|
Post by DanJohno on Sept 24, 2023 18:57:55 GMT -5
I don't wish to seem obtuse here but there "is" evidence Brushy was born at Buffalo Gap. Maybe not admissible in court or credible in the minds of many, but the evidence he was born there is that he said he was. If we accept Brushy's word as "evidence", then his birth date is 28 August 1878 as Oliver Pleasant Roberts reported when he registered for the WWI draft. What did you think of the Siver City photo Marcelle? Do you like it? Or are you completely ignoring it and want to just keep debating about genealogy and census records?
|
|
|
Post by devorerd on Sept 25, 2023 12:24:15 GMT -5
Thanks for getting us back on the topic of the post, which was a photo, not archived "records"..I would like to hear TT's opinion as well on the photo..
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 25, 2023 17:43:01 GMT -5
On a personal note. If I might stray from the topic at hand for just a moment. If TTT actually "is" Marcelle, then I think it's rather ironic she is on here so much talking about Brushy when I was ejected from her discussion board for talking about him. In fact it was being banned from that board that motivated me to start this one in the first place. Either way, TTT is welcome and appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Sept 25, 2023 17:47:12 GMT -5
Now again, let's get back to the discussion of the photo. I initially had concerns about the apparent height of the alleged Billy, but after some careful research how the camera exaggerates height based on proximity to the camera I'm no longer questioning that. I am 100% agreed that is a photo of Billy. I too would like very much to know what TTT thinks. Please respond.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Truth Teller on Sept 25, 2023 22:42:07 GMT -5
On a personal note. If I might stray from the topic at hand for just a moment. If TTT actually "is" Marcelle, then I think it's rather ironic she is on here so much talking about Brushy when I was ejected from her discussion board for talking about him. In fact it was being banned from that board that motivated me to start this one in the first place. Either way, TTT is welcome and appreciated. Wayne, allowing dissenting factual arguments is commendable.
|
|
|
Post by shootseven on Nov 2, 2023 13:56:19 GMT -5
There's no evidence this photo shows Billy the Kid. The idea that provenance was established simply by it being found in Canada (and Miller being from Canada being that connection) is beyond absurd. As for the facial recognition work, even in the best of circumstances facial recognition cannot be used to prove who is in a photo; and in this case the work is seriously flawed since the producer gave him incorrectly identified source photos. The photo that has been misidentified as Catherine Antrim was revealed as a hoax years ago and has no connection to Silver City, so to claim it's Miller is silly; so detective Furia compared the woman in the "Silver City photo" two two different women and said she was a match for both. Then come the "Billy" comparisons, where Edwards gives Furia the one known Billy the Kid photo, photos of Brushy Bill, and photos of a Rough Rider he thinks is Brushy Bill but is actually William D. Wood of Bland, NM. Furia compared the young man in the photo to all three men and declared him a match for all three. So once we through out all his flawed work there is no evidence to show who is in the photo or where it was taken. I've posted more information here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed0qxpXszWY(The video was originally on Youtube, but Dan Edwards filed a frivolous copyright infringement claim [you can't copyright an antique 19th century photograph], so it's down while they go through the process claims like that (legitimate or not) trigger. Once up I'll update the link back to the Youtube video.)
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 2, 2023 18:41:50 GMT -5
There's no evidence this photo shows Billy the Kid. The idea that provenance was established simply by it being found in Canada (and Miller being from Canada being that connection) is beyond absurd. As for the facial recognition work, even in the best of circumstances facial recognition cannot be used to prove who is in a photo; and in this case the work is seriously flawed since the producer gave him incorrectly identified source photos. The photo that has been misidentified as Catherine Antrim was revealed as a hoax years ago and has no connection to Silver City, so to claim it's Miller is silly; so detective Furia compared the woman in the "Silver City photo" two two different women and said she was a match for both. Then come the "Billy" comparisons, where Edwards gives Furia the one known Billy the Kid photo, photos of Brushy Bill, and photos of a Rough Rider he thinks is Brushy Bill but is actually William D. Wood of Bland, NM. Furia compared the young man in the photo to all three men and declared him a match for all three. So once we through out all his flawed work there is no evidence to show who is in the photo or where it was taken. I've posted more information here: vimeo.com/879596865?share=copy(The video was originally on Youtube, but Dan Edwards filed a frivolous copyright infringement claim [you can't copyright an antique 19th century photograph], so it's down while they go through the process claims like that (legitimate or not) trigger. Once up I'll update the link back to the Youtube video.) Your observations are all your opinions obviously aimed at debunking Brushy. I suspect if Luria had said the photo was a match to the tintype but not to Brushy then you'd be all in on using as proof Brushy was a fraud. You'd accept the photo as being Billy just so you could use it as evidence against Brushy. Your lack of objectivity is way over the top. You don't give one single reason to support your idea the picture is not Billy. You don't suggest it doesn't look like him. You don't suggest the photo isn't old enough. You don't suggest the lady in the photo can't be Miller or any reason for anything that goes against what Luria said. Except that you don't trust his results. You don't even know the man and you know nothing about his qualifications.
|
|
|
Post by shootseven on Nov 2, 2023 19:05:17 GMT -5
There's no evidence this photo shows Billy the Kid. The idea that provenance was established simply by it being found in Canada (and Miller being from Canada being that connection) is beyond absurd. As for the facial recognition work, even in the best of circumstances facial recognition cannot be used to prove who is in a photo; and in this case the work is seriously flawed since the producer gave him incorrectly identified source photos. The photo that has been misidentified as Catherine Antrim was revealed as a hoax years ago and has no connection to Silver City, so to claim it's Miller is silly; so detective Furia compared the woman in the "Silver City photo" two two different women and said she was a match for both. Then come the "Billy" comparisons, where Edwards gives Furia the one known Billy the Kid photo, photos of Brushy Bill, and photos of a Rough Rider he thinks is Brushy Bill but is actually William D. Wood of Bland, NM. Furia compared the young man in the photo to all three men and declared him a match for all three. So once we through out all his flawed work there is no evidence to show who is in the photo or where it was taken. I've posted more information here: vimeo.com/879596865?share=copy(The video was originally on Youtube, but Dan Edwards filed a frivolous copyright infringement claim [you can't copyright an antique 19th century photograph], so it's down while they go through the process claims like that (legitimate or not) trigger. Once up I'll update the link back to the Youtube video.) Your observations are all your opinions obviously aimed at debunking Brushy. I suspect if Luria had said the photo was a match to the tintype but not to Brushy then you'd be all in on using as proof Brushy was a fraud. You'd accept the photo as being Billy just so you could use it as evidence against Brushy. Your lack of objectivity is way over the top. You don't give one single reason to support your idea the picture is not Billy. You don't suggest it doesn't look like him. You don't suggest the photo isn't old enough. You don't suggest the lady in the photo can't be Miller or any reason for anything that goes against what Luria said. Except that you don't trust his results. You don't even know the man and you know nothing about his qualifications. You jump to a lot of conclusions without knowing anything about me; so for the record, I've been critical of facial recognition work done on many alleged Billies and other photos (if you check my Youtube channel, almost all it is is debunking alleged Billies, and I'll have a few articles on the subject coming out in a number of western publications in the next year. But to address your "You don't give one single reason to support your idea the picture is not Billy."—You're right, I don't, because it's an unidentified photo of unknown people in an unknown location. There were over 50,000 million people in the United States in 1880 and over 4 million in Canada, so without any evidence that it IS Billy, it's silly to assume it's him and not one of the other millions of young men in the US or Canada at that time. As for your claim that, "our observations are all your opinions," I'll expand on a couple of observations that are most definitely not opinion. The photo that's often misidentified as Catherine Antrim that Edwards gave as a possible Miller was debunked years ago. It was first identified as Antrim by Eugene Cunningham, who told collector Noah Rose it was her in order to trade it for another photograph. Cunningham later admitted he lied and had no idea who the woman was—that's all fact. So we're supposed to believe this photo of an unknown woman and of unknown origin that was falsely identified as Billy's mom just happened to be someone who actually knew Billy? Another fact: the Rough Riders photo Edwards thinks is Brushy is Bronco Buster William Wood of Bland New Mexico. It's identified as such by labeling from 1898 that was attached to the original negative; and there's another Rough Rider photo, also take in 1898 and also identified on the original negative as Wood. That's fact: so even if you believe Brushy is Billy, then Furia still compared the young man to both Brushy and Wood and concluded he was a match for both men. Since the man in the photo obviously can't be two different people, that right there invalidates Furia's identifications; and when you take those away there isn't a single piece of evidence that the photo shows Billy (please, if I'm wrong, name the evidence).
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 2, 2023 19:20:05 GMT -5
Furia did not say the photo that was once mistakenly identified as Catherine was indeed Catherine. He said it matched Miller. I don't know who originally located that photo and mistakenly concluded it was Catherine, but they must have had "some" reason for thinking it was Catherine so its not that much of a stretch that it may have been someone else Billy knew. It would help if we knew when and how that photo was originally identified as Catherine.
The rough rider photos Dan identified as Brushy were not Wood. He's pretty much proven they are not Wood. So it is still possible the man in both those photos is indeed Brushy Bill. Dan explains it all in a recent video he's released if you'd like to watch that. Go to his YouTube channel and watch the analysis. Dan is unique in that he has admitted his error in identifying that man as William S. Murphy. Dan is objective. Human, yes. But honest and objective and his deductions are impressive. Watch his new video.
|
|
|
Post by DanJohno on Nov 2, 2023 20:08:18 GMT -5
The more evidence Daniel Edwards finds the more people are attacking him. The same thing happened with Brushy 73 years ago. There's lots of evidence supporting Brushy but it's starting to become more about Daniel Edwards defending himself than just showing his research.
|
|
|
Post by shootseven on Nov 2, 2023 20:13:50 GMT -5
Furia did not say the photo that was once mistakenly identified as Catherine was indeed Catherine. He said it matched Miller. I don't know who originally located that photo and mistakenly concluded it was Catherine, but they must have had "some" reason for thinking it was Catherine so its not that much of a stretch that it may have been someone else Billy knew. It would help if we knew when and how that photo was originally identified as Catherine. The rough rider photos Dan identified as Brushy were not Wood. He's pretty much proven they are not Wood. So it is still possible the man in both those photos is indeed Brushy Bill. Dan explains it all in a recent video he's released if you'd like to watch that. Go to his YouTube channel and watch the analysis. Dan is unique in that he has admitted his error in identifying that man as William S. Murphy. Dan is objective. Human, yes. But honest and objective and his deductions are impressive. Watch his new video. "Furia did not say the photo that was once mistakenly identified as Catherine was indeed Catherine."—I never said he said it was Catherine, I said he said it was Miller (it isn't her, either). "I don't know who originally located that photo and mistakenly concluded it was Catherine, but they must have had "some" reason for thinking it was Catherine"—Did you not read my post above, I just explained to you it was Eugene Cunningham who identified it as Catherine and he admitted that was a complete lie. This is well documented; see Fred Nolan's The West of Billy the Kid, page 7, as one source. Nolan has correspondence with Cunningham about this. I'm not sure where his papers were donated but I did talk to him from time to time and know he was looking at places to donate them a few years before his death, so you'll no doubt be able to find these letters once they become available. "The rough rider photos Dan identified as Brushy were not Wood.... Dan explains it all in a recent video he's released if you'd like to watch that."—This is completely incorrect; I've seen the video (I'm the anonymous person he references and tries to discredit). I explain to Dan, as I explained to you above, that the label with the names (including Wood's name) WERE ON THE REVERSED NEGATIVE, so, when matching those names up with THE POSITIVE IMAGE on Harvard's website, you need to apply the names in reverse order. Dan either didn't understand or intentionally lied when he claimed I told him he needed to reverse the image he was looking at, so all of the nonsense with the USV pin is nothing but deflection since no one told him to reverse the photo. BTW, Dan also uses a photo identified as Dave Rudabaugh in his book that is most definitely not Rudabaugh (there are no known photos of a living Rudabaugh, and the death photos are highly debatable), so you probably shouldn't be looking at Edwards as some kind of photo expert.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne Land on Nov 3, 2023 8:47:30 GMT -5
So my point was "why did Eugene Cunningham think the photo in question was Catherine? He must have had some reason to connect that photo with BTK. Or do you believe he just intentionally picked up a photo of an unknown female and said to himself "I like this one, I think I'll say this is Catherine"? Again my point is, the photo must have had some connection to Billy that made him think it was Catherine. If we knew what that was, then we might understand how it could be Miller instead.
As far the Rough Rider photos, Dan explained in the last part of his video. If you reverse the order of the names instead of the photo itself, and compare that to the documented heights of the men named, you find that they can not possibly be who they are said to be. The names and the various heights do not match up and therefore, because of several obvious discrepancies, you can not depend on any of the names listed as being correct. In fact, when you reverse the names, the man who appears in both photos who resembles Brushy ends up with two different names/heights. And there is absolutely no question that is the same man in both photos. Their shirts are identical, they both have on a pinky ring, they have the same belt with the U.S. buckle, and they look very much the same in the face. Again, reversing the names instead of the image is not the answer.
Maybe you didn't watch the entire video. BTW, I don't think a negative of a photo shows the image as reversed. It does reverse light with dark but what is on the left is still on the left and what is on the right is still on the right.
|
|
|
Post by devorerd on Nov 3, 2023 9:06:33 GMT -5
There's no evidence this photo shows Billy the Kid. The idea that provenance was established simply by it being found in Canada (and Miller being from Canada being that connection) is beyond absurd. As for the facial recognition work, even in the best of circumstances facial recognition cannot be used to prove who is in a photo; and in this case the work is seriously flawed since the producer gave him incorrectly identified source photos. The photo that has been misidentified as Catherine Antrim was revealed as a hoax years ago and has no connection to Silver City, so to claim it's Miller is silly; so detective Furia compared the woman in the "Silver City photo" two two different women and said she was a match for both. Then come the "Billy" comparisons, where Edwards gives Furia the one known Billy the Kid photo, photos of Brushy Bill, and photos of a Rough Rider he thinks is Brushy Bill but is actually William D. Wood of Bland, NM. Furia compared the young man in the photo to all three men and declared him a match for all three. So once we through out all his flawed work there is no evidence to show who is in the photo or where it was taken. I've posted more information here: vimeo.com/879596865?share=copy(The video was originally on Youtube, but Dan Edwards filed a frivolous copyright infringement claim [you can't copyright an antique 19th century photograph], so it's down while they go through the process claims like that (legitimate or not) trigger. Once up I'll update the link back to the Youtube video.) Corey..I watched your Vimeo and in there you claim "30 people saw the body of BTK"? I like to see the list and the provence associated with it?...and in the list is a gentelmen by the name of Trujillo I trust? As an astute member here, Mckinley412 points out.."Trujillo who died in 1935 at the age of ninety-five who stated that the man killed by Garrett resembled an Indian and most definitely was not Bill the Kid. So was Trujillo in on the conspiracy back then? Look, I get you have to make a living, don't we all, but be original, don't go around trying to shamlessly poke holes in others works or lable them as conspiracy theoriest, that isn't how people with integrity operate.
|
|
|
Post by shootseven on Nov 3, 2023 9:18:20 GMT -5
So my point was "why did Eugene Cunningham think the photo in question was Catherine? He must have had some reason to connect that photo with BTK. Or do you believe he just intentionally picked up a photo of an unknown female and said to himself "I like this one, I think I'll say this is Catherine"? Again my point is, the photo must have had some connection to Billy that made him think it was Catherine. If we knew what that was, then we might understand how it could be Miller instead. As far the Rough Rider photos, Dan explained in the last part of his video. If you reverse the order of the names instead of the photo itself, and compare that to the documented heights of the men named, you find that they can not possibly be who they are said to be. The names and the various heights do not match up and therefore, because of several obvious discrepancies, you can not depend on any of the names listed as being correct. In fact, when you reverse the names, the man who appears in both photos who resembles Brushy ends up with two different names/heights. And there is absolutely no question that is the same man in both photos. Their shirts are identical, they both have on a pinky ring, they have the same belt with the U.S. buckle, and they look very much the same in the face. Again, reversing the names instead of the image is not the answer. Maybe you didn't watch the entire video. BTW, I don't think a negative of a photo shows the image as reversed. It does reverse light with dark but what is on the left is still on the left and what is on the right is still on the right. Cunningham identified the woman as Catherine in order to trade it with Noah Rose for another photo—he never actually believed it was her. He admitted to this, so no, there was never any reason to believe it was her and nothing connecting it to Silver City. As for your claims about Dan's analysis, camera angle and where they are standing can very much throw that off. For example, #6 and #11 in this photo of Tampa Bay QBs are both 6'1": cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/KBJyV0kZJwWy9Zkdh9CK2zUOh88=/1400x1050/filters:format(jpeg)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24826519/1498196900.jpg Do they look the same height to you? Most importantly, about your claim, "when you reverse the names, the man who appears in both photos who resembles Brushy ends up with two different names/heights." That is flat out wrong. Here's photo one, where Wood is second from the right: digitalcollections.library.harvard.edu/catalog/G11977_URN-3:FHCL.HOUGH:1432334 The caption that was on the negative is "Thomas Darnell; William Wood; probably Roscoe Moore; probably Morris J. Storms; and probably Levi Jones, a Cherokee Indian, Camp Wikoff, Montauk (N.Y.)."—so Wood is second from left in the caption, right where he should be since it's reversed. Here's the second image, where Wood is on the far right: digitalcollections.library.harvard.edu/catalog/G11977_URN-3:FHCL.HOUGH:1432333 and the caption from the negative reads: "William D. Wood, Alvin C. Ash, Thomas Darnell, Clay T. Owens, Newton Stewart, and Augustus C. Fletcher, Camp Wikoff, Montauk (N.Y.)." Wood is first, again right where he should be since the caption is reversed.
|
|
|
Post by shootseven on Nov 3, 2023 11:06:20 GMT -5
There's no evidence this photo shows Billy the Kid. The idea that provenance was established simply by it being found in Canada (and Miller being from Canada being that connection) is beyond absurd. As for the facial recognition work, even in the best of circumstances facial recognition cannot be used to prove who is in a photo; and in this case the work is seriously flawed since the producer gave him incorrectly identified source photos. The photo that has been misidentified as Catherine Antrim was revealed as a hoax years ago and has no connection to Silver City, so to claim it's Miller is silly; so detective Furia compared the woman in the "Silver City photo" two two different women and said she was a match for both. Then come the "Billy" comparisons, where Edwards gives Furia the one known Billy the Kid photo, photos of Brushy Bill, and photos of a Rough Rider he thinks is Brushy Bill but is actually William D. Wood of Bland, NM. Furia compared the young man in the photo to all three men and declared him a match for all three. So once we through out all his flawed work there is no evidence to show who is in the photo or where it was taken. I've posted more information here: vimeo.com/879596865?share=copy(The video was originally on Youtube, but Dan Edwards filed a frivolous copyright infringement claim [you can't copyright an antique 19th century photograph], so it's down while they go through the process claims like that (legitimate or not) trigger. Once up I'll update the link back to the Youtube video.) Corey..I watched your Vimeo and in there you claim "30 people saw the body of BTK"? I like to see the list and the provence associated with it?...and in the list is a gentelmen by the name of Trujillo I trust? As an astute member here, Mckinley412 points out.."Trujillo who died in 1935 at the age of ninety-five who stated that the man killed by Garrett resembled an Indian and most definitely was not Bill the Kid. So was Trujillo in on the conspiracy back then? Look, I get you have to make a living, don't we all, but be original, don't go around trying to shamlessly poke holes in others works or lable them as conspiracy theoriest, that isn't how people with integrity operate. I don't mind taking my time to put research together for more obscure questions, but the witnesses to Billy's body on the Maxwell floor and at the wake is very well documented, from the coroner's reports to statements from 1881 all the way through the 1930s in interviews, manuscripts, and more that are readily available. Here's a starting list for you: Paulita Maxwell, Deluvina Maxwell, Paco Anaya, Jesus Silva, Vicente Otero, Milnor Rudulph, George Miller, Celsa Gutierrez, Alejandro Segura, Jose Silva, Antonio Savedra, Lorenzo Jaramillo, and Pedro Antonio Lucero. And are you asking about Francisco Trujillo? Because he definitely said it was Billy who was killed. Here's a 1937 interview with him: www.loc.gov/resource/wpalh1.19030911/?st=text&r=0.292,-0.022,0.592,0.637,0 (though he wasn't in Fort Sumner and I'm only concerned with first hand witnesses, since we have many). Saledon Trujillo? Again, wasn't there, but never claimed Billy survived: www.newspapers.com/article/el-paso-herald/133051330/ You'll have to be more specific than just "Trujillo." As for your personal attacks: "I get you have to make a living, don't we all, but be original, don't go around trying to shamlessly poke holes in others works or lable them as conspiracy theoriest, that isn't how people with integrity operate." No sure where this is coming from, but I don't make any money from Billy history (none of my books are about Billy) and nothing from Youtube. On the other hand, the guy whose work you are defending has a lot invested in the claim that Brushy was Billy and charges for the video on the alleged Silver City photo; so if you're looking for financial incentives to lie, don't look at me. Also, I'm not "trying to shamlessly poke holes in others works" but trying to prevent misidentified photos from spreading. Ever since the one authenticated photo of Billy sold for $2.3 million in 2011 there's been a flood of these so-called Billies all based on questionable or fabricated evidence. We should all be looking for the truth and calling out incorrect claims is part of that.
|
|