|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 29, 2010 8:13:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 29, 2010 9:48:50 GMT -5
Looks interesting
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 29, 2010 11:35:34 GMT -5
Anyone seen, read or heard of this one? Allen The Finckel story has been around for awhile, it's probably the most plausible one of these type of accounts, but I'm still highly dubious.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 29, 2010 13:17:58 GMT -5
I've always found skepticism to be a wise policy. It is reminiscent of the fictional Jack Crab though. With the pile of unread books I see before me, I can't justify the time this one would take. Also, Filbrick's new book on Custer is already on pre-order.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Mar 29, 2010 15:14:45 GMT -5
In reality, the battle of the Greasy Grass (what the Lakota call the Little Bighorn) was not really a true massacre, as we all probably know. Something like 680 troopers rode with Custer, but only the 280-some-odd that remained with him perished. Something like 400, in the other groups that he split, survived to fight another day.
I'm trying to imagine how there was a survivor in Custer's immediate group. Certainly those that fell could not have lived -- they were stripped, mutilated, and left in summer sun for about a day before the Sioux broke camp and the relief column came across the battle site.
In all fairness, I'd have to read the book. I'm speculating they must be saying someone was able to hide and escape detection until the Sioux cleared out. But, I would think that would be huge news even back then. I can't help but remain skeptical about this yarn.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 29, 2010 18:51:34 GMT -5
I'm going to be open minded until I examine the evidence. Instant skepticism in favor of the status quo is and always has been the safe position to take, but I'm going to give the author the benefit of the doubt and read what he has to say, with no predisposition going in.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Mar 29, 2010 21:19:21 GMT -5
Maybe I phrased that wrong. It's kind of hard not to have some skepticism going in, but as always, we must -- me included -- base our own decision on the evidence the author ultimately presents in this matter. It's like anyone whose job it is to adjudicate something. There may be a ton of caution flags pointing to a typical fraud issue or whatever, but in the end the judge must relay on the law and the facts of the case. That's what I intend to do in this. Am I skeptical? Hell, yes. But I agree that we must let the evidence guide us.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Mar 29, 2010 22:43:21 GMT -5
we must let the evidence guide us. Paul Always, Paul; without exception. In that regard, I find skepticism and an open mind perfectly compatible.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 30, 2010 14:12:17 GMT -5
Always, Paul; without exception. In that regard, I find skepticism and an open mind perfectly compatible. An open mind minus skepticism equals gullibility.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 30, 2010 17:21:10 GMT -5
Always, Paul; without exception. In that regard, I find skepticism and an open mind perfectly compatible. An open mind minus skepticism equals gullibility. Fascinating comments.... The definition of "skepticism" is as follows: 1. an incredulous, active, rather than passive incertitude or doubt. and the definition of "skeptical" is as follows: 1. pertaining to, or like, a doubter or skeptic: 2. Doubting everything; unbelieving: incredulous. (The Winston Dictionary, College Edition) I would submit that, based on the definitions, the automatic assuming of skepticism at the onset, and before reviewing the evidence inhibits the assuming of an open mind, and colors with a negative brush anything perceived therefrom. Taking on an attitude, at the very beginning, of skepticism, in the absence of any evidence yet to be shown, and thenceforth dismissing anything presented thereafter, is all too often the safe haven of dull-witted, sluggish, and unimaginative thinkers. But then again, so are complacency, and mediocrity, commodities which our culture possesses in great abundance. Instant skepticism hinders the ability to view what comes after with a clear mind. As a former US Naval officer as well as a criminal investigator with NCIS, I am the farthest thing from gullible you are likely to find. I stand by my position, however, that one should, when viewing a theory, or position for the first time, stringently hold an open mind, take it all in, weigh the pros and cons, and then, and only then assume the stance of skepticism, if, in fact, it is warranted.. Anything else is seen through the blinders of preconception. Or, maybe it's semantics....Perhaps what some here are trying to say is that they wish to assume a "wait and see," or "show me" approach to the book. This is perfectly reasonable, and one which I ascribe to. But disbelieving from the start (skepticism) is an assumption altogether different from "let's wait and see."
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Mar 30, 2010 18:33:09 GMT -5
I think for a lot of people this Finkel story is old news.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 30, 2010 19:11:00 GMT -5
I think for a lot of people this Finkel story is old news. Literally, its 90 years old! ;D The basic story is plausible as I said in my first post, but it falls apart under examination. I don't want to get into too much detail and provide spoilers for those who want to read the book, but I'll be happy to provide more detail via PM.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Mar 30, 2010 22:51:36 GMT -5
I think for a lot of people this Finkel story is old news. While I think I may have read something about this long ago, I'm certainly not well versed about it to render an informed opinion, as admittedly, the LBH is not my area of expertise, merely a hobby. Still, I'm interested enough to look into it further with an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by bobdurham on Apr 1, 2010 14:43:54 GMT -5
Allen -- Let us know what you think about Philbrick's new book. Donovan's Custer book still hasn't quite made it to the top of my pile so I'm more than a little behind.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 1, 2010 15:22:30 GMT -5
Will do, Bob, although Philbrick isn't out yet. Jim Donovan is excellent and well worth the read. When I talked to Jim in San Antonio I mentioned that his book had finally driven me to reading Gray's two books on Custer ("Centennial Campaign" and "Custer's Last Campaign"). I had been cautioned by Herb and others that these are as down in the weeds as you can get and definitely not for the beginner, but I enjoyed both of them and was totally sold on Gray's account. "Centennial Campaign is actually a well-written account of the entire Sioux campaign of 1876 and not all that technical; I highly recommend it. "Custer's Last Campaign" is far more detailed and technical. But Donovan said that, while Gray is very good, he had trouble buying his detailed time-motion analyses. Nonetheless, I found Donovan and Gray's books consistent, with some differences in emphasis and detail. For example, Gray is as critical of Benteen as anyone I've read (deservedly so, I'd say), but Donovan is particularly rough on Reno (again, perhaps deservedly). I agree with Herb that Donovan is too easy on Custer; Gray is also defensive of Custer and does not see that much wrong with Custer did, given his experiences with Indians, his orders, and the situation as it played out.
Allen
|
|