|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Jul 30, 2017 12:31:27 GMT -5
nmjames, Proof, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.
Some consider this to be proof that Billy the Kid was killed by Pat Garret. 1. Coroners report specifically naming the deceased as Billy the Kid and signed by 6 citizens of the county and the justice of the peace. 2. Contemporary newspaper accounts of the death of Billy the Kid. One is an article in the Omaha Bee, 6 August 1881, found at the website, “Chronicling America”. 3. Contemporary newspaper accounts of possible financial rewards for Pat Garrett for killing Billy the Kid. One is an article in the Omaha Bee, 21 July 1881, found at the website, “Chronicling America”. 4. The pension application of William H. Antrim stated that his wife (Catherine McCarty) was the mother of two sons. One died in the eighties.
Skeptics dismiss this information as a hoax.
Some consider this to be proof that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid 1. Detailed knowledge of Lincoln County events, confirmed by (or copied from) the 1926 published research of Walter Noble Burns, “The Saga of Billy the Kid”. 2. Scars (although no one knows the size and location of William Bonney’s scars). 3. Sworn affidavits that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid (although Martile Able, DeWitt Travis, and Robert E. Lee had never seen William Bonney, and Bill and Sam Jones, brothers of John and Jim Jones who had worked with Billy the Kid on the Chisum ranch, declined to sign Morrison’s affidavits).
Skeptics dismiss this evidence as wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Jul 30, 2017 17:50:49 GMT -5
We've already pretty well proven that his story was not copied from SAGA if you take into account that Saga made proven mistakes in which Brushy corrected. Burns rearranged events out of order, made up some stuff, made mistakes that Brushy did not such as the location of the secret meeting I believe and also had Billy kill Bernstein. There is a good chance that Billy was wounded across hand during Blazers Mill and shot in hip or thigh during Brady's killing and Brushy happened to have scars in these locations. No autopsy was done on body in 1881 even though autopsies were normal at the time to my understanding. And does anyone else find it odd that the 3 law enforcement officials involved with the death did not sign the coroner's report as witnesses?
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Jul 30, 2017 17:54:27 GMT -5
Chad Moxon,there are about 11 witnesses who said Brushy could speak fluent Spanish. Also Jim Miller is said to have not been able to speak Spanish so you may want to rethink.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Jul 30, 2017 18:28:47 GMT -5
“We've already pretty well proven that his story was not copied from SAGA if you take into account that Saga made proven mistakes in which Brushy corrected.”
Thain, That is based on the assumption that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid.
There is no doubt that discrepancies exist between the story told by Brushy Bill and the research of Walter Noble Burns. The discrepancies can be explained in either of two ways: 1. Brushy Bill participated in the Lincoln County war (although Morrison noted that Brushy Bill never made a reference to Lincoln County or Pat Garrett). 2. Brushy Bill read “The Saga of Billy the Kid”. As Brushy Bill read “The Saga of Billy the Kid”, he made notes in 3 notebooks. He was unable to remember the exact information found in the book when he was telling his story. Morrison said he was allowed only a brief look but not allowed to make a real examination of those 3 books, which were not found after Brushy Bill’s death.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Jul 30, 2017 18:50:47 GMT -5
No, Texas Truth-Teller. It is not based on the assumption that Brushy was Billy. It is based on fact that Brushy got things right that can be proven to be right when Burns got them wrong. And Brushy did refer to Pat. And he does refer to Lincoln by name. Not sure where you are getting your info from. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Jul 30, 2017 19:16:09 GMT -5
Thain, “Alias Billy the Kid”, c 2014, publisher Creative Texts Publishers, pp. 97-98 “It is a wild and woolly narrative. He pictures himself traveling all over the West making a living riding outlaw horses, serving as a frontier peace officer, working for the Anti-Horse Thief Association in Oklahoma, running a traveling rodeo show, soldiering, and ranching. He makes his age out to be EIGHT YEARS LESS than it would have been if he fought in the Lincoln County feud, and telescopes events that happened in the seventies with others that must have occurred in the eighties and nineties. MUCH OF IT MAY BE FICTION. It is impossible to say about now how much of it might be true, and it would take years and a lot of money to find out. One fact hits the reader between the eyes at once: THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE REFERENCE TO LINCOLN COUNTY, BILLY THE KID, PAT GARRETT, or anything else that might connect Brushy Bill Roberts with the cattle troubles in New Mexico.”
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Jul 30, 2017 19:40:00 GMT -5
Well, I don't know anything about the new version or who bought the rights and if they changed anything. I am familiar with what you are talking about though and those pages don't match up with the original version. In the original they were giving those things as examples to credit his story because he knew so much about the details even though they were not in his notebooks. They were trying to say his notebooks may have been a false lead to Create a new identity. But the way I understand your post is that Brushy never referenced Pat or Lincoln and he did. We can't be for sure what his notebooks did or didn't say with only a brief glance but we can be sure Brushy was quoted talking about Pat and Lincoln. It struck Morrison as odd that Brushy knew so much without having made notes on it.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Jul 30, 2017 20:10:29 GMT -5
TTT, You know, as I think about small things I might as well add that Robert Lee say Brushy made intermittent travels back and forth from Mexico while he had ranches because I know you bring those discrepancies up a lot. Brushy at the end of the book says he once again ran into Pickett while in Arizona which is exactly where Rasch says Pickett was on page 104 of Trailing BtK. It's just too much that checks out at a time when people didn't know the history well. TTT, if he wasn't Billy I would be one of the first to know. But there's just too much supporting evidence. There's too many small details that just sound too right. Nobody could have gotten all those details right back then because even those opposed today get the the small things wrong and they always check out. Ex. They say no horses were shipped there, but Brushy was right. Salman wasn't there but evidence suggests he was, etc. Just trying to think of stuff. Lobato wasn't there except three people say he was and it goes on and on. Brushy tells us when people would have been to young to know, his story always checks out. It's him, man. It is. I want you to see this.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Jul 31, 2017 18:38:12 GMT -5
"Robert Lee say Brushy made intermittent travels back and forth from Mexico while he had ranches"
Thain, That's a very interesting comment.
In Robert E. Lee's sworn affidavit, he admitted he had never met or seen Billy the Kid. This is part of his sworn affidavit: "The affiant further states that the first time he saw Wm. Bonney, alias Kid, alias Texas Kid, was in the summer of 1889, at a ranch across the road from Fort Seldon, New Mexico......"
If Robert E. Lee had not seen Billy the Kid prior to his reported death in 1881, how was it possible for Robert E. Lee to identify Brushy Bill as Billy the Kid?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 1, 2017 1:29:00 GMT -5
May I chime in here? There's no doubt Robert E. Lee didn't know Billy The Kid prior to 1881, but if he met Brushy and learned and believed that he was actually Billy The Kid then it makes sense for him to say so years later. Of course that doesn't prove anything but it does indicate Brushy didn't just decide in the late 1940's to claim he was Billy The Kid. He didn't make his claim because Morrison talked him into it. If it is a fact that he started making the claim as early as 1910 or so then it means he was not just a crazy old man in 1950 looking for some notoriety. To me, that is the reason Robert E. Lee's statement is valuable and pretty much the only reason. I think it makes a huge difference if we can show that Brushy was believed to be Billy The Kid long before he ever met Morrison.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Aug 1, 2017 13:05:15 GMT -5
“There's no doubt Robert E. Lee didn't know Billy The Kid prior to 1881, but if he met Brushy and learned and believed that he was actually Billy The Kid”
Interesting theory. How did Robert E. Lee “learn” that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid?
Here’s another theory. Robert E. Lee, possibly the one who signed the affidavit, resided in Hopkins County from his birth 2 October 1878 until after the 1920 census. Oliver P. Roberts, born 26 August 1879, lived in Hopkins County from about 1887 until after 1900. They were the same age. Maybe they were good friends. Maybe Robert E. Lee signed an affidavit swearing Oliver P. Roberts was Brushy Bill as a favor to Oliver P Roberts.
|
|
|
Post by Billy Believer on Aug 1, 2017 15:18:11 GMT -5
Just a Thought, but why is there never any mention about Billy's parents brother family or anybody, ever getting word that Billy had been killed. It was in newspapers everywhere that Pat Garrett kill the notorious Billy the Kid, but never any family comes to mourn him. Never any mention that family is sent word. ??
|
|
|
Post by Nik Oak on Aug 1, 2017 15:40:05 GMT -5
“There's no doubt Robert E. Lee didn't know Billy The Kid prior to 1881, but if he met Brushy and learned and believed that he was actually Billy The Kid” Interesting theory. How did Robert E. Lee “learn” that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid? Here’s another theory. Robert E. Lee, possibly the one who signed the affidavit, resided in Hopkins County from his birth 2 October 1878 until after the 1920 census. Oliver P. Roberts, born 26 August 1879, lived in Hopkins County from about 1887 until after 1900. They were the same age. Maybe they were good friends. Maybe Robert E. Lee signed an affidavit swearing Oliver P. Roberts was Brushy Bill as a favor to Oliver P Roberts. I think this highly unlikely, even if it was the same Robert E Lee. In this scenario, Lee would have been in the perfct position to know if Brushy and OPRoberts were the same person! With this in mind why would he knowingly sign an untruthfull legal document?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Aug 1, 2017 16:05:46 GMT -5
"I think this highly unlikely, even if it was the same Robert E Lee."
Nik Oak, I agree with you that this is highly unlikely, although for a different reason. This Robert E. Lee left Hopkins County after 1920, lived in Montezuma County, CO, in 1930 and 1935, and in Riverside County, CA, in 1940. He died in Stanislaus County, CA, in 1967. There is no record indicating he lived in Louisiana where the affidavit was signed. This does not absolutely preclude his presence in Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, in July 1950.
I think it extremely unlikely that the Robert E. Lee who signed the affidavit could have ever "learned" that Brushy Bill was Billy the Kid. He could have believed Brushy Bill's story, or he could knowingly attested to a false statement.
|
|
|
Post by mckinley412 on Aug 2, 2017 22:08:20 GMT -5
TTT, I was saying that Robert Lee said Brushy traveled back and forth between Mexico because you always said he didn't.
|
|