|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Sept 17, 2019 15:18:56 GMT -5
or Google, "eyewitnesses to bily the kid bonney's body in death - ASU"
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Sept 18, 2019 2:14:23 GMT -5
or Google, "eyewitnesses to bily the kid bonney's body in death - ASU"
if any of the brushy believers can give a valid reason as to why that vast list of witnesses would lie to cover for garret then I'd love to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 18, 2019 11:19:52 GMT -5
An impressive list indeed. Here's the problem. The vast majority of what is written in that article is hearsay. Let me explain why. We know Pat Garrett, Kip McKinney, John Poe and Peter Maxwell saw the body. They were there when the shooting occurred. Did they all have reason to lie about who was shot that night? Yes! So, if those 4 men, along with possibly Deluvina and Celsa and Jesus Silva all agreed to lie about who it was and the body, as has been claimed in some reports, was kept out of sight and buried in a closed coffin early the next morning, then all these folks referred to were only repeating a lie they had been told. In the article there are a number of claims that certain individuals "saw the body" or "viewed the body" but no direct quotes of exactly what they said. Therefore, the claim they said it is "itself" a case of hearsay. Example, one report says the body was taken to a nearby carpenter shop and laid out for viewing, etc. while Judge Segura reported he found the body in Maxwell's home. Considering the distance he had to travel, there is no way he could have seen it "before" it was moved to the carpenter's shop. This certainly brings into question whether the move to the carpenter's shop ever really happened or was just part of the cover story. How many people could have participated in such a cover up? The answer is, as many as believed and repeated the lie they were told. Even though they participated "unknowingly". Let's pretend for a moment I was in Ft. Sumner the night of the shooting, someone tells me BTK had been shot and the following morning I witness someone being buried in a closed coffin. Then later I'm questioned about it and I say "yes, I was there when they buried the kid". Then the person who heard me say that is questioned and he/she says, "yes, I spoke to Wayne and he said he saw the kid buried". Then someone else passes the quote on as "Wayne said he saw the kid before they buried him". All "hearsay". I didn't lie, but I did unknowingly participate in spreading the lie.
From the article: EPILOGUE - "Contrary to conspiracy theorists, Billy the Kid imposters and their supporters, Billy Bonney’s death was not followed by Sheriff Garrett hiding the body from outsiders. Garrett’s intention was to let people see whom he had shot and to let those who desired pay their final respects to this much–liked young man. The fact that Garrett, Poe and McKinney remained the rest of the night in the Maxwell house for fear that a few of the Kid’s close friends might harm them should not be overlooked, as there would have been no concern if his friends knew the body was someone other than Billy Bonney."
My answer: How does he know what Garrett's "intention" was? Did he interview Garrett? Garrett wasn't hiding because he feared Billy's friends would avenge him. He was hiding (with the body) to avoid being discovered in another errant shooting and going to jail for murder. But even if it is correct that they stayed at Maxwell's out of fear they might be harmed, that doesn't mean the body wasn't Billy's. Everyone in town had been told it "was" Billy. Therefore the motivation to avoid possible revenge would still be in play.
The fact that the author says he believes one way, and I say I believe another does not make either of us correct or our statements accurate. In the final analysis, my reasons for believing Brushy was truly BTK have nothing to do with all that. I believe he was because he looked like him, had a number of physical traits that matched perfectly and had more knowledge about Billy and the LCW than what a farmer from Arkansas could have known. Now, if I am correct in that belief then there has to be an explanation why so many can be listed in that article as having viewed or identified the body and my answer boils down to one word. "Hearsay".
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Sept 18, 2019 12:05:15 GMT -5
Is it hearsay??? Most of the kids story is as we all know. But I don't think you can say that 35 witnesses were involved in nothing more than Chinese whispers
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Sept 18, 2019 13:46:45 GMT -5
Is it hearsay??? Most of the kids story is as we all know. But I don't think you can say that 35 witnesses were involved in nothing more than Chinese whispers Hearsay? Brushy Bill’s entire story is hearsay. Has any event in his story been corroborated? Even his description of events in Lincoln County, almost identical to information found in “The Saga of Billy the Kid”, is not proof that Brushy was there. None of his incredible exploits are supported by records or credible evidence. The sworn affidavits of DeWitt Travis, Robert E Lee, and Martile Able stating that he was Billy the Kid are a farce.
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Sept 18, 2019 14:32:00 GMT -5
Is it hearsay??? Most of the kids story is as we all know. But I don't think you can say that 35 witnesses were involved in nothing more than Chinese whispers Hearsay? Brushy Bill’s entire story is hearsay. Has any event in his story been corroborated? Even his description of events in Lincoln County, almost identical to information found in “The Saga of Billy the Kid”, is not proof that Brushy was there. None of his incredible exploits are supported by records or credible evidence. The sworn affidavits of DeWitt Travis, Robert E Lee, and Martile Able stating that he was Billy the Kid are a farce. coerced by other parties and we all know who, I think brushy was a vulnerable target abused by others to feather their own nest.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Sept 18, 2019 15:30:44 GMT -5
Hearsay? Brushy Bill’s entire story is hearsay. Has any event in his story been corroborated? Even his description of events in Lincoln County, almost identical to information found in “The Saga of Billy the Kid”, is not proof that Brushy was there. None of his incredible exploits are supported by records or credible evidence. The sworn affidavits of DeWitt Travis, Robert E Lee, and Martile Able stating that he was Billy the Kid are a farce. coerced by other parties and we all know who, I think brushy was a vulnerable target abused by others to feather their own nest. Brushy Bill must have been aware of the fame, however temporary, enjoyed by Dalton after he claimed to be Jesse James. Brushy's presence at Dalton's birthday celebration in Meramec Caverns, Stanton, Missouri, and in New York City, where Brushy supported Dalton's claim that he was Jesse Woodson James, might have given Brushy the idea to pose as Billy the Kid. If J Frank Dalton had convinced some reporters he was Jesse James, why not try?
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Sept 19, 2019 14:12:29 GMT -5
I believe brushy was the kid because he looked like him?Had matching features (facial recognition is far from conclusive and not viable in a court of law),and anyone can do their homework and gather information on the county war. Pretty poor argument!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 19, 2019 15:24:39 GMT -5
Do I really need to go back through the whole list of similarities? Just to list a few more prominent things, Gallegos' comment that he had the same eyes as BTK and that no one else had eyes like that, matching height, large ears (one more than the other), drooping right shoulder, scars, unusual hand shape, etc. It's not just facial recognition technology that convinced me. There's photographic evidence that he knew the famous tintype was a reversed image when that was not common knowledge.
He knew things that had not been published anywhere, some of which even the most knowledgable historians of the time did not know. If some of his knowledge matched up with what was written in "Saga" it might be simply because "Saga" got it right. Even so, elsewhere on this board we've already examined that issue at length and there are examples of where his story was different from "Saga" and was correct.
"35 witnesses were involved in nothing more than Chinese whispers"? Please! I'm saying most of their comments are unverifiable. They may not have said exactly what the article claims they said. When information is passed through several parties it can become completely different. On top of that, Billy's notoriety meant that lots of people wanted to state their first hand knowledge of the events even if they didn't have any proof of what they were saying. My point is that these people were not all lying but yet we don't know just how accurate their comments were. TTT never ceases to insist that we only believe things that can be documented or verified. Maybe that policy should apply to both sides of the debate?
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Sept 20, 2019 12:31:57 GMT -5
Very long answers with no answer whatsoever, I must try and get myself a pair of rose tinted brushy glasses!
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Sept 20, 2019 12:55:44 GMT -5
"He knew things that had not been published anywhere, some of which even the most knowledgable historians of the time did not know."
Two vastly different perspectives:
If Brushy was really in New Mexico during the LCW, he could have known details not previously published.
If Brushy was a 2 year old living in Sebastian County, AR, and, in 1950, described events that never occurred, nobody, including historians, would have been aware of events that never occurred.
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Sept 20, 2019 13:16:38 GMT -5
"He knew things that had not been published anywhere, some of which even the most knowledgable historians of the time did not know."
Two vastly different perspectives:
If Brushy was really in New Mexico during the LCW, he could have known details not previously published.
If Brushy was a 2 year old living in Sebastian County, AR, and, in 1950, described events that never occurred, nobody, including historians, would have been aware of events that never occurred.
unless you had a pair of rose tinted brushy glasses!Unfortunately tourism is a lucrative market and as long as the tills keep ringing the hico museum will keep this brushy charade going. Gotta pay the bills!
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 20, 2019 14:39:44 GMT -5
"Very long answers with no answer whatsoever"
That's what you say when you have no comeback to my answer.
And what does the Hico museum have to do with this discussion?
|
|
|
Post by leeb on Sept 20, 2019 14:53:43 GMT -5
"Very long answers with no answer whatsoever" That's what you say when you have no comeback to my answer. And what does the Hico museum have to do with this discussion? your answer didn't answer anything, please proof read and see if you can fathom any sense of your response?some people are so blinkered they just can't see past the nose on the end of their face. As for hico museum, fingers in pies mate!
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on Sept 20, 2019 18:35:39 GMT -5
[/div][/quote]unless you had a pair of rose tinted brushy glasses!Unfortunately tourism is a lucrative market and as long as the tills keep ringing the hico museum will keep this brushy charade going. Gotta pay the bills![/quote]
Useless comment that no one cares to read, if compelling evidence frustrates you, dont read it, you do a lot of trash talking by backing up TTT, honestly thats all I see you do...
|
|