|
Post by frank1981 on Jul 30, 2024 13:23:11 GMT -5
New member here. Was just wondering if your opinion on roberts has changed over the year and if so why?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 1, 2024 12:37:20 GMT -5
It seems most people who look into Brushy's story form an opinion pretty quickly and are unlikely to change it over time. Partially because no matter what you believe there's an abundance of rationalizations that can be applied and most people find it difficult to admit their original conclusions were wrong. In spite of that, I can remember 2 or 3 times where members of the message board expressed they had changed their mind. I'm not going to name names here but it has happened a few times. As for me personally, I have always tried to listen to all opinions with an open mind and there have been a few times where someone made comments that gave me pause, but I've always settled on the same opinion I still have today. That opinion is, it is "possible" that Brushy was not really BTK but it is unlikely that he was not. If I have to choose yes or no, I say "yes" he was one and the same person as "William H. Bonney"/"Billy The Kid". I'm at least 95% certain of it and have been for more than 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by devorerd on Aug 1, 2024 13:13:02 GMT -5
Candidly, until digging into the story, I as many were hopeful the "Kid" survived. Once looking into the story, objectively, the inconsistency of Garrett has it's own path which must be explored. But what really did it for me was that "Brushy" had zero motive to claim he was the kid, particularly at that junction in life, which ended up being the final curtain. Human beings have to have motive in order to act regardless of if they are telling the truth or not. IMO, he was not lying, nor looking for fame, he just wanted what he was promised and was tired of living with that. Understandable. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by tboss50 on Aug 4, 2024 11:31:26 GMT -5
I have read on here by the naysayers that Brushy got all of his information by reading Walter Noble Burns book so I got the book and read it with that in mind. Nowhere in the book did I read about BTK testifying in Colonel Dudley's court marshall but I believe there's documentation that he did. How would Oliver Roberts know that? On the other hand everyone in 1950 thought BTK was left handed mostly going by the pic. But Brushy said he could beat anyone left handed. I just can't quite square that in my mind. Daniel Edwards did address that in his latest video. Being truly ambidextrous could possibly explain it. Overall there's just too much evidence and/or coincidence to convince me that Brushy was not Billy.
|
|
|
Post by Rufus on Aug 21, 2024 19:30:50 GMT -5
I started out as pro-Brushy. Then I became a pseudo-skeptic where perhaps Roberts might've had a familial connection to the Antrim family and that his knowledge or stories were blends of truth as well as fiction. These days I think that he was something of a modern Don Quixote who was passionate about the old west and may or may not of had connections to different people of importance. In short, he was not Billy The Kid.
That being said, between my own research and the diligent research of people like Missy and others I've looked into, new information about Roberts has certainly been uncovered. The most important (imho) is a bio on a man named Robert Cooper who worked for the Waggoner's and mentioned in the late 1890s he ran into "Billy The Kid" in the Canton area. This, I have no doubt, was indeed Brushy Bill Roberts. So what it means is long before Morrison was ever involved he was telling people he was the outlaw.
Depending on the birthdate you wish to believe Roberts would've been at most 17 years old at the time of this encounter with the Cooper man. His teenage pictures look like someone older than his years, so I figure he probably passed for 20s and the Cooper man didn't know any better and thought him the genuine article.
There's always new discoveries made about Roberts. But in my view none of the discoveries validate his claims, but only make a stronger case he wasn't William H. Bonney. The Donald Cline book is pretty damning with quotes from letters from various family members and former in-laws or stepchildren and stepgrandchildren. One can basically account for every stage of his life along the way because he was either with Martha Vada Heath, Cordelia, Thomas, his parents, his nieces or nephews, or distant relatives and wives.
If he wasn't in Sulphur Springs he was in Mena. If he wasn't in Canton he was in Dilby. If he wasnt in Sebastian County he was in Tyler County or Hamilton County or he was in New Mexico. Etc. Even if one was to believe he was Billy The Kid they'd have to concede the majority of his stories going to South America, the Shetland Islands, Wyoming, Oregon, Cuba and Mexico had to have been lies because he was claiming to be in multiple places simultaneously.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 22, 2024 18:15:56 GMT -5
You need to explain your post. Your math is confusing. You say he wasn't any older than 17 when he met Robert Cooper in the 1890's. If he was BTK then he was 30 something in the 1890's. And as most naysayers continue to err, so do you when you attempt to follow his story as if he was Oliver P. Roberts. Showing Oliver was in one place while BTK was in another is very misleading and invalid. It proves nothing. Considering the difficulties you have caused on this message board in the past, I must insist you provide the evidence of what you are stating as fact. I will not allow posts like this to continue. When you came back under a different screen name I decided to leave it alone as long as you didn't fall back into your old ways. If this type of rambling unsubstantiated comments continue, I will ban you again, and again, and again.
|
|
|
Post by Repka on Aug 23, 2024 13:42:27 GMT -5
Rufus your post isn't offensive your just voicing your opinion. I also believe that Brushy was Oliver pleasant Roberts and that he had perhaps an altor ego that he was indeed BTK. Don't understand the threat of a banning order because brushy's can't produce facts either. A case of six and two threes maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 23, 2024 20:13:17 GMT -5
Repka,
The person now calling himself Rufus, was previously banned from the board because he was making rude comments to other members of the board. When he came back under the name Rufus I warned him about messages like the one he just posted and he refrained from such for awhile. What I objected too this time is not rudeness but rather posting a rambling message with statements made as fact that are not supported by real evidence. An opinion is certainly fine here. Just making up stuff to try to make your point is not. I guess I just have a shorter fuse where he is concerned. Please don't take offense.
|
|
|
Post by Rufus on Aug 23, 2024 21:03:30 GMT -5
My mistake, not Canton but Decatur. texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1151234/m1/159/?q=147&fbclid=IwY2xjawE2HoVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHVSI-csMm6fljpOS7SWtjMqPNIoo8j21j2GRD2X9ocIH1HjA8kQCCpXNdw_aem_B7bhnBrHF6ALieL8yNUsjQWhat I mean by being 17 years old at most, since I believe Oliver Pleasant Roberts and Brushy Bill Roberts were one and the same, is that if you go by his birth certificate of 1879 (among other dates he claimed in censuses and newspapers) he would have been between the ages of 14-17 years old. Why? The Cooper man claimed he met Billy The Kid when working on construction of the Baptist College and Decatur Courthouse when he was working for the Waggoner's and The Baptist College was completed in 1893 and the Decatur Courthouse was completed in 1896. So that means Brushy Bill Roberts, if he was born in 1879, was telling people he was Billy The Kid from as early as the age of 14 or 17. Now if we go by his tombstone date of 1868 he'd of been between the ages of 25 and 28. However, Dan Edwards basically said in his latest video the tombstone date was created by some local resident (I think) and therefore has no bearing on his actual age. So we go by the birth certificate date, as no evidence has ever been produced he was actually born prior to 1879. My big question is, since it's certainly no coincidence that this man Cooper was indeed referring to Roberts, what the hell was the teenage Brushy Bill doing in Decatur when his parents were residing in Sebastian County Arkansas? 🤔 There must must've been relatives in Decatur.Or perhaps he really was riding horses from a young age despite claims from others that he was not a skilled horseman (ie, Cline's book). Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 23, 2024 22:53:46 GMT -5
The problem is that you can't prove Brushy was Oliver P. Roberts by referring to the birthdate of Oliver P. Roberts. Brushy said he was born in 1859. I understand that you don't believe that is the correct birthdate but that belief can't be used to argue that he was not BTK unless you can prove he wasn't born until 1879. Many have attempted to prove that over the years and no one has succeeded. That's why your statements are confusing, pointless and invalid. There is abundant evidence he was born much earlier than 1879. For example, the clothing styles he is wearing in the photo of him around the age of 27 points to the 1890's. Oliver P. Roberts would have been still a teenager in the 1890's and the man in that photo is clearly not a teenager. The Roberts family Bible is really not relevant. Though it supposedly does list an Oliver P. Roberts born in 1879, you can not prove that Brushy was that person. In fact I've never seen any real, verifiable evidence he was Oliver P. Roberts. So! Until it is proven he indeed "was" Oliver P., you can't use Oliver's birthdate as evidence against him being BTK. On the other hand, if it is ever proven then there is no longer any need to debate whether he was BTK. So either way your whole dissertation about Cooper's meeting with BTK is pointless.
I'm just asking that you back up your assumptions with verifiable evidence and avoid posting stuff that is meant to confuse and mislead others. We get enough of that in our national politics these days. I won't tolerate it here. I don't have to and I won't.
|
|
|
Post by Rufus on Aug 24, 2024 1:18:32 GMT -5
The problem is that you can't prove Brushy was Oliver P. Roberts by referring to the birthdate of Oliver P. Roberts. Brushy said he was born in 1859. I understand that you don't believe that is the correct birthdate but that belief can't be used to argue that he was not BTK unless you can prove he wasn't born until 1879. Many have attempted to prove that over the years and no one has succeeded. That's why your statements are confusing, pointless and invalid. There is abundant evidence he was born much earlier than 1879. For example, the clothing styles he is wearing in the photo of him around the age of 27 points to the 1890's. Oliver P. Roberts would have been still a teenager in the 1890's and the man in that photo is clearly not a teenager. The Roberts family Bible is really not relevant. Though it supposedly does list an Oliver P. Roberts born in 1879, you can not prove that Brushy was that person. In fact I've never seen any real, verifiable evidence he was Oliver P. Roberts. So! Until it is proven he indeed "was" Oliver P., you can't use Oliver's birthdate as evidence against him being BTK. On the other hand, if it is ever proven then there is no longer any need to debate whether he was BTK. So either way your whole dissertation about Cooper's meeting with BTK is pointless. I'm just asking that you back up your assumptions with verifiable evidence and avoid posting stuff that is meant to confuse and mislead others. We get enough of that in our national politics these days. I won't tolerate it here. I don't have to and I won't. I wouldnt say that it's pointless, insofar as it demonstrates that Roberts was claiming to be Billy The Kid much sooner than anyone thought. The earliest newspaper account of him was 1916 roundabouts ("Riding Roberts") so the 1893-1896 time frame by Cooper puts that back 10-13 years prior to that, so 50 years prior to Morrison's involvement. As for his actual age, I suppose at best it boils down to "you cannot prove or disprove," but I lean towards 1879 because of him having two older siblings whose children maintained that he went to school with their mothers, was their mother's brother, etc according to letters/quotes in Cline's book. As for the clothes, etc argument I've debated Dan Edwards a little bit on this and it wasn't uncommon for Sunday best hand me down clothes that was 10-20 years old. He was most likely wearing his father's suit. I myself have my father and grandfather's military uniforms and coats, boots, etc that are decades old and look in pristine condition to fair condition. So personally, I don't find the argument exactly compelling. But we agree to disagree on that. As for how old he looked in pictures, it's worth noting that in Cline's book Jewel Brown (Brushy's stepdaughter) said the photos of him on a horse looked like the day her mother met Brushy because it was at a rodeo/fair. So perhaps the photos were more recent than said. He might've said he was a teenager in a picture when in reality he was in his 20s, etc. Some people look older or younger than they are. Brushy seems to be an odd duck who might've looked older when younger and looked younger when older. I myself am 38 and my fiancé's mother thought I was 50, lol. I know when I was 15 I was thought to be 18-21. Could've been the same for Brushy. But again, we agree to disagree and that's okay. Thanks for letting me post Wayne. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 24, 2024 13:52:23 GMT -5
I would not find it surprising if he made the claim of being BTK long before he met Morrison. He likely told people he trusted. He might have even thought at times that it didn't matter since the authorities probably wouldn't believe it anyway. That does not in any way prove he was not really BTK. It could even be considered as evidence he really "was" Billy.
So, I still believe this alleged meeting with Cooper is of no consequence.
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Aug 24, 2024 18:21:10 GMT -5
If Brushy was recognized as Billy the kid in 1893 Decatur, then it"s clearly impossible he was the same person as Oliver Pleasant Roberts. Why? Because Oliver Pleasant was 14 years old at the time and no one would believe a 14 year old kid was Billy the kid.
|
|
|
Post by Rufus on Aug 24, 2024 23:33:17 GMT -5
If Brushy was recognized as Billy the kid in 1893 Decatur, then it"s clearly impossible he was the same person as Oliver Pleasant Roberts. Why? Because Oliver Pleasant was 14 years old at the time and no one would believe a 14 year old kid was Billy the kid. It was a thought I had that perhaps Roberts actually was older than the 1879 birthdate according to census information, because it sounded like a hard sell that someone would believe someone 14-17 years old was late 20s or early 30s. So I thought perhaps the original tombstone date could've been accurate, and that he was Caroline Dunn's child, but Dan Edwards showed that the original tombstone was made-up by some local with no real connection to Roberts. However, if we look at the real Billy The Kid he seemed passable to be younger or even older than he actually was. It's still a debate in circles how old he was. Most insist on 21, but Bonney himself told a census taker before his death he was 25 and from Missouri (I think). In another census he claimed to be 16 years old. So it's not difficult it seems in those days to pass yourself off as younger or older. Maybe people did look older in those times than now. I'm struck at times how actors in the 60s and prior were 30 something but looked 40-50 years old, like Sean Connery or John Wayne. Nowadays people are 50 and look 30 due to environmental improvements, medical advancements, etc. It could very well have been that the Cooper man was naive or gullible, and believed it simply because he knew no better. I think in the 1890s very few people actually knew what Billy The Kid actually looked like, as the tintype only became well known in the 20th century. I can believe the gullibility simply because of my interest in sideshows, circuses, etc where people really believed that they were looking at someone claiming to be 9'0" tall when really they were 7'5" or truly believing someone like Joyce Heth was George Washington's nanny when she was maybe 90 years old at the most. Even today we have people who cannot seem to differentiate between truth and fiction online. Maybe one bit of evidence would be studies or experiments done on how inaccurate people's assumptions of someone's age is. I tend to think most people would be inaccurate. youtu.be/QPCcBMCbWuA?si=J3_ExpML_NAXg61WThis video for example, people had to guess people's age and they were all off. Who they thought were older were younger and vice versa. So let's assume Cooper met Roberts when he was 17, and people generally looked older anyways back then, we could imagine Roberts looked early to mid 20s and since Billy The Kid was said to look more youthful than he was, it's perhaps possible that a man might believe a young looking 36 (1896 minus 1881, 15 plus 21) year old would look 25 years old or younger. Of course we agree to disagree. You could easily say to me even if Roberts looked older than his years, his youth and inexperience would give himself away as being a teenager. Which I would agree with you, but we're also talking about a time when people grew up faster than people today. You were expected to act like a man or woman as a teenager, and child labor was commonplace. It's possible to mistake a 19th century teenager who looked older than his/her years for an adult. That being said, the Cooper testimony is important because it does fly in the face of those who think Roberts was strictly in it for the money or that Morrison put him up to it. He was saying it for decades. Why? Well that's the million dollar question. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 26, 2024 16:12:03 GMT -5
That's a very long and meandering comment. He was younger than thought, he was older than thought, he looked younger than he was, he looked older than he was. Do you have an opinion on just how old Brushy was in 1893 and any real evidence to support that opinion?
|
|