|
Post by nmjames on Jul 31, 2012 0:34:33 GMT -5
Billy the Kid is my hero.
Thanks for the Anglefire site but I think who ever wrote it needs to do a lot more research. Most of it is wrong and the parts that are right, does not go with what Brushy said. It goes with the real Billy and not Brushy.
|
|
|
Post by searcher64 on Jul 31, 2012 2:47:34 GMT -5
in this huge jumble of circumstancial evidence, i'd have to see the bible(s) as well as the supposed reference to the roberts' in the buffalo gap doctors notes, before i can believe in their existence. brushyites vs. the supporters of 'established fact' are like comparing conservatives and liberals. they are NOT the opposite of each other, rather theres a profound unfathomable difference in world view driving each group very differently. they can't truly be compared; those who believe the 'accepted' version of events seem to not want to have too much to think about when the issue's 'been settled.' they are generally more certain of what they believe. many brushyites tend to swing towards brushy's version, cautiously, not as certain of themselves as the other group, saying things like 'if its really him...' and they are truly inquiring minds and are mostly seeking more information and fresh evidence. that being said, its refreshing to have in james someone here with real, compelling arguments to ponder, instead of the same old blind attacks and hysterical utterances like 'there was no buffalo gap back then' and 'brushy? that funny old goat/geezer' while out of the other side of their mouths saying 'he was too young.' i along with i suspect many others, want to be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt. neither side has been able to provide that. all the more reason we need to exhume brushy. i didnt say 'dna' at all here and this is not at all about dna. forget dna. instead it would be simply to determine his age, which would say everything. i haven't been to hico and perhaps i'm making a huge assumption here, but it seems like the hicoites love the attention but don't really believe brushy. i think the wording of the brushy monument speaks to that. it says 'we believe his story' i.e. we DONt really. '...and pray he finds the forgiveness he so solemnly sought' everyone likes to read too much into this. he simply asked for the pardon he was promised. you would think the hicoites would understand this better when so many folks miss the point of brushy's story: they seem to think that on that date in 1881 he had some kind of epiphany and 'found god' or something and was transformed, when according to brushy himself, he continued to find himself in circumstances in which he would need to take human life. i don't see a ton of remorse from brushy. you wouldn't be remorseful either. btk was 'squeezed' into the situation and killed for his survival initally,and then vengeance became a motive with the death of tunstall. brushy was perhaps mildly remorseful about bell, but even then he seems to view bell's death as a result of the man's own stupidity. aside from the photographic comparisons, my only other real qualification in this is that i'm well versed in the interpretation of census data. i've seen the multiple btk's in the 1880 census. when he was polled with beaudre, btk stated he was born in missouri. censustakers would have been a great target of btk's jiving imaginative streak. and i don't believe there's any real evidence there of btk's 'nyc' origins. and i question whether catherine or antrim ever really said or meant to say that btk was from nyc. and i REALLY don't believe the 'story' of btk's killing in new york, as reported by a nyc crime writer in support of garrett, when it was a person 'about 21' in 1874 the story was referring to... way too old. its been really enjoyable to have james and wayne squaring off on some of these details, as these bloggers are both very knowledgable-- more so than i. BUT, long story shorter, an exhumation would cut thru a bunch of the false evidence out there and really decide this thing for a lot of folks. of course, with the way things are playing out in this charade, they will probably have 2 'experts' oversee the exhumation, with each drawing very differing conclusions in the matter. lol.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Jul 31, 2012 13:05:42 GMT -5
Wow, Searcher64, thanks for that very insightful and well written post. I too, wish so very much that Hamilton, TX would allow Brushy to be exhumed but I fear that will never happen. Yes, an age determination would tell all, but they could also compare mitocondrial DNA with female descendants of Sarah Elizabeth Ferguson/Roberts, the mother of Oliver P. If that matched, we'd have proof he really was Oliver Pleasant Roberts, and therefore, not Billy The Kid. If it did not match and he was shown to be 90 years old at his death, then we still wouldn't have proof he was Billy, but it sure would open some historians' minds to further research on the matter and end the business of his true identity being that of Oliver P. Roberts.
One other thought I had on reading your post. I have been to Hico, TX and I met the druggist who's father knew Brushy and saw his scars and saw him demonstrate how he escaped handcuffs. He himself was a small child when Brushy died but he was very convincing in his remembrances of his father's true belief in Brushy's story. I also met a lady who remembered Brushy from her childhood and how he always walked ahead of his wife, which many believed was so she could watch his back. She remembered hearing Brushy tell his stories to her and other children and there was no doubt in my mind this woman truly believed Brushy was Billy. I noted another thing that isn't often mentioned. Yes, there is a museum on the main street of town and a life size cut out standing at the main intersection and a statue and the above mentioned placard. But I was expecting more promotion of his story/legend in the way of souvenirs at local shops, T-shirts, etc. There was none of that and I wondered why. There was money to be made off tourists that no one seemed to be after. Maybe it was because the believers of his story are in the minority. Or maybe it's because they don't view Brushy so much as a tourist attraction. I don't know.
On that same trip, I visited Hamilton and the museum there. The owner is a lady who claims to be Brushy's granddaughter or great niece or something, I forget exactly. She says he fathered a couple of children. She has flyers at his gravesite to try and attract visitors to her museum. Some say she paid for the new monument at his grave and some say it isn't even located at the authentic burial site. The monument is not right at the highway as some insinuate. It is a couple rows back and I personally doubt the cemetery would have allowed anyone to erect a monument at a gravesite that belonged to someone other than Brushy. I think the whole business of "he's not really buried there" is an attempt to discourage exhumation. Interestingly, when Sederwall and Sullivan petitioned the city to exhume Brushy back in 2006, my friend Dr. Jannay Valdez, who was in attendance at the meeting, told me it was she, the owner of the museum, who spoke up as a relative in opposition to the exhumation. Maybe she didn't want it discovered that her tourism promoting monument didn't even really have a body under it. I think part of it too is that Hamilton didn't want to take the risk Brushy would be proven to be a fraud. Like you eluded to above, even the strongest believers of his story have to have a slight doubt in their heart of hearts, as do I. Likewise, I believe there are many naysayers who speak out strongly against Brushy's story that have a sliver of belief in it somewhere too. In fact, I think it's only those of us who have that sliver of question in our minds one way or the other, who desire to research and discuss to such lengths.
All that said, I doubt Brushy will ever be exhumed but "long live the legend."
|
|
Billy the Kid is my hero
Guest
|
Post by Billy the Kid is my hero on Aug 1, 2012 4:36:19 GMT -5
Tell Wayne Land, do you or anybody else know whetever Brushy (Billy) had children or if any of his relatives are still alive, because (Yes I believe he was Billy the Kid) it would amazing to meet a relative. I live in Texas and I first saw Young Guns 2 in theaters when I was 21.
So are there any relatives of Brushy Bill Roberts alive?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 1, 2012 10:04:18 GMT -5
I don't remember her name or exactly how she claims to be related but if you contact the Billy The Kid museum in Hamilton, TX, the owner claims to be a descendant. I'm sure she'd be happy to explain it to you and you could make your own conclusions. Also, around Canton, TX there would likely be descendants of the Roberts family. Oliver Pleasant Roberts had a brother Thomas who would have been Brushy's cousin (or brother, for those who don't believe Brushy's story) and I believe he has descendants in that area of Texas.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 1, 2012 10:11:25 GMT -5
search for "Billy The Kid Memorial Museum" on Facebook. There's a phone number and address.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Aug 1, 2012 19:38:58 GMT -5
Thanks Searcher54 for your kind words and as Wayne said, your well written post.
I disagree a little with you on the need to exhume Brushy. I feel that there are other ways to prove Brushy was not Billy. (I feel it already has but I know others do not.) Some one needs to do real honest research on Brushy and tell the truth. I think there is all kinds of material on Brushy out there as well as members of his family.
A quick answer to your statement as to weather Catherine or Antrim ever said or meant to say that BTK was from NYC. I think Catherine told people around Silver City they were from NY. I would need to check in one of my books. I do know that Joe stated so in the 1880 census. He said he was 17, b. New York, Father, New York and Mother, England. (I have some more on his mother coming from England but will not get long here.). On the 1920 Census, Joe said he was 57, b. NY, Father, NY and Mother NY. If true this would make Joe's birth year 1863.
On Jan. 2, 1915 William H. Antrim stated on the Department of The Interior form, Book 79, page 702. That his wife's name was Catherine McCarty, first husband was from New York.
Antrim also states: we had no children my wife had two boys one died in the eighties the other i have not heard from in 14 years.
Sorry, I'm not the writer that you and Wayne are.
Thanks, James
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Aug 1, 2012 20:48:50 GMT -5
A few weeks ago I met the Great-granddaughter of a couple that Morrison and others use to try and prove that Billy lived after July 14,1881. I had done research on them before and found that they moved to the area in 1882 and could not have known Billy the Kid. She is a very nice lady and has a lot of knowledge about the history and her family. She has shared material with me and let me read one of the books on her family. She tells me that her grand-parents came to Seven Rivers in 1879 but left in 1880 to move back to Texas. They are listed in the 1880 census in Texas. They already had a girl born in Texas in 1879 and their second, a boy was born in late 1881. They moved back to Seven Rivers in 1882.
In Morrison's book he makes a statement about Billy visiting them after July 14,1881 and list the name of the person that made the statement in his footnotes. She looked into it and told me there is no such person in their family and that the statement is not correct.
Now for the funny story. In a newer Brushy book there is a statement with the persons name. It has the same first name as her's but a different last name. It states the late ____ ____. and the statement. Before I told her about the statement, I ask who the person was. She told me , that would be me. I sent her the statement and she told me she didn't know she was dead and doesn't know where the statement came from. I ask her if she ever talked to the author and she said no and was never contacted. I ask her if the statment is true and she said no.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 2, 2012 10:20:29 GMT -5
James,
Some thoughts regarding your two posts above. I question whether Joe was born in 1863. Wasn't his father off fighting in the Civil War 9 months before that? I know, they might have had furlows or maybe he didn't go off to war until later than that? Just a thought. Another thought, Joe and Billy didn't look anything alike. I know brothers can look quite different but if one has a nose as big as Joe's you'd think the other's nose would be on the large side at least. Thought number 3. Isn't it possible Catherine and Joe left New York right after he was born and traveled to Texas where she picked up her deceased half sister's boy and took him along to Illinois and eventually on to Silver City? This would explain all the statements about them being from New York.
Your second post. I do not believe for a second that Morrison intentionally made false statements in his book. I'm not going to get into it right now, but I can cite a number of letters he wrote to individuals that show he was trying to get at the truth. So, if these folks lived in Seven Rivers in 1879, they couldn't have met Billy The Kid? I don't know. And if they lived in Texas after 1881, Brushy could not have visited them? And this descendant knows it didn't happen even though she certainly wasn't born until at least 1920 or so? And Morrison couldn't have changed the name at the request of the source? He did that with Joe Hines at least. Just because the name was incorrect whether intentional or unintentional, doesn't prove the information was incorrect.
My thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 2, 2012 10:29:53 GMT -5
Tell me James, do you think Joe Salazar is lying about his grandfather Ygenio receiving letters from Billy The Kid after 1881 and Billy visiting after 1881? Do the folks around Lincoln think he's a looney tunes or is it possible he truly believes what he's saying?
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Aug 2, 2012 20:14:48 GMT -5
Wayne,
No one knows who Billy's and Joe's father was. The part about him being off to war is just some people guess as to what happen to him. In Antrim's form. He states no military service that he knew of. You can question Joe's birth but as I have stated and have copies of the Census, he states his age and where he was born.
Now about Joe Salazar, I know him when I see him and have only said hello to him. I know his son-in-law very well. I am not going to discuss private conversations but will tell you that I have a DVD with Joe Salazar making statements and it's quite different that what you are saying. I don't know about any letters from Billy after 1881. Did he keep them or just saying that his father got them. I have always been told that Ygenio excepted the fact that Billy was killed. (I know I will see Joe's son-in-law this weekend and I will ask him about the letters. I may see Joe.)
As to the lady's statements to me. I have a copy of a story from one of her kin that states that they didn't move to Seven Rivers until 1882. That and finding them on the 1880 census in Texas with their son being born in 1881 is why I didn't think they even knew Billy. She thinks they moved to Seven Rivers in 1879, left in early 1880 and didn't move back until 1882. All I can go by is what she told me, is that the name in Morrison's book is not part of their family. She does state that her Great-grandparents did know Billy. I do know that some of the people she is kin to did know Billy. She just said the story about Billy eating at their house three days after Garrett was said to have killed him is not true. There is also a story that her kin was with Garrett on July 14, 1881 and she said he couldn't have because he was in Texas. She did tell me where some of the stories about Billy came from and laughed about how the stories were changed. She let me have copy the stories. (another tought on Morrison. I don't think he was very good at doing research. Instead of saying show me your scars that no one then or now would know about, he should have made Brushy prove who he was by documents and not statements.)
Wayne we can go on and on about this type of stuff. All I can tell you is I read Morrison's book I don't know how many times and researched the statement's Brushy said. I live in the area, know some of the people that Brushy people say made certain statements and have met others. When I am face to face with them, they tell me quite different stories. I have held back telling you what I have been told about when Brushy came to Lincoln and Carlsbad. As I have told you before it's just a case of he said they said. What I have been doing is taking what I have been told, Morrison's statemens as well as Brushy and trying to find out if they are true. You are able to read Morrison's material. I am able to research the people of the LCW because I am here, know many of them and I have files and files of info.
The other thing I would like to add is I have DVD's with the Expert Brushy people making statements like Poe said Pat you shot the wrong man. These are smart people and they know very well that is not all Poe said. I can go on an on but if you truly believe Brushy was Billy do the research and tell the truth. (I think you would). I have looked for J.H. Roberts and Mary Adeline Dunn and have not found them. It would not be easy but one could start backwards on Brushy. He didn't die until 1950 and there should be all kinds of paper work on him.
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Aug 2, 2012 21:31:31 GMT -5
Anyone that wants to can go to the True West Forum, They have been talking about Billy and Brushy. C.F Charley Eckhardt is talking about Brushy's ears that run in the Roberts family and his uncle Walter N. Roberts. Warning: Mr. Eckhardt is not a Brushy believer.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 3, 2012 0:46:51 GMT -5
Joe Salazar did an interview for one of the Billy documentaries. I'd have to go back and watch them again to tell you which one. But in that interview he says Billy wrote letters mailed from Mexico after 1881 to his Grandfather Yginio Salazar. The letters are missing. I forget what he said happened to them. He also states in the interview that Billy visited the Salazar home where Joe still lives today, after 1881. In the interview, Joe does not state anything regarding Brushy but according to Brett Hall's book, Joe did state Brushy was Billy.
I can go back and get the specifics on that and I might do that in the next few days if I have some time to go back through my videos I have.
You stated above, "She just said the story about Billy eating at their house three days after Garrett was said to have killed him is not true." I just wanted to clarify if this is a lady you've spoken to personally, how can she be so certain about what didn't happen in 1881?
|
|
|
Post by nmjames on Aug 3, 2012 7:02:16 GMT -5
Thanks Wayne,
I also have one of the documentaries where Joe and his sister talk about Billy the Kid and will look at it when I get time. It's Lincoln Days this weekend so I will be busy but will try look at the DVD next week. I will see Joe's son-in-law. Joe doesn't come into town as often as he use to.
As to the lady, how can we be certain about anything. The history is handed down. Joe wouldn't be any different. How can we be certain about the letters. They are missing. I have visited with his son-in-law many times and discussed the history and Billy. Not one time did he say anything about the letters.
Back to the lady, I am not just taking her word, there is paper work to back it up. She also has stories that they put in a book that her mother and aunt's wrote. She let me have copies of them. Then I also know other memebers of her family and have material they have wrote.
If anyone is near Lincoln this weekend come by for Lincoln Days.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Aug 3, 2012 13:50:38 GMT -5
Thanks to you as well James. Of course a great deal of information is handed down and it isn't always wrong either. But I'm looking at this one particular statement and it just doesn't add up. Let's think this through just a bit. It's 1881 and Billy is killed, and does not visit anyone 3 days later. So these folks who hardly even knew him reported to their children and it was handed down eventually to their great granddaughter that the dead Billy did not visit them. This is such an important fact that their children make sure to tell the grandchildren. Along the way, in 1951, Morrison writes in his book that Billy did visit these people. Obviously, the history was not passed down in that way. The great grandparents would have had "no" reason to hand down this information because there was no assertion Billy did visit them, until Morrison wrote it in his book in 1951. As I said, it just doesn't add up and there has to be some reason this history has been passed down, other than Morrison's story. Because the history predates Morrison's story.
|
|