[Monterrosa-24]

Archaeologists disagree constantly over evidence. Eye witness accounts are far superior. Even video is subject to different interpretations...Rodney King....Michael Moore. The History Channel does not dispel myths but creates new ones. By digging in the dirt, one searches for clues to be applied to a whole picture not for a complete narative account of a battle. There is not much good history on the History Channel. I'll stick with Chief Low Dog's account of the battle over some "new" evidence which is subject to many challenges. Many Indian accounts are not quoted in full anymore because they admired their enemy Custer.

[Badeye]

"Archaeologists disagree constantly over evidence. Eye witness accounts are far superior."

Sorry, eye witness testimony is simply the most suspect of all in court. Its been shown countless times.

And you are not citing "eyewitness testimony" when relating accounts from the various Tribes involved, you are citing by definition fourth to seventh party "hearsay".

The fact you believe eyewitness testimony is "superior" to forensic science tells me you don't really understand the inherent postives nor the negatives associated with either.