Post by tbw on May 17, 2012 14:02:04 GMT -5
Time isn't a measure of anything. In fact science can't even quantify or explain time. Time as it appears to us is relative to our surroundings and is by its very nature a human invention.
When time is used to explain events of the past it is associated with history. Whenever someone has an agenda to change time, they by that very nature change history and vice-versa. And unless we're all on the same breathing schedule and paying homage to the gods of mantra under the same influence of belief, it can be said everyone has their own agendas as concerns time. And with this, what matters to one person might not just matter to someone else. It is a matter of personal preference, free thought, and freedom of choice. The divining of facts in the matter of the little big horn is as big a mine field as their are choices to believe. Was Reno driven from his position in the valley or was it his choice to leave? Did Custer intentionally put more distance between his unit and those units who could have supported him? Or was he forced by circumstances beyond his control, and beyond which we can comprehend to widen that gap? At what point did Custer change modes from offense to defense? All and more than can be posted here are questions that not just beg to be answered, but all beg to differ in belief - and in time. And just who would be off my seconds, minutes or hours in their predilection to believe one way over another? Some might say that such ascertaining is to satisfy their own theories. And from that aspect, they would be right, as human nature is to prone to such ego's just as any child is prone to represent their Dad being better than anyone else's, so it goes on into adulthood to say that theirs is the best and only answer to the exclusion of all others. At one end of this spectrum it is said there are those who worship, admire or look favorably upon at least one, if not more, of those men who served with a distinction that is unwarranted by objectivity alone. At the other end lay those who wish or would like to lay blame upon the culprit or culprits who created the disaster in their minds eye, again unwarranted by objectivity alone. So neither it would appear would have all the answers, or for that matter be even close in their reasoning, by whatever methodology of finding what would have been, could have been anywhere near the truth.
Time studies don't just confuse the motions issues involved, they distort them, bend them to the will of the one doing the study. If that person has hero's whom they worship or just even admire or desire more favorably, one over the other, that study is and will be distorted to bend the will of that study to reflect that hero or admired one. And the same can be said of those who would expect a culprit to be found, this reflecting in that study the same bias and prejudice and equally as reprehensible as one is to the other. As I've indicated before, and as can be easily seen by any bias or prejudice, the smaller time between close associated events is more important than any great and lengthy overall timeline, which quite simply can't be done with any degree of unbiased accuracy, because everyone has a biased opinion based upon personal choices as to what they believe. This is where John Gray failed. This is where others who have and will fall into lock step with his methodology will fail. It's a given. All one needs to do is look for their bias and prejudice and then pick it apart peice by biased piece, page by prejudicial page until it no longer is a viable or forgone conclusion. And the LBH is rife with opposition thought to either hero's/admiration's and/or those looking to lay blame, or for that matter any where along that spectrum between the two.
Did and does Custer's logic still elude us today? Was his own attack ill timed? Was there too much distance between him and his other units? Did he really underestimate his enemy, their intentions, their strength? Did he really send Benteen off on the much perceived 'wild goose chase'? Was he really that incompetent? As with most military actions it usually comes down to who was responsible for what, and who failed. Or translated into today's biased and ego driven perceptions of this, who was to blame, who wasn't?
Does time without really understanding the motion explain his logic, his reasoning, his orders, what was done? How can one possibly discern whether or not his own attack was ill timed if the one who does the time study doesn't properly discern the motion that caused the distance between his own unit and the others? How can one possibly discern whether or not Custer underestimated anything, be it his enemy, their intentions or even their strength by anything time would have to offer? How can we today possibly know whether or not Benteen's mission was a wild goose chase or not when we don't even know the exact direction he went on that mission, or for that matter how time would affect it if by mistake we miss it by even 1 degree of error on a map? What does blame or hero/admiration's have to offer us? Is it a method to test the veracity of those in question? Or is it some self percieved ego driven, biased notion that defies reason. As can be easily seen time affects nothing here. It doesn't even affect the events or how anyone views them, or for that matter the whole campaign. There is no way of observing what the participants observed, fade to the two who stood on the mountain and didn't see the same thing. There is no way of timing bias. There is no way of discerning the motion of prejudice. And there is a whole lot of it here as well as at any other forum. Some of it ego driven beyond recourse the time required to correct it and/or the motion required to make it right. There's to much evidence that has to be thrown away and never reclaimed. There's been to much flag waving and not enough ghost dancing to understand. There's to much a feeling of being arrogant, superior and knowing more than another, and not near enough humble opinion driven discussion based upon what little is known. And those who do think they are arrogant enough to answer it all, have more than enough to answer to when asked why they defended Custer and his tactics in one place, and then claim he didn't do something when he should have in another. It happens, time and again, it happens, maybe not this exact example, but it does.
The virtual world of time-motion studies means absolutely nothing. Not even when trying to discern how those events prior or subsequent occurred, or for that matter explain why what happened, happened. The evidence of that still lay upon Custer's field and won't ever be revealed. Only by distorting time and/or by distorting the motion can they invent things that never occurred and in the process choose heros/admirations and/or lay blame, which they do, they have to, its all things, within human nature.
When time is used to explain events of the past it is associated with history. Whenever someone has an agenda to change time, they by that very nature change history and vice-versa. And unless we're all on the same breathing schedule and paying homage to the gods of mantra under the same influence of belief, it can be said everyone has their own agendas as concerns time. And with this, what matters to one person might not just matter to someone else. It is a matter of personal preference, free thought, and freedom of choice. The divining of facts in the matter of the little big horn is as big a mine field as their are choices to believe. Was Reno driven from his position in the valley or was it his choice to leave? Did Custer intentionally put more distance between his unit and those units who could have supported him? Or was he forced by circumstances beyond his control, and beyond which we can comprehend to widen that gap? At what point did Custer change modes from offense to defense? All and more than can be posted here are questions that not just beg to be answered, but all beg to differ in belief - and in time. And just who would be off my seconds, minutes or hours in their predilection to believe one way over another? Some might say that such ascertaining is to satisfy their own theories. And from that aspect, they would be right, as human nature is to prone to such ego's just as any child is prone to represent their Dad being better than anyone else's, so it goes on into adulthood to say that theirs is the best and only answer to the exclusion of all others. At one end of this spectrum it is said there are those who worship, admire or look favorably upon at least one, if not more, of those men who served with a distinction that is unwarranted by objectivity alone. At the other end lay those who wish or would like to lay blame upon the culprit or culprits who created the disaster in their minds eye, again unwarranted by objectivity alone. So neither it would appear would have all the answers, or for that matter be even close in their reasoning, by whatever methodology of finding what would have been, could have been anywhere near the truth.
Time studies don't just confuse the motions issues involved, they distort them, bend them to the will of the one doing the study. If that person has hero's whom they worship or just even admire or desire more favorably, one over the other, that study is and will be distorted to bend the will of that study to reflect that hero or admired one. And the same can be said of those who would expect a culprit to be found, this reflecting in that study the same bias and prejudice and equally as reprehensible as one is to the other. As I've indicated before, and as can be easily seen by any bias or prejudice, the smaller time between close associated events is more important than any great and lengthy overall timeline, which quite simply can't be done with any degree of unbiased accuracy, because everyone has a biased opinion based upon personal choices as to what they believe. This is where John Gray failed. This is where others who have and will fall into lock step with his methodology will fail. It's a given. All one needs to do is look for their bias and prejudice and then pick it apart peice by biased piece, page by prejudicial page until it no longer is a viable or forgone conclusion. And the LBH is rife with opposition thought to either hero's/admiration's and/or those looking to lay blame, or for that matter any where along that spectrum between the two.
Did and does Custer's logic still elude us today? Was his own attack ill timed? Was there too much distance between him and his other units? Did he really underestimate his enemy, their intentions, their strength? Did he really send Benteen off on the much perceived 'wild goose chase'? Was he really that incompetent? As with most military actions it usually comes down to who was responsible for what, and who failed. Or translated into today's biased and ego driven perceptions of this, who was to blame, who wasn't?
Does time without really understanding the motion explain his logic, his reasoning, his orders, what was done? How can one possibly discern whether or not his own attack was ill timed if the one who does the time study doesn't properly discern the motion that caused the distance between his own unit and the others? How can one possibly discern whether or not Custer underestimated anything, be it his enemy, their intentions or even their strength by anything time would have to offer? How can we today possibly know whether or not Benteen's mission was a wild goose chase or not when we don't even know the exact direction he went on that mission, or for that matter how time would affect it if by mistake we miss it by even 1 degree of error on a map? What does blame or hero/admiration's have to offer us? Is it a method to test the veracity of those in question? Or is it some self percieved ego driven, biased notion that defies reason. As can be easily seen time affects nothing here. It doesn't even affect the events or how anyone views them, or for that matter the whole campaign. There is no way of observing what the participants observed, fade to the two who stood on the mountain and didn't see the same thing. There is no way of timing bias. There is no way of discerning the motion of prejudice. And there is a whole lot of it here as well as at any other forum. Some of it ego driven beyond recourse the time required to correct it and/or the motion required to make it right. There's to much evidence that has to be thrown away and never reclaimed. There's been to much flag waving and not enough ghost dancing to understand. There's to much a feeling of being arrogant, superior and knowing more than another, and not near enough humble opinion driven discussion based upon what little is known. And those who do think they are arrogant enough to answer it all, have more than enough to answer to when asked why they defended Custer and his tactics in one place, and then claim he didn't do something when he should have in another. It happens, time and again, it happens, maybe not this exact example, but it does.
The virtual world of time-motion studies means absolutely nothing. Not even when trying to discern how those events prior or subsequent occurred, or for that matter explain why what happened, happened. The evidence of that still lay upon Custer's field and won't ever be revealed. Only by distorting time and/or by distorting the motion can they invent things that never occurred and in the process choose heros/admirations and/or lay blame, which they do, they have to, its all things, within human nature.
