| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 14 2009 : 10:23:18 PM
|
Hmmm…. Evidently Wallace did not look at his watch, therefore it wasn’t accurate.
Boston
Wallace states at RCOI that he did look at his watch and it was close to 2PM and then estimates 2:15 by stating that they went 2 miles at a trot. So Wallace gives testimony and how he calculated 2:15. That is different than Reno writing 8 AM with stating he looked at a watch.
What's important is that Wallace has the movement down Reno Creek at approximately 2 hours if one subtracts the stop. Reno has the time as 4 hours. I tend to accept Wallace's time duration of 2 hours or less rather than Reno's 4 hour duration.
I would guess that in any of my reports regarding working all day then into the night and have having a large number of fellow officers killed that I would only be guessing at time without looking at my watch.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 14 2009 : 10:38:20 PM
|
The stated distance from Busby, where they departed was about 25 miles from the LBH (Ford “A”) vicinity. One must simply ask, if Gray thought he was right, where is the other 5 to 6 miles that he forgot to account for? (10 to camp + 10 from the divide is 20 not 25.) Benteen and Girard together answered that question a long time ago. Girard said that the divide pass was about 5 miles from where they went into camp and stayed there for about 3 hours before departing at 5 am (Reno) or 5:30 am (Benteen).
So in just a couple of days your 10 + 10 has changed to what Gray actuallay stated of 23.5 and your 25 has change to 29-30 and Grays distance from camp to the village is 25.5. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 14 2009 : 11:19:38 PM
|
Benteen, my hero, my compadre, my kindred spirit. Your fantastic dissertations have achieved so much that I am pleased to thank you before the entire forum. Your methodical responses to Az's allegations befit a man of the robe and/or a lawyer. You hung him out to dry with the littlest of effort.
I have never attempted to declare my views as sacrosanct. I am no scholar of this historical event, nor have I ever claim to be. Yet, in my heart and soul, I've always felt that there were many other possibilities regarding the causal effects of this battle.
Whenever I presented my mainstream and, not so mainstream perspectives I could be sure of several things. There would be an individual who would scream that I was a "liar" over this forum continuously and assiduously. He was all too soon followed by his "off-spring" who questioned my professional life, virtually, in every thread I posted. Between the two of them, the membership on this forum declined and continues to do so. Most people, understandably, do not wish to engage in juvenile, verbal exchanges.
Everytimer I would attempt to explore the various possibilities as to why one of the greatest Cavalry officers in the history of the U. S. Cavalry was utterly annihilated, Reno's deplorable "charge", and why several officers may have perjured themselves during the R.C.O.I., (not to mention why senior field commanders under Custer failed to "respond to the sound of firing") I was bombarded by the ilks of the dynamic duo. The original culprit has cast stones at me for over six years.
Since the dawn of oration, despicable characters have realized that if lacking the intelligence and expertise in a debate on can off an opponent by engaging and casting personal dispersions. A smoke cloud if you will.
The least desirable road of response in to reply in kind. That is the path I, regrettably, chose chose. I became like them;disgusting.
Then came Benteen, a calm, logical, scholarly, informative, gentlemanly and, astute student of this battle who has the courage to express his ides which are innovative and credible possibilities regarding the cause and affect of this battle.
Why do I admire Benteen? Not because his rational philosophies as to what may have occurred are similar to my own view points. Not because he sometimes disagrees with the two individuals who have made a heartfelt commitment to disagree, slander, rile, repudiate and,generally slam every thought I have ever produced on this forum.
No, that is not way I respect Benteen. I respect him because he is man enough to utterly disable the tired, old, and incorrect paradigms of a minority of posters who, when faced with ideologies that differ from them, resort to personalization, fantasy, rancor, and any and all tactics to discredit all of those who disagree with them.
I respect Benten because unlike me, he calmingly and methodically expresses his point of view without becoming personal. In doing so, he exposes the frailty and weakness of those who refuse to think outside of the box. The minute minority who believe that they have all the answers locked away. So much so that any who dare think differently must be idiots.
Last, but certainly not least, his powerful summations have force the "snake" to slitter forth from beneath the gray rocks to spew his poisonous gibberish, I speak of the one and only d.c.
Most of all, I respect him because I know that when we disagree, we will agree to disagree like gentleman, with mutual respect.
Tomorrow I will be addressing the prattle of the dynamic duo.
I look forward to emulating Benteen when I do so. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 14 2009 : 11:38:16 PM
|
Joe if you think making false statements is hanging one out to dry then I doubt your sincerity of being a police office. Most police or former officer don't tolerate false statements. Benteen can make as many false statements as he likes but it is not proof of anything but his lies.
Benteen states below in bold that it is that I stated it impossible for the times. I say he is making a false representation of any posts that I have made in this thread. My point is that Reno's times are to slow down Reno Creek. That is not impossible it is improbable. If Reno had the speeds down Reno Creek at 30 mph that would be impossible. Benteen lies when he says I stated anything about Benteen and Girard in this thread. My only comments have been to Reno's report.
Benteen thinks he is the person that determines who is right see the italics below. I think he that he is logic is incorrect and his conclusions are incorrect.
" You state it impossible for the times and distances that was recorded by Benteen, Reno and Girard: Yet how can one believe your “one” man who did get the time wrong when he did look at his watch; and as an official watch keeper he said that he never looked at it again: And not believe 3 who got everything right? "
So Benteen show us where I made statements about Benteen and Girard times on this thread. If they are not here why did you make such false statements?
Benteen you remind me a lot of Boston on another board. A person who Fred stated he didn't agree with his logic or conclusions.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 15 2009 01:09:22 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 01:06:00 AM
|
And if that “one” man was wrong, which he was?
Godfrey kept a diary is that the one man you refer to in your "which he was?" statement or did you think only one person kept times for whatever reason. Did you make a assumption that is incorrect?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When one states only the hour rather than hour and minute it suggest a recollection not based upon looking at watch and recording the time.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then according to this line of reasoning, it should be no stretch of the imagination to believe, Martin, Kanipe, nor for that matter Goldin or Thompsen.
Your logic and conclusion escapes me here. Are you saying because I believe Reno erred that I should believe "that Martin, Kanipe, nor for that matter Goldin or Thompsen" also erred. Maybe you need to reread it. A suggestion is not the same as a conclusion. How you reached your conclusion to believe the list of yours based upon that post when the true conclusion is just the opposite defies logic.
Funny how you misspell Thompson just like Boston does on the other board.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Since Reno was second in command exactly what was he required to keep regarding events or times. Reno didn't even have a battalion assignment until the movement down Reno Creek. He could not have known that he would be writing a report because of Custer's death. He certainly had a lot things going on between his battalion assignment and writing his report that could distort his memory.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Wallace? Just where was Wallace? Can you place him with certainty at any point after passing the divide; other than where he was when Custer ordered Reno personally to take after those 40 to 50 Indians?
What does those questions have to do with anything in the quote. It is solely about Reno. If you wanted to ask those questions you didn't need that quote did you? I know, you needed to impress Joe. That is not hard to do.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When I issue a citation I put my watch time on the citation, for example 11:22 AM. When I write the report I put approximately because my watch could be off by minutes so it reads approximately 11:22 AM.
I would not use Reno's times because he had no reason to record them when they occurred and certainly had numerous events that would distort his sense of time. I am sure he would think his time in the valley was an eternity.
This does not mean anyone lies but it does not mean that just because someone puts 8:00 AM in a report that it is accurate.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And when you put 8:00 am on your own reports? When you are out cruising, do you not look at what time it is? Are yours any more or less reliable than Reno’s? Would or does anyone question your times? Has anyone challenged your times when in court: And contended that they “would not use (your) times because (you) had no reason to record them when they occurred and certainly had numerous events that would distort (your) sense of time”?
“This does not mean anyone lies but it does not mean that just because someone puts (2PM, which Wallace did) in a report that it is accurate.” And you will note he himself according to your own analysis of this situation should not be believed because of what? According to your own analysis in this situation: ““When one states only the hour rather than hour and minute it suggest a recollection not based upon looking at watch and recording the time.” Hmmm…. Evidently Wallace did not look at his watch, therefore it wasn’t accurate.
I doubt that I have a single report that states 8:00 AM without recording it somewhere before writing it in a report. Only a non-officer or rookie would make up a time. If I didn't know the time I would state something like morning. I would never give a defense attorney ammunition to prove me wrong or have me state I made up the time.
Benteen you show ignorance of what was stated. Wallace states he looked at his watch. Go to page 25 RCOI. There is nothing wrong with stating that when I looked at my watch it was 2:00 PM or even 8:00 AM if you state that was the time when you looked at your watch. My point which you don't understand is that "about 8 AM" is not the same as stating I looked at my watch and it was 8 AM.
As far as cruising around you must not be an defense attorney. A good attorney doesn't ask questions that he doesn't know the answer to. On my dashboard is a GPS unit with time showing. When I exit the vehicle I mark the waypoint which records the time. How hard is that? Makes report writing on what time you stop easy don't you think? I also have a handheld unit to take with me when I exit the vehicle. Also as I stated I use the back of my hand as a temporary notebook while moving and when stopped record it in my pocket notebook.
I think even Joe would agree that you don't make up times and put them in a report. There is nothing wrong with stating morning or afternoon if you don't know the time. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 08:03:07 AM
|
Trying to impress Wiggs. Talk about setting the bar low.
The issue of Godfrey - or anyone's - diary under such circumstances needs to be aired. Godfrey did not in any way jot down things during the action or the day of the actions or until days later. Perhaps weeks later, although the July 4 letter writing session is likely. At which time, he'd have to calibrate his memory to the conventional wisdoms as they all did. Graham's interactions with Godfrey suggest the diary was being augmented and corrected decades after the fact.
If they said they kept notes daily, feel free to deeply doubt it. Also? Diaries are not often windows to the soul; personal letters aren't either. It's absurd to take Benteen's letters to his wife - where venting and exaggeration and half assed recollection for benefit of a reader not timing the tale herself for accuracy and where boilerplate dissembling in general is allowed - and compare it to testimony or official report and - finding conflict - damning the writer. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on October 15 2009 08:07:44 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 08:12:27 AM
|
Benteen here is a another chance to impress Joe. Comparing Wallace and Reno on times we have Wallace crossing the divide around noon and crossing over to meet with Custer close to 2 PM and then traveling the next 1.5 to 2 miles in 15 minutes which gives a total moving time down Reno Creek approximately 2 hours. Then we have from Reno's report crossing the divide about 8 AM to " Custer motioned me to cross to him, which I did, and moved nearer to his column until about 12.30 a.m"
So Benteen ignoring watch time which do you think is more accurate 2 hours or 4.5 hour for how long it took?
Now for your completely irrelevant 5 mile discrepancy between Gray and anyone you chose please give us the miles from the divide and the Little Big Horn river. Gray states 12 miles and who do you that differs significantly from that?
Since the divide to the LBH is the stretch in which you believe Reno's times were correct and Wallace lied show us a someone differing with Gray in that distance since you brought up a 5 mile discrepancy? If it doesn't occur between the divide and the LBH by what logic do you conclude that it part of a discussion on what time was the divide crossed to moving down Reno Creek?
The point of where Wallace, Reno and Custer got together is where Joe thought Wallace lied and started this thread. That would occur either 2 PM Wallace time or 12:30 Reno time and the location is down Reno Creek.
I bet you don't find a 5 mile discrepancy from the divide to the LBH. So impress Joe and show us that 5 miles where it would have any relevance in the difference of 2 hours down Reno Creek or 4.5 hours down Reno Creek.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 11:00:54 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Trying to impress Wiggs. Talk about setting the bar low.
The issue of Godfrey - or anyone's - diary under such circumstances needs to be aired. Godfrey did not in any way jot down things during the action or the day of the actions or until days later. Perhaps weeks later, although the July 4 letter writing session is likely.
A Perfect example of the mis-direction, smoke screen, idiocy that exemplifies dc's posts. No one on this planet would expect Godfrey to calmly "take notes" while under fire so, why make mention of such a possibility in the first place? It is dc's subliminal way of laying the odorous egg of doubt regarding Godfrey's ability to summarily recall the events of the battle. A hint that he may not have remembered exactly how things occurred. A deplorable attempt, to read the mind of one of the participants rather than simply giving credence to what Godfrey said and wrote.
As a friend of mine once said, dc, I mean az, I mean dc, I mean....whatever, will beat a bush 500,000 times until a turd falls out at which time he, I mean they, I mean he, I mean...there I go again...wildly bleat and howl with joy at their glorious treasure.
[/quote] |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 11:03:13 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Trying to impress Wiggs. Talk about setting the bar low.
The issue of Godfrey - or anyone's - diary under such circumstances needs to be aired. Godfrey did not in any way jot down things during the action or the day of the actions or until days later. Perhaps weeks later, although the July 4 letter writing session is likely.
A Perfect example of the mis-direction, smoke screen, idiocy that exemplifies dc's posts. No one on this planet would expect Godfrey to calmly "take notes" while under fire so, why make mention of such a possibility in the first place? It is dc's subliminal way of laying the odorous egg of doubt regarding Godfrey's ability to summarily recall the events of the battle. A hint that he may not have remembered exactly how things occurred. A deplorable attempt, to read the mind of one of the participants rather than simply giving credence to what Godfrey said and wrote.
As a friend of mine once said, dc, I mean az, I mean dc, I mean....whatever, will beat a bush 500,000 times until a turd falls out at which time he, I mean they, I mean he, I mean...there I go again...wildly bleat and howl with joy at their glorious treasure.
[/quote] |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 11:12:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Trying to impress Wiggs. Talk about setting the bar low.
The issue of Godfrey - or anyone's - diary under such circumstances needs to be aired. Godfrey did not in any way jot down things during the action or the day of the actions or until days later. Perhaps weeks later, although the July 4 letter writing session is likely.
A Perfect example of the mis-direction, smoke screen, idiocy that exemplifies dc's posts. No one on this planet would expect Godfrey to calmly "take notes" while under fire so, why make mention of such a possibility in the first place? It is dc's subliminal way of laying the odorous egg of doubt regarding Godfrey's ability to summarily recall the events of the battle. A hint that he may not have remembered exactly how things occurred. A deplorable attempt, to read the mind of one of the participants rather than simply giving credence to what Godfrey said and wrote.
As a friend of mine once said, dc, I mean az, I mean dc, I mean....whatever, will beat a bush 500,000 times until a turd falls out at which time he, I mean they, I mean he, I mean...there I go again...wildly bleat and howl with joy at their glorious treasure.
[/quote]
Just wanted to make sure these stupid statements don't disappear.We all know it doesn't take 500,000 times of beating a bush for you, Joe, to fall out and you are certainly no treasure.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 15 2009 11:25:31 AM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 6:05:06 PM
|
Benteen, you do not need any confirmation from me regarding the above;excellent work! You obviously, gathered know facts to substantiate a thesis. You did not resort to speculative conjectures,rhetorical twists, personal insults nor, sheer nonsense in a non-existent hope to prove a point.
I can assure you, unfortunately, that ac and dz will resort to the only characteristic they prove to be efficient in; camouflaging your articulate facts with a smoke screen of juvenile innuendo.
There is no way possible for either of them to break your post so the probability exist that they won't respond. In the past, when confronted with the properly worded truth they tend to fade away.
Thus, you see why there are only four posters on this board, you, myself, and them. I believe but, can not prove that they resent the fact that a board can operate in competition of their own.
Again, you graciously chose to use information rather than resort to their level of communication.
In summation, it has long been a fact (as you well know that only a coward will call another man stupid or a liar. Coming from an adult I would may have been offended. Regardless of an intense desire, a true man will refrain from such boorish acts until he is able to meet his adversary, face to face.
Keep posting Benteen, the others will come. |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 6:43:20 PM
|
Joe, thank you for your words of encouragement. I harbor no ill feelings against Ranger nor DC. And to try to personalize any post with innuendo or insufferable remarks detracts from the issues at hand, and adds nothing of significance to the discussion.
I do not shrink from their remarks, I welcome them; for only can it be proven one way or another what happened so long ago: Which has nothing to do with my personality nor theirs. And to inject that into the conversation proves what? That what I offer, or you offer or anyone else who would like to join in the conversation should feel alienated: Because of someone attempting to scrutinize their personality instead of what they know and offer or feel compelled to offer will be lambasted?
I have longed for a website that provides what Rich has done here. To provide an atmosphere where ANYONE can come and feel free to join in the discussion without perpetual harassment of their character. Children sometimes need discipline before they learn what is right and proper. And it is no different here. To express one’s opinion free from baseless personal attacks, needs to be punished and they held in account for their words. To not stick to the subject at hand, and instead inject into the conversation; “speculative conjectures, rhetorical twists, (perpetually stated with) personal insults or, sheer nonsense in a non-existent hope to prove a point” is in and of itself “childish” in the extreme.
The first cornerstone to any success is to build a firm foundation of trust, understanding and friendship in the hope that the truth can be founded upon a bedrock that will not founder. It is this foundation, free of tyranny and corruptibles that will not falter, and is set in a true “Field of Dreams” where If WE Build It Together, Nurture It Together: “They Will Come.”
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 6:54:03 PM
|
Benteen if you read Joe's post he gets whatever he deserves. I will not let Joe have the freedom to call a dead officer a liar unless he can prove it. So far neither of you have proof of a lie.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Benteen thinks he is the person that determines who is right see the italics below. I think he that his logic is incorrect and his conclusions are incorrect.
You state it impossible for the times and distances that was recorded by Benteen, Reno and Girard: Yet how can one believe your “one” man who did get the time wrong when he did look at his watch; and as an official watch keeper he said that he never looked at it again: And not believe 3 who got everything right? "
So Benteen show us where I made statements about Benteen and Girard times on this thread. If they are not here why did you make such false statements?”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benteen your beginning to sound more like Joe all the time. In the quote above that is you using the names of Benteen and Girard not me for the times and distances.
You missed the challenge so I will make it larger for you.
I bet you don't find a 5 mile discrepancy from the divide to the LBH. So impress Joe and show us that 5 miles where it would have any relevance in the difference of 2 hours down Reno Creek or 4.5 hours down Reno Creek. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 15 2009 7:12:37 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 7:15:56 PM
|
If you guys want to discuss discrepencies I am all for that but if call some dead officer a liar expect to challenged vigorously. I defend them all.
Ranger, Joe has a right here to state what he wants to, just as you do. There is no cause or reason to insult him, or his intelligence. One would suppose that this indeed may be a violation of the code Rich has established upon this board. I advise caution, extreme caution.
Lets see its Joe who stated he would expose himself to prove he is a male. Its Joe story about shaking the bushes. Joe brings on his own problems. If anyone should worry it would be Joe.
Still waiting on where you can show that I wrote anything using Benteen's or Girard's reported times? Can't find them?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 15 2009 7:23:37 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 7:16:24 PM
|
Ranger, trying to Impugn the character of Joe by equating me or anyone else is defamatory and adds nothing of significance to this or any other conversation. Keep your personal insults to yourself.
quote:
"So Benteen show us where I made statements about Benteen and Girard times on this thread. If they are not here why did you make such false statements?”
I already addressed this...
And AGAIN, you separate the 3 men. Why? If you prove Reno wrong about his 8 am crossing of the divide which you consistently try to do, then you also condemn Benteen and Girard of lying or misrepresenting the facts also: Do you not?
Re-read my post at 1:09:53 PM today and you should see what I mean. Their statements when taken together at the times and places and distances stated - totally and significantly support each other. If you say one lied, or one mistook the time, distance or place, then you are stating that they all lied or mistook the time, distances and places.
And if you still do not understand, then more's the pity. And at this I say, "To each his own": And lets leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 7:24:09 PM
|
Ranger,
quote:
"I bet you don't find a 5 mile discrepancy from the divide to the LBH. So impress Joe and show us that 5 miles where it would have any relevance in the difference of 2 hours down Reno Creek or 4.5 hours down Reno Creek."
The "difference" is in the time as you noted. But you will note that this 5 miles occured during their pass over the divide and "ONLY" down the other side "2 miles"...NOT ALL THE WAY to the LBH, as you would have it. It is but a segment of that trek. If you wish me to follow-up with the rest of that ride, I will accomodate; but I would encourage your indulgence at some patience, for not all is comfortable nor may I add agreeable to your senses. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 7:36:46 PM
|
So you can't show it. I posted Reno's report and pointed out the slow move down Reno Creek. Benteen could not possibly have given the time that Reno crossed over to Custer other than reading it somewhere. He wasn't there. Does that make it clearer for you. I never say they lie and that's the whole point. Errors in recollection are not lies even if not accurate. A lie requires intent. If Wallace's watch is set at HQ time and others local time it would be 1 hour 20 minutes difference.
Your false statement is this "You state it impossible for the times and distances that was recorded by Benteen, Reno and Girard:" show me where I state it is impossible.
You need to let Joe fight his own battles. You are no help and only egg him on to making dumb comments like shaking the bushes.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 8:33:49 PM
|
Ranger,
quote:
"So you can't show it."
Sure I can. But I have refrained; because to include it at this time is untimely.
quote:
"I posted Reno's report and pointed out the slow move down Reno Creek. Benteen could not possibly have given the time that Reno crossed over to Custer other than reading it somewhere. He wasn't there. Does that make it clearer for you.”
And apparently you were there? I haven’t advanced any notion to suggest that he did or didn’t know about Reno crossing to Custer’s side of the stream. But if you will allow patience and time, I think I can demonstrate exactly the sequence you desire.
quote:
Your false statement is this "You state it impossible for the times and distances that was recorded by Benteen, Reno and Girard:" show me where I state it is impossible.
1] quote:
“Benteen you can't be serious that the divide was crossed at 8 am based on Reno's report. In that report be states he also crosses over to Custer's side of Reno Creek at 12:30 [it was a slip, he meant 11:30, which can be proven] which is where Joe started this thread regarding Wallace….There is more evidence and accounts that have the crossing closer to noon than eight. The 1 lour and 20 minutes is the difference in real time and official time.”
And seeing as how your impatience doesn’t allow the time for a thorough examination of the facts leading up to that period of time; lets try this.
2] quote:
"I saw Benteen moving farther to the left, and, as they passed, he told me he had orders to move well to the left, and sweep everything before him. I did not see him again until about 2.30 p.m."
Exactly when and WHERE did Reno state this happened? How far from the LBH? Was this at the Camp? At the First halt 2 miles past the divide? The 2nd halt that occurred some 4 to 5 miles farther than the first? Or near the tepee about 3/4ths of a mile from Ford “A”?
3] quote:
"As we approached a deserted village, and in which was standing one tepee, about 11 a.m., Custer motioned me to cross to him, which I did, and moved nearer to his column until about 12.30 a.m. [p.m. ?] when Lieutenant Cook, adjutant, came to me and said the village was only two miles above, and running away; to move forward at as rapid a gait as prudent, and to charge afterward, and that the whole outfit would support me. I think those were his exact words. I at once took a fast trot, and moved down about two miles, when I came to a ford of the river. I crossed immediately, and halted about ten minutes or less to gather the battalion, sending word to Custer that I had everything in front of me, and that they were strong."
Exactly when and WHERE did Reno state this happened? How far from the LBH? Was this at the Camp? At the First halt 2 miles past the divide? The 2nd halt that occurred some 4 to 5 miles farther than the first? Or near the tepee about 3/4ths of a mile from Ford “A”?
4] quote:
Now for your completely irrelevant 5 mile discrepancy between Gray and anyone you chose please give us the miles from the divide and the Little Big Horn river. Gray states 12 miles and who do you that differs significantly from that?
I never contested this distance, in fact Girard said 12 to 13 miles. He also stated that it was 12 miles from where they left on the eve of the 24th to where they camped, and a further 5 miles to the divide from there. Are you contesting Girard’s figures?
5] quote:
Since the divide to the LBH is the stretch in which you believe Reno's times were correct and Wallace lied show us a someone differing with Gray in that distance since you brought up a 5 mile discrepancy?
Number 4 should have answered this for you. If you believe otherwise, I have provided comfort in that direction also. And I never made the assertion that Wallace lied, I said there is compelling evidence that he indeed may have.
And no from the divide to the LBH is NOT the stretch in which I believe Reno’s times were correct or incorrect. I haven’t got that far enough to explain that segment of the ride down Reno Creek. I merely defend at this point that Reno’s, Benteen’s and Girards times tell us exactly what happened from Camp to the 1st halt; that was 2 miles past the divide and occurred at 9 to 9:30 am the morning of the 25th.
And as for defending Joe.
quote:
Lets see its Joe who stated he would expose himself to prove he is a male. Its Joe story about shaking the bushes. Joe brings on his own problems. If anyone should worry it would be Joe.
I care not the gender, whether implied or not, of the person on the other end of this conversation. That is their "personal right", in which neither I, nor you, nor anyone else has one iota of business to contend, criticize or demean. Whatever gender one identifies themselves with, that is their natural born right. You of all people should be aware of the discriminatory laws of this nation. And if a person has been attacked repeatedly and often as I believe Joe has been, then perhaps he does have a right to defend himself in any manner he deems necessary to survive the brutal assaults he has or had been battered with. It takes more than one to communicate effectively and intelligently. And to state that a female doesn't have the same brain capacity to effectively and correctly make their points here known is discrimination that I personally will not tolerate.
|
Edited by - Benteen on October 15 2009 9:11:48 PM |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 15 2009 : 9:00:33 PM
|
to accuse anyone of a serious charge may be detrimental to his or her character, lives, and hard earned reputations. That is why it behooves us to possess enough "probable cause" to warrant such an accusation.
A lie is usually precipitate by an undesirable/anti-social behavior and, motive to make said behavior unknown to others. The behavior may be as slight as an embarrassment episode or as troubling as homicide.
I am of the opinion that several officers stretched the truth at the R.C.O.I. for numerous reasons. A critical factor that enabled these men to do so was a "Carte Blanche" issued by the Court that enabled these men to do so.
"The Court decides that it is appointed to investigate the conduct of Maj. Reno, of the 7th Cavalry, and will confine its investigation to that officer, and will not permit inquiry into the conduct of any other officer, with a view of praise or censure."
There you have it folks! This is why Maj. Benteen was so flippant in his testimony to the Recorder, why officers refuse to censure Reno, why incredible excuses of not hearing the sound of battle and shortage of ammo were proffered.
The Court did not desire to know the truth which would have been a monumental embarrassment to the entire army. |
Edited by - joe wiggs on October 15 2009 9:02:29 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 15 2009 : 9:20:49 PM
|
Cutting to the chase are we Joe?
Watch out, getting to Custer's battlefield is fraught with danger. I believe there is alot of unexploded ammo there to this very day, and many a brave soul still gets shot in the foot, especially when stepping into the horse manure strewn about by wandering Indian horses.  |
Edited by - Benteen on October 15 2009 9:25:05 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 16 2009 : 08:51:31 AM
|
1]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Benteen you can't be serious that the divide was crossed at 8 am based on Reno's report. In that report be states he also crosses over to Custer's side of Reno Creek at 12:30 [it was a slip, he meant 11:30, which can be proven] which is where Joe started this thread regarding Wallace….There is more evidence and accounts that have the crossing closer to noon than eight. The 1 lour and 20 minutes is the difference in real time and official time.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benteen There is nothing there that states it is impossible only that I do not consider it as viable an alternative as found when it only takes less than 2 hours to move down Reno Creek. There is a difference. It would take proof to state impossible which is your words and not mine. I believe some alternative other than taking 4 hours is more likely.
As far as the time error that you point out. I believe that we are stuck with an official report as is. Once there is error in the report for one time why not other times?
A discussion item How did Reno get his times
Did Wallace give McGuire his times?
Did McGuire give Reno the times to use in the report?
Did Benteen read Reno's report and repeat those times?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 16 2009 : 08:57:41 AM
|
And seeing as how your impatience doesn’t allow the time for a thorough examination of the facts leading up to that period of time; lets try this.
2]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I saw Benteen moving farther to the left, and, as they passed, he told me he had orders to move well to the left, and sweep everything before him. I did not see him again until about 2.30 p.m."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly when and WHERE did Reno state this happened? How far from the LBH? Was this at the Camp? At the First halt 2 miles past the divide? The 2nd halt that occurred some 4 to 5 miles farther than the first? Or near the tepee about 3/4ths of a mile from Ford “A”?
I saw Benteen moving farther to the left, and, as they passed, he told me he had orders to move well to the left, and sweep everything before him. I did not see him again until about 2.30 p.m. The command moved down to the creek toward the Little Big Horn Valley, Custer with five companies on the right bank, myself and three companies on the left bank, and Benteen farther to the left, and out of sight.
Benteen you need to spit out what you think. This is not a class room with you as head instructor giving us poor students pop quizzes. I think Fred addressed it on the other board also. You left out the last sentence which shows where Benteen was out of sight. So it is not rocket science to figure out that if this is after the valley fight where Reno would see Benteen.
So the answer to your question he didn't and none of the above. I grade my own tests.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 16 2009 09:08:37 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 16 2009 : 09:31:05 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
to accuse anyone of a serious charge may be detrimental to his or her character, lives, and hard earned reputations. That is why it behooves us to possess enough "probable cause" to warrant such an accusation.
A lie is usually precipitate by an undesirable/anti-social behavior and, motive to make said behavior unknown to others. The behavior may be as slight as an embarrassment episode or as troubling as homicide.
I am of the opinion that several officers stretched the truth at the R.C.O.I. for numerous reasons. A critical factor that enabled these men to do so was a "Carte Blanche" issued by the Court that enabled these men to do so.
"The Court decides that it is appointed to investigate the conduct of Maj. Reno, of the 7th Cavalry, and will confine its investigation to that officer, and will not permit inquiry into the conduct of any other officer, with a view of praise or censure."
There you have it folks! This is why Maj. Benteen was so flippant in his testimony to the Recorder, why officers refuse to censure Reno, why incredible excuses of not hearing the sound of battle and shortage of ammo were proffered.
The Court did not desire to know the truth which would have been a monumental embarrassment to the entire army.
Let's make it clear to all Joe. The court of inquiry is convened at the request of "name" and in this case it is Reno. It is not convened on its own. Its focus is Reno's behavior. It makes rulings on what it will accept or not that impacts it review of Reno's behavior.
So for me ignoring the rest of your comments is important because all COIs are called by soldiers such as Reno to attempt to clear there name. A court of inquiry is not called to seek all facts in regards to an action in general.
If you wanted a forum for that it is not a Court of Inquiry format. The Army may have wanted it to go away and did not want to hold Court Martials but you statements regarding a court of inquiry are not correct.
It was requested by Reno shortly before the statute of limitations would run out. Sometimes at COI the court findings require charges to be filed and court martial proceedings to begin. It did not happen in this case.
Joe your red statement applies to all court of inquiries and what the court was stating is that since Benteen had no standing other than a witness then "will not permit inquiry into the conduct of any other officer, with a view of praise or censure" is the correct ruling for all courts of inquiry.
Your position Joe would be more applicable to why the Army did not convene Court Martials.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 16 2009 09:47:17 AM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 16 2009 : 11:12:46 AM
|
Ranger don’t you catechize me for something you did: Your posted it this way Ranger; your post on 9:24:27 PM, October 12 2009 is the exact post I am referring to.
And here sir is it in full so that you do not try to edit it after the fact. It is for your information is the 3rd paragraph.
quote:
Here are Reno's times from his report:
"We then made coffee and rested for three hours, at the expiration of which time the march was resumed, the divide crossed, and about 8 a.m. the command was in the valley of one of the branches of the Little Big Horn."
They had to be halted to make coffee and that is clearly before crossing the divide. DC was correct about the halts and calling them halts. That was my terms to get us talking about the same thing. I doubt they had a daily halt number assigned to a particular halt.
"I saw Benteen moving farther to the left, and, as they passed, he told me he had orders to move well to the left, and sweep everything before him. I did not see him again until about 2.30 p.m."
Reno has Benteen arriving 6.5 hours later on Reno Hill.
"As we approached a deserted village, and in which was standing one tepee, about 11 a.m., Custer motioned me to cross to him, which I did, and moved nearer to his column until about 12.30 a.m. [p.m. ?] when Lieutenant Cook, adjutant, came to me and said the village was only two miles above, and running away; to move forward at as rapid a gait as prudent, and to charge afterward, and that the whole outfit would support me. I think those were his exact words. I at once took a fast trot, and moved down about two miles, when I came to a ford of the river. I crossed immediately, and halted about ten minutes or less to gather the battalion, sending word to Custer that I had everything in front of me, and that they were strong."
Now Reno has himself crossing the LBH starting at 12:30 and going 2 miles at a trot. If one uses 7 mph (middle of the 6-8 range) it would take 17 minutes. That would put him in the the LBH from 12:47 to just before 2:30 PM for a total of approximately 1.5 hours. That's a long time for no support from Custer or any other part of the regiment.
The bottom line is that you would have to believe it took 4.5 hours to move to within 2 miles of the LBH after crossing the divide. You would have to believe that for 2 hours Reno was on his own before meeting up with Benteen at 2:30 PM. That Custer did not cross the river to support Reno and was where from 12:30 to 2:30?
The easy thing is to believe that Reno was guessing at times and qualified his guesses with the word about. I don't imagine Reno looking at his watch much. I don't think he lied he was just not accurate.
I think without checking that if they were 3/4 of a mile across the divide and stopped 3 hours or more before crossing the moving speed is faster in Davis Creek in the dark.
Using Reno's 8 AM time
Bivouac to divide 11.5 miles (5 hours of halt time) moving 3 hours 3.83 mph in the dark
divide to 2 miles before LBH for at total of 10 miles in 4.5 hours 2.22 mph down Reno Creek
I think that none of these persons lied but some had better recall. Reno never states he used watch time in his report and his abouts were the his best estimate would be my guess.
Hare in a Camp interview also supports Wallace with times close to noon than 8 AM.
AZ Ranger
Your statements above were the one’s I directly copied and used. And you obfuscate sir this entire episode and try to cloud everything by stating it different, when you yourself KNEW THAT DIFFERENCE at the time you posted it on the 12th; and when you again posted it different from your original. In the first post you did not question this; Why? Why not then, and why now? And all of a sudden when your "friend" reminds you of his own stupid, clumsy irresponsible statment, only then do you do this: And I sir will decline to answer; nor to ask any more of you, till I cool off over this. This is reprehensible, unforgivable and nuts in the extreme. I do not care to know your friend, but my advice would be to dump him and quickly before he gets you into more trouble here. His advice in this case sir cost you your own credibility. And if he so desires tell him to come here and debate me himself and not send a poltroon like you to do it for him.
And by the way, did your friend also tell you that you spelling is lousy too? In your post to Joe: "Reno to attempt to clear there name." The word "there" is used to refer to a point reached in an activity or process. The correct word should have been; "their" which means: belonging to or relating to a particular group of people or things.
"Joe your red statement applies to all court of inquiries" Really, are you absolutely sure of this. I suggest you look for other Inquiries for proof of this. Tread carefully here, very carefully, because that statement is NOT true. |
Edited by - Benteen on October 16 2009 11:46:12 AM |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 16 2009 : 12:04:51 PM
|
AZ is probably on horseback thumbing in his posts on a cellphone, so the occasional misspelling is indicative of nothing but his horse suddenly shying.
On the other hand, you misspell poltroon (you've now corrected it), don't know how to use punctuation correctly (or don't, colons and semicolons are not high falutin' commas), and use Wiggs' habit of arguing by threes ("...reprehensible, unforgivable and nuts in the extreme"), which is a classic illustration of quantity subbing for quality. Along with the palpably insecure (for obvious reason)poseurs like Wiggs, it's also the common habit of bitter old men whose sweeping incoherencies are given the reception they deserve by content rather then the automatic respect the codgers never found previously in life and demand in dotage on public message boards.
AZ knows horses, law, guns, the military, and combat from experience. That carries weight, and its been burdensome to those weak in knowledge of those relevant areas in Custerland. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
Edited by - Dark Cloud on October 16 2009 12:07:06 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Why Did Wallace Lie?
