Comments on: Survivor Frank Finkel's Lasting Stand

By: Gerald Swick

Gerald Swick — Fri, 13 May 2011 14:51:45 +0000

This post is now closed to additional comments.—HistoryNet.com

By: Tom Boyce

Tom Boyce — Fri, 13 May 2011 13:39:23 +0000

John Koster,

To me, you are clearly assembling several known facts and then projecting those known facts into one conclusion. Which, oftentimes, proves to be later incorrect. When carefully reviewed your conclusion(s) do(es) not add up. Here's what I mean.

Fact #1). President Lincoln was assassinated.
Fact #2). Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated the President.
Conclusion – Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Lincoln.

Yes, some in the general public understands and fully accepts that Fact #1, above, is the truth. Some in the general public understands and fully accepts that Fact #2 is, also, the truth. However, MANY people clearly see the inconsistencies of any conclusions when Fact #1 and Fact #2 are combined to create a narrative. Unfortunately, that's what you have done with many of the conclusions printed in your book.

Thus, in your continued efforts to defend your claim(s) that Frank Finkle was telling the truth, you readily fall-back in a defensive position by rattling off Facts #1 and #2 – WITHOUT ADDRESSING the questions posed by historians about your conclusion(s).

In the scientific world it becomes well-known that when one theory is proven wrong then that entire theory is thrown out, completely. Why? Because using the same data to arrive at a DIFFERENT conclusion, as I provided in the example above, is blasphemy. Either the result is false or the result is true. There can be no in-between conclusions which will stand the test of time.

Thus far, the conclusion regarding the dead, 7th Cavalry horse has been proven false. Thus far, the conclusion regarding the lone, Native American who 'witnessed' a lone, C-Company, 7th Cavalry soldier escaping from the battlefield is false. Thus far, the conclusion regarding a lone, white man escaping thousands of well-trained trackers, hunters, and defenders of their land against all pale-faces is, also, false (not even Fetteman's unit of some 80 soldiers on rested mounts could escape warring Natives, and it was well-known that the real Finckle's mount was already spent – BEFORE the battle even began)! Your claim that three people whom identified August Finckle's body on the Little Big Horn battlefield must have been wrong is, also, false.

John, when are you going to give up on this preposterous theory that Frank Finkle was, actually, August Finckle?

By: John Koster

John Koster — Fri, 13 May 2011 11:55:34 +0000

What a relief….

By: John Koster

John Koster — Fri, 13 May 2011 11:47:47 +0000

The Ridgewood Blog is a cyberbullying network for desperate housewives who hate me because my daughter (and my daughter's husband) both went to Princeton and theirs didn't. There's lots of bad stuff about me and everubody else on it — all opinionation.Enough harping by malicious females who represent the worst of an othersiwe nice community where people routinely tell me how much they enjoyed the book and the documentary — let's man up and get back to the Little Bighorn.

By: John Koster

John Koster — Fri, 13 May 2011 11:40:34 +0000

Check the book "Custer Survivor" — The History Channel show was a combination of my book and Ellison's, which offered some very good research but also put a heavy reliance on the Banfill interview — which contained so many mistakes that Joe and I could have both shredded Banfill — though not Ellison — with glee. Wrong number of companies at LBH, Red Cloud at the battle (he wasn't) Black Kettle at the battle (he was dead)….Had I seen that interview befor the recruiting form, I'd agree with Joe. I think Banfill made large parts of it up after hearing of the Finkel interview at the Dayton Kiwanis — the Dayton Kiwanis interview is not only quoted verbatim, but reproduced photostatically in "Custer Survivor."
You can see what name Finkle used when he enlisted. "Frank Hall" was a real person but he was five-foot-seven and deserted a year before the Little Bighorn.

By: John Koster

John Koster — Fri, 13 May 2011 11:30:40 +0000

Substantially right again except for Finckle-Finkle. The general knowledge of military procedure is right on target. Good work, Joe.

By: John Koster

John Koster — Fri, 13 May 2011 11:27:41 +0000

I'd say this is an objective and worthwhile post with responsible conjectures. However, Frank told relatives both in Ohio and in Washington State that he had enlisted as August Finckle and he told the newspapers in Washington in 1921 his name was on the roster, "Finkle" is on the roster. "Hall" isn't. As Joe just told everybody — thanks, Joe — read "Custer Survivor." Read Ellison, Kuhlman, and even Boyes who was caught up on "Gus" Finkle being a Prussian — then decide/

By: John Koster

John Koster — Fri, 13 May 2011 11:21:20 +0000

Recruiting forms from the 1870s didn't show next-of-kin other than wives. Data included age, birthplace, height, hair color, and eye color — not much else. You can see an actual copy in "Custer Survivor."

By: John Koster

John Koster — Fri, 13 May 2011 11:19:29 +0000

I think maybe I'll drop out too — Ohio Relative said it all, except that sometone who is presumably a different Ohio Relative just sent me a photo of "August Finckle" in a plausibly eclectic cavalry uniform looking very Prussian — and very much like the next youngest photo I have of Frank Finkel, from 1886. Sadly enough, the photograph was not dated but the "Imperial" beard Finckle is sporting was cultivated by First Sergeant Edwin Bobo and Third Sergeant Jeremiah Finley, who had Finckle bracketed on either side — maybe it was a cult classic for C Company NCOs. The style generally dates photos to the end of the 1860s and the beginning of the 1870s — Napoleon III wasn't exactly popular in the U.S. before the French pulled out of Mexico in 1867, and by 1871 Napoleon III was passe and the U.S. switched fashion plates from France to Prussia and then Germany — you can see George Custer and Myles Keogh (and Sergeant Finley) with Prussian-style helmets in collections. The Imperial beard was not generally seen much after the Centennial. Suggestive but inprecise dating method. Anybody who can ID the huge ornamental stove in the photo gets a round of applause. I'm hoping for Bismarch, Dakota Territitory, for obvious reasons, but if it was taken in Chicago or Cincinnati, it's still Finkel and he's still in uniform..

By: John Koster

John Koster — Fri, 13 May 2011 11:04:26 +0000

Read your own remarks farther up this endless column. Sounds to me like you quoted a story at some length about having a bullet removed as taken from Ellison's book. I think dueling is illegal and besides, I'm much too busy lugging all that money to the bank. Check one box above — I said you provided an account — I didn't paraphrase the account. Readers may now read what we said and see who was correct.