|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 27, 2015 11:22:04 GMT -5
Opinion, but probably the truth. Impostors have to support one another's claimed identities and claimed life stories and activities, lest they have absolutely no support for their own fictional life. They also have a strong need for attention, and the attention given them by other imposters widens their recognition to new audiences of gullible people who fall for the personality of the imposter so much that they readily believe their stories as absolute truth while readily rejecting any credible and valid historical documentation as not applicable to their 'man.' More and more 'history' has become entertainment, and the more entertaining the person the more credible he is to those who 'fall' for their stories.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 27, 2015 17:53:45 GMT -5
If it supports what you believe, you say it is evidence. If it does not then you say it is not evidence. If you believe an assertion you say it is fact. If you don't believe it you treat it as factually a lie. If you don't like what someone says, you call it hearsay even though there is solid proof they actually said it. Then you quote what actually "is" hearsay as if it is not. That type of examination of history does not produce valid conclusions, in my opinion. It lacks objectivity and fairness.
I encourage you to acquire a copy of Daniel Edwards' new book "Billy The Kid An Autobiography". I'm not going to quote his book here online except to say he has uncovered some new "evidence" that Brushy Bill was indeed a member of the Rough Riders along with several other new discoveries that lend credibility to Brushy's story. I didn't say "proof" and neither does Daniel, but there are some very interesting finds he explains in the book.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 31, 2015 12:40:49 GMT -5
You are wrong, Mr. Land. Records speak for themselves. Census records, marriage records, divorce records, and death records are primary sources recorded at the time of the event. Those records provide a documented snapshot of the life of Oliver Pleasant "Brushy Bill" Roberts from his birth in Sebastian County, Arkansas, until his death in Hamilton County, Texas. Age and birthplace discrepancies are found in some census records. Although his death certificate is a primary source for his death date, the birth date and place of birth on the death certificate are not primary sources. That information was not recorded at the time of his birth. Information provided by family members Geneva Roberts Pittmon and Roy Haws provides additional confirmation that Oliver Pleasant Roberts was the son of Henry Oliver Roberts.
There are no primary sources that support the many claims of Brushy Bill regarding his birth, birthplace, parents, or exploits after 1882. There is no evidence that supports the assumption that Oliver Pleasant Roberts disappeared sometime after the 1900 census. There is no evidence that supports the assumption that Ollie N. Roberts was BtK. There is no credible evidence that "Wild Henry" Roberts existed. There is no credible evidence that Brushy Bill was born at Buffalo Gap, or on 31 December 1859. There is no credible evidence that BtK was alive after 1882. The sworn affidavit of DeWitt Travis is clearly meaningless, since he was born several years after 1882. The affidavit of Martile Able is meaningless, since she was only 7 and living in central Texas in 1882.
There will always be a hard core of doubters who believe that accepted history is wrong, and that Brushy Bill was BtK; that J Frank Dalton was Jesse Woodson James; that James Lafayette Courtney was Jesse Woodson James; Joe Vaughan was Alexander Franklin James; that William Columbus Anderson was William T. "Bloody Bill" Anderson.
Books by Morrison, Tunstill, Jameson, et. al., are best described as historical fiction and entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 31, 2015 14:42:49 GMT -5
" Census records, marriage records, divorce records, and death records are primary sources recorded at the time of the event."
So which census record is a primary source? The one that says Oliver's parents were born in Kentucky or the one that said they were from Texas and Arkansas?
"Although his death certificate is a primary source for his death date, the birth date and place of birth on the death certificate are not primary sources."
So it is a primary source but it is incorrect? Then how do we assume that "any" primary sources are correct. The affidavits are all wrong in your opinion. Why? I believe you choose to make them wrong because they don't support your existing conclusion that Brushy could not have been BTK.
I'm saying it is not objective nor fair when you gather up all the documents regarding Brushy and Oliver and then decide which ones have meaning based on whether they support your opinion. If someone you know and trust, possibly even a loved one, introduces you to a person you've never met, do you not now know that person's identity? If you trust the friend who introduced you then you accept that. Or do you have to see a birth certificate from anyone and everyone you ever met before you can accept they are who they say they are? Do you believe what I tell you about who I am? Do you believe Roy Hawes when he tells you who he is? Would Martile not have believed it when her husband introduced her to his friend BTK?
I've clearly shown you that Martile's age doesn't mean she could not have met BTK.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Apr 16, 2015 13:58:39 GMT -5
"Although his death certificate is a primary source for his death date, the birth date and place of birth on the death certificate are not primary sources."
So it is a primary source but it is incorrect? Then how do we assume that "any" primary sources are correct. The affidavits are all wrong in your opinion. Why? I believe you choose to make them wrong because they don't support your existing conclusion that Brushy could not have been BTK. Wayne, please read the statement again. "Although his death certificate is a primary source for his death date, the birth date and place of birth on the death certificate are not primary sources." The death certificate is a primary source for place and date of death, for that information was recorded when the event occurred. The death certificate is NOT a primary source for place and date of birth, for that information was recorded long after the event occurred.
Sent from my iPad
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Apr 16, 2015 17:32:35 GMT -5
"The affidavits are all wrong in your opinion. I believe you choose to make them wrong."
Wayne, even hard core Brushy Bill believers should have a problem with DeWitt's sworn affidavit stating that he knew Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. The monument of Elbert DeWitt Travis in the Myrtle Springs Cemetery has a birth year of 1889. The WWI and WWII draft registration cards both have a birth date of 26 March 1890 for Elbert DeWitt Travis. His texas death certificate has a birth date of 26 March 1888. The 1900 census indicates DeWitt was born March 1888. Even with these birth year discrepancies, it is evident that DeWitt was never in New Mexico prior to 1881 when Billy the Kid was known to be alive, since DeWitt was born several years later. DebWitt never saw Billy the Kid. That is not an opinion. That is a fact.
If William A. Tunstill failed to challenge such a fraudulent affidavit, are any of the affidavits credible?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Apr 16, 2015 22:22:10 GMT -5
"I've clearly shown you that Martile's age doesn't mean she could not have met BTK."
No so, Mr. Land. BtK was killed in 1881. The Texas Death Certificate and the cemetery marker of Martile Bilberry Abel both show she was born 2 November 1873. She was not quite 8 years old when Billy the Kid died, and there is no evidence that Billy the Kid visited her in central Texas, or that she went to, and met him, at Girl Scout Camp in Cimarron, New Mexico. There are, however, census records showing that Martile Billberry was living in Lampasas County in 1880, and John C. and Martile Abel living in Taylor County in 1900. Just when did Martile meet Billy the Kid? We know she met the pretender, Brushy Bill, in El Paso, for that made the El Paso newspaper.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Apr 17, 2015 9:44:58 GMT -5
I would have to go back and read it again to be certain and I'll do that as soon as I can, however, I'm pretty sure Dewitt Travis never stated he had met Billy prior to 1881 but rather that he had known that Brushy was Billy The Kid. If they had known each other for many years and Dewitt was convinced then his stating that in an affidavit doesn't make the affidavit invalid. I'll look again though, because I have never felt Travis' affidavit should carry much weight. I think we agree on that point. I'm just not sure it is correct to refer to it as "invalid" when in fact Dewitt may have been stating what he believed to be the truth. If that is the case then hiis knowledge and belief in the matter of Brushy's identity does carry at least some "validity" or value. I suspect Morrison used it for that reason and not because he felt it was solid proof of anything.
As to your assertions about Ms. Able. You ask when did she meet Billy. It is my opinion she met him also "after" 1881 because it is my opinion Billy was not killed by Garrett in 1881 and that he traveled extensively while avoiding being discovered. It is my opinion that that prior 1o 1881 Billy had met John C. Able while up and down the Pecos selling stolen cattle and that some time around 1900-02 "ballpark", he visited John and Martile and she was introduced to him as Billy The Kid, long before he ever took on the moniker of "Brushy Bill." It is my opinion she had every reason to believe he was exactly who her husband told her he was and as for as she was concerned, his identity of Billy The Kid was considered by her to be absolute fact. It is my opinion that when she was visited by Brushy and Morrison in El Paso, Brushy immediately recognized her and she him and they spoke about events that happened 40 or 50 years prior. It is my opinion that her statement of his identity was based on her full and true conviction that he was indeed Billy The Kid. She may have gotten a couple things mixed up as to the timeline. She was very old. But I do not believe she was lying.
I can not explain my position on this any more clearly. I may be wrong, but I've looked at all this with a very discerning and objective approach and I'm pretty sure you aren't going to be able to change my opinion. I'm happy to keep talking about it though, in spite of the fact I'm sure I won't be able change your opinion either.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Apr 19, 2015 17:53:38 GMT -5
Wayne, at last I can agree with you. Nothing will change your opinion that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. Nothing will change the fact that Brushy Bill, Ollie N., and Oliver .P. Roberts were different names for the same man. Geneva Roberts Pittmon and Roy Haws both stated as fact, not as an opinion, that Brushy Bill was the son of Henry o. Roberts. Census records confirm that relationship. Brushy Bill's bogus parents, Wild Henry Roberts and Mary Adeline Dunn exist only in the fertile imagination of Brushy Bill. Your standard of proof is extremely high when information challenges your assumption that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. Your standard of proof is nonexistent when " finds" suggest the smallest sliver of hope that Brushy Bill might be Billy the Kid. Sworn affidavits are accepted as fact and not questioned. The assumption that Oliver Pleasant Roberts disappeared and was conveniently replaced by Brushy Bill is accepted as fact and not questioned.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Apr 19, 2015 22:30:28 GMT -5
Well, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that I accept anything as "fact" that has not been proven so. My choice to believe certain things are true or likely true or even possibly true does not equate to my assumption of fact where none exists. That said, are you suggesting that it is a fact Brushy Bill was the son of Henry O. Roberts because Geneva Pittmon and Roy Hawes both stated it. You did say they "stated as fact". In actuality, neither of them were in a position to know that it was a fact. To further clarify, please consider that I have never said it was a "fact" that Brushy was not the son of Henry O. Roberts. Yet I reserve the right to believe things that may or may not be fact. My belief doesn't make it a fact and I have never said it did.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 1, 2015 22:49:23 GMT -5
The 5 sworn affidavits of Severo Gallegos, Jose B. Montoya, Robert E. Lee, Martile Abel, and DeWitt Travis are offered as evidence that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid.
When Elbert DeWitt Travis registered for the WWI draft in Van Zandt County, he reported that he was born 26 March 1890. That was 10 years after the Lincoln County War. DeWitt never saw Billy the Kid, the participant in the Lincoln County War. DeWitt could not have identified Brushy Bill based on the way Billy the Kid looked prior to 1881.
Martile Abel (Martelia Bilberry Abel) and John Abel are buried in the Concordia Cemetery in El Paso. Martile was born 2 November 1873. (FAG #121263674). She married John Abel 23 January 1898 in Taylor County, Texas, where they were living in the 1900 census. They moved to El Paso County about 1903.
Jameson relates that Martile claimed Billy the Kid visited with the Ables both before and after his 1881 reported death. That is an impossibility. Martile was only 8 years old and living in her parents' household in 1880 in Lampasas County. Martile did not marry John Abel until 1898. Billy the Kid could not have visited the Abels prior to 1881 or before their 1898 marriage. Jameson also refers to a photograph depicting her husband John as a barber, with Billy the Kid also in the photo. Census records list John's occupation as a farmer, and laborer, in the 1900 and 1910 censuses, respectively.
The affidavit of Robert E. Lee, according to Jameson, describes Brushy Bill as a participant in Buffalo Billl's Wild West Show. If Robert E. Lee claimed to have known Billy the Kid prior to 1881, Jameson neglected to mention that claim.
Apparently,three of the five affiants who swore that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid had never seen Billy the Kid prior to 1881, and were willing to swear that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid based solely on Brushy Bill's claim or the word of William V. Morrison.
Jameson wonders why five unrelated individuals would swear that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. Could it be that William Morrison aggressively solicited affidavits to support Brushy Bill's story in the absence of any other record or document that would make Brushy's tale seem credible?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 2, 2015 9:29:06 GMT -5
You write, "Jameson relates that Martile claimed Billy the Kid visited with the Ables both before and after his 1881 reported death. That is an impossibility."
Why is that impossible? Just because Martile was not a member of the "Ables" household prior to 1881 does not mean Billy did not visit the Ables. If Billy visited John Ables prior to 1881 and he later told Martile of this visit, then would it necessarily be a falsehood for her to state that Billy had visited "the Ables" before 1881. Most married couples love and trust one another to the point that they believe what the other tells them without question and beyond any doubt. They accept their spouse's statements as "fact".
You also write, "The affidavit of Robert E. Lee, according to Jameson, describes Brushy Bill as a participant in Buffalo Billl's Wild West Show." O.K. So if Lee knew for a fact that Brushy was a member of Buffalo Bill's show, is that not strong evidence that Brushy was "not" Oliver P. Roberts and therefore does it not lend credence to Brushy's claims?
I have said several times before that I do not place much weight on Dewitt Travis' affidavit. Again though, does he actually say in the affidavit that he knew Billy prior to 1881. Furthermore, can you be certain that the birthdate on his WWI draft registration is accurate? Is it not possible he was truthful in his affidavit? Even if it was truthful, I still don't put a great deal of weight on it. It certainly is "not" the reason I believe Brushy was Billy The Kid. But I have my reasons to believe.
Among those reasons are the affidavits of Severo Gallegos and Martile Ables. I believe they were both being honest in their recognition of Brushy and I absolutely do not believe Morrison coerced anyone to say something they didn't believe to be true. You shouldn't just put that accusation on him simply because it helps justify what you want to believe is true. I've read several of Morrison's letters and they are written in a fashion that indicates he only wanted to find the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 2, 2015 13:45:49 GMT -5
You also write, "The affidavit of Robert E. Lee, according to Jameson, describes Brushy Bill as a participant in Buffalo Billl's Wild West Show." O.K. So if Lee knew for a fact that Brushy was a member of Buffalo Bill's show, is that not strong evidence that Brushy was "not" Oliver P. Roberts and therefore does it not lend credence to Brushy's claims?"
You make several assumptions. You assume Lee was a member of Buffalo Bill's Show. You assume that Brushy Bill was also a participant in the show. You assume Lee knew Brushy Bill. You assume that Lee told the truth. Strong evidence? I don't think so. Where is your high standard of proof?
Is it not a fact that positive identification of Brushy Bill in 1950 could only be made by someone who had seen Billy The Kid before 1881? DeWitt Travis and Martile Abel clearly fail that test.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 2, 2015 16:03:51 GMT -5
"I have said several times before that I do not place much weight on Dewitt Travis' affidavit. Again though, does he actually say in the affidavit that he knew Billy prior to 1881. Furthermore, can you be certain that the birthdate on his WWI draft registration is accurate? Is it not possible he was truthful in his affidavit? Even if it was truthful, I still don't put a great deal of weight on it. It certainly is "not" the reason I believe Brushy was Billy The Kid. But I have my reasons to believe"
You are wise to ignore the specious affidavit of Elbert DeWitt Travis. Records indicate DeWitt was born in 1888 (TX death certificate, 1900 census), 1889 (cemetery marker), or 1890 (WWI Registration). You can quibble with the discrepancies, but DeWitt never saw Billy the Kid before 1881 and could never identified Brushy Bill as Billy the Kid.
Truthful? No. DeWitt may have believed that he was swearing to a true statement, but it was not.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 2, 2015 18:04:43 GMT -5
The WWI Draft Registration Card of Elbert DeWitt Travis shows he was born 26 March 1890. The death certificate of Elbert DeWitt Travis shows he was born in Van Zandt County, Texas. Could be wrong of course. The 1900 and 1910 census records show that he resided in Van Zandt County in the household of his mother, Ann Patterson Travis.
DeWitt, taken at his word, said that he had known Brushy Bill from his birth in 1890. That statement, if true, means that DeWitt had known Oliver P. Roberts beginning in 1890 before Oliver P. morphed into Oliver L. Roberts, then Brushy Bill, and finally Billy the Kid. DeWitt's claim is not completely credible, for Oliver P. Roberts was living in Hopkins County in 1900, but was in Van Zandt County some time before 1909.
DeWitt knew that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid because Brushy Bill told him he was. Of course, the obvious explanation is that DeWitt Travis, as a teenager, and Oliver P. Roberts, were both living in Van Zandt County. DeWitt possibly met Oliver P. Roberts between 1900 and 1910. Oliver was only 12 years older than DeWitt. After Oliver P. "Brushy Bill" claimed to be Billy the Kid, DeWitt could truthfully attest to the fact that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid if he believed Brushy's story. DeWitt was born long after Pat Garrett reportedly shot Billy the Kid. DeWitt could not have seen the Billy the Kid that was in the Lincoln County wars. DeWitt could not have possibly identified Brushy as the Billy the Kid, for DeWitt had never seen Billy the Kid in Lincoln County.
The affidavit of DeWitt Travis, far from proving that he knew Billy the Kid, proves that he knew Oliver P. Roberts.
|
|