|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Nov 19, 2020 12:10:03 GMT -5
" Brushy just knew way too much about BTK 's entire known life -often detailed facts known to very few."
Kerry, Have you read "The Saga of Billy the Kid", published in 1926, the same book that might be the source of Brushy's detailed knowledge of Lincoln County events and characters?
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on Nov 19, 2020 13:00:45 GMT -5
" Brushy just knew way too much about BTK 's entire known life -often detailed facts known to very few." Kerry, Have you read "The Saga of Billy the Kid", published in 1926, the same book that might be the source of Brushy's detailed knowledge of Lincoln County events and characters? He told is story way before Burn's book came out in Harold T Bolieu's book, the notes were taken before Burns's book came into light
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Nov 19, 2020 15:27:07 GMT -5
" Brushy just knew way too much about BTK 's entire known life -often detailed facts known to very few." Kerry, Have you read "The Saga of Billy the Kid", published in 1926, the same book that might be the source of Brushy's detailed knowledge of Lincoln County events and characters? He told is story way before Burn's book came out in Harold T Bolieu's book, the notes were taken before Burns's book came into light The facts: 1949 vs 1926 W@hich came first?
Brushy told his tale to Morrison in 1949.
"The Saga of Billy the Kid", by Walter Noble Burns, was first published in 1926. This entertaining and dramatic biography forever installed outlaw Billy the Kid in the pantheon of mythic heroes from the Old West and is still considered the single most influential portrait of Billy in this century.
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on Nov 19, 2020 16:06:02 GMT -5
He told is story way before Burn's book came out in Harold T Bolieu's book, the notes were taken before Burns's book came into light The facts: 1949 vs 1926 W@hich came first?
Brushy told his tale to Morrison in 1949.
"The Saga of Billy the Kid", by Walter Noble Burns, was first published in 1926. This entertaining and dramatic biography forever installed outlaw Billy the Kid in the pantheon of mythic heroes from the Old West and is still considered the single most influential portrait of Billy in this century.
Apparently he told his story around 1908 to the Bolieu family
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Nov 19, 2020 17:53:52 GMT -5
The facts: 1949 vs 1926 W@hich came first?
Brushy told his tale to Morrison in 1949.
"The Saga of Billy the Kid", by Walter Noble Burns, was first published in 1926. This entertaining and dramatic biography forever installed outlaw Billy the Kid in the pantheon of mythic heroes from the Old West and is still considered the single most influential portrait of Billy in this century.
Apparently he told his story is story around 1908 to the Bolieu family Maybe he did; maybe he didn't.
"Alias Billy the Kid", pp. 57 & 58: "He had memories, but he couldn't talk about the ones that meant the most to him- not until he could 'come out', and then they were beginning to fade."
|
|
|
Post by kerry on Nov 20, 2020 1:05:21 GMT -5
When the Regulars rode into Garrett's Fort Sumner ambush -- who else otherthan Brhshy said BTK wasn't with them? Brushy said he stayed on the back trail because he was the only one wanted for Brady's murder...so they would show wether or not it was safe for Brushy to enter Fort Sumner..no such problem with Garrett's next appearance in the town -at mid-night. BTK knew Garrett's men (Poe) were in town during tbe day - he also knew he was safe as long as he stayed holed up in a house and not go wondering about looking for a beef steak in the middle of the night.
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Nov 22, 2020 13:09:58 GMT -5
1. The photographic comparison is by far the strongest evidence. According to experts its a strong match and in my opinion you dont even need experts to know they were one and the same person. Its obvious to anyone (who do not suffer from face recognition disease, or suffer from already having made up their minds that Brushy was an imposter).
2. Severo Gallegos affadavit. This is hard evidence that can not be easily refuted. From what I've seen the "nonbelievers" haven't even tried to contest this. They seem to prefer to focus their energy on contesting the weaker affadavits
3. Brushys story. I think what really makes it believable is that he choose to go against what was considered at the time historical facts, in several cases. Such as claiming to having other parents then what the consensus was about that. That is not consistent with the theory that Brushy was a fraud who got all his info from Walter Noble Burns book. It is much more consistent with the theory that Brushy was actually The Kid.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Nov 22, 2020 19:36:51 GMT -5
1. The photographic comparison is by far the strongest evidence. According to experts its a strong match and in my opinion you dont even need experts to know they were one and the same person. Its obvious to anyone (who do not suffer from face recognition disease, or suffer from already having made up their minds that Brushy was an imposter). 2. Severo Gallegos affadavit. This is hard evidence that can not be easily refuted. From what I've seen the "nonbelievers" haven't even tried to contest this. They seem to prefer to focus their energy on contesting the weaker affadavits 3. Brushys story. I think what really makes it believable is that he choose to go against what was considered at the time historical facts, in several cases. Such as claiming to having other parents then what the consensus was about that. That is not consistent with the theory that Brushy was a fraud who got all his info from Walter Noble Burns book. It is much more consistent with the theory that Brushy was actually The Kid. Believable? Has anyone found any evidence of the existence of his parents J H "Wild Henry" Roberts? or Mary Adeline Dunn? or his half brother, James Roberts? Or his cousin Ollie? There is proof that his "cousin" Martha Heath was the half-sister Of Oliver P Roberts. There is proof that the name of J H Roberts' second wife, Elizabeth Ferguson, was the same name as the mother of Oliver P Roberts, Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson. There is proof that Caroline Dunn was the first wife of Oliver's father, Henry Oliver Roberts.
Has anyone found any evidence that Katherine Ann Bonney (Catherine McCarty Antrim) had a half-sister?
Proof requires facts. Faith does not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2020 20:24:11 GMT -5
There's some facts of history that really didn't require much proof/evidence to become a fact. I really hope Brushy gets proven beyond doubt that he really was Billy the kid. Or I can put my gut instincts aside and go back to believing Garrett's version is 100% true. Either way appeals greatly to me.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 22, 2020 23:23:34 GMT -5
From above <<"Concerning Gallegos...
He was a mere child when he allegedly knew the real Billy The Kid. 70+ years later, we're to believe that his memory never faltered and that he could identify an old man as being the 20'something year old he knew way back when he was not even ten years old?">>
Please note Gallegos stated in his affidavit "he talks and laughs the same, and looks the same in many ways" so he was not just going by the eyes. He talked about Brushy's posture compared to Billy's and states "after talking with him for SEVERAL HOURS he knows from conversation and looking him over that Billy The Kid was the same person as O.L. Roberts" Would he be able to remember all that and recognize him after not having seen him for 70 years? Yes, absolutely. He states that Billy had spent the night as his home many times and that he visited Billy in jail a number of times. And BTK was a very, very famous person. HIs face and mannerisms, etc. would have been indelibly etched in the mind of an impressionable young boy.
So, yes, Severo's affidavit is my number one reason.
Number two would be the statement and affidavit of Josephine Sanchez who met with Brushy and asked him a question "only" Billy would know the answer to and Brushy answered correctly.
The third and just as important reason is the physical appearance both in overall stature and facial dimensions. There's too much similarity to be coincidence.
And if I can give a fourth reason it would be very simple. He said he was Billy The Kid and he's never been proven wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2020 15:29:02 GMT -5
If someone can set up a crowd funding account to pay for any worthwhile DNA testing I'm all in. I'm not good at debating or researching. I still visit this forum everyday because I enjoy engaging with other Brushy believers and hearing their stories and opinions. I thought this was The Brushy Bill Roberts forum? Isn't a forum a place to discuss ideas and opinions? I feel like I've read the long list of "Brushy wasn't Billy because" facts a million times. I fully understand that being a Brushy believer puts me in the sceptic club. I am just wondering why if some people believe so strongly that Brushy wasn't Billy then why are they constantly prowling this forum posting long lists of facts and shooting other people down. Should it be renamed the Anti Brushy Bill Roberts forum? I have no problem with Garrett's version being the truth. I just feel like if I accept the Garrett version then I'm selling myself short. I also can't help but feel that the more I believe Brushy the less welcome I feel posting on this forum. I get nervous about posting my thoughts because I will need to back up my thoughts with an arsenal of references and facts. I've read all the facts and my brain has processed them. I personally love reading everyone's thoughts and theories and ideas. The facts will always be kept in a library for anyone who needs to check. But it's the people's opinions that I believe make this forum special.
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Nov 23, 2020 16:10:54 GMT -5
The Wanderer 247 said: "Facial Similarities between two people are not a precise science regardless of what people would like to claim to the contrary"
I think you are wrong here. Facial similarities is widely regarded as a precise and trustworthy type of evidence. It constitutes the most common type of evidence in courts as well as in everyday life. One of the benifits with this type of evidence is also that it is possible for everybody to control for yourself. If some expert scientist says that we ran these tests here and these two faces are a 99 % match and therefore this guy here should be regarded as guilty of murder, then any other person involved can verify by their own means wether or not the tests seem to be trustworthy, by just using their own two eyes. Now for a judge who doesnt understand the science behind the tests this is very valuable. So its also very good for maintaining rule of law.
DNA-evidence to the contrary is not verifiable to anyone who is not a scientist themselves. One problem with this type of evidence is therefore that non-scientists tends to not really understand that DNA-testresults can sometimes be misleading. For example there is contamination. If you understand how that works than you also understand that it could very well be that they got Anna Andersons hair mixed up with some other persons hair. And then there is of course the possibility of deliberate faked DNA-evidence. Maybe the person who did the testing were under orders to falsify the results and put someone elses hair in the machine instead of Anastasias? Who knows? You dont, theres no way for you to verify it at all.
|
|
|
Post by chivato88 on Nov 23, 2020 20:32:34 GMT -5
Take care
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Nov 24, 2020 16:22:18 GMT -5
TheWanderer247, was the whole process recorded on video from the recovering of the DNA from Anastasias intestines up to the point when the scientists were reading the testresults? Are you in possesion of that recording? No, I dont think so. The point is that there is no way for anyone to verify this claim that the DNA-findings show that Anderson was an imposter.
Dont get me wrong here, Im not trying to say she wasn't an imposter. I dont have an opinion about that either way. Im only saying DNA-evidence is hard to verify for anyone who is not a scientist and also was not there during the whole process of gathering samples and conducting the tests. Therefore, the evidence value of DNA-evidence is generally afflicted with a serious problem.
|
|
|
Post by RonBk on Nov 26, 2020 0:36:59 GMT -5
You're missing the point completely. I'm not saying DNA-tests are useless as evidence. I was merely pointing out some of their weaknesses. DNA-testing have its benefits as well, and can provide a very high level of accuracy if carried out properly. However its important to also understand that there is also weaknesses.
I dont feel the need to repeat myself here, but if you go back and read what Ive stated previously and try to make an effort not to interpret everything wrong you should be able to grasp that I wasnt trying to put myself in any "elevated position". What I was trying to say was that its easier for everyone to verify a claim made about facial similarities then a claim about DNA, and that the level of possibility for verification also effects the evidence value.
Would you not agree that its a good thing if claims of evidence can be verified? If you were accused of a crime, wouldn't you prefer it if there was a way for the judge to review and verify evidence claims made by the prosecutor?
|
|