|
Anna Lee
May 16, 2021 19:10:48 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nmkid on May 16, 2021 19:10:48 GMT -5
The event in Wyoming in 1889 where brushy said he rode Cyclone didn't even have a horse of that name present. I did not know that. Do you have a source that can verify this claim? [br You're the one that needs a source not him, its common knowledge that he was never been close to that horse.Do your homework before challenging somebody Einstein
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 16, 2021 19:59:54 GMT -5
nmkid,
Please no name calling on the message board. Leeb made a statement there was no horse by that name present at that event. There is nothing wrong with asking him his source. Either way, name calling is not allowed on here. If it happens again I will have to ban you from participation.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 16, 2021 23:10:43 GMT -5
This is evidence that Brushy was using O."K." Roberts as an alias in 1916 and identifying his father as H. O. Roberts. I don't see how that proves anything. In fact, the extensive list of achievements and travels would indicate he was not Oliver P. Roberts. "Sulphur Springs Gazette, August 11, 1916"
"O. K. Roberts, formerly lived in this county, and has been away for 15 years."
"......and is the son of H. O. ROBERTS, who used to live at Sherley, now living at Canton, Van Zandt County."
1900 census, Hopkins County, TX microfilm page 246A, lines 29 thru 33 HENRY O ROBERTS
Sarah E Roberts OLIVER P ROBERTS
Thomas U Roberts Irvan Roberts
So Brushy and H O Roberts lived in Hopkins County in 1900 as confirmed by the newspaper article and the 1900 census.
|
|
|
Anna Lee
May 16, 2021 23:35:28 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by RonBk on May 16, 2021 23:35:28 GMT -5
The newspaper article says O.K. Roberts, the census says Oliver Pleasant Roberts. So in my opinion the newspaper article adds one more piece of evidence that disproves the theory that Brushy and Oliver Pleasant were the same person.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 17, 2021 10:33:18 GMT -5
TTT,
The newspaper says he had been away for 15 years. Where was Oliver P. Roberts for those 15 years and couldn't the one who came back by 1916 be Billy The Kid using the alias of Oliver P. Roberts?
|
|
|
Post by tboor74 on May 17, 2021 13:10:54 GMT -5
If he was away for 15 years, who was married to Anna Lee?
As I often say on here, even taking the BTK question out, does the backstory remotely fit who O P Roberts was meant to be....? Wasn't he just a peasant farmer or labourer? If so, who is the O ? Roberts who was off busting all these broncs etc?
Even discounting the BTK claims for a minute....there's huge discrepancy about who on earth the various O P/K/L's were (easy to type K instead of L mind) who were all around at the same time apparently.
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on May 20, 2021 15:27:34 GMT -5
Some more thoughts here. In one of these articles Brushy claims to have been born in 1868 in Buffalo Gap. So why was he claiming this we must ask, and perhaps that could give us a clue to his true identity.
If we presume he was in fact Oliver P then there would be no adequate reason for him to make such a claim, that I can think of at least. Anyone else who has a suggestion there?
But, if he was in fact Billy the kid there are a number of reasons for making that claim. Such as, the fabrication of another false identity to continue to hide from the law. Also, perhaps if he somehow had been involved in the disappearance of Oliver P he may have felt hesitant about using that identity, or for some other reason perhaps?
Furthermore it seems odd the way he insists that there are various persons he lists who are witnesses to those bronco escapades. Almost as if he felt that it was important that he left clues and evidence that people could find and verify about his identity at a later time? To me that looks like he was the kid. What do you guys think of all this?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 20, 2021 19:02:55 GMT -5
ronnback,
I think those are excellent points and great questions we should all consider. I hope others can come up with possible answers that haven't yet been considered, but I've always thought it is possible that there were two real Olivers. I think the Oliver that died in Indian territory, whose belongings Brushy took back to the family was actually Oliver "L" Roberts born in 1868. I even suspect that Brushy, going as Oliver L., and the real Oliver P. were both around at the same time in the 1910 time frame. But then we know for certain that Brushy did refer to himself as Oliver "P" Roberts on occasion. He did at least when he registered for the draft in 1918. So when did the real Oliver P. disappear? It could have been anytime after his marriage to Anna and before 1918. Maybe Brushy had an affair with Anna and that somehow resulted in Oliver P. skipping town. Then Brushy signed the divorce for Anna, as Oliver P., so she could be free. One can imagine all kinds of scenarios as to how it all went down. Maybe even there was foul play involved with Oliver P.'s disappearance. I came up with these theories because I don't believe Brushy was married to Anna Lee. I can't see any reason why he would discuss his other three marriages but not that one. It makes no sense to me. Of course, I think it is possible that Oliver P. married Anna Lee and then divorced her and disappeared about the same time Brushy showed up and became Oliver. And the different middle initials were just a way of creating some level of deniability as to his identity as Oliver P., in case anyone discovered he wasn't the real Oliver P. He could just say "Oh, no, I'm not Oliver P., I'm Oliver L.". But that scenario doesn't explain the 1868 birthdate he often claimed. Forgive me for rambling a bit here, I'm just brainstorming. But one more point. If there really was an Oliver L. born in 1868, he almost has to have had the same parents (mother at least) as Oliver P. That would make her just 12 or 13 years old when he was born. Which could explain why Oliver L. never showed up on any census reports, etc. In those days, when a young girl got pregnant outside of marriage she was marked for life. The family may have sent the baby to be raised by friends or other family so as to keep it a secret. But she knew about her son and she knew his birth name even though she wasn't around him as he was growing up. Which makes more sense how she thought Brushy was her "long lost son" when he showed up with Oliver's belongings. In closing, let me say I am fully aware of how outlandish all this sounds, but it is true that "truth can be stranger than fiction". Now, what does everyone else think about these wild theories of mine?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 21, 2021 18:19:30 GMT -5
ronnback, I think those are excellent points and great questions we should all consider. I hope others can come up with possible answers that haven't yet been considered, but I've always thought it is possible that there were two real Olivers. I think the Oliver that died in Indian territory, whose belongings Brushy took back to the family was actually Oliver "L" Roberts born in 1868. I even suspect that Brushy, going as Oliver L., and the real Oliver P. were both around at the same time in the 1910 time frame. But then we know for certain that Brushy did refer to himself as Oliver "P" Roberts on occasion. He did at least when he registered for the draft in 1918. So when did the real Oliver P. disappear? It could have been anytime after his marriage to Anna and before 1918. Maybe Brushy had an affair with Anna and that somehow resulted in Oliver P. skipping town. Then Brushy signed the divorce for Anna, as Oliver P., so she could be free. One can imagine all kinds of scenarios as to how it all went down. Maybe even there was foul play involved with Oliver P.'s disappearance. I came up with these theories because I don't believe Brushy was married to Anna Lee. I can't see any reason why he would discuss his other three marriages but not that one. It makes no sense to me. Of course, I think it is possible that Oliver P. married Anna Lee and then divorced her and disappeared about the same time Brushy showed up and became Oliver. And the different middle initials were just a way of creating some level of deniability as to his identity as Oliver P., in case anyone discovered he wasn't the real Oliver P. He could just say "Oh, no, I'm not Oliver P., I'm Oliver L.". But that scenario doesn't explain the 1868 birthdate he often claimed. Forgive me for rambling a bit here, I'm just brainstorming. But one more point. If there really was an Oliver L. born in 1868, he almost has to have had the same parents (mother at least) as Oliver P. That would make her just 12 or 13 years old when he was born. Which could explain why Oliver L. never showed up on any census reports, etc. In those days, when a young girl got pregnant outside of marriage she was marked for life. The family may have sent the baby to be raised by friends or other family so as to keep it a secret. But she knew about her son and she knew his birth name even though she wasn't around him as he was growing up. Which makes more sense how she thought Brushy was her "long lost son" when he showed up with Oliver's belongings. In closing, let me say I am fully aware of how outlandish all this sounds, but it is true that "truth can be stranger than fiction". Now, what does everyone else think about these wild theories of mine? You said it your self. Outlandish.
|
|
|
Anna Lee
May 22, 2021 2:18:50 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by RonBk on May 22, 2021 2:18:50 GMT -5
So, TTT, what do you figure the reason was Brushy didnt speak of Anna Lee?
|
|
|
Post by MissyS on May 22, 2021 12:33:26 GMT -5
Wayne’s theories are not really that outlandish, they would answer a lot of questions. and I give him a lot of credit for working out those theories, any of those scenarios he mentioned could have happened. I’m sure there’s been people in history that assumed another’s identity even a cousin if he had a chance especially hiding from the law, Im sure there has been men that helped a lady get a divorce by saying he’s their husband, and it’s possible for Brushy to have had an affair with the wife of a man and helped her to get a divorce, and it’s possible for a Mother to have her baby sent away to stay with someone else and not see her child in years and assumed another as her son, so I can’t say any of these things are impossible. When a person is running from the law he may do some desperate things. I’m guessing Brushy may have told persons his birthdate was 1868 in order to get work, as he looked younger than his age and he thought his chances of getting hired were better if he reported that as his birthdate, if it was during the Depression, he may have been struggling to get hired at times?
|
|
|
Anna Lee
May 22, 2021 14:24:53 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by RonBk on May 22, 2021 14:24:53 GMT -5
I agree that Waynes theories could very well be close to what really happened. Its a bit lame to just say someone elses theories are outlandish, without even bothering to explain why you dont agree with them or to present a counter theory and defend that position. It doesnt add anything to further the discussion, just bad manners. The whole Ollie L thing is hard to explain for the 3t bunch, they dont know how to handle the situation. So instead we get some comments like this.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 22, 2021 21:13:48 GMT -5
Well, I did refer to those theories as sounding "outlandish." But I also specified that truth can be stranger than fiction. In other words, I really believe it could have happened that way. Thanks for the comments. Even if the theories are completely wrong, I believe a little brainstorming can help maybe generate other discussions and somewhere along the way, someone might hit on the truth.
|
|
|
Anna Lee
May 23, 2021 0:19:41 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by RonBk on May 23, 2021 0:19:41 GMT -5
Brainstorming is an excellent method for progress. It can widen our perspective and thereby open up new paths of research. The number one rule of brainstorming is that critisism is not allowed. If the method is to be effective you cant have any critisism until the brainstorming session has ended. After that critisism is allowed again of course. Even if we dont have set any rules like that here, it may be good thing to consider.
|
|
|
Anna Lee
May 23, 2021 1:24:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by leeb on May 23, 2021 1:24:38 GMT -5
Reading the last few posts, have you not just created a whole new Oliver?
|
|