| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - December 30 2004 : 9:15:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Bobbie: you sound like a little girl stood up by her prom date.
More like a person wondering how you came up with 1,320 Indian deaths. Little Knife, Crow King, Low Dog, Pretty White Buffalo, Horn Chips, Fluing Hawk, Lone Bear, Charlie Corn, He Dog, White Bull, Big Head Woman, Wooden Leg, and One Bull must have all been really blind, to miss carnage like that.
R. Larsen
|
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 30 2004 : 9:49:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
This is not an answer to you Bobbie, but I am interested in this facet of LBH. Actually I think the indian deaths might be a good deal higher than that. There is no doubt the army was underestimating indian deaths for their reasons, the indians were underestimating for their reasons and the indian agents underestimating warriors gone from the reservation. We after all are talking about the point in history where the plains indians were broken. Due to most parties involved not giving accurate numbers estimation has to be used. I will be talking about this more in the future as it has been badly handled on this board.
Well, I don't see what reasons the army would have to underestimate the Indian dead. The slaughter of 200 soldiers was an embarassment, and if they could have salvaged some pride from it by depicting Custer as having ripped the Indians through the meat grinder, one would think they would have done it. As for the Indians, though there's some variation among their totals (there's a few who suggest the number may have gone up to 60, and one outlier who places the total at a suspiciously specific 136) had the number really been as high as you claim it to be, at least somebody would have presumably spilled the beans. Many, many Indians were interviewed, by different people, at different times, and this extreme casualty figure comes from nowhere. The fact that probably can't be avoided is that Custer was defeated, and whipped rather badly, on atrocious ground by numbers that were overpowering.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - December 31 2004 : 11:40:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
larsen: The army had been severely reduced from civil war numbers. They were not interested in "salvaging pride", they were interested in a bigger budget and recruitment. Claiming any kind of victory, particularly a large one would have been detrimental to their purposes.
You don't have any secret cables, telegrams, notes, etc. where they discuss this, do you?
quote:
Yes, many indians were interviewed most of them lying their heads off so badly no one believes them.
Some of them may have been lying for all anyone knows, but if we're to believe the fatality figures you've produced, from neither Indian nor military sources, all were. You may not believe it, but that's a far, far cry from "no one".
quote:
Actually, if you had the skills law school teaches you would be arguing both sides of the matter in an attempt to determine what sounds the most valid. But we both know you don't have those skills, don't we, larsen!!!
What's most valid is what's most plausible, and there's quite a large body of evidence for double digit Indian fatality figures, and none at all for the 1,000+ you claim for. Even if what you allege is true, that the Indians and military both conspired to put out misleadingly low death numbers, it still wouldn't provide any justification for a number like 1,320.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 12:53:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
No it isn't common sense. It's a rather strained grab at conspiracy. This is government we're talking about. Show the paperwork.
So far the only basis I've seen for rejecting what all say is that you simply don't want to believe it. You don't have any actual evidence to support your own inflated figures. That's fine as far as it goes, except for the rather nagging fact that it doesn't go anywhere.
What qualifies me to give an opinion on this (and I'd hope it's shared by all here) is the ability to read and the curiosity to seek out what's pertinent to the question. Anybody who lacks those two things probably won't do too well.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 01:49:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Well kid: I am the one who worked thirty years for gov. not you. So I guess I know one hell of a lot more about it then some snot nosed kid pretending to be a law school student!!! We are not talking conspiracy here, just how it work's!
Actually, I don't think you know anything about the inner workings of 1870s American government. Your posts certainly show no acquaintance with it. If you have evidence that Grant, Sheridan, or whomever really did conspire to suppress Indian casualty figures, for whatever reason, show it.
Same goes for the pile of Indian corpses you fantasize.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 03 2005 : 11:49:20 PM
|
| Ah. We can add the Enquirer to Warlord's source reading material, along with teenage gamesite intro pages and Soldier of Fortune. Yeah, the Glomar Explorer was a real mystery. I think Leonard Nimoy broke that wide open on In Search of... in the 70's. Nobody, liberal or conservative, has ever said the government - escpecially our government - is all honesty. Nobody above the age of six could say that without laughing. Apparently it came as a shock to you, though. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2005 : 01:47:29 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Larsen: Actually kid, I urinate more knowledge down the toilet after lunch than you are ever likely to get in your lifetime. You are the one who uses the word conspiracy not me. I merely observe how gov. works.
Then I wonder why the word "conspiracy" so upsets you. It's you who accuses everyone --- white, Indian, powerful, powerless --- without evidence, of lying to suppress the truth for their own self-serving ends. According to you, it was official government policy. Show evidence of this.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on January 04 2005 02:58:07 AM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - January 04 2005 : 01:50:41 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Your phony disciple larsen was the one so incredulousy that the gov. could lie per his posting above!
I wasn't incredulous that the government could lie. I'm just asking for evidence of it. I don't think that was a hard thing to grasp for someone with basic reading skills.
R. Larsen |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Weir Point -- Before & After
