William H Bonney my hero
Guest
|
Post by William H Bonney my hero on Oct 30, 2011 13:19:47 GMT -5
John Miller was NOT Billy the Kid, Brushy without a dobut was.
there is proof that Miller was indeed not Billy the kid.
ask what you think about this, will you please?
1.John Miller never told his story officially and the vast majority of his claim is based around second-hand information and speculation from those who knew him.
2.In a 1900 census report, Miller stated he was born in 1857. In a 1910 report, he claimed he was born in 1852. On the memorial plaque at the Pioneer Home Cemetery where Miller is buried, his birthdate is listed as 1850. All three of these dates would make Miller older than Billy the Kid. Although it's possible Miller would lie about his age to throw off potential pursuers, it's not likely he would make himself older, but younger, since the Kid was known to look far younger than he actually was.
3.Miller himself told several friends he only knew Billy the Kid, having worked as a ranchhand for the Chisum brothers.
4.Miller owned a .45 pistol with an extra-long barrel that he claimed he used as Billy the Kid. However, Billy was known to use .44s with normal sized barrels, or the smaller .41s. Furthermore, Miller's pistol had several notches on it, which he claimed were for the men he killed. Billy did not have such notches on his pistols, and it's doubtful that any other gunfighter did either.
and 5. If John Miller was the Kid, how did he escape from Pat Garrett at Fort Sumner? Apparently, Miller told different versions of this to different friends. One version is that he was shot in the chest a week or so before July 14, and that Isadora was nursing him back to health when Garrett accidentally killed a Mexican sheep-herder in the Maxwell house. Another version is that Miller was himself shot by Garrett in the Maxwell house, and played dead while Garrett quickly inspected him. When Miller was then carried away by his Mexican friends to be prepared for burial, he showed signs of life and was hidden by Isadora. Meanwhile, a Mexican who died a day earlier was placed in the casket meant for Billy and buried. In this latter scenario, Garrett never learned that Billy was not killed.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 30, 2011 22:18:57 GMT -5
I agree that Miller could not have been Billy. While many first impressions pick up on a certain overall recognizable similarity, when the two faces are compared with careful measurements there's just no way they could be the same face. Likewise, in comparing the overall posture, there's absolutely no match there. Brushy's face and overall physical stature matches Billy's almost perfectly.
|
|
William H Bonney my hero
Guest
|
Post by William H Bonney my hero on Nov 1, 2011 10:21:53 GMT -5
I Agree with you and that version that he told to friends that he was shot in the maxwell house is stuptid, if he played dead, Garrett would have known that he was alive and finished him off, do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 1, 2011 12:55:49 GMT -5
Yes, that story is not very believable, but Brushy's story about the gunfight outside Maxwell's was not very believable either. For me, the truth can't really be known by evaluating the logic of what either of them or the others involved said. Simply because it's so easy to lie. Everyone lies at some point and it's often difficult or pointless to try and weed out the lies to find the truth. The difference between my take on it and that of many others is that the lies don't prove anything. You can't prove a positive with a negative. In other words, John Miller, Brushy Bill or anyone else could have been Billy The Kid and still told lies about what really happened that night. But short of plastic surgery, the physical stature and appearance could not have changed so much as to allow John Miller and Billy The Kid's tintype photo to have been the same person. On the other hand, Brushy matched the tintype almost perfectly through measurements. The troubling part of that is that very few people look at the photos of Brushy and the tintype and get an immediate impression they were the same person. Of course we all know, "first impressions can be wrong."
Now don't get me wrong, I've spent a great deal of time reading the stories and comparing versions of witnesses, etc. and all that helps one form an opinion. I'm just saying, there's opinion, and there's fact. And I wish someone could establish fact in all this. Although I'm not too confident that will happen, the pursuit has been a great pastime.
|
|
William H Bonney my hero
Guest
|
Post by William H Bonney my hero on Nov 1, 2011 13:40:52 GMT -5
yes..... sadly, even if Brushy turns out to Be Billy the Kid, there will still be debate over his claim of the shooting at the Maxwell house. and actually, I find his claim of the shooting right and confrimed. like you said on your website, there is debate over the Kenendy assassination and there is theroies on how many shots were fired that day, now Brushy (well...Billy actually) said shortly after Barlow left, heard a couple shots from the Maxwell house. (Barlow death) but what if...? the ''shots'' that Billy heard was actually one shot and the others were echo. and this is in my mind what really happend. the Kid grabs his gun, he fires once as he gets close, untill a bullet hits Billy in the lower left jaw, knocking out a tooth as it strikes him. Turning around, Jumping over the fence, he hurts his forehead and left shoulder. that makes three shots fired. the ladies and men of Fort Sumner heard the first shot, the one that kills Barlow, they run outside like what they say but stand much closer back until it all over, the other shots being fired, my guess is that they belived it was also echos. (do not ask me why I Think this) anyway, Garrett and poe pick up the body quick and well you know the rest. what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 1, 2011 16:35:29 GMT -5
Anything is possible. Do I believe Brushy (Billy) tried to run to Barlow's rescue? Yes, absolutely. Do I believe he was shot through the jaw? No. I don't, simply because I think there would have been a horrific scar, not just a "depression" as Morrison said he felt. I'm not convinced Brushy was actually hit by any bullets that night at all. Maybe he ran out and saw Barlow's body on the porch, was fired at and jumped the fence and ran to safety. Maybe he got hurt as he jumped the fence. Maybe he was hit in the shoulder. We'll never know any of that for certain. I do believe Brushy's description of that night was an exaggeration, either to make himself sound bigger than life or to defend his own bravery. But I'm emphatic in my belief that such exaggeration can not be cited as proof he was not Billy The Kid.
Remember in the Wyatt Earp and Tombstone movies, when Wyatt killed Curly Bill Brocius? He was portrayed as standing bravely all alone while be fired at from multiple bad guys and no bullets could hit him. A virtually "miraculous" display of bravery? Well, the truth as told by Wyatt himself was that when the shooting started he tried to get on his horse and get away but his gun belt slid down around his thighs and he couldn't mount up. So he used the horse as a shield and fired over the saddle killing Brocius. The other posse members took cover and started firing at the cowboys but when Curly Bill was shot the cowboys abandoned the fight. Well, if that's the way it really happened, where did the legend come from? Exaggeration! The lawmen and outlaws of the old west were really big on exaggeration and I'm sure Billy the Kid (Brushy) was no exception.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Nov 2, 2011 19:49:17 GMT -5
Wayne,
In Morrison's book on Brushy, next to page 59 are a few pictures said to be of Brushy. Top left is said to have been taken in Dodge with the Jones. Brushy said it is him. The fourteen year old was made in Fort Smith Arkansas at the age of fourteen. That would have been in 1873 or 1874. We know that Billy was in Santa Fe. on March 1, 1873 and that Joe said they were in Denver before that. We know that Billy was in Silver City from 1873 to 1875. You also state on your site that the picture that Brushy said was him in Dodge is not a match. What are your thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 3, 2011 0:39:05 GMT -5
Brushy described the year of 1873 as a time when he went back to Texas and found his real father and spent some time with him. He also talks about going to Silver City for several months and then after Katherine Antrim died he went back. Yes, we know he was in Santa Fe on March 1, 1873, but there were 364 other days in that year. So could he have been in Arkansas on a cattle drive with his dad and had a picture made at age 14? I don't see why that would be impossible unless we assume that because he was known to have been in Silver City on one or more days of that year that it means he was there all the other days as well.
The point of the comparisons on my website where the picture alleged to be Billy and the Jones brothers was displayed is that of all the photos that have been claimed to be Billy, the ones that match the tintype the best are those that we know are photos of Brushy. It is possible that one or more photos that do not seem to match as well, could indeed be him due to differences in camera angles, digital images being stretched, etc. I didn't say the photo obtained from the Jones was definitely not Billy. I pointed out the differences to make the point that the photo of Brushy at 14 was a closer match to the tintype than any of those other photos.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Nov 3, 2011 18:31:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Nov 3, 2011 18:37:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 3, 2011 19:47:37 GMT -5
Some amazing similarities indeed. This could be the real thing. But it isn't a slam dunk. First of all, the photo is a reverse tintype and in the video they're comparing it to a flipped image of the authentic tintype. In other words one is reversed and the other is not, which could skew the results dramatically. So my first question is, how much of an expert do they have evaluating the images when he doesn't even make sure he's comparing apples and apples. You know this new tintype is reversed because most of them were and because the fella who's standing up clearly has his vest's button holes on the right and they should be on the left.
Now, for the good news. When you reverse this new photo the eyebrows actually match up better and the ears match up better to the tintype. For the bad news, when you size the distance between the eyes to match the pupils, the guy in the photo has a shorter face than Billy, both with a shorter nose and chin and a higher mouth. Also, Billy's face is more narrow. Plus this guy's shoulders come out looking way wider than Billy's. Now he "is" wearing a heavy coat and that could make the shoulder width deceptive. But there's a "huge" difference in shoulder width. More than I think the coat can explain. The bridge of the nose is also thicker than Billy's. The misaligned mouth is the same except this guy's mouth is more angled. The shape of the end of the nose is the same but a bit shorter, the eyebrows are not as thick as Billy's but that could be lighting. I definitely will spend some time comparing this one. Like I said before, it "could be" the real McCoy but I'm not convinced as of yet.
Thanks so much for sharing that. Much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by lloyd on Jun 15, 2013 14:36:52 GMT -5
ok that's very true, i'll give you that but if you were on the run would you tell anyone who you were? brushy had a lot of good points but i seen some younger pics of brushy and he looked nothing like the kid. his birthday is said to be between 1855-1869 which would make him 5-10 years younger then the kid. he said catherine antrim was his aunt when she was actually the kids mom. his name is said to be oliver p. roberts ans the kid's real name was william henry mccarty jr. the kis's own brother joe antrim has said that they were biological brothers. i read somewhere that brushy was illiterate when everyone knows the kid knew how to read. miller was said to be ambadextrious as was the kid. he looked like the kid and doesn't come on record until august 1881, a few weeks after garrett alledgedly killed the kid. i always thought brusht was the kid until i did more research. i found records of brushy living in texas at the time of the lincoln county wars and being only around 9 years old, the kid would've been 19. i do think brushy did possibly knew the kid, that's how he knew where everything happened. miller knew how AND WHERE EVERYTHING HAPPENED TOO. IT'S SAID THAT HE WOULD LISTEN TO RADIO SHOWS ABOUT THE KID AND GET FURIOUS WHEN THEY WOULD REPORT HISTORICAL INACCURACIES. MILLER HAD A FRESH BULLET WOUND IN HIS CHEST THAT MATCHED THE KID'S WOUND WHEN HE CAME ON RECORD ONLY A FEW WEEKIS AFTER THE KIDS DEATH. BOTH OF THESE MEN HAVE THEIR CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST THEM BUT weather or not either of these men were actually the legendary BILLY THE KID will never be known for sure. we can speculate and we can think we know for sure but weather john miller was billy the kid, weather brushy bill roberts was billy the kid or weather billy the kid was really shot and killed by pat garrett on that evening in july of 1881 qill never really be known
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jun 15, 2013 16:14:05 GMT -5
LLoyd,
Thanks so much for your post. You make some very good points but I have to say I disagree with many of them. Let's consider your points one by one.
1. "would you tell anyone who you were?" Brushy lived nearly 70 years on the run without telling anyone who he was and in 1948 it was finally pulled out of him by William Morrison. He knew he didn't have long to live anyway and wanted to see if he could clear his name.
2. "Birthday between 1855-1869" Brushy used the birthdate of 1868 for a while and that was on his death certificate and his original grave marker. I believe that was because he knew or believed that Oliver "L" Roberts was born in 1868 and he was using that as an alias. When he agreed to tell his story to William Morrison in 1948, he revised that and said he was born in 1859 which is likely the correct birthdate of Billy The Kid.
3. "Catherine Antrim was his mom" There is absolutely no proof that that Billy The Kid, William McCarty, was the natural born son of Catherine Antrim. In fact the only evidence that this was the case was Billy himself saying it. I never heard before that Joe Antrim said Billy and he were "biological" brothers but if he did he might well have been playing along with Catherine's desire to protect young Billy from his crazy father. Of course Catherine obviously said it too, but according to Brushy, he was portrayed as being her son in order to keep him away from his abusive natural father who was searching for him.
4. "the kid's real name was Henry McCarty Jr." There is no birth certificate to prove he was born "Henry McCarty". If he was in fact born William Henry Roberts and Catherine McCarty took him in and represented him as being her son, then yes, she called him Henry or possibly William Henry McCarty. Her saying it doesn't make it a fact that he was born a McCarty. And BTW, even if he was born Henry McCarty, he would not have been a "Jr."
5. "read somewhere that Brushy was illiterate" No, this is incorrect as well. Brushy was described once as not being a literary man (didn't read a lot of books) as evidence that he couldn't have learned all he knew about Billy The Kid from reading books on the subject. Brushy was indeed "literate". Numerous examples of his handwriting exist and some of it bears resemblance to some of the writing attributed to Billy The Kid.
6. "Miller was ambidextrous" No one knows whether Billy was truly ambidextrous. It is true he fired pistols with both hands on occasion but that does not equate with being ambidextrous even if a contemporary of his might have described it in those terms. The reverse image of the famous tintype led many to believe he was left handed but he likely was not. There is no real contradiction here with what Brushy said.
7. "living in Texas during the Lincoln County wars" I'd like you to please share what records you found indicating this. Indeed, Oliver Pleasant Roberts was probably in Texas at that time, but Brushy was "not" Oliver Pleasant Roberts.
John Miller could not have been Billy The Kid. His overall stature and facial features do not match up with the tintype well enough to make it even a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Scam artist on Sept 29, 2013 19:23:42 GMT -5
First off Wayne, the alleged "Photo" of billy the kid may not even be a real photo of him. Please do not argue with this point as no person alive today can confirm this as fact regardless of what you want to believe; the same goes for all of the so-called facts of the entire story of the kids life. That being said there can be no legitimate physical comparison made to any other human on the planet claiming to be billy the kid. Secondly, why argue bout whether or not billy the kid was killed by Garret or not? The world still turns and in time all legacy's and stories will be forgotten. Just move on. Respectfully yours, Jesus Christ
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Oct 21, 2013 18:26:13 GMT -5
You are correct, the famous tintype may not even be the real Billy. But it very likely "is" him. So very likely as to be a valid point for debate and comparison. Why debate whether Billy was killed by Garrett? Because I want to know and so do many other folks. Some stories and legends will live on for a very long time. This debate has been going on for 132 years so far, and doesn't show signs of abating. Also, in as respectful a manner as I know how, let me just ask that you not sign your posts the way you did. It could be considered offensive and disrespectful.
|
|