and, assumed that Custer had not engaged anyone at all.
Lt. Godfrey heard two distinct volleys although he was hearing impaired. I could go on and on but, let it suffice to say this, this is the intelligent testimony of mostly trained military observers, two of which conveniently swore they heard no volleys,statements made under oath.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - August 24 2009 : 09:00:36 AM
|
Lt. Godfrey heard two distinct volleys although he was hearing impaired. I could go on and on but, let it suffice to say this, this is the intelligent testimony of mostly trained military observers, two of which conveniently swore they heard no volleys,statements made under oath.
Godfrey was hard of hearing and if you read closely his actual statements I believe he uses the words we heard. That could easily be what someone told him.
Back to a persons recollection. First it is easy to not hear things when engaged in doing something else unless that something disrupts what you are doing. Second just because you hear something does not mean that you recall it.
I would not expect someone to lie under oath that they heard something when they could not recall it. You must put the pieces together in all testimony in order to draw a conclusion or finding of fact.
Joe I believe that you are confusing a statement of someone saying they did not hear with saying it did not happen. There is no testimony stating it did not happen.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on August 24 2009 09:01:50 AM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 20 2011 : 9:45:39 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
Lt. Godfrey heard two distinct volleys although he was hearing impaired. I could go on and on but, let it suffice to say this, this is the intelligent testimony of mostly trained military observers, two of which conveniently swore they heard no volleys,statements made under oath.
Godfrey was hard of hearing and if you read closely his actual statements I believe he uses the words we heard. That could easily be what someone told him.
quote:
Godfrey clearly heard what he personally testified to. If you can produce one shred of evidence to the contrary I'll be glad to consider it;as would countless others who have read and are fully aware of his testimony as you,evidently, are not.
Back to a persons recollection. First it is easy to not hear things when engaged in doing something else unless that something disrupts what you are doing. Second just because you hear something does not mean that you recall it.
quote:
We are not referring to to a group of enthusiast quietly reviewing the National Geographic in a library. We are discussing a group of trained, military personnel, officers who can aptly recognize the sound of guns being discharged in unison (volleys) Please explain to the board how one could not recall such an experience yet, recall no many other lesser facts that occurred during the battle?
I would not expect someone to lie under oath that they heard something when they could not recall it. You must put the pieces together in all testimony in order to draw a conclusion or finding of fact.
quote:
I believe you to be confused. No one, other than Reno, Benteen, and Wallace, blatantly lied under oath regarding the firing emanating from the Custer battle field. They testified to hearing no shots being fired while so many others did. On the other hand, we must acknowledge that some individuals,on the other Han,lie under oath everyday. It is most puzzling that an officer of the law such as yourself possesses such a naive perspective about perjury.
Joe I believe that you are confusing a statement of someone saying they did not hear with saying it did not happen. There is no testimony stating it did not happen.
quote:
Actually, you appear to be somewhat confused. Graham's condensed version of the Reno Inquiry list each witness by name, page, and what they testified to. This condensed version ( I have Nichol's full version as well) cuts to the chase.
AZ Ranger
|
Edited by - joe wiggs on July 20 2011 9:55:45 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2011 : 10:31:19 AM
|
A quote should be taken from somewhere else and quoted. Since this has been pointed out to you then you are intentionally doing it. Those quotes do not exist in my post.
How hard is this
I would not expect someone to lie under oath that they heard something when they could not recall it. You must put the pieces together in all testimony in order to draw a conclusion or finding of fact.
I believe you to be confused. No one, other than Reno, Benteen, and Wallace, blatantly lied under oath regarding the firing emanating from the Custer battle field. They testified to hearing no shots being fired while so many others did. On the other hand, we must acknowledge that some individuals,on the other Han,lie under oath everyday. It is most puzzling that an officer of the law such as yourself possesses such a naive perspective about perjury.
Since you state you were a former officer and considered being a Marine how about telling us what is the sound level of those shots at various distances. Do you realize that at 4 miles they are less than conversation levels. So they could be heard only if you were not talking. That could easily explain why some heard and others did not.
A Tucson police officer's recollection of firing his pistol is that he did not hear it but only heard the brass hitting the floor. I don't he was lying.
I am surprised that you would have not heard similar examples as a police officer. We do sound tests for shooting ranges and for watercraft making excessive noise and there is a big difference of a shot at 2 miles and hog boat at 50 yards. If the sound was loud enough to make it impossible to talk then you might have a point. Exactly how close do you think the source of the sound of firing was that others stated they could hear?
It is your leap to someone is lying just because they testify that they don't recall hearing something that I find as faulty.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on July 21 2011 10:46:23 AM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 21 2011 : 7:26:20 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by AZ Ranger
A quote should be taken from somewhere else and quoted. Since this has been pointed out to you then you are intentionally doing it. Those quotes do not exist in my post.
How hard is this
I would not expect someone to lie under oath that they heard something when they could not recall it. You must put the pieces together in all testimony in order to draw a conclusion or finding of fact.
quote:
It grows "harder" for me due to your inability to grasp what is reasonable, believable, and probable in the testimony against that which is self-serving. Benteen, and Reno had substantial reasons to make Custer appear to be an idiot. They both chose to ignore the sound of firing and remain on the hill. Psychology #101 tells us that they who have cause to disavow their participation in any critical situation due to their actions(or lack thereof) are prone to prevaricate
You,on the other hand,happily assume that these two culprits "didn't recall" the sounds of firing when so many others did. Are you suggesting that the others lied and Reno and Benteen did not? Wallace,to his credit, was probably thinking of the honor of his unit by preventing the exposure of it's sub-commander.
quote:
I believe you to be confused. No one, other than Reno, Benteen, and Wallace, blatantly lied under oath regarding the firing emanating from the Custer battle field. They testified to hearing no shots being fired while so many others did. On the other hand, we must acknowledge that some individuals lie under oath everyday. It is most puzzling that an officer of the law such as yourself possesses such a naive perspective about perjury.
Since you state you were a former officer and considered being a Marine how about telling us what is the sound level of those shots at various distances. Do you realize that at 4 miles they are less than conversation levels. So they could be heard only if you were not talking. That could easily explain why some heard and others did not.
quote:
I have no expertise in arms fire other than qualifying with semi-automatic 9MM. and, therefore can not attest nor state facts to your question.
A Tucson police officer's recollection of firing his pistol is that he did not hear it but only heard the brass hitting the floor. I don't he was lying.
quote:
I don't think he was lying either.
I am surprised that you would have not heard similar examples as a police officer. We do sound tests for shooting ranges and for watercraft making excessive noise and there is a big difference of a shot at 2 miles and hog boat at 50 yards. If the sound was loud enough to make it impossible to talk then you might have a point. Exactly how close do you think the source of the sound of firing was that others stated they could hear?
quote:
Please don't be surprised. The example you proffered does nothing to confirm or disavow the testimony of nineteen witnesses of the Reno Inquiry.
It is your leap to someone is lying just because they testify that they don't recall hearing something that I find as faulty.
quote:
No AZ, I "leap" because thirteen of nineteen witnesses' at the Inquiry heard the firing;only the above mention three did not. Perhaps you can explain this phenomena!
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 27 2011 : 01:25:21 AM
|
Can you answer the question at what decibel level do you think theses sounds of shot were at? I believe if you understood that it was less or equal to conversation of people it would be easy to understand how some heard and some did not.
That happens all the time to sound recognition of this low of a level and is not unusual for a person talking to not hear something.
Kind of reminds me of you.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - July 30 2011 : 12:16:59 PM
|
Well, he holds true to the course, no matter how crookedly it traverses nor how ludicrous the wanderings. I asked a very simple question (in a prior post)which you chose to ignore while flinging needless feces in my path. You speak of decibel of sound (a complicated subject to the novice) but ignore the common sense inquiry: How could sixteen of nineteen soldiers hear the firing from Custer's field while three did not?
Your transparent (and continuous) attempts to derail the crux of a point by switching subjects does not serve you well. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Indian "Testimony"
