WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 21, 2023 20:55:39 GMT -5
Yes, I strongly suspect "WhisperingBillyBarlow" is a former member of the board who was banned. I suspect that because of the use of the exact same salutation at the end of posts. But if that is the case, he/she is behaving more acceptably under this new screen name and I don't believe in holding grudges. So I'm watching/monitoring. Correct Wayne. I always viewed this place as a kind of research center where we could all work together finding articles, plat maps, censuses, etc to construct cases one way or another. I suppose years ago me and another poster might've taken things too far by posting so much material, commenting on posts unrelated to our own studies or ideas, etc that it kind of overtook the forum. My view was since it involved exclusively the genealogy of Brushy Bill Roberts, it was not deviating from Brushy or the focus of the forum, but I can say that I can see where it potentially sucked up all the oxygen in the room. It's nice to see so many are still around on the forum. So many good collaborators. Anyways, yes it is RUFUS from years ago. And I don't hold no grudges either. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Oct 22, 2023 17:42:37 GMT -5
Why did Brushy say he was Billy the kid? Ocham's razor, the most simple explanation is usually correct. Brushy told his story simply because he was in fact Billy. We know Billy the kid was a notorious liar and so was Pat Garrett, yes. The same is true for lots of others too, historians and writers, gunfighters and census takers alike, many of them made mistakes telling their stories or even fabricated outright lies. A person telling a lie once or twice doesn't mean they lied all the time, no. Garrett told the truth sometimes and so did Billy. The big difference between them two being Pat got shot in the back without ever coming out clean with the truth, courtesy of Jim Miller. Billy at least got around to try and get the truth out but sadly ended up being mocked by Garrett's boys and governor Mabry. And then later he got mocked again, over and over by the neohistorians.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 22, 2023 21:38:18 GMT -5
I very much agree. It is so vitally important when anyone attempts to investigate the history of such things that one recognizes this fact. The fact that one or more lies from an individual does not mean that person never tells the truth. I can easily understand several scenarios in which Billy The Kid as an old man might not tell the truth about a great many things. But that of course doesn't mean he never told the truth about anything. That said, I also believe it is possible that some of things Brushy said that seem so unlikely to be true might one day be proven true. Maybe one day we'll know the true facts about all of it. I think when that day comes, we'll all accept that Brushy was indeed the one and only "Billy The Kid" of Lincoln County War fame.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 23, 2023 18:20:34 GMT -5
Why did Brushy say he was Billy the kid? Ocham's razor, the most simple explanation is usually correct. Brushy told his story simply because he was in fact Billy. We know Billy the kid was a notorious liar and so was Pat Garrett, yes. The same is true for lots of others too, historians and writers, gunfighters and census takers alike, many of them made mistakes telling their stories or even fabricated outright lies. A person telling a lie once or twice doesn't mean they lied all the time, no. Garrett told the truth sometimes and so did Billy. The big difference between them two being Pat got shot in the back without ever coming out clean with the truth, courtesy of Jim Miller. Billy at least got around to try and get the truth out but sadly ended up being mocked by Garrett's boys and governor Mabry. And then later he got mocked again, over and over by the neohistorians. Concerning Ocham's Razor... "Other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones," sounds fine but from a scientific point of view it's like sticking to Newtonian physics and discarding Einstein altogether because Newton's explanation is simpler. When it comes to Brushy Bill Roberts: 1) He was Billy the Kid 2) He was O.L., O.P., O.K. Roberts 3) He made it all up for fame/gain 4) He was prone to flights of fancy 5) He told partial truths and partial lies 6) He was The Kid but told mostly lies 7) He wasn't The Kid but told some truths These scenarios can also be grouped together (ie, 1 and 5 and 6 or 2 and 4 and 7) and one can ask what's the simpler explanation or the explanation easiest to believe or the one with the most reasonable doubt? I think life (people) is more complex than the "black or white" principle. He very well could've been telling the truth about his identity but still was a pathological liar, and he also could've been lying about his identity but was still telling truths about himself. To be willing to be open-minded about Roberts to begin with, one would have to believe that Billy The Kid survived/escaped. Personally, I think there is enough reasonable doubt that SOMETHING happened outside the official narrative. But that doesn't necessarily mean Billy The Kid survived, but instead maybe multiple people were killed that night and that was hushed up because the methods used in getting The Kid were not kosher or proper. I'm reminded of the Anglin brothers who escaped Alcatraz. The FBI called it case closed, never finding a trail anywhere, and assumed they drowned in the San Francisco Bay only to find a picture that was mailed to their family of them much older, bigger hair, etc. The FBI would've never known if it wasn't for the family turning the picture in to authorities. In the case of Billy The Kid, does he fit the profile of someone who could've kept his mouth shut and stayed hidden? No. His whole life story points towards a man who couldn't stay away, couldn't stop talking, etc. Are we to believe he suddenly would change his persona, etc after one fateful night and wait 50+ years to tell his story to someone? Brushy Bill Roberts always gave the impression to Morrison that he was quiet, scared for his life, etc so he never said anything. But from newspaper articles going back into the 20s, we can see Roberts was no such person. He was always talking up being an Indian fighter, rodeo champion, etc. He was an attention seeker. If he really was Billy The Kid, he sure didn't keep himself hidden. He was out in the open and well known from Gladewater to Sulphur Springs to Nacogdoches, etc. A man on the run wouldn't do that, or would he? What's simpler, according to Ocham's Razor? Do you see what I mean? The razor doesn't quite apply with people. Or with most real world implications. People are hardly simple. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by DanJohno on Oct 23, 2023 20:13:20 GMT -5
"I don't blame you for writing of me as you have, You had to believe other stories. But then I don't know if anyone would believe anything good of me anyway".
Clear evidence that nobody was prepared to believe a word he said during his heyday as a young outlaw. So why would anyone accept the words of an old man who was already "dead"?. I never wanted Brushy to be Billy because I preferred the live fast die young story of Billy the kid but I was prepared to listen to his story. I'm prepared to not judge his character in full because of little mundane things he got wrong. People love to constantly recycle genealogy and census records but go fully quiet when Daniel Edwards' new photo is a clear match to Billy and Brushy.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 23, 2023 20:39:29 GMT -5
"I don't blame you for writing of me as you have, You had to believe other stories. But then I don't know if anyone would believe anything good of me anyway". Clear evidence that nobody was prepared to believe a word he said during his heyday as a young outlaw. So why would anyone accept the words of an old man who was already "dead"?. I never wanted Brushy to be Billy because I preferred the live fast die young story of Billy the kid but I was prepared to listen to his story. I'm prepared to not judge his character in full because of little mundane things he got wrong. People love to constantly recycle genealogy and census records but go fully quiet when Daniel Edwards' new photo is a clear match to Billy and Brushy. youtu.be/VCoXyuC8LEY?si=iur5IQXA6LlCx1KEThis picture right? Admittedly, I haven't quite looked at it thoroughly. Mr Edwards and myself had words ages ago, and I haven't joined any groups of his to see anything he might've posted, etc. We don't know where the picture was found. We don't know when the picture was taken. The photo far as I know of has YET to be confirmed to be an actual picture of Billy The Kid like the croquet picture a few years ago was confirmed. Etc. But let's suppose that the picture really was Billy The Kid. How does that mean it was Brushy Bill Roberts also? Because Brushy allegedly owned it? I might have a picture of Abraham Lincoln but that doesn't make me Lincoln. Brushy seems to (at the very least) of been a diehard fan of The Kid. Could it be possible that he acquired the photograph somewhere? Running into people who knew The Kid perhaps? Of course it's possible. It could also be possible that Roberts, as I have suggested in years prior, that he was somehow related to The Kid and could've gotten the photo from extended family members. Or, perhaps... and Wayne can confirm this because I had him do photo overlays of the tintype of The Kid against Henry Roberts... that the picture isn't The Kid but Henry, because Henry Roberts also scored shockingly high in appearance to The Kid. I've always suspected that when Brushy showed older pictures allegedly of himself it was really of his father Henry. Henry, of course, fits into the actual timeline of The Kid. Perhaps Henry might've been The Kid. But then again, if they all are related to each other it's possible that they all would look similar to each other. If I'm not mistaken on the Dunn line somewhere there was a Catherine Dunn married to a man named Henry McCarty. Perhaps, just perhaps, that is The Kid's mother. Anyways, until the new photo is cross examined by multiple teams (pro, neutral, and anti) to positively prove it is of The Kid it is just a big question mark. Furthermore, I would challenge Mr Edwards that if he's truly willing to chase after every single story, etc then he should chase down the grandchildren of Anna Lee and see if there is any contradictory evidence to Brushy's claim because he never claimed her as his wife though the census records would appear to show she was. If any picture exists of her with O.P. Roberts, and it wasn't Brushy Bill Roberts then we could lend credibility to his story. If there exists any letters, memories, etc where she remarked, "I was married to that man and hes no more Billy The Kid than I am Annie Oakley," then we would know that it was a lie. That's my one critique of Mr Edwards, anything else than the elephant in the room. It doesn't matter how many rabbit holes someone is willing to go down if she is reliable. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by DanJohno on Oct 23, 2023 21:11:48 GMT -5
"I don't blame you for writing of me as you have, You had to believe other stories. But then I don't know if anyone would believe anything good of me anyway". Clear evidence that nobody was prepared to believe a word he said during his heyday as a young outlaw. So why would anyone accept the words of an old man who was already "dead"?. I never wanted Brushy to be Billy because I preferred the live fast die young story of Billy the kid but I was prepared to listen to his story. I'm prepared to not judge his character in full because of little mundane things he got wrong. People love to constantly recycle genealogy and census records but go fully quiet when Daniel Edwards' new photo is a clear match to Billy and Brushy. youtu.be/VCoXyuC8LEY?si=iur5IQXA6LlCx1KEThis picture right? Admittedly, I haven't quite looked at it thoroughly. Mr Edwards and myself had words ages ago, and I haven't joined any groups of his to see anything he might've posted, etc. We don't know where the picture was found. We don't know when the picture was taken. The photo far as I know of has YET to be confirmed to be an actual picture of Billy The Kid like the croquet picture a few years ago was confirmed. Etc. But let's suppose that the picture really was Billy The Kid. How does that mean it was Brushy Bill Roberts also? Because Brushy allegedly owned it? I might have a picture of Abraham Lincoln but that doesn't make me Lincoln. Brushy seems to (at the very least) of been a diehard fan of The Kid. Could it be possible that he acquired the photograph somewhere? Running into people who knew The Kid perhaps? Of course it's possible. It could also be possible that Roberts, as I have suggested in years prior, that he was somehow related to The Kid and could've gotten the photo from extended family members. Or, perhaps... and Wayne can confirm this because I had him do photo overlays of the tintype of The Kid against Henry Roberts... that the picture isn't The Kid but Henry, because Henry Roberts also scored shockingly high in appearance to The Kid. I've always suspected that when Brushy showed older pictures allegedly of himself it was really of his father Henry. Henry, of course, fits into the actual timeline of The Kid. Perhaps Henry might've been The Kid. But then again, if they all are related to each other it's possible that they all would look similar to each other. If I'm not mistaken on the Dunn line somewhere there was a Catherine Dunn married to a man named Henry McCarty. Perhaps, just perhaps, that is The Kid's mother. Anyways, until the new photo is cross examined by multiple teams (pro, neutral, and anti) to positively prove it is of The Kid it is just a big question mark. Furthermore, I would challenge Mr Edwards that if he's truly willing to chase after every single story, etc then he should chase down the grandchildren of Anna Lee and see if there is any contradictory evidence to Brushy's claim because he never claimed her as his wife though the census records would appear to show she was. If any picture exists of her with O.P. Roberts, and it wasn't Brushy Bill Roberts then we could lend credibility to his story. If there exists any letters, memories, etc where she remarked, "I was married to that man and hes no more Billy The Kid than I am Annie Oakley," then we would know that it was a lie. That's my one critique of Mr Edwards, anything else than the elephant in the room. It doesn't matter how many rabbit holes someone is willing to go down if she is reliable. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all Yes that's the photo. If you watch the video everything is explained. It was matched with all the supplied photos of Brushy and the Billy tintype.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 23, 2023 21:21:11 GMT -5
youtu.be/VCoXyuC8LEY?si=iur5IQXA6LlCx1KEThis picture right? Admittedly, I haven't quite looked at it thoroughly. Mr Edwards and myself had words ages ago, and I haven't joined any groups of his to see anything he might've posted, etc. We don't know where the picture was found. We don't know when the picture was taken. The photo far as I know of has YET to be confirmed to be an actual picture of Billy The Kid like the croquet picture a few years ago was confirmed. Etc. But let's suppose that the picture really was Billy The Kid. How does that mean it was Brushy Bill Roberts also? Because Brushy allegedly owned it? I might have a picture of Abraham Lincoln but that doesn't make me Lincoln. Brushy seems to (at the very least) of been a diehard fan of The Kid. Could it be possible that he acquired the photograph somewhere? Running into people who knew The Kid perhaps? Of course it's possible. It could also be possible that Roberts, as I have suggested in years prior, that he was somehow related to The Kid and could've gotten the photo from extended family members. Or, perhaps... and Wayne can confirm this because I had him do photo overlays of the tintype of The Kid against Henry Roberts... that the picture isn't The Kid but Henry, because Henry Roberts also scored shockingly high in appearance to The Kid. I've always suspected that when Brushy showed older pictures allegedly of himself it was really of his father Henry. Henry, of course, fits into the actual timeline of The Kid. Perhaps Henry might've been The Kid. But then again, if they all are related to each other it's possible that they all would look similar to each other. If I'm not mistaken on the Dunn line somewhere there was a Catherine Dunn married to a man named Henry McCarty. Perhaps, just perhaps, that is The Kid's mother. Anyways, until the new photo is cross examined by multiple teams (pro, neutral, and anti) to positively prove it is of The Kid it is just a big question mark. Furthermore, I would challenge Mr Edwards that if he's truly willing to chase after every single story, etc then he should chase down the grandchildren of Anna Lee and see if there is any contradictory evidence to Brushy's claim because he never claimed her as his wife though the census records would appear to show she was. If any picture exists of her with O.P. Roberts, and it wasn't Brushy Bill Roberts then we could lend credibility to his story. If there exists any letters, memories, etc where she remarked, "I was married to that man and hes no more Billy The Kid than I am Annie Oakley," then we would know that it was a lie. That's my one critique of Mr Edwards, anything else than the elephant in the room. It doesn't matter how many rabbit holes someone is willing to go down if she is reliable. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all Yes that's the photo. If you watch the video everything is explained. It was matched with all the supplied photos of Brushy and the Billy tintype. Idk.... like I said, it's one thing using your own experts (I say that loosely because anyone can be described as such but not have bona-fide qualifications) to give you the result you are looking for. Plus, there's always margins of error in photo overlays, comparisons, etc. I know it's hard for people to accept or understand, but it's not shocking to find people who look like other people in the world, especially when you figure it's all recycled gene pools for generations in different regions.
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Oct 24, 2023 7:19:39 GMT -5
Why did Brushy say he was Billy the kid? Ocham's razor, the most simple explanation is usually correct. Brushy told his story simply because he was in fact Billy. We know Billy the kid was a notorious liar and so was Pat Garrett, yes. The same is true for lots of others too, historians and writers, gunfighters and census takers alike, many of them made mistakes telling their stories or even fabricated outright lies. A person telling a lie once or twice doesn't mean they lied all the time, no. Garrett told the truth sometimes and so did Billy. The big difference between them two being Pat got shot in the back without ever coming out clean with the truth, courtesy of Jim Miller. Billy at least got around to try and get the truth out but sadly ended up being mocked by Garrett's boys and governor Mabry. And then later he got mocked again, over and over by the neohistorians. Concerning Ocham's Razor... "Other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones," sounds fine but from a scientific point of view it's like sticking to Newtonian physics and discarding Einstein altogether because Newton's explanation is simpler. When it comes to Brushy Bill Roberts: 1) He was Billy the Kid 2) He was O.L., O.P., O.K. Roberts 3) He made it all up for fame/gain 4) He was prone to flights of fancy 5) He told partial truths and partial lies 6) He was The Kid but told mostly lies 7) He wasn't The Kid but told some truths These scenarios can also be grouped together (ie, 1 and 5 and 6 or 2 and 4 and 7) and one can ask what's the simpler explanation or the explanation easiest to believe or the one with the most reasonable doubt? I think life (people) is more complex than the "black or white" principle. He very well could've been telling the truth about his identity but still was a pathological liar, and he also could've been lying about his identity but was still telling truths about himself. To be willing to be open-minded about Roberts to begin with, one would have to believe that Billy The Kid survived/escaped. Personally, I think there is enough reasonable doubt that SOMETHING happened outside the official narrative. But that doesn't necessarily mean Billy The Kid survived, but instead maybe multiple people were killed that night and that was hushed up because the methods used in getting The Kid were not kosher or proper. I'm reminded of the Anglin brothers who escaped Alcatraz. The FBI called it case closed, never finding a trail anywhere, and assumed they drowned in the San Francisco Bay only to find a picture that was mailed to their family of them much older, bigger hair, etc. The FBI would've never known if it wasn't for the family turning the picture in to authorities. In the case of Billy The Kid, does he fit the profile of someone who could've kept his mouth shut and stayed hidden? No. His whole life story points towards a man who couldn't stay away, couldn't stop talking, etc. Are we to believe he suddenly would change his persona, etc after one fateful night and wait 50+ years to tell his story to someone? Brushy Bill Roberts always gave the impression to Morrison that he was quiet, scared for his life, etc so he never said anything. But from newspaper articles going back into the 20s, we can see Roberts was no such person. He was always talking up being an Indian fighter, rodeo champion, etc. He was an attention seeker. If he really was Billy The Kid, he sure didn't keep himself hidden. He was out in the open and well known from Gladewater to Sulphur Springs to Nacogdoches, etc. A man on the run wouldn't do that, or would he? What's simpler, according to Ocham's Razor? Do you see what I mean? The razor doesn't quite apply with people. Or with most real world implications. People are hardly simple. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all Should there be a number 8 explanation added to the list of explanations? and that would be the consideration of Brushy’s age. Considering his age when Morrison found him, although he seemed sharp about remembering certain events and things that impacted his life where he had scars from, it’s understandable that those events would be more difficult to forget but names, dates, and things that involved events that he didn’t dwell on and was suddenly asked to recall may have been foggy at the time due to his age. I don’t know if it could be the most simplest explanation that he was Billy the Kid but due to his age and memory he may have gotten some things wrong?
|
|
|
Post by devorerd on Oct 24, 2023 12:27:02 GMT -5
Why did Brushy say he was Billy the kid? Ocham's razor, the most simple explanation is usually correct. Brushy told his story simply because he was in fact Billy. We know Billy the kid was a notorious liar and so was Pat Garrett, yes. The same is true for lots of others too, historians and writers, gunfighters and census takers alike, many of them made mistakes telling their stories or even fabricated outright lies. A person telling a lie once or twice doesn't mean they lied all the time, no. Garrett told the truth sometimes and so did Billy. The big difference between them two being Pat got shot in the back without ever coming out clean with the truth, courtesy of Jim Miller. Billy at least got around to try and get the truth out but sadly ended up being mocked by Garrett's boys and governor Mabry. And then later he got mocked again, over and over by the neohistorians. Concerning Ocham's Razor... "Other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones," sounds fine but from a scientific point of view it's like sticking to Newtonian physics and discarding Einstein altogether because Newton's explanation is simpler. When it comes to Brushy Bill Roberts: 1) He was Billy the Kid 2) He was O.L., O.P., O.K. Roberts 3) He made it all up for fame/gain 4) He was prone to flights of fancy 5) He told partial truths and partial lies 6) He was The Kid but told mostly lies 7) He wasn't The Kid but told some truths These scenarios can also be grouped together (ie, 1 and 5 and 6 or 2 and 4 and 7) and one can ask what's the simpler explanation or the explanation easiest to believe or the one with the most reasonable doubt? I think life (people) is more complex than the "black or white" principle. He very well could've been telling the truth about his identity but still was a pathological liar, and he also could've been lying about his identity but was still telling truths about himself. To be willing to be open-minded about Roberts to begin with, one would have to believe that Billy The Kid survived/escaped. Personally, I think there is enough reasonable doubt that SOMETHING happened outside the official narrative. But that doesn't necessarily mean Billy The Kid survived, but instead maybe multiple people were killed that night and that was hushed up because the methods used in getting The Kid were not kosher or proper. I'm reminded of the Anglin brothers who escaped Alcatraz. The FBI called it case closed, never finding a trail anywhere, and assumed they drowned in the San Francisco Bay only to find a picture that was mailed to their family of them much older, bigger hair, etc. The FBI would've never known if it wasn't for the family turning the picture in to authorities. In the case of Billy The Kid, does he fit the profile of someone who could've kept his mouth shut and stayed hidden? No. His whole life story points towards a man who couldn't stay away, couldn't stop talking, etc. Are we to believe he suddenly would change his persona, etc after one fateful night and wait 50+ years to tell his story to someone? Brushy Bill Roberts always gave the impression to Morrison that he was quiet, scared for his life, etc so he never said anything. But from newspaper articles going back into the 20s, we can see Roberts was no such person. He was always talking up being an Indian fighter, rodeo champion, etc. He was an attention seeker. If he really was Billy The Kid, he sure didn't keep himself hidden. He was out in the open and well known from Gladewater to Sulphur Springs to Nacogdoches, etc. A man on the run wouldn't do that, or would he? What's simpler, according to Ocham's Razor? Do you see what I mean? The razor doesn't quite apply with people. Or with most real world implications. People are hardly simple. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all 1) He was Billy the Kid - Correct, he was BTK. 2) He was O.L., O.P., O.K. Roberts-His last name was Roberts, Correct again! 3) He made it all up for fame/gain- Incorrect, he was Coy with Morrison and asked for Private meetings to disclosure the truth, this isn't the behavior of a fame seeking individual. 4) He was prone to flights of fancy - Partial credit, all of us embellish stories from time to time, nothing wrong with that! 5) He told partial truths and partial lies--Partial credit, needs no futher explanation 6) He was The Kid but told mostly lies -Incorrect, he mostly told truths cause he was actually there and lived it. 7) He wasn't The Kid but told some truths-Incorrect, see above. Now that we covered the trivia, how about your thoughts on the Silver City Photo?
|
|
|
Post by DanJohno on Oct 24, 2023 19:48:15 GMT -5
"I don't blame you for writing of me as you have, You had to believe other stories. But then I don't know if anyone would believe anything good of me anyway". Clear evidence that nobody was prepared to believe a word he said during his heyday as a young outlaw. So why would anyone accept the words of an old man who was already "dead"?. I never wanted Brushy to be Billy because I preferred the live fast die young story of Billy the kid but I was prepared to listen to his story. I'm prepared to not judge his character in full because of little mundane things he got wrong. People love to constantly recycle genealogy and census records but go fully quiet when Daniel Edwards' new photo is a clear match to Billy and Brushy. youtu.be/VCoXyuC8LEY?si=iur5IQXA6LlCx1KEThis picture right? Admittedly, I haven't quite looked at it thoroughly. Mr Edwards and myself had words ages ago, and I haven't joined any groups of his to see anything he might've posted, etc. We don't know where the picture was found. We don't know when the picture was taken. The photo far as I know of has YET to be confirmed to be an actual picture of Billy The Kid like the croquet picture a few years ago was confirmed. Etc. But let's suppose that the picture really was Billy The Kid. How does that mean it was Brushy Bill Roberts also? Because Brushy allegedly owned it? I might have a picture of Abraham Lincoln but that doesn't make me Lincoln. Brushy seems to (at the very least) of been a diehard fan of The Kid. Could it be possible that he acquired the photograph somewhere? Running into people who knew The Kid perhaps? Of course it's possible. It could also be possible that Roberts, as I have suggested in years prior, that he was somehow related to The Kid and could've gotten the photo from extended family members. Or, perhaps... and Wayne can confirm this because I had him do photo overlays of the tintype of The Kid against Henry Roberts... that the picture isn't The Kid but Henry, because Henry Roberts also scored shockingly high in appearance to The Kid. I've always suspected that when Brushy showed older pictures allegedly of himself it was really of his father Henry. Henry, of course, fits into the actual timeline of The Kid. Perhaps Henry might've been The Kid. But then again, if they all are related to each other it's possible that they all would look similar to each other. If I'm not mistaken on the Dunn line somewhere there was a Catherine Dunn married to a man named Henry McCarty. Perhaps, just perhaps, that is The Kid's mother. Anyways, until the new photo is cross examined by multiple teams (pro, neutral, and anti) to positively prove it is of The Kid it is just a big question mark. Furthermore, I would challenge Mr Edwards that if he's truly willing to chase after every single story, etc then he should chase down the grandchildren of Anna Lee and see if there is any contradictory evidence to Brushy's claim because he never claimed her as his wife though the census records would appear to show she was. If any picture exists of her with O.P. Roberts, and it wasn't Brushy Bill Roberts then we could lend credibility to his story. If there exists any letters, memories, etc where she remarked, "I was married to that man and hes no more Billy The Kid than I am Annie Oakley," then we would know that it was a lie. That's my one critique of Mr Edwards, anything else than the elephant in the room. It doesn't matter how many rabbit holes someone is willing to go down if she is reliable. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all Sounds like you haven't seen the video. The video explains where the photo was found and about 8 photos of Brushy were compared to the new photo before the Billy tintype was compared aswell. The police forensic expert wasn't biased and didn't know who the famous Billy tintype was when shown. There's a couple of guest members of this forum who have reinvented the meaning of the word Credible. How is a police forensic photo expert not credible?
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 24, 2023 21:06:14 GMT -5
Concerning Ocham's Razor... "Other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones," sounds fine but from a scientific point of view it's like sticking to Newtonian physics and discarding Einstein altogether because Newton's explanation is simpler. When it comes to Brushy Bill Roberts: 1) He was Billy the Kid 2) He was O.L., O.P., O.K. Roberts 3) He made it all up for fame/gain 4) He was prone to flights of fancy 5) He told partial truths and partial lies 6) He was The Kid but told mostly lies 7) He wasn't The Kid but told some truths These scenarios can also be grouped together (ie, 1 and 5 and 6 or 2 and 4 and 7) and one can ask what's the simpler explanation or the explanation easiest to believe or the one with the most reasonable doubt? I think life (people) is more complex than the "black or white" principle. He very well could've been telling the truth about his identity but still was a pathological liar, and he also could've been lying about his identity but was still telling truths about himself. To be willing to be open-minded about Roberts to begin with, one would have to believe that Billy The Kid survived/escaped. Personally, I think there is enough reasonable doubt that SOMETHING happened outside the official narrative. But that doesn't necessarily mean Billy The Kid survived, but instead maybe multiple people were killed that night and that was hushed up because the methods used in getting The Kid were not kosher or proper. I'm reminded of the Anglin brothers who escaped Alcatraz. The FBI called it case closed, never finding a trail anywhere, and assumed they drowned in the San Francisco Bay only to find a picture that was mailed to their family of them much older, bigger hair, etc. The FBI would've never known if it wasn't for the family turning the picture in to authorities. In the case of Billy The Kid, does he fit the profile of someone who could've kept his mouth shut and stayed hidden? No. His whole life story points towards a man who couldn't stay away, couldn't stop talking, etc. Are we to believe he suddenly would change his persona, etc after one fateful night and wait 50+ years to tell his story to someone? Brushy Bill Roberts always gave the impression to Morrison that he was quiet, scared for his life, etc so he never said anything. But from newspaper articles going back into the 20s, we can see Roberts was no such person. He was always talking up being an Indian fighter, rodeo champion, etc. He was an attention seeker. If he really was Billy The Kid, he sure didn't keep himself hidden. He was out in the open and well known from Gladewater to Sulphur Springs to Nacogdoches, etc. A man on the run wouldn't do that, or would he? What's simpler, according to Ocham's Razor? Do you see what I mean? The razor doesn't quite apply with people. Or with most real world implications. People are hardly simple. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all Should there be a number 8 explanation added to the list of explanations? and that would be the consideration of Brushy’s age. Considering his age when Morrison found him, although he seemed sharp about remembering certain events and things that impacted his life where he had scars from, it’s understandable that those events would be more difficult to forget but names, dates, and things that involved events that he didn’t dwell on and was suddenly asked to recall may have been foggy at the time due to his age. I don’t know if it could be the most simplest explanation that he was Billy the Kid but due to his age and memory he may have gotten some things wrong? You could add that to the list, yes. However, I would add a ninth category piggybacking off of that eighth suggestion, and that would be something like selective memory or even false memories. Brushy was far more detailed about his alleged early life than he was the details of The Kid (ie, 3 Day Battle when in fact it was 5 days for example) and subsequently was more detailed about his life post-Kid. It seems peculiar or suspicous why that is. From my point of view, the single greatest evidence Brushy had wasnt affidavits or his story or even his appearance. All of them had flaws, inconsistencies, no evidence, or were at best questionable. The greatest single piece of evidence he had was in his trunk. The scarf. The scarf exchanged for a photograph story was something nobody knew about. Not the historians of the time, let alone the dime store serialists. It was only known about decades after Brushy died when a letter was found in Indiana from the friends of The Kid mentioning in passing the even took place. How does one explain this? There's a few scenarios to consider: 1- Brushy was The Kid 2- Brushy knew The Kid or his associates 3- Brushy went to Fort Sumner The latter is possible. Its easy to imagine a diehard fan of The Kid going to where his idol allegedly died, and heard this story firsthand from Deluvina Maxwell or someone who knew her. The scarf in his posession may not be the real scarf from the story but was one that looked like the real thing, or was just any old scarf someone couldve gotten from anywhere in New Mexico. Now, everyone knows my own theories that Roberts might've been related. Or its possible his dad Henry had associations with The Kid. I dont think people ever truly dived into the newspapers, censuses, plat maps, etc to see if Henry was ever in New Mexico or Arizona, etc. Its possible considering Henry's stepfather owned land all the way to Nevada. But I must admit, the scarf story is such an odd peculiarity that it raises the question, "What if?" and that object alone keeps Roberts in the race because it is difficult to dismiss the story because allegedly nobody knew about it, unless there exists in the archives a long forgotten newspaper article mentioning it.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 24, 2023 21:07:25 GMT -5
Concerning Ocham's Razor... "Other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones," sounds fine but from a scientific point of view it's like sticking to Newtonian physics and discarding Einstein altogether because Newton's explanation is simpler. When it comes to Brushy Bill Roberts: 1) He was Billy the Kid 2) He was O.L., O.P., O.K. Roberts 3) He made it all up for fame/gain 4) He was prone to flights of fancy 5) He told partial truths and partial lies 6) He was The Kid but told mostly lies 7) He wasn't The Kid but told some truths These scenarios can also be grouped together (ie, 1 and 5 and 6 or 2 and 4 and 7) and one can ask what's the simpler explanation or the explanation easiest to believe or the one with the most reasonable doubt? I think life (people) is more complex than the "black or white" principle. He very well could've been telling the truth about his identity but still was a pathological liar, and he also could've been lying about his identity but was still telling truths about himself. To be willing to be open-minded about Roberts to begin with, one would have to believe that Billy The Kid survived/escaped. Personally, I think there is enough reasonable doubt that SOMETHING happened outside the official narrative. But that doesn't necessarily mean Billy The Kid survived, but instead maybe multiple people were killed that night and that was hushed up because the methods used in getting The Kid were not kosher or proper. I'm reminded of the Anglin brothers who escaped Alcatraz. The FBI called it case closed, never finding a trail anywhere, and assumed they drowned in the San Francisco Bay only to find a picture that was mailed to their family of them much older, bigger hair, etc. The FBI would've never known if it wasn't for the family turning the picture in to authorities. In the case of Billy The Kid, does he fit the profile of someone who could've kept his mouth shut and stayed hidden? No. His whole life story points towards a man who couldn't stay away, couldn't stop talking, etc. Are we to believe he suddenly would change his persona, etc after one fateful night and wait 50+ years to tell his story to someone? Brushy Bill Roberts always gave the impression to Morrison that he was quiet, scared for his life, etc so he never said anything. But from newspaper articles going back into the 20s, we can see Roberts was no such person. He was always talking up being an Indian fighter, rodeo champion, etc. He was an attention seeker. If he really was Billy The Kid, he sure didn't keep himself hidden. He was out in the open and well known from Gladewater to Sulphur Springs to Nacogdoches, etc. A man on the run wouldn't do that, or would he? What's simpler, according to Ocham's Razor? Do you see what I mean? The razor doesn't quite apply with people. Or with most real world implications. People are hardly simple. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all Should there be a number 8 explanation added to the list of explanations? and that would be the consideration of Brushy’s age. Considering his age when Morrison found him, although he seemed sharp about remembering certain events and things that impacted his life where he had scars from, it’s understandable that those events would be more difficult to forget but names, dates, and things that involved events that he didn’t dwell on and was suddenly asked to recall may have been foggy at the time due to his age. I don’t know if it could be the most simplest explanation that he was Billy the Kid but due to his age and memory he may have gotten some things wrong? You could add that to the list, yes. However, I would add a ninth category piggybacking off of that eighth suggestion, and that would be something like selective memory or even false memories. Brushy was far more detailed about his alleged early life than he was the details of The Kid (ie, 3 Day Battle when in fact it was 5 days for example) and subsequently was more detailed about his life post-Kid. It seems peculiar or suspicous why that is. From my point of view, the single greatest evidence Brushy had wasnt affidavits or his story or even his appearance. All of them had flaws, inconsistencies, no evidence, or were at best questionable. The greatest single piece of evidence he had was in his trunk. The scarf. The scarf exchanged for a photograph story was something nobody knew about. Not the historians of the time, let alone the dime store serialists. It was only known about decades after Brushy died when a letter was found in Indiana from the friends of The Kid mentioning in passing the even took place. How does one explain this? There's a few scenarios to consider: 1- Brushy was The Kid 2- Brushy knew The Kid or his associates 3- Brushy went to Fort Sumner The latter is possible. Its easy to imagine a diehard fan of The Kid going to where his idol allegedly died, and heard this story firsthand from Deluvina Maxwell or someone who knew her. The scarf in his posession may not be the real scarf from the story but was one that looked like the real thing, or was just any old scarf someone couldve gotten from anywhere in New Mexico. Now, everyone knows my own theories that Roberts might've been related. Or its possible his dad Henry had associations with The Kid. I dont think people ever truly dived into the newspapers, censuses, plat maps, etc to see if Henry was ever in New Mexico or Arizona, etc. Its possible considering Henry's stepfather owned land all the way to Nevada. But I must admit, the scarf story is such an odd peculiarity that it raises the question, "What if?" and that object alone keeps Roberts in the race because it is difficult to dismiss the story because allegedly nobody knew about it, unless there exists in the archives a long forgotten newspaper article mentioning it.
|
|
WhisperingBillyBarlow
Guest
|
Post by WhisperingBillyBarlow on Oct 24, 2023 21:25:14 GMT -5
youtu.be/VCoXyuC8LEY?si=iur5IQXA6LlCx1KEThis picture right? Admittedly, I haven't quite looked at it thoroughly. Mr Edwards and myself had words ages ago, and I haven't joined any groups of his to see anything he might've posted, etc. We don't know where the picture was found. We don't know when the picture was taken. The photo far as I know of has YET to be confirmed to be an actual picture of Billy The Kid like the croquet picture a few years ago was confirmed. Etc. But let's suppose that the picture really was Billy The Kid. How does that mean it was Brushy Bill Roberts also? Because Brushy allegedly owned it? I might have a picture of Abraham Lincoln but that doesn't make me Lincoln. Brushy seems to (at the very least) of been a diehard fan of The Kid. Could it be possible that he acquired the photograph somewhere? Running into people who knew The Kid perhaps? Of course it's possible. It could also be possible that Roberts, as I have suggested in years prior, that he was somehow related to The Kid and could've gotten the photo from extended family members. Or, perhaps... and Wayne can confirm this because I had him do photo overlays of the tintype of The Kid against Henry Roberts... that the picture isn't The Kid but Henry, because Henry Roberts also scored shockingly high in appearance to The Kid. I've always suspected that when Brushy showed older pictures allegedly of himself it was really of his father Henry. Henry, of course, fits into the actual timeline of The Kid. Perhaps Henry might've been The Kid. But then again, if they all are related to each other it's possible that they all would look similar to each other. If I'm not mistaken on the Dunn line somewhere there was a Catherine Dunn married to a man named Henry McCarty. Perhaps, just perhaps, that is The Kid's mother. Anyways, until the new photo is cross examined by multiple teams (pro, neutral, and anti) to positively prove it is of The Kid it is just a big question mark. Furthermore, I would challenge Mr Edwards that if he's truly willing to chase after every single story, etc then he should chase down the grandchildren of Anna Lee and see if there is any contradictory evidence to Brushy's claim because he never claimed her as his wife though the census records would appear to show she was. If any picture exists of her with O.P. Roberts, and it wasn't Brushy Bill Roberts then we could lend credibility to his story. If there exists any letters, memories, etc where she remarked, "I was married to that man and hes no more Billy The Kid than I am Annie Oakley," then we would know that it was a lie. That's my one critique of Mr Edwards, anything else than the elephant in the room. It doesn't matter how many rabbit holes someone is willing to go down if she is reliable. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all Sounds like you haven't seen the video. The video explains where the photo was found and about 8 photos of Brushy were compared to the new photo before the Billy tintype was compared aswell. The police forensic expert wasn't biased and didn't know who the famous Billy tintype was when shown. There's a couple of guest members of this forum who have reinvented the meaning of the word Credible. How is a police forensic photo expert not credible? I watched some of the videos off Edwards YouTube channel and I didn't hear where the photo was found. Link me to the precise video in question mentioning exactly where it was found. All I keep hearing from Edwards is that the photo is going to be apart of a documentary he's arranged, which admittedly I don't like because it screams Tunstall all over again. Transparency is supposed to be key here, rather than looking to make profits. You're assuming and taking both men's words that the expert didn't know who Billy The Kid was. I find that alone remarkable because most people over the age of 40 surely would know that picture or the name Billy The Kid. You're assuming or taking Edwards word that the expert actually is an expert. What other crimes or success rate has he had previously? Why did Edwards select him specifically? Why not use experts from multiple sources and departments? The more experts, the more of a consensus can be made. Don't rely on ONE expert, especially under those dubious circumstances. This is why 3rd party investigation should be done not involving Mr Edwards in the least. I'm reminded of the so-called 93% match between Brushy and the tintype, when it came out much later that the two scientists doing the study said that they NEVER said that in the first place, and even if they did the methods then were archaic and would not apply today. Far too many people are jumping on a bandwagon just assuming or trusting Dan Edwards wholeheartedly about anything and everything just because they want to believe that Brushy was The Kid. It's okay to believe he was, but what's not okay is to not question everything that's being put out there. And as I stated before, even if the photo was of Billy The Kid and even if it was in Brushy's trunk it doesn't necessarily mean that he was The Kid. Until Hico allows an exhumation and tests his DNA against Henry Roberts and his wives Caroline Dunn and Sarah Heath, it's always going to be considered not strong enough evidence. Hico isn't going to because a negative result ruins their tourism industry.
|
|
|
Post by DanJohno on Oct 25, 2023 9:28:01 GMT -5
Sounds like you haven't seen the video. The video explains where the photo was found and about 8 photos of Brushy were compared to the new photo before the Billy tintype was compared aswell. The police forensic expert wasn't biased and didn't know who the famous Billy tintype was when shown. There's a couple of guest members of this forum who have reinvented the meaning of the word Credible. How is a police forensic photo expert not credible? I watched some of the videos off Edwards YouTube channel and I didn't hear where the photo was found. Link me to the precise video in question mentioning exactly where it was found. All I keep hearing from Edwards is that the photo is going to be apart of a documentary he's arranged, which admittedly I don't like because it screams Tunstall all over again. Transparency is supposed to be key here, rather than looking to make profits. You're assuming and taking both men's words that the expert didn't know who Billy The Kid was. I find that alone remarkable because most people over the age of 40 surely would know that picture or the name Billy The Kid. You're assuming or taking Edwards word that the expert actually is an expert. What other crimes or success rate has he had previously? Why did Edwards select him specifically? Why not use experts from multiple sources and departments? The more experts, the more of a consensus can be made. Don't rely on ONE expert, especially under those dubious circumstances. This is why 3rd party investigation should be done not involving Mr Edwards in the least. I'm reminded of the so-called 93% match between Brushy and the tintype, when it came out much later that the two scientists doing the study said that they NEVER said that in the first place, and even if they did the methods then were archaic and would not apply today. Far too many people are jumping on a bandwagon just assuming or trusting Dan Edwards wholeheartedly about anything and everything just because they want to believe that Brushy was The Kid. It's okay to believe he was, but what's not okay is to not question everything that's being put out there. And as I stated before, even if the photo was of Billy The Kid and even if it was in Brushy's trunk it doesn't necessarily mean that he was The Kid. Until Hico allows an exhumation and tests his DNA against Henry Roberts and his wives Caroline Dunn and Sarah Heath, it's always going to be considered not strong enough evidence. Hico isn't going to because a negative result ruins their tourism industry. Ok so Leeb complained about the photo being too clear. Texas Truth Teller completely avoided talking about it and you discredit the information in the video while having not even seen the full video. I'll let someone else take over from here.
|
|