| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 19 2004 : 11:33:38 PM
|
Larsen, It is truly a sad state of affairs when you would foolishly announce, to the world, that I should be grateful that you did not call me a fool. This from a man who has utilized every negative connotation know to humanity against me since my very first appearance on this forum. Your inability to understand that real men refrain from such adolescent behavior has consistenly amazed me. Do you not understand that to make such irrational statements is to assume that I, or anyone else for that matter, is concerned about what you think about me. Surely you do not?
Weir's trip to seek Custer without Reno's permission is understood by every investigator of this battle. I never intimated otherwise. In case you forgot, members of every company(six or so) were assigned to the pack train. That would include company "D". Your insistence that Fox had no business being "there" defies rationality. What, in the name of heaven, is your point?
Last, but certainly not least, your fantastic accusations such as my committing "borderline fraud" only serves to make you appear to be borderline delusional. I,for one, don't believe you are by any stretch of the imagination but, you can understand why some may. Perhaps It is you unbridled fury regarding every post that I make that makes you appear irrational?
May I suggest that you ignore my posts if they upset you so much? I'm really concerned about you my friend. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 19 2004 11:36:17 PM |
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 03:20:19 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Larsen, It is truly a sad state of affairs when you would foolishly announce, to the world, that I should be grateful that you did not call me a fool. This from a man who has utilized every negative connotation know to humanity against me since my very first appearance on this forum. Your inability to understand that real men refrain from such adolescent behavior has consistenly amazed me. Do you not understand that to make such irrational statements is to assume that I, or anyone else for that matter, is concerned about what you think about me. Surely you do not?
I call it a sadder state of affairs when, rather than respond to the quite valid points I made about the Fox story, you reply with an unvarnished screed against me personally. Anybody who's interested can read back in the archives of this board, and judge for themselves who has really engaged in the behavior you describe. They're all dated and timed, back to the very day you began posting here, so there's not much room for evasion.
quote:
Weir's trip to seek Custer without Reno's permission is understood by every investigator of this battle. I never intimated otherwise. In case you forgot, members of every company(six or so) were assigned to the pack train. That would include company "D". Your insistence that Fox had no business being "there" defies rationality. What, in the name of heaven, is your point?
The pack train didn't reach Reno Hill until twenty minutes after Weir left, Wiggs. See Gray. My point, as is obvious, is that based on his company assignment Fox ought not to have been in any position to hear such a conversation, and that he in fact did not is suggested further by details in his story which conflict with known facts. I've said all this clearly before and I think everyone else must have grasped it.
quote:
Last, but certainly not least, your fantastic accusations such as my committing "borderline fraud" only serves to make you appear to be borderline delusional. I,for one, don't believe you are by any stretch of the imagination but, you can understand why some may. Perhaps It is you unbridled fury regarding every post that I make that makes you appear irrational?
It's quite simple, Wiggs. You quoted the entire Weir/Reno conversation, as remembered by Fox, except for one part. A part which, coincidentally, happened to shred one of the points you've been arguing, assuming what Fox says is true. As I said before, I can't say whether you did such on purpose, but there's the sum of it. Others can make of it what they will. Whatever really happened on your end, I can't expect you to tell the truth, since you still haven't admitted to the clear lies you told about charging Benteen for failing to help troops in the valley, or that especially maudlin one about Sitting Bull's "dream" on the Indian Side board. There are others, but those strike me as the highlights.
quote:
May I suggest that you ignore my posts if they upset you so much? I'm really concerned about you my friend.
Beg me to put you on ignore all you like, Wiggs, it won't happen. Your posts are riddled with too many errors, some of them (unfortunately) clearly intentional, and those have to be confronted and dealt with. Besides, why miss out on the farce?
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 20 2004 : 9:13:48 PM
|
Larsen, you are amazing. The entire forum has but to look three inches upwards, on their screen, and see that I "suggested" you ignore my post only if they "upset" you so much. You then, immediately I might add, state that I did "beg" you to do so. The last time I did "Beg" Larsen was when I was a juvenile attempting to consumate a physical relationship in the back of a '56 Ford; she was much prettier than you (I hope).
This incorrect statement was followed by a tirade of denunciation that startled me. I'm sorry that you feel I attacked you "personally" although I do understand how you may feel having been the recipient of such slander since my arrival.
Honestly, your repetitious declaration that I have failed to complete the "quote" from Fox has rendered me completely senseless. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please let me know which portion I ommitted. As I truly have no idea as to what you are referring to, you can understand why your assistance is called upon. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 03:25:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Honestly, your repetitious declaration that I have failed to complete the "quote" from Fox has rendered me completely senseless. I have no idea what you are talking about. Please let me know which portion I ommitted. As I truly have no idea as to what you are referring to, you can understand why your assistance is called upon.
Actually I don't, since I've already identified the part you failed to quote at least two separate times. Top of pg. 96 of "Camp of Custer". You're either insincere or extremely inattentive.
Nobody slandered you at your arrival, Wiggs. You're simply not telling the truth ---- and that's the one and sole source of your problems here. You lied to people and it was detected and shown. All the lies you've told on this forum are still here, wrapped around you like a chain.
You claim children write for you, or help you anyway, and I believe it, since any real adult would have admitted to what he'd done wrong and apologized for them. That's how you get respect in this world, Wiggs. Not by straining obscure words out of your dictionary, or trying to wow people with knowledge you don't actually have. You get respect by being honest and treating others that way. Maybe if you did that you wouldn't need to "suggest" that I put you on ignore.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 4:20:01 PM
|
"Finally, Weir said, that he was going anyhow and Reno did not object." Top of page 96,Walter Camp's Notes
This statement refers to Weir's announcement that despite Reno's objections, he was going anyway. Therefore this statement is the conclusion of the heated conversation that preceeded the conclusion. The conclusion does not detract nor add to the main bofy of conversation. I left nothing off by not including the last line except computor space.
I can only believe that your failure to arrive at the same conclusion, after reading the same pages as I, is based upon your unbridled dislike for me. That is sad as I really think you are a fine fellow. By the way Larsen, I never said that "children" assisted me in writing these threads. What actuaally occurred is that I shared some of your posts with some of my students at the local High school. Our current project is "Major battles Little Known, and Minor battles of world Renown." It is a combo historical/social mores class. Yes, some of them did laugh at your rantings. That was not a nice thing to do. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 5:20:36 PM
|
I show your persnickety remarks to the neighborhood children as often as possible. We all get such a wonderful laugh. They all remark how strange your language is, they feel that "real" people do not talk/wtite that way. I assure them that you are not really "people." {Joseph Wiggs, August 6, Benteen to see what he could see thread)
So now you're a high school teacher along with your police work? I thought high school teachers had to be functionally literate, and know something about history before they were allowed to teach it. What school is this? I'd really like to know.
Would you show us where you talked about your high school students as you now describe them? Either neighborhood children OR high school students could do a better job than you do, Wiggs, so I think you're mistaken, although I still think several of your postings were written by someone not you. But since you now claim you said it, show us where. Shouldn't be hard if you're telling the truth. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 5:38:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
"Finally, Weir said, that he was going anyhow and Reno did not object." Top of page 96,Walter Camp's Notes
This statement refers to Weir's announcement that despite Reno's objections, he was going anyway. Therefore this statement is the conclusion of the heated conversation that preceeded the conclusion. The conclusion does not detract nor add to the main bofy of conversation. I left nothing off by not including the last line except computor space.
All that you say is untrue. Fox does not say that Weir said he would go "despite Reno's objections" --- he says that when Weir announced what he intended to do, "Reno did not object". You can't wiggle out of that, and what Fox says (besides conflicting totally with what Edgerly and Godfrey said) is at odds with how it was remembered at the Reno Court of Inquiry. Everybody was thrown for a loop when Weir suddenly went on the move, is the word. Besides, as a member of D Company Fox shouldn't have been in a position to hear such a conversation even if it did take place. You haven't adequately addressed any of these problems, and distorting Fox's words won't be a remedy.
quote:
I can only believe that your failure to arrive at the same conclusion, after reading the same pages as I, is based upon your unbridled dislike for me. That is sad as I really think you are a fine fellow. By the way Larsen, I never said that "children" assisted me in writing these threads. What actuaally occurred is that I shared some of your posts with some of my students at the local High school. Our current project is "Major battles Little Known, and Minor battles of world Renown." It is a combo historical/social mores class. Yes, some of them did laugh at your rantings. That was not a nice thing to do.
Nonsense, Wiggs. The problem, once again, is that you can't read. Fox says that by the end of their talk, Reno did not object to Weir's going; you claim he says that Weir went in spite of Reno's objections. You simply lie. Fox's words are right there in print, and you can't twist them.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 7:30:15 PM
|
| Dc, thank you for bringing up my exact words, I could not remember them. This analogous remark has served its purose well.Has it not? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 7:47:18 PM
|
Larsen, I truly have no idea as to what point you are attempting to make. Just to be certain that I have not slighted you, in any way, I have re-read that passage over and over again. I keep getting the same format. Weir desired to go to the "sounds" of firing, Reno advised him not to, and Weir stated he was going anyway. You, miraculously,arrived at a diametric conclusion. Isn't it ironic though, you bellow over and over again about my "twisting" words yet, I am the only one quoting the passage?
Perhaps arbitration is called upon to settle this dilemma. After all, your well being is more important to me then my being right. Anyone who has a copy of this book, I call upon you please read page 95 and 96 and 'PM' Larsen and I regarding your thoughts. This madness between he and I must come to an end. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 9:04:09 PM
|
Nonsense, Wiggs. Fox says this: "Finally, Weir said that he was going anyhow and Reno did not object".
Which you convert to this: "This statement refers to Weir's announcement that despite Reno's objections, he was going anyway. " (My emphasis)
That isn't what Fox is saying at all. The reverse, in fact. Once Weir made his decision and said what he was going to do, Reno (he says) did not object. That's how Fox has it. I paraphrase accurately, you do not.
The only "madness" here, if such it is and not flagrant dishonesty, is that you persist in thinking you can manipulate history to salve your ego without anyone being the wiser. Fox's words aren't erased by your distortions, and can be read by anyone, and repudiate your misrepresentations on their own.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 9:05:09 PM
|
| Now Dc, for shame. You know I can't devulge the school where I teach. It is almost disconcerting that you would ask such an incautious question. Is it possible that you don't believe me? Never I say. While it is true, that we have agreed seldom in the past, surely you realize that I admire your work thus far and, am looking forward to a continuous critique of same. "How much you lie" is such a harsh phrase. Tone it down buddy or people will think that you really don't like me. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 9:08:07 PM
|
So what college courses did you take to get your teaching credential?
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 21 2004 : 9:10:18 PM
|
| All right class, one and one is two, two and two is four, page 95 and 96 speak for themselves. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 22 2004 : 09:49:01 AM
|
How would you know, Wiggs? You can't read.
In any case, you claimed you actually posted this tale of high school students previous to your current fabrication. Show us where, Wiggs. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on December 22 2004 09:56:12 AM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 22 2004 : 9:15:58 PM
|
| Your sincerity when you state that, "you (Wiggs) can't read" is apparent and accepted by me. I know that you only tell me these things because you want me to do better. For an adult to tell another adult that he/she can't read could be deemed as childish and unduly harsh by many others. I,on the other hand,have no problem with your chastisement of me because I know that you have a fondness for Orphans, Girl Scouts, Men who can't spell, Opines that differ from yours, and Italian men who don't write English as well as you. When you put it all together, you are one hell of a guy. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 23 2004 : 11:36:17 AM
|
| Wiggs, I don't care about you one way or the other, and wish you neither well nor ill. I don't want your slanders (of Benteen) and lies (about yourself, your plaigiarism, your made up facts) to go unopposed, I don't like people throwing saddles on the exploits of others to elevate themselves by vague institutional association, and I don't like the public being trained to mistake archaeology for police work or unassailable truth. Sincerity isn't competence or necessarily well meaning. But I don't even grant you sincerity. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 24 2004 : 11:52:06 PM
|
Ah, to be ignored, the most ignoble fate of all. Better to be spat upon, slapped upon the cheek, or embarrassed before your peers rather than to be ignored. What a lowly fate you have thrust upon be D.c. I extend a hand of friendship during a special time (Christmas) and this is the acknowledgment I receive.
Your attitude makes me reflect upon the times when I first posted on this forum. I, pleasantly, recall how impressed I was with your articulated threads; your information base was incorrect but, you wrote things so nicely. I was actually a fan of yours.
Soon I began to notice that you snatched every opportunity available to you to ridicule, slander,debase, and wreck havoc with my posts, profession, and perspectives. This tactic includes anyone else who differes from your "perspective" regarding the battle. Without knowning a thing about me you, and Larsen, attempted to crucify me at every turn.
I was appalled as I watched you attack others as well. I recall "El Crab" stating, at one point, "now you see why I don't post as often as I use to."
Disgusted with your tactics, valued forum members departed. I was amazed as no one spoke up to decry such insensitive remarks that spewed from your ever gaping mouth. I hoped to prevent myself from sinking to your level. I wanted to remain a gentleman,despite many, many, Pm's imploring me to fight back.
Then Warlord came along. Sizing you up immediately, he attacked with a ferocity that stunned everyone, including myself. Although I did not agree with his approach, his manner certainly shook the forum up!
As a result of this semantic upheavel, a hue and cry arose. "Foul, Foul, Foul, radiated across the forum. But you D.c.remained unscathed. Held unaccountable for your less than Christian tactics, you continued to spew your allegations of wrong doing. That is why I thought you and Larsen were the same people. I just assumed no two men could be so equally vicious and spineless.
Ah Well, Que Sera, Sera -whatever will be will be. Therefore, I still extend my hand towards yours in a spirit of friendship during the holiday season. However, I must say, you have never appeared any smaller than you do now, at this moment. |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 25 2004 : 01:23:26 AM
|
In all the garbage preceding between DC, Wiggs, etc., DC did make a good point, if everyone sits back and takes a non-emotional view of the situation. That is:
"...and I don't like the public being trained to mistake archeology for police work or unassailable truth."
Wiggs, if memory serves me correctly, you were formerly a policeman. Can you imagine a suspect being convicted because of "evidence" found at the LBH battlefield by archaeologists? There is no, what is the term, "chain of custody" to definitely state whether a cartridge case came from Custer's men or some later date. Unlike some, I don't believe that the archaeologists had any particular axe to grind. Reading through the book I have, it seems to me that they are trying their best to avoid stating factually that "this" happened and are only offering "this" as speculation.
My opinion? We can use the archaeological evidence with the same amount of belief we use the verbal testimony. There is no conclusive proof that just because a cartridge case happens to be there, it was fired during the LBH battle or, if it is ever definitively proven to have been, who fired the shot?
Grain of salt on everything concerned with LBH with some A1 and we have a good meal 
Merry Christmas to one and all,
Billy |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 25 2004 : 05:13:33 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
It's your lies that have given you problems. That's the sum of it. If you hadn't lied about accusing Benteen, or faking Sitting Bull's "dream", or doctoring quotes, or a number of other instances, none of this would be around. The fact is, the allegations that have been made against you are true. The proof is in your own postings, spread all across this site. You could have defused it by simply taking responsibility for them and admitting error, but you haven't even tried to be honest by doing that much. You still deal in bloated self-justification, lashing out vaguely at others while refusing to answer the quite specific charges against yourself.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 25 2004 : 05:24:42 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
I really hate to point out the ignorance displayed here, but I guess it is necessary! DC/larson: It is not difficult for the educated to be given a teaching certificate. In California, a person holding a Bachelors Degree from any university is qualified to teach as a substitute(CBEST).
I didn't know that, and rather appalling if true. It explains a lot why California (my own home) is such an education sink-hole, though with the Teachers' Union here being so powerful I'm surprised they would have allowed it to be so easy for a layman to sneak in and suck a job from one of them, even if only a substitute. So Wiggs is a citizen of California?
quote:
Your statements about questioning Wiggs cedential's mark both of you as very unknowledgable in this area! Also asking where he teaches school falls under the heading of confidentiality which could involve school security. In fact, both of you sound like H.S. graduates or less! As usual both of you display your inability to comprehend who you are talking to, or what you might be dealing with! Truly pathetic!!!
If Joseph Wiggs, alleged police officer, who confuses the word "factitious" with "facetious," really is an approved high school teacher, then it says something about our national education system which is below pathetic.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 25 2004 : 9:43:48 PM
|
Billy, it is perfectedly reasonable and, it expected of police investigators to use specific methods to locate, identify, and commit,to a chain of custody,forensic evidence. Such evidence is procured at the crime scene by meticulous means to include, digging, scraping skin tissues, collecting parasites near the body, placing items capable of containing DNA (cigarette butts for example) into specially designed packages to insure the validity of the items sized. Each package submitted to evidence identifies the location and locator of the "find" and, is signed by a witness.
Every individual who touches, examines, or in any way is involved with the evidence is identified, noted, and becomes a part of that "chain of Custody." As such, they may be forced to testify in a Court of Law.
This is the exact procedure utilized by Dr. Scott and Dr. Fox in their archaeological endeavors. These studies are not simply clandestine jaunts werein individuals go traipsing across a field of clovers in a fit of pandemonium. It is a scientific study.
Billy, are you aware that no two human beings have an identical set of fingerprints. Countless men and women who have existed, since the dawn of time, are unique in this way. Also Billy, every firearm that discharges a round leaves a distinctive and unique signature!! With the advent of rifle barreling, which results in "lands" and Groove' markings being imprinted on discharged bullets, and firing pin and extractors, investigators now possess easily identifiable "signatures" on casings and bullets.
Copper and brass cases (used by the Indians and soldiers)usually preserved well, unlike the soft lead bullets used in nineteenth-century muzzle-loaders, which were also used in this battle.
Scott and Fox were able to identift "paths" utilized by the soldiers who, for the most part, used two specific weapons: .45-caliber Springfield carbine, and the six-shot, .45-cal. single action pistol.
On page 78 of Fox's book, he lists a total of 29 types of weapons used in this battle. With some exception, the vast majority were used by the Indians.
I respect D.C.'s right to make any statement he chooses to make on this forum. However, I am entitled to challenge those statements if I honestly believe them to be false or incorrect. Thus I challenge..."and I don't like the public being trained to mistake archeology for police work or unassailable truths" as merely a personal observation not based on facts. Archeology is a science, no truth is "unassailble." No human on this planet has suggested, inferred, or implied that archeology is a precise science. Nevertheless, a science it is!. Truth is continuously sunjected to further studies, new evidence, and the discoveries of brilliant minds. For the common people in 1492, the truth was the "world is flat."
Yes Billy, to answer your question, I am a retired Police Officer. There is currently a gentleman pulling life in prison for attempting to shoot me. In his possession was a handgum which was used to identify him in the murder of a young girl 24 hours before I encountered him. His sentence was a direct result of the forensic science utilized by Scott and Fox. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 25 2004 : 10:07:36 PM
|
Larsen, "factitious" -forced or artificial (Webster's Dictionsary.
I chose that word specifically in a thread between D.c., and I. It was an attempt, on my part, to make him aware that I was sincere in my feelings despite our many bones of contention. You, having no clue whatsoever, assumed I meant something else. You then proceed to identify the entire, national school system as incompetent because that system hired me. Billy is right, this "garbage" has gone far enough. I have grown weary with dealing with you. Larsen, D.c. has something you are totally unaware of; a little class! |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on December 25 2004 10:09:51 PM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 26 2004 : 11:25:09 AM
|
Wiggs, your knowledge of science is from the Big Book of Boy's Science. Anyone who has watched CSI knows as much or more.
Your summation of Fox is incorrect. You cannot trace a soldier or a person across the field. You can only hypothesize a path taken by a weapon which could change hands in the middle of that journey. But you cannot even prove the journey.
I don't believe you were ever a police officer or are currently a teacher licensed to teach. You don't have the education to be a teacher, and your writing skills are bovine. I think it's against the law to pretend to be a retired cop, in fact. And I certainly do not believe that ridiculous story. Anything is possible, of course, but you've been caught in too many lies before. I think you jumped the shark on that one, Wiggs. It's worth looking into, I'd think. If you're telling the truth, tell us where we can verify either of these occupations of yours. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - December 26 2004 : 11:49:11 AM
|
Wiggs, hope you had a very enjoyable and peaceful Christmas!
"Every individual who touches, examines, or in any way is involved with the evidence is identified, noted, and becomes a part of that "chain of Custody." As such, they may be forced to testify in a Court of Law.
This is the exact procedure utilized by Dr. Scott and Dr. Fox in their archaeological endeavors. These studies are not simply clandestine jaunts werein individuals go traipsing across a field of clovers in a fit of pandemonium. It is a scientific study."
I have no doubts about post-discovery artifacts preserving the chain of evidence, but, I think that evades the major concern of one and all. Fox & Scott do fantastic work in the planning, organizing and implementation of the field work as well as the subsequent lab work performed by specialists. But, barring a major revelation somewhere along the line, we have no concrete evidence that the cartridge cases found during the archaeological work absolutely were fired on the battlefield during the LBH fight. By that, I mean actually comparing the firing signatures of a weapon historically known to have been involved in the battle to the artifacts' firing-pin and extractor-marks. During the .45-55 cartridge thread research, I read somewhere that some number (29?) of firearms had been positively identified as having been involved in the LBH fight. It would be interesting to learn how they came to be identified. Perhaps, somewhere, there is a list of serial numbers for .45-55's assigned to the various troopers of the 7th which I don't know of.
To me, and I am a fan of the scientific method, the caveat is that Fox, Scott, et al, have to use circumstantial evidence to determine whether a case found upon the field was fired during the battle and not pre or post-battle. Circumstantial evidence, in my layman's understanding, uses the "if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck" principle. That is fine, only, it leaves room for compelling counter-arguments, which may be as factually objective as their (Fox & Scott) interpretations.
Again, to paraphrase what I had said earlier, a grain of salt and dash of Jamaican Jerk marinade (Walker's Woods by the way) goes a long way when dealing with any historical event, especially one as emotional as the LBH.
Dealing with this subject, personally I would love someone to compare the Henry cases found at LBH to any found in the vicinity of the Fetterman fight. It would offer compelling, although circumstantial, proof that a Henry used in Fetterman's battle was later used upon the LBH field. No absolute proof, as that rarely exists (unless we are talking about the Chief's defense being awful).
Happy New Year to all!
Billy
|
Edited by - BJMarkland on December 26 2004 11:51:04 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Weir Point -- Before & After
