|
|
Post by devinb on Jul 5, 2011 14:59:16 GMT -5
Just purchased my own copy of "Alias Billy the Kid" by
C.L. Sonnichsen & William V. Morrison (1955-out of print)
— and early 40th birthday gift to myself. Can't wait to receive it in the mail, and pour through it! I am thoroughly convinced that the man calling himself "Brushy Bill" was in fact the authentic Billy the Kid. I feel history has done him a grave disservice, and the truth needs to come forward. Too many historians have become lazy when it comes to "Billy the Kid"— often citing nursery school rhymes and overblown mythologies as fact. My inquiries to some of them have been scoffed at or outright dismissed. In a few days, I'll let Billy the Kid tell me his story in his own words. Can't wait!
|
|
|
|
Post by devinb on Jul 5, 2011 15:00:52 GMT -5
Brushy WAS The Kid—zero doubt in my mind. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by devinb on Jul 5, 2011 15:02:02 GMT -5
NO DOUBT Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jul 6, 2011 0:23:59 GMT -5
Congrats on acquiring the book and a big Happy Birthday to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by devinb on Jul 6, 2011 8:10:13 GMT -5
Thx! The big 4-Oh isn't actually until August 10. After reading about "Brushy Bill" and learning of this book...I had to get it.
After ignoring so-called "historians" that outright discount Brushy Bill (claiming no resemblance between the face in the iconic tintype & the image of a young, dapper Brushy), I conducted my own investigation. They match 100%
The only conclusion I have come to...history is WRONG about the Kid, and about Brushy.
It's fascinating!
|
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Jul 6, 2011 20:36:28 GMT -5
Alias Billy the Kid is a good book, you will enjoy reading it.
To me it is also the best book to prove Brushy was NOT Billy the Kid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jul 6, 2011 20:53:38 GMT -5
Devinb, I'll be looking forward to your comments after having read the book. In my opinion, Brushy exaggerated some of his stories of things that happened to him both before and after 1881, and maybe even told some outright lies, but that doesn't change who he was. Unfortunately, there is no proof one way or the other. I believe he was Billy based on the photographic evidence and on the things he knew that couldn't have been known by a faker.
|
|
|
|
Post by devinb on Jul 7, 2011 0:32:40 GMT -5
I think it would be very challenging at 90-91yrs old for anyone to reflect on events from 70yrs prior. Still, Brushy Bill's accounts will be lightyears ahead of historians—who better to speak about the Kid's exploits than the KID himself?! To me, old West historians have become lazy, on the sense that they seem more he'll-bent on defending a stale old legend than search for the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jul 7, 2011 14:03:03 GMT -5
The thing is, there's no hard evidence that Brushy was a fraud, yet supporters of the status quo insist on continuing to rely on the legend and unsupported evidence that he was actually Oliver Pleasant Roberts, born in 1879. There "is" evidence that supports that notion but it is circumstantial. I've pointed to hard evidence in the form of handwriting samples that prove he was "not" Oliver P. Roberts. His and Oliver P.'s absolutely, clearly, definitively, do not match. I think I've proven he was "not" Oliver Pleasant Roberts. For example, Oliver P's sister and her husband insisted Brushy was not Oliver P. but we don't have that in writing, so it's unsupported evidence. The list of unsupported evidence on both sides is a mile long. The Brushy haters will say their hard evidence is Geneva Pittmon's bible that says Oliver P. was born in 1879 along with her word that Brushy was indeed Oliver P. Roberts. I say, Geneva wasn't even born when Billy The Kid took on the alias of Oliver Roberts and she grew up believing he was her uncle but that doesn't make it a fact. Again, unsupported evidence.
They'll point out that Brushy's handwriting doesn't match that of Billy The Kid. I say, handwriting changes a great deal over 70 years and there are some striking similarities. But regardless of whether one agrees with that, there remains the fact that we don't have hard evidence or proof that the letters that exist today from Billy were actually written by him. Again, it's evidence, but it is unsupported as hard fact.
If it looks like a pig, oinks like a pig and smells like a pig, it's probably a pig. But without DNA can we "prove" it is a pig? Our society has become much to skeptical. We've come to rely so much on hard proof of things, we can't use our common sense anymore. Take the recent Casey Anthony trial as an example.
If all the evidence were presented today in a court of law to try and prove Brushy was or was not Billy The Kid, the similarity of the facial proportions and overall body proportions would be allowed in as evidence along with the documented handwriting differences between Brushy and Oliver P. and the eye witness testimony that he looked like, walked like, talked like and even laughed like Billy The Kid. Geneva Pittmon's opinion of his true identity probably would not be allowed in because it would be considered hearsay. So I believe if a legal decision had to be made based on the evidence, Brushy would be recognized as the true Billy, even in this day of skepticism.
OK. I'll get off my soap box for now. To all who voice opinions either way, thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwb on Jul 7, 2011 16:13:26 GMT -5
DNA evidence is the key. If Hamilton, Tx would agree to the exhumation of Brushy, this would either be solved, or we'd be well on our way. Otherwise, it's all just speculation. We can go round and round (and it's fun to do that), but that's the way to solve it.
|
|
|
|
Post by devinb on Jul 7, 2011 16:28:39 GMT -5
Yeah--I agree. As much as I'm certain the youthful "Brushy" is a dead-ringer for the individual in the iconic tintype, until DNA evidence is secured and verified, it will never truly be settled. Billy & Brushy are like the Sasquatch of the Old West. Fascinating stuff! Thx for your insights.
|
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Jul 8, 2011 15:22:51 GMT -5
Wayne,
I wish I had time to answer your post yesterday at 2:03 PM but I don't at this time.
For now I will just use the words of John W. Poe in one of his letters dated 1923:
In reply I beg to state that whoever made such statement is entirely in error and is positively mistaken as to the time of that occurrance. Inasmuch as I was present and know positively whereof I speak, I believe you will readily understand that I am absolutely correct in this matter.
The "Kid" was killed on the night of the 14th of July, 1881, and the only accurate and true account of his death and the circumstances leading up to and surrounding it is that which I gave you some three years ago.
It seem to bad that people still continue to circulate erroneous and false stories about this
occurrance but I suppose it is one of the things that will have to be endured.
Yours very truly,
John W. Poe
|
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jul 8, 2011 16:41:54 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing that. I'd never seen that quote before. In fact I read somewhere that Poe had recanted his initial story and admitted the person killed that night was not Billy, but, I have never seen such an admission by Poe. Of course, there is the quote from him the night of the shooting claiming "Pat, you've shot the wrong man".
So here we have a letter from him in 1923 which seems to be debating the "time of the occurrence". Do you have what led him to make those remarks? What false information is he trying to correct? Interestingly, he calls the man who was killed "The Kid". He doesn't specify the name William H. Bonney, Henry McCarty, etc. Is he telling everything he knows? And he says the "only" accurate account is the one he gave 3 years earlier. Is he saying Garrett's account is inaccurate? Does Poe have any motivation to hide the truth?
|
|
|
|
Post by devinb on Jul 9, 2011 5:48:45 GMT -5
I got my book yesterday!! It's fascinating--well worth the $$.
|
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Jul 11, 2011 0:18:06 GMT -5
Wayne,
The letter was to a man in California that had ask about a Billy the Kid that was killed in 1882
in Az. The man in California thought it was Billy the Kid of the Lincoln Co. War. I didn't type all
of the letter as I was rushed for time. You are reading a little more into it as to the date and
time our Billy the Kid was killed. Poe is just telling him that Billy the Kid of NM. was killed on July
14, 1881 and that he knew the facts as he was there.
As for Poe stating that Billy the Kid was not killed, I would love to see that one. There are so many out right lie's and misquotes out there. I think the one you may be talking about is a man from the Roswell area that stated he was a cousin of John Poe and that John had told him that Billy was not killed. I have a WPA from the 1930's that has something about that but
they only give his name as Poe, no first name. There is another Poe buried in the Roswell cemetery but I don't know if he was any kin to John. Everything I have ever seen from John
Poe states that Billy was killed. John Poe is said to have been a honest man. Even Morrison
states so in his book.
As for Poe's statement to Garrett about killing the wrong man, if you would get his statement
and read the whole statement you would understand what was said. I have Poe's book and will give you the whole statement if you want it. Brushy people love to use this statement but never print the whole statement.
It's the same with using what Paco Anaya had to say about Garrett and the corners report.
They love to use it but never go on to say that Paco states that Billy was killed and he helped bury Billy.
|
|
