Direct Deposit Authorization Form Montana: Fill & Download for Free

Do you want the Hollywood version of an arrogant, renegade General atop a hill in southeast Montana with pistol in one hand and saber in the other that set out to annihilate Native Americans, or . . .BackgroundTensions between the United States and the Lakota escalated in 1874, when Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer was ordered by President Ulysses S. Grant to make an exploration of the Black Hills inside the boundary of the Great Sioux Reservation as esblished by the 1868 signing of the Treaty of Fort Laramie. Most Lakota leaders agreed to sign the treaty except for Tatanka-Iyotanka (Sitting Bull) of the Hunkpapa Lakota Sioux; and Tashunka Witco (Crazy Horse) of the Oglala Band of the Lakota Sioux.Custer’s orders were clear — map the area, locate a suitable site for a future military post, and to make note of the natural resources. Along on his expedition were professional geologists who discovered large deposits of gold and journalists to document day-to-day events. Word of the discovery quickly spread east from the accompanying journalists, in turn causing miners and entrepreneurs to invade the Black Hills in direct violation of the treaty of 1868. Altough the United States attempted negotiations with the Lakota Sioux to purchase the Black Hills, the offered price was rejected. The climax came in the winter of 1875, when the Commissioner of Indian Affairs [issued an ultimatum] requiring all Sioux and Cheyenne to report to the reservation by January 31, 1876 or be declared “Hostile”. The deadline came and went with no response from the Indians, and matters were turned over to the military.What actually occured from March - June 26th, 1876General Philip Sheridan, commander of the Military Division of the Missouri, was tasked with this endeavor. He formulated a strategy that committed several thousand troops to find and to engage the Lakota and Cheyenne, who were now considered "hostile," with the goal of forcing their return to the Great Sioux Reservation. General Sheridan’s campaign was set into motion in March of 1876, when he dispatched:Colonel John Gibbon who departed from Fort Ellis near Bozeman, Montana with a 450-man force of combined cavalry and infantry.General Alfred Terry left from Fort Abraham Lincoln in Bismarck (Dakota Territory) with 879 men. The vast majority of this force was the 7th Cavalry, commanded by Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer, Terry's subordinate.General George Crook set out from Fort Fetterman in central Wyoming Territory with around 1,000 cavalry and infantry later in May.General Sheridan believed that any one of these three forces would be able to deal with the 800-1,500 warriors they would likely encounter, apparently unaware that the nomadic lifestyle of the Lakota and Cheyenne people meant they were constantly on the move. No officer or scout could be certain how long a village might remain stationary, or which direction the tribe might choose to go in search of food, water, and grazing areas for their horses.Tribes came together for a variety of reasons. The area containing the Powder, Rosebud, Bighorn, and Yellowstone rivers was a productive hunting ground. Tribes regularly gathered in extremely large numbers during early summer to celebrate their annual sun dance ceremony. This ceremony had occurred about two weeks earlier. This meant that there were approximately, by today’s estimations, 8,000 tribes people with an experienced warrior force of at least 1,500-1,800 men.June 22, 1876 — General Terry [ordered] Custer and his 7th Cavalry to make a wide flanking manuever and approach the Indians from the east and south. Custer was to act as the hammer, and prevent the Lakota and their Cheyenne allies from slipping away and scattering, a common fear expressed by both Grant’s government and military authorities.General Terry and Colonel Gibbon, with infantry and cavalry, would later approach from the north to act as a blocking force or “anvil” in support of Custer's far ranging movements toward the headwaters of the Tongue and Little Bighorn Rivers. The Indians, who were thought to be camped somewhere along the Little Bighorn River, "would be so completely enclosed as to make their escape virtually impossible," General Terry thought.June 24, 1876 — Custer established a night camp twenty-five miles east of the, unbeknownst to him, large Lakota and Cheyenne encampment and dispatched his Crow and Arikara scouts to gather actionable intelligence. Upon their return, the scouts reported that the trail indicated the village turned west toward the Little Bighorn River and was encamped close by. Custer ordered a night march that followed the same route that the village took as it crossed to the Little Bighorn River valley.June 25, 1876 — Custer’s night march now placed his 7th Cavalry only 12-miles from the encampment, in the Wolf Mountains. His initial plan was to conceal his regiment in the Wolf Mountains through the day, which would allow his Crow and Arikara scouts time to locate the Indian village. Then he planned to make another night march, and launch an attack at dawn on June 26, 1876; however, the scouts reported back that the regiment's presence had been detected by either Lakota or Cheyenne warriors. Knowing the element of surprise was lost, he feared the inhabitants would attack or scatter into the rugged landscape, causing the failure of the Army's campaign. Custer ordered an immediate advance to engage the village and its warrior force.At Wolf Mountain, Custer divided his regiment into segments:The pack train with ammunition and supplies, three companies (125 men) commanded by Captain Frederick Benteen,Three companies (140 men) commanded by Major Marcus Reno; andFive companies (210 men) commanded by Custer, himself.Captain Benteen was to march southwest with the objective of locating any “hostiles”, "pitch into anything" he found, and send word back to Custer. Custer and Reno's advance parties placed them in close proximity to the village, but still out of view. When it was reported that the village was scattering, Custer ordered Reno to lead his 140 man battalion, plus the Arikara scouts, and to "pitch into what was ahead" with the assurance that he would "be supported by the whole outfit".Major Reno crossed the river about two miles south of the village, which was in a broad river valley bottom, just west of the Little Bighorn River, and began advancing downstream. The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors quickly rushed to fend off Reno's assault, after their initial surprise. What happended next to Reno’s troops has been likened to the pursuit of a buffalo hunt, as the warriors rode down the retreating soldiers, shooting them at close range from horseback. Reno's now demoralized survivors recrossed the Little Bighorn River and struggled up steep bluffs to regroup atop high ground to the east of the valley fight. They were now 5-miles away from Custer’s position.Captain Benteen returns after finding no evidence of Indians or their movement to the south. He arrives on the bluffs in time to meet what is left of Reno's troops. About 40 to 50 men of the original 210 were surrounded and killed on the hill by hundreds of Lakota and Cheyenne warriors.The Lakota and Cheyenne warriors, after forcing Major Reno to retreat and dig in, now began to converge on Custer's unit as it forged north along what today is called Custer or Battle Ridge. It isn’t known exactly what transpired there — but accounts from Lakota and Cheyenne warrior survivors say nearly the same thing:“We rained arrows by the thousands up onto the hill around soldiers who hid behind their dead horses until the gunfire stopped.”The naked, mutilated bodies were discovered the next day, June 26, 1876, on both battlefields, by General Terry’s men.Below is the ONLY survivor on the Custer Battlefield that day — Comanche. The horse survived it injuries and was retired under orders to “never be ridden again.”Down river at the Reno-Benteen battlefied, after an intense day and night of battle, 350 soldiers survived only because General Terry and his troops finally showed up.If I were to guess what the major reason was for his loss that day — understimating the task at hand. Not realizing just how large the village was because he was 5-miles away from it, not to mention he was unaware of what was happening down at Reno/Benteen’s position, and the lack of timely support from General Terry.

Let’s do this as a puzzle, with the important piece of knowing that the Capitol is in the Rockies:North of the Capitol, may border 4 and 5. Also, District 1 is roughly in the vicinity of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. This makes sense, as these states- especially Montana- are known sources of gemstones, which fits in with the district's industry of luxury items.South/Southeast of the Capitol, probably east of 5Northwest of 12 and west of 13Roughly in the area of California and OregonSouthwest of Capitol, probably borders 1, 2, and 4. It can be implied that District 5 would have to be located in western Panem around the Rocky Mountains as it would need to power the Capitol. This can also be supported by how District 12, which lies in the Appalachian Mountains in eastern Panem, doesn’t have enough electricity to light their homes or the electric fence which surrounds them.Directly under Lake Michigan, District 6 would be situated directly north of District 3, west of 13Upper North and near 4, probably in Canada. 7 is located directly northeast of 4, on the northwestern coast of Panem.South of Lake Ontario, 8 is guessed to be around deep South. May be above 11 and east of 2Near the Great Lakes and could be east of the Capitol and 1In the Southern area of Northern America, Southwest of 11According to the author, District 11 is near Atlanta, and is below 8.In the area of the Appalachian Mountains, around the areas of North and South Carolinain the Northeast region north of 12. It is stated that District 13 is in the Northeast region, the only major deposit of graphite in North America is near Lake Huron in Canada. (Yes, this is important, as they mined graphite)Partial Map you need to use to get a better picture.Another partial image with more detail, 2 is the one blocked by the Capitol thing.

Mary Schweitzer, who first discovered the preserved tissue in 2005, published (with two co-authors) another article the next year in which they applied the same techniques to various bones and fossil-bones ranging in age from immediately post-mortem to the Triassic (about 210 Mya). http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1607/183.full.pdfThey found intact collagen in the bone matrix of bones 1,000 years old and younger, such that digestion with collagenase was necessary, in addition to demineralization (discussed below) to liberate the blood vessels and cells. In bones between 1,000 and about 300,000 years old, the collagen matrix was degraded but present. In bones 2 to 14 mya, the matrix was described as “creamy” (which I assume means it had lost most or all of its fibrous structure). In bones from the mesozoic (dinosaur era), the preservation was variable but flexible vessels, osteocytes (bone cells), and some remainders of the collagen matrix were sometimes recovered. Generally vessels and osteocytes were better preserved than bone matrix. The fossil bone from the Triassic yielded no soft tissue.The authors proposed method of preservation (and to my knowledge this has been generally accepted) was as follows:The vessels and the cells in fossil material might have avoided initial degradative reactions owing to sequestration within bone matrices and protective association with minerals (Glimcher et al. 1990; Sykes et al. 1995; Trueman & Martill 2002; Schmidt-Schultz & Schultz 2004; Salamon et al. 2005). Additionally, breakdown of haemoglobin and myoglobin after death may have contributed to this initial preservation, as free haem has been shown to inhibit enzymatic degradation (Francis et al. 1997) and cellular autolysis (Ferris et al. 1988; Lee & Fein 2000; Wightman & Fein 2005 and references therein). …Free radicals, owing to their unstable electron state, will react rapidly with organic molecules to form peroxides, which trigger chain reactions that form durable, usually irreversible cross-linkages (Schafer et al. 2000). The hypothesis presented here is that these chain reactions are triggered by post-mortem degradation of haemoglobin and myoglobin. The iron bound to haem chromophores in these molecules exists in the reduced (ferrous, Fe2C) state, but after protein degradation, the haem is oxidized to the ferric (Fe3C) state (Francis et al. 1997). The electrons liberated by oxidation react with molecular oxygen to produce reactive oxygen species and highly reactive free radicals (superoxides, hydroxyl radicals and/or hydrogen peroxides). Free iron, also released by degradation of ATP, ADP and cystosolic citrate, participates in these reactions to form iron–oxygen complexes (Schafer et al. 2000; Mladenka et al. 2006). The oxygen radicals or iron–oxygen complexes contribute directly to the formation of cross-links between cell membrane lipids, making them inert to other degradative reactions. This chain reaction may not only explain the persistence of osteocyte cell membranes over time, but also blood vessels which, in living organisms, consist of endothelial cells with fatty acid-rich membranes are bound to one another by tight junctions.Iron-triggered cross-linking of organic components, however, is not sufficient to explain the persistence of soft tissues across geological time. It is proposed herein that the second step in this process is mineralization of tissue and cell surfaces through phosphatization in a process similar to bone formation.In order to preserve very labile soft tissues in fossils, one criterion is the early, rapid authigenic mineralization (Briggs 2003) via phosphatization, which can occur virtually immediately after death in appropriate environments (Briggs & Kear 1993; Martill 1994), thus preserving cells and subcellular detail faster than they decay (Martill 1990, 1994; Wilby & Whyte 1995; Butterfield 2003). Mineralization occurs through early infiltration and permeation of labile tissues by mineralcharged water (Schopf 1975; Allison 1988; Briggs 2003) and differs from petrification, which is a replacement process (Briggs 2003). Mineralization has been invoked to explain preservation of three-dimensional remains of non-biomineralizing organisms dating to the Neoproterozoic (Hubert et al. 2005), Cretaceous muscle fibres (Martill 1990, 1994) and other soft tissue remains. The degree of soft tissue preservation is dependent upon mineral deposition outpacing the rate of decay of the tissues (Allison 1988). …The fidelity and detail preserved by phosphatization is influenced by the size of apatite crystals depositing on the organic substrate (tissues or cells), with crystals less than 30 nm providing the best and most detailed preservation (Martill 1990; Wilby 1993). Much of the mineral incorporated into bone consists of similarly microcrystalline HA, which is removed early in bone diagenesis (Weiner et al. 1993; Lee-Thorp 2002) and available for re-precipitation onto vessel and cell surfaces.In a process similar to template-directed assembly (Weiner et al. 1999; Mann et al. 2000), deposition of mineral crystals on normally flexible collagen molecules during biomineralization imparts rigidity and strength to the matrix, but when the minerals are subsequently removed, the matrix again becomes flexible—a model for the process we propose. [Emphasis added.]So in short, the processes at work included breakdown of hemoglobin and myoglobin, and the replacement of cell surfaces with apatite. Neither of those would be conducive to preserving a brain, and in fact the soft tissue preservation in the fossils was primarily of blood vessels and some blood and bone cells.Finally, you may be under the impression that they sawed open a Tyrannosaur femur and found soft bone marrow. That didn’t happen.They sawed open a Tyrannosaur femur and found a hard, dry calcareous matrix that they soaked in a demineralizing solution (EDTA) for a couple weeks. When the surrounding minerals had been removed, THEN they found soft tissue remains.Edit: Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Mary Schweitzer a few years ago.One day, shortly after I finished that program, I saw that paleontologist Jack Horner — everyone knew him in Montana — was teaching a class on campus at Montana State. I went to class that first day of the semester and after his introductory lecture, I walked up and said, "Hi, Jack. I am a young earth creationist, and I'm going to convince you you're wrong about evolution. Can I sit in on your class?"He said, "I'm Jack. I'm an atheist. Have a seat."And instead of calling me out or making fun of my beliefs, he showed me data. No one had ever shown me data before. Often in the Christian community people aren’t talking about scientific data. Instead, Christians may hear about scientists: "They're evil. They don't believe in God. They're atheists.” But many Christians haven’t heard how much data supports an ancient earth and evolution. Nobody’s told them.Jack never tried to change my mind about anything. He just said, "Here's the data." And about halfway through that first semester, I began to see that my young earth views could not be supported in light of all the data. I knew God and was not willing to turn away from him. And I began to see that the two weren’t mutually exclusive as I had been taught.https://thewell.intervarsity.org/voices/unlikely-paleontologist-interview-mary-schweitzer-part-1 (emphasis added).