Billy the Kid vs Brushy Bill and John Miller / unbiased facts

[Nick Fatta Jr.]

http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/billythekid/brushy.html

http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/billythekid/johnmiller.html

[Nick Fatta Jr.]

ill only say this... to say you believe Pat Garretts story even though Dep Poe himself said, you shot the wrong man, is to say, you beleive the Warren commission on JFK and believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Do your own research, make your own conclusions and not just cause pat garrett said so.

[Buck Grizzly]

Isn't it all pretty much hearsay at this point?

I mean if there was any real physical evidence it was done away with that night, and /or buried in the ground rather expeditiously the next day. Nobody can even verify where the body is located or even if a body still exists, which it most likely doesn’t. It’s not like a CSI team can go back in time, run everybody out of the room, and document everything for prosperity at this point. All that can really be surmised is what has been reported, or continuously regurgitated by second hand information.

I mean it does make for interesting conversation but it is completely speculative to not accept the version normally accepted as the historical facts.

[C. F. 'Charley' Eckhardt]

Oliver Partridge Roberts--that was 'Brushy Bill's' actual name--was born, according to the Roberts family records, in Coleman County, Texas, in April of 1879. In addition, he had the 'Roberts family ear'--a genetic anomaly which occurs in the Coleman County Roberts family.  His right ear was almost twice the size of hiis left ear.  In the only absolutely authenticated photo of the Kid, his ears, tho jug-handles, were the same size.

[Chris Lampe]

I've been studying Billy the Kid for about eleven years now and I believe that he not only died on July, 14, 1881 but that it happened more or less as Garrett and Poe described. 

A lot of second-hand information and wild speculation cannot change the fact that the images of Billy the Kid, Brushy Bill and John Miller clearly show three different people. 

BTW, I also believe that Oswald was the only shooter in Dealy Plaza. 

[Buck Grizzly]

The what if so few people ask is what if the picture, the only one in existence, wasn’t authentic. The picture was handed down through generations. When my dad past away it was funny seeing the family trying to figure out who people where from photos taken in the 40’s and 50’s, that were not marked and dated on the backs. Most of the guesses were wrong. Cousins, aunts and sisters all blurred together, with the passing of time and the only way to verify most of those unmarked photos was comparing them to other marked pictures. Some of them we still are not sure of. But the Billy picture doesn’t have that luxury. Yes it can be verified that the photo appears to be taken from a date that could be associated with Billy, but a hundred years later, with nobody still alive that could say for sure and “NO” other photo evidence to cross reference with? Seems more like wishful thinking than anything else.

Now let’s assume for a moment that the conspiracy theories are true. Garret and his deputies helped the kid escape by making the claim he was dead. Friends of the kid also played along with the scheme to see to it that Billy could go about his life unnoticed. If a picture was presented, wouldn’t it seem likely that it would be a fake? You wouldn’t want a real photo out there with your face on it if you were trying to stay anonymous, would you? Yes the photo was kept away from prying eyes for a many decades, held by generations of the same family, before it was ever produced for study. But could it realistically be a photo, mistakenly associated with Billy even though it was of someone else? That answer could be, yes. So in the likelihood of someone coming forward at a later date and declaring their true identity, how does using a potentially, incorrect photo to verify identification prove anything at all?

　

Don’t get me wrong I am not saying that the facts that have become accepted are not true, only that there is a possibility of them being wrong because assumptions were made and accepted, without actual proof. Proof that would hold up, and confirmed without any doubt. Here’s what we know about the picture.

　

　

One of the few artifacts of McCarty's life is a 2x3 inch ferrotype (one of four on a plate)taken by an unknown photographer sometime in late 1879 or early 1880. It is the only image of McCarty which scholars agree is authentic. The ferrotype survived because after Billy's death, Dan Dedrick, one of Billy's rustler friends, held onto the picture and passed it down in his family. The ferrotype appeared in several copied forms before the original was made public in the mid 1980s by Stephen and Art Upham, descendants of Dedrick. It was displayed for several years in the Lincoln County Heritage Trust Museum before it was withdrawn again.

　

The photograph of The Kid, commonly known as the Upham tintype – after its longtime owner Frank Upham– was the subject of intense study by experts in the late 1980s. Their detailed findings were presented at a symposium held in 1989. The experts concluded that the Colt revolver carried by McCarty was probably not his primary weapon, since his holster is not the type normally associated with gunslingers. Rather, it is a common holster, with a safety strap across the top to keep the six-shooter from bouncing out. McCarty's main weapon appears to be the Winchester Carbine held in his hand in the ferrotype.

[Murray A. Gewirtz]

How can you believe the Warren Commission when it is so obvious that JFK was killed by: the Mafia/Clay Shaw/ the Russians/Castro/anti-Castro Cuban exiles/LBJ/the Secret Service/ the CIA/the FBI/Right Wing Texans...take your pick.

[Buck Grizzly]

Of course the government wouldn't lie to it's people?

[Chris Lampe]

Buck,

 

Of course your hypothetical is possible, but only in the abstract sense that "anything is possible".  The image of the Kid was in the public domain within a year after his death (and maybe even before his death, if I'm not mistaken) and friends & enemies alike agreed that it was him.  Also, the guy in the image fits the contemporary descriptions of BTK to a tee.  I like a good conspiracy as much as anyone but I think they are usually just figments of someone's imagination.  I have 100% confidence that the authentic tintype is an image of the man known as Billy the Kid. 

[Buck Grizzly]

I'm honestly not claiming it is not authentic, it just seems that it could be, since it was held by one source for so long. But if it isn’t it would be futile effort to compare the photo with the facial features of anything else, even an actual picture of the Kid himself if this one isn’t legit.

　

I never heard it was released in the 1880's, is there anything on the net that verifies this?

Does anybody know when the photo was found? It certainly wasn't verified until the 1980's.

　

I know the museum in Lincoln reproduced the photo much earlier than that but when was it actually shown to the public the first time, and what happened to the other three pictures?

In any case the kid's friend Dedrick was the original owner of the photo and it is only upon his family's word that it was indeed a picture of the Kid not Dedrick himself.

Information once and twice removed, becomes hearsay, and there are numerous pictures that could fit a generic description, of somebody at an early age. And just because somebody knew the Kid doesn't necessarily guarantee their memory was sound when they relayed the info, or even that their integrity when telling people about his exploits as a young thief, proves anything. Makes a good story around the family gathering fire side chats, but ot really worth that much in reality. Look how many claim to be relatives of the James family, because somebody’s second cousin’s, nephew’s, great grandpa said it was. This is basically the facts we are dealing with.

　

I'm glad the experts, whomever they may have been agree this is the real McCoy, but nothing is really confirmable except somebody’s relative who is long past gone, said it was?

Like I said, it is good conversation fodder in any case. 

[Nicholas Narog]

Paulita Maxwell herself even said that it was of Billy by describing the photo and stating that it was taken around 1879-1880 at Beaver Smiths saloon.

Also the tintype was first published in 1882 in Pat Garrett's book.