|
Post by Wayne Land on Feb 8, 2015 18:45:11 GMT -5
Please do not post anything rude, belittling or disrespectful. Such posts will be deleted from this forum.
|
|
|
Post by 44colt on Mar 2, 2015 9:06:02 GMT -5
Wayne, I just want to thank you for your contributions to history and for creating this board. I am convinced as well that Brushy Bill Roberts was Billy the Kid. You can't choose your physical characteristics. The Brushy doubters seem to want to live in a black and white world where the good guys are always good and the bad guys were always bad. There were a lot of bad guys hiding behind badges in Billy's time, just as there are today. Here is a story about a local conspiracy to railroad a guy that happened recently. It reminded me of the conspiracy against Billy who could get no justice either. www.yahoo.com/news/video-exonerates-man-set-louisiana-cops-prosecutors-video-202632601.htmlThere is in my opinion only ONE argument that is possible to discredit Brushy and that would be that Morrison and Sonnichsen made it all up and I just don't believe that. If Brushy really could recall from memory the intimate details of Billy the Kid's life and the Lincoln County War then there is no doubt he was the Kid. The man was not a MENSA scholar for Pete's sake. He knew things no one else knew.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 2, 2015 9:38:54 GMT -5
44colt,
Well said. Well said. And thanks for the link. As a former New Orleans resident it came as no big surprise, but thanks for sharing that.
You really hit the nail on the head with your comments. What you said is precisely why I believe Brushy was the real deal. Along with the fact he got so emotional about entering the Lincoln Courthouse after all those years, that he was reluctant to admit who he was when first approached by Morrison and the fact that he knew his claim could mean going to prison for murder or even having the death sentence carried out. I too have mentioned before that if he was lying then Morrison and Sonnichsen were lying in their book and they knew it. They weren't in it for the money. They were trying to help Brushy and set history straight. I'm convinced of that.
|
|
|
Post by 44colt on Mar 2, 2015 10:05:37 GMT -5
I totally agree with you. The doubters want to point to exaggerations or embellishments he may have made as proof that his entire story is discredited and that is unreasonable. Governments are not infallible...be they local or otherwise...regardless of what is "legal" or public record. They are comprised of men that have motives and agendas just like anyone else.
Brushy was not a perfect human being and I would imagine he embellished details at times but this is a far cry from playing an elaborate hoax based entirely on falsehood. All of us have lied or told a half truth at some point in our lives and coffee shops are full of old men telling stories about the fish they caught or how they walked to school up hill both ways. Its human nature.
All that said, if this fact causes us to dismiss the MOUNTAINS of evidence that Brushy provided then what is the point of considering evidence at all?
Brushy was the Kid and as more and more people do primary research he continues to gain credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 2, 2015 12:31:26 GMT -5
There's a huge difference between being a pathological liar and having a multiple personality disorder. I'm not saying Brushy was a case of either one. I'm just saying "if" he was one, it doesn't make him the other. I've often used the example that Wyatt Earp who's identity no one questioned, said some things in later life that were obviously false. On one occasion he described Doc Holiday as being a blonde. I have no idea why he would say that since photos of Doc make it very apparent he had dark hair. Wyatt told different versions of what happened when he shot Curly Bill Brocius and claimed he was the one who shot Ringo even though history indicates that was not true. And many believe he probably lied about who fired the first shot at the OK Corral. Yet no one questions whether the man stating these falsehoods was the one and only Wyatt Earp.
I sure wish there was a smoking gun somewhere that would get the attention of those who dismiss Brushy's claim so easily. In my opinion your book comes closer than any other at pinpointing convincing information and I've been trying to recommend it whenever I get the chance. I hope you've sold lots of copies already.
|
|
|
Post by 44colt on Mar 2, 2015 15:57:28 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne. I appreciate that very much. By the way, in the print version I was hoping to put your review on the back cover if you are ok with it, and give you credit of course. Since the version you received I have added a lot more information, formatting, etc. Hopefully its a better product now than ever and yes, its selling pretty good so far!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 2, 2015 18:19:07 GMT -5
By the way, in the print version I was hoping to put your review on the back cover if you are ok with it, and give you credit of course. Certainly. I'd be honored to have my review included.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 5, 2015 18:59:45 GMT -5
Now I admit I don't know the provenance on this photo. I don't even know who identified the men in it. But I believe it makes sense as described. After all, Martile Ables did say her husband had known Billy around the area of Pecos, TX and the 1880 date fits as well. If it's authentic then here's a picture of Billy The Kid with John Ables, the future husband of Martile who identified Brushy as the real deal.
|
|
|
Post by XS59 on Jun 6, 2015 8:30:34 GMT -5
Wayne, You have created a fascinating website and collected many valuable informations.I like how you maintain civility and try to be honest to yourself. In the last few pages of this thread you summarized your case for Brushy Bill having been Billy the Kid more than once in a convincing way. You also acknowledged that the public records don't seem to support this claim. I see it this way: we have three legs on which Brushy Bill's claim has to stand: a.) The photographic evidence. Since it's the only hard evidence which can be analyzed with scientific methods I put great stock in this. Unfortunately the analyzes done so far are inconclusive. But the best one done is still the one from 1990. And this analysis concludes it's highly unlikely that Brushy Bill and Billy the Kid are not the same person. Your own comparisons are conducted with care and diligence. I like especially what you have done with the comparison of the whole bodies and the hands. The results are striking. These results alone are strong points which can't be dismissed easily. I wish someone would conduct another analysis with modern and improved tools. b.) We have the eyewitness reports which exist independently from those collected by Morrison. The distinction is important, because anything that comes from Morrison has to be treated with extreme caution IMO. At least some of those reports seem to hint at Brushy Bill being the real deal. Are there any reports besides Ms. Pittmon's which contradict Brushy Bill's claim which have to be taken seriously? This second leg on which Brushy Bill's claim rests is considerably weaker than the photographic evidence. c.) The third leg is everything which comes from Morrison. While a lot of it sounds utterly convincing at first this evidence should be treated with great caution. I have great reservations concerning Morrison's role. I don't doubt that he honestly believed Brushy Bill's story. But his actions are leaving a lot to be desired. Why for example didn't he make any photos of Brushy Bill's scars? This could have served as objective evidence that Brushy Bill couldn't have been Olly Roberts. Morrison's assertions are suspect of suffering from extreme confirmation bias. He wanted Brushy Bill to be Billy the Kid. Insofar the affidavits he collected are suspect as well. We don't know how the talks between these witnesses and Morrison were conducted and if the witnesses had other motives beyond speaking the truth. And they might've suffered from confirmation bias, too - especially if the similarity between the two Billies was striking indeed. This said, there could be nuggets in Morrison's Brushy Bill tales nevertheless. Is there knowledge of Billy the Kid to be found neither Brushy Bill nor Morrison could've had at the time? Something which only later turned out to be true? I think Wayne has done a very good job in pointing out a few things neither Brushy Bill nor Morrison could have known at the time - unless Brushy has been at least a close associate of the Kid. And that at least begs the question: who exactly was he if he wasn't the Kid? d.) There's a fourth leg of course: Brushy Bill's tales recorded independently from Morrison. But everything coming from Brushy Bill - through Morrison or independently - has to be treated with great caution as well. He might've been lying - no matter if he was the Kid or not. He might've embellished or bragged. He might've had memory lapses. Only if he came up with something only the Kid or a very close associate could've possibly known at the time - well that would be very important of course. And needs to be examined with great care. I think if we look at those legs the case is resting on, Brushy Bill's claim has to be taken seriously. And that demands speculations about the official records. Wayne isn't speculating baselessly. If Brushy was really the Kid, then the recorded dates must be wrong. It's simply a thought experiment to speculate how the mistakes might've crept in. And trying to find plausible explanations doesn't mean it really happened that way. Wayne never claimed that it did. One more thing: what's indeed bothering me most about Brushy's claim is his close association with Frank Dalton. Even if his claim to be Jesse James has never gotten disproven once and for all I simply don't buy it. And how big is the likelihood that not one but two notorious outlaws escaped death in a very similar manner only to band together in old age and come out of the woodwork? To believe that is just too much. And unlike Brushy Bill Frank Dalton seemed to have the kind of flamboyance to stage something like this just for the heck of it and enjoying himself all the way. But is it conclusively documented how they learned to know each other and who came out first with his claim? On the surface that seems to be Dalton. I'm not that well versed with the datey but is there a possibility that Brushy told Dalton privately that he's the Kid - and that this inspired Dalton to come out with his grand claim? If that's possible it would explain this extraordinary coincidence. Another possibility is that Brushy was the Kid and if you come out with such an extraordinary claim it's very hard to discredit someone openly who comes out with a similar claim. There's confirmation bias at work here, too.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 6, 2015 9:59:42 GMT -5
XS59, thanks for the excellent and thoughtful post. I agree 100% with everything you said and I really appreciate your comments. I hope lots of people read it.
|
|
|
Post by XS59 on Jun 6, 2015 17:52:57 GMT -5
Wayne, thanks for acknowledging my comment. I have been browsing for a while. I'm a forensic psychologist from Germany, which might explain some of my mistakes regarding the English language. I don't work in forensics any more but with old and demented people. But you can see that Brushy Bill covers both areas of my expertise - crime and old age, although not necessarily the demented part I am fascinated by the psychological aspects of the case as much as with the question if Brushy was really the Kid. Because if he wasn't the Kid why did he concoct (or was induced to concoct) this elaborate spoof at such an advanced age? On the surface that doesn't make any sense. But since there is as far as I know no reason to believe that he was completely senile, there must be a compelling reason behind his actions. Even if he wasn't the Kid -and there are many good arguments against that - the case is fascinating nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Jun 6, 2015 23:17:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by XS59 on Jun 7, 2015 8:30:06 GMT -5
Texas Truth Teller, your link doesn't work, but through googling I found the page anyway. I'm definitely interested in hearing all sides in this ongoing argumemt. The trouble with the arguments from that page - as well as your arguments here on Wayne's site - is, that many of the counter arguments aren't scientifically verified facts either. They are simply recorded hearsay which has been widely accepted as the truth. And that isn't surprising at all, because if those statements weren't widely accepted, Brushy Bill's story wouldn't be labeled alternative history. As far as I know there are two simple facts in this ongoing saga: - No one so far has been able to prove beyond any reasonable doubts that Brushy Bill was indeed the Kid. - No one has been able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Brushy Bill can't have been the Kid. That's the state of affairs right now. And all we can do is to collect as much information as possible? Then we can make up our minds if it is even worth to make an effort to construct plausible scenarios and make an informed choice of what to believe.For me personally the evidence of the photos is a very strong argument for not dismissing Brushy's claim out of hand. It's also simply not true that Brushy didn't really know much about Billy the Kid. The information from your link is a bit disingenuous there. Brushy knew indeed a few startling things . It's also true that he got a lot of facts wrong. Nobody denies that. But there are different explanations possible why he did get some things wrong. The second blatant disingenuousness is the claim that Brushy Bill couldn't even remember Pat Garrett's name when he was interviewed in the presence of the governor. Now, come on! That argument is so weak that it's hardly worth arguing about. Which self respecting Billy the Kid impostor would claim that he doesn't remember Pat Garrett? This lapse of memory is a sure sign that something was not right at all with Brushy and anything he said during that hearing should be discarded. A strong argument in favor of Brushy Bill not being the Kid is the presence of multiple old men, who claim the identity of a famous outlaw. That does indeed discredit Brushy's claim to fame IMO. I questioned the motive for Brushy coming forward in old age. But if there have been others who did just that, then this might've been a bit of a cottage industry back then. I can see that the attention following such a claim might've given him the idea to try his hands at a scam as well. This letter to one "Kit Carson" where Brushy talks about the Kid in the third person also gives me pause. It isn't conclusive but it's easy to interpret it as the announcement of a future scam. But all this doesn't make the fact of Brushy's startling similarity with the Kid go away. Add to that the fact that he did know a few interesting things which seem to support his claim and we have to ask ourselves: who exactly was Brushy Bill if he was not the Kid? That he was simply the man of the records - Olli P Roberts doesn't seem to be all that likely either. I ask all experts here: Is it absolutely impossible that Brushy knew the Kid and might've even been related to him somehow? That would explain his partial knowledge and the similarity with the Kid. It might sound hare brained but I think it should be investigated - and if it is just for being able to exclude it for sure. Remember, Brushy claimed first in front of his wife that he was a half brother of the Kid. Could there be a nugget of thruth in that original claim? -
|
|
|
Post by cassandra jane on Jun 7, 2015 12:27:13 GMT -5
"Remember, Brushy claimed first in front of his wife that he was a half brother of the Kid. Could there be a nugget of thruth in that original claim?" I'm maybe an eighth familiar with this claim. Are there any sites that follow that thread in detail?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 7, 2015 12:35:56 GMT -5
That question has been posed many times and as far as I know there's really no way to pursue that possibility. There are no historical records to suggest Billy The Kid had a half brother. We have no way to check whether Mary Adeline Dunn or James Henry Roberts had children by another marriage and no way to check whether the historically accepted father, possibly a Michael McCarty, may have had children from another marriage. We just don't have any info that would allow us to research that. At least not that I know of. Maybe one day, something will surface.
My personal belief is that Brushy was, at first, simply trying to leave the door open with Morrison without admitting that he himself was the Kid, out of caution of being discovered and jailed. Then he thought about his age and his desire to one day clear his name and decided to ask Morrison for help.
|
|