tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post161639513010789540..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: America Unearthed: Son of the Custer TreasureKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32190257833473947282015-05-05T14:38:20.715-07:002015-05-05T14:38:20.715-07:00As an historian who is a little embarrassed to adm...As an historian who is a little embarrassed to admit watching this episode, I do have to point out that there is a strong oral history among the Northern Cheyennes that there was indeed a buried cache from the Greasy Grass Fight. It is not money, it is the weapons and equipment taken from the bodies of Custer's men. At least some of the Cheyennes and Lakotas hid these items for fear of their being used as evidence against them. nosurfinsouthdakotahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13913446426296482712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-73656205206688928802014-12-15T20:09:16.902-08:002014-12-15T20:09:16.902-08:00It only gets worse. This last episode had Wolter ...It only gets worse. This last episode had Wolter on another treasure hunt, this time for the lost treasure of Captain Kidd. He was pursuing a rumor that John Jacob Astor had found the treasure, insinuating that the original capital for his fortune came from it. Wolter tracked down a a descendent of Astor who said the fortune is gone, the family is broke and still living on the original estate while trying to maintain it. Of course, she had no information about any treasure. <br /><br />The funniest part of the show was when they showed a clip of John D Rockafeller, from the History mini-series The Men Who Built America, to portray John Jacob Astor! To be fair, Wolter may not have that much control over that kind of thing. History channel probably figured they could save a couple bucks by reusing a clip from another show and no one would notice, since all those old empire builders look alike.edithkeelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11995689322743125545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46084844425137641732014-12-15T15:20:36.178-08:002014-12-15T15:20:36.178-08:00@Robert
I think you meant 'principals'.
....@Robert<br /><br />I think you meant 'principals'.<br />.<br />'Principles', or the lack thereof, could easily refer to certain members of the Ufological* Community. <br />.<br />A Freudian slip perhaps?<br />.<br />I gotta go...<br />.<br />* how does 'logical' turn up here, of all places?alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13618828509593217592014-12-11T13:49:48.545-08:002014-12-11T13:49:48.545-08:00I saw that episode myself. Wolter and the progra...I saw that episode myself. Wolter and the program obviously had a different perspective on history. Kind of like one group of people looking at the Roswell slides and saying dead ET corpse while somebody else had looked at them and said dead ET corpse is a stretch.<br /> What you get out of the program is IF there was any kind of treasure and IF a map existed it was probably looted after the unknown people vandalized the monument and opened it up in the early 60s. <br /> As to Lost Dutchman and the many other similar stories I would make one observation. If you think Roswell stories and witness tales and stories (the bogus ones) were a twisted maze, just start looking into treasure stories. Especially since the principle's are long since dead.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17780775650044166677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-87544972434635925132014-12-11T11:17:17.825-08:002014-12-11T11:17:17.825-08:00@Kevin
I did watch a few of the earlier episodes ...@Kevin<br /><br />I did watch a few of the earlier episodes of the series, but not the Alamo or Custer ones you mentioned. (I'm not interested in those subjects). IIRC, they had some credentialed experts who seemed to have offered reasonable opinions. I wonder if budgetary constraints caused the producers to stop seeking academics and real experts, or, what seems more likely, they didn't like what they heard from real historians. It <b>would</b> be interesting to see the real backstory on how a particular episode was developed. Fascinating, but probably disappointing. <br /><br />I can accept infotainment for what it is, but these shows are short on the info, heavy on the tainment.<br /><br />Yes, I feel 'suckered in' after I watch one, but it's better than reading <i>CounterPunch</i> all the time.<br /><br />I gotta go...alberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15547680170328747214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-5283094631128493882014-12-11T07:09:17.854-08:002014-12-11T07:09:17.854-08:00David -
Really? That's your take away on this...David -<br /><br />Really? That's your take away on this? Language has evolved to the point where it becomes less clear...<br />We now no longer know the difference between disinterest and uninterest. we talk about something being surrounded on three sides and of things completely destroyed when destroyed means complete...<br /><br />You aren't offend by a program searching for a treasure that didn't exist? Even if Custer had carried the gold into Montana, it would have been with Company B which did not ride to desctruction with Custer. He took five companies into that last stand... C,E,F,L, and I. B remained behind and joined Reno and Benteen on the hills after Reno's failed charge into one end of the Lakota encampment...<br /><br />Yet you worry about decimate? You should be more concerned with programs that pretend to offer history that can't be bothered with basic research.<br /><br />And besides, "remove a large proportion of" doesn't cover what happened. Those five companies were destroyed... it wasn't a large proportion of, it was all of it. KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-39376210667011738762014-12-11T03:25:24.363-08:002014-12-11T03:25:24.363-08:00"Decimate" indeed originally meant to &q..."Decimate" indeed originally meant to "remove one tenth of" but has now evolved in modern usage to infer "remove a large proportion of". See (amongst others) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/decimateDavid From AUhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06660258416933875373noreply@blogger.com