quote:

---

Originally posted by Benteen

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benteen

Ranger, if you have to ask the question, which was supercilious in the extreme: Whom do you think you defamed?

quote:

---

"You state it impossible for the times and distances that was recorded by Benteen, Reno and Girard: Yet how can one believe your “one” manso you want everyone to believe that there is only one man that differs from 8 AM and that there are none that state maybe 10 or 11? 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?

---

quote:

---

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.

---

That is what I base my opinion and my conclusion that 4.5 hours is to slow.

quote:

---

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.

Still my opinion

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.

---

True

quote:

---

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.

---

If someone would have pointed this out to him his start and end time down Reno Creek then he could have clarified it.

quote:

---

Officers make mistakes Joe and some commit offenses. The starting point should innocent until proved guilty.

---

So do agree stating "Why did Wallace Lie?" doesn't fit the idea of innocent till proved guilty

quote:

---

What you would need to prove pressure is the original times and the changed times don't you think?

---

error does not equal lie

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 which is where Joe started this thread regarding Wallace.

You really think it took 4.5 hours to move down Reno Creek? That's less than 3 miles per hour. There are lots of errors which are not intentional false statements. When something doesn't fit then it must be looked at for error. I reject the idea that Custer moved down Reno Creek at less than 3 mph.

---

Stand by this also

quote:

---

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.

---

t

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Joe you don't get it . Wallace made no calculations he stated he could not give and accurate count. Joe that is not a calculation it is a guess or opinion.

---

Joe was trying to prove that Wallace lied by underestimating Reno's battalion troop strength. I stand by my comment.


So far Ranger you have dismissed Reno’s Report as not believable; I question Reno's 8 AM crossing the divide and his 12:30 crossing Reno Creek to meet with Custer for orders I believe there is error because of the length of time appears to slow (4.5) rejected Benteen’s statements in his own letter of the 4th I have made no comment about Benteen's private letter and certainly have not stated he lied in that letter and classified his statements by direct comment as a Liethis is your own fabrication; and characterized Girard’s camp to divide mileage as “irrelevant" Yes because it is irrelevant to the times and timing from the Divide down Reno Creek to the location where Reno crossed over to Custer, if anything it would be evidence that it took longer(5 miles) to cross the divide. That would tend to favor a latter divide crossing. I find it no help and irrelevant to what was the actual time of crossing the divide. . You state that it was not impossible and characterized it instead as “improbable”. Yet by the very dictionary definition “impossible” is: “not believable: ridiculous or unreasonable, because it could not be true. “ This Ranger is exactly what you said by direct references in everything you stated. Since "impossible" is your word why didn't you look up my word. Again your logic to use your own word 'impossible" when I provided my choice of improbable and draw your conclusion escapes me. I look there being many alternatives all possible but seem less likely or improbable. If you want to believe it took 4.5 hours or even 3.5 hour to move down Reno Creek you entitled to your opinion. I believe it was more likely 2 hours or less. You kept on pounding that down my throat as some School Marm on a mission of mercy upon a poor misguided child. You never “ONCE” - ever by implication or direct statement ever state this: That what I had to offer was “difficult to believe, because it was not likely to happen or to be true”, So what do think it meant when I used improbable instead of impossible. Not probable; unlikely to be true; not to be expected under the circumstances or in the usual course of events; as, an improbable story or event. ... which in and of itself means that one gives thoughtful consideration to the others arguments and demonstrates the same in their posts. And when I refuse to pursue the matter any further; saying in effect to each his own, you sir, you were and are the one who resorted to the “assassination of my character”. If I am to be assassinated, ie. Killed by your tactics, ie shut the “F…” up, because my ideas and idealism is not to be believed because they are impossible,again you use the word impossible and clarified my position was not impossible but improbable which you quoted. Not probable; unlikely to be true; not to be expected under the circumstances or in the usual course of events; as, an improbable story or event. ... and “not believable: ridiculous or unreasonable, because it could not be true”, then my worth here is of little value and you pull the trigger. You sir are a poltroon by the very definition of its meaning. When you cannot find a legitimate argument, you run around the corner and find someone to back you up, like some child who hides behind their mothers skirt when frightened.


Sometimes, just sometimes Ranger, when the truth stares one in the face, and you pull the trigger in haste, the one you kill may have been innocent of the charge you as judge, jury and executioner decided to off. By your own statements you sir are a charlatan who endangers the innocent:

“Officers make mistakes Joe and some commit offenses. The starting point should innocent until proved guilty.” And just ordinary people Ranger? Where do I, Joe, DC, or anyone else who is NOT an officer stand in this argument?

I would hope you believe innocent until proved guilty. I would hope we could discuss errors without having the person who may have made an error being called a liar without proof.

You told me this: “What you would need to prove pressure is the original times and the changed times don't you think?” And when I did, and I did it convincingly so, you did what Ranger; just what did you do when I stopped after I had proven beyond any shadow of doubt that - that ONE segment between the Camp and the First Halt was irrefutably the way that Reno, Benteen and Girard said it was; you did what?

1] “I would not use Reno's times…”:
2] “The easy thing is to believe that Reno was guessing at times…”:
3] “Benteen you can't be serious that the divide was crossed at 8 am based on Reno's report.”:
4] “I reject the idea that Custer moved down Reno Creek at less than 3 mph.”:
5] “Benteen could not possibly have given the time that Reno crossed over to Custer other than reading it somewhere. He wasn't there.”:
6] “Now for your completely irrelevant 5 mile discrepancy between Gray and anyone you chose…”:
7] “My only comments have been to Reno's report.”

WHO is lying here Ranger, me or you? Since you asked me to choose I chose you I use your evidence provided in the 7 quotes of mine to show it is clear that I am addressing the divide to Custer calling Reno over. Number 6 states that clearly what I think. Your comments throughout were to defame and “reject” as “irrelevant” Benteen’s, Reno’s and Girard’s statements in TOTAL. Wrong and your statements are false And when you could not cast aspersions upon their characters, you did it to me instead.Have no clue what you are stating here Yet to this add your supercilious remarks about defending the honor of only “ONE” in whom you place complete confidence and trust as to the issue not lying lying and error are not the same; this is in and of itself contemptuously indifferent as a charlatan would claim of his own idealism concerning “guesses“ and “opinion.“. And this especially when you make a blanket statement that Wallace did not lie to defend his honor, Show me where I stated "Wallace did not lie to defend his honor" you are the one making a false statement. My statement is that Wallace is not guilty of lying unless proved. The alternative is explanations and errors. yet defame and reject Reno, Benteen and Girard in the process. As I said before, someone had to have lied, and it is evident from what you yourself have provided thus far that Reno, Benteen and Girard did lie according to your belief as stated in your own “guesses” and “opinion”. My position is and always has been that none of them lied until proved a lie. Starting from that point there are differences in testimony just like in most courts. If Reno wrote in his report that he thought it was about 8 and he believed that then it is not a lie even if incorrect. Do you believe all errors are lies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by joe wiggs

Poor Wallace, the poor chap suffered several physical infirmities despite his young age. When observing the number of Reno's battalion, he was blind, when asked about the volley firing coming from Custer's battlefield he became deaf. In the retreat from Weir's Point, he testified at the Reno Inquiry that (Graham, Reno Court, 54)the men of Company "returned to Reno Hill at a walk." A memory lapse?

One would think that the men had just completed a leisurely repast and were simply walking off a splendid meal.

The reality of the situation was quite different, it was virtually a repeat of how the same men left the timber and, the way the order to leave was communicated. Again, no trumpet calls were made, just hearsay and the sudden departure of men.

Were it not for Godfrey who used his troop to lay down a consistent and persistent fire, warriors who were hotly pursuing the fleeing troops would have overwhelmed Reno's command too.

Again, why describe the helter-skelter movement of flight as a "walk" if not to preserve the dignity of the Army and, particularly, the 7th.

---

quote:

---

It's not that AZ won't debate you, Benteen-Boston, it's that he cleans your clock which is your annoyance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AZ Ranger

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.

Got a C in English and freely admit my grammar, spelling and punctuation sucks. I have stated that before. Also type slowly. At least the "there" is spelled correctly unlike how you put an e in Thompson misspelling his name. I was not trying to correct your spelling with my comment only pointing out that Boston on another board spelled Thompsen the same way you misspelled it. Also that Boston tried to lecture Fred as a school teacher would and Fred let him have it. The style of asking multiple questions and not taking a position is similar also. There is nothing wrong with having different names on different boards. I just see sufficient characteristics to believe you and Boston are the same. You should see similar characteristics with Benteeneast and AZ Ranger.

My problem with Joe is he has multiple personalities with different names and sexes much different than one person using only one name per board.

I don't tolerate calling dead people liars without proof which is what Joe started his thread on Wallace. "Why did Wallace Lie?"

AZ Ranger

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark Cloud

It's not that AZ won't debate you, Benteen-Boston, it's that he cleans your clock which is your annoyance. You make sweeping generalities that are not true. He does it as benteeneast on the official LBHA board.

---

dc, I declare! if I hear you brag about being a coward once more I will puke!!! We know you are a coward, an idiot, and a buffoon.

Luckily, you're also good for laughs. Remember that thread of yours sometime ago. The one about TEMPLATES ? On and On you postulated about historical events re-occurring in a sort of a life cycle of original events. I kept saying, does this idiot not know the term archetype?

I know I have. I believe the ancient Greeks were aware of it also. Lastly, dc please do not form the word "respect" and how it should be earned with you not having a friend in this world. I can safely say that you have offended every member of every board you have posted on.

If you can get anyone on any of the forums to E-Mail me and say, "I like dc (az don't count) I will send you a check for $10.00. If I do not receive any E-mails I will still send you the phone number of a good psychiatrist. Either way you are a winner!

---

I never served, never (obviously) saw combat, but I read. And among the things I read are first hand accounts by officers and soldiers/sailors from all eras, and there is a consistency to the content. Two guys in the same foxhole both exhibiting the best of their training can emerge and give narratives under oath that suggest they were in different time zones. Neither is lying.

---

---