|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 20, 2018 8:46:37 GMT -5
"Not possible. John C. Abel, age 19, was living with his parents in Uvalde County, Texas, in 1880. It is over 300 miles from Uvalde County, Texas, to Pecos County, Texas."
TTT, just because the census reported John in his parents' household in 1880 does not mean he was physically there.
"William Bonney could not have visited with the John C. Abel family before 1882, for John C. Abel and Martelia Bilberry Henderson were not married until 1898."
TTT, the "John C. Able family" did not necessarily include Martella. "Family" could have meant John and his parents.
I'm not going to go through the rest of your post point by point because it is all the same basically. You insist that the statements must be true word for word with no false assumptions, etc. I believe you are intimating that if a text does not reach that high standard of perfection then it simply has no value in helping divulge the overall truth of the fact that Brushy Bill Roberts and Billy The Kid were one and the same. Your approach just "can't see the forest for the trees." In my opinion this whole thread is an attempt to prove that because there are authors that got things wrong, Brushy can't be BTK. But "that dog don't hunt."
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Mar 23, 2018 10:32:33 GMT -5
MissyS, "At first Brushy didn't want his wife to know he was Billy the Kid, he told Morrison to come back when she wasn't home so he can discuss his life, anyway knowing how he felt about keeping his wife from knowing his identity, I would guess Brushy would have kept his trunk locked up, so I would guess his wife's Bible would not have been in his trunk? " That statement is found in "Alias Billy the Kid". Does that mean Brushy was Billy the Kid just because he said he was? Does that mean he didn't want Lizzie to know that he was telling people he was Billy the Kid, even if he wasn't? Did the trunk belong to Brushy or Lizzie? Lizzie and James Allison were married for about 37 years and never left Texas. They lived in Hamilton County from about 1935 until after 1940, before he died in 1943. Did she keep their trunk after James died? Lizzie and Brushy were married in Hamilton County. When and where did Brushy acquire a trunk to lock up? Easier for Lizzie to move a trunk from one house to another in Hamilton County than for Brushy to move one all over the U S, to the Shetland Islands, Mexico, and Argentine, then from Little River County, AR, to Van Zandt County, to Hamilton County. I would guess that it was Lizzie's trunk and Lizzie's Bible and not the J.H. Roberts family Bible. I would guess the information about Brushy's parents was entered to support Brushy Bill's story. Why would Brushy store his notebooks and other personal things in his wife's trunk if he didn't want her to know his past? And why would it be difficult for Brushy to acquire a trunk?, if he traveled or moved around a lot a trunk could be handy for him, it could have been a smaller trunk?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 23, 2018 17:09:02 GMT -5
“Why would Brushy store his notebooks and other personal things in his wife's trunk if he didn't want her to know his past? And why would it be difficult for Brushy to acquire a trunk?, if he traveled or moved around a lot a trunk could be handy for him, it could have been a smaller trunk?”
Let’s start with the few proven facts. A trunk was in the possession of William Allison (1 July 1928 - 11 Feb 1996) of Temple, Texas. He was the grandson of Malinda Elizabeth “Lizzie” Murrell Allison Roberts (17 Nov 1876 - 10 June 1958). She had brought a trunk with her when she came to Temple to live with her relatives after the death of Oliver P. Roberts. There was a Bible in the trunk. There were reels of tape in the trunk. Some items in the trunk had belonged to Oliver.
Everything else is speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 25, 2018 21:09:47 GMT -5
"But that dog don't hunt."
That dog does hunt. My dog hunts and finds authors who state assumptions and opinions as fact in a effort to bolster Brushy Bill's story.
“Billy the Kid, The Lost Interviews”, p. 32, “Five original affidavits from individuals who knew Billy the Kid and who identified Brushy Bill as the same man.”
Clearly a misrepresentation of facts. Robert E. Lee, in his sworn affidavit, stated that the first time he saw William Bonney was in the summer of 1889. Elbert DeWitt Travis was born about 1890. Martile Able nee Bilberry was born about 1873 and was living in Lampasas County, Texas, in 1880.
The fatal shot was fired in 1882, so none of the three had ever seen William Bonney. How could they possibly identify Brushy Bill as Billy the Kid?
|
|
|
Post by clydec on Mar 26, 2018 12:22:07 GMT -5
TTT, the so-called presumed fatal shot was fired in 1881! Even if Brushy were to turn out to not be the kid(which I believe he is) I still believe that Garrett shot the wrong man!
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 26, 2018 18:24:28 GMT -5
"TTT, the so-called presumed fatal shot was fired in 1881!"
clydec, you are correct.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 26, 2018 18:25:50 GMT -5
More Brushy Bill Bogus information - the Rough Riders medal “Billy the Kid, Beyond the Grave”, p. 85. Jameson describes the medal presumably found in the trunk. “With regard to Roberts’ claim that he served as a member of Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, research failed to find his name on any enlistment rosters. Since Roberts had a history of using aliases, he may have gone undetected. TWO DAYS AFTER ROBERTS FUNERAL, EVIDENCE WAS DISCOVERED THAT SERVED TO LEND SUPPORT TO HIS ROUGH RIDERS CLAIM. While going through items in an old trunk belonging to Roberts, his widow, Melinda, and her grandson Bill Allison discovered a medal they had never seen before. General Henry Blake of the New Mexico Military Institute in Roswell, New Mexico, identified the medal, verified its authenticity, and consulted a reference book on its official use. The commemoration was a Spanish War Service Medal, sometimes called the National Guard Medal. Designed by Colonel J. R. M. Taylor, U.S. Army, the face of the medal displays a sheathed Roman sword lying on a tablet inscribed ‘For Service in the Spanish War’. The medal was authorized in 1918 for persons who served between April 20, 1898, and April 11, 1899. THIS MEDAL WAS GIVEN TO VETERANS OF THE CUBAN CAMPAIGN.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_War_Service_MedalCriteria: To be awarded the Spanish War Service Medal, a service member must have served on active duty in the United States Army between the dates of 20 April 1898 and 11 April 1899. Those who were awarded the Spanish Campaign Medal were ineligible to receive the Spanish War Service Medal. The Spanish War Service Medal was a one time decoration and there were no devices authorized to the medal. The award was also strictly for Army personnel, since United States Navy and Marine Corps personnel, who had served in the Spanish–American War, qualified for the Spanish Campaign Medal regardless if overseas duty was performed. Appearance The medal is made of bronze and is 1 3⁄8 inches (35 mm) wide. The obverse of the medal is a Roman sword hanging on a tablet bearing the inscription FOR SERVICE IN THE SPANISH WAR. The tablet is surrounded by a wreath, while the sword is sheathed representing the service of the National Guard within the Continental United States, not in combat. The reverse bears the coat of arms of the United States over a scroll inscribed FOR SERVICE surrounded by a wreath with the insignia of the Infantry at left, Artillery at the bottom and Cavalry at right. The ribbon is emerald green 1 3⁄8 inches (35 mm) wide. At the edges are golden yellow stripes 1⁄4 inch (6.4 mm) wide. FACT: The medal found in the trunk was for stateside service during the Spanish American War. It was not for service in Cuba as the author claimed, and does not support Brushy’s story that he was in Cuba.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 26, 2018 18:50:10 GMT -5
The biggest reason to believe Brushy was BTK "is" the fact that he said he was combined with the unlikelihood that an old man would put his life at risk by making such a claim unless there were some truth to it. Brushy did not say the medal in his trunk proved he was in Cuba. He didn't say he owned a trunk that traveled with him. He didn't say the family Bible traveled with him. In fact, he "did" make some statements that were either false or exaggerated. But none of that proves he was not Billy The Kid. You can't prove he was not Billy and I can't prove he was. We can only believe what we believe based on logic and objective reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by wannabe12 on Mar 26, 2018 20:14:51 GMT -5
I believe what TTT is pointing out is maybe there was more than a little exaggeration going on, both by Brushy and the author, in this case W C Jameson. Brushy's claim of being on scout gangs, and being put in charge of the horses because noone could handle them proves he said he was in Cuba. No way this could have happened because only horses for the Officers were sent to Cuba, the rest were left in Florida. One of Roosevelts horses drowned while being lifted off of the transport. Only one Troop from Indian Territory I believe Troop L, was sent to Cuba, about 70 men not counting officers, the other Troop, Troop M was left behind in Florida. Although there were scout gangs, they were made up of both Cuban rebels and Rough Riders, the fact that they dropped all around Brushy is in doubt since the casualties were very low for the Rough Riders, really for all of the American forces during what amounted to their short time in Cuba.
As you said this doesn't prove he was or wasn't Billy, but it does show that breaking down different parts of the story that it wont hold up, whether the exaggeration comes from Brushy, or an author claiming its something he said by quoting him. On here in another post you have said that its possible that his family tree may have been fabricated, isnt that the whole basis for his claim of where Billy came from, how he got to NM, and the names he used in that time.?? So if his genealogy is possibly made up, wouldnt it be objective reasoning, based on logic that if there were no J H Roberts, no Mary Adeline Dunn, there would be no William Roberts to become BTK.??
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 26, 2018 21:49:06 GMT -5
We can only believe what we believe based on logic and objective reasoning.”
True statement. Logic is the key word. There was a man named Oliver P. Roberts, son of Henry Oliver Roberts and Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson. He was born in August 1879 as recorded in the 1900 census of Hopkins County, TX. His niece, Geneva Roberts Pittmon, said Oliver was born 26 August 1879. Brushy Bill said he married Mollie Brown. When Brushy Bill registered for the WWI draft 12 September 1918 in Little River County, AR, he said his name was Oliver Pleasant Roberts, born 26 August 1878 (sic). Henry O. and Elizabeth Roberts were living in Arkinda, Little River County the 1920 census, the same town where Oliver Pleasant and Mollie Roberts lived when he registered for the WWI draft in 1918.
Brushy Bill said he took the belongings of his dead cousin Ollie to the boy’s family in Sulphur Springs, Hopkins County, TX. Henry Oliver Roberts and Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson lived for over 15 years in Hopkins County. Brushy Bill said his cousin Martha was married to Dudley Heath. Martha Roberts Heath was the half-sister of Oliver P. Roberts. Brushy Bill said his step-mother was Sarah Ferguson. The mother of Oliver P. Roberts was Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson.
No author has attempted to prove that Brushy Bill Roberts and Oliver P. Roberts were 2 different men.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 26, 2018 22:06:08 GMT -5
"TTT, the so-called presumed fatal shot was fired in 1881! "
clydec, my apologies for confusing the death date of two notorious characters.
Jesse Woodson James was killed 3 April 1882 in St Joe, Missouri, by Bob Ford. Conspiracy theorists substitute Charlie Bigelow (never found in any records) for Jesse James in his coffin.
Billy the Kid was killed 14 July 1881 by Pat Garrett as confirmed by the Coroners Jury report. Billy Barlow (never found in any records) took Henry McCarty's place in the Kid's coffin.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 26, 2018 23:14:10 GMT -5
Good example, for quite some time it had been widely claimed that only a few officers' horses were taken to Cuba when it fact it has been proven otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 27, 2018 8:38:49 GMT -5
Could you please cite the source that supports your statement?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 27, 2018 15:50:00 GMT -5
“”The biggest reason to believe Brushy was BTK "is" the fact that he said he was combined with the unlikelihood that an old man would put his life at risk by making such a claim unless there were some truth to it. “
Brushy was BtK because he said he was? Even though none of Brushy's activities after 1881 can be confirmed? Brushy put his life at risk by making such a claim? Was there an active arrest warrant for BtK? Brushy Bill in his role of BtK would have remained an unknown except for Morrison. Morrison and Brushy were so anxious for publicity that they wanted a meeting with the governor of New Mexico to request a pardon for crimes Brushy did not commit.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 27, 2018 20:12:40 GMT -5
"Could you please cite the source that supports your statement?"
I will, later.
"Brushy was BtK because he said he was?"
No, it's not quite that simple and I didn't say it was.
"Was there an active arrest warrant for BtK?"
No, I assume not, but if the Governor had declared him to be Billy, an arrest warrant could have been issued and a death penalty carried out. Not that it definitely would have been. In fact, probably not, but it is very likely he would have gone to jail, at least. Brushy was hoping for a pardon for the crimes he'd been found guilty of but he had no guarantee the pardon would have been issued.
Question for you TTT. Do you believe Brushy had multiple scars on his body?
|
|