| Author |
 Topic  |
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 09 2004 : 9:38:29 PM
|
Gentlemen, do calm down. Thou protest to much. Contrary to a non-verbal albeit, inferred assumption, I do not create these theories. Nor do I insist that they are absolutely correct. as Dark Cloud is so fond of stating over, and over, and over, and over again, we don't know what really occurred. The information that I submit to the forum is derived from the result of men who are willing and capable of competent research in this area. I read this information and I share it. Last and, certainly not least, I find it inconceivable that an ardent follower of this battle is not acquainted with Custer's signature ascot that was wore by Tom, and several other officers also.
What I have noticed though is this. Anyone who dares to disagree I never prop I am right inferred albeit, obvious assumtionn obvious |
  |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 10:41:51 AM
|
All you were asked to do was explain how you know certain things. This is a fair thing to ask, since it's rather pointless to speculate based on certain assumptions if those assumptions are not well-grounded.
So-- how do you know that Tom wore a scarf/ascot, that it was bright red, and that it actually belonged to his brother?
How do you know he was dressed "stylishly," and that his boots were "fancy"?
How do you know Indians held these "preconceived notions" which you allege them to have had?
How do you know these buckskin jackets would have appeared "expensive" to both Indians and soldiers? What evidence do you have that those officers' clothing wasn't as ragged and crummy as Wallace's?
I want to know the foundation for all these assumptions.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 3:49:00 PM
|
Per your request8619:
George B. Grinnell Interview.
"White Shield", Cheyenne
Item 349, Field Notebook' 1908-1909.
"I saw the man suppose to be Custer being stripped. He was clad in a buckskin shirt-fringed on the breast-and trusers. He wore FINE BOOTS, AND WORE A BIG RED hanherchief. The man seem to be an to me an officer (leader) of the gray horse troops. Some of the Sioux said this is the man who brought the soldiers. Then the Sioux women smashed his head with mauls.
The Indian ASSUMPTION that this was Custer was based on, once again, the fashionable way one corpse was attired. No other factor that would bring them to the same conclusion was mentioned by them. It seems that warriors, too, have a fashion sense.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 4:57:38 PM
|
It's superfluous to point out that this quote backs you up not at all, and if it describes a Custer, it describes Tom (the head pounded in) but Tom wasn't in charge of the grey horse troop, was he? A big red handkerchief is not an ascot, 'fine' is not 'fancy' and certainly not 'expensive'.
What Sioux would call 'fine' boots is a good guess, since they didn't wear them. But then, this is 30 odd years after the fight, so who knows what he thought he remembered unaffected by all the stories since, what words he now knew and was inserting, perhaps helped by Grinnell. Doesn't require a lie, requires being human to confuse things.
I think you're confusing the emulation of Custer's officers during the Civil War with the 7th. Call me crazy, I have the suspicion that nobody in 90 degree weather was head to toe in buckskin. On the other hand, the delirium resulting from that might explain a lot. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 10 2004 : 9:17:27 PM
|
| Once again you have proven that any discussion that crosses the grain of your reality is quickly delegated to file #13. At your insistence, I supplied my references that backed my statements. Everyone on this forum realizes that the man with his head smashed flat was Tom Custer. That is exactly my point. Not knowing who was who, nor being incapable of knowing, the warriors made an assumption, an incorrect one, based upon the dress of Tom. If I remember correctly, you were adament that i could not possibly know if a red scarf was worn by any soldier on the battlefield. The inference being I was full of it. How odd is it that you did not address that issue. I can honestly say, you never get the point. You just rant and rave. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over. Please chill out. I guess you can always call me a liar and a bad cop again, you haven't done that for a while. |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 03:51:46 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
It's superfluous to point out that this quote backs you up not at all, and if it describes a Custer, it describes Tom (the head pounded in) but Tom wasn't in charge of the grey horse troop, was he? A big red handkerchief is not an ascot, 'fine' is not 'fancy' and certainly not 'expensive'.
What Sioux would call 'fine' boots is a good guess, since they didn't wear them. But then, this is 30 odd years after the fight, so who knows what he thought he remembered unaffected by all the stories since, what words he now knew and was inserting, perhaps helped by Grinnell. Doesn't require a lie, requires being human to confuse things.
I think you're confusing the emulation of Custer's officers during the Civil War with the 7th. Call me crazy, I have the suspicion that nobody in 90 degree weather was head to toe in buckskin. On the other hand, the delirium resulting from that might explain a lot.
The gray horse troop has little bearing. Boots, buckskins and a red tie/ascot/scarf/whatever are easily identifiable, but whether or not they were commanding a company of soldiers on grays is a lot harder to define. Perhaps the warrior in question saw this person near the gray horses, with the left wing, on Custer Hill (where they were identified as being during the fight), etc. Rejecting something based on an Indian's understanding of a cavalry command structure based on sight alone? Not exactly concrete. But that said, either is the other stuff. A lot of the accounts of men in buckskin seem like they were extracted by white interviewers trying to figure out who saw Custer. Tall black boots, red tie, buckskins, long blond hair, etc, pop up in a lot of accounts. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 11:51:21 AM
|
| I think you've confused me with Larsen regarding red whatever. However, the very fact that you're using scarf, ascot, handkerchief as interchangeable renders it silly. That's the sort of reasoning, along with lying about what you'd posted, that unnerves, given your stated background as a cop. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 11 2004 : 9:27:33 PM
|
| I knew you would not fail. When in doubt, resort to what is most handy, and readily available; character assignation. It doesn't take any effort to do so. In fact, you don't even have to possess a brain as you have so adamantly proven over, and over again. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 10:24:55 AM
|
The White Shield story is not evidence that Tom Custer died wearing some sort of red thing (what happened to the brightness?). The clothing doesn't match what Kanipe reported, several other men died on the field wearing buckskin, and White Shield's perceptions of the man's role on the field does not match with Tom either (he thought the corpse was both General Custer AND the leader of the gray horse troop).
Your posting left unsaid, however, what led you to conclude that the red whatever-it-was (your description changes from post to post) actually belonged to George, even though it was worn by Tom. It left unexplained how you knew that the alleged buckskin clothing Tom wore was "stylish". It also left us in the dark how you knew that the Indians held those "preconceived notions" you claim them to have had. As I feared, your "evidence" for Tom wearing the red scarf (which, all should note, was a statement you made without qualification) turned out to be nothing more than speculation, and I doubt you have any better basis for these other statements, but maybe you can reassure us, at least, that you just didn't make it all up. What are your sources?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 12 2004 : 8:23:38 PM
|
| What I have established is that you are a little man with a small mind incapble of true debate with adults. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 12:30:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
What I have established is that you are a little man with a small mind incapble of true debate with adults.
Hmm.... That must have been in the same post in which you validated all your claims .... oh, wait, that post doesn't actually EXIST. Silly me.
The bottom line, Wiggs, is that your postings are riddled with errors, disinformation, and inventions. When called on them, you revert to the infancy stage, bawling and screaming. "True adults" in your situation would admit they were mistaken, or misled by another author; or, if they have the sources to validate their claims, lay them out. That's not something you actually do if you're wrong (which is a lot), and it's why nobody really respects you. You're never on the level with us.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 13 2004 : 7:59:31 PM
|
| Your illusions of grandure preclude you from ever having made a mistake; ergo your perplexing habit of judging others. The bottom line, Larsen, is that you have either read my posts with jaundiced eyes or, you have not completely read them at all. I believe the latter possible although the former has a high probability factor. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 4:04:30 PM
|
You're right, I do take a jaundiced eye towards lies and fabrications. Why you thought you could get away with it on a public board is the only thing that perplexes me. Arrogance, I suppose; you don't seem clever enough to have done it out of pure mischief, otherwise the lies would have been a lot more entertaining.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
 Posted - June 14 2004 : 6:55:25 PM
|
| Can I ask somewhat without being invested from an artillery discharge? Why is it ending always to the insults? I Think that here, beginning from me, we have all to learn, and that the certainties of the superior persons are solid truths as well as how much the presumed lies and fabrications of others. I'm convinced that to the base of all need the respect and a minimum of consideration for any customer of the forum. Many times this respect I have seen it to lack in the comparisons Joseph Wiggs and others and I'm really sorry about it. Because to my warning, instead, Joe is to the level of Mr Larsen and has carried of much important contributions. I hope therefore that the debate can continue within limits of the correctness and that the truth absolute could let the place to the opinions of everyone. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 14 2004 : 9:49:08 PM
|
| Lorenzo, it is a very sad fact that a minute portion of our society consist of those who would call you and I liars because our opinions differ from theirs. Join with me in a resolution that, henceforth, we will not acknowledge their existence. This forum consists of many who care for the truth. From this point forward, we will address those who chose to differ from us with dignity, not childish accusations. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 10:36:23 AM
|
Sleazy, Wiggs. Lorenzo isn't under the gun you are, and it defies comment for you to imply he is. You're the one who lied, and has refused to asknowledge it. Lorenzo never has. There are no 'others' Wiggs; it's you alone.
|
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 4:17:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by lorenzo G.
Can I ask somewhat without being invested from an artillery discharge? Why is it ending always to the insults?
It's only gone to insults because Joseph Wiggs is incapable of substantiating many of the statements he makes, but rather than admit that, he hurls himself repetitively into a torrid, tiresome rage. Such endings are annoying, I know, but they'd all go away if Wiggs would just stop posting untrue information.
quote:
I'm convinced that to the base of all need the respect and a minimum of consideration for any customer of the forum. Many times this respect I have seen it to lack in the comparisons Joseph Wiggs and others and I'm really sorry about it. Because to my warning, instead, Joe is to the level of Mr Larsen and has carried of much important contributions. I hope therefore that the debate can continue within limits of the correctness and that the truth absolute could let the place to the opinions of everyone.
I don't completely understand everything you're saying here, but I'm pretty sure I get the gist.
Joseph has been given many opportunities to either (a) back up his claims, or (b) acknowledge his lack of evidence, whether it's just a mistake on his part or that of another author, or something else. He seems to feel there's something shameful in option (b), which is why he twists himself into such contortions in order to avoid it. Why, I do not know. Everybody makes mistakes, trips over the evidence, has their memory fail them, etc. I don't think anybody else on this board has ever hesitated to admit this when it has happened. There's no reason not to, since nobody at all would think the less of somebody for making a mistake and acknowledging it.
Joseph Wiggs, for whatever reason, is incapable of doing this. He says things that are wrong, untrue, or just made up, and when called on them, will neither substantiate them nor recant them. Lies. It's bizarre that he thinks he could do this and not be called on it.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 9:49:06 PM
|
| True men do not call other men "Liars" while hidden by the vast cushion of cyber space; children do because they know not what they do. |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 15 2004 : 11:06:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
True men do not call other men "Liars" while hidden by the vast cushion of cyber space; children do because they know not what they do.
Honest men don't lie, in cyberspace or otherwise. Ready to admit that a lot of the things you've said are false?
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
lorenzo G.
Captain
Italy
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 08:18:57 AM
|
| Can I have a list of the "lies" Joseph would have told? I sincerly don't find them through his posts. |
If it is to be my lot to fall in the service of my country and my country's rights I will have no regrets.
Custer |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - June 16 2004 : 4:11:35 PM
|
| I will take a small portion of time to respond to the serious accusation that Dark Cloud has promulgated. I am an escaped inmate from an insane assylum who had nothing else to do but find Dark Cloud and lie to him. Dark Cloud was the first to catch me. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Topic |
|
Farvorite Source
