Spoiler alert: your hypothesis is flawed! Census records only prove somebody claimed to be Oliver P. Roberts at the time of all the censuses. If "Brushy" took an assumed identity he could've taken over the identity at any time. I would believe people who knew Billy the Kid in the 1870s who agreed Brushy was the Kid over census records from back then.
I would believe people who knew Billy from the 1870s as well, that's one of many reasons why I'm so positive Brushy was a fraud. Dozens of people who knew The Kid, identified by name by historians, saw his body there at Fort Sumner in 1881. Nobody who lived at Fort Sumner ever denied that Garrett killed the Kid. I assume you're referring to the affidavits but only two of the affidavit signers had any possibility of knowing Billy - Jose Montoya and Severo Gallegos. They were both children in 1880 and MIGHT have been at Lincoln when Billy escaped. That's it. They weren't friends with the Kid or fellow outlaws or lawmen or anything like that. The entire Brushy fraud rests on the words of Brushy when he claimed he took his dead cousin's identity. The cousin in question was 20 years younger than Brushy and yet Brushy claimed that the dead boy's mother mistook him for her son. Brushy would have been in his 40s at the time and we're to believe that his aunt mistook a 40 year old for her 20 year old son. LOL. There's no record of Ollie Roberts going missing. Brushy was Oliver Roberts.
lot's of mistakes here.....eg the family bible was never produced, also he took the identity of a deceased nephew , bit more research required bass man
You & I have already agreed on this one. So forgive me for making so many comments ( I do enjoy your show very much.) have you ever wondered why he kept the name Roberts? Why not Brushy Bill Parker or something like that? Did he really think there was no record of the person he actually was?
I've never really given it much thought, to be honest. I can't speak for the man's motivations or his thought process but we see the same thing even nowadays when information is at the click of the mouse. Retired Navy Seal Don Shipley has a RUclips channel where all he does is bust phony navy seals. These are people who post photos of themselves publicly and make very public claims to be something their not when the truth is so easily determined. Why do they do it? I can't say.
@WildWestExtravaganza lol I love Don Shipley. And I'm not 100% for or against Brushy bill (haven't looked deep enough to stake a claim) but he was supposedly illiterate while Billy the kid could read and write English, and his Spanish was near flawless. I would think an illiterate man wouldn't fully comprehend the absolute paper trail that follows a person from birth until death, even in the old west times. In other words, he didn't know what he didn't know. Love the channel btw.
Ok maybe it wasn’t a common occurrence, but after killing bell and olinger he was wanted all over the country. I would think they would have photographed it. To say there was not a photographer in Fort sumner is false. The famous tin type photo that everyone knows was taken in fort sumner. I just don’t know seems a bit odd.
@@AnthonySolis-dp1gw You're partially correct. The tintype was taken at Fort Sumner - in 1880 - but it was taken by a traveling photographer. Can you find a photographer listed as living at Fort Sumner in 1880? One more note about the lack of a photograph. When Jesse James was killed, there WAS a photograph of his body taken. This photograph did NOT stop conspiracies from popping up, saying that Jesse's death was a hoax. Finally, they dug his body up and conducted a DNA test. The test proved conclusively that the body buried was that of Jesse James. Yet still, to this day, some refute both the photo and the DNA test results. In other words, there could have been a dozen pictures of Billy the Kid's dead body, but it wouldn't have made a difference to certain people. They'll believe what they want despite the evidence.
Respectfully disagree - I was on the fence about it but after reading up on it, I’m convinced Brushy was the kid. There’s no death photo - even run of the mill wanted folks were posed with in their pine jackets by the lawmen that took them down. He had wounds that matched where the kid was known to have been wounded. He didn’t volunteer he was the kid, it took a lot of persuasion. His intimate knowledge of events that took place would have been nigh on impossible for someone so poor living in rural Texas to have known - some of what he said was even unknown at the time but later verified to be true. Garret never received the reward money, witnesses at the time said that isn’t the kid, and arrest warrants for him were issued several months after Garret claimed to have killed him - also historically, people who knew the kid well said they had met with him after Garret said he’d killed him. Also, Garret said the kid had his gun pointed at him, yet he managed to draw down, line up and shoot him without getting shot? That in no way tallies with known facts on the kid. The pictures of brushy at 27 are very, very close to the confirmed picture of the kid. It’s all academic interest, I’m not too bothered if anyone agrees he is Brushy or not. For me, I’m convinced he was.
Respectfully, you've been sold a bill of goods. Don't worry, though, as you're certainly not alone. Unfortunately many lies and misconceptions are spread constantly regarding both Billy the Kid and Brushy Bill Roberts. I recently recorded a full length video highlighting many of these lies if you'd like to check it out. I'll try to address them here as well. How many photographs of dead outlaws exist? 12? 20? There were thousands of outlaws roaming the West, many of whom we do not have photos of alive much less dead. Some outlaws - famous and not famous - had their photographs taken. Some. The vast majority, however, did not. What's more, there's a photo of a dead Jesse James and yet conspiracy theorists still claim that Jesse James was not killed in 1882. So not only would a photo of a dead Billy the Kid be the exception rather than the rule, it would also prove nothing to those not willing to accept historical evidence. No, Brushy did not have wounds where the Kid was known to have been wounded. Do you know how many times Billy the Kid was wounded? Once. During the ambush of Sheriff Brady, the Kid took a bullet to the leg. There's no evidence that Brushy Bill had a bullet scar on his leg, much less any of the other numerous bullet or knife scars he claimed. The only proof of these scars existing are the words of William V. Morrison. You want to talk about photos, why did Morrison - in the year 1949 - not take photographic proof of Brushy's many scars? And no, there is not an autopsy report. Brushy was telling tall tales for quiet a long time even before claiming to be Billy the Kid. Per his own brother, he was masquerading as Frank James as early as 1918. By the 1920s he was telling newspapers that he was a frontier scout and that he saved Texas Rangers from machine gun wielding gangsters. There are also photos of Brushy posing with other known frauds like J. Frank Dalton in the early 1940s. It's also false that Brushy "knew things" that nobody else could have possibly known. Once such example Brushy proponents often point to is that he knew there were black soldiers present during the Battle of Lincoln. This was not unknown as it's written in Walter Noble Burns' book The Saga of Billy the Kid. This book was extremely popular and one of the first ever book of the month club books. It was also ran in local papers, even in Texas. Nearly everything Brushy "knew" about Billy the Kid he took from books. Remember, this was 1950...there were even movies about Billy the Kid by this point. Yes, Garrett did receive the reward money. Matter of fact, he received it twice. The first time was following the arrest of Billy the Kid at Stinking Springs. The second time was after he killed the Kid in 1881. This is proven and 100% verifiable. No, not one single witness ever claimed that Garrett shot the wrong man. This also is verifiably false. You may be thinking about one of his deputies, John Poe, who wrote in his own book that he told Pat he killed the wrong man. This quote is taken out of context as just two paragraphs later Poe plainly writes that he examined the body and found it to be that of Billy the Kid. There have been dozens of witnesses identified by name by historians who saw a dead Billy the Kid at Fort Sumner. Absolutely zero of them ever claimed that Garrett killed the wrong man or that Billy escaped. I would challenge you to provide me with just one name stating otherwise. I'm like you, not really bothered one way or the other, but I believe you've come to your conclusion based on false information.
@@WildWestExtravaganza Well, having read about the various findings by people on either side of this debate for some time now, I remain of the position that Brushy was the kid. You’re pretty set on your position and that’s cool, it’s your prerogative and doesn’t matter one way or the other. There is a lot of myth and legends around the kid - in some ways he’s become like the old west equivalent of Robin Hood. Outlaw yes, but the law was very corrupt itself in those days. Well… ahem. Suppose they’ve just got better at hiding that these days.
@@WildWestExtravaganza I've been looking at things from both sides of the debate a while now, and for me, I'm still convinced Brushy was the kid. The evidence supporting it is strong enough that actual court judges went on record saying the evidence very strongly supports that Brushy was the kid. You're obviously strongly against that position, and that's absolutely fine - it's interesting to debate but not worth getting all riled up over as some folks do!
How can you determine that based on facts? Alias versus facts? While the facts of Roberts is true. I believe Brushy stated his real name was William H. Roberts and that he was born in Texas and not New York.
Good question. The best way to determine the truth is to examine what can be proven as opposed to what can't be proven. For instance, there is no proof that Roberts name was William H. Roberts. There's also no proof that the person he claimed was his father ever existed. This is pretty consistent with nearly all of Brushy's claims. Whether it be the story he told of living with the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Yaqui tribes to being a Pinkerton to fighting in Cuba with Roosevelt and fighting in Mexico with Pancho Villa or saving Texas Rangers from machine gun toting gangsters lol. Absolutely none of these stories can be verified. In contrast, it's very easy to follow Brushy's actual paper trail via census records, marriage certificates, divorce decrees, a family bible, and even a draft registration. The records are very consistent and Brushy was nowhere near old enough to have been Billy the Kid. He also never lived in New Mexico...spent his entire life mostly in East Texas and Arkansas. Be happy to answer any more questions you might have, just hit me up.
It's really not fair to the real Billy the Kid for this guy Brushy Bill to commit identity theft & lie about being Billy although the real Billy would probably laugh his ass off about it or would he, who knows he might have slapped leather on this lying low down want to be!
After a lot of research i am absolutely convinced that brushy bill roberts was the real billy the kid, while i don't believe that the picture is brushi bill nor billy the kid.
The Gneva Pitman letter stated that Ollie Roberts was not Billy Billy the Kid------ She was 100% right Brushy Bill Was and Ollie was a cousin. I also ask that you show me the original Bible, not the one that Pitman constructed right before her death.
I ask you to show me proof that Brushy was ever shot or stabbed, or that he served with the Army in Cuba, or that he was a Pinkerton or deputy US Marshal or that he knew Belle Starr.
@@WildWestExtravaganza It so easy to just agree with the norms. However, research. My favorite example of people NOT researching, and just blithely accepting what is offered, is the story of dairy milk products. 90% of 'grown up men' of today nurse and suckle a mommy cow for baby's milk from cradle to grave. Believers gonna believe without researching and relying on emotions. If a dairy lover would research, they would find dairy = bad fat pus, blood, "medicines", secret agents, female hormones, antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, genetic ingredients, GMOs, vaccines, lies, absurdities and atrocities. The researcher would also discover that normal and natural weaning in humans is 2.5 years of age. Alas, whether one researches food or food for thought, Mark Twain said it best: "It's easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they've been fooled."
@@WildWestExtravaganzawhy ask him to show you his proof? You're the one who made a video attempting to debunk the claims of Roberts. The guy just asked you for the proof of your sources. If you actually had proof of the things you said in this video, you'd have gladly provided it in the video. Its kind of silly that you make these bold accusations, calling a man who died over 70 years ago a liar, and when asked for your proof, you ask them for their proof. You're asking the guy for proof of claims he never even made. 😂
Spoiler alert: your hypothesis is flawed! Census records only prove somebody claimed to be Oliver P. Roberts at the time of all the censuses. If "Brushy" took an assumed identity he could've taken over the identity at any time. I would believe people who knew Billy the Kid in the 1870s who agreed Brushy was the Kid over census records from back then.
I would believe people who knew Billy from the 1870s as well, that's one of many reasons why I'm so positive Brushy was a fraud. Dozens of people who knew The Kid, identified by name by historians, saw his body there at Fort Sumner in 1881. Nobody who lived at Fort Sumner ever denied that Garrett killed the Kid.
I assume you're referring to the affidavits but only two of the affidavit signers had any possibility of knowing Billy - Jose Montoya and Severo Gallegos. They were both children in 1880 and MIGHT have been at Lincoln when Billy escaped. That's it. They weren't friends with the Kid or fellow outlaws or lawmen or anything like that.
The entire Brushy fraud rests on the words of Brushy when he claimed he took his dead cousin's identity. The cousin in question was 20 years younger than Brushy and yet Brushy claimed that the dead boy's mother mistook him for her son. Brushy would have been in his 40s at the time and we're to believe that his aunt mistook a 40 year old for her 20 year old son. LOL. There's no record of Ollie Roberts going missing. Brushy was Oliver Roberts.
@@WildWestExtravaganzaonly two people that actually knew him were at the gravesite! A lot of people said that they saw
Billy after 1 1882
Whether You like it or not, Brushy WAS THE KID!!!
Lol
I'm Batman 🦇
He was a bullshit artist, is what he was.
lot's of mistakes here.....eg the family bible was never produced, also he took the identity of a deceased nephew , bit more research required bass man
Lol. Prove the nephew existed.
@@WildWestExtravaganzaget a new channel!
I identify as Billy the Kid...Therefore, I am!!!!
Brushy Bill is no closer to being Billy the Kid than Emilio Estevez is!
lol yes he is. Even those who knew Billy the kid say that Bill was him
You & I have already agreed on this one. So forgive me for making so many comments ( I do enjoy your show very much.) have you ever wondered why he kept the name Roberts? Why not Brushy Bill Parker or something like that? Did he really think there was no record of the person he actually was?
I've never really given it much thought, to be honest. I can't speak for the man's motivations or his thought process but we see the same thing even nowadays when information is at the click of the mouse. Retired Navy Seal Don Shipley has a RUclips channel where all he does is bust phony navy seals. These are people who post photos of themselves publicly and make very public claims to be something their not when the truth is so easily determined. Why do they do it? I can't say.
@WildWestExtravaganza lol I love Don Shipley. And I'm not 100% for or against Brushy bill (haven't looked deep enough to stake a claim) but he was supposedly illiterate while Billy the kid could read and write English, and his Spanish was near flawless. I would think an illiterate man wouldn't fully comprehend the absolute paper trail that follows a person from birth until death, even in the old west times. In other words, he didn't know what he didn't know. Love the channel btw.
Just visited the Billy the kid museum in Hico,TX 3 days ago. Very cool.
Place across the street has an excellent cheeseburger. They served me my topo chico in a wine glass 10/10
Maybe he was "billy the younger kid"
😂😂😂
How come no dead body photos?
I answer this in my most recent video
@@WildWestExtravaganza I did not see it what did you say in previous video?
@@AnthonySolis-dp1gw give it a look, there’s even a time stamp
Ok maybe it wasn’t a common occurrence, but after killing bell and olinger he was wanted all over the country. I would think they would have photographed it. To say there was not a photographer in Fort sumner is false. The famous tin type photo that everyone knows was taken in fort sumner. I just don’t know seems a bit odd.
@@AnthonySolis-dp1gw You're partially correct. The tintype was taken at Fort Sumner - in 1880 - but it was taken by a traveling photographer. Can you find a photographer listed as living at Fort Sumner in 1880?
One more note about the lack of a photograph. When Jesse James was killed, there WAS a photograph of his body taken. This photograph did NOT stop conspiracies from popping up, saying that Jesse's death was a hoax. Finally, they dug his body up and conducted a DNA test. The test proved conclusively that the body buried was that of Jesse James. Yet still, to this day, some refute both the photo and the DNA test results.
In other words, there could have been a dozen pictures of Billy the Kid's dead body, but it wouldn't have made a difference to certain people. They'll believe what they want despite the evidence.
Brushy had attached earlobes and Billy had unattached earlobes. Physically impossible that Brushy was Billy.
Oh ok
He was just a sad, lonely old man that wanted some friends
He was Buckshot Roberts son ;)
Yes
Respectfully disagree - I was on the fence about it but after reading up on it, I’m convinced Brushy was the kid.
There’s no death photo - even run of the mill wanted folks were posed with in their pine jackets by the lawmen that took them down.
He had wounds that matched where the kid was known to have been wounded.
He didn’t volunteer he was the kid, it took a lot of persuasion.
His intimate knowledge of events that took place would have been nigh on impossible for someone so poor living in rural Texas to have known - some of what he said was even unknown at the time but later verified to be true.
Garret never received the reward money, witnesses at the time said that isn’t the kid, and arrest warrants for him were issued several months after Garret claimed to have killed him - also historically, people who knew the kid well said they had met with him after Garret said he’d killed him. Also, Garret said the kid had his gun pointed at him, yet he managed to draw down, line up and shoot him without getting shot? That in no way tallies with known facts on the kid.
The pictures of brushy at 27 are very, very close to the confirmed picture of the kid.
It’s all academic interest, I’m not too bothered if anyone agrees he is Brushy or not. For me, I’m convinced he was.
Respectfully, you've been sold a bill of goods. Don't worry, though, as you're certainly not alone. Unfortunately many lies and misconceptions are spread constantly regarding both Billy the Kid and Brushy Bill Roberts. I recently recorded a full length video highlighting many of these lies if you'd like to check it out. I'll try to address them here as well.
How many photographs of dead outlaws exist? 12? 20? There were thousands of outlaws roaming the West, many of whom we do not have photos of alive much less dead. Some outlaws - famous and not famous - had their photographs taken. Some. The vast majority, however, did not. What's more, there's a photo of a dead Jesse James and yet conspiracy theorists still claim that Jesse James was not killed in 1882. So not only would a photo of a dead Billy the Kid be the exception rather than the rule, it would also prove nothing to those not willing to accept historical evidence.
No, Brushy did not have wounds where the Kid was known to have been wounded. Do you know how many times Billy the Kid was wounded? Once. During the ambush of Sheriff Brady, the Kid took a bullet to the leg. There's no evidence that Brushy Bill had a bullet scar on his leg, much less any of the other numerous bullet or knife scars he claimed. The only proof of these scars existing are the words of William V. Morrison. You want to talk about photos, why did Morrison - in the year 1949 - not take photographic proof of Brushy's many scars? And no, there is not an autopsy report.
Brushy was telling tall tales for quiet a long time even before claiming to be Billy the Kid. Per his own brother, he was masquerading as Frank James as early as 1918. By the 1920s he was telling newspapers that he was a frontier scout and that he saved Texas Rangers from machine gun wielding gangsters. There are also photos of Brushy posing with other known frauds like J. Frank Dalton in the early 1940s.
It's also false that Brushy "knew things" that nobody else could have possibly known. Once such example Brushy proponents often point to is that he knew there were black soldiers present during the Battle of Lincoln. This was not unknown as it's written in Walter Noble Burns' book The Saga of Billy the Kid. This book was extremely popular and one of the first ever book of the month club books. It was also ran in local papers, even in Texas. Nearly everything Brushy "knew" about Billy the Kid he took from books. Remember, this was 1950...there were even movies about Billy the Kid by this point.
Yes, Garrett did receive the reward money. Matter of fact, he received it twice. The first time was following the arrest of Billy the Kid at Stinking Springs. The second time was after he killed the Kid in 1881. This is proven and 100% verifiable.
No, not one single witness ever claimed that Garrett shot the wrong man. This also is verifiably false. You may be thinking about one of his deputies, John Poe, who wrote in his own book that he told Pat he killed the wrong man. This quote is taken out of context as just two paragraphs later Poe plainly writes that he examined the body and found it to be that of Billy the Kid.
There have been dozens of witnesses identified by name by historians who saw a dead Billy the Kid at Fort Sumner. Absolutely zero of them ever claimed that Garrett killed the wrong man or that Billy escaped. I would challenge you to provide me with just one name stating otherwise.
I'm like you, not really bothered one way or the other, but I believe you've come to your conclusion based on false information.
@@WildWestExtravaganza Well, having read about the various findings by people on either side of this debate for some time now, I remain of the position that Brushy was the kid. You’re pretty set on your position and that’s cool, it’s your prerogative and doesn’t matter one way or the other.
There is a lot of myth and legends around the kid - in some ways he’s become like the old west equivalent of Robin Hood. Outlaw yes, but the law was very corrupt itself in those days. Well… ahem. Suppose they’ve just got better at hiding that these days.
@@WildWestExtravaganza I've been looking at things from both sides of the debate a while now, and for me, I'm still convinced Brushy was the kid. The evidence supporting it is strong enough that actual court judges went on record saying the evidence very strongly supports that Brushy was the kid.
You're obviously strongly against that position, and that's absolutely fine - it's interesting to debate but not worth getting all riled up over as some folks do!
Brushy liked to hang out at the local pool and watch the little kids
How can you determine that based on facts? Alias versus facts? While the facts of Roberts is true. I believe Brushy stated his real name was William H. Roberts and that he was born in Texas and not New York.
Good question. The best way to determine the truth is to examine what can be proven as opposed to what can't be proven. For instance, there is no proof that Roberts name was William H. Roberts. There's also no proof that the person he claimed was his father ever existed. This is pretty consistent with nearly all of Brushy's claims. Whether it be the story he told of living with the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Yaqui tribes to being a Pinkerton to fighting in Cuba with Roosevelt and fighting in Mexico with Pancho Villa or saving Texas Rangers from machine gun toting gangsters lol. Absolutely none of these stories can be verified. In contrast, it's very easy to follow Brushy's actual paper trail via census records, marriage certificates, divorce decrees, a family bible, and even a draft registration. The records are very consistent and Brushy was nowhere near old enough to have been Billy the Kid. He also never lived in New Mexico...spent his entire life mostly in East Texas and Arkansas. Be happy to answer any more questions you might have, just hit me up.
Every outlaw from the Old West to the thirties had their death picture tooked where's Billy the kid one of the most famous
lol.
I’m not saying he was the kid BUT if Billy’s friends say he was the kid that’s good enough for me
Can you name one of Billy’s friends who said that he was the Kid?
@@WildWestExtravaganza Dewitt Travis
My friend, Dewitt Travis wasn’t even alive yet in 1881. He knew Brushy but he most certainly never knew Billy the Kid.
@@WildWestExtravaganza you are correct sir, my humblest apologies
Wrong
Which part?
It's really not fair to the real Billy the Kid for this guy Brushy Bill to commit identity theft & lie about being Billy although the real Billy would probably laugh his ass off about it or would he, who knows he might have slapped leather on this lying low down want to be!
@@derekbrown2988I don’t think so
He looks like my friend John stokes
He was not oliver roberts
I believe "someone" needs to do a lot more research. Mountains of evidence and "proof" to show that your synopsis is way off.
Help me out. In your opinion, what is the most compelling piece of evidence?
Nope....he took olivers name....youre wrong
No, you’re just misinformed
After a lot of research i am absolutely convinced that brushy bill roberts was the real billy the kid, while i don't believe that the picture is brushi bill nor billy the kid.
That picture is just something I made. Out of curiosity, what evidence do you find the most compelling for Brushy?
Nice try, no cigar , amigo.
Thanks I really did try
Hallelujah someone finally telling the truth about this fraud.
I'm a believer, after a couple of years of research.
The Gneva Pitman letter stated that Ollie Roberts was not Billy Billy the Kid------ She was 100% right Brushy Bill Was and Ollie was a cousin. I also ask that you show me the original Bible, not the one that Pitman constructed right before her death.
I ask you to show me proof that Brushy was ever shot or stabbed, or that he served with the Army in Cuba, or that he was a Pinkerton or deputy US Marshal or that he knew Belle Starr.
@@WildWestExtravaganza Typical you --- I asked you to show me proof and you reply asking me for proof--- SAD
I'm sorry I'm so hard to get along with, David
@@WildWestExtravaganza It so easy to just agree with the norms. However, research.
My favorite example of people NOT researching, and just blithely accepting what is offered, is the story of dairy milk products.
90% of 'grown up men' of today nurse and suckle a mommy cow for baby's milk from cradle to grave. Believers gonna believe without researching and relying on emotions. If a dairy lover would research, they would find dairy = bad fat pus, blood, "medicines", secret agents, female hormones, antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, genetic ingredients, GMOs, vaccines, lies, absurdities and atrocities.
The researcher would also discover that normal and natural weaning in humans is 2.5 years of age.
Alas, whether one researches food or food for thought, Mark Twain said it best:
"It's easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they've been fooled."
@@WildWestExtravaganzawhy ask him to show you his proof? You're the one who made a video attempting to debunk the claims of Roberts. The guy just asked you for the proof of your sources. If you actually had proof of the things you said in this video, you'd have gladly provided it in the video. Its kind of silly that you make these bold accusations, calling a man who died over 70 years ago a liar, and when asked for your proof, you ask them for their proof. You're asking the guy for proof of claims he never even made. 😂
Nope, he wasn't.
Brushy Bill is a liar , liar pants on fire.
Hell F#ckin No! 🤠
Boy you got his age a wrong lol 😂
How so?
@@WildWestExtravaganza do more research
@@bobo44donemilking51 Can you help? What sources would you suggest I consult in regard to Brushy’s year of birth?
He only took his cousins identity, Brushy very well could have been Billy! Get DNA!
According to Brushy. Any proof of this cousin's existence other than Brushy's imagination?
Brushy Bill was a lying liar.
Billy the kid had pure blue eyes brushy bill had spectacled blue eyes Ireland has high percentage of blue eyes Billy the kid was irish
Finally 👏🏼 , i’m sick and tired of reading about this phony Brushy 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
A guy that was born in 1879 and died in 1950. 🤣
short answer..No
You are wrong.
About what specifically