|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 21, 2014 7:41:44 GMT -5
Sorry Wayne, i missed the question about the signature. This is another easy question to answer. I'm not sure that there is a documented case of Brushy's signature. The women in his life filled out any paperwork that was ever attributed to him. 4(?) ex-wives, 4 different signatures, none of which were Brushy's. Maybe the child-like henscratch writing was his, though.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 21, 2014 10:17:13 GMT -5
Again, there "are" photos/photocopies of pages from Brushy's notebook. As for photos of Brushy's scars, maybe he objected to having his photo taken with his pants off, do you think? Or maybe he was camera shy about photos of his naked torso as well? There was a time when it was considered indecent for a man to appear in public with his shirt off. Today, we all carry around high definition cameras in our pocket via smartphones. In the 1940's, cameras were not something that everyone had immediate access to if they had any access at all. I don't accept your answer regarding the 1910 census. I don't believe for a second that the person answering the census taker just happened to come up with same exact mistakes that Brushy insisted almost 40 years later were the true facts. As for the signatures, I've heard that answer repeatedly, shall I say "ad nauseum". "His wife wrote everything for him." Where's the evidence this was the case? I believe that assertion as the result of speculation. Sonnichsen stated Brushy was "not a literate man" and therefore could not have read about all the things he knew. Then the other side jumps on that with, then he couldn't be Billy The Kid because Billy could definitely read and write. Sonnichsen then explained that his comment was intended to mean that Brushy was not a "literary" man, in other words he did not read a great deal. So it is pointed out that Brushy wrote those notebooks and letters, etc. So then the other side responds with "his wife must have written all that for him". Where is the evidence this is the case?
Cameras? So if taking photos of history changing events has always been such an automatic thing, why are there no pictures of Billy's dead body from the Fort Sumner shooting? What happened to the gun Billy allegedly had in his hand when he was shot? Oh yes, I remember, Deluvina retrieved it and put it in the drawer. What? Why in the world would she do that? Do you think maybe that story was to cover up the fact he had no gun with him at all? Why did the body have a full beard and tan skin? I want photos of the dead body or I won't believe it was Billy. They say, there were no cameras around. Well maybe there were no cameras around in the 1940's. Maybe Melinda and her descendants didn't allow any photos?
I hear these claims that Brushy didn't really have a family Bible with his birth as William Henry Roberts in 1859 recorded there. Why? Because there are no pictures of it anywhere. Yet they insist Geneva Pittmon had a family Bible showing the birth of Oliver P. in 1879. So where are the photos of Geneva's family Bible. Shouldn't there be photographic documentation of such an important piece of evidence? What's good for the goose is good for the gander I always say.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 21, 2014 14:34:23 GMT -5
Wayne, i see we have some common ground. If the people who tried to prove this 1 way or the other were as resolved as we are in our opinions, this case would have been solved a long time ago. I WAS NOT talking about photographs of Brushy's body. I was talking about written items from his life. I discredit the wounds because Brushy and J.F. Dalton played cowboys & indians for many years together(with REAL guns). They both have bullet wounds and scars all over the place. I'm surprised they didn't kill each other. You discredit my Morrison's selfish motives theory, but it explains the continual rewriting of events by him. I will go over Morrison's inconsistencies in a future post. I can no more prove that Brushy didn't write those letters as you can prove he did,(STALEMATE). I do refer back to the draft card, it does appear that there are names of witnesses, that would only be needed if he had: 1) no id, 2)he didn't fill out the card himself or, 3)both 1 & 2. This illiterate, literate, literary, and non literary is part of the rewriting of history by the Author's(BRUSHY'S) to explain away inconsistencies in His story. Wayne, you do have some good traffic on this site and you do get the most views when you are debating Ol' Brushy with somebody. I rather enjoyed NMJames posts, but i suspect he was more into facts than speculation. I do wish he and others would join in. I was a watcher also, before I joined in. Mr. James seemed to have you on the ropes, but i can see the damage has healed and you are even tougher. Don't get mad Wayne & I think we can get this Board hoppin'. 1 last thing about the 1910 census, why would Brushy TELL the truth on the 1910 census (if as you say he wrote the info), then LIE on every census after that 1(1920,1930,1940) using Oliver P. Roberts' name, once he made the truth known, then why not stick with it? It doesn't make sense and as Judge Judy says, "If it doesn't make sense, then it's not true!"
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 21, 2014 19:55:49 GMT -5
In 1910, I believe, Brushy had only recently returned to Texas and even though he was normally very careful about revealing anything that would lead to his true identity being discovered, he answered the census truthfully because he just didn't think first about the possible consequences. Or maybe at that point, he didn't even know what Oliver P's birthplace and parents' birthplaces were and he had to answer the questions. Just making up some random answer would have presented more risk to his secrecy and so he just gave the true facts. Who knows exactly what was going through his head or not going through it at that point? But for whatever reason, he gave the actual birthplaces. By the time the next census came around, he had learned the correct answers that Oliver P. would have given.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 22, 2014 10:13:59 GMT -5
BTW, where is your evidence that Brushy and Dalton went around shooting at each other? And please, let's not base our discussion about Brushy on whether or not J. Frank Dalton was a fraud. If he was, then of course it casts doubt on the honesty of anyone who identified him as Jesse James, including Brushy. But I don't think guilt by association should be an important factor here because in fact, it was never "proven" that Dalton was a fraud. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind a little "conjecture". After all, I do make a habit of it myself. But I still want to know how you arrive at your ideas and I see absolutely no logic in the idea that the two of them were somehow playing "cowboys and indians" as grown men, using real guns. And the scars just happened to end up in the right places? Come on!
One more point from your last post. If Brushy was really Billy The Kid, then he "would not" have had any ID when filling out that draft card, which explains the witness signature.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 22, 2014 13:52:08 GMT -5
Wayne,I only recently started writing my sources down, so I will have to RE-FIND some of them and will give you the source if I run across it again. First there is the "Old Gunslingers" photo from 1942, that most people have seen, secondly there is a story from J. Frank Dalton himself(googled: but not sure of exact reference) paraphrasing: "That some raiders came and burnt down my ranch, the only ones to get away were me, an Indian, my foreman Brushy, and my son Jesse Jr., 3) both said on separate occasions that they had worked for Wild West Shows(not sure if either said they worked together), but if they knew each other for 78 years, this assumption is certainly not out of the realm of reasoned possibility. 4) The 2 newspaper photos that indicate that Brushy was verifying J. Frank Dalton's claim of Jesse W. James. 5) My talking to others(history buffs) about Brushy's supposed ties to J.F. Dalton and a Traveling Rodeo Show. It has been awhile back since I heard this claim and I did not think it relevant at the time to ask anymore questions about it ( I will bear responsibility for this mistake). I was being just a bit sarcastic about the wounds, but doing and practicing for these shows was dangerous and people often got hurt. Look at "Gang" members of today, i have seen some shot 15 or twenty times. and the scars of famous outlaws are as much speculation as truth. Say BTK was shot in the shoulder, there is no way to know exactly where in the shoulder he was shot, does that now mean anyone shot in the same shoulder is BTK? If a guy was missing an arm, leg, eye, etc. to identify that is much more definitive, i would certainly be on the side of the claimant. See Wayne, no guilt by association, but I do find it incredible that two people who supposedly knew each other for 78 years, knew so very little about each other. My "IDEAS" of the facts are based on sound reasoning of the evidence and the closing of loopholes that actually lead to a conclusion, a conclusion you will not accept. Your speculation leads to no reasonable answers, only to more speculation to support the speculation that was presented before it, and rather than reasonably answer any questions or closing some of these unknowns, it opens more questions without ever reasonably answering any. You will not address the "White Elephant" in the room who is William V. Morrison, who was the 1 who mixed and matched the names for Brushy. Morrison reasoned if he blew enough smoke up everybody's , then nobody could figure Brushy wasn't BTK and it worked. However, Morrison made the mistake that this same reasoning, could also never result in Brushy being BTK. Wayne, your last post was your best yet. You have misquoted me on a # of occasions with the 1st about Brushy's body(injuries) and photographs, i never tied those together, you did, and then attributed it to me, and the other is about the camera: you keep talking about the 1940's, when i never said a word about 1940's photography, you did, then attributed that to me. Reread my posts! I was talking about the AUTHORS who write books on Brushy's Evidence. People who have seen the trunks mysterious contents through the 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 2000's, and 2010's. In the 60 years that have passed since Brushy's claim I am unreasonable to think that every item in the trunk should have been documented by now. I think not! You say you do not know the person who owns the trunk, I KNOW THAT, that was not my point at all, my point is that you DO KNOW the authors of these books, or at the very least have the same agenda, so why as i asked you before, would they hide evidence from you or anyone else if it proves Brushy was BTK, when that is what they are trying to prove!! They can supply the evidence to you anytime they like( if it actually exists), but they do not. If Brushy was BTK then evidence from the trunk would absolutely resolve this, and yet it does not. This again is a rewriting of history to counter the John Miller trunk legend. Does Brushy have Bibles and other evidence? Of course, but does any of it id him as BTK, not a chance, 60 years of examination later and the evidence can not prove it. If Brushy was BTK it would take very little time and evidence from the trunk to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 22, 2014 15:27:08 GMT -5
I do know who owns the trunk. I've seen the trunk. It is in the museum in Hico. It is empty. The items have long since been removed. I've seen a photo of the Anti Horse Thief badge/medallion that was in the trunk. I've seen photos of pages from the notebooks. The claim is not that the Bible identifies Brushy as Billy The Kid. The claim is that it lists the birth of William Henry Roberts in 1859. It is my opinion that Melinda Allison's nephew has the Bible, the tapes and the notebooks that were in that trunk. Sue Land, no relation to me, runs the museum in Hico. She told me what had happened to the items in the trunk, but unfortunately (my mistake), I did not write down or record what she said. Maybe she could be contacted to shed some light on what she believes happened. I do remember she claimed Jameson and Frederic Bean were involved.
The only author of any book that I "know" would be Dr. Jannay Valdez. But as far as I know, he has no physical evidence to present to anyone nor has he seen the items that were in the trunk. He couldn't have taken photos of something he's never seen. I've exchanged a couple emails with Brett Hall but I certainly wouldn't say that I know him. I've also met Judge Hefner, and enjoyed pie and coffee with he and his wife. But I have no way of contacting him and I wouldn't say that one two hour visit to his home means I know him. But even if I did, he also has no evidence to show anyone and has never been in a position to be able to take any photos. Not to my knowledge.
There are just two individuals that claim to have seen the notebooks and/or heard the tapes. They are Brett Hall, whom I don't know, and Frederic Bean who was doing research for Jameson's book. You'll have to ask them why they didn't take any photos of anything. Or why they don't make them public. That stuff was in the possession of Morrison's daughter for many years and I have heard it said she was very protective of it and didn't want it made public. You could ask her why but I think she has passed on. I just know that Dr. Valdez told me that Brett Hall had a heck of a time convincing her to let him examine the materials. He said that he had sought permission himself and she had continued to deny him. He said he didn't know how Brett convinced her but that it was very difficult to gain her trust.
My apologies that it seemed to you I was putting words in your mouth or misquoting you. That was certainly not my intention.
Here's an important question for you. Do you believe Billy The Kid was killed by Pat Garrett in 1881?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 22, 2014 17:26:24 GMT -5
Here's a photo of the trunk, which is now empty. The blanket also belonged to Brushy.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 22, 2014 17:44:01 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne, you have restored my faith in you. We both have made mistakes by not keeping track of previously known information(we just didn't think it was that important at the time or just forgot). That goes to show that resourcing every scrap of info is vital no matter how unimportant it seems at the time. My whole point has nothing to do with you or I. These Authors and Historical Experts should be held to a higher standard than you and I, they should not be making the same mistakes that we have. And regardless of who has the items from the trunk, they know they have them and let the truth be revealed, whether it indicates Brushy was BTK or not. This "Holding" of people hostage with the truth is B.S. The contents of the trunk if shown in it's entirety would certainly prove it 1 way or the other. Wayne, it may seem as if I was holding you accountable for others, and i am sorry if I did, but at least you are MAN enough to stand up and take a bullet for these "hiding" experts. I do not trust Hall at All, no wonder Dr. Valdez wanted no parts of him. A self promoting expert who will not associate himself with people who promote the same agenda, has something to hide. All that aside, it is, in fact, Brushy supporters(Authors) who have given the best evidence that Pat Garrett did not kill BTK IN 1881, and you know what that means. I purposely ducked this question from you the first time and you smartly brought it up again. Well done, Wayne!!! FOR NOW this is as far as this conversation goes, i will talk to you offline Wayne, but i will not speak publicly about it until i have done more research. thanks
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 22, 2014 18:11:59 GMT -5
Well thanks for your input to the board.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 22, 2014 18:16:43 GMT -5
Wayne, i forgot to tell you how i eliminated Brushy from the BTK race. Although Brushy bears strong resemblance to BTK'S tintype, i had to ask myself why Brushy had no tintypes of himself, only photos. 1 photo of Brushy at 14 predates any BTK tintype by 6-10 years, and yet it is not a tintype. Another photo shows him at less than 30 years of age. If born in 1859, that would make the photo pre-1890. Although, that photo needs to be examined under a microscope to be certain, i have seen many 19th century photos and i have come to the conclusion that photo of Brushy is a silver-gelatin photo. What difference does that make? Silver-gelatin photos were not invented until after 1890(most say around mid 1890's), pre-1890 photos were albumen photos (albumen = made with the whites of eggs). The albumen photos show paper fibers under magnification, while silver gelatin do not. Albumen photos look more tan to brown(because of being egg=based), while silver-gelatin show much browner to jet black, just like Brushy's hair in the under 30 photo. Examination under magnification of that photo would in my opinion exclude Brushy from being old enough. That photo id would almost be as good as an exhumation. If you do not believe me consult a photography professional and get their opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 23, 2014 9:19:28 GMT -5
So, which photo are you saying is Brushy at less than 30 years old? I know there is one that has been described as "around 30" but I'm not sure we can say whether that photo was taken in 1889 or a year or two earlier or later. It may have even been taken in the mid 1890's after silver-gelatin photos were invented? Additionally, does it make any difference whether you can see those paper fibers if you're looking at a scanned copy or a photocopy of the picture rather than the original? My knee jerk reaction would be to suggest that whatever method was used to make the copy we have access to was not done at high enough resolution to make accurate evaluations of paper fibers and such.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 23, 2014 9:35:02 GMT -5
I did a little research of my own and would like to share this quote:
"Unlike albumen prints, the paper fibers in the gelatin silver print cannot be seen under a microscope. The gelatin silver photos have a thin layer of gelatin on the front image area. The gelatin was used to hold the necessary photographic chemicals to the paper. While transparent, the gelatin obscures the paper fibers from view (On some early, circa 1890s examples, the fibers can barely be seen). When viewing under a microscope, you may see the uneven surface of the gelatin. With experience this surface is easily distinguished from paper fibers."
I take this to mean you would need a microscope to see the paper fibers in an albumen photo. "Microscope" indicates to me that an extreme amount of magnification is necessary to see those fibers and no copying process that might have been used to reproduce that photo would be able to see that much detail. So if you haven't examined the original item, I don't see how you can arrive at your conclusions.
More on this photo dating stuff, later.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 23, 2014 9:40:16 GMT -5
Also this from Wikipedia:
"The gelatin silver process was introduced by Richard Leach Maddox in 1871 with subsequent considerable improvements in sensitivity obtained by Charles Harper Bennet in 1878. Research over the last 125 years has led to current materials that exhibit low grain and high sensitivity to light."
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 23, 2014 9:57:08 GMT -5
And this quote from another photography website:
"Gelatin silver prints, or gelatin dry-plate, appeared on the scene in the 1880’s, replacing the wet-plate process and revolutionizing the photographic industry."
So whether it is "likely" or "unlikely", it is definitely "possible" that a photo of Billy The Kid at "less than 30 years old" could be a silver gelatin photograph.
|
|