The Captain Kidd Treasure Maps and Oak Island

[gjb]

Just as there are those who declare that they know for a fact that the Wilkins-Kidd and Palmer-Kidd maps are fake there are people who declare they know for a fact that Oak Island was never intended to be the location of a deposit of any form. Furthermore, there are some on these forums who declare that they know both for certain and refuse to concede that they could possibly be wrong.

What both groups absolutely refuse to contemplate is that the two cases might be related. Oak Island naysayers claim that there is no evidence of a planned deposit without even pausing to consider whether the evidence may actually exist in the form of the instructions on the maps that are so readily dismissed as fake. In this respect, might the examination of potential Oak Island evidence have been altogether too casual and even prejudiced?

The suggestion clearly appears doubtful to many, even preposterous, but why should it be declared absolutely impossible? Isn’t the perception of impossibility simply that the odds against appear to be particularly high, perhaps astronomical, or even approaching infinity if you wish? However, why must there absolutely not be the slightest, the merest, suspicion of doubt?

Why must it be deemed ludicrous even to contemplate the possibility and near-insanity to investigate it? Surely, nobody actually knows for certain either way. It’s not as if anyone can read the minds of people centuries dead!

I appreciate that nobody really wants to investigate this, but since I long ago considered it worthwhile taking a shot at I’m taking the liberty of providing a walk-through of the entire process as I saw it and as I undertook it over the years.

The suggestion is that there is a single set of rules governing the formulation of all five instruction sets provided by the maps and that the matching of these clues to a geometrical pattern on Oak Island may well provide the ‘missing’ evidence of a planned deposit.

 

[Cryptid1990]

You have already been disproven. Wilkins admitted he made up his maps (at least two of them). They are imaginary, as are the instructions.

That said, if you (delusionally) believe they are real it makes no sense to believe they relate to Oak Island. The instructions or clues on two of the maps mention palm trees. There are no palm trees on Oak Island. To get around this discrepancy you change the instructions by removing the word palm to only say tree. Not only do you change the instructions to fit your preconceived idea but you omit details from the instructions that do not fit your preconceived idea. For example, you entirely omit the following instructions from one of Wilkins' maps (despite selectively quoting another part):

The reason you omit these instructions or clues is they mention coral reefs and coral of sand (hardly applicable to Oak Island).

Your approach is incredibly subjective.

If you start changing these instructions - then they can apply to anywhere which is futile. This reminds me of Atlantis:

"By judicious selection of those parts of Plato’s account which fit, and rejection of those which do not as distortions or exaggerations, a case can be made for almost any part of the world as the site of a historical Atlantis, and indeed it is hard to find any part of the world which has not been proposed at one time or another." (Vitaliano, 1973)

 

[Bocaj]

I appreciate that nobody really wants to investigate this, but since I long ago considered it worthwhile taking a shot at I’m taking the liberty of providing a walk-through of the entire process as I saw it and as I undertook it over the years.

Seems I am Mr. Nobody then. I always tried to make sense of those maps - independent of when, who created them and if they point to anything useful. This said my interest in your solution is very limited as it does ignore all those map features that do not agree with it.

I do understand math and as such I know that is also very dangerous to use it the way many here do. There are many symmetries in numerology and it is easy to let any pairs of numbers to point really to anything with the method you (and many others) use.

I prefer the simple over the complex solution and I did explain quite many of the map's details using them as they are without applying formulas etc. They are nautical terms (why does almost everyone here ignore this?). Also they describe geographical features like cliffs, hills, coves, bays and a volcano. Almost none of those are found on OI. Same with plants and animals. No Turtles on OI. Wood and Woods being marked only in selected places means limited vegetation. Also not fitting for an island like OI. A clear dead reckoning instruction is taken totally out of context. "and by ..." -means: up to (not following that course up to the beach or any other obstacle). Clear nautical term.

Those constantly claim that everyone ignores them but are ignorant of what others have to say themselves. Not even commenting on it!

This all has given a bad name to whoever researches those maps and pirate treasure in general. Speculation without facts. Blind believe in some spot ignoring all the facts that do not fit it.

 

[Cryptid1990]

Seems I am Mr. Nobody then. I always tried to make sense of those maps - independent of when, who created them and if they point to anything useful. This said my interest in your solution is very limited as it does ignore all those map features that do not agree with it.

I do understand math and as such I know that is also very dangerous to use it the way many here do. There are many symmetries in numerology and it is easy to let any pairs of numbers to point really to anything with the method you (and many others) use.

I prefer the simple over the complex solution and I did explain quite many of the map's details using them as they are without applying formulas etc. They are nautical terms (why does almost everyone here ignore this?). Also they describe geographical features like cliffs, hills, coves, bays and a volcano. Almost none of those are found on OI. Same with plants and animals. No Turtles on OI. Wood and Woods being marked only in selected places means limited vegetation. Also not fitting for an island like OI. A clear dead reckoning instruction is taken totally out of context. "and by ..." -means: up to (not following that course up to the beach or any other obstacle). Clear nautical term.

Those constantly claim that everyone ignores them but are ignorant of what others have to say themselves. Not even commenting on it!

This all has given a bad name to whoever researches those maps and pirate treasure in general. Speculation without facts. Blind believe in some spot ignoring all the facts that do not fit it.

I've 100% solved the Kidd-Palmer maps. I am just wondering what to do. If I made a new thread or posted the proof in my own thread, I do not think I would get credit. I will probably have to publish an article. I am in a state of shock myself. I solved it only a few minutes ago by finding the map the Kidd-Palmer maps are based on. I knew I was on the right track from comments I earlier posted on this forum and now managed to find the original map the Kidd-Palmer maps were based (there is no doubt). I will decide what to do over next few days...

 

[Bocaj]

I've 100% solved the Kidd-Palmer maps. I am just wondering what to do. If I made a new thread or posted the proof in my own thread, I do not think I would get credit. I will probably have to publish an article. I am in a state of shock myself. I solved it only a few minutes ago by finding the map the Kidd-Palmer maps are based on. I knew I was on the right track from comments I earlier posted on this forum and now managed to find the original map the Kidd-Palmer maps were based (there is no doubt). I will decide what to do over next few days...

I just hope it isn't a real place otherwise the publication could spoil another island paradise. Well I guess from what your have posted before it is sourced from some work of fiction. It will certainly be interesting what comes out at the end of your long research.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Yet another new "what if", "could it be", storyline from gjb.

The book must not be selling.

 

[Cryptid1990]

I just hope it isn't a real place otherwise the publication could spoil another island paradise. Well I guess from what your have posted before it is sourced from some work of fiction. It will certainly be interesting what comes out at the end of your long research.

It will take me several months to publish the article so I might as well post the thread today or tomorrow. I can later link to the thread in my article and will post my initials in the thread. Shortly after posting the thread I will be taking a break from here and will work on the manuscript. Hopefully the article will be published by end of the year. I intend to publish the article in an open-access journal (perhaps The Mariner's Mirror) so it will not be paywalled and anyone can read it for free.

 

[Cryptid1990]

@gjb, I would be interested in what you remember from the drawing of the island you were shown in the file you were granted access. It is possible you were showed a drawing of the island I found that is certainly what the Kidd-Palmer maps were based on but you did not know where the drawing was from or the person who showed it to you did not either make the correct identification.

 

[CapnGeorge]

Just as there are those who declare that they know for a fact that the Wilkins-Kidd and Palmer-Kidd maps are fake there are people who declare they know for a fact that Oak Island was never intended to be the location of a deposit of any form. Furthermore, there are some on these forums who declare that they know both for certain and refuse to concede that they could possibly be wrong.

What both groups absolutely refuse to contemplate is that the two cases might be related. Oak Island naysayers claim that there is no evidence of a planned deposit without even pausing to consider whether the evidence may actually exist in the form of the instructions on the maps that are so readily dismissed as fake. In this respect, might the examination of potential Oak Island evidence have been altogether too casual and even prejudiced?

The suggestion clearly appears doubtful to many, even preposterous, but why should it be declared absolutely impossible? Isn’t the perception of impossibility simply that the odds against appear to be particularly high, perhaps astronomical, or even approaching infinity if you wish? However, why must there absolutely not be the slightest, the merest, suspicion of doubt?

Why must it be deemed ludicrous even to contemplate the possibility and near-insanity to investigate it? Surely, nobody actually knows for certain either way. It’s not as if anyone can read the minds of people centuries dead!

I appreciate that nobody really wants to investigate this, but since I long ago considered it worthwhile taking a shot at I’m taking the liberty of providing a walk-through of the entire process as I saw it and as I undertook it over the years.

The suggestion is that there is a single set of rules governing the formulation of all five instruction sets provided by the maps and that the matching of these clues to a geometrical pattern on Oak Island may well provide the ‘missing’ evidence of a planned deposit.

I just dropped in on TreasureNet, after an absence, to see if there is anything new, and yes, the subject is now Oak Island! Geoff looks like he's trying to raise new interest. The Laguna brothers have been looking for years, spending millions of dollars in the process, and still no sign of gold. I don't think Kidd - or someone- buried a treasure 100ft+ down. Yet man-made evidence of timbers has been found in their latest dig/hole at the 100-foot level- subsequently flooding, as did the original pit diggings. It remains a mystery. The only possible connection I ever found for Kidd and OI was that his cabin boy, Richard Barlicorn, was dropped off in these parts, after Kidd's hanging, when it was considered prudent that he be far away from anything to do with Kidd. It is said that the family who took him in said that he (Barlicorn) spoke of Kidd visiting the area. We will never know if any of this is true. But pirates digging a hole 100 feet deep, Never!
Geoff's part statement;....the evidence may actually exist in the form of the instructions on the maps that are so readily dismissed as fakes.' Yes, anyone with common sense, who has done the research and gathered the evidence, knows that the maps are fake, I have shown you all how and why many times. The fact is, whilst the maps are fake, some of the fake instructions hide real clues. If you accept that Wilkins created the charts (maybe with some help, I won't mention Hill Cutler!) then he created clues to the real objective on the charts, no formulae or complicated maths, his key was to just put 1 in front of the Lat and long quoted, when you work out the meridian used, it all becomes clear. There are further clear clues in the other charts/maps he created, - when you know what you are looking for. The topography, as pointed out, is another clear clue. Mentioned many times in his writings is a reference to; Palms, coral banks, sand, beach etc etc. None of this at OI or Juan Fernandez Island, but abundant on islands in the South Pacific.

 

[Cryptid1990]

I just dropped in on TreasureNet, after an absence, to see if there is anything new, and yes, the subject is now Oak Island! Geoff looks like he's trying to raise new interest. The Laguna brothers have been looking for years, spending millions of dollars in the process, and still no sign of gold. I don't think Kidd - or someone- buried a treasure 100ft+ down. Yet man-made evidence of timbers has been found in their latest dig/hole at the 100-foot level- subsequently flooding, as did the original pit diggings. It remains a mystery. The only possible connection I ever found for Kidd and OI was that his cabin boy, Richard Barlicorn, was dropped off in these parts, after Kidd's hanging, when it was considered prudent that he be far away from anything to do with Kidd. It is said that the family who took him in said that he (Barlicorn) spoke of Kidd visiting the area. We will never know if any of this is true. But pirates digging a hole 100 feet deep, Never!
Geoff's part statement;....the evidence may actually exist in the form of the instructions on the maps that are so readily dismissed as fakes.' Yes, anyone with common sense, who has done the research and gathered the evidence, knows that the maps are fake, I have shown you all how and why many times. The fact is, whilst the maps are fake, some of the fake instructions hide real clues. If you accept that Wilkins created the charts (maybe with some help, I won't mention Hill Cutler!) then he created clues to the real objective on the charts, no formulae or complicated maths, his key was to just put 1 in front of the Lat and long quoted, when you work out the meridian used, it all becomes clear. There are further clear clues in the other charts/maps he created, - when you know what you are looking for. The topography, as pointed out, is another clear clue. Mentioned many times in his writings is a reference to; Palms, coral banks, sand, beach etc etc. None of this at OI or Juan Fernandez Island, but abundant on islands in the South Pacific.

You and Geoff Bath have been proven wrong about these maps. My thread with the proof is here. The Kidd-Palmer maps were based on the fictional map of Rainbow Island in the book Rainbow Island [aka Wings of the Morning] (1903) by Louis Tracy. All I can say at this point is facepalm. You are still spouting nonsense about the South Pacific?

 

[CapnGeorge]

You and Geoff Bath have been proven wrong about these maps. My thread with the proof is here. The Kidd-Palmer maps were based on the fictional map of Rainbow Island in the book Rainbow Island [aka Wings of the Morning] (1903) by Louis Tracy. All I can say at this point is facepalm. You are still spouting nonsense about the South Pacific?

I know all about Rainbow Island, nothing new there. In the China Seas or thereabouts, it's where Wilkins got some of his clues to put on his maps, The map outline again is that of Juan Fernandez Island. The book ' Wings of the Morning' is totally fiction, a classic adventure story.

 

[Cryptid1990]

I know all about Rainbow Island, nothing new there. In the China Seas or thereabouts, it's where Wilkins got some of his clues to put on his maps, The map outline again is that of Juan Fernandez Island. The book ' Wings of the Morning' is totally fiction, a classic adventure story.

Ok so you are now copying my research without attributing me? You did not know anything about Rainbow Island until you read my thread. I was the first person to find it in relation to the Kidd-Palmer maps.

 

[Cryptid1990]

I know all about Rainbow Island, nothing new there. In the China Seas or thereabouts, it's where Wilkins got some of his clues to put on his maps, The map outline again is that of Juan Fernandez Island. The book ' Wings of the Morning' is totally fiction, a classic adventure story.

Rainbow Island is fictional but in the novel it is located in the southern China Sea. It appears in Louis Tracy's book Rainbow Island [aka Wings of the Morning] published in 1903. There is no connection to Juan Fernandez Island. Tracy's book was published in the UK as Rainbow Island and Wings of the Morning in the US. The map does not appear in the US version or reprints, only UK version and reprints (up to the late 1940s). I was the first person to find this map in relation to the Kidd-Palmer maps and I was the first person to upload a digital image of the map of Rainbow Island to the internet. Physical copies of Rainbow Island (the UK title) are a lot more scarce than the US-title Wings of the Morning and the map of Rainbow Island was not digitised anywhere online (before me) hence no one before me found the map the Kidd-Palmer maps were based on and made that connection. If you are claiming otherwise, you are copying my research and trying to take the credit for what I found and the fact I am the person to have solved the Kidd-Palmer maps. This is absurd because in neither of your books or in any of your forum comments or anywhere else you commented about the Kidd-Palmer maps did you mention Rainbow Island/Tracy prior to my thread and months ago you even criticised me for saying the solution would be in a fictional book, so it is obvious you only learnt of Rainbow Island after reading my thread. I have no problem with people quoting or relying on my research but I reasonably request for credit or acknowledgement: "Anyone is free to quote any of my research but please credit me: Oliver D. Smith."

 

[Cryptid1990]

Yes, anyone with common sense, who has done the research and gathered the evidence, knows that the maps are fake, I have shown you all how and why many times.

Yes we know they are fake but this is a strange comment coming from you since you spent decades erroneously believing the Kidd-Palmer maps are authentic pirate treasure maps drawn by Captain Kidd. A quote from your book Kidd: The Search For His Treasure (1996, p. 221):

"Are they [Kidd-Palmer maps] really genuine? I am often asked. I have to answer that as far as my researches and continuing investigating will allow me - yes they are. I am 99% convinced; it is the remaining 1% that bothers me".

 

[CapnGeorge]

Yes we know they are fake but this is a strange comment coming from you since you spent decades erroneously believing the Kidd-Palmer maps are authentic pirate treasure maps drawn by Captain Kidd. A quote from your book Kidd: The Search For His Treasure (1996, p. 221):

"Are they [Kidd-Palmer maps] really genuine? I am often asked. I have to answer that as far as my researches and continuing investigating will allow me - yes they are. I am 99% convinced; it is the remaining 1% that bothers me".

Typically sly of you, and what we come to expect. So why did you not mention that in my 'Anson' book (p228) I state that it was not until starting research for that book that I became aware of the Spanish chart of Juan Fernandez and all then became clear and I greatly admired the subterfuge of Wilkins. I go on to show and admit that JFI is the key and template to the charts. It's called progressive research. So will you now explain how it is that you 'forgot' to mention page 228

 

[CapnGeorge]

Rainbow Island is fictional but in the novel it is located in the southern China Sea. It appears in Louis Tracy's book Rainbow Island [aka Wings of the Morning] published in 1903. There is no connection to Juan Fernandez Island. Tracy's book was published in the UK as Rainbow Island and Wings of the Morning in the US. The map does not appear in the US version or reprints, only UK version and reprints (up to the late 1940s). I was the first person to find this map in relation to the Kidd-Palmer maps and I was the first person to upload a digital image of the map of Rainbow Island to the internet. Physical copies of Rainbow Island (the UK title) are a lot more scarce than the US-title Wings of the Morning and the map of Rainbow Island was not digitised anywhere online (before me) hence no one before me found the map the Kidd-Palmer maps were based on and made that connection. If you are claiming otherwise, you are copying my research and trying to take the credit for what I found and the fact I am the person to have solved the Kidd-Palmer maps. This is absurd because in neither of your books or in any of your forum comments or anywhere else you commented about the Kidd-Palmer maps did you mention Rainbow Island/Tracy prior to my thread and months ago you even criticised me for saying the solution would be in a fictional book, so it is obvious you only learnt of Rainbow Island after reading my thread. I have no problem with people quoting or relying on my research but I reasonably request for credit or acknowledgement: "Anyone is free to quote any of my research but please credit me: Oliver D. Smith."

Rubbish Rubbish Rubbish! 'Wing of the Morning' has been available for over 100years. I had a copy years ago but too late to include it in my Anson book. Anyone can buy it, there is even an e-book version. You seem shy to mention that the figures on the tin chart island - 916 and 1138 are exactly those rearranged from the Anson file, with the same carved into his monument - 138 and 19. Tracy got hold of them probably from Wilkins. They both worked in Fleet Street; the younger Wilkins may have been in awe of Tracy (not his real name), who was writing adventure novels. It is highly unlikely that Tracy found the Anson file, but there is no denying he is using figures that can ultimately only have come from Anson. End of! Wilkins, very aware of these figures, hides them all over the place in his works. In this saga, the only thing of any importance are the figures, all the evidence from Anson via Wilkins that repeatidly shows itself (When you have the knowledge to work it out) is that treasure Island is Pinaki Atoll in the South Pacific. I show the facts in two books written on the subject, happy to put my name to them, If you are so clever, WHERE ARE YOUR BOOKS?

 

[Cryptid1990]

Typically sly of you, and what we come to expect. So why did you not mention that in my 'Anson' book (p228) I state that it was not until starting research for that book that I became aware of the Spanish chart of Juan Fernandez and all then became clear and I greatly admired the subterfuge of Wilkins. I go on to show and admit that JFI is the key and template to the charts. It's called progressive research. So will you now explain how it is that you 'forgot' to mention page 228

My comment was in context of your earlier comment:

Geoff's part statement;....the evidence may actually exist in the form of the instructions on the maps that are so readily dismissed as fakes.' Yes, anyone with common sense, who has done the research and gathered the evidence, knows that the maps are fake, I have shown you all how and why many times.

You've never "shown" me anything, considering my view the maps are fake was probably formed before you. Scholars such as Peter Barber were trying to tell you and Paul Hawkins the maps are fake for about a decade but you disputed or ignored them. The Kidd-Palmer maps have nothing to do with JFI. They were based on/copied from the fictional Rainbow Island map which I was the first person to discover in relation to the Kidd-Palmer maps and the first person to scan and digitise the RI map online.

 

[CapnGeorge]

My comment was in context of your earlier comment:


You've never "shown" me anything, considering my view the maps are fake was probably formed before you. Scholars such as Peter Barber were trying to tell you and Paul Hawkins the maps were fake for about a decade but you disputed or ignored them. The Kidd-Palmer maps have nothing to do with JFI. They were based on/copied from the fictional Rainbow Island map which I was the first person to discover in relation to the Kidd-Palmer maps and the first person to scan and digitise the RI map online.

Like I said - Rubbish! Without JFI there would be no charts! The whole world, except for you, can see that they were based on JFI. Why don't you have a look. Might open up new avenues for you based on reality, not fantasy. Shutting down now. If you respond, I won't see it and it would be a waste of my time anyway!

 

[Carl-NC]

If you are so clever, WHERE ARE YOUR BOOKS?

There it is, the Sage Maneuver. If you haven't written a book, you can't possibly know anything.

 

[Cryptid1990]

Rubbish Rubbish Rubbish! 'Wing of the Morning' has been available for over 100years. I had a copy years ago but too late to include it in my Anson book. Anyone can buy it, there is even an e-book version. You seem shy to mention that the figures on the tin chart island - 916 and 1138 are exactly those rearranged from the Anson file, with the same carved into his monument - 138 and 19. Tracy got hold of them probably from Wilkins. They both worked in Fleet Street; the younger Wilkins may have been in awe of Tracy (not his real name), who was writing adventure novels. It is highly unlikely that Tracy found the Anson file, but there is no denying he is using figures that can ultimately only have come from Anson. End of! Wilkins, very aware of these figures, hides them all over the place in his works. In this saga, the only thing of any importance are the figures, all the evidence from Anson via Wilkins that repeatidly shows itself (When you have the knowledge to work it out) is that treasure Island is Pinaki Atoll in the South Pacific. I show the facts in two books written on the subject, happy to put my name to them, If you are so clever, WHERE ARE YOUR BOOKS?

lol. How could "Tracy probably got hold of them [latitude and longitude] from Wilkins"? The RI map and tin cannister map with the latitude and longitude were published in Tracy's book in 1903, when Wilkins was 12 years old. Aside from the generational gap, they did not work at Fleet Street at the same time, and there is zero evidence they ever corresponded. You are making it up and I strenuously deny you knew of the 'tin chart island' until I uploaded it (there was zero mention of it, the RI map, or 'Wings of the Morning' in any of your forum posts until I created my thread). I said in the other thread, I put you on ignore and would not name you again but given this shockingly bad comment, I will no longer be responding to you. All I will say in response to what else you posted is we will have to agree to disagree. 🔚