|
Post by leeb on May 26, 2020 12:03:13 GMT -5
Wow! And I suppose "you" never defend your beliefs or positions. "You" just take anything anyone else says and accept it as correct. Isn't some back and forth over specific ideas what makes a message board run? I submit to you that there have been at least 4 other BTK message boards that are no longer running while this one has stood the test of time and continues to grow. A huge part of the reason for that is my promise to allow anyone with any ideas to post and present their beliefs without being harassed or belittled. The only posts I have ever deleted and the only account I've ever blocked were those that wanted to solicit or use the board as means of advertising something having nothing to do with Billy, Brushy, or the old west. If I really had an attitude like you accuse me of, I could easily just delete every post I disagree with and ban every user who's opinion is different from mine. Your assertion is unfair. Oops! Maybe I'm not allowed to point that out. So sorry! Oops, now I'm using sarcasm, Please forgive me as those are the things I don't like and normally try hard to avoid. just out of curiosity, what is the difference between your post and the one I returned? I could get upset and take that as a personal attack but I'm not the slightest bit fussed. Sometimes people can't see the wood from the trees. Anyway Wayne getting back to the reason we're all here, I don't believe in old brushy's stories as the same that you do. That's personal opinion. But if we can all voice our thoughts without prejudice then I'm sure your site will still be popular in the future. He told some whoppers did old brushy!
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 26, 2020 13:11:46 GMT -5
Wow! And I suppose "you" never defend your beliefs or positions. "You" just take anything anyone else says and accept it as correct. Isn't some back and forth over specific ideas what makes a message board run? I submit to you that there have been at least 4 other BTK message boards that are no longer running while this one has stood the test of time and continues to grow. A huge part of the reason for that is my promise to allow anyone with any ideas to post and present their beliefs without being harassed or belittled. The only posts I have ever deleted and the only account I've ever blocked were those that wanted to solicit or use the board as means of advertising something having nothing to do with Billy, Brushy, or the old west. If I really had an attitude like you accuse me of, I could easily just delete every post I disagree with and ban every user who's opinion is different from mine. Your assertion is unfair. Oops! Maybe I'm not allowed to point that out. So sorry! Oops, now I'm using sarcasm, Please forgive me as those are the things I don't like and normally try hard to avoid. just out of curiosity, what is the difference between your post and the one I returned? I could get upset and take that as a personal attack but I'm not the slightest bit fussed. Sometimes people can't see the wood from the trees. Anyway Wayne getting back to the reason we're all here, I don't believe in old brushy's stories as the same that you do. That's personal opinion. But if we can all voice our thoughts without prejudice then I'm sure your site will still be popular in the future. He told some whoppers did old brushy! leeb, This board provides a forum for debate. Evidence, and lack of evidence, is debated. Could Brushy Bill possibly have been Billy the Kid? Skeptics question the widely accepted historical fact that Pat Garrett killed Billy the Kid in 1881. They assume that Brushy Bill had assumed the identity of Oliver Pleasant Roberts, son of Henry Oliver Roberts and Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson, when he registered for the WWI draft. Records establish the fact that Oliver Roberts was a resident of Van Zandt County. There is no credible evidence that Pat Garrett failed to kill Billy the Kid. There is no credible evidence that Brushy Bill and Oliver Pleasant Roberts were two different men.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2020 14:11:00 GMT -5
Not really a surprise Wayne, no offense, since you discredited my position months ago that it's not uncommon for people to look very similar or virtually identical to unrelated person's. If something is commonplace, or within reason seems to be more commonplace than thought, you tend to dismiss it. We simply agree to disagree respectfully of course. I suppose one can ask how likely is it for people to have similar scars, in this case on the nose. Forgoing all possibility of wrinkles, I would say men and women growing up in Texas in the late 19th and early 20th century probably had similar scars because most had similar experiences in jobs and at the homestead. There is also the possibility that an imposter will make an attempt to look more like the genuine article by purposely scarring themselves. Take for example J. Frank Dalton, Brushy Bill Roberts good friend. Dalton said, as part of his proof, that he had the same disfigured finger as Jesse James. The trouble was it was the wrong finger. He had heard it was the trigger finger, and either he or someone else purposely injured the finger. In fact, Jesse James' digit in question was his ring finger and it was a birth defect, not an injury. Considering Brushy Bill Roberts did work for Sweeney for a time, it's possible that he got that tidbit of information from her about the nose scar and purposely injured himself just so he could say he was Billy The Kid. What one calls evidence for the Brushy Was Billy crowd, in fact, can be used as probable evidence for the Brushy Wasn't Billy crowd. Reasonable doubt? You be the judge. Considering the fact that he was a longtime friend of J. Frank Dalton and clearly would've been privy to Dalton injuring himself to try and pass himself off as Jesse James, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that he did it too. Anyways, I hope you and everyone else on the forum has a good Memorial Day. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all 😊 You keep bringing that Brushy worked for Sue McSween, and you go to your own conclusion and I respect it but your gonna need more evidence than that blurry photo of Brushy on the supposed key horse Brushy himself said he worked for the woman for a time--- so if you take his word for it, rather than mine, he's already established that relationship. I just happen to think his time/date of that is wrong. It makes more sense that he worked for her until she sold her brand and that's where he got a lot of his information about Billy The Kid.
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on May 26, 2020 14:30:57 GMT -5
You keep bringing that Brushy worked for Sue McSween, and you go to your own conclusion and I respect it but your gonna need more evidence than that blurry photo of Brushy on the supposed key horse Brushy himself said he worked for the woman for a time--- so if you take his word for it, rather than mine, he's already established that relationship. I just happen to think his time/date of that is wrong. It makes more sense that he worked for her until she sold her brand and that's where he got a lot of his information about Billy The Kid. My mind must be playing tricks on me cause I dont remember him saying that he did...you bring a good point thanks for the reply
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 27, 2020 2:21:09 GMT -5
Thanks for that post rufus. You seem to have lots of info on J. Frank Dalton that I haven't seen before. I will admit I've never looked into his claim very much. I've always leaned toward believing he was a fraud and even if he was the real Jesse, his story just never intrigued me like Brushy did. I think it's because I believe BTK got a raw deal during the LCW times and to know that he lived until 1950 just seemed to be justice I could wish for or believe in. All that said, getting more into specifics, I also believe it is still "possible", not "probable" that Dalton might have actually been the real Jesse. The info you shared above sure makes it look otherwise but with all due respects, before being convinced I would need to vet all that in my own mind. And to be honest, I'm just not interested enough in it to go there.
So, that leaves me with an important dilemma. I must answer the question, if Dalton was a fraud then why would the real BTK associate himself with that and even come out as identifying him for the press? Other than any possibility that Dalton was the real deal, there's only two other possibilities. 1) Brushy mistakenly believed Dalton was the real deal, or 2) He knowingly lied about Dalton because they had become friends and he wanted to support his claim to fame or wanted to see first hand what would happen if an old west outlaw, long thought dead, were to show up alive, because he himself was considering coming out to the press.
Bottom line, it is quite possible, even probable, that Dalton was a fraud but that does not neccessarily mean Brushy was as well.
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on May 27, 2020 8:32:03 GMT -5
Thanks for that post rufus. You seem to have lots of info on J. Frank Dalton that I haven't seen before. I will admit I've never looked into his claim very much. I've always leaned toward believing he was a fraud and even if he was the real Jesse, his story just never intrigued me like Brushy did. I think it's because I believe BTK got a raw deal during the LCW times and to know that he lived until 1950 just seemed to be justice I could wish for or believe in. All that said, getting more into specifics, I also believe it is still "possible", not "probable" that Dalton might have actually been the real Jesse. The info you shared above sure makes it look otherwise but with all due respects, before being convinced I would need to vet all that in my own mind. And to be honest, I'm just not interested enough in it to go there. So, that leaves me with an important dilemma. I must answer the question, if Dalton was a fraud then why would the real BTK associate himself with that and even come out as identifying him for the press? Other than any possibility that Dalton was the real deal, there's only two other possibilities. 1) Brushy mistakenly believed Dalton was the real deal, or 2) He knowingly lied about Dalton because they had become friends and he wanted to support his claim to fame or wanted to see first hand what would happen if an old west outlaw, long thought dead, were to show up alive, because he himself was considering coming out to the press. Bottom line, it is quite possible, even probable, that Dalton was a fraud but that does not neccessarily mean Brushy was as well. It's possible that Brushy did want to see what kind of public response that J. Frank Dalton would get, to gauge the reaction his own claims may get. However, if that was the case, he shot himself in the foot because HAD HE NOT DIED then surely he would have came under scrutiny by the national press because of the earlier story he told saying that he ran with the James Gang. People automatically would've called him basically a liar because the two stories simply don't jiive. Of course, if you believe Ola Everhart's claims that Jesse James was friends with "Wild" Henry Roberts, Brushy's alleged real father, then of course you wouldn't see a problem with anything. The reason why it doesn't jiive is because historically speaking Jesse James and Billy The Kid only met once and that was when they were grown men. That's largely because Jesse James came from Missouri, not Texas. However, it must be noted, that in a census once Billy The Kid was denoted as being older than he was and that he was from Missouri. Historically speaking, there just is no verifiable proof that the Roberts family of Arkansas was in any way shape or form related to the Roberts family of Nacogdoches. Brushy claimed that the Arkansas branch were first cousins, and that Wild Henry Roberts of Nacogdoches was his father. Historically speaking, there is no evidence "Wild" Henry Roberts was involved in the Civil War, let alone stepped foot in Missouri, despite Ola Everhart claiming that Roberts was at Jesse James funeral. Now, I can go on with the things that just don't add up, and work against both J. Frank Dalton as well as Brushy Bill Roberts--- but at the end of the day, it is possible albeit not probable that Brushy merely lied for Dalton just to see how things might pan out for himself. I honestly don't think that Brushy believed Dalton to be Jesse James, because as stated before their relationship goes back at least to the 1920s and he would have witnessed first-hand Dalton claiming to be multiple different figures of history such as Lawman Frank Dalton as well as Billy The Kid; yes indeed Dalton himself claimed to be Billy The Kid for a brief time in the early 1930s. Brushy also would've witnessed first-hand how Dalton attempted to get information as to living veterans of the Civil War so that he could try and convince the welfare office that he was a war veteran so he could receive a pension and therefore add weight to his claims, when the truth is Dalton never went to war at any time although he claimed he was even in WW1. So, that's part of the reason why I don't trust Roberts claims--- because he saw personally how to hook and crook people from a lifelong con artist, and he personally lied for that con artist. And if Ola Everhart is to be believed at least in one regard, the very letter Roberts attempted to mail on his way to the post office when he died was a letter to Dalton and the letter ALLEGEDLY was about them looking forward to hanging out with each other in Missouri in the near future. So that shows that the friendship was "just fine" with perpetrating lies and fraudulent claims--- because he fell flat with the governor of New Mexico, and most likely would've went up there and then nationally claim he was Billy The Kid since Missouri had no real public objections to Dalton. ((Shrugs)) Again, I have said it before, this'll never end until DNA is done on at least Brushy and his father Oliver Roberts. That'll destroy any and all claims if indeed they really are father and son. I still
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on May 27, 2020 8:57:00 GMT -5
It's possible that Brushy did want to see what kind of public response that J. Frank Dalton would get, to gauge the reaction his own claims may get. However, if that was the case, he shot himself in the foot because HAD HE NOT DIED then surely he would have came under scrutiny by the national press because of the earlier story he told saying that he ran with the James Gang. People automatically would've called him basically a liar because the two stories simply don't jiive. Of course, if you believe Ola Everhart's claims that Jesse James was friends with "Wild" Henry Roberts, Brushy's alleged real father, then of course you wouldn't see a problem with anything. The reason why it doesn't jiive is because historically speaking Jesse James and Billy The Kid only met once and that was when they were grown men. That's largely because Jesse James came from Missouri, not Texas. However, it must be noted, that in a census once Billy The Kid was denoted as being older than he was and that he was from Missouri. Historically speaking, there just is no verifiable proof that the Roberts family of Arkansas was in any way shape or form related to the Roberts family of Nacogdoches. Brushy claimed that the Arkansas branch were first cousins, and that Wild Henry Roberts of Nacogdoches was his father. Historically speaking, there is no evidence "Wild" Henry Roberts was involved in the Civil War, let alone stepped foot in Missouri, despite Ola Everhart claiming that Roberts was at Jesse James funeral. Now, I can go on with the things that just don't add up, and work against both J. Frank Dalton as well as Brushy Bill Roberts--- but at the end of the day, it is possible albeit not probable that Brushy merely lied for Dalton just to see how things might pan out for himself. I honestly don't think that Brushy believed Dalton to be Jesse James, because as stated before their relationship goes back at least to the 1920s and he would have witnessed first-hand Dalton claiming to be multiple different figures of history such as Lawman Frank Dalton as well as Billy The Kid; yes indeed Dalton himself claimed to be Billy The Kid for a brief time in the early 1930s. Brushy also would've witnessed first-hand how Dalton attempted to get information as to living veterans of the Civil War so that he could try and convince the welfare office that he was a war veteran so he could receive a pension and therefore add weight to his claims, when the truth is Dalton never went to war at any time although he claimed he was even in WW1. So, that's part of the reason why I don't trust Roberts claims--- because he saw personally how to hook and crook people from a lifelong con artist, and he personally lied for that con artist. And if Ola Everhart is to be believed at least in one regard, the very letter Roberts attempted to mail on his way to the post office when he died was a letter to Dalton and the letter ALLEGEDLY was about them looking forward to hanging out with each other in Missouri in the near future. So that shows that the friendship was "just fine" with perpetrating lies and fraudulent claims--- because he fell flat with the governor of New Mexico, and most likely would've went up there and then nationally claim he was Billy The Kid since Missouri had no real public objections to Dalton. ((Shrugs)) Again, I have said it before, this'll never end until DNA is done on at least Brushy and his father Oliver Roberts. That'll destroy any and all claims if indeed they really are father and son. I still I still say that you go with your own conclusions and I very much respect your research but what would you have done if you were in is shoes, that guy,(Dalton) was the only old timer left in 48 that maybe could have help him with is claim, I admit you bring a strong case contrary to Leeb who only talks trash without bringing anything to debate about and TTT who has been saying the same **** over 6 years
|
|
|
Post by leeb on May 27, 2020 14:59:37 GMT -5
Regarding brushy's career after he wandered away from Sumner with 3 bullet wounds. Pinkerton, Mexican revalusion, anti-train robbing (bumped into his mates the Dalton gang),ect. Was all that possible (perhaps). The Shetland voyage is interesting Brushy went to Scotland and was back in the States around 3 months later. Considering the journey (one way) took between 6 and 14 weeks depending on weather. Proves that it never happened and it was $30 ew and he didn't have a pot. I may be talking TRASH but old brushy had more Whoppers than a well known burger chain. I think he just a chancing story teller.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 17:10:38 GMT -5
Regarding brushy's career after he wandered away from Sumner with 3 bullet wounds. Pinkerton, Mexican revalusion, anti-train robbing (bumped into his mates the Dalton gang),ect. Was all that possible (perhaps). The Shetland voyage is interesting Brushy went to Scotland and was back in the States around 3 months later. Considering the journey (one way) took between 6 and 14 weeks depending on weather. Proves that it never happened and it was $30 ew and he didn't have a pot. I may be talking TRASH but old brushy had more Whoppers than a well known burger chain. I think he just a chancing story teller. I won't get into arguments, but, if Brushy was in the Shetland's on behalf of a company in Buenos Aires then the company would've footed his bill and not himself. So that's not really a good argument to make. Neither is the comment, "he didn't have a pot," considering in that 1880s-1910s time period a weekly wage was roughly $5 so you'd be surprised how far you could get on so little. For example, 20 POUNDS of brown sugar prior to WW1 was $1. I don't generally defend the claims the man makes, but when I see nearsighted logic used against Roberts I will point it out. And no, I'm not calling you stupid or railing at you for no reason. I'm just pointing out that some arguments against Roberts, rightly or wrongly, are either weak at best or completely irrelevant. Don't take it as a personal attack because I think you contribute to the forum and make things interesting. The only thing we will agree on in your post is yes he told a lot of tall tales, but much of them have either the ring of truth in them or he had personal knowledge about it. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you and Jesus Christ Almighty God bless your family 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 17:35:04 GMT -5
I still say that you go with your own conclusions and I very much respect your research but what would you have done if you were in is shoes, that guy,(Dalton) was the only old timer left in 48 that maybe could have help him with is claim, I admit you bring a strong case contrary to Leeb who only talks trash without bringing anything to debate about and TTT who has been saying the same **** over 6 years The question of, "What would you do?", is a hypothetical that is really a non-question because it's not rooted in reality as I am not the man making the claims. However I'll humor you. If I was a fraud claiming to be Billy The Kid, then I wouldn't have a problem riding the coattails of another fraud until I could parlay my own national fame. If I was the genuine article, I would try to distance myself from a fraud even if he was a personal friend going back decades because what I am after is validation rather than media attention. The question becomes, then, why did Roberts not drop Dalton? That's unanswerable because I don't know another man's mind or motives, although I must admit it doesn't look good for Roberts. There's all kinds of questions I'd love answered but I know they never will be. So I have to just use my best judgement. Questions like: Why did Roberts intend on going to Missouri to hang out with Dalton after he was discredited by the governor of New Mexico? Why did Roberts not give Sonnischen more access to himself when he could've used that time better than hobknobbing with Dalton when getting a pardon ALLEGEDLY was all he wanted? You would think a man deadset on proving himself and righting all wrongs would've not taken a day off from that mission. Where was the independent historians to cross examine him prior to ever meeting the governor of New Mexico? If Sonnischen thought he had found the genuine article then surely he would've reached out to somebody more qualified than himself. That's really a question for Sonnischen as to why he didn't have much foresight. I could go on and on but you get my drift. These are things unanswerable. Or if there are answers they come too little too late, because I can hear somebody already about to say, "But Sonnischen WAS planning on getting Roberts cross examined by historians!" following the debacle with the governor, but that still doesn't answer my question why Sonnischen didn't do that in advance to possibly win support from academics and maybe the meeting wouldn't have been a three ring circus. Anyways, Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you and Jesus Christ Almighty God bless your family 😊
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on May 27, 2020 17:41:08 GMT -5
I still say that you go with your own conclusions and I very much respect your research but what would you have done if you were in is shoes, that guy,(Dalton) was the only old timer left in 48 that maybe could have help him with is claim, I admit you bring a strong case contrary to Leeb who only talks trash without bringing anything to debate about and TTT who has been saying the same **** over 6 years chivato88, "and TTT who has been saying the same **** over 6 years"
**** spells 'records' that do not support Brushy Bill's story. Census, marriage, divorce, death, WWI registration, and land records show that Brushy Bill was Oliver P Roberts, just like his niece, Geneva Roberts Pittmon and Roy Haws, great-grandson of Martha Roberts Heath, said.
What records support Brushy Bill's story? There are none. Just some affidavits of dubious or no value.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 27, 2020 18:31:27 GMT -5
Like the 1910 census where Brushy said his parents were both born in Kentucky? Are those the census records you refer to? Like Geneva Pittmon said? She wasn't even born when Brushy took the Oliver Roberts alias. Like Roy Haws said? Please! I read his book and there's more conjecture than anything else. He never met Brushy did he? Did he speak first hand to anyone who had?
|
|
|
Post by kerry on May 27, 2020 21:07:33 GMT -5
For some - Brushy's long life after July 1881 is just too amazing and fantastic to believe . .for others - BTK was too high profile and Olie was just a Texas dirt farmer with a penchant for tall stories and a disturbing habit of stabbing and shooting himself .Same was said of Dalton who required 65 alias for his deeds wheras Brushy got by with no more than a dozen.Brushy's attraction to uncle Jesse was his wartime service with his deceased father ...Brushy's motive was justice for a good cause before his death - Dalton's motive was the sinister and dark desire for recognition of evil deeds of great moment in the history of the country -Dalton's story could surpass the most bizarre episode of the Wild Wild West but despite being plausible - lacks the simple detail and authentcity that Brushy had...and where Brushy's story has a good feel about it - Dalton's is a nightmare about a civil war that never ended.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2020 9:43:54 GMT -5
Like the 1910 census where Brushy said his parents were both born in Kentucky? Are those the census records you refer to? Like Geneva Pittmon said? She wasn't even born when Brushy took the Oliver Roberts alias. Like Roy Haws said? Please! I read his book and there's more conjecture than anything else. He never met Brushy did he? Did he speak first hand to anyone who had? Those are interesting points. But, that being said, it was easier THEN to claim different things and pass yourself off as something different. Like I mentioned earlier, I can confirm at least in the 1920s he knew Dalton, and it's probable that they knew each other earlier than that. It could be as simple as Brushy concocted parts of his story as early as 1910, which is why he put his parents down as from Kentucky instead of Arkansas. The strongest evidence, albeit it's weak at best, I've seen that he was someone else is the fact that his signature on different censuses seemingly were written by two different people. The reason why it's weak at best is the fact that people's signatures do change with the passage of time for various reasons or it could be the fact his wife or even the census taker themselves wrote the name. The only way to really "fact check" that would be to compare his handwriting to letters or even that incomplete autobiography he attempted to write--- as well as any known papers for Oliver Roberts, whom he claimed to have taken the identity from. As for Geneva Pittmon, my knock on her is that she never saw Brushy Bill Roberts prior to a certain time to truly say anything. However, she's a second hand source who certainly had access to first hand sources and you may as well say that she has the chain of custody to rule him out as Billy The Kid because the first hand sources she had access to didn't believe he was Billy The Kid. Roy Haws, is a man I've had words with but he's a third hand source whose mother was second hand and her mother was a first hand source. There is a chain of custody there, but the knock I have against Haws is that his attack on Roberts is somewhat misguided because his grudge was against Tunstill who hoodwinked Haws mother with fictitious genealogies. I've told Haws that since he's basically a living descendant that he has the authority to request an exhumation and do a DNA test on the body. I've told him that all the books and arguments in the world will NOT put this hoax to rest. Only a DNA test will do that. It can be done a few different ways: #1- Roberts tested against his father Oliver Henry Roberts #2- Roberts tested against his siblings or their living descendants #3- Roberts tested against the living descendants of the Roberts family from Nacogdoches #4- The living descendants of the Roberts family tested against the living descendants of the Nacogdoches Roberts family The last one would be the simplest thing to do because there would be no legal courts to contend with and would in effect topple Brushy's claims because IF THEY ARE NOT CLOSELY RELATED as he claimed then he made up the story that he assumed the identity of his first cousin. So I suggest that all the whiz kids who are excellent at following genealogies to the present day ought to get cracking to find the living descendants of the Nacogdoches Roberts family or the most recently buried family member. My question to Wayne is, "IF there is no blood relationship between the two different Roberts families would that change your mind about Brushy Bill Roberts?" Now, if there is indeed a close blood relationship it certainly adds weight to Roberts claim, and would require extensive genealogy research as to HOW, WHERE AND WHEN the two families became connected. Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all 😊
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on May 28, 2020 10:03:45 GMT -5
Regarding Geneva Pittmon you stated, "the first hand sources she had access to didn't believe he was Billy The Kid." How do you know that is the case? Did any of them make public statements or recorded statements? Maybe they were lying to Geneva in order to help cover for Brushy? Or, maybe they were humoring the real Oliver's mother just as Brushy claimed he had done?
Regarding the 1910 census. I think we should also remember that he only did that the one time. If he was already concocting a made up story of being Billy The Kid back in 1910 why didn't he continue to use that Kentucky stuff in the census and why did it take him nearly 40 years to come out with his story, then only when he was approached by Morrison? Doesn't make sense to me.
Regarding DNA. I'm afraid I don't really understand the connection to the "Nacodoches Roberts family" that you keep bringing up. Why would there need to be one in order for Brushy's story to be true? Maybe I missed this whole thing somewhere way back in the discussions.
|
|