|
Post by MissyS on Dec 13, 2014 9:21:40 GMT -5
Im glad to see there's been alot of discussion since I last logged on, I just wanted to add that Brushy's claims makes better sense than the alternative Billy the Kid stories you read of his life, the fact is Billy had to have been taught by someone sometime in his life, some survival knowledge and even some combat knowledge , also horsemanship, people that knew him said that Billy was a fine horseman. As a teenager left to fend for himself riding for miles in the hot desert would need to have known survival skills , I dont know how much growing up in the streets of New York played a part in his horsemanship and survival skills or even later living with a stepfather who was a miner , (to my knowledge it was never mentioned he was a rancher or farmer?) had taught him horsemanship and survival skills especially since the man didnt show much of an interest in the boys well being after the death of Billy's mother, but Brushy's real father did have a ranch, he did learn to ride and break in horses, Brushy's real father was a soldier , I believe he very well could have taught him horsemanship, talked about basic combat skills and war stories he shared with him, it makes better sense that Brushy/ Billy would take that knowledge and use it to survive later. Some can argue Billy's friend Sombrero Jack or his pals taught him these things, but I believe he grew up knowing them, Sombrero Jack or his pals could have taught him some gambling skills, and rustling cattle, the skills how to get by, but I really believe Billy knew alot from experience being raised with horses and cattle, he took that knowledge and practiced shooting and developed his shooting skills and combined with his fathers combat stories he utilized those as well during the Lincoln County War where he didnt break under pressure but was calm and with clear mind gave commands and got out of a burning house alive while being surrounded, he became a leader and commanded respect at a young age, maybe he was just smart but more likely he listened and learned from a soldier. To me Brushy's story makes more sense. I really would like to hear others thoughts on this theory. This although its just a theory combined with the photo comparison and the other facts Wayne mentions more than convinces me.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 14, 2014 13:25:06 GMT -5
Good to read your comment MissyS. You make a very good point I think. As I've said before, I feel many people base their opinions on preconceived ideas and are therefore reluctant to change them. If you grow up thinking Billy The Kid was killed by Pat Garrett in 1881 and then you come across Brushy's claims, it can be difficult to accept them, especially when you start finding the unexplained discrepancies that abound. For those who fall into that category, it is difficult to see the "big picture". Maybe your idea can help shed some light for some folks.
I absolutely agree with everything you said. I too have wondered how Billy The Kid could have learned to rope and ride and handle a pistol so well if he was raised by William Antrim. Brushy answers that by revealing he spent time with his real father on a ranch/farm.
Excellent point.
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Dec 14, 2014 20:08:08 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne, I almost wasnt going to post that theory of Billy's skills and how he learned them because I thought maybe it could be that I hadn't read enough and missed out on information explaining Billy's knowledge and skills? There are alot of gaps in his life story, and I know there must be some exaggerated stories of Billy, I know the press at times exaggerated , however there is information told by George Coe, Garrett and others that makes one wonder , such as one story I read that Billy's horse would come to him when he whistled, this makes me think Billy must have had alot of experience being around horses, nowhere have I read that his stepfather, mother and him had a farm or ranch in Silver City or in Wichita Kansas or New York, if his mother worked taking in laundry before she married and had boarded rooms for persons she certainly didn't have the time for horses and later was in poor health to, George Coe stated that when Billy stayed with him during the winter they were never without food , he ate very well because Billy was such a good hunter, maybe this could be because he was such a good shot or maybe he was an experienced hunter? if he did have experience hunting where did he learn to hunt? Did Antrim teach him to hunt in Wichita or Silver City both supposed to be booming towns at the time? maybe it's not that important but just a small thing to ponder. Most books about Billy's life puts him traveling wondering from Silver City to Arizona and back to New Mexico in search of work after he escaped from a jail as a teenager, he immediately asked for work as a ranch hand, why?, was that the only work available for a teenager to find work, or was it because that's what he knew how to do? Would a ranch boss take the time to train a teen, show him the ropes so to say and pay him too, who would at the time want to hire a young inexperienced ranch hand?, perhaps he started out working with the chuck wagon and worked his way up? but being a cook couldn't have been much of a desirable job for someone as adventurest as Billy was? If he knew ranch work prior to seeking it , he must have learned it somehow? There's alot of ifs and whys , but Brushy's life story can answer alot of them.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 15, 2014 0:50:24 GMT -5
All great points indeed. I think you're onto something here. I've always felt that logic is in Brushy's favor. This line of logic is something I never really spent enough time studying and this last post adds even more.
Thanks again for sharing these ideas.
|
|
|
Post by drew2888 on Dec 18, 2014 19:00:33 GMT -5
Hey Wayne,
Thanks so much for your time and information. I agree you can not argue with the evidence that he was BTK especially since the only scientific evidence that we have is the photo comparison done by professionals using high end equipment who also had no investing interest in the matter and clearly the other photo comparison which said he was not BTK was not at all professionally done by people who had investing interest in Brushy not being Billy. I have read several times that Brushy had all the scars that BTK had but was that ever proven? Were there ever pictures taken of Brushy that can prove what scars he had? Did anyone other then Morrison identify them and if so is there evidence of such?
I have so many questions I can ask but I am afraid I will be disappointed in that there are probably not conclusive answers. With the physical similarities, the photo comparison, the personal identifications, and his knowledge (although called into questions), as well as a few other valid pieces of evidence I think one can only logically conclude that the evidence swings towards him being BTK although I can see where it is not yet conclusive enough to rewrite history.
As far as his knowledge I am not sure what exactly can be proven that he knew as the types have never been made public. I am curious to know what exactly he knew that no one could not have at the time he supposedly said it and can it be proven that he was not fed this information?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Dec 19, 2014 17:30:11 GMT -5
Drew,
I'm not sure if I still have it but I'll have to search when I get home from the holidays (out of town right now). But there was an article that included an interview with the funeral home where Brushy's body was prepared and there was confirmation that he had numerous scars, but not any specifics about where they were. If I can find the article I'll post it here. Other than that, I can offer some personal verification. In 2006 I was visiting Hico and spoke to the owner of the drug store that originally belonged to his father. The fellow I spoke to was a small child when Brushy was alive but he remembered seeing Brushy in the store and remembered his father telling him that he once saw Brushy's scars and saw him demonstrate the ability to escape handcuffs.
As for the tapes, it is my understanding they still exist but are crumbling and unplayable at this point. The owner has stated his intention to have them restored but I doubt it's really possible now. Other than the tapes themselves, we have the word of several historians who have heard the tapes that the interviews were done live and any feeding of information to Brushy would have been pretty much impossible.
|
|
|
Post by drew2888 on Dec 20, 2014 15:38:49 GMT -5
That is certainly disappointing if they can not be salvaged. I have so much that seems to prove that BTK did not die that day and that Brushy was Billy however I did have not read nearly as much to the contrary and what I have read which at times made me thing Brushy was lying was easily contradicted such as the census, the draft card, and the photo comparison. When I first watched a documentary which they said that Brushy and Billy were absolutely two different people based on a photo comparison I lost interest for a long time.
With the evidence clearly leaning towards the fact that Brushy was Billy why are people so reluctant to not believe it? What hard evidence do people feel there is that Brushy was not Billy and that Billy actually died that night in 1881? Do so many people just have trouble believing things simply are not what they seem? I for one can not believe people really Lee Harvey Oswald actually shot JFK and that the world trade centers collapsed because of the heat from the fire that the planes caused. Is the simple truth that people are just ignorant and so easily swayed by what people in power want them to believe?
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Jun 15, 2016 17:08:16 GMT -5
the thing is , you can't go find the real Ollie because he died somewhere out traveling around. you can't compare DNA to Catherine Bonney because he already said that wasn't his mom. Nobody knows where his father or mother is buried. I'm not sure that if he was an impostor he could have planned something so perfect like this so as to where no one can prove him wrong. I think it was him. Frederick Nolan gives three scenarios in his famous book of how the jail break might have happened and admits none of them make sense. If you read his scenarios and why they can't work and then read Brushy's version, Brushy's is the only one where all the puzzle pieces fit right.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Jul 20, 2016 13:45:23 GMT -5
McKinley, "the thing is , you can't go find the real Ollie because he died somewhere out traveling around. "
Why do you believe that Ollie was traveling around? Is there any evidence that Brushy Bill had a cousin named Ollie? All I've read is Morrison's account of the discovery of Ollie's body, and that was not evidence, just the word of Brushy Bill.
Brushy Bill said he later returned Ollie's belongings to Ollie's parents, Henry Oliver Roberts and Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson, in Sulpher Springs. They were the parents of Oliver P. Roberts, the name that Brushy Bill used when he married Mollie Brown and later registered for the WWI draft.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Jul 20, 2016 17:55:21 GMT -5
TTT, What I'm saying is- it sure would have been nice for Brushy Debunkers if Brushy would have said, "Cousin Ollie died of natural causes, and we buried him on the farm." Then Debunkers could try to find the tombstone and then not find it and then they could say, "Surely we would have been able to find this other Ollie's tombstone if Brushy had been telling the truth." And then Brushy would look like a liar. If Brushy was a liar would he have really thought all of this out so well as to make up a story where the cousin ended up in an unmarked grave so nobody could prove that Brushy was actually born Ollie? -Doubtful- Or would Billy the Kid be so smart as to take a man's identity who was buried in a unmarked grave so that no one could prove he was really Billy and hang him? Probably. I would say there is evidence that Brushy had a cousin named Oliver since there is a record of his grandfather Ben Roberts living where he said he would be in Nagodoches, TX. etc.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Jul 20, 2016 22:22:14 GMT -5
McKinley, All Brushy told Morrison was that he had a cousin Ollie that was killed in the Oklahoma Territory, and that he carried Ollie's belongings to his parents. Brushy also identified Martha Heath, wife of Dudley Heath, as his cousin. Jameson went further and identified Henry Oliver Roberts as Brushy's brother and father of his cousin, Martha Roberts Heath. Census records confirm that Henry Oliver Roberts and his first wife, Caroline Dunn, were the parents of Martha Vada Roberts. She married Dudley Heath.
Henry Oliver Roberts had only 2 brothers. Virgil Alexander Roberts (25 March 1847 - 1 March 1928), buried in Loraine Cemetery, Loraine, Mitchell County, TX Andrew Berry Roberts (17 October 1854 - 24 August 1910), buried in Bolivar Cemetery, Bolivar, Denton County, TX
Henry Oliver Roberts had 3 sons. Andrew Berry Roberts (9 February 1877 - 12 May 1923), buried in Shooks Chapel Cemetery, Sulpher Springs, Hopkins County, TX Thomas U. Roberts (3 October 1885 - 16 June 1958), buried in Canton Cemetery, Canton, Van Zandt County, TX Joseph Irvin Roberts (26 February 1895 - 6 August 1950), buried in Oak Grove Memorial Garden, Irving, Dallas County, TX
Cousin Ollie Roberts seems to be missing.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Jul 20, 2016 23:39:50 GMT -5
I just go by what Morrison and Sonnichsen say Brushy said and documents I can read myself. Nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Oct 6, 2016 23:49:12 GMT -5
"the thing is , you can't go find the real Ollie because he died somewhere out traveling around. "
"I just go by what Morrison and Sonnichsen say Brushy said and documents I can read myself. Nothing else."
Although Brushy claimed he had a cousin Ollie, have you found any evidence other than Brushy's word that he had a cousin named Ollie?
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Oct 7, 2016 11:39:32 GMT -5
Yes. If you look at his face, he just doesn't look like an Oliver. And I'm very good at guessing people's names.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Jul 25, 2022 9:05:16 GMT -5
Over on another thread, I've been exchanging comments with our very knowledgeable board member "nmjames" regarding the lineage of Brushy Bill. I've decided to try and move the conversation over to this category of "Revelations and Contradictions" and try and solicit opinions from additional board members. Here's what I believe is the most thought provoking dilemma regarding Brushy's story. If his alleged natural mother, Mary Adeline Dunn and father, John (or James) H Roberts were fictitious characters as it appears they likely were, then why make them up in the first place? Why did Brushy not tell the truth about his parentage? And if they were real, then how is it they have so many similarities with other Roberts family members that can't possibly be his parents? Was there really a brother to Henry Oliver Roberts named John or James who was married to the half sister of Catherine Bonney? It doesn't appear there was. In fact I'm becoming more inclined to believe that Brushy fabricated these individuals by combining names and stories of other relatives of the Roberts family. If he really was Billy The Kid then why would he do that? On the other hand, if he wasn't really Billy The Kid, then why wouldn't he just stick with the accepted lineage? There's no reason he needed to inject all those made up family members. It only serves to make his story more questionable. It just doesn't make sense in my opinion. But, I strongly believe he "was" Billy The Kid. I'm willing to concede he was not if I see enough evidence to the contrary, but the contrary evidence has not yet risen to that level in my opinion. Make no mistake here, I'm still a "believer" in Brushy's claim. But my reaction when confronted with such evidence is to try and resolve in my own mind, what possible explanation or explanations there may be. So I have to admit I'm struggling with these questions about who his real parents and grandparents were. The problem with "possible explanations" is that they sometimes have little or no evidence to support them. These I'm going to throw out here definitely fall in the "no evidence" column but I'm going to share them anyway. Ready or not, here goes! Theory 1: Brushy truly was the natural born son of Catherine Bonney but by the 1890's, he was growing tired of being on the run, constantly worried someone would discover him. He came across the dead O. L. Roberts, retrieved his belongings as he claimed, and went to Texas with idea of impersonating this fellow and taking on his identity. Elizabeth Roberts was a bit looney at the time and believed he was her lost son. The rest of the family humored her. By 1948 when he met William Morrison, he had become accepted as the real Oliver Roberts and had a life there as a member of that family which he did not want to completely abandon. So he made up the story of how he "really was" a Roberts who had become Billy The Kid and at long last had returned to his family in Texas. He wanted to be remembered as being born a Roberts. Theory 2: Brushy was not the natural born son of Catherine Bonney and possibly not related to her at all, but she knew his real mother and took him in as her son at a very young age when the mother died. Over the next 10 years or so, Catherine shared this with him and told him his real mother was a Roberts. When he decided to take on the alias of Oliver Roberts and eventually met William Morrison, he tried to fill in the blanks using existing family names. He knew the details he gave were made up or at the best, guess work, but he thought his true identity of Billy The Kid would be more easily believed if he provided such details. And again, he didn't want to be remembered as just "Billy The Kid". He wanted to be remembered as a Roberts. What is your theory? Please feel free to speculate. Sometimes the truth really is stranger than fiction. I'm just sayin'.
|
|