Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 20:19:58 GMT -5
I figure maybe it's better to compile all false charges & misleading information about Brushy Bill Roberts in this thread. I'll start off with the following piece of evidence that the skeptics use which amounts to nothing.
According to "The Lost Interviews" by W.C. Morrison, Roberts claimed that it was Frank Lobato who helped him escape Fort Sumner in July 1881.
Skeptics say that Frank Lobato himself said he wasn't in Fort Sumner. Indeed, he did say he wasn't. However, there's also articles where he said he was. Indeed, Jesus Silva even said Frank Lobato was there.
So, it seems to me that the skeptics are merely repeating the least likely story--- because others verify Frank Lobato was there, and he himself kept changing his story.
Jesus bless you all 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 21:05:32 GMT -5
Skeptics will say Roberts was illiterate, therefore couldn't be Billy The Kid because it's documented the Kid had an education & there exists examples of his writing.
This is largely a myth that keeps being repeated. First off, the known handwriting samples attributed to Billy The Kid have been cross examined and shown to have been written by two different people.
Secondly, though there is evidence The Kid had an education, there is no evidence he continued an education after Mrs. Antrim passed away--- which would indicate a limited education.
Thirdly, co-author Sonnischen lamented the fact he used the wrong word when describing Roberts. He meant to say Roberts wasn't a LITERARY man, meaning he wasn't big on reading but that he could read and write.
Fourthly, this myth that Roberts was some simpleton who couldn't read or write was pushed by William Tunstill & Ola Everhard to push their own agenda to tie Roberts to J. Frank Dalton (and vice versa) among other things.
**********************************
Which brings me to another bit of false evidence & half-truths said against Roberts, which is the oftentimes repeated material of William Tunstill & Ola Everhard, among others but not limited to Bret Hall and even Roy Haws himself, since he repeats much of what Tunstill claimed rather than the original source material of William Morrison.
The alleged genealogy of Roberts was mightily corrupted by the false documentation of both Tunstill & Everhard. Roberts said X, Y, and Z whereas these people filled in a fictional alphabet.
Unfortunately the family Bible that Brushy Bill Roberts owned, among other things, has fallen into the hands of so many people that it's next to impossible to probably view the Bible in it's original state as it's possible that it's been erased and replaced with false information wherever it may exist presently.
**********************************
The skeptics assert that Roberts wasn't The Kid because The Kid was ambidextrous and Roberts wasn't. Is yet another myth that keeps being repeated, but Roberts was ambidextrous. He himself said that he was naturally left-handed but could shoot with either hand, and those who knew him personally verified that fact.
**********************************
Skeptics assert that Roberts couldn't be The Kid because they push the myth that he wasn't bilingual whereas The Kid was. This stems from an apocryphal story where one of Pat Garrett's sons or one of the reporters, wherever you have heard the story, asked Roberts a question in Spanish and he didn't respond.
The above mentioned story never took place when Roberts met Govenor Mabry. Nor did it ever happen. Matter of fact Roberts spoke fluent Spanish whenever he was in the presence of Hispanics, as verified by Joe Salazar the grandson of Yginio Salazar. William Morrison himself spoke Spanish and Roberts passed that acid test with flying colors.
**********************************
The myth that Roberts knew little to nothing about the Lincoln County War or about the Regulators and The Kid as much as one would hope, is one that keeps being repeated even here on this forum, yet that's not true.
Firstly, Roberts said that Colonel Dudley's soldiers were black which was a fact of history that was omitted from the history books in Roberts time.
Secondly, Roberts spoke about the secret meeting held with Lew Wallace and about the pardon that never came, which wouldn't be proven true until several years after Roberts death.
Thirdly, Roberts claimed that he received a scarf from Dulvina Maxwell in exchange for the tintype photograph. It wouldn't be until several years after Roberts death that a letter by Jim East to Charlie Siringo recalls this exact incident having transpired.
Fourthly, Roberts knew that it was a ricocheted bullet that killed Bell, yet another intimate detail that was little known by historians in Roberts own time.
Fifthly, Roberts described the McSween house to a 'T' as it existed before it burned down in 1878.
Sixthly, Roberts described the Lincoln County Courthouse to a 'T' as it existed before all the major renovations to the place.
Seventhly, Roberts said that for the murder of Buckshot Roberts that Ira Leonard got the charges thrown out. This little known fact was little known in Roberts time by even historians.
Now while it is true some things Roberts said were either unverifiable, or wrong, one must keep in mind that before further interviews could be done to dig deeper into Roberts claims he died before that could happen. Some things Roberts admitted was fuzzy in his mind because the events happened nearly 70 years ago, so some leeway has to be given considering regardless of what you believe about Roberts he was indeed a senior citizen.
Jesus bless you all 😊
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Dec 6, 2019 22:48:41 GMT -5
rufus, Very good posts, I always thought it crazy that some skeptics would say Brushy was illiterate, and yet they will also suggest he got all his information about BTK from books.😕
Also alot of the original tapes were ruined so whatever he may have said on the ruined portions such as corrections or explanations or anything more that could prove his claim may have been lost?, possibly portions edited out?
Then it's questionable that Brushy may have destroyed some of his own evidence?, according to a statement made about him doing so in the Orange County Register Sept 10,1987
Brushy may have even purposely answered questions wrong out of fear of hanging?
Brushy also knew that there was no door on the hideout at Stinking Springs.
Brushy also mentioned a cook he called Aunt Ann that he stayed with when he lived with Belle Starr, and board member Hunter found and posted a reference that there actually was a woman with the name Ann that was living with the Belle family.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 22:58:38 GMT -5
Let's examine a piece of evidence the skeptics say proves Brushy wasn't The Kid, but I will demonstrate that such evidence is non-evidence because the account given by Brushy can be reconciled.
The "evidence" is the claim Brushy made concerning John Selman, who he said fought on the McSween side of the Lincoln County War.
The skeptics will say point that Selman didn't arrive in Lincoln County until after the war was over. But this is false, as he was residing in Lincoln County while the LCW was going on. He began Selman's Scouts, a band of thieves during that time and raided George Coe's ranch as well as the Murphy-Dolan's herds. An equal opportunity thief.
Anyways, here's how I reconcile the claim. Everybody takes sides. I don't care if it's politics or even history, everyone takes sides. That includes John Selman, too.
I imagine, if one weighs everything out, Selman attacked the Murphy-Dolan's more than anything else; considering they won the war in Lincoln County they had the most to gain, therefore the most to steal.
Therefore, from that perspective, one could look at Selman as having fought on the side of the McSween's although he robbed from them too. After all, Selman was forced out of Lincoln County by the Murphy-Dolan's.
Although historians say that Selman and his cattle thieves fought for no cause but themselves, from the perspective of damage done, one can call him an ally on the McSween side.
From "The Lost Interviews" by W.C. Jameson, Roberts himself says:
"There was old John Selman who fought on our side in that cattle business in '78. I knew him in '77. He was always in trouble and my men helped him too. He was a good shot and had lots of nerve, too, he did. I don't think he worked for Chisum on that ranch, but I don't know. He was up there with the rest of us."
Roberts also said later on:
"John Selman knew Garrett didn't kill me. I saw Selman at Cole's Saloon in El Paso in the '90s. He was afraid to say anything. He followed me outside and we talked. Old Selman, he had no use for Garrett. He almost killed Garrett in the Panhandle before the Lincoln County War. He said Garrett killed a man that did not need killing. I had helped Selman when he needed help and he was ready to help me now, but I wasn't ready to come out yet."
Furthermore, historical record does substantiate that the real Billy The Kid befriended John Selman, and according to the book "Pat Garrett & Billy The Kid As I Knew Them", by John P. Meadows, he does make note of Garrett & Selman having a feud already existing prior to the spring of 1880 when Meadows saw Garrett after two years.
This basically solidifies Brushy's claim that in the 1870s something happened between Garrett & Selman for them to mightily dislike eachother.
Jesus bless you all 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2019 23:41:39 GMT -5
Evidence of Post 1881 Years: For a man allegedly uneducated, allegedly illiterate, allegedly born well after the facts, and allegedly never went beyond Texarkana, there are many things that Brushy Bill Roberts knew that skeptics cannot reconcile unless he had intimate knowledge about certain places, people and events. -Brushy claimed that he went to Buenos Aires and later the Shetland Islands via The Cattleman's Association in between 1893-1894. These two places seem so unconnected until one finds out that during this exact time period the Argentine Republic did exclusively deals with a British investment firm called Daring Brothers, that began in 1889. To this day, the region still depends largely on Texas cattle; this transaction began in the 1880s. So we verify the South American need for beef from Texas, so this would be not unusual. But what about the Shetland Islands? Where is the Shetland Islands? Great Britain. Why would Buenos Aires have a need for ponies from such a place? Because Buenos Aires was, at that time, one of the main breeding locales of a breed of horses that were miniature in size. cruzminihorses.com/history.htmlSo these two seemingly unconnected places are indeed connected and would make sense why a contracted cattleman would do jobs in Buenos Aires and the Shetland Islands. Coincidence? I think not. But I'm sure the skeptics will say he merely read that someplace too despite his alleged illiteracy. Jesus bless you all 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 0:24:22 GMT -5
Evidence of Post 1881 Years:
-Brushy claimed that from roughly 1888 he joined the Anti-Horse Thief Association and would be apart of this organization off and on until the 1890s. Some sources say he joined in 1885.
Though NOT cited as evidence against Brushy Bill Roberts in recent years, it is a documented fact that Roberts was called a liar over this claim, albeit after his death, because some so-called experts said no such organization existed.
However, it was later discovered that several states had their own Anti-Horse Thief Association and that various chapters existed within each state.
The state of Oklahoma, for example, had over 40,000 members from various chapters in 1905 alone. It originally began in Fort Scott Kansas in 1859.
Jesus bless you all 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 1:20:06 GMT -5
The claim and assertion that Brushy Bill Roberts stepped into the life of Oliver Pleasant Roberts at such and such a time, etc--- is something of a half-truth that the skeptics & believers put out there frequently.
In "The Lost Interviews" by W.C. Jameson, there's not a single mention of how, when or where Roberts adopted the identity of his alleged cousin Oliver Pleasant Roberts. Just merely that he assumed the identity of a cousin of his who died sometime in Oklahoma.
No real explanation. No details. Just the claim that at some point and time he adopted another man's identity and for the bulk of his civilian life was known as Oliver Pleasant Roberts.
The alleged details that Roberts found his cousin dead while working for the Anti-Horse Thief Association and his cousin's mother never knew the difference, is not in "The Lost Interviews" and in fact originates not with Brushy Bill Roberts but with William Tunstill and Ola Everhard.
So with this myth put in it's place, let's stick to the original source material. Speculation of when, where and how Roberts pulled off his cousin's identity is up to us independent researchers because too many hands spoiled the true story.
Jesus bless you all 😊
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on Dec 7, 2019 2:06:37 GMT -5
Roberts also said later on: "John Selman knew Garrett didn't kill me. I saw Selman at Cole's Saloon in El Paso in the '90s. He was afraid to say anything. He followed me outside and we talked. Old Selman, he had no use for Garrett. He almost killed Garrett in the Panhandle before the Lincoln County War. He said Garrett killed a man that did not need killing. I had helped Selman when he needed help and he was ready to help me now, but I wasn't ready to come out yet." Furthermore, historical record does substantiate that the real Billy The Kid befriended John Selman, and according to the book "Pat Garrett & Billy The Kid As I Knew Them", by John P. Meadows, he does make note of Garrett & Selman having a feud already existing prior to the spring of 1880 when Meadows saw Garrett after two years. This basically solidifies Brushy's claim that in the 1870s something happened between Garrett & Selman for them to mightily dislike eachother. Jesus bless you all 😊 rufus, The part about Brushy saying John Selman almost killing Pat Garrett in the Panhandle before the LCW because he killed a man that didn't need killing; In 1876 Garrett was in Texas hunting buffalo and he killed Joe Briscoe, a fellow hunter, Garrett surrendered to authorities at Fort Griffin, Texas, but they declined to prosecute. Garrett claimed it was self defense as Briscoe came at him with an ax over comments Garrett made to him, and Garrett had to shoot him. After this Garrett came to New Mexico. So maybe Joe Briscoe could be the man Selman was referring as "did not need killing"? Brushy could have known that fact though?, but it would be interesting if it can be proven that John Selman and Joe Briscoe were ever pals as to give him reason to get revenge on Garrett to cause that feud. I have that book by Meadows, it's a good book, I want to go back through it again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 13:56:22 GMT -5
Response to Missy's proposed hypothesis that Roberts may have been referring to Joe Briscoe as the man Garrett killed, which Brushy said was the point of contention between Selman & Garrett:
Prior to coming to Lincoln County, Selman was a lawman in Fort Griffin Texas under Deputy Sheriff John M. Larn, where the two men busted vigilantes among other things. Larn would be murdered by vigilantes who overtook the jail and shot him to death inside the jail.
Where did Pat Garrett kill Joe Briscoe? 😉 Just outside of Fort Griffin Texas. According to the biography "Pat Garrett: Story of a Western Lawman," it states that Garrett met Briscoe in Fort Worth, and the two headed towards Fort Griffin some 300 miles away, hunting buffalo along the way.
Garrett, in 1876, would've turned himself in to Selman & Larn. However he was let go. That must've been Deputy Sheriff Larn's judgement call instead of Selman's because why would Meadows acknowledge that Selman and Garrett disliked eachother prior to and after 1880?
Why I think the feud occurred is that Joe Briscoe was an Irishman. Garrett made a wisecrack about Briscoe being Irish, and the two men began to fight it out. Briscoe grabbed an axe (allegedly) and Garrett shot him dead.
As most people know, the Lincoln County War was not just a cattle war but a cultural & racial war as well. Irish Catholics versus English Protestants, primarily. What racial and cultural identity was Selman? You guessed it, Irish. The name Selman is also known as Salmon in South Carolina, where many Irish families came to America, and the Selman's migrated from there to Arkansas and later Texas.
Throw in the fact Selman was a friend to Billy The Kid, who was largely of Irish descent, the picture becomes all the more clear why Selman would've had a grudge against Garrett. It was something tribal, to put it bluntly.
I would speculate as to the racial and cultural identity of Sheriff Deputy John Larn, but according to record books nobody is for certain what Larn's real name even was or from what family he originated. Considering Garrett's pardon for the murder of Joe Briscoe, I would have to assume Larn may have been some other descent, therefore having no emotions in the matter.
Therefore, in conclusion, I would have to agree that Missy's proposed hypothesis is reasonable. Unfortunately those extra interviews with Roberts never occurred to figure out who was this man he said Garrett killed that ****ed off Selman in the late 1870s.
Further Notation:
John P. Meadows would tell C.L. Sonnischen that Garrett also took a shot at Willis Skeleton Glenn on that buffalo hunt. He said after killing Briscoe, Glenn tried to hit Garrett with the axe, and Garrett fired at Glenn. It didn't kill Glenn, however, it does show a history of Garrett telling different versions of the events than what actually occurred. This conversation between Meadows & Sonnischen is in the book "Tall Tales and Half Truths". As we all know, Morrison would co-author the book about Brushy Bill Roberts with Sonnischen, who certainly would've asked Roberts about these details.
Jesus bless you all 😊
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Dec 7, 2019 14:49:04 GMT -5
The claim and assertion that Brushy Bill Roberts stepped into the life of Oliver Pleasant Roberts at such and such a time, etc--- is something of a half-truth that the skeptics & believers put out there frequently. In "The Lost Interviews" by W.C. Jameson, there's not a single mention of how, when or where Roberts adopted the identity of his alleged cousin Oliver Pleasant Roberts. Just merely that he assumed the identity of a cousin of his who died sometime in Oklahoma. No real explanation. No details. Just the claim that at some point and time he adopted another man's identity and for the bulk of his civilian life was known as Oliver Pleasant Roberts. The alleged details that Roberts found his cousin dead while working for the Anti-Horse Thief Association and his cousin's mother never knew the difference, is not in "The Lost Interviews" and in fact originates not with Brushy Bill Roberts but with William Tunstill and Ola Everhard. So with this myth put in it's place, let's stick to the original source material. Speculation of when, where and how Roberts pulled off his cousin's identity is up to us independent researchers because too many hands spoiled the true story. Jesus bless you all 😊 Rufus, those who believe that Brushy might be BtK are the ones who advanced the theory that Brushy assumed the identity of Oliver P Roberts, a necessity since there is conclusive evidence that Oliver Roberts married Mollie Brown and stated on his WWI draft registration card that his name was Oliver Pleasant Roberts, born 26 August, the same day that Geneva Roberts Pittmon said that her relative, Oliver P Roberts, was born.
The story did not originate with William Tunstill and Ola Everhard.
On page 99 of "Alias Billy the Kid", this paragraph is found: "Using his leverage as an officer, he took over his cousin's belongings, intending to return them to the boy's family. He probably hung onto them, however, for when he located the survivors at Sulphur Springs, Texas, they took him for the runaway boy and he let them think he was."
Brushy Bill's parents, Henry Oliver Roberts and Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson Roberts were residents of Hopkins County, Texas, in 1900 and had been since 1887, when their son, Lonnie Roberts, had died and was buried in Miller Grove Cemetery, Hopkins County. Sulphur Springs is the county seat of Hopkins County.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 15:35:09 GMT -5
Well since nobody but a small few have ever seen the notebooks, let alone the tapes, it's damned difficult to determine which is the true story and what is fiction.
I'm going strictly by "The Lost Interviews", and the above-mentioned incident is not on those tapes. Maybe Roberts told Morrison that elsewhere when the tapes were not there to record the conversation.
Who knows. Even if it was the truth, that Roberts said it, we're talking about something that occurred in the 1880s-1890s. What is known concretely, though, is that Tunstill and Ola Everhard and Bret Hall and others have added on to this story--- apocryphal or not.
He never put an exact date or time to the event. Far as the tapes show, he never said how that ever transpired. But let's just say that it did go down like that, him being in the Anti-Horse Thief Association and seeing his dead cousin in Oklahoma.
Does it cause any real problems? Not really. Nobody is precisely certain when Brushy was even born. His original tombstone reads 1868. He said he was born 1859. Some census records say it was around 1878. It seems "official history" cannot even get it right concerning Roberts. Which is it, 1868 or 1878?
Let's suppose Brushy really was born in 1859, and the real O.P. Roberts was born in 1868. That's 9 years difference. According to Brushy, his cousin took off years before. The family hadn't seen him in years. In the 1880s-1890s that'd of meant that the person in question would've been between 21 (1889) and 31 (1899) when they died, and Roberts would've been 30 and 40 respectively.
The question becomes, could a 30-40 year old man successfully pass himself off as a 21-31 year old? I think that's easily done. They're all family, right? So certain family features & genetics would be apparent, especially the fact that they all had good genes. Say what you want about Roberts, but for his age he appeared far younger and able-bodied than most people. Even if you believe him to have been born in 1868 or 1878 he'd of been between 72-82 years old, and he certainly looked great for even that age.
So here you have a family where most everybody looked the same, and all aged slower than what's common. If a parent, now a senior citizen, hadn't seen their child in say a decade, and suddenly someone who looks a lot like your son carrying his possessions comes to the house, I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination that an elderly woman could mistake someone else as her child.
It happens all the time, even today, where people claim to be someone's long lost child or brother or parent, etc--- and they successfully pull off the deception until they are found out to be someone they're not by some independent source.
Now, Roy Haws for some reason sees issues with the timeline of events and claims that in order for it to have worked that the real O.P. Roberts would've had to of ran away from home at age 5 years--- and I don't understand his logic on that. I honestly don't.
Why he assumes that O.P. Roberts ran away so young, or left home, that young boggles my mind. After all, Roberts never said WHEN his cousin left home, nor did he ever say WHEN he found his cousin dead. For all we know, O.P. Roberts was away from home for a few short years--- because after all those details never went into great length.
The census records make it clear, for whatever reason, that "O.P." started calling himself "O.L." and started changing birth dates, places of origin, places of parents origin, etc--- at a particular time and place in history. Since censuses take place generally every ten years, although I've seen where censuses were done every twenty years, it seems apparent to me that somebody else changed things around.
I'm not big on the particulars, but Wayne Land has pointed out before that the signature on the records over the years were from two different people entirely. That, if anything else, should raise eyebrows because any expert on handwriting will tell you people just don't radically change how they write even with the passage of time. That's why they're able to tell if autographs and diaries, etc are the real deal or not.
Now, I will concede maybe I have misspoken and that the story of finding his cousin dead while as a member of the Anti-Horse Thief Association is indeed genuine from Roberts own mouth to Morrison; my point is it's not on the tapes, and only the tapes we have to truly go by because Roberts was talking on them. Everything else might be something incapable of being verified, unless we wholeheartedly accept everything Morrison wrote is exactly the truth as he heard it.
Anyways, scratch this from the record as being false evidence against Roberts, because of TexasTruthTeller's objection. Otherwise it'll railroad the threads purpose anyways.
Jesus bless you all
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 16:06:56 GMT -5
Evidence of Post 1881 Years:
-Roberts claimed that in around the fall of 1888 was a staged cowboy roundup in Cheyenne Wyoming. He didn't have the entry fee that year, but in 1889 he rode in the roundup on a horse named Cyclone. This horse won numerous races apparently. He claimed he ran the race under the name Hugo Kid, and that he won and that Tom Waggoner gave him $10,000 for winning the race for him. Waggoner covered all of the bets.
For a man allegedly uneducated, allegedly illiterate, allegedly born well after the facts, allegedly never left Texarkana, for some odd reason Roberts was correct about this even though Cheyenne is 925+ miles away from Hico Texas.
As several board members, including myself, have uncovered in old newspapers there was indeed a horse named Cyclone that won several races in that area. There really was a series of cowboy roundup events in that general area. And furthermore, there really was a bronc rider named Hugo Kid in that region.
Of course the skeptics might say that Brushy merely read about it, but doesn't that fly in the face of their illiterate and uneducated claim? As difficult as it was for us board members finding all of that information in this day and age, it'd of been well out of Roberts reach in 1948-1950 when he told his tale to Morrison.
Libraries didn't hold massive interstate collections. There was no internet. There was no direct lines to this place or that place. And considering Roberts lived basically in poverty, it's not like he could've afforded to make long-distance calls, mail letters anywhere and as often as he wanted, and be able to purchase copies of the documents he'd of needed to fabricate such a story.
So either Brushy Bill Roberts was telling the truth about being Billy The Kid, or he left home at a very tender age to the furthest reaches of North America and witnessed it if he was indeed Oliver Pleasant Roberts. Either way it pokes holes in the claims of skeptics who maintain he was a liar who never did anything in his life, and never left Texarkana.
Jesus bless you all 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 18:24:06 GMT -5
A reasonable hypothesis about contradictions in Roberts story and affidavits from person's like the noted "Robert E. Lee" and others:
It's easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater whenever something seems "off" and the skeptics will say it only means everything is a lie. Here's how I reconcile at least part of the contradictions.
First off, I apply my own life story from memory to the circumstances being talked about here. One of the most common objections to Roberts story is that he is "off" by several years, in comparison to someone else's recollection of the events.
Just recently my mom and I were reminiscing about my great-grandfather & great-grandmother. From MY RECOLLECTION I swore I had to of been 3-4 years old when they passed away. My mother said no, I had to of been 10 years old when they passed away.
So we look up the death dates online, 1992 & 1993 respectively. Which means I'd of been 7 & 8 respectively. My mother and I were both wrong in remembering the events (funerals) in question.
If I, 5 days away from my 34th birthday, was off by a couple of years, then I would assume that a man far older than I could probably be off by as much as a decade.
Secondly, I know much of my own life is a blur, where I assume some things happened after they actually did. Things become merged and mixed up with the passage of time. Some things I said happened, in fact happened much later than I thought. Again, if I am nearly 34, and I'm off by a couple of years, interchanging events at times, then I'd expect it to be a more frequent occurrence when we're senior citizens.
Thirdly, this is a well established scientific fact that certain traumatic events can stick out in ones mind far and away more clearly than other events. This would explain, in part, why Brushy's recollection of the LCW days is practically crystal clear whereas other events are more opaque.
Fourthly, another scientific fact that is well established though seldom mentioned is the phenomena of "false memories". It's more common than people think, and typically happens all the time in families. Usually it's a case where one person says that they remembered being at such and such an event, only to be told that they weren't.
Again, taking a page from my own life, my sister and parents have told me on more than one occasion that some of my memories are in fact imagined--- that the events occurred either before my own birth, or happened to my sister and not to me. I merely heard the stories so many times that it became apart of my own life history.
This last scenario, of course, the skeptics will say only bolsters their claim that Roberts wasn't The Kid but rather heard enough stories that it became apart of his psyche; however, that's not necessarily how "false memories" work most of the time.
Rather that you grew up from day one with such stories from your own family,and the most intimate of friends, and it becomes a false memory. Meaning that Roberts would've heard all these intimate details from his own family about the night in Fort Sumner, etc. So the skeptics will be wise to reject that theory because it'd mean that the Roberts family indeed was related to Billy The Kid because that'd be apart of such false memories.
I only bring the false memory thesis up because it's probable that maybe Roberts heard enough stories throughout his life--- that a very small portion of things may be explained by him adopting false memories from friends and family and co-workers.
Hence, why I think some things Roberts said can be explained without saying he's a conman and liar. It's possible he did tell a few lies here and there, but I don't think everything has to be considered garbage.
Jesus bless you all 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 20:36:43 GMT -5
While not evidence per say, it does demonstrate a certain measure of uncertainty that makes Brushy's story seem credible concerning that night in Fort Sumner: -Roberts claimed that it was a half-Mexican man named Billy Barlow that Pat Garrett killed, and not Billy The Kid as the historian's claim. On the surface, one may dismiss the story out of hand and say it's just the ramblings of an old man looking to get attention. However, there are a number of sources that basically mirror this story one way or another. First, it's virtually the same exact story that John Miller also claimed. That Garrett killed a Mexican and that the body in the coffin is of the dead Mexican. Second, it's the same story that Fiddling Henry Smith alias Henry Street Smith alias Henry Walkabout Smith also said; though discredited by Martile Able, it was a generally accepted fact that Smith knew much about the old West and the Lincoln County War. Third, person's of interest who was there in Fort Sumner & those who knew Billy The Kid who weren't there in years after the fact said Garrett killed the wrong man, and that this individual was a Mexican who looked like Billy The Kid except he had a beard. Or they professed the belief that The Kid was still alive, although they did not know by what means or how. These people include: Yginio Salazar, George Coe, Jose B. Montoya, Manuel Taylor, Jesse Cox, Syd Boykin, Ben Harbert, Frank Coe, John Graham alias John Collins, Martile Able. Furthermore, following that night, 26 newspaper articles after the night in question claimed Billy The Kid did not die; to further make the matter all the more bizarre is that San Miguel County* issued two arrest warrants, the first in December 1882 and the second in March of 1883 for the arrest of Billy The Kid. Fourthly, there exists a newspaper account printed within days after the Fort Sumner event that asserts Billy The Kid tanned his skin and grew out a beard so he could hide out as a Mexican and that Garrett recognized him despite this disguise and killed him. This gives weight to the stories that Garrett, indeed, killed the wrong man. Fifthly, while this doesn't necessarily pertain to the "wrong man" account, it's noted that there is several discrepancies between Garrett and Poe's account of the events, as well as others accounts conflicting here and there. The obvious one is the claim that the body was guarded by Garrett, while others say the body was taken to a nearby carpentry shop. The body was placed in a coffin during the night, and buried at first light. This is somewhat unusual, in comparison to other well-known men being shot down at the time, where the body would at least be put on display for X amount of time to prove concretely that the person was indeed dead. Yes, there was no photographer in Fort Sumner and wasn't one nearby, so we understand why there's no photograph--- then again, how hard would it have been to send someone to retrieve a photographer from elsewhere while the body was on display for a day or two or three? Instead, it was rush rush rush. All of the accounts, no matter how miniscule the details, had conflicts and discrepancies and falsehoods. It stands to reason there was a lot of drama and civil unrest that night, rather than the smooth sailing circumstances that Garrett claims. *Where is San Miguel County? It's the same exact location as Las Vegas New Mexico. According to Brushy Bill Roberts from 1881-1882 he was among the Yaqui tribe, and after leaving he went to Grand Saline & Carrollton. Then he went back to Mexico, and left in the winter of 1883 and made his way to Texas. It basically lines up with what Brushy Bill Roberts says. It's probable that he would've had to go to San Miguel County, in order to be able to make it to his final destination. After all there was a railroad from Santa Fe all the way to Kansas City Missouri. He could've gotten off at Dodge City or Granada along the way, and rode south across the Oklahoma Panhandle into Texas. www.nps.gov/safe/learn/historyculture/map-timeline-5.htmThere was also stagecoaches, and of course trails. As Carrollton shows, there are over 100 trails in existence covering over 440 miles nearby. There's even a 100 mile trail used today that extends the Guadalupe Trail. www.traillink.com/city/carrollton-tx-trails/www.newmexico.org/nmmagazine/articles/post/guadalupe-ridge-trail/Furthermore, remember Fox Cave? One of Billy The Kid's favorite hideouts for different reasons. Particularly because it was a perfect location to collect cattle that drifted from the Texas Panhandle. www.angelfire.com/nm/boybanditking/pagePortales.htmlIt must be noted, when Morrison took Roberts to Lincoln County, the elderly old man told Morrison that Fox Cave was just a few miles up ahead. Sure enough, the cave was, and Roberts relayed how he stayed there many times over the years. It's possible that on his way back to Texas, he used the spot. Jesus bless you all 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 22:08:47 GMT -5
Many skeptics of Roberts claim that nobody in Roberts family believed him. However this is not true. The skepticism in Roberts family began with Geneva Pittmon, who stated that Roberts and Oliver Pleasant Roberts were one and the same and that she was his niece. This has spitballed into the 21st century with Roy Haws, whose mother was Eulaine Haws that William Tunstill basically used and abused by feeding her wrong information.
The fact of the matter is this, there was more than a few people who were Oliver Pleasant Roberts siblings, and they NEVER countered Brushy Bill Roberts claims. These individuals include:
-Thomas Ulysses Roberts (d. 1958)
-Cordelia Roberts Adams (d. 1968)
-Samantha Belle Chancellor (d. 1956)
And of course their spouses:
-Mattie Jane Couch (d. 1954)
-Irvin Asberry Adams (d. 1960)
None of these people "in the know" ever countered Brushy's claims in public, and quite honestly, in private the family was either agnostic or believed him.
Geneva Pittmon was born well into the 20th century, to Thomas Ulysses Roberts. She wouldn't pen her letter until 1987. There are problems with her letter, however.
First, she didn't even know what the "P" in Oliver Pleasant Roberts stood for. You'd think such a fact would've been denoted in the family Bible she was citing.
Second, the information she cited conflicts not just with his original tombstone birthdate of 1868, but also the information Morrison jotted down from Roberts own family Bible.
Third, she notes her husband told her NOT to say anything until Joe Bowlin (Outlaw Gang founder) explained exactly what his interest in their family was. This, for me, seems contradictory because the information in the letter seems to "answer" whatever the man requested to begin with, so something seems "off" about the letter itself.
Fourth, she gives the address of William Tunstill in the letter, remarking that he too was "asking questions which I have not written," which seems strange as to why she'd mention Tunstill to an absolute stranger. It also begs the question, what did Tunstill ask her? Why did she write to Dowlin and not Tunstill? It makes no sense.
Fifth, she notes that Tunstill claimed that a man named Ben Roberts was her grandfather and that he came from Kentucky and settled near Austin in 1835. Mind you, Tunstill was fabricating things seemingly out of thin air, because Brushy Bill Roberts said he was a COUSIN to the Roberts family, therefore Ben Roberts (if he existed at all) wouldn't have been her grandfather anyways.
So, all in all, between Tunstill's fabrications & Everhard's fabrications, since she was in cahoots with him, and Geneva Pittmon reacting to those claims--- what we have here is a whole lot of nothing.
It does nothing to diminish Roberts claims, ultimately, because he said he was a cousin to the Roberts, and not necessarily directly related to them. There's also the matter of there being two different family Bible's and until both are examined for telltale features (ie, printers marks) one cannot just say Roberts just bought and made up a record, or that Geneva Pittmon had the same Bible that he had, etc.
There's also the motive, what was her deal? How would a woman know whether the man actually was her uncle or not? Why would she reply to this Dowlin and not Tunstill? Why would she go against her husband's wishes to say nothing until she knew what the man's intentions was? Why would she spill the beans, so to speak, without knowing what the man wanted to ask to begin with?
It seems to me that it's probable that the Geneva Pittmon letter may have been fabricated by Dowlin himself. After all, has anyone compared the letter to known handwriting samples of Pittmon's?
It doesn't make sense, when one really thinks about it, why she'd say X, Y, and Z without knowing what Dowlin wanted to know. And we never again heard another thing from Geneva Pittmon again. Not another letter. Not a newspaper article. NOTHING. You'd think a woman willing to go against her husband's wishes and all would've spoken out again and more loudly for the whole world to hear. But, nothing more.
Again, the living family members listed above, who could have blown him out of the water while Brushy Bill Roberts was alive and after his death, never did no such thing.
The skeptics will say that they didn't want to cause more drama, and wanted to put it all behind them, as if Roberts was an embarrassment, but isn't that too convenient of an answer?
William Morrison and C.L. Sonnischen and several others reached out, investigated, and continued pursuing information until the day they died. None of the family ever personally challenged or contradicted what these people said and published for the whole wide world to see.
Of course some skeptics may say that the Roberts family just rode the gravy train, saying that they were related to Billy The Kid, etc--- but there's no evidence that any of them rode the coat tails of Brushy Bill Roberts. So that doesn't hold any water either.
Jesus bless you all 😊
|
|