| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - October 25 2009 : 11:09:34 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Just as I thought, a forest ranger. I don't foresee any real problems for you and your "friends" unless squirrels start packing.
You initiated this crap because you are not a real cop. No real cop would have done so. Perhaps you are a civilian dispatcher who has learned a bit of police lingo and has stretched that knowledge into the status of a "wannabe" real cop.
I'm not sure exactly, what I am sure is that I smell a civilian pretending to be the real thing. Last, but certainly not last, I attended the Marine Corp. Officer's program in 1972. I just don't feel the urge to go around shouting "Semper Fi" like an arm chair general.
First lets make this clear. What I presented about your Department were adjudicated cases. You don't like it so what. You on the other hand attack military officers that have not been convicted of anything. So you are the one behaving like the press that you say defamed you Department.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
  |
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 11:35:54 AM
|
DeRudio, time of division into battalions 11 or 12. Where? “Pretty soon we reached a vacated village where there was a tepee with some dead Indians in it…” He is very definite as to exactly where this was and described it as the “abandoned village”, “abandoned not long before”. And it was 4 to 5 miles from the ford, and it took ½ hour from there to reach the ford from there.
Time = 11 or 12 am. Place = Tepee 4 to 5 miles from the ford. Time motion sequence from tepee to ford = ½ hour.
He went on to explain that this was where Major Reno’s command marched ahead of General Custer; qualifying that with “right after we passed the village.” Lt. Hare (RCOI) confirmed the distance as 5 miles from Fd. “A”.
Reno (RCOI) also confirms this as the place and the time when he received his order from Custer through Cooke to “move (his) command to the front.” Reno mentions the ‘same’ “deserted village” as DeRudio does, states that the time was 11 am as the time that Custer “motioned” him across.
Kanipe also places this tepee spatially in context with the time when Reno was given his ‘move to the front’ order and Custer’s unmistakable ’signal for Reno to cross’. [Contributions to the Historical Society of Montana, Vol. iv]
This tepee and its location then becomes very important in determining the validity of statements, before or after their arrival there; and should provide a way of gleaning information regarding which information is more valid, and who indeed may have lied. When taken together with Reno's Official Report and Benteen's July 4th letter, Girard’s 5 miles from their camp to the divide does indeed become a focal point, and should NOT be lightly dismissed. Because, Benteen’s RCOI mileages on their march of the 25th and his letter on July 4th can be shown in the light of what Benteen was trying to do at the RCOI. Why? Very simple; obfuscation. And many others did the same, Wallace being one of them. |
Edited by - Benteen on October 25 2009 11:38:11 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 12:20:58 PM
|
I'm not sure exactly, what I am sure is that I smell a civilian pretending to be the real thing. Last, but certainly not last, I attended the Marine Corp. Officer's program in 1972. I just don't feel the urge to go around shouting "Semper Fi" like an arm chair general.
So Joe you have been on this board for a long time what part of my profile could you not understand. As far as officer status that smell is coming from you since you are not an officer.
Most Marines are proud of being one. What years were you in Viet Nam?
As far as peace officer status you are again showing your ignorance. If you want to believe only city police are real police then that is your opinion and about as valuable as the rest of your opinions. We enforce Title 5 watercraft statutes, Title 13 criminal statutes, Title 17 Game and Fish Statutes, and Title 28 vehicular statutes. Is it the proportion of the enforcement that makes you a real police officer? Besides these statutes what is there that "real police" enforce? Tell us all which state officers patrol the waterways of the state of Arizona and have State Patrol on the side of the boats.
AZPOST stands for Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training feel free to call them and see if we are peace officers or not. You probably think that gang bangers always stay in the cities. You probably think that there is no domestic violence in rural areas. You probably think criminals don't leave the cities. You probably think arresting drunks on the waters is not real police work. You probably think that taking down felons when a NCIC hit comes back is not real police work. Of course you must think doing search warrants is not real police work.
Most police officers that do ride alongs with us do not like the circumstances. Backup could be hours away, radio coverage may be non existent, and there are lots of guns involved. If you care to check the most likely to be assaulted officers are the conservation officers. We just had an officer shot at on the Mexican border. So do you think it is not real police work to be alone wearing a badge and gun among drug runners and illegal aliens. You have a warped viewed which for some reason doesn't surprise me.
So is the Oklahoma Highway Patrol not real police? I worked with them on stolen boats or is recovering stolen boats not real police work. By the way that picture was Arizona Highway Patrol that you were calling forest rangers show how good you are at identifying real police. We were working an accident on Highway 89 involing a Navajo and tourists. Of course to you that would not be real police work.
Sp exactly what is that you think real police do that we don't? Is it the sticking together to cover up misdeeds by officers. If that is the difference than I would agree with you.
So let's see if your man enough to call AZPOST and check out peace officer status and admit you are wrong in your statement "what I am sure is that I smell a civilian pretending to be the real thing"
Unfortunely for you Joe this is not history where you can insinuate people are liars,if your not man enough they can check AZPOST and see you for what you are.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 25 2009 1:29:49 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 12:36:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joe wiggs
Benteen, as usual your information is correct and top notch. yes, Benteen lied and literally stole the show with his flamboyant demeanor and long gray hair. He was a favorite of the women in the audience.
Well, Az made me break my promise to be nice on the forum. Can you believe he is in his sixties yet, he post a recent photo of "him and his friends" carrying AR-15's. Which one was you az, the old geezer in the trunk. By the way, I'm 61 myself. Thankfully, I managed to gracefully attain this age and remain an adult. Lucky I guess.
Again Joe you show yorself to be a liar. Tell us where you see myself or the Arizona Highway Patrol officers carrying AR-15s. There is no federal vehicles in that picture but again you want readers to rely on your "real police" powers of observations and factual reporting to see things in a picture that are not there.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 1:24:27 PM
|
Originally posted by joe wiggs
People lie when under stress and, as a result, they feel that it behooves them to do so; whatever the reason. This does not necessarily mean that an individual who does so must be branded a "liar" for eternity. While a lie is a lie, mitigating circumstances will, sometimes, help us to digest and rationalize the cause of an untruth.
Do you know the difference between a lie and a faulty recollection? A lie requires knowing what you are stating is not true. Stress does effect recollection and is one reason to write a report in a timely fashion.
For example, the men involved in this battle were under tremendous stress. As a result, some of them did not perform in a manner that could be accepted as honorable. This does not mean that they were heathens and cowards. Only the brave ( and I include Reno) were involved in this battle. It took guts to even go to the battlefield.
What does one do when faced with tremendous odds, hopelessness, and panic and, ultimately, succumbs to panic. What does he or she do when they are called to account for their actions to a group of people who now are now their judges. People who were not there, who did not suffer the trials and tribulations of war but, who will make the final determination of who was right or wrong.
Sometimes they twist, alter, and fabricate actions that result in untruthfulness. This does not mean that these poor unfortunates be labeled "liars" for the rest of their lives. This subtleness in definition is beyond az's ability to grasp.
You would think a former "real police" would know about recollection and witness testimonies. If one is convicted of perjury ,lying in court, they are labeled that for life. I would suggest that a police officer would lose his commission in Arizona if he lied in court.
For example Reno's "charge" and his subsequent testimony which was a total antithesis of reality. Why did he do what he did? Why did he make the deplorable decisions that he made? He was drunk!!!
There is no proof Reno was drunk when they left the timber.
How do I make this outrageous claim? Let's ask the soldiers who were by his side during this rush to safety.
Lt. DeRudio:
"When Major Reno ordered the troops to mount and charge through the Indian cordon and get to the high hills across the river, this order was not generally understood, as no bugle calls were given. Owing to the dense dust kicked up by the Indian ponies, as their riders raced back and forth, as well as the smoke and general confusion, many of the troopers did not see their companions leave, and about a dozen or fifteen were left behind...they were thus left in in a most desperate plight."
Your real police skills must honed to a fine edge. I can't find the drunk part in this testimony.
Lt. Hare:
"The crossing was not covered and no effort was made to hold the Indians back. If the Indians had followed us in force to the hilltop, they would have gotten us all."
Your real police skills must honed to a fine edge. I can't find the drunk part in this testimony. In this case I believe there is some indication that there was an officer that did order supportive fire. Since there is mixing of Indians and troopers at this time how effective it would be is questionable. Once engaged in close quarter battle firing might just as likely hit a trooper. Finally the steepness and narrowness of the bluffs does lend to forming a skirmish line.
Capt. French:
In a letter he wrote in June 1880 to the wife of Dr. A.H. Cooke that he would have been fully justified had he shot Reno when the major ordered the retreat.
Reno's drinking:
While crossing "Reno's" ford, DeRudio observed the major "drinking heavily" from a flask.
And that indicates being drunk? How many HGN clues do you get from that?
Private William Taylor also saw his drinking but said it was right before Reno ordered the advance. "As I looked back Major Reno was just taking a bottle from his lips."
And that indicates being drunk? How many HGN clues do you get from that?
Private John Fox said, "Reno appeared to be intoxicated or partially so", when Benteen arrived.
What is partially intoxicated appearance. That he lost his hat and had bandanna on his head? There is a difference between having consumed alcohol and being under the influence. I would hope a "real police" officer would know the difference. It was not unusual or unlawful to consume alcohol in the 7th cavalry.
On the night of the 25th., Private Corcoran said that Reno walked past his position and inquired about how he was getting along. he saw Reno with a quart bottle in his hand.
That's great evidence it might be consistent with other testimony but it is certainly nothing to make a finding of fact upon.
F.F. Giard:
"I don,t know that ant efforts were made to ascertain where the firing from the rear came from. I don't know that any point was designated where the command should rally or retreat on."
I could go further but, you get the point. This was the man that az frothed at the mouth to defend. This testimony did not come out during the trial for reasons I have previously stated. This does not make them liars. It makes them desperate human beings who wished to justify why they did what they did. Unlike an acute minority, I call no man a "liar." I do address the fact that some men lie.
[/quote]
So you make a distinction that telling a lie is not always done by a liar? Is there a minimum number of lies before you reach the status of liar? So you really think that your posted "Why did Wallace lie?" is not calling him liar?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 1:28:59 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Benteen
Benteen's mileages that he stated at the RCOI from eve of the 24th through to ford "A" don't seem to make sense, or do they? He stated that it was 10 miles to where they camped, another 8 to the first halt, and yet another 8 miles to where he stated they departed on his mission "left" [26 miles]. Yet, what seems also implausible is Girards own statments, which add up to 29 - 30 miles over that same route. Busby to camp - 12 miles. Camp to divide, 5 miles. Divide to ford "A", 12 - 13 miles.
What is apparent, is that from where they left on the eve of the 24th to ford "A", by the route they took, was some 26 to 30 miles: And one simply must conform any attempt to understand what happened between, to these figures.
To our understanding 'the divide' lay some 12 to 13 miles from ford "A", yet Benteen clearly stated at the RCOI that it was 10 miles to where they camped and 8 miles to the first halt from there, and yet another 8 miles to where he departed on his "left" mission. That places him very near ford "A" when he left on that mission!
His July 4th letter stated it differently, and was most likely closer to the truth, yet was it?
[Note: Before someone goes off on another childish tantrum and blames me for something else than what it actually is; THINK, before you blame & POST!]
Benteen I gave you the Hyperlink to the RCOI that differed from your previous statements. Could you provide the pages in your above statements.
Thanks
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
joe wiggs
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 7:35:44 PM
|
az, you are hopeless as exemplified by your last post. Reno himself admitted that his poor performance was a result of his drinking. Perhaps you will remember this ode adage: "If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; it's a duck."
No one on the battlefield possessed a Breathalyzer machine thus, a legal definition of "drunk" was not available. Please give the forum a rational explanation for Reno's consistent bone head mistakes.
How many superior officers, that you are acquainted with, go into battle with a flash of hooch pasted to his lips. My god man, does not being right all the time so critical to you that you just can't let go and admit that this one time you may be wrong.
I advised you before that the defense of this man is an entirely, uphill battle. Your obsession with this perspective is puzzling. Almost as puzzling as your obsession with me.
Your "hack" investigation into my multiple personalties is excruciatingly crass. For example, having no clue as to why I posted on the other forum as I did you made up reasons.
I initially posted as "Realbird." All my posts under that sobriquet were informative and non-intrusive. Subsequently, my computer became so infested with a virus that I had to take it in to be repaired. When I attempted to post again on your forum, I was not accepted. your forum is not user friendly to AOL E-mails. Your site would not accept "Realbird."
I was able to get back on by using "Pohanks." you. eventually, PMed me and asked me if I was really "Joe." I replied absolutely not as I didn't trust you then as I don't trust you know. I simply wanted to have the freedom to post whiteout the vicious and irresponsible garbage from dc. He taught me a valuable lesson, if you honor your name do not use it on any forum for boorish individuals will tarnish your name.
The administrator of the site then confirmed that I was Joe Wiggs. I was appalled at her releasing my private information without my consent. I left that forum and have no intent to ever return. Certain persons and the administrator there, I feel, are not honorable.
later, you began your campaign against me. you chose to ignore the fact that "Walking Star" posted as "Reddirt" FORMERLY WALKING STAR.
Instead you ranted and raved that I was all four personalities.
I take this time out to dispel your ugly untruths because I believe you to be a despicable individual who enjoys demeaning others. it is my deepest desire that you and I will meet one day and settle this sad affair like gentlemen. In the meantime, cease and desist from disparaging my good name. dc has has been doing it for 6 years and I grow weary. If there are any others out there who share my age group when men were men, perhaps you know how I feel. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 9:08:58 PM
|
I was able to get back on by using "Pohanks."
Liar- either has lied or repeatedly lied
You are such a liar you can't help yourself. There is no Pohanks. You used Pohanka and took the name of a known respected Custer author author. DC took you task for it.
Guess what Joe, you were a female as Pohanka there also. Anyone can see it so you you can't hide Joe.
http://lbha.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=members&view=all&perpage=30&page=19
Name: pohanka
Email: hidden
Birthday: 01/09/1948
Age: 61
Gender: Female Posts: 45
Date Registered: May 10, 2008, 2:11pm
Account Status: Activated
At least you got your age correct and you can no longer state you didn't post as a female such as walking star and reddirt.
Don't try and state you didn't know who Pohanka was. You have one of his books "Where Custer Fell" and have posted you have posted such.
So lets see what you posted as pohanka and I think most will agree that you Joe are a liar. You either lied here where you admit you are realbird and "pohanks" which is really pohanka.
"I did not realize that permission was require to use his profile. I am not Wiggs,(I was able to get back on by using "Pohanks." YOUR STATEMENT FROM TODAY}and will never be Wiggs (REALLY JOE?) as I have stated. However, I have followed his posts on the AAO and on this site as Realbird for the last few years and, wished to continue his line of thought. I will not discuss his refusal to post any further on this site."
Still waiting for you check on my peace officer status and then your apology.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 25 2009 9:36:19 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 9:17:39 PM
|
quote:
az, you are hopeless as exemplified by your last post. Reno himself admitted that his poor performance was a result of his drinking. Perhaps you will remember this ode adage: "If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; it's a duck."
My last post prior to this one was to Benteen at 1:30 PM.
What source do you have for"Reno himself admitted that his poor performance was a result of his drinking"? |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 25 2009 9:24:25 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 9:38:42 PM
|
So Benteen this why I call Joe a liar. He states today he is realbird and he is memember pohanka below. If anyone had this much evidence on Wallace I would agree he was a liar. He even states that I asked if he was realbird and check his answer.
pohanka
New Member
member is offline
Joined: May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 45
Re: Live From Montana!
« Result #3 on Jun 28, 2008, 6:00pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jun 8, 2008, 6:12am, AZ Ranger wrote:Realbird Are you Pohanka?
Apparently I have committed a cardinal sin by selecting the user name Pohanka. Dark Cloud refers to me as being "ousted" (whatever he means by that) and, others pretty much have classified me as one level above obnoxious or, at best, classless.
No I am not "Realbird" althought, whoever he was, I only hope he was treated better than I.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 25 2009 9:43:04 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 9:46:25 PM
|
So Joe it gets worse you lied when you stated you chose "pohanks"
pohanka
New Member
member is offline
Joined: May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 45
Re: ammunition question
« Result #13 on Jun 23, 2008, 2:00pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, and only now, do I realize who Brian Pohanka was. Now, I will share with the forum why I chose the name. I have long been the owner of "The Custer Myth" by W.A. Graham. In fact, I had the book for so long it was beginning to fall apart. Recently I purchased new edition, paper back style. I lay the book on my desk. A short time later, while applying for this forum, I noticed the name on the bottom portion of the paper book, "With a new introduction by Brian C. Pohanka." For no other reason than liking the sound of the name I chose it for my board persona. In the past, I have attempted to use a variety of names which have been rejected due to its being "used" by others.
I have never read anything (to my recollection) by Mr. Pokanka. Being 1/2 Native America Indian, the Lakota, Mr. Pohanka's name sounded good to me.
Although I did not know Mr. Pohanka I am sorry for his recent passing and, any confusion and distaste I may have generated.
Most of all I thank the "voice of reason and sanity" for understanding how something like this could have innocently occurred.
« Last Edit: Jun 23, 2008, 2:06pm by pohanka »
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 25 2009 : 9:48:31 PM
|
I least you telling the truth here Joe. We all know why it is true now. You and pohanka are the same person
pohanka
New Member
member is offline
Joined: May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 45
Re: Keogh's mission
« Result #28 on Jun 8, 2008, 12:07pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With all respect Dark Cloud, I've observed past threads involving you and Wiggs and I desire no part of it.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 25 2009 9:50:18 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 26 2009 : 06:02:00 AM
|
With all due Respect AZ, I do not care whom is on the other end of these conversations. I don't care if you are female or female, which it appears you are. And I do NOT care if you post as A Ztranger, A Stranger, or Rangerazz and multiples thereof replacing where you or anyone else feels an S be substituted for the Z.
And I don't see what business it is of yours whether 'anyone'; be it Joe, you, DC or anyone else post under assumed monikers. Does it matter to me? NO. Should it matter to me? NO. Should I care? NO? Is it any business of mine? NO. And as far as I am concerned the same questions with those same answers should apply to you and anyone else as well.
Just because someone with "sleuthing" abilities decides to 'debunk' someone whom they feel is violating (and at this point I am trying to decide just what the hell that is, could be, or should be) that would, should or even could give YOU or for that matter anyone else the right to do what you are doing here to Joe. And for the life of me I do not understand why ANYONE would, should or even for that matter could do what you are doing to Joe.
And if you haven't figured out YET what I am saying. It's simple, really very simple. I DON'T CARE. (PERIOD) IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS. (PERIOD) IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. (PERIOD) AND THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, WASN'T THESE THREADS ABOUT ANOTHER SUBJECT?
And this brilliant banner keeps racing through my mind.....
Nothing to see here folks, just keep moving along...... Nothing to see here folks, just keep moving along..... Nothing to see here folks, just keep moving along...... Nothing to see here folks, just keep moving along..... Nothing to see here folks, just keep moving along...... Nothing to see here folks, just keep moving along..... Nothing to see here folks, just keep moving along...... Nothing to see here folks, just keep moving along.....AD (BORING) INFINITUM
And you know who keeps saying that AZ? YOU DO. You do, because your a cop, and the last thing I would expect you to do, is what you are doing to Joe. Get over it. It doesn't matter, because there is absolutely NOTHING HERE TO SEE, NOTHING HERE TO REPORT.
I will say this again. I don't care who Joe is. I don't care what gender Joe is. NONE of that is any of my business. And I certainly do not care whether he post here or there as a male or a female. I don't care if he is or isn't. And I certainly don't care how many monikers he or she chooses to use. ALL OF THIS IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS and I may add ITS NONE OF YOURS EITHER.
All of this is pointless, it detracts from the conversation and adds nothing of significance...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. So if you could AZ, please respect yourself and do honor to your profession and stick to the subject of these threads(which is NOT about Joe's Gender and/or Monikers).
Please Note: http://mohicanpress.com/messageboard2/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=660 |
Edited by - Benteen on October 26 2009 06:36:23 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 26 2009 : 09:53:37 AM
|
For a person that doesn't care you took up a lot space. My advice to those that don't care is to ignore and let it die. I care that Joe tries to defame dead officers. If you chose to believe that "Why did Wallace lie?" is not calling Wallace a liar and only trying to figure why he lied then we have a different understanding of what constitute a liar. I believe a liar to be a person that lies such implicated in Joes "Why did Wallace lie?"
I notice that you don't direct your comments to Joe. If you were sincere then listing his comments as compared to calling him a liar is rather mild.
I have never asked who Benteen really is and agree that it does not matter to me. Don't you think polls are a joke if one person with 4 ID's can vote 4 times?
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 26 2009 : 10:19:31 AM
|
quote:
For a person that doesn't care you took up a lot space. My advice to those that don't care is to ignore and let it die.
You don't. I have even made a special thread so that these kinds of things can be contained there.
quote:
I care that Joe tries to defame dead officers. If you chose to believe that "Why did Wallace lie?" is not calling Wallace a liar and only trying to figure why he lied then we have a different understanding of what constitute a liar. I believe a liar to be a person that lies such implicated in Joes "Why did Wallace lie?"
And if no one ever asks the question? What then? The Court certainly didn't address it, you don't want to address even the remotest possibility that it did exist. And if he did lie? Will anyone ever discover it by sticking their heads in the sand and throwing "honorable" dirt over it?
quote:
I notice that you don't direct your comments to Joe.
And I wasn't the one who made this suggestion: "For a person that doesn't care you took up a lot space. My advice to those that don't care is to ignore and let it die." If Joe is wrong, he's wrong; and if he initiates it, of course its wrong to do it: But that would depend upon circumstances now wouldn't it?
quote:
I have never asked who Benteen really is and agree that it does not matter to me.
Ditto....
quote:
Don't you think polls are a joke if one person with 4 ID's can vote 4 times?
In a place where apparently only 3 to 4 people post, the only problem I can see is your obsession with it. And I usually do not answer the poll question unless I am absolutely sure of the answer. |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 26 2009 : 10:23:12 AM
|
Benteen if you were genuine in your beliefs then why didn't you comment about Joe's comments below. There are lots more including Joe wanting to expose himself to prove he was not a female poster.
quote:
You initiated this crap because you are not a real cop. No real cop would have done so. Perhaps you are a civilian dispatcher who has learned a bit of police lingo and has stretched that knowledge into the status of a "wannabe" real cop.
I'm not sure exactly, what I am sure is that I smell a civilian pretending to be the real thing.
So Benteen either you have a position and stand up for it or you chose a side and are one sided. Which is it?
In my profession we do not tolerate liars and they can lose their peace officer status for lying.
So lets get back to theories which are opinions and can be discussed and argued. When we cross the line and call dead officers liars without proof expect to be challenged. There is nothing wrong with discussing did Wallace lie. That allows opinion on both sides. "Why did Wallace lie? is different don't you think?
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 26 2009 : 10:33:10 AM
|
Originally posted by Benteen
quote:
For a person that doesn't care you took up a lot space. My advice to those that don't care is to ignore and let it die.
You don't. I have even made a special thread so that these kinds of things can be contained there.
The obvious answer is that I care and chose to comment. I don't force you to read it.
quote:
I care that Joe tries to defame dead officers. If you chose to believe that "Why did Wallace lie?" is not calling Wallace a liar and only trying to figure why he lied then we have a different understanding of what constitute a liar. I believe a liar to be a person that lies such implicated in Joes "Why did Wallace lie?"
And if no one ever asks the question? What then? The Court certainly didn't address it, you don't want to address even the remotest possibility that it did exist. And if he did lie? Will anyone ever discover it by sticking their heads in the sand and throwing "honorable" dirt over it?
Joe did not ask the question whether Wallace lied or not it is assumed he lied in his question. Why did Wallace lie? You would think that you would get it by now. Did Wallace lie? would be appropriate in my opinion.
quote:
I notice that you don't direct your comments to Joe.
And I wasn't the one who made this suggestion: "For a person that doesn't care you took up a lot space. My advice to those that don't care is to ignore and let it die."
If Joe is wrong, he's wrong; and if he initiates it, of course its wrong to do it: But that would depend upon circumstances now wouldn't it?
Other than calling Joe a liar which I believe that I can support what else are you talking about? Its not that Joe has multiple personalities its that he lies when confronted that they are really him.
quote:
I have never asked who Benteen really is and agree that it does not matter to me.
Ditto....
quote:
Don't you think polls are a joke if one person with 4 ID's can vote 4 times?
In a place where apparently only 3 to 4 people post, the only problem I can see is your obsession with it. And I usually do not answer the poll question unless I am absolutely sure of the answer.
Since the mutiple personalities that are being discussed are on another board that has lots of posters I am not sure of your point.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 26 2009 : 10:56:46 AM
|
quote:
Benteen if you were genuine in your beliefs then why didn't you comment about Joe's comments below. There are lots more including Joe wanting to expose himself to prove he was not a female poster.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You initiated this crap because you are not a real cop. No real cop would have done so. Perhaps you are a civilian dispatcher who has learned a bit of police lingo and has stretched that knowledge into the status of a "wannabe" real cop.
I'm not sure exactly, what I am sure is that I smell a civilian pretending to be the real thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Benteen either you have a position and stand up for it or you chose a side and are one sided. Which is it?
As I said, I don't care who or what either of you are. It really is none of my business.
quote:
In my profession we do not tolerate liars and they can lose their peace officer status for lying.
And yes, there is a fine line between real world issues and what we post here, isn't there? I do have a friend who is an officer of the law. And yes, he isn't really a "friend" in every sense of the word is he, and yes, you do know what I mean, don't you? And that's because?
quote:
So lets get back to theories which are opinions and can be discussed and argued. When we cross the line and call dead officers liars without proof expect to be challenged. There is nothing wrong with discussing did Wallace lie. That allows opinion on both sides. "Why did Wallace lie? is different don't you think?
In my humble opinion I see a connection where a disconnect should be. But then, one would suppose that it is difficult to leave your job behind when off duty, isn't that right? The connection you seek between the first sentence and the last ones being proof of that. Which in reality should have been where the disconnect should have been. Here, I will demonstrate what I mean.
"So lets get back to theories which are opinions and can be discussed and argued."
If we are going to get anywhere in any discussion with the theory or opinion as to whether or not Wallace did lie, then why not let the evidence speak for itself and not let the semantics of "honor" inject itself into our thought processes. I am detached from the belief that any of them were truthful or liars, as all should be. And I am not bound by any "cross the line" codes where the proof should be established before discussing it; otherwise how should one discover whether he did lie or not? And I totally agree, "There is nothing wrong with discussing did Wallace lie. That allows opinion on both sides." How one chooses to present the case should not be questioned until all the evidence has been presented; and how should one know, if all we do is argue over the way the question was stated?
If you have evidence that he didn't lie, state it. Which is a very difficult thing to do, unless one knows what the evidence against him is. Should we not go forward to develop that evidence in either eventuality?
quote:
Since the mutiple personalities that are being discussed are on another board that has lots of posters I am not sure of your point.
Don't you think that is the "other boards" problem? If they have that problem and see it as a problem, then should they not address the issue there? Personally, I see no problem with it. If they allow anyone to join umpteen times, then the problem lays with the format of the website, and should that not be an easy thing to fix? And if they DON'T? Then they have no right, not one, to complain about multiple personalities do they. They have no right to impugn the character of anyone who chooses to take advantange of an error they refuse to correct; and it is they who are at fault, NOT those who join and join and keep on doing it.
|
Edited by - Benteen on October 26 2009 11:05:37 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 27 2009 : 09:05:37 AM
|
Don't you think that is the "other boards" problem? If they have that problem and see it as a problem, then should they not address the issue there? Personally, I see no problem with it. If they allow anyone to join umpteen times, then the problem lays with the format of the website, and should that not be an easy thing to fix? And if they DON'T? Then they have no right, not one, to complain about multiple personalities do they. They have no right to impugn the character of anyone who chooses to take advantange of an error they refuse to correct; and it is they who are at fault, NOT those who join and join and keep on doing it.
You confuse me Benteen why are you addressing on this board what should be done on another board and start off with "Don't you think that is the "other boards" problem?"
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 27 2009 09:07:12 AM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 27 2009 : 09:08:53 AM
|
And yes, there is a fine line between real world issues and what we post here, isn't there? I do have a friend who is an officer of the law. And yes, he isn't really a "friend" in every sense of the word is he, and yes, you do know what I mean, don't you? And that's because?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So lets get back to theories which are opinions and can be discussed and argued. When we cross the line and call dead officers liars without proof expect to be challenged. There is nothing wrong with discussing did Wallace lie. That allows opinion on both sides. "Why did Wallace lie? is different don't you think?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my humble opinion I see a connection where a disconnect should be. But then, one would suppose that it is difficult to leave your job behind when off duty, isn't that right? The connection you seek between the first sentence and the last ones being proof of that. Which in reality should have been where the disconnect should have been. Here, I will demonstrate what I mean.
"So lets get back to theories which are opinions and can be discussed and argued."
If we are going to get anywhere in any discussion with the theory or opinion as to whether or not Wallace did lie, then why not let the evidence speak for itself and not let the semantics of "honor" inject itself into our thought processes. I am detached from the belief that any of them were truthful or liars, as all should be. And I am not bound by any "cross the line" codes where the proof should be established before discussing it; otherwise how should one discover whether he did lie or not? And I totally agree, "There is nothing wrong with discussing did Wallace lie. That allows opinion on both sides." How one chooses to present the case should not be questioned until all the evidence has been presented; and how should one know, if all we do is argue over the way the question was stated?
Yesterday I started to go to a staff meeting that started a 1:15 PM. I was talking to field officer at the time and told him I had to go to the meeting. I went to the meeting room and no one was there. I looked again at my watch and it 12:05. I had thought it was 1:00 PM. Did I lie to the officer in my office? As Benteen would say, I think not. Was there than error? yes So if I didn't go back to my office than the officer would believe and could testify to that the meeting started at noon based upon what transpired in his presence.
I agree with your thought of starting neutral and sharing opinions. I do not find that "Why did Wallace Lie?" is starting neutral. It appears guilty until proved innocent. I believe the starting point should be the officers are honorable until sufficient evidence is provided that a reasonable person would decide otherwise. I can't change where I come from on that.
So if the thread starts with an officer being a liar then my response is to ask for proof. I believe it would be very easy to discuss whether the times are correct starting from neutral as you suggest.
Benteen it was not just how Joe worded the question but look at his statement and one should conclude that Joe indeed believes that Wallace was untruthful and lied under oath.
What it does imply is that Wallace's statement was untruthful and the inference that he rode at Reno's side during the entire time of the initial phase of the battle was a corker.
Since Joe states untruthful it is not off point to ask for proof that Wallace is untruthful. If Joe would listen to you on how to present a discussion then he could avoid having to prove why Wallace lied and was untruthful. I can't tell anyone what to post nor do I want to but I can predict my response to certain accusations of dead officers.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 27 2009 09:43:06 AM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 27 2009 : 1:22:23 PM
|
quote:
Benteen it was not just how Joe worded the question but look at his statement and one should conclude that Joe indeed believes that Wallace was untruthful and lied under oath.
What it does imply is that Wallace's statement was untruthful and the inference that he rode at Reno's side during the entire time of the initial phase of the battle was a corker.
I think Joe has a point here. As you yourself said or words to the effect that, Wallace could have been all over the place. Wallace's statements throughout are misleading. And when one does compare his statments with Reno's they do not match. Wallace implies alot. But these implications are proven false by what others did and said.
By Wallace's own testimony taken as if nothing else existed to refute anything he said; what is left? A lot of false assumptions. Girard never rode to the knoll, the Scouts didn't refuse to go and Custer had no argument with them, Lt. Cooke only made one trip, and that was back where Reno was catching up to the van of Custer's column; when according to Reno, if one looks at it closely, Cooke made that trip only to send Reno forward. It was only after Reno had passed Custer, did Custer then send Cooke again to modify Reno's orders. Wallace, who was supposed to have been near Reno "all the time" should have witnessed all of this. Wallace's testimony does leave a foul taste in one's mouth, and it wasn't only with this, it was with many other things as well, to include his times.
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 27 2009 : 10:10:47 PM
|
Benteen states he used Wallace's time and you stated Benteen got it right. Wallace's time were published in January of 1877. He just gave the times from his published reports.
Reno's time disagrees with Benteen's RCOI testimony. Reno never claims to have looked at his watch in his report. Reno states Wallace was to his left I believe. Where they were in proximity is relative to time. Reno would be behind, equal to, and ahead of Custer. Nothing misleading and to what advantage to Wallace would it be to mislead. If one believes he was with Custer rather than Reno he would still be within hearing distance. As far as times Wallace is stuck with what was published in January of 1877.
If there was a different published time then he testified to such as not consistent with his report you would have something there.
What do you believe that Wallace in did 1877?
There is no advantage to Reno for Wallace to have lied in his 1877 report. Reno still felt he needed to clear his name in 1879.
There is no advantage to Wallace to publish the wrong time.
I don't see a motive that would help Wallace. How does it benefit either to have conflicting times. Reno gains no advantage from his report and it makes Custer and Reno walk down Reno Creek at a really slow pace.
Why is Reno's report and testimony any more accurate than Wallace's report and testimony?
Your basis that Reno's report was accurate is unfounded. Joe doesn't believe Reno either.
AZ Ranger
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 27 2009 : 10:15:12 PM
|
Wallace, who was supposed to have been near Reno "all the time"
That is your statement not Wallace's. So if it is false you can only blame yourself, Wallace never said he was near Reno "all the time".
Wallace states he was near Reno when he crosses over.
Reno's testimony and Wallace's are very similar regarding times. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 27 2009 11:38:42 PM |
|
|
|
Benteen
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - October 28 2009 : 12:48:58 AM
|
quote:
“Your basis that Reno's report was accurate is unfounded. Joe doesn't believe Reno either.”
Unfounded? Do you mean as in ‘not supported by evidence or facts’? Or do you mean “unfounded” as in, ‘not yet established’? Though the name is the same the meaning is quite different.
quote:
“Why is Reno's report and testimony any more accurate than Wallace's report and testimony?”
Of course I would rather believe a senior officer who would have had less of a motive to have lied than a subordinate. The only thing Reno had to fear was his own ‘interpretation’ of his orders, and if I recall correctly, didn’t Benteen have that same problem? There was no advantage for Reno or Benteen to publish the wrong mileages. And when those mileages are used to extrapolate time from their own or other‘s stated times that it took, they differ exponentially from Wallace’s stated times.
What do you believe that Reno did in 1876, that he didn‘t do in 1879? This comparison in and of itself speaks volumes more than Wallace’s one testimonial.
There was no advantage for Reno to have lied in his Official Report. And even at the RCOI, Reno was called on this very thing. That what he said to the court in 1879 did not jive with what he had published in his 1876 official report. While Reno still felt he needed to clear his name in 1879. He was fully protected, and he knew it, from any further prosecution by the way in which the court had agreed to pursue the investigation. They would not discuss anything prior to a certain date and time. They agreed that Custer was not to be in any way put on trial, then and there, for anything he may or even may not have been negligent for: And in this regard they disregarded crucial evidence that would have led to Reno’s court martial.
quote:
“If there was a different published time then he testified to such as not consistent with his report you would have something there.”
Ever heard of ‘copy and paste’? Just because Wallace was as you put it “consistent with his report” did not mean that he was. Or for that matter that he was correct at the time that it occurred. In his position, he would have had to have gotten his story straight from the beginning, yet we don’t have that do we? We don’t have anything from Wallace in 1876, yet we do from Reno, we do from Benteen and many others. Take away Wallace’s well thought out Jan. 1877 report and what do you have? With it what do we have? The very same thing that happened in 1879.
quote:
“Reno's time disagrees with Benteen's RCOI testimony. Reno never claims to have looked at his watch in his report. Reno states Wallace was to his left I believe. Where they were in proximity is relative to time. Reno would be behind, equal to, and ahead of Custer.”
I can establish that Reno and Benteen’s time were within ½ hour of each other after they left Busby. Their statements when taken together gives mileages and times that are consistent with the facts; facts that irrefutably place Wallaces times in the category of sheer nonsense. Now I will state that he did get a few things close, and that was because of singular events where others would have contested, but the rest is unbelievable in the extreme.
While Reno never claimed to have “looked at his watch”, did that mean that he didn’t? And just because someone said they did, it didn’t mean that they got the time right, does it? You yourself in another post demonstrated clearly that fact.
And that last statement, “Where they were in proximity is relative to time. Reno would be behind, equal to, and ahead of Custer.” This one even Issac Newton, Einstien and a few others would have had problems with. Are you equating this so called “time” as ONE? As one would through time and space, where when closing the loop of string theory would make time inconsequential, redundant and paradoxical?
Everyone knows where Wallace was, he was with Custer until he was chided into going with Reno. And this was when? If this chiding occurred when it did and Wallace was with Custer, as he surely was, then where was Reno? And if Wallace could hear this, then did Custer hear this too? The answer is yes, isn’t it? And Reno; what did he hear from Custer just prior to this? “And take the Scouts with you” perhaps? Indeed if the one who shouted to Wallace was with Reno and “within hearing distance" of Custer, and Wallace was with Custer, then Reno would have been within hearing distance of Custer. And you're correct, were still “stuck” with what was published 6 months after the battle, instead of paying attention to a Report that was written by Reno 10 days after the battle on July 5th 1876; and Captain Benteen’s letter written 9 days after the battle on July 4th 1876.
If anyone had a chance to contemplate, cogitate, dissect, reflect and “mislead” it would have been Wallace, who 6th months later in Jan. of 1877 published his nonsense thesaurus.
quote:
“Benteen states he used Wallace's time and you stated Benteen got it right.”
But did Wallace use Benteen’s mileages and his times? I think not. What Benteen did at the RCOI was indeed use some of Wallace’s times, as they all did. Was this the correct thing to do? Again, “I think not.” And this has been the cause of all the defunct, deficient, and dreadfully wrong theories every since.
quote:
“Wallace, who was supposed to have been near Reno "all the time"
That is your statement not Wallace's. So if it is false you can only blame yourself, Wallace never said he was near Reno "all the time".
Wallace states he was near Reno when he crosses over.”
How near? Near enough to apply: “Where they were in proximity is relative to time. Reno would be behind, equal to, and ahead of Custer.”?
“What it does imply is that Wallace's statement was untruthful and the inference that he rode at Reno's side during the entire time of the initial phase of the battle was a corker."
|
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - October 28 2009 : 08:29:15 AM
|
quote:
Of course I would rather believe a senior officer who would have had less of a motive to have lied than a subordinate. The only thing Reno had to fear was his own ‘interpretation’ of his orders, and if I recall correctly, didn’t Benteen have that same problem? There was no advantage for Reno or Benteen to publish the wrong mileages. And when those mileages are used to extrapolate time from their own or other‘s stated times that it took, they differ exponentially from Wallace’s stated times.
If you are correct then Reno would not testify that he agrees with Wallace. So lets see what Reno actually testifies to at RCOI. Remember Reno and his attorney could challenge Wallace in cross examination. That did not happen because Reno agreed with Wallace.
Reno testifies " As Lieut. Wallace states it was about 10 o'clock when Col.Cook came to me and said..." So if you believe Reno you must believe Wallace since Reno testified that he did.
Now where does Reno state Wallace was when the orders were given.
So if you believe Reno then Wallace was there to the left of Hodgson. To be clear the question Reno is answering in the image above is who was with him at the time he received the order "to charge to the village". If you need to see it I can post it also. Reno first states who is there and then in Wallace's case how he happened to be there.
So which unfounded do you think applied when I stated your basis was unfounded? The senior officer agrees with Wallace at the RCOI.
AZ Ranger |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
Edited by - AZ Ranger on October 28 2009 08:37:51 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Why Did Wallace Lie?
