|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 26, 2019 13:54:09 GMT -5
"It seems to me that if he were Billy the Kid he would not need affidavits to prove his contention"
I disagree with that assumption because history says Billy was killed in 1881 and there was no conclusive proof of who he was. Personal identifications like they were trying to get from the Jones brothers was the best change they had of proving who he was. There was no DNA and no documentation. Plus, this comment from Bill Jones' grandson is his opinion, not Bill Jones' opinion. And Sam Jones' statement that he was old and didn't want to be obligated did not mean he thought Brushy was an impostor. If that's what he thought then he would have said so. Bottom line is the Jones brothers simply did not say one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 27, 2019 21:00:03 GMT -5
" And Sam Jones' statement that he was old and didn't want to be obligated did not mean he thought Brushy was an impostor. If that's what he thought then he would have said so."
Are you a mindreader? Tell me that is not an assumption.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 27, 2019 21:32:39 GMT -5
"Tell me that is not an assumption."
Why would I do that? What I said certainly "is" an assumption. You can disagree with it if you like, just as I stated my disagreement above. I respect anyone's right to assume anything they want to as long as they don't insist their assumption is fact. Did I say my assumption "proved" anything? It's my opinion that if Sam Jones thought Brushy was an impostor then he would have said so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 27, 2019 22:54:39 GMT -5
" If that's what he thought then he would have said so. "
"It's my opinion that if Sam Jones thought Brushy was an impostor then he would have said so."
Both sentences are declarative sentences, conveying information.
The first sentence implies certain knowledge that Sam did not think that Brushy was an imposter.
The second sentence conveys your belief that Sam did not think that Brushy was an imposter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Mar 28, 2019 0:37:04 GMT -5
TTT,
You're being somewhat ridiculous about this. We "all" voice opinions on this message board. Including you. The second sentence was intended to clarify that my statements reflect my opinion and not necessarily fact. This is a forum that has at the core of it's purpose, an encouragement for the sharing of opinions and ideas based on personal belief. I'm willing to admit that my opinion could be wrong. You don't seem to believe you could ever be wrong about anything. Am I wrong about that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Mar 29, 2019 16:47:40 GMT -5
"I'm willing to admit that my opinion could be wrong. You don't seem to believe you could ever be wrong about anything. Am I wrong about that? "
Wayne,
I have compiled a record of over 35,000 individuals, members of the extended families of my four grandparents. I have made mistakes about names, ages, and relationships. I have acknowledged and corrected those mistakes as they were identified.
A small town reporter wrote that Bloody Bill Anderson escaped the ambush of Lt. Col. Samuel Cox, fled to Texas, and lived into his 80s. Research has proved conclusively that story is fiction.
Sufficient evidence exists to prove that Brushy Bill was Oliver Pleasant Roberts to all but the diehard skeptics. The Coroners jury report; the letter of Geneva Roberts Pittmon; the WWI draft card registration of Oliver Pleasant Roberts with a birth date of 26 August; the marriage of Oliver Roberts and Anna Lee in Van Zandt County in 1909; the marriage of Oliver Roberts and Mollie Brown in 1912; the presence of Oliver Roberts and his parents in Van Zandt County in 1910; the presence of Oliver Roberts and his parents in Little River County, Arkansas. Yes, there are discrepancies. The 1910 census, where the birthplace of his parents was reported as Kentucky; his inexplicable aging of 18 years between the 1930 and 1940 census; his death certificate and initial cemetery marker with an 1868 birth year.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacowboy on Mar 29, 2019 17:01:33 GMT -5
"I'm willing to admit that my opinion could be wrong. You don't seem to believe you could ever be wrong about anything. Am I wrong about that? " Wayne, I have compiled a record of over 35,000 individuals, members of the extended families of my four grandparents. I have made mistakes about names, ages, and relationships. I have acknowledged and corrected those mistakes as they were identified. A small town reporter wrote that Bloody Bill Anderson escaped the ambush of Lt. Col. Samuel Cox, fled to Texas, and lived into his 80s. Research has proved conclusively that story is fiction. Sufficient evidence exists to prove that Brushy Bill was Oliver Pleasant Roberts to all but the diehard skeptics. The Coroners jury report; the letter of Geneva Roberts Pittmon; the WWI draft card registration of Oliver Pleasant Roberts with a birth date of 26 August; the marriage of Oliver Roberts and Anna Lee in Van Zandt County in 1909; the marriage of Oliver Roberts and Mollie Brown in 1912; the presence of Oliver Roberts and his parents in Van Zandt County in 1910; the presence of Oliver Roberts and his parents in Little River County, Arkansas. Yes, there are discrepancies. The 1910 census, where the birthplace of his parents was reported as Kentucky; his inexplicable aging of 18 years between the 1930 and 1940 census; his death certificate and initial cemetery marker with an 1868 birth year. There goes that word " prove " again. Nothing that you said above Jim proves that Brushy Bill Robert's was not impersonating his cousin Oliver P. Robert's. All of the statistics you have gathered over all these years does not make your assumptions fact or prove anything you say. Billy impersonated Oliver for many years and fooled many people including you Jim. |
|
