|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 10, 2011 10:28:26 GMT -5
Exactly! What also emerges is the "why" that created these "patterns." Historically, when a historical events are shadowed by irregularities of this nature one of two things have occurred. Conjecture is substituted for knowledge lost or know information that is embarrassing to the winners/survivors is hidden under a deep veneer of falsification.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Dec 10, 2011 11:59:35 GMT -5
Exactly! What also emerges is the "why" that created these "patterns." Historically, when a historical events are shadowed by irregularities of this nature one of two things have occurred. Conjecture is substituted for knowledge lost or know information that is embarrassing to the winners/survivors is hidden under a deep veneer of falsification. What really gets me here is that these statements are completely ignored, as many as they're are over the preferred statements of those who should've known, namely Reno and Benteen. I keep thinking of what Benteen said after the Court was over, that they knew he knew more, but they didn't know how to get it out of him, or something to that effect. In many an instance it can be seen where they could have and should have asked the right questions and didn't. In other instances they did but didn't follow up that would have shed further light upon the subject. So I'm not convinced that they didn't know how to get it out of him (them), in some instances I don't think they tried or wanted to know, primarily for the public record. But what indeed did Benteen harbor that he didn't tell them? Maybe it was in the way the questions were asked: Benteen Q. State whether it was any part of the plan which you were pursuing, that there should be any union between yourself and Major Reno? A. There was no plan at all. Q. What I was trying to get at, was, from the route taken by the different columns and the route taken by your own whether or not Major Reno would come in ultimately the same way. A. He had no right to expect any assistance whatever from me. Q. State how that is the case. A. If there had been any plan of battle, enough of that plan would have been communicated to me, so that I would have known what to do under certain circumstances, Not having done that, I do not believe there was any plan. In Gen. Custer's mind there was a belief that there were no Indians nor any village. Q. Would there be any necessity for a plan of battle not knowing where they were? A. I do not know. I was sent off to hunt up some Indians. Q. What evidence have you in addition to your opinion that General Custer did not believe there were Indians in the valley before you left? A. Only his own statements - nothing else. O. Do you think General Custer formed no plan of attack on that day; if so, what grounds have you for thinking so? A I think after he sent Major Reno across to charge the Indians, his intentions were to get in the rear of the village and attack them from the left. His plan of attack was therefore known only to himself and not to Major Reno, for he must naturally expect his assistance to come from the rear and not from the front. Reno Q. You stated in your testimony that no plan was "communicated to us". Please explain what you mean by "us" - yourself or others? A. I mean the whole regiment. I might say there that I do not think there was any plan. Q. You received an order from Gen. Custer through his Adjutant? A. Yes. Q. I would like you to repeat that order again, A, "Gen. Custer directs you to move forward at as rapid a gait as you think prudent, and to charge afterward, and you will be supported by the whole outfit." I think these were the exact words. Q, You were, of course, expected to charge the Indians? A. Yes; certainly. Q. Then that part of the plan was communicated to you by his Adjutant? A. I don't know that that was any part of it. Q. It was part of the attack, was it not? A. It was the opening of the fight. Evasive and not exactly to the point was it? |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 10, 2011 20:31:50 GMT -5
TESTING, tESTING, tESTING!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Dec 10, 2011 21:26:07 GMT -5
TESTING, tESTING, tESTING! THEY'VE HAD SOME KIND OF SERVER PROBLEMS FOR ABOUT THE PAST DAY OR SO. Something called a "DDoS attack" they were/are trying to block it. So if any of you are experiencing problems with the forum loading to any of the pages not loading it is because of this attack on the servers. Hang in there everyone, until this is fixed it'll be touch and go for a while till they get things sorted out. |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 10, 2011 21:58:59 GMT -5
Well folks, this will be my fourth attempt to answer this post. Hope i get through this time  ! My theory to your very excellent question regarding the inability some folk have in realizing the evasiveness of many of the responses regarding this battle is as follows. Immediately after this battle, the military hierarchy soon became aware of the many failings of the involved officers which helped to bring about this tragedy. It became critical to maintain a code of silence to prevent the true circumstances from reaching the public. However, two trains of thought became prevalent in the social atmosphere of that era that demanded an explanation: The first, how could heathen savages defeat "white" soldiers which led to the second, the conviction by Frederick Whittaker that Reno and Benteen failed to come to Custer's aid;an idea he made public via the publication of his book. Yes, Reno requested an Inquiry however, an investigation-in all probability- would have eventually come about regardless.the military hierarchy was determined to shadow the truth in a veneer of darkness and made it clear to various officers that it would be in their best interest to let the dead stay dead along with "their" responsibility for the fatalistic outcome of the battle. As a result, distorted facts, false innuendo, and cover-up became the forte of the Reno Inquiry. Thus, the two questions where simultaneously taken care of. The Indians defeated "white" men because of the unauthorized antics of a vain, glory-seeking, poppycock who attacked too many Indians and, Whitaker's accusations were proved false as a result. Through out the years, information has been garnered that directly contradicted the findings of the Inquiry and, many years after the battle some officers have allowed the truth to leak out. Personal letters written by participants of this battle have shed an enormous light upon the cover up as well. Ironically, there are those today who refused to consider any other possibility of how this battle played out other than there were 1 million Indians in a camp about the size of Detroit that was attacked by an idiot. There is one individual on another forum who becomes extremely heated if it is even suggested that Reno's "charge" was anything but an orderly, military sound, movement to safety. This despite the fact that over a dozen men were abandoned in the timber, anyone in the rear of the "charge" was slaughtered, and even after reaching the safety of "them dar hills" some of the men kept running. throw a few facts at this poster and he will become so incensed that cyber shouts of "pathetic liar" will be slung around the room and stick to the wall like a wet bogey! The unbelievable poppycock rhetoric uttered by Reno and Benteen that you have go graciously printed is an example of the incredible lengths some will go to demean Custer rather then accept responsibility for what happened. I don't anticipate a monumental change of Custer's stock toward the positive anytime soon. Such a political change would render a more even evaluation of what really happened at this battle. PS I hope this goes through. |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Dec 14, 2011 7:16:32 GMT -5
Well folks, this will be my fourth attempt to answer this post. Hope i get through this time ! My theory to your very excellent question regarding the inability some folk have in realizing the evasiveness of many of the responses regarding this battle is as follows. Immediately after this battle, the military hierarchy soon became aware of the many failings of the involved officers which helped to bring about this tragedy. It became critical to maintain a code of silence to prevent the true circumstances from reaching the public. However, two trains of thought became prevalent in the social atmosphere of that era that demanded an explanation: The first, how could heathen savages defeat "white" soldiers which led to the second, the conviction by Frederick Whittaker that Reno and Benteen failed to come to Custer's aid;an idea he made public via the publication of his book. Yes, Reno requested an Inquiry however, an investigation-in all probability- would have eventually come about regardless.the military hierarchy was determined to shadow the truth in a veneer of darkness and made it clear to various officers that it would be in their best interest to let the dead stay dead along with "their" responsibility for the fatalistic outcome of the battle. As a result, distorted facts, false innuendo, and cover-up became the forte of the Reno Inquiry. Thus, the two questions where simultaneously taken care of. The Indians defeated "white" men because of the unauthorized antics of a vain, glory-seeking, poppycock who attacked too many Indians and, Whitaker's accusations were proved false as a result. Through out the years, information has been garnered that directly contradicted the findings of the Inquiry and, many years after the battle some officers have allowed the truth to leak out. Personal letters written by participants of this battle have shed an enormous light upon the cover up as well. Ironically, there are those today who refused to consider any other possibility of how this battle played out other than there were 1 million Indians in a camp about the size of Detroit that was attacked by an idiot. There is one individual on another forum who becomes extremely heated if it is even suggested that Reno's "charge" was anything but an orderly, military sound, movement to safety. This despite the fact that over a dozen men were abandoned in the timber, anyone in the rear of the "charge" was slaughtered, and even after reaching the safety of "them dar hills" some of the men kept running. throw a few facts at this poster and he will become so incensed that cyber shouts of "pathetic liar" will be slung around the room and stick to the wall like a wet bogey! The unbelievable poppycock rhetoric uttered by Reno and Benteen that you have go graciously printed is an example of the incredible lengths some will go to demean Custer rather then accept responsibility for what happened. I don't anticipate a monumental change of Custer's stock toward the positive anytime soon. Such a political change would render a more even evaluation of what really happened at this battle. PS I hope this goes through. Careful there Joe or someone will think you're trying to say that naughty unthinkable, detestable, dastardly word.... shhhh...... conspiracy. Which I do think is a good subject worthy of our debate here. I'm not all about quashing any good discussion, even when I myself don't believe it. Not saying here, you know. And I really do think this one huge question lays at the very heart of your question. that started this thread. [Nope, stop, back up and turn around, don't do it. If you can't remember what his original question was, why should you? I mean really, wouldn't it be better to discuss something entirely off the wall than what was originally posted? Much more interesting that way. ;D] |
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Dec 14, 2011 10:31:47 GMT -5
Aha the grassy green knoll .... I new it !
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Dec 14, 2011 11:39:07 GMT -5
Aha the grassy green knoll .... I new it ! Okay... Lets see. What are Newton's laws of motion? Now take a good look at the Zapruder film again and tell me that the shot that hit him in the head came from behind. Is there any, and I do mean any motion of K's head being or even beginning to move forward at the time that shot impacts his head? Now go back and read Sir Issac Newton again and again and again. Anyone with half a notion of the laws of motion can figure that thing out, and it didn't take Warren or his commission or Posner or his book to fake things out. |
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Dec 17, 2011 12:32:52 GMT -5
Have you ever sat on a grassy knoll and watched the frantic activity of ants shuttering to and fro while foraging for sustenance while eying the environs for natural predators. Fascinating stuff! Then you take a small stick and gentle push the hill covering the entrance to their domain and, suddenly, the ants come pouring out to confront their nemesis regardless of their strength or invulnerability. A seemingly deluge of wasted bodies of ferociousness (ants)rushing toward a "stick" which can only produce minimum harm to the colony. In other words, an incredible (need I say silly)overreaction to slight stimuli. The above is a metaphor understood by many(majority) regarding the few(minority) who dare question the actuality of long established, written history as viewed by the general public;unrelenting ridicule and immediate comparison to other scenarios regardless of the obvious non-comparison involved  . Understood and respected! However, my (above) response was in reply to T.B.W.'s profound question as to why the general reader ignores information that is obviously, provable, and substantiated by facts concerning this battle. Does anyone really believe that Benteen had no idea as to the plans or location of Custer? If so state your name. Does anyone believe that Reno initiated reasonable and sanctioned military tactics in his "charge" to the hills? if so state your name. Does anyone believe that a 23 year old man promoted to the rank of Major General due to his exemplary war record was a total incompetent field idiot on one singular day? If so state your name? If anyone of you can read the inquiry, make note of the board's inability to comment on the blatant lies screeched by Reno and his Representative Gilbert and yet could only come up with, "well the officers did say much to help" please explain it to me. Why is it that we can read a "fact" that obviously contradicts another "fact" (in the same scenario) by two or more witnesses then merely gloss over it because our minds are already convinced that since most people view an incident in a certain manner, the minority are (obviously) wrong. lastly, it has been a historical fact since the dawn of the written word that they who opt to question what has long been perceived to be "true" will have their conclusions quickly written off without a systematic study to confirm or disavow. |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Dec 17, 2011 16:56:37 GMT -5
Have you ever sat on a grassy knoll and watched the frantic activity of ants shuttering to and fro while foraging for sustenance while eying the environs for natural predators. Fascinating stuff! Then you take a small stick and gentle push the hill covering the entrance to their domain and, suddenly, the ants come pouring out to confront their nemesis regardless of their strength or invulnerability. A seemingly deluge of wasted bodies of ferociousness (ants)rushing toward a "stick" which can only produce minimum harm to the colony. In other words, an incredible (need I say silly)overreaction to slight stimuli. The above is a metaphor understood by many(majority) regarding the few(minority) who dare question the actuality of long established, written history as viewed by the general public;unrelenting ridicule and immediate comparison to other scenarios regardless of the obvious non-comparison involved . Understood and respected! However, my (above) response was in reply to T.B.W.'s profound question as to why the general reader ignores information that is obviously, provable, and substantiated by facts concerning this battle. Does anyone really believe that Benteen had no idea as to the plans or location of Custer? If so state your name. Does anyone believe that Reno initiated reasonable and sanctioned military tactics in his "charge" to the hills? if so state your name. Does anyone believe that a 23 year old man promoted to the rank of Major General due to his exemplary war record was a total incompetent field idiot on one singular day? If so state your name? If anyone of you can read the inquiry, make note of the board's inability to comment on the blatant lies screeched by Reno and his Representative Gilbert and yet could only come up with, "well the officers did say much to help" please explain it to me. Why is it that we can read a "fact" that obviously contradicts another "fact" (in the same scenario) by two or more witnesses then merely gloss over it because our minds are already convinced that since most people view an incident in a certain manner, the minority are (obviously) wrong. lastly, it has been a historical fact since the dawn of the written word that they who opt to question what has long been perceived to be "true" will have their conclusions quickly written off without a systematic study to confirm or disavow. Here is one testimony that today isn't used very much to determine the truth. It is one of those if you believe what he said you would be in the "minority" as Joe pointed out. But the impact of his statements, if all true, sheds more light upon Benteen's move, Reno's assignment and Custer's own flank move down the right bank. DeRudio, pg. 267 A. On the 25th of June, about 11 or 12 o'clock, the command of General Custer was divided into three battalions, One was put under command of Captain Benteen, the ranking Captain of the 7th Cavalry; three other companies were put under command of Major Reno of the 7th Cavalry; I being attached to one of the companies of his battalion, served with him. We followed down a creek that emptied into the Little Big Horn, on the left hand side of the creek, the creek running east and west; and General Custer with five companies following parallel with us on the right hand side of the creek for several miles. Pretty soon we reached a vacated village where there was a tepee with some dead Indians inside. The impression was that the Indians had left that village very suddenly, not long before we passed that abandoned village at a trot. We were moving in column of fours. I was in the center of the battalion. Q. Was that the place where Major Reno's command marched ahead of General Custer? A. Yes sir. General Custer diverged his command to the right after we passed that village. That was 4 or 5 miles from the ford. Q. How far was that tepee from the place where Major Reno crossed the Little Big Horn? A. About 4 or 5 miles. we were going at a trot over a broken country. Q. How long did it take you to reach the crossing from the time you passed that tepee? A. Probably half an hour. Q. Do you know whether Major Reno gave any orders or instructions to the command, going to the crossing? A. I heard none. Q. Describe that crossing, and if there was any delay there, state for what purpose? A. There was no delay that I remember. I remember that Major Reno was the first man to go into the river. My horse was stubborn and would not go into the river only on the jump, and when he jumped into the river he splashed water on Major Reno; and after I got across I could not hold my horse for about 100 yards. I there checked him and waited till the company came up. Q. State if you saw the hostile Indians before crossing? A. I saw a few. Q. where did you see them? A. Going down the creek in the bottom. Q, About how many? A, I can't judge very well. I was not in position, I was in the middle Of the column. Q. Did you see them before you crossed the river? A. Yes, just after we passed the abandoned village. We supposed they belonged to that village.Q. How near to the crossing of the river were you when you saw those Indians? A. I can't tell, it was very near. ------------------ If anyone was listening to him he said that those Indians that Hare had witness from a knoll near this tepee, and were at that time about 1/2 way to the river, about 2 miles from it and the same from the tepee, had belonged to the "recently abandoned village." There are those today that say that these Indians had suddenly appeared there, as if they hadn't camped there at all. DeRudio's "we" in the next to the last answer corroborates that more than one person connected this "recently abandoned village" to those Indians. This village and it still remaining standing tepee became what was known at the "lone tepee". As Joe pointed out, there are conflicting statements and testimony that make some say that the lone tepee was closer to the river, about a mile or so from it. While a tepee was likely there as well, it would be and still is mistaken for what was early on named "the Lone Tepee." |
|
cinnamon
Sergeant
our love will last forever
Posts: 132
|
Post by cinnamon on Dec 17, 2011 19:02:59 GMT -5
Aha the grassy green knoll .... I new it ! as already said, even the Governative inquiry, (HSCA)declared that Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll and as a result of a conspiracy, even if they could have not determined the extent of it. So, there is no humor at all in this. Must find another exemple. |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Dec 17, 2011 21:40:14 GMT -5
Thank you so much Cinnamon for straightening out that particular point. I think Joe makes a good point in advising us to keep our minds open and weigh all the available information. the main reason I have not posted as much as I would like was the real fear that I would be laughed at for making suggestions that may not have been as smart as others. I see so much ridicule and viciousness on some of the other boards.
That is certainly not the case here which is wonderful. If all the answers were solved why are we are we here. I too believe that General Custer was railroaded and made to seem like an over eager school kid and got himself in trouble. I don't think so. Some other things happen that were covered up because the truth would have been embarrassing for some of the higher ups.
I am proud to be a member of this forum for the freedom it allows me to feel like I am as important as any other poster who may know more than I.
T.B.W. presented a very interesting statement from DeRudio that brings into question of the nearness of the village. Who was right? Who was wrong? How can we know?
BY KEEPING OUR MINDS OPEN!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Dec 18, 2011 7:10:19 GMT -5
My example is fine CNN. HSCA said PROBABLE shot from grassy knoll. Probable conspiracy meaning probably another gunmen not CIA,FBI,Mafia,ad nauseum and no Martians. However I believe they said four shots were probably fired with Oswald firing three where his second and third shots struck and KILLED Kennnedy.Of course there is no humour in Kennedy's death THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING.
|
|
cinnamon
Sergeant
our love will last forever
Posts: 132
|
Post by cinnamon on Dec 18, 2011 12:17:17 GMT -5
"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy" And states again: "Aspects of the investigation did suggest that the conspiracy may have been relatively limited, but to state with precision exactly how small was not possible. Other aspects of the committee's investigation did suggest, however, that while the conspiracy may not have involved a major group, it may not have been limited to only two people. These aspects of the committee's investigation are discussed elsewhere.
If the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy was limited to Oswald and a second gunman, its main societal significance may be in the realization that agencies of the U.S. Government inadequately investigated the possibility of such a conspiracy."
AND: "the third shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed. They concluded that it missed due to the lack of physical evidence of an actual bullet, of course this investigation took place almost sixteen years after the crime." Of course! but if you remember, one bullet was taken by agents and never reappered later. And they never found all the bullets. One, on the strecher, disappeared too. It's clear the Committee could not have determined who killed the President.
This is plain clear. So, actually, I don't find the reason why you take always out the "grassy knoll" as an exemple of something which is not believable, as, in the better of the cases, it is true someone shot from there, and in the worst of the cases, it is, as the commision states "highly probable".
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycanuck on Dec 18, 2011 20:33:32 GMT -5
With regards to Kennedy's assassination I repeat I do not want to accept the invitation that was given to me on this thread to test the shooting of what happens to a man when he is shot in the head. However with regards to Newtons laws notwithstanding bodies do not fly back through the air like Hollywood and others think."Violent jet cranial matter shooting forward that caused the head to jerk back. Same concept as rocket propulsion when you you shoot hot gas out backwards,you move forwards...so stop saying that the motion of the head proves he was shot from the front" but then we can be brainwashed(pun not intended) by Hollywood if you watch a bunch of shootups .Perhaps ?
|
|
!
. 
