- #41
Thread Owner
You do not provide a shred of evidence for any of your far-fetched claims in your book.
'Deadman's Island' map hoax and Cerris Francis' claims debunked
- Thread starter Cryptid1990
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 2,689
- Reaction score
- 3,357
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Washington
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
I'm careful not to make claims of absolute certainty because there is no actual proof of anything. I always rate treasure legends in terms of probabilities, very much like you claim to be doing, but I more strongly apply Occam's Razor to the evidence at hand. You, on the other hand, seem to construct theories like a Rube Goldberg* machine: a complexity of assumptions that are based on a succession of other assumptions, that ignore or outright contradict the evidence at hand and/or are highly unlikely to have even been possible.
Up until recently, I had considered the Kidd-Palmer maps to have about a 95% chance of being bogus. Now I consider those odds to be closer to 99.99%. I leave a sliver of chance that, somehow, Tracy based his fiction on a real treasure map he somehow got ahold of. But it's extremely more likely that someone fabricated the KP maps based on his fictional map. Same thing with the Deadman's Island; it's likely (I give it about 95%) that the whole thing is fake, and extremely likely (99.5%) that Snow embellished it with a fake Kidd signature.
And to be clear, yes, these are my opinions, but they do not lack evidence.
*From here on I will refer to a theory that shuns Occam's Razor as utilizing "Goldberg's Proliferation," whereby the theory is made as complicated as possible, with a maximum number of assumptions.
Last edited:
Crow
Silver Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2005
- Messages
- 4,789
- Reaction score
- 13,694
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- In a tax haven some where
- Detector(s) used
- ONES THAT GO BEEP! :-)
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Sage, you know, virtual signaling goes both ways.
So, according to you, Cryptid reviewing the previous errors of dead authors claims in finding the truth is tarnishing the memory of someone long dead? That's how fundamentalists work in a belief that foundational scriptures are unquestioned literally true and immune to error. That being said, in context, dead writers' claims in their books cannot be in error. Good research constantly finds errors in past authors' claims in the past. It is by no means disrespectful of those authors, as they were limited in the research data available to them at the time.
Also, I, too, do not know why you feel the need to reference yourself as a Freemason.
Freemasonry is a secular fraternity that represents the principles of brotherly love, relief (charity), and truth. Rooted in the traditions of medieval stonemason guilds, it uses the allegory of building to teach its members how to lead moral, honest, and charitable lives. Nothing wrong with those principles. You do not have to be in a fraternity to be of high moral character. But sadly, some people hide their true character behind the veil of freemasonry for their own self-interests.
Clearly, you have disingenuously exploited the values of freemasonry to give yourself some sort of credibility to promote and flog your book. ( I can show the link, but it's advertising, not allowed here ) under expectations that it gives you some sort of credentials for your claims in your book being true. It does not work that way. Credibility is earned by presenting the facts with evidence. You came here expecting everyone not to question your unproven claims, presenting zero credible supporting evidence. If you had presented credible evidence, I would be the first here to pat you on the back. And give congratulations to you as well as many others here.
Cryptid has presented evidence proven your claims incorrect. Yet the only retort you can provide here is that you are now lecturing and virtue signaling to Cryptid about finding errors with dead authors' research? Rather ironic when you are in breach of the Freemason moral code on truth and honesty. Being not honest with yourself and admitting that your claims have been proven incorrect time and time again. Everyone here loves treasure legends, and if they didn't, they would not be here. No shame in having a theory or attempting to write a book, either; in fact, your effort to have a go is admirable. Yet there is shame in cementing oneself into a theory, and then blindly refusing to face the blatant facts is just foolhardy.
Crow
So, according to you, Cryptid reviewing the previous errors of dead authors claims in finding the truth is tarnishing the memory of someone long dead? That's how fundamentalists work in a belief that foundational scriptures are unquestioned literally true and immune to error. That being said, in context, dead writers' claims in their books cannot be in error. Good research constantly finds errors in past authors' claims in the past. It is by no means disrespectful of those authors, as they were limited in the research data available to them at the time.
Also, I, too, do not know why you feel the need to reference yourself as a Freemason.
Freemasonry is a secular fraternity that represents the principles of brotherly love, relief (charity), and truth. Rooted in the traditions of medieval stonemason guilds, it uses the allegory of building to teach its members how to lead moral, honest, and charitable lives. Nothing wrong with those principles. You do not have to be in a fraternity to be of high moral character. But sadly, some people hide their true character behind the veil of freemasonry for their own self-interests.
Clearly, you have disingenuously exploited the values of freemasonry to give yourself some sort of credibility to promote and flog your book. ( I can show the link, but it's advertising, not allowed here ) under expectations that it gives you some sort of credentials for your claims in your book being true. It does not work that way. Credibility is earned by presenting the facts with evidence. You came here expecting everyone not to question your unproven claims, presenting zero credible supporting evidence. If you had presented credible evidence, I would be the first here to pat you on the back. And give congratulations to you as well as many others here.
Cryptid has presented evidence proven your claims incorrect. Yet the only retort you can provide here is that you are now lecturing and virtue signaling to Cryptid about finding errors with dead authors' research? Rather ironic when you are in breach of the Freemason moral code on truth and honesty. Being not honest with yourself and admitting that your claims have been proven incorrect time and time again. Everyone here loves treasure legends, and if they didn't, they would not be here. No shame in having a theory or attempting to write a book, either; in fact, your effort to have a go is admirable. Yet there is shame in cementing oneself into a theory, and then blindly refusing to face the blatant facts is just foolhardy.
Crow
Last edited:
Cryptid1990, my book has many claims that can verified by the simple process of going there, and observing things yourself because they are still there.
Hi Cryptid1999, This map with what looks like a volcano is the one thought to have been drawn by John Ware and it was not signed
Hi Crow, as I have said before as the old saying goes "birds of a feather flock together" All you guys who dominate this website and who are researchers or writer's keep people who are not away, these people are frightened to come here for fear of being humiliated. If they dare to say something that you are interested in you demand proof, if they decline to give it you and fight back you close ranks, that's because you each have a vested interest securing information by any means.
Oak Island sage
Last edited:
Hi Crow, I have not been proven incorrect regarding the Deadman Island map signed by Captain Kidd by anyone including you, it is the real last map signed by the Scottish privateer. The numerous things drawn on this D I map of the island are (or were in 1960) still there on Oak Island. The Meisner's Point and up north the coast to the East River area is the location of what is drawn and described as Ye mainland.
Have you heard the old saying, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".
Oak Island Sage
Last edited:
Hi Crow, my claims regarding the Deadman Island map have not be proven wrong, but hey! if it makes you happy to say so, you'll always have the support of your inept buddies who crave information they can't find and have unless it's given to them on a plate.
Oak Island Sage
Hi Crow, the only thing that is blatantly obvious to me about you is this, you are like an Ostrich who buries his head in the sand and feels that if it cannot see something then it doesn't exist.
Oak Island Sage
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=fb04...Gl0ZSt0bytub25tYXNvbnMmZm9ybT1DU0JSQU5E&ntb=1
Core principle: Masons are expected to be courteous and respectful to non-Masons, even if they are not Masons, because the Craft’s reputation and the moral example of its members depend on how they are perceived by the public
Masonic Rule on Being Polite to Non-Masons
In Freemasonry, the “rule of being polite to non-Masons” is rooted in the Craft’s duty to maintain decorum and avoid causing offense when interacting with people outside the fraternity.Core principle: Masons are expected to be courteous and respectful to non-Masons, even if they are not Masons, because the Craft’s reputation and the moral example of its members depend on how they are perceived by the public
Last edited:
[On Masonic occasions where non-Masons are invited, there are three rules of etiquette and protocol to be applied:
a. Non-Masons are not asked or expected to participate in any ceremonies or formalities which are themselves Masonic.
b. The non-Masons are present as guests; the Masons are the hosts; the guest-host relationship is therefore observed.
c. There are some usages of etiquette which belong to esoteric Masonry and are never employed when non-Masons are present. Other usages are not esoteric and as such may be employed as are appropriate, at the discretion of the Worshipful Master. The order-of-precedence protocol observed during Masonic processions, for example, are non-esoteric and may be used when non-Masons are present and at a Masonic banquet when ladies are guests.]
a. Non-Masons are not asked or expected to participate in any ceremonies or formalities which are themselves Masonic.
b. The non-Masons are present as guests; the Masons are the hosts; the guest-host relationship is therefore observed.
c. There are some usages of etiquette which belong to esoteric Masonry and are never employed when non-Masons are present. Other usages are not esoteric and as such may be employed as are appropriate, at the discretion of the Worshipful Master. The order-of-precedence protocol observed during Masonic processions, for example, are non-esoteric and may be used when non-Masons are present and at a Masonic banquet when ladies are guests.]
- #51
Thread Owner
You have been proven incorrect multiple times. As I already explained:
Copyright allows derivative works, such adaptations, modifications or redrawings (provided the derivative is not identical to the original or rather it has to have a modicum of an original, creative expression). Snow heavily embellished an older map in 1946 by adding Kidd/Ware signatures, Jolly Roger flag, adding the name "Deadman's Island", and so on. Courts generally rule that if a derivative work lacks "original creativity" it cannot be considered a new copyright. Also, derivative works by copyright only cover the new creative elements that are added.
Last edited:
Hi guys, I will leave you hotshots to believe whatever you want, I hard tried to help you all by attempting to lead you in the right direction but I came too late, and the group resistance was too strong, and some people do love to play the devils advocate.
A summary of my findings and theories.
The signed Deadman Island was drawn by Captain Kidd.
The CAD of the subterranean system, and why no treasure was put in the Money Pit which was actually a sand sump.
The location of "Ye Mainland" is at Meisner Point.
The numerus similarities between the signed Deadman Island map and those found on Oak Island, like the triangular pond, a freshwater stream and a swamp, the same islands are also there.
The Secret Jetty anchorage are still there at Joudary Cove.
The memorial stone to Captain Kidd is still there on Cape Breton Island.
Trying to help you all was like flogging a dead horse, well I am done with this trivial pursuit now, just believe what you want and use AI to your hearts content.
Good luck as you each pursue your individual fools errand that will lead you - nowhere, just like the present treasure hunters of Cerca Trova working in the Money Pit area - you'll see.
You could have learnt some things of value from me but in short - you blew it.
Oak Island Sage
A summary of my findings and theories.
The signed Deadman Island was drawn by Captain Kidd.
The CAD of the subterranean system, and why no treasure was put in the Money Pit which was actually a sand sump.
The location of "Ye Mainland" is at Meisner Point.
The numerus similarities between the signed Deadman Island map and those found on Oak Island, like the triangular pond, a freshwater stream and a swamp, the same islands are also there.
The Secret Jetty anchorage are still there at Joudary Cove.
The memorial stone to Captain Kidd is still there on Cape Breton Island.
Trying to help you all was like flogging a dead horse, well I am done with this trivial pursuit now, just believe what you want and use AI to your hearts content.
Good luck as you each pursue your individual fools errand that will lead you - nowhere, just like the present treasure hunters of Cerca Trova working in the Money Pit area - you'll see.
You could have learnt some things of value from me but in short - you blew it.
Oak Island Sage
Last edited:
You know you're having a bad day when even your creative fiction writing gets disproven.
BAW
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2020
- Messages
- 171
- Reaction score
- 579
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
It may be significant that the area which we are told is modern-day Meisner Point is labeled on the maps “Logwood” or “Where ye Spaniards cut logwood”. Logwood is one of the common names for Haematoxylum Campecheanum, a flowering tropical tree native to Central America and Southern Mexico. Cutting and.stealing logwood, the source of a valuable dyestuff, was a common activity among British pirates of the 17th century. (See logwood on Wikipedia to learn more about this.) Being familiar with logwood and its value, it seems likely that if a 17th century pirate said “logwood “ he meant “logwood “ , not “wood logs” or any other strained interpretation of the phrase. Logwood tree, as I said, are native to tropical Mexico. They do not grow in Nova Scotia and it seems unlikely that a map that shows them as reference points could be showing Oak Island.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 2,689
- Reaction score
- 3,357
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Washington
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Sage, before you're off for good, take a gander at this. It's mainly for you.
A good way to compare the Deadman's Map with reality is to overlay it on Google Earth:
Google labels the coves as Sellars Cove, Sheerdam Cove, and Smith Cove whereas tradition has them as Joudrey Cove, Smith Cove, and South Shore Cove, respectively. I will refer to the Google names in this post.
The first thing to note is whether the general size/shape of DMI resembles OI. One can argue that it has a similar aspect ratio that is even oriented correctly, but that's about all. We can't judge size because there is no scale indication for DMI. Overall, the shape and features of DMI do not align well with OI.
Let's be generous and say that "false bay" is actually Sellars Cove and the anchor bay is actually Sheerdam Cove. This means a river has to come out at Sheerdom Cove and there is no river there.
Let's instead say that the anchor bay is actually Sellars Cove and the river is the swamp. But then the false bay matches nothing and Sheerdam Cove (a very prominent feature of the island) is completely missing.
Reality:
Reality:
This shows the elevation relative to the actual length of the island (~0.8 miles). This is just the land; if we imagine that the island was forested with 100-foot tall trees then it might have looked like this:
The DMI map includes a profile from the south that places a significant peak at about where the swamp is on OI. Proportionally speaking (assuming DMI is the same physical size as OI), the peak on DMI is quite tall. Below is the DMI profile scaled to the same width as the sketches above. One could easily argue that the predominant height of the island correlates well with the forested profile sketch above, but the peak is an anomaly that cannot be ignored. Besides the peak being in the wrong place (the swamp), it is way too narrow compared to the much broader elevation changes on OI, and way too tall.
Reality:
Booby Isle off the SE corner of DMI has no correlation to anything off OI, unless you pretend it might be Squid Island. But the position and shape of Squid Island are nowhere close to that of Booby Island.
On the NE corner of DMI there are seemingly 2 more islets with a wreck between them. Like Booby Island, there is nothing around OI that correlates. One could look to Frog Island and Apple Island for hope, but their positions and shapes are an even worse fit than Squid Island was.
Finally, there is the issue of the mainland to the east of DMI, and a complete lack of a mainland to the west. Regardless of what anyone would like to believe as to why this might have been done, it would still amount to cartographic malpractice to so grossly misrepresent the location of OI as being directly off the west shore of a mainland when, in fact, it almost touches the east shore.
Reality:
This is probably the most important piece of information you could put on a map when trying to identify a particular island because it is what you will literally be looking for as you approach from the south. Therefore, accuracy of the profie is critical; there is little room for discrepancy. The DMI profile clearly shows that you will see the "rock" to the left, the main island with a significant peak a little to the right of center, and Booby Island visually touching DMI. This is exactly what a sailor should expect to see on approach.
Yet an approach to OI from the south looks nothing like that. If the "rock" on the left is actually Round Island, then Round Island would be completely obscured by the mainland (Crandall Point); you would not be able to see Round Island until you were very close to OI. And this is an important point: with the mainland to the west of OI omitted from both the birdseye view and the profile of DMI, there is no way any reasonable sailor would conclude that OI is DMI. Here is a Google Earth profile view of OI from the south:
Reality:
A good way to compare the Deadman's Map with reality is to overlay it on Google Earth:
Google labels the coves as Sellars Cove, Sheerdam Cove, and Smith Cove whereas tradition has them as Joudrey Cove, Smith Cove, and South Shore Cove, respectively. I will refer to the Google names in this post.
The first thing to note is whether the general size/shape of DMI resembles OI. One can argue that it has a similar aspect ratio that is even oriented correctly, but that's about all. We can't judge size because there is no scale indication for DMI. Overall, the shape and features of DMI do not align well with OI.
Let's be generous and say that "false bay" is actually Sellars Cove and the anchor bay is actually Sheerdam Cove. This means a river has to come out at Sheerdom Cove and there is no river there.
Let's instead say that the anchor bay is actually Sellars Cove and the river is the swamp. But then the false bay matches nothing and Sheerdam Cove (a very prominent feature of the island) is completely missing.
Reality:
- The north-side DMI bays/coves simply don't correlate with OI coves, even with a lot of hand-waving.
- The DMI river correlates to nothing on OI, not even the swamp which is southward-oriented.
Reality:
- The DMI map is completely missing the largest cove on OI.
This shows the elevation relative to the actual length of the island (~0.8 miles). This is just the land; if we imagine that the island was forested with 100-foot tall trees then it might have looked like this:
The DMI map includes a profile from the south that places a significant peak at about where the swamp is on OI. Proportionally speaking (assuming DMI is the same physical size as OI), the peak on DMI is quite tall. Below is the DMI profile scaled to the same width as the sketches above. One could easily argue that the predominant height of the island correlates well with the forested profile sketch above, but the peak is an anomaly that cannot be ignored. Besides the peak being in the wrong place (the swamp), it is way too narrow compared to the much broader elevation changes on OI, and way too tall.
Reality:
- The peak on DMI has no correlation on OI.
Booby Isle off the SE corner of DMI has no correlation to anything off OI, unless you pretend it might be Squid Island. But the position and shape of Squid Island are nowhere close to that of Booby Island.
On the NE corner of DMI there are seemingly 2 more islets with a wreck between them. Like Booby Island, there is nothing around OI that correlates. One could look to Frog Island and Apple Island for hope, but their positions and shapes are an even worse fit than Squid Island was.
Finally, there is the issue of the mainland to the east of DMI, and a complete lack of a mainland to the west. Regardless of what anyone would like to believe as to why this might have been done, it would still amount to cartographic malpractice to so grossly misrepresent the location of OI as being directly off the west shore of a mainland when, in fact, it almost touches the east shore.
Reality:
- The SW rock is in the same location as Round Island, but Round Island is not a rock so this is poor correlation at best.
- There in no corresponding feature for Booby Island.
- There is no corresponding feature for for the two NE islets.
- The depiction of the mainland bears no resemblance to OI.
This is probably the most important piece of information you could put on a map when trying to identify a particular island because it is what you will literally be looking for as you approach from the south. Therefore, accuracy of the profie is critical; there is little room for discrepancy. The DMI profile clearly shows that you will see the "rock" to the left, the main island with a significant peak a little to the right of center, and Booby Island visually touching DMI. This is exactly what a sailor should expect to see on approach.
Yet an approach to OI from the south looks nothing like that. If the "rock" on the left is actually Round Island, then Round Island would be completely obscured by the mainland (Crandall Point); you would not be able to see Round Island until you were very close to OI. And this is an important point: with the mainland to the west of OI omitted from both the birdseye view and the profile of DMI, there is no way any reasonable sailor would conclude that OI is DMI. Here is a Google Earth profile view of OI from the south:
Reality:
- The DMI profile generally bears no resemblence to OI.
- The lack of a mainland to the west of DMI is a critial flaw in the profile.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 2,689
- Reaction score
- 3,357
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Washington
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Sorry, depending on your brower and zoom level, the profiles above may not match. Here they are combined:
Carl-NC, You cannot sensibly compare a modern google map overlay or a satellite image with John Wares crude map of Deadman Island, he did not have the benefit of a birds eye view, Captain Kidd's version is better but the same thing applies. In 1699 Oak Island may have looked a bit different and you also have to remember these various treasure maps had some misleading information deliberate included on them.
I have already explained explained that the Meisner point (and the coast line right up to the East River area)is ten miles away to the East of Oak Island across Mahone Bay.
What is referred to as logwood simply means logs cut by the Spanish, these could be stolen and utilized in the construction of the several shafts used in the subterranean mining network of linked flood tunnels, they were certain not interested in manufacturing dye. Captain Henry Every's men spent two years cutting a huge stock pile of log in Campeachy Bay which is located in the Great Bay of Mexico.
Oak Island Sage
I have already explained explained that the Meisner point (and the coast line right up to the East River area)is ten miles away to the East of Oak Island across Mahone Bay.
What is referred to as logwood simply means logs cut by the Spanish, these could be stolen and utilized in the construction of the several shafts used in the subterranean mining network of linked flood tunnels, they were certain not interested in manufacturing dye. Captain Henry Every's men spent two years cutting a huge stock pile of log in Campeachy Bay which is located in the Great Bay of Mexico.
Oak Island Sage
- #59
Thread Owner
The parchment map and Snow's Deadman Island map do resemble old maps of Oak Island.
Map from 1929 (based on earlier surveys):
- #60
Thread Owner
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Sponsored Vendors
View all →
