Captain Kidd contradictions:new angle

[au-artifax]

I know the stories about Captain Kid are many, but I am researching a specific angle on the story in general I would like to get input on. There are certain pieces of information that can through logic lead us in a different direction. My hypothesis is that there was an opportunity and steps taken to hide the movement of some valuables around the time Kidd visited Gardiner's Island.

First found to be untrue is Gardiner's sworn account that he saw Cornelius Quick come out of Oyster Pan Bay. Truth is that Oyster Pan Bay cannot be seen from Gardiner's Island, but nobody ever questioned that.
Second, Quick, Thomas Paine, and Whisking Clark all at some point were questioned in a New York court and stated that at no time did any of them receive goods from Captain Kidd, and we know that was not true based on other testimony (which was through statements made to the Crown officials and not given weight in that court).
As to the time line, there were reports and opportunity for the Quick's vessel to navigate a short distance up the Connecticut River. Now.... it is a matter of record that Kidd is the only (pirate?) to have ever buried goods in the ground to be removed later. So it only follows that anyone associated with Kidd back then thought this was a safe and secure way to hide valuables. Humans in general behave in a manner out of habit, so it makes sense that Quick and Clarke would pick a similar area, and do the same with what they received from Kidd while moored near Gardiner's Island. Only this time Kidd couldn't confess the location of treasure, because he didn't know where it was hidden.

Soooo. Cornelius Quick and Mr. Clarke afterwards were under scrutiny and could only watch from a distance after that. Kidd did try to pass on the location through his lawyer, however that information had by that time traveled quite a distance through the grape vine. I won't jump right in and provide any likely locations, but there is physical evidence of a landing of a seagoing vessel along the river, a place no vessel had a reason to be, and had left something behind.

Anyways, I am looking for similar thoughts about how the investigation failed in tracking treasure, accounting for treasure, and following of the scavenged hardware from a burnt ship. Thanks. By the way, I have started to now call (in the past) Kidd's treasure as "Quick's treasure, as I believe Quick, Clarke, and Gardiner has their own plans for Kidd's remaining treasure.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[J.A.A.]

au-artifax-
No input to personally give, but still excited to hear more from you and others on this very interesting theory!
Thank you for posting!

All the best-
JA

 

[au-artifax]

Well today is Christmas and I hope everyone is having a great day. This is an update of my quest. After dropping my daughter off, and having nothing else to do, I decided to return to the spot where I found the old sailing ship hardware. I knew nobody would happen by to see me disturbing the area. I basically was digging, but today I had time to really explore. The material I was digging through had a lot of organic material in it to start, and I got to the point where I had been before where there was old root material, ( roots are mostly starchy type material that when old sort of dissipates and hollows out). Now at this point earlier I had also encountered a substantial layer of grey clay, and did notice it was not of the same thickness as the surrounding area. I started the break apart some of the old root sections and they were all stuffed tightly with Clay. Clay had filled up every speck of space because it was driven there by water from the Connecticut River during spring flooding in the past. The ground as I went past the clay and roots sounded different as I went deeper and I started to pull up regular fibrous type of light colored wet rotted wood that was almost bleached in appearance. It was all getting kind of messy with the clay chunks mixing with very soft material that was mostly like potting soil and very soft.
Well, I almost crapped my pants, but was not surprised because the ground had this sort of resonance like it being hollow(ish). My pointed gardening shovel (trowel?) Opened up a hole and dirt started falling down into the hole. This was about at four feet or so below the normal lay of the surrounding land, which was, as you might have guessed, not in a open field. I put the stick down the hole and was able to stir it around and there seemed quite a bit of space. Now I am dying to get a metal detector to stick down the crevice. It seemed to me that this too should have been crammed with clay like all the other spaces where I was digging. So I put a couple of rocks to cover up the hole, backfilled it a little and got outta Dodge.... for now.
I am curious what experiences others have had while digging. Am I just a major off his rocker dreamer, or should I step up my efforts to explore the ground more. It is getting to be a very confined and difficult to scoop out the dirt now. Much of it is starting to fall back in as I am digging, but I don't dare make the exploration too big a project as I don't want others to notice if the see it from a distance, (or me actually digging for that matter).
Well thanks for reading my update and for any constructive ideas you may have.

 

[au-artifax]

Update: Concerned some artifacts might be from general shipbuilding in the area, research shows that in general the first organized shipbuilding along the Ct river didn't start until the middle of the eighteenth century. This is a good thing because what I have is from a seventeenth century ship. It still peaks my interest that some of the hardware could only have been recovered by burning the timbers of a ship to remove them. There was a residue of ash or lye left behind that suggested the same. Tannic acid was also present which could be indicative of Polish Oak used in many of the East India ships of the time, such as those of Danish origin.

I explained in much more detail regarding the history of ship building and the sources of shipbuilding materials, different types of woods and where they came from in another thread "Captain Kidd's treasure found" in the "Treasure in the news!" subsection/category. Following is the reply posted there:

The independent archaeologist John Debry did not say that the silver bar it was irrefutable proof Capt. Kidd's treasure had been found, what was left out of his statement was the he also said that more scientific evidence was needed and mentioned that analysis of the wood, among other things, was needed to determine if Clifford was dealing with English oak or not. His ship, the "Adventure Galley," was built in England in, I believe, 1696. Other pirate ships are almost certainly sunk in that bay so it could also be from another ship.

There is evidence to suggest Kidd's ship the Adventure Galley was not initially built in England, but instead was launched at Castle's yard after being refitted for it's future task with the English. Prior to this it was a merchant ship without such armament. This also explains why the Adventure Galley was so poorly built, and why so soon after launching it was badly in need of new sails and rigging in just over 9 months of service. She was also leaking from the get-go probably after being retrofit with so much added weight.

The most probable birth of the ship was like many other of the East India ships of Danish origins that were pressed into service. At the time many, if not most, of the East India ships had the added ability to maneuver using oars, and very few of the English ships had that ability. And it would only be fitting, that Captain Kidds having been given letters of marque to help support and defend the East India trade routes (a task that even overshadowed the task to protect the Crown's sovereignty, which was the English Navy's burden) should have acquired the ship through East India contacts. At the time England was not in the habit of giving up one of her prized naval vessels. They couldn't, and wouldn't.

So the English Oak probably would prove the exact opposite, that it wasn't the Adventure Galley, which launched in 1695 after refitting, sailed in April of 1696, and was so badly worn by January of 1697 as to need major repairs and maintenance near Madagascar. And this was just the beginning of the Adventure Galleys woes. This was no NEW ship! If there is a way to distinguish between English Oak vs. that from Poland, and it turned out to be Polish Oak, then the chances would be greater that it was the Adventure Galley, but not proof positive. Most Danish ships used Oak from Poland regions like Vestula, or various timbers from Lower Saxony (and various other regions like Luneberger, Heidi, or Westfalia) in Germany. (Possibly they can tell the difference considering the age and circumstances, like being submerged for so long, by using dendrochronology.)

One would also wonder, towards the end of his various journeys would Kidd have entrusted his wealth and treasure to the holds of his most UNSEAWORTHY vessel? Isn't that why they kept the more seaworthy ships, in Kidd's and the crew's own testimony? It is a matter of record and fact his treasures were moved to his "Quedagh Merchant Adventure Prize" (previously just "Quedagh Merchant") and eventually offloaded from there in Santa Catalina.

Food for thought!!!

 

[au-artifax]

Well it is time to put to bed another Kidd inspired hoax. This hoax generally is regarding the various "maps" thought by some to have been left behind by Kidd. Some more recent evidence has surfaced to support my debate against the maps being real. Here are my main arguments, and pics to use as reference (There aren't many so don't worry):

A. All of the various maps depict the same island, one which nobody has ever found an exact image. Poor misdirected Richard Knight thought he did, but he ignored evidence suggesting he was wrong. Well you can see by this photo of a seventeenth century navigational chart that there indeed was an image of the exact island the maps were referencing. That island was Gardiners Island, and considering Kidd would have referenced those charts, that is what Gardiners Island looked like TO HIM.






B. Notice the writing on this Kidd map where it says China Sea. In the years while Kidd was sailing the seas there never was a "China Sea". At the time it was called " Ocean Oriental". It was pure faulty subjective logic for someone in the early twentieth century to think maps should have the present day China Sea depicted on them.

C. Probably the most ignored fact of all....... was that Kidd NEVER sailed past India, or "Mer Del Indes" into the Orient. No logs or records to date have him ever being there.


So what we have is someone copied a drawing Kidd made of Gardiners Island, probably not by direct observation, but of documents transposed in the House Of Commons. Kidd drew an image of where the buried items were in the Gardiner's Island orchard. I mentioned just above that Kid was never "there", but it seems there isn't or wasn 't ever a " there"..... if we are to think about a non existent seventeenth century "China Sea".

Yep....reinforces my (supported) opinion that treasure exists, but was misdirected and did not end up where Kidd had directed.

And the search continues, without a " map" found in some furniture made at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth century.

Moral of this post, "you cannot know what happened in the past without first putting yourself there". If you want to extrapolate where someone went, what they did, or why they did something, long ago, ... use reference materials that let you see through their eyes the way it was.

 

[Dr. Syn]

Nice detective work!
And some advice. Let someone know where you are going, so that if you don't come back they will know where to look for you.
And on that vein, take a rope along, tie it off to something solid, and to yourself. If you are digging above a hollow area, you may make a small mistake, cave it in, and you may follow.

 

[tott]

witch ship supposedly sunk in the hudson river?

 

[au-artifax]

Nice detective work!
And some advice. Let someone know where you are going, so that if you don't come back they will know where to look for you.
And on that vein, take a rope along, tie it off to something solid, and to yourself. If you are digging above a hollow area, you may make a small mistake, cave it in, and you may follow.

All very very good advice and thanks. There are a few ways I imagine I could get trapped or incapacitated in this situation. As for the void, it doesn't seem too big as to think it would devour me or anything, but still might hold some unpleasant surprise. How the void was created could be something as simple as an item settling as the clay remained as a solid casing, or because of it's proximity to water it could be far worse.... a cistern of some kind. I don't see any mineralization or material which would erode or dissolve with the yearly flooding, so that is out. I plan on doing some stratification sampling come spring, after the flooding, on the river banks to see if I can find any more of the grey clay layering such as that at my target location.

With snow in the forecast it will leave me wanting. The snow wouldn't keep me from digging, but the tracks would be a sure sign saying "come hither" to anyone that happens by in the immediate future.

Maybe what I can do is find a good auger to wrestle some deep samples out before I go further. Again, because I want to be hush hush, I hesitate to tote in a detector. I would like to do that anyways, because I believe there might be a few relics of interest from the early 1800,s buried all along the area I am at. Not yet though.

Eyes wide open diggers!!!!!!

More to come.....

 

[Dr. Syn]

Hmm, just had an odd thought about your void. Isn't there a cemetery on the island? Maybe you hit a grave. Or a treasure cache made to look like a grave.
I hope for the latter for you.

 

[au-artifax]

Sorry. No island, which might be the only thing dissimilar to the earlier buried treasure recovered. As I have mentioned before, maybe here or in another blog, humans are creatures of habit. If they felt burying the first (instalment) offered security, then a second would most likely also be buried. If a grove of trees offered a stable and locatable location, then a similar location would be chosen for a second treasure. There was an opportunity, a means, a desire, and the ability for Captain Cornelius Quick to travel up the Ct river to a location NEAR a settled area but out of sight. This site would bare similarities to the other location. If my speculation that Gardiner's testimony was intended to deceive the authorities ( Lord Bellomont for example, or others all the way to The House of Commons), then it is possible a second treasure was buried up river. I explained already how the sloop with Capt. Quick and Whisking Clarke could not have been seen coming from Oyster Pan Bay from his location. I also explained how Quick and Thomas Paine perjured themselves in New York court saying they never received any goods from Capt. Kidd. We know this because of their own admissions and testimony given in Boston. They did this with impunity because perjury in the NY colony was not a crime in the MA colony. Valuables were also found in Sir Thomas Paine lodging, as were some in Capt Quicks.

There was very little comparing of notes and communication back in the later 1700,s, both intentional and due to the distance and time between peoples, places, and events.

So, we all can keep talking about islands with newer and ever changing vegetative states, which are continuously eroding, or we could set out sights on areas that have trees 320+ year old trees in abundance.

Does anyone see the light here?



Another find, the remains of a fork, once used to dine with aboard ship during the time of Kidd's demise. The tips and handle are missing due to decomposition, but who knows. It is invigorating to think it may have been in the hands of Kidd or one of his crew members.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Sorry. No island, which might be the only thing dissimilar to the earlier buried treasure recovered. As I have mentioned before, maybe here or in another blog, humans are creatures of habit. If they felt burying the first (instalment) offered security, then a second would most likely also be buried. If a grove of trees offered a stable and locatable location, then a similar location would be chosen for a second treasure. There was an opportunity, a means, a desire, and the ability for Captain Cornelius Quick to travel up the Ct river to a location NEAR a settled area but out of sight. This site would bare similarities to the other location. If my speculation that Gardiner's testimony was intended to deceive the authorities ( Lord Bellomont for example, or others all the way to The House of Commons), then it is possible a second treasure was buried up river. I explained already how the sloop with Capt. Quick and Whisking Clarke could not have been seen coming from Oyster Pan Bay from his location. I also explained how Quick and Thomas Paine perjured themselves in New York court saying they never received any goods from Capt. Kidd. We know this because of their own admissions and testimony given in Boston. They did this with impunity because perjury in the NY colony was not a crime in the MA colony. Valuables were also found in Sir Thomas Paine lodging, as were some in Capt Quicks.

There was very little comparing of notes and communication back in the later 1700,s, both intentional and due to the distance and time between peoples, places, and events.

So, we all can keep talking about islands with newer and ever changing vegetative states, which are continuously eroding, or we could set out sights on areas that have trees 320+ year old trees in abundance.

Does anyone see the light here?

View attachment 1352020

Another find, the remains of a fork, once used to dine with aboard ship during the time of Kidd's demise. The tips and handle are missing due to decomposition, but who knows. It is invigorating to think it may have been in the hands of Kidd or one of his crew members.

Kinda big... a Wrench, maybe...?

 

[ECS]

Kinda big... a Wrench, maybe...?

Was Kidd known to be a motormouth?

 

[DFX DAVE in M.D.]

On the General Discussion forum here on TNET. A person claiming to be a producer for The Travel Channel is looking for people hunting for Capt. Kidds Treasures. http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/general-discussion/513361-captain-kidd-hunters-wanted.html

 

[au-artifax]

Kinda big... a Wrench, maybe...?

If you were to hold it in your hand as I have, there is no doubt. It is not (large?) as you have indicated, but tell me, out of curiosity, what visual clues made you think k it was "large"? It is the remains of a two tined fork.


Here is a similar artifact to compare:

Fork — Iron (17th- and 18th- century occupation layers) This fork and other common household utensils were thrown away when they broke beyond repair.



Hope this helps

 

[Honest Samuel]

I am wondering if the good captain buried treasures that is still buried.