|
Post by mckinley412 on Apr 21, 2018 23:17:33 GMT -5
Texas Truth Teller, you aren't telling all of the truth and I'm not gonna waste time repeating certain things that have been repeated a million times. You very well could have pointed out the differences in the 1910 census but you didn't. You do point out there is a record of a coroner's jury dated in July. You don't point out that when Pat was awarded the payment it was for killing Billy in August. So it's one legal document versus another. It's like Lobato says he wasn't there, but later he says he was. And there are other Henry Roberts and Elizabeth Roberts. I've shown where one lady went by both Elizabeth Roberts and Sarah Elizabeth with a son named William Roberts (in Texas at the right time) but also there is Henry Roberts (as in Wild Henry) married to a Elizabeth Roberts with a son named James which according to Alias BtK he had a younger brother named James. But I can do this all day long and I've pretty well posted everything before, but quit getting hung up on your same ole same ole family.
|
|
|
Post by Outy Raged on May 28, 2018 13:04:25 GMT -5
I’m appalled by the grammatical and syntactical errors I see in the posts on this site.... didn’t anyone pay attention at school?
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on May 29, 2018 0:11:55 GMT -5
Dear Out Raged, there is a such thing as people using primitive phones to type all of this and the whole auto correct thing that changes the things you typed.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 29, 2018 9:47:45 GMT -5
Out Raged,
I'm sure people do mistype from time to time and there are surely some who are less than accurate with their syntax, but the biggest part of the problem is spell check. I have no control over that. I can speak from personal experience as I have enough english credits to have been certified to teach english in high school. I always read through my posts before submitting because the automatic spell check will flag words that are already spelled correctly and change them to a completely different word. The important thing is the intended content of the posts. None of us are purrfect! (LOL)
|
|
|
Post by SBeck on Jun 3, 2018 8:17:48 GMT -5
"I'm not the one who has been searching for many years for any convincing evidence that Billy the Kid was alive after 1882, or for any convincing evidence that Brushy Bill's story was credible." No, you're the one who has spent years trying, yet have failed to prove Brushy was a fraud. If you're so certain he was not Billy then why spend so much time and effort to prove it? Why do you care if there are others who believe Brushy? If his story was so obviously a big lie, then why is it you seem so determined to disprove it? That sounds like the description of "desperation" to me. But please keep trying. Your opposition to what the majority of folks on this board believe is a big factor in helping to keep everyone interested. BTW, I'm not searching for convincing evidence Billy the Kid was alive after 1882 because I believe that evidence already exists. Please show me one piece of hard evidence which suggests that Billy the Kid was alive after 1882! If such evidence would really exist, the idea would be more than just a fringe theory. Affidavits signed many decades later aren't hard evidence, even if the persons who signed them, were convinced that they were telling the truth.. But although the circumstances of the alleged shooting of the Kid by Garrett are indeed a bit murky and allow the construction of an alternative tale - this doesn't necessarily mean that specifically Brushy Bill's claim is true. I believe that his case could be fairly easily confirmed or dismissed today with the help of professional modern forensic science. There are many authentic pictures of Brushy. This in itself should raise many red flags btw. How come that the young Brushy was not especially camera shy, while Billy the Kid pictures are rarer than a Blue Mauritius stamp? I also think that Brushy would've been very hesitant to have his picture taken after 1882 if he was really Billy the Kid! And while his facial structure may have had some similarities with the Kid's, which may account for the one existing affirmative expertise, which is a bit dated by now btw. But there are also many very obvious differences. The slant of the eyes is different, the eyebrows are positioned differently and the mouth is wider. But there are other divergences. Pictures of the young Brushy show very consistently a much darker coloring than the Kid's, and he had very straight hair while the Kid's was more wavy. The coloring would've been somewhat obscured in old age, which may explain why some believed to reckognize in him the Kid if there was some resemblance. If I were you, I would dispense with the relatively crude amateur computer comparisons and invest money in a professional modern forensic analysis, which considers all available facts - especially since we have now 2-3 authenic pictures of the Kid. A forensic analysis would also include the technical evaluation of pictures from teenage Brushy. It should be possible to tell if the Brushy pictures are really from the late 1870s or if they are more likely twenty years younger. The obviously superior quality of Brushy-pictures seems to suggest the latter, but that is just my guess of course. While it might not be possible to completely clear up the questions surrounding the Kid's death, with the available pictorial evidence it should be possible to tell if Brushy Bill was the Kid or if it is far more likely that he wasn't. Brushy's similarities with the Kid, while tantalizing, aren't good enough. Everything which doesn't change with age, needs to match exactly. That said, even if Brushy was most likely not the Kid - if there are confirmed similarities with the Kid, the question arises, if this resemblance is a mere coincidence or if Brushy may have been related to the Kid's family somehow. Brushy's story is tantalizing. What gave him the idea to his tall claim in the first place? It's a fascinating story no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 3, 2018 10:59:21 GMT -5
SBeck,
Very interesting post and thoughtfully presented. Your logic makes sense to me. But I differ with the conclusions you reach. First and foremost, I'm not sure what you mean by "hard evidence". I don't know what "hard evidence" would qualify other than DNA and researchers have been refused that option. As for the age of the photos, just take a look on the web and you will find numerous photos much older than the 1880's that are quite clear pictures. The famous BTK tintype is very deteriorated, yes, but that doesn't mean all photos from that same time period will have suffered the same. Also, the deteriorated condition of that photo as well as the method in which it was produced make it difficult to determine anything regarding light or dark skin. Lets talk about wavy hair. I'm not sure what source there is to confirm BTK had wavy hair, but even if he did, I think we can agree that during his BTK days, he wore his hair a bit longer than it was in most all of the photos of Brushy. Hair that tends to be wavy often will appear straight when it is cut a bit shorter. Width of his mouth: By my rather crude comparison efforts, I am quite certain the mouths were the same width. That is in comparing the younger Brushy with the BTK tintype. In photos of older Brushy all his teeth were gone in which condition the mouth tends to flatten and widen out a little and the chin appears to the eye, a bit shorter. This was not considered in the famous former FBI agent's testing. But maybe you think their efforts were less "crude" than mine. Now I know you didn't mean that remark as an insult and I didn't take it that way. But you simply do not know how much careful effort I put into what I did or how much was overlooked by other efforts. I don't present my comparisons as "proof" BTW. I did them because I wanted to and I enjoyed doing it. So I shared them.
In closing, let me just point out that all of us who look at this tend to go into it with some preconceived ideas as to the possible truth of Brushy's claim and we tend to look for and find "evidence" to support what we wanted to believe up front. Your final paragraph confirms this.
"That said, even if Brushy was most likely not the Kid - if there are confirmed similarities with the Kid, the question arises, if this resemblance is a mere coincidence or if Brushy may have been related to the Kid's family somehow. Brushy's story is tantalizing. What gave him the idea to his tall claim in the first place? It's a fascinating story no matter what."
Even if there were "confirmed similarities" the question is whether he was related or whether it was mere coincidence? You completely eliminate the possibilities that those similarities might just indicate that he really was Billy The Kid. My suggestion is that you are not nearly as objective about this as you could be.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Jun 3, 2018 17:41:06 GMT -5
SBeck, J. Frank Dalton blazed the trail from anonymity to fleeting fame for Brushy Bill, just a year before Oliver P. Roberts said he was Billy the Kid. Dalton signed an affidavit that he was Jesse Woodson James. In his role as Jesse James, Dalton was a celebrity at Meramec Caverns in Missouri. The centenarian traveled to New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
|
|
|
Post by SBeck on Jun 6, 2018 10:05:46 GMT -5
Texas Truth Teller, I know all about Frank Dalton. And this is indeed one of the things which make me look at Brushy's claim with extreme skepticism. But I believe that it's possible now to come to more precise conclusions by taking another forensic look at the available pictorial evidence.
|
|
rkmau
First Post
Posts: 1
|
Post by rkmau on May 31, 2019 12:15:23 GMT -5
Interesting post, based on the discussion it seems we can conclude the basis of Brushy's story was probably not from the Burn's book.
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Mar 3, 2020 9:27:45 GMT -5
I've read part of the transcript of Dudley's hearing which reads, Q.by Col.Dudley: in what direction did you go upon your escape from the McSween house? Answer ( by billy) Ran towards the Tunstall store, was fired at, and there turned towards the river.in Beyond the grave by WC Jameson Brushy says "ran through the gate with both .44s blazing and Jose Chavez was right behind me. He and I ran toward Tunstalls store. We got fired at, and then we turned toward the river". I don't believe Brushy could have read any of Dudley's hearing transcript yet he uses more or less the same words and describes that same event the same way. Strike for Brushy?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 3, 2020 18:07:13 GMT -5
Not a "strike". More like a base hit or even a double.
|
|
|
Post by Roberto on Mar 3, 2020 20:13:11 GMT -5
Yes I agree
|
|
|
Post by tboor74 on Oct 27, 2020 12:38:41 GMT -5
It's always struck me as critical that Brushy stated that Dudley's soldier's RODE into town. I don't think that was quoted in Burns' book yet that's how Brushy described it, repeating it as you would if you'd seen it. No thought, just a description of what was observed.
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on Oct 27, 2020 13:37:48 GMT -5
By reading The True History of Billy the Kid by Harold T Bolieu proved to me that he had not got the info in Burns's book, probably the first time that William Henry Roberts told is story and it was way before Burns's book came out 😀
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Oct 27, 2020 14:00:34 GMT -5
thoor74,
On page 30 of Alias Billy the Kid by Morrison, Brushy states: Colonel Dudley rode into town with those _______ soldiers. (Buffalo soldiers)
On pages 122 - 124 of The Saga of Billy the Kid, Burns' writes about Colonel Dudley and his Buffalo soldiers. It talks about the long, blue-uniformed column rounding a bend in the road with Colonel Dudley and his officers riding ahead. On page 124, it states, While the black troopers lounged at ease in their saddles. So they were mounted on horses and they rode into town.
nmjames
|
|