|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 23, 2014 11:08:22 GMT -5
Wayne, I am referring to the photo of Brushy that was used in your BTK tintype comparison to show the similarities. I am glad you gave the silver-gelatin description and it gives us the albumen vs. silver-gelatin more perspective showing identification for both processes. I doubt that anybody could see the fibers(for albumen) on any scanned photo, no matter how good the copy, and no matter how good the microscope. Originals of Brushy's photos are needed to be 100% sure of their make-up. There are some other inferences that can be made if the originals are studied. Wayne you are right about the near 30 photo of Brushy going either way. The 1st inference to be drawn is from the "around 14" Brushy photo, if it is silver-gelatin, case closed , end of story, can't be BTK, process was not invented for another 20 years. If both photos are albumen then Brushy CANNOT be eliminated from being BTK. My opinion is based on my experience with 19th century photos. I know what they look like and I have copied both albumen & s.g. photos so i know what they look like as copies. I stated before that albumen photos are generally more tans, sepias, and light-browns as are the copies, while the silver-gelatin photos show more black and white with sepia tones, the images are often rich & subtle in tone as are the copies I make from them. This is why i think 1 or both of the earlist Brushy photos are silver-gelatin, but reviewing the originals is the only sure way to id them and the darkness may just be the way that it was copied(the copier(camera, copier, etc.) itself may have given the Brushy photos the darker tones most closely associated with silver-gelatin). My reproductions of old photos do not show this (hence, my conclusion), but I would be lying if i said that none of the processes of the copying of photos from 1860 until now couldn't produce an albumen print darker than the original. The people with the original should submit them for testing. Possibly eliminating the need for exhumation(although many people want this).
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 23, 2014 11:24:09 GMT -5
Wayne, great research, and your work is correct, but inventing & practical use are 2 different things. The date(s) i gave you for silver gelatin photography are generally accepted by every expert on photography. Also, the West is likely to be the last place for innovation to show up, not the 1st. New York City and other large east coast cities would have had this technology at it's onset. It may have taken years to reach the west. I still am puzzled as to why Brushy had no tintypes of himself, despite their popularity and affordability in the time period 1867-1879, but he did have at least 1 reg. photo of himself in that same time period.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 23, 2014 11:31:53 GMT -5
1 more thing I wish to correct, I said no wonder Dr. Valdez was suspect of Brett Hall. I apologize for the error to anyone that was offended. I meant to say Morrison's daughter was suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 23, 2014 13:54:21 GMT -5
Regarding the photo of Brushy at 14. For that photo to be Billy The Kid at 14, it would have to have been taken around 1873, or 74. Again, "The gelatin silver process was introduced by Richard Leach Maddox in 1871". So is it possible a silver gelatin photo was taken of Billy The Kid in 1874? Yes. Is it likely? I agree, probably not. At least not until we delve a little deeper into the provenance of that photo. According to a previous discussion over on another board about that photo, Leon Metz published a book that included a group photo of the Clements family. I understand due to the other individuals in the photo, it was a photo from the 1870's. This gentleman I was discussing it with insisted that photo of the Clements family included that same image that is suppose to be Brushy at 14. He insisted the picture was cropped out from that group photo. I tried to contact Leon Metz to find out the name of the book and/or try to get more information and he never responded. The gentleman I was debating felt this was evidence against Brushy because Billy The Kid would not have been present in such a photograph and that the person in the photo could not be Brushy. I felt the similarity of the face left little doubt it was Brushy and was evidence to support the claim Brushy was born earlier than 1879. Since Brushy claimed the man who was shot in his place in Fort Sumner was related to the Clements family, I felt there was a connection and therefore a possibility Billy The Kid "was" in a photo of the Clements group. We never resolved anything much, and I never have seen a copy of the group photo.
I bring all that up here only to suggest that if indeed that photo of Brushy at 14 was cropped from the Clements group photo, then regardless of whether the person in the picture is Brushy or Billy The Kid or whomever, the photo "was" taken in the 1870's. I still wish I could find a copy of the group photo just to verify whether it is the same picture. The photo of Brushy at 14 does appear to have been cropped from a larger photo. It also follows that if that is the case, the image we have now was likely first copied to be used in the book, then cropped from the pages of the book, then scanned. Any evidence of sepia, etc. would be unlikely to remain in a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 23, 2014 14:05:43 GMT -5
Regarding Morrison's daughter being suspicious of Brett. Since he is only one of two individual that claim to have seen the items in person, she must have actually trusted him more than the average Joe.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 23, 2014 14:41:16 GMT -5
Wayne, now you know where I am coming from. Just when you think you have found something or someone to help further your research, the evidence seems to disappear or you get no response from people who you think can help you. Back to the silver gelatin photo, you should have read just a bit further on WIKI. The S.G. print paper was made as early as 1874, but it was poor quality(thereby rendering poor quality photos on it - MY WORDS). Widespread adoption of S.G. did not occur until 1890's. The baryta layer(which drastically improved the print) didn't occur until after 1894. Both of the Brushy photos show amazing clarity, that leads me to believe they have the baryta layer. Brushy at 14 was cropped, enlarged and still looks that clear, Wayne I do not know if I could do that on my computer right now.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 23, 2014 15:12:19 GMT -5
Again, if that photo was indeed cropped from a photo that can be confirmed to have been taken in the 1870's then all the other stuff is irrelevant at that point. As for the amazing clarity, all I can answer is that I've seen many photos from the Civil War era that appear just as clear. And I've tried enlarging that photo of Brushy at 14, so I can tell you it won't enlarge very much and still be clear. Maybe I'll post an example. Later, when I'm at home and not work.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 23, 2014 15:28:31 GMT -5
The one on the left is the way I originally got the image by doing a screen capture at 72 dpi. The one on the right is enlarged but you'll need to click on each one to see the difference. I don't see any amazing clarity in either of these. Maybe I'm just confused.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 23, 2014 22:37:58 GMT -5
Wayne, I can see you are in debunk mode so i will have to spell out everything i post. I doubt your 15 minutes of photography studies on wikipedia equates to the 100,000's of 19th century photos that I have studied, but I do like the challenge. You did not post the other photo, but the "amazing clarity" comment, if not outright explained in my previous post is certainly implied and further bolstered by your own posting. I will spell it out so you will not be confused. The clarity of the photo of the 14 year old Brushy is amazing in the sense that it takes one look(glance) at that photo, compared to the near 30 year old Brushy to tell that it is one and the same person. Despite the fact the photo is 100-140 years old, despite it is likely 3rd generation or later, despite that it was cropped and enlarged to maximum size, and despite the low resolution of 72 dpi, the photo is still easily recognizable. The entire original photo must have been very clear. You do not find that amazing? You thought I meant it looked like a new digital photo? How unrealistic is that? If I told you that I had a Model T and a 2014 Mustang for sale and told you they were in great shape, I guess you would expect them to be in the exact same shape. Many collectors who find Model T's in barns and such may use the term "great shape" to indicate a car that has enough left to be remodeled. The Civil War photos of which you speak are 1st or 2nd generation and are not cropped from larger photos and that is why they are as nice. Do I need to explain any farther? You are trying to make a point that photography will prove nothing in relation to Billy the Kid and/or Brushy. I am telling you the exact opposite. There will be a MAJOR breakthrough in the BTK case within the next 5 years and it will have nothing to do with DNA, it will be as a result of a "Find" of photos of Billy the Kid. MARK IT DOWN WAYNE, Sherlock Holmes has spoken. If you do not believe me Wayne, contact me offline and place a bet.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 24, 2014 12:36:58 GMT -5
Sherlock,
I don't know what "debunk mode" is. I just have my beliefs and convictions and I defend them just the same as you defend yours. That is as it should be. One day, as you say, there may be a "Find" that proves beyond a doubt that Brushy was a fraud. If and when that day comes and I'm still around to witness it, I will shout my apologies from the roof tops. I will provide any help I can to spread the truth that has been proven, just to try and make up for all my efforts to the contrary. But let me explain what that's going to take. It's not going to take "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". It's going to take "proof beyond a doubt." Now before you jump all over me for taking such an "unreasonable" stance on this, let me point out that the same extreme burden of proof has alway been demanded of anyone who thinks Brushy truly was Billy The Kid. I'm sure you are aware that the history books on Billy will not be rewritten and the historians will not accept proof, unless it is "proof beyond a doubt".
There is a problem here in that one person's reasonable doubt is another person's unreasonable doubt. That's why there'll never be a conclusion to this debate until all doubt of any kind is removed one way or the other. That's what the other side demands and that is what I demand.
So in the meantime, until "proof beyond a doubt" is provided against Brushy, I will continue to point out the doubt where there is some. I will not stray from that principle and I will not be worn down to accept anything less than the proof I demand. The other side behaves the same way and adheres to the same. So while I do very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss this and debate it with individuals like yourself, I ask that you recognize my convictions and respect my stance on the matter. Bring me the proof beyond a doubt and I will be the first to concede this debate.
Now back to the 14 year old Brushy photo. I fear you may not have fully understood my point. I'm not suggesting my friend from the other board accurate in everything he said. I don't even know his last name, but his screen name started with "Allen". He was one of the most knowledgeable people I've ever debated about this and I never had any reason to suspect him of being anything other than totally honest in his comments. The history of the photo came up because he was convinced the photo of Brushy at 14 was not really Brushy and felt that was strong evidence that Brushy was a fraud. As in, if he was telling the truth he wouldn't have been presenting pictures of some other person and claiming it was him. I wanted to know what evidence he had that the photo was not Brushy. That's when he explained that he had seen the group photo from which it was cropped and that the photo's provenance proved it was taken in the 1870's. Therefore it couldn't be a 14 year old Brushy. He claimed he had seen the group photo in a book that was a collection of primarily photos and he gave me the name of the book (which I have since forgotten) and he said the book was no longer in print. He said I should contact Leon Metz to see if he had a copy of the photo he could send me. I acquired what I believed to be the correct email address of Leon Metz and sent him several messages, to which he never responded. So I eventually dropped the effort to locate the original photo. That all happened around 5 or 6 years ago. Maybe someone else on this board has the ability to contact Mr. Metz and ask him about it.
I only brought it up because of our discussion regarding the age of that photo. As unlikely as it may be, the photo actually could be from the 1870's and be silver gelatin. Reasonable or not, that is doubt that is important to this debate. If there is proof beyond any doubt that the photo was taken in the 1870's and we all agree beyond a doubt that it is a photo of Brushy, then there is no longer any doubt of any kind, that Brushy was "not" Oliver Pleasant Roberts because Oliver wasn't even born when the photo was taken. Historians certainly would not accept it as proof Brushy was Billy The Kid and I probably wouldn't either. It would only prove that he was not Oliver Pleasant Roberts and it would prove he was born around the same time as Billy. A DNA match between him and Catherine Bonney should be acceptable proof to historians. A DNA mismatch with her would convince me he was not Billy. A mitochondrial DNA match with descendants of Oliver Pleasant Roberts' mother would convince me he was not Billy. Solid proof that the photo of Brushy at 14 was not taken until the mid 1890's would convince me as well. But simply proving the photo to be Gelatin Silver would not convince me.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 24, 2014 13:54:34 GMT -5
One more point. I probably shouldn't even go there but if Brushy actually was Oliver Pleasant Roberts and was 14 when that photo was taken, then the photo was taken around 1893. Isn't that still a bit early to assume it would have automatically been Gelatin Silver and not Albumen? I'm not sure how important that is, but it crossed my mind as being relevant. I guess it's just to suggest that if I could prove that photo was Albumen, historians probably would not accept that as proof Brushy was Billy.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 25, 2014 0:58:44 GMT -5
Debunk mode is just being contrary, I say "Black", you say "White", and I say "The Moon", and you say "Is just the Sun at Night" RJD RIP. As hard as it may be for you to believe, I agree with your proof beyond any doubt theory and will explain in my next post. For this post I want to address whether Brushy was a fraud(your words, not mine). I do not think BTK was killed by Pat Garrett and although Brushy is the top candidate, I am sure he is not BTK. I am nearly certain I have not posted anywhere on your website that Brushy was a fraud(only above) because I do not look at him that way. I knew quite a few Brushy's growing up (we called them B.S.ers). You certainly will hold Brushy accountable if he is proven beyond any doubt that he is not BTK. I, however will not. I have stated at least 2x that Brushy Bill Roberts (Oliver P. Roberts) was "CONNED" into this by William V. Morrison and that he is the 1 who "KILLED" Brushy. Why you defend Morrison even above Brushy puzzles me. I do wish you would address this question. I have researched Morrison and the years from 1947-50, he was self-described as a Genealogist, a St. Louis Probate Officer, a StL. Attorney, a StL. Non-practicing Attorney, an El Paso Attorney, and an El Paso Reporter. He 1st heard about Brushy being BTK from J. Frank Dalton whom he later said he didn't meet until after he found out Brushy was BTK, even though "Uncle Jessie" was WORLD-WIDE news in 1948 and Dalton & Morrison lived in the same state! Morrison later admitted JFD was not where he learned about Brushy, but from a man who wished to remain anonymous named Joe Hines, who was actually William Campbell, and fought in the Lincoln County War for the Murphy-Dolan faction, William Campbell's REAL name was Jessie Robert James and he was tired of being misidentified as Jessie Woodson James so he changed it to Campbell. Morrison had helped Hines=Campbell=James acquire probate property from his deceased brother Morgan Campbell estate whose real name was Franklin Morgan James, but he was tired of being misidentified as Alexander Franklin "Frank" James, so he also changed his name to Campbell=James. Joe Hines alias William Campbell alias Jessie James was later found out to be none other than Jessie Evans. Incredible!!!!!!!!!!Everyone Morrison met was 90-100 years old in a time when people lived to less than 65 and they were all famous outlaws. Now I know why the book "Jessie James Was One Of His Names" sells for $500 in used condition. After reading all of this convoluted B.S., I decided to GOOGLE: Brushy Bill Hico Texas Chamber of Commerce, and there it is written (Heffner)that: In 1950 an El Paso Reporter (no doubt Morrison) recorded an interview with Mardle Ables. She stated Billy the Kid was Oliver Roberts. Thus began one of the great mysteries...........You have somewhere on one of the posts a name similar to mardle ables that i cannot find that relates to something else. Can I ask what it is about? Wayne, can you explain any of this? I told you that Morrison was a liar, con-man, etc. How can the story of how Brushy was found to be BTK be such B.S. It should be cut and dry, explain Heffner, explain any of this? Boy, doesn't Morrison's ever-changing job titles, how he found out Brushy was BTK, MIMIC the carnival-like atmosphere of jf dalton, lester dill, and turilli. It's just like he took their M.O. and used it with Brushy. I feel sorry for Brushy. He was not a fraud!!!, but everyone around him was. He was surrounded by NUTS. Wayne, please explain everything that is contained in this email. I know you have come up with some doozies in the past, but explaining this will be monumental. I know that you forgot already, so once again please explain to me why Morrison is not the scum of the earth. I know it will take at least 5 posts to explain this, but i am patient, Wayne jump right in.
|
|
|
Post by sherlockholmes on Jun 25, 2014 10:56:25 GMT -5
Wayne, i found out the Mardle Ables vs. Martile Able answer on my own, another sounds like but not, looks like but not, convoluted mixing of names and events, meant to confuse. Morrison and Friends, Brushy Authors and Supporters, who JUST Cannot get their story straight. I AM NOT CONFUSED, the answer is SO obvious to me, The story IS just not true. Martile Able( I am assuming it (he) was a man as I have no proof to the contrary )was 1 of the people that was identified to be alive and knowing of Billy the Kid. Supposedly in 1949, Morrison tried to get 5 BTK associates to sign affidavits that Brushy was BTK, 3 signed(including)Able, 2 refused(Bill & Sam Jones), and along with affidavits from 2 of Brushy's friends was presented to the Governor as proof that Brushy was Billy the Kid. Talk about underwhelming evidence. What about the 1949 Martile Able(man)vs the 1950 Mardle Ables(woman) confusion? How could a story that Ables is the 1 who brought Brushy into national prominence in 1950 ever have gotten started in the 1st place(if it was not true), let alone end up on the HICO, Texas Chamber of Commerce website? Aren't the similar sounding names quite a coincidence? ? Your "proof beyond any doubt" certainly is the standard, however, it does have it's pitfalls. If someone else is definitively shown to be Billy the Kid through dna or some other method, and Brushy's body is never exhumed(it will not be because the people in Texas know he is not BTK, they just want $$$ based on Morrison's lies), then technically Brushy was never excluded, and therefore will Never be eliminated. At this point Wayne please write a book titled "Billy the Kid Was One Of His Names". The standard of "Proof Beyond Any Doubt" will certainly be the standard 1 will need to overcome to rewrite history. You made a BRILLIANT point on another post, that the photographic evidence that need be is that it must "look like" Btk. If photos surface that do look like BTK and show known BTK associates with him( photos of a young BTK to an old BTK), i can promise you the standard will lessen. If people see photos that look like BTK and they tell a story of his life, Historians(about 300) will certainly resist, but when 100's of millions people are convinced history is wrong and stop buying their books and they lose their credibility and their incomes, they will relent. MARK MY WORDS !!! They(the Public) will not look at these photos and see the life of BTK and then be told by experts that the photos are not what they appear to be. A photo of a dog is not really a photo of a dog at all, it is actually a photo of a cat. Does such compelling evidence exist? I think so, we will see. And good news Wayne , you will live to see it, although I doubt I will hear you shouting an apology.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 25, 2014 12:18:49 GMT -5
If that happens I "will" apologize profusely and post all the evidence on this board and on my website so that any future interested parties will see and know the truth. I don't know why you would doubt my sincerity in that except that you couldn't know what a strong belief and total commitment to honesty and integrity I harbor. I took a look at the website you mentioned. Here's the quote that confused you, I think. "In 1950, an El Paso reporter recorded an interview with Mrs. Mardle Ables, she was quoted having said that she had seen and talked to Billy the Kid the day before. She further stated that he was living under the alias of Ollie Roberts, nicknamed Brushy Bill." Note it does say "she". This is obviously a misspelling of the name Martile Able. She was indeed a woman. This story was probably based on interview with Judge Hefner and the website designer simply misspelled the name. Or maybe Judge Hefner had heard the name and didn't know how to spell it, or simply made a typo. But to jump on that as some kind of evidence of a conspiracy to mislead is an example of your definition of "debunk". Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Mrs. Martile Able was a real person. She was certainly not the first one to identify Brushy and the article didn't say she was. It is possibly not the best written as far as context since the Brushy story did not "begin" with her. But I met Judge Hefner and he is a man of integrity as well. I do not believe there was any knowing attempt to mislead anyone. Here is a photo of Mrs. Able. She was the wife of John Able who appears in another photo, playing cards with a friend while an alleged Billy The Kid stands by with a fiddle in hand. Well anyway, this is Mrs. Able and I definitely think she was female. You didn't mention that the Jones Boys allegedly had a never before published photo with Billy The Kid in it and Brushy correctly identified the others in the photo. You didn't mention that not only did Mrs. Able identify him as Billy but he also correctly identified her. You also didn't mention that one of the other affidavit signers was Severo Gallegos who concluded Brushy really was the Kid because they had the same exact eyes and he had never seen eyes like that on anyone else. You didn't mention the claim that the Jones brothers did indeed verbally agree that Brushy was the Kid but refused to sign an affidavit only because they feared legal ramifications. I'm not confused even though some individuals on the other side of this debate have tried to create confusion.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 25, 2014 12:24:26 GMT -5
I will address your assertion that Morrison was the culprit in the Brushy saga in a post I'm preparing for you. It'll be up soon.
|
|