The Captain Kidd Treasure Maps and Oak Island

[CapnGeorge]

I will give the forum member I put on ignore one chance to substantiate his claims.


I own a copy of Anson's Gold. There is not a single mention of Rainbow Island (or Louis Tracy) in it nor a reproduction of the RI map from the novel (I was the first to scan and upload to the internet). Your book has a bibliography but does not either mention Tracy (nor his birth name) or any of his literature. If you are claiming you somehow knew of the tin cannister/RI map before me in relation to the Kidd-Palmer maps, where is your evidence? None of your books mention either the tin cannister or Rainbow Island (RI) map and none of your internet comments mentioned or alluded to either of these prior to my thread (you obviously read). As another poster pointed out: "someone coming out after somebodies else discovery claiming to have known all along without any evidence smells at least extremely bad."

To remind readers, the following is what you were instead claiming in Anson's Gold:

View attachment 2257932

You were evidently oblivious to the Rainbow Island map and instead claimed the Kidd-Palmer maps were based on a completely different map dated 1795 (Juan Fernandez Island aka Robinson Crusoe Island) by inverting it. Of course, you are wrong about that as well. The hoaxer who drew the Kidd-Palmer maps did not use an 18th century Juan Fernandez map at all but the Rainbow Island map. The Juan Fernandez map does not have a lagoon or similar topography to what appears on the Skeleton Map and the fact you have to invert the maps to show a superficial resemblance in shape only shows you are (to quote Sherlock Holmes): "twist[ing] facts to suit theories". As further evidence you did not know of the RI map (before me), your book (and internet comments you posted) were incorrectly claiming that 'Smuggler's Cove' on the Skeleton Map, is on the Juan Fernandez Island map as 'Padre Bay':

View attachment 2257934
So much for your book solving the Kidd-Palmer maps. You were not even close and way off the mark.

Smuggler's Cove on the Skeleton Map has nothing to do with Padre Bay on the Juan Fernandez Island map. As I proved in my own thread (and was the first to do so), Smuggler's Cove was copied from Smuggler's Cove on the RI map (it is the exact same annotated place name on both maps and in the same position). Nothing whatsoever to do with Padre Bay.


There is no latitude and longitude written on "Anson's monument". I presume you mean the Shugborough inscription:

View attachment 2257935
The staff at Shugborough Hall have stated they get "five or six people a week who believe they have solved the code so we are a bit wary of them now." You claim to have deciphered or solved the inscription alongside thousands of other people who are non-experts. There is no evidence to begin with that O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V is a cryptogram (that requires a cipher); for example, some propose a much more mundane solution: the letters are merely graffiti or commemorative initials of past estate owners. I am not aware of a single academic who has ever taken your idea seriously and a search of your book on Google Scholar produces zero results. Your book was published a decade ago but does not have a single academic citation and the fact you published your far-fetched theory in a vanity-press book rather than a peer-reviewed article in a journal speaks for itself. Your book is highly speculative and pseudohistory like The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.*

For readers who do not own the book, page 519:

View attachment 2257954
There is no evidence presented in the book that there is a "hidden" latitude and longitude in the inscription. It is all speculation and guesswork with numbers, albeit that is very implausible. I personally prefer a much more simple solution to what the inscription means.

*Anson's Gold in fact references The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and repeats unfounded claims about Rennes-le-Château.

Here we go again! more drivel and meaningless uncorroborated statements. You know darn well that in previous statements I said that I have had that book for years, but too late to include in my book. Why are you trying to contradict that?? ' You were the first to scan and upload to the internet!' Give yourself a slap on the back! I didn't need the internet, nor did all the other readers who have the book (available for over a 100 years). The map is plain and easy to see and photocopy. You seem to think you are 'God's chosen one', only you had the privilege of seeing it! What a laugh! Anyone and everyone can see that the figures came from the Anson file, also coded in the letters Webb sent back to him. I didn't make any of that up. Mind you, you need a bit of intelligence to understand it. Which brings me to |Anson's Shugborough Monument, quote; ' the letters are merely graffiti or commemorative initials of past owners'. This admirably demonstrates how ignorant you are! You haven't got a clue and are obviously on another planet. Which reminds me, were you not banned from TreasureNet? Would you like to explain why, and what you are doing back on it? I am not surprised you were banned, as you are just a troublemaker trying to push a fantasy story at the expense of anyone and everyone else. Anson hired the best to build his monument; you clearly do not understand cyphers and codes, and therefore need to be enlightened on this. He went to a lot of trouble to hide the Spanish secret information and for it to stand the test of time, hence the cypher on a monument. Being the top Naval man, he was privy to the codes available. It took me a lot of diligent research (try it sometime) to find the code he used; others in the top society had used similar versions. The proof came out in the decoding: 138 and 19. I didn't make the figures up. The Webb letter figures decode out the same. You are as blind as a bat if you cannot see what that monument is all about, oh, I forgot, it's graffiti! Let us ask the question again: 'Where do YOU say those figures on the tin can came from? Actually, my book was launched at Shugborough and was very well received (and, yes, since you ask, the royalties continue to come in). Unfortunately, the National Trust is only interested in old buildings and gardens, with no one having the inclination or patience to try and understand 18th-century codes. By the way, Lord Litchfield (Ansons's descendant, you wouldn't know this ) loves the book; we've had many a chat confirming many things. Your quote:' I personally prefer a much more simple solultion to what the inscription means'. Of course, you do, the proven decoding is too difficult for you. Codes are not meant to be easy! Your quote:' There is no latitude and longitude written on Anson's Monument'. How dopey can you get?? Like I said, 'On another planet'. You think that is what he would do? And of course, name Treasure Island, - a reminder - Pinaki atoll, fits the numbers exactly when you employ the correct meridian. But I don't think you know about those either. Nothing you say is meaningful, honest and makes sense, but with a feeling of desperation.
You are back in the dunces' corner with a big sign 'IGNORE'. That is what I will do to any response from you. I have better things to do with my time. But of course you are going to, try to save a bit of face, try stepping down from your throne a few steps at the same time. You have no solid evidence of anything, unlike Anson's Monument.

 

[Bocaj]

Actually I don't know what is worse: Claiming a earlier discovery after the fact or the resulting admission to have ignored that important discovery for many years?

For me that has the looks of a loose/loose situation.

The idea that the coordinates come from an much earlier published fiction is much simpler than the decoding of a monument plus the number magic to make that fit.

From a math point of view a very limited amount of encoded characters makes it impossible to prove a unique solution. There can be a huge amount of potential original text depending on what encoder you prefer to use. So the only thing solid is that monument but not your interpretation of it!

 

[Cryptid1990]

Here we go again! more drivel and meaningless uncorroborated statements. You know darn well that in previous statements I said that I have had that book for years, but too late to include in my book. Why are you trying to contradict that?? ' You were the first to scan and upload to the internet!' Give yourself a slap on the back! I didn't need the internet, nor did all the other readers who have the book (available for over a 100 years). The map is plain and easy to see and photocopy. You seem to think you are 'God's chosen one', only you had the privilege of seeing it! What a laugh!

In other words, you have no evidence. Anyone can claim they found the RI map before me in relation to the Kidd-Palmer maps but unless they can provide evidence, any reasonable reader will doubt unsubstantiated claims like yours. You have been a member of this forum since 28 February 2025. In none of your comments did you mention or allude to the RI map or Tracy's book, until after I created my thread (24 May 2026), why is that if you knew about it years ago? As more evidence you did not know of the RI map before my thread, you made a blunder: you claim you found the RI map years ago in Wings of the Morning. Yet the RI map was never published under that title. Your comments make clear you did not know WotM was published in the UK as Rainbow Island. The RI map was only published under the UK title. In light of this blunder, are you really going to keep pretending you knew of RI before reading my thread?

Anyone and everyone can see that the figures came from the Anson file, also coded in the letters Webb sent back to him. I didn't make any of that up.

Who is "everyone"? Can you name a single historian who agrees with the highly speculative and uncorroborated claims you make in Anson's Gold? It is bizarre you keep saying "everyone" agrees with you, despite I cannot find a single historian who supports your far-fetched ideas about George Anson, and other forum members (besides me) have criticised your pet theory. Since your book was published in 2016, a number of historians have published books including biographical studies on Anson, such as Anson: Royal Navy Commander and Statesman, 1697–1762 by Anthony Bruce (2023). Why do none of these books reference your book or mention your claim to have deciphered the inscription or that you found the location of a lost treasure on Pinaki atoll involving George Anson?

Mind you, you need a bit of intelligence to understand it. Which brings me to |Anson's Shugborough Monument, quote; ' the letters are merely graffiti or commemorative initials of past owners'. This admirably demonstrates how ignorant you are! You haven't got a clue and are obviously on another planet.

I would appreciate if you did not quote out of context and distort my comments. What I actually said:

There is no evidence to begin with that O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V is a cryptogram (that requires a cipher); for example, some propose a much more mundane solution: the letters are merely graffiti or commemorative initials of past estate owners.

I did not state I agreed with those two ideas or proposed solutions (graffiti, initials); I was making the salient point that there is a very wide range of ideas and theories about the Shugborough Inscription. For example, A. J. Morton, an expert in graves, argued: "the inscription is little more than graffiti left in the early 19th century by the former Shugborough residents George Adams and his wife, Mary Vernon-Venables." As noted by the staff at Shugborough Hall, the inscription remains unsolved and they remain sceptical of all proposed solutions. Although it is more likely that the correct solution will be mundane I do not personally support the graffiti or commemorative initials idea.

Which reminds me, were you not banned from TreasureNet? Would you like to explain why, and what you are doing back on it? I am not surprised you were banned, as you are just a troublemaker trying to push a fantasy story at the expense of anyone and everyone else.

Please stop the ad hominem and stay on topic. I gave you a chance to substantiate your claims.

Anson hired the best to build his monument; you clearly do not understand cyphers and codes, and therefore need to be enlightened on this. He went to a lot of trouble to hide the Spanish secret information and for it to stand the test of time, hence the cypher on a monument. Being the top Naval man, he was privy to the codes available.

As I earlier mentioned, there is no evidence the inscription is a cryptogram that requires a cipher. The inscription remains unsolved, however, academics tend to lean towards mundane explanations not involving ciphers and codes. You never provide evidence for your claims. Where is the evidence to begin with the inscription requires a cipher?

It took me a lot of diligent research (try it sometime) to find the code he used; others in the top society had used similar versions. The proof came out in the decoding: 138 and 19. I didn't make the figures up. The Webb letter figures decode out the same. You are as blind as a bat if you cannot see what that monument is all about, oh, I forgot, it's graffiti! Let us ask the question again: 'Where do YOU say those figures on the tin can came from?

As I explained in my thread, Tracy's fictional Rainbow Island is located in the southern China Sea so the geographical coordinates match that region although since the island is imaginary they do not point to a real island. A straightforward explanation that is actually supported by evidence. Nothing to do with a lost treasure on Pinaki atoll, ciphers, masons, Rennes-le-Château, or whatever other nonsense you made up.

Actually, my book was launched at Shugborough and was very well received (and, yes, since you ask, the royalties continue to come in).

Well received by whom? Your book has not been reviewed or cited by a single academic.

The only review on the internet I can find (on ciphermysteries) is overwhelmingly negative.

Unfortunately, the National Trust is only interested in old buildings and gardens, with no one having the inclination or patience to try and understand 18th-century codes. By the way, Lord Litchfield (Ansons's descendant, you wouldn't know this ) loves the book; we've had many a chat confirming many things.

I read Lord Litchfield's foreword in your book. It appears he uncritically copied whatever you told him without fact-checking. For example, he describes you as a "maritime scholar". This is despite you admit you have no academic qualifications (you state in your book you never went to university), are not affiliated to a university or research institute and have never published a peer-reviewed article. Your book did not give me the impression you know much about maritime history. How are you a "maritime scholar"?

Your quote:' I personally prefer a much more simple solultion to what the inscription means'. Of course, you do, the proven decoding is too difficult for you.

It is called Occam's razor. It is more likely the inscription has a simple/mundane solution.

Codes are not meant to be easy! Your quote:' There is no latitude and longitude written on Anson's Monument'. How dopey can you get?? Like I said, 'On another planet'. You think that is what he would do? And of course, name Treasure Island, - a reminder - Pinaki atoll, fits the numbers exactly when you employ the correct meridian. But I don't think you know about those either. Nothing you say is meaningful, honest and makes sense, but with a feeling of desperation.

You provide no evidence in your book that the Shugborough inscription is related to Pinaki atoll. No evidence the inscription is a cryptogram, and so on. At least I provide credible evidence for my claims. I will also submit the manuscript I am writing for peer-review. Do you know what peer-review even means?

You are back in the dunces' corner with a big sign 'IGNORE'. That is what I will do to any response from you. I have better things to do with my time. But of course you are going to, try to save a bit of face, try stepping down from your throne a few steps at the same time. You have no solid evidence of anything, unlike Anson's Monument.

More ad hominem and childish insults. You failed to substantiate any of your claims which speaks for itself.

 

[Cryptid1990]

Actually I don't know what is worse: Claiming a earlier discovery after the fact or the resulting admission to have ignored that important discovery for many years?

For me that has the looks of a loose/loose situation.

The idea that the coordinates come from an much earlier published fiction is much simpler than the decoding of a monument plus the number magic to make that fit.

From a math point of view a very limited amount of encoded characters makes it impossible to prove a unique solution. There can be a huge amount of potential original text depending on what encoder you prefer to use. So the only thing solid is that monument but not your interpretation of it!

He is still claiming Harold T. Wilkins stumbled across an "Anson file" (for which there is no evidence) that points to the location of a buried treasure on Pinaki atoll, somehow that involved George Anson and a secret society (his book has chapters on freemasons and Rennes-le-Château and repeats unfounded claims you find in pseudohistorical books like The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail). Since there is not a shred of evidence for the "Anson file" and he claims the file "went missing" how does Mr. Edmunds claim to know of the treasure on Pinaki? Well, he claims that Anson hid this information in the Shugborough inscription and he deciphered it... As I noted above, not a single historian has ever mentioned any of this or taken it seriously. Recent books by historians including biographical studies on Anson, such as Anson: Royal Navy Commander and Statesman, 1697–1762 by Anthony Bruce (2023) mention absolutely nothing about a buried treasure involving Anson on Pinaki, Rennes-le-Château, ciphers, or a secret society. If you emailed historians about this I do not think they will be impressed.

 

[Bocaj]

He is still claiming Harold T. Wilkins stumbled across an "Anson file" (for which there is no evidence) that points to the location of a buried treasure on Pinaki atoll, somehow that involved George Anson and a secret society (his book has chapters on freemasons and Rennes-le-Château and repeats unfounded claims you find in pseudohistorical books like The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail). Since there is not a shred of evidence for the "Anson file" and he claims the file "went missing" how does Mr. Edmunds claim to know of the treasure on Pinaki? Well, he claims that Anson hid this information in the Shugborough inscription and he deciphered it... As I noted above, not a single historian has ever mentioned any of this or taken it seriously. Recent books by historians including biographical studies on Anson, such as Anson: Royal Navy Commander and Statesman, 1697–1762 by Anthony Bruce (2023) mention absolutely nothing about a buried treasure involving Anson on Pinaki, Rennes-le-Château, ciphers, or a secret society. If you emailed historians about this I do not think they will be impressed.

Well to be honest I don't mind "peer review" or academic degrees. I do not value an argument because of its labels. I do respect logic and this is what I see missing in his arguments and most of all the answers to your criticism of them.

I think there are many that have become disillusioned with the academic system and those often fall for someone taking advantage of that situation to misled them into another idiotic path. The treasure hunting community has many who simply seek myths away from the modern world and that is not a bad thing per se. Unfortunately I think your arguments will have the contrary effect on many of them even if I think they are still valid. For that I think it is best to leave it as it stands and continue with the exceptional research you are doing.

 

[Cryptid1990]

Well to be honest I don't mind "peer review" or academic degrees. I do not value an argument because of its labels. I do respect logic and this is what I see missing in his arguments and most of all the answers to your criticism of them.

I think there are many that have become disillusioned with the academic system and those often fall for someone taking advantage of that situation to misled them into another idiotic path. The treasure hunting community has many who simply seek myths away from the modern world and that is not a bad thing per se. Unfortunately I think your arguments will have the contrary effect on many of them even if I think they are still valid. For that I think it is best to leave it as it stands and continue with the exceptional research you are doing.

Despite some limitations, peer-review (pre-publication review and now increasingly post-publication scrutiny) remains the only widely accepted method for research validation. If someone claims to have solved/deciphered the Shugborough Inscription (like Mr. Edmunds alleges) then they should submit a paper for peer-review. Note that numerous researchers have already done this, for example, Duncan Fishwick published an article; see Fishwick, D. (2012). "A Secret Code at Shugborough Hall?", Religious Studies and Theology 30(1): 83-100. Having read Anson's Gold, I have little to no doubt that if Mr. Edmunds submitted a manuscript it would fail peer-review which filters out historically inaccurate and mathematically flawed guesswork like his concerning the inscription:

1. Anson's Gold contains a blatant absurdity: it argues that Dis Manibus, a traditional Roman funerary dedication (D M on the inscription) instead relates to geographical coordinates to a lost treasure on an exotic island. This absurdity alone would likely see his paper desk-rejected because it is so implausible.
2. The inscription sits under a relief of Nicolas Poussin’s The Shepherds of Arcadia. The artwork focuses on the theme of death and the afterlife. Mr. Edmunds' far-fetched theory is entirely disconnected from the visual imagery that he largely ignores.
3. Edmunds' preposterous claim that George Anson knew of a lost buried treasure on Pinaki atoll has zero support from any historical documents. This would be an obvious desk rejection because Anson's Gold is 100% speculation and contains no historical evidence.*
4. Typically in cryptanalysis, a proposed solution must be reproducible using an objective and consistent rule set. Instead, Edmunds' is very arbitrary when it comes to numbers (it is mathematically pointless to assign arbitrary meanings to the letters O U O S V A V V).

Mr. Edmunds should stop therefore claiming he has "solved" the Shugborough Inscription. He has never formally validated his research, has never presented evidence and if he did submit a paper for peer-review it would almost certainly be rejected for the above reasons or others.

Finally, I will correct another error in Edmunds' comment above. He claims:

Unfortunately, the National Trust is only interested in old buildings and gardens, with no one having the inclination or patience to try and understand 18th-century codes.

Shugborough Hall has its own estate curators and historians - if Mr. Edmunds has "solved" the inscription as he questionably claims, why has no one from the estate recognised this? Something is not adding up.

All that said, I completely agree with you that academic titles and qualifications are irrelevant. You do not need a degree to submit a paper for peer-review (although it probably helps). However, it is Mr. Edmunds who describes himself as a "maritime scholar" in his book and elsewhere as a "maritime historian". Claiming he is a maritime scholar/historian without even an academic qualification is dubious at best. To put things in context, I have long been interested and self-studied meteorology but since I do not have a degree in meteorology or climate science, I only consider myself an "amateur meteorologist". Sir Patrick Moore was an "amateur astronomer" because he did not hold a degree in astronomy, etc. Needless to say, it very odd for someone to claim to be a maritime historian with not even a bachelor's degree.

* Edmunds' himself more or less admits this because he claims that the "Anson file" (he made up), "went missing"...

 

[Oak Island Sage]

I'm only pointing out your repeated dismissal of others' arguments, because they haven't done what you've done, or been where you've been, or met who you've met. If that wasn't your motive, feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, I'll continue to take it at face value and if that bothers you, then that's on you.

Hi Carl-NC my "dismissal of others" as you put it is usually in response to a disparaging remark, you know the kind that you and Cryptid1990 like to make. You're absolutely right about my achievements being important to me, unless someone has been there or done anything similar, let's face it sitting behind a computer for hours on end just don't cut it.
Of course you won't agree with that sentiment because you've never been to Oak Island yourself have you?

Oak Island Sage

 

[Cryptid1990]

The same year Anson's Gold was published the following peer-reviewed article was published by the renowned architectural historian, James Stevens Curl: "The Tomb in the Garden: A Few Observations on 'the Shepherdess's Tomb' at Shugborough Staffordshire", The Georgian Group Journal, 24 (2016): 53–64. As I emphasised in my earlier comments, the correct solution to the inscription will likely be something mundane and Curl suggested: "Best of Wives, Best of Sisters, a Most Loving Widower dedicates this to her Virtues."

 

[CapnGeorge]

Despite some limitations, peer-review (pre-publication review and now increasingly post-publication scrutiny) remains the only widely accepted method for research validation. If someone claims to have solved/deciphered the Shugborough Inscription (like Mr. Edmunds alleges) then they should submit a paper for peer-review. Note that numerous researchers have already done this, for example, Duncan Fishwick published an article; see Fishwick, D. (2012). "A Secret Code at Shugborough Hall?", Religious Studies and Theology 30(1): 83-100. Having read Anson's Gold, I have little to no doubt that if Mr. Edmunds submitted a manuscript it would fail peer-review which filters out historically inaccurate and mathematically flawed guesswork like his concerning the inscription:

1. Anson's Gold contains a blatant absurdity: it argues that Dis Manibus, a traditional Roman funerary dedication (D M on the inscription) instead relates to geographical coordinates to a lost treasure on an exotic island. This absurdity alone would likely see his paper desk-rejected because it is so implausible.
2. The inscription sits under a relief of Nicolas Poussin’s The Shepherds of Arcadia. The artwork focuses on the theme of death and the afterlife. Mr. Edmunds' far-fetched theory is entirely disconnected from the visual imagery that he largely ignores.
3. Edmunds' preposterous claim that George Anson knew of a lost buried treasure on Pinaki atoll has zero support from any historical documents. This would be an obvious desk rejection because Anson's Gold is 100% speculation and contains no historical evidence.*
4. Typically in cryptanalysis, a proposed solution must be reproducible using an objective and consistent rule set. Instead, Edmunds' is very arbitrary when it comes to numbers (it is mathematically pointless to assign arbitrary meanings to the letters O U O S V A V V).

Mr. Edmunds should stop therefore claiming he has "solved" the Shugborough Inscription. He has never formally validated his research, has never presented evidence and if he did submit a paper for peer-review it would almost certainly be rejected for the above reasons or others.

Finally, I will correct another error in Edmunds' comment above. He claims:



Shugborough Hall has its own estate curators and historians - if Mr. Edmunds has "solved" the inscription as he questionably claims, why has no one from the estate recognised this? Something is not adding up.

All that said, I completely agree with you that academic titles and qualifications are irrelevant. You do not need a degree to submit a paper for peer-review (although it probably helps). However, it is Mr. Edmunds who describes himself as a "maritime scholar" in his book and elsewhere as a "maritime historian". Claiming he is a maritime scholar/historian without even an academic qualification is dubious at best. To put things in context, I have long been interested and self-studied meteorology but since I do not have a degree in meteorology or climate science, I only consider myself an "amateur meteorologist". Sir Patrick Moore was an "amateur astronomer" because he did not hold a degree in astronomy, etc. Needless to say, it very odd for someone to claim to be a maritime historian with not even a bachelor's degree.

* Edmunds' himself more or less admits this because he claims that the "Anson file" (he made up), "went missing"...

Yawn Yawn, It's all in the book guys, 100%, I will be proved right one day, . By the way your quote re the Shugborough Code: '....historically inaccurate and mathematically flawed guessework like his concerning the inscription'. Like I said, 'you haven't got a clue!' Always changing and distorting. the facts to suit yourself. If you had read my book (probably avoiding the difficult bits) you will have seen my 'guesswork' was a detailed study of codes in the 16th and 17th centuries. You probably did not read page 515 on because you don't understand codes and dedicated research. It's easier for you to ridicule what someone has said, thinking you are very clever at the same time. For the readers interested, who may not have my book, briefly; 'Code of the Illuminati' by the Abbe Augustin Barruel (1741-1820) shows a variation on a code used in Elizabethan times by the Rosicrosse Literary Society. In those days there were only 24 letters in the alphabet. U and V had the same number - 20, also I and J shared the same number - 4

The same year Anson's Gold was published the following peer-reviewed article was published by the renowned architectural historian, James Stevens Curl: "The Tomb in the Garden: A Few Observations on 'the Shepherdess's Tomb' at Shugborough Staffordshire", The Georgian Group Journal, 24 (2016): 53–64. As I emphasised in my earlier comments, the correct solution to the inscription will likely be something mundane and Curl suggested: "Best of Wives, Best of Sisters, a Most Loving Widower dedicates this to her Virtues."

View attachment 2258343
View attachment 2258345

A load of rubbish. None of them appreciated or realised that Anson was a naval man through and through, top of the game, First Lord of the Admiralty, he knew what he was doing with his cypher. What was it you said it was - graffiti!! You haven't got a clue!

 

[Cryptid1990]

The Shepherd's Monument was commissioned by Thomas Anson (brother of George Anson). It was constructed between 1748 and 1758 (c. 1750) [it was first mentioned in an anonymous poem in 1758] as a stone arch by the architect Thomas Wright and contains a relief by the sculptor Peter Scheemakers (note the relief contains the words Et in arcadia ego). In 1763, two outer pillars, additional columns, and a Doric pediment were added to the monument. Below the relief is an eight-letter inscription OUOSVAVV with two additional letters (DM). Curiously, despite the monument and relief were built c. 1750, not a single literary source from the 18th century mentions the inscription below the relief. This suggests the possibility that the eight-letter inscription (+ DM) was later added in the 19th century. In his Journey from Chester to London (1782), Thomas Pennant described the monument as follows:

Pennant did not mention the inscription underneath only the relief and words Et in arcadia ego. Why? Perhaps the eight-letter inscription was not then on the monument. Thomas Anson who commissioned the monument never mentioned the inscription in his correspondence nor do any Anson estate papers from the 18th century nor do any poems from this period that mention the monument. This argument from silence is therefore quite compelling evidence. One would think if the inscription was on the monument in the 18th century, someone (a traveler, poet or a member of the Anson family) would have once mentioned or alluded to it in writing. Travel writers who visited the monument (such as Pennant) in the late 18th century did not mention the inscription (OUOSVAVV), despite describing the relief in detail. The earliest literary source to mention the inscription appears to be Clifford’s Historical Description of the Parish of Tixall (1817) by Thomas Hugh Clifford and Arthur Clifford. So there is a gap of 60-70 years from when the monument was built and the first literary mention of the inscription. The fact there are no literary sources that mention the inscription in the 18th century is not even discussed in Anson's Gold. George Edmunds did no research into historical sources that mention the Shepherd's Monument. His book does not mention Pennant, the Clifford's, etc. Who really "has not got a clue"? If the inscription was added to the monument c. 1800, then this disproves Edmunds unsubstantiated claim that George Anson (d. 1762) had anything to do with the inscription.

 

[Cryptid1990]

Yawn Yawn, It's all in the book guys, 100%, I will be proved right one day.

To be "proved right" on the Shugborough inscription you would need actual proof (you do not have) and scholarly consensus - the collective judgment and prevailing opinion of the vast majority of experts. It has been 10 years and not a single academic has reviewed or cited your book. I have also asked some historians what they think of your book by email based on snippets/the back cover and they have dismissed it as pseudohistory and not worth their time considering. This is not surprising since your book is similar to The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

You probably did not read page 515 on because you don't understand codes and dedicated research.

I read it and it is more unfounded conjecture. On this page you speak positively of and rely on the pseudohistorical book The Knights Templar in the New World (2004). Another book based on idle speculation and fantasy that is not taken remotely serious by historians.

Considering there are hundreds of different ideas or hypotheses (colloquial "theories") about the inscription, what does George Edmunds have to say about these in Anson's Gold? He dedicates less than a single page on them (out of 585 pages) and instead states the following:

"I knew that the monument was something to do with the location of the lost treasure"...
So Mr. Edmunds claims to have solved the inscription based on an evidence-free assertion. 🤦‍♂️

 

[CapnGeorge]

Yawn Yawn, It's all in the book guys, 100%, I will be proved right one day, . By the way your quote re the Shugborough Code: '....historically inaccurate and mathematically flawed guessework like his concerning the inscription'. Like I said, 'you haven't got a clue!' Always changing and distorting the facts to suit yourself. If you had read my book (probably avoiding the difficult bits) you will have seen my 'guesswork' was a detailed study of codes in the 16th and 17th centuries. You probably did not read page 515 on because you don't understand codes and dedicated research. It's easier for you to ridicule what someone has said, thinking you are very clever at the same time. For the readers interested, who may not have my book, briefly, 'Code of the Illuminati' by the Abbe Augustin Barruel (1741-1820) shows a variation on a code used in Elizabethan times by the Rosicrosse Literary Society. In those days there were only 24 letters in the alphabet. U and V had the same number - 20, also I and J shared the same number - 4. A stumbling block for those not in the know. You never got further that A=1, if that far! Francis Bacon was cipherist to the Government at the time. Anson's position as head of the Navy made him privy to Government codes. So so much for another of your lying statements - 'he has never presented evidence'. All you can do is discredit because you have nothing yourself to offer. I just remembered! you are going to publish in one of the high-flying clever posh magazines where the peers are only interested in their gin and tonics. They don't understand common sense, practical logic. Your magazine will end up with all the others in the Doctors' Waiting Room alongside Mothers Monthly! My books carry on making money, (Four so far), although not written for that - comment to follow. Regarding publishing, as you know so much, reputable authors with something meaningful to say have a literary agent who takes care of publishing etc. they are very particular with who they take on, authors must have something meaningful and credible to say. So you have no chance. Good choice with your magazine! I have a question I and many others ask; An author spends a lot of time and energy creating a book full of facts, figures and knowledge, for the benefit of the reader, whether they choose to utilise any of it or not, it's up to them. The author of course, is allowed to present his own theories and suggest solutions. Again, your prerogative whether or not you take any notice. So why is it that YOU have made it your mission in life to discredit that author, who is just trying to help? You are pathetic and sad. Normal people (those without a grudge) would say, 'That's interesting, thank you for your efforts. ' We would all like to know your answer. You have obviously never heard of the word 'Polite'. You also think authors must be scholars with BA's etc. No! just an honest belief in their work and putting their money where their mouth is. By the way, I have a Black Belt in Origami. Does that help? Your rantings and ravings, spitting your dummy out of your pram has no effect whatsoever on my book. It is out there being bought because it tells an honest, interesting story with the solution to the charts, and you hate that. All you can do is copy something written by the author of 'Wings in the Morning' who obviously used the Anson/Webb/Spanish figures. You are blind to the bleedin' obvious! I'm surprised you haven't included Stevenson's Treasure Island, declaring it's Oak Island and 'It's Ben Gunn wot dun it!' You can't prove me wrong on anything; all you have are your own self-opinions, which nobody is really interested in and which all on this forum can see are meant to cause trouble and discredit. For your own benefit you try to degrade a person and their work, declaring them wrong. Years ago I found a £10,000 diamond ring for a lady who had lost it in the sea off Majorca. Go on, (deleted for rule violation)! we are all waiting - 'No he didn't!' 'Anson's Gold' is out there, standing the test of time including all that students of the charts need to know (including the solution) and you hate it, because 😇 you can't change it! Get a grip! try and create something new and positive yourself re the charts. I nearly forgot, you can't, it's all been done! OK folks, let's all wait for the next load of desperate gibberish, waffle, and desperate misleading lies. He's busy now trying to scheme and discredit again. Perhaps that's all he does in life! Not a good word to say about anyone, especially those trying to be helpful. Sad!

 

[Cryptid1990]

You have repeatedly asserted on this forum that you "solved" the Shugborough inscription (SI) and Kidd-Palmer maps:

26 June 2026:

It's simple, because you haven't solved the maps, that was done over 15 years ago with published evidence in 'Anson's Gold'.

24 March 2025:

It's solved! Read 'Anson' Gold'.

13 September 2025:

Not interested, my job was to solve the charts [...] By the way, the maps were solved years ago. If you can't follow the figures and maths, you stand no chance. The treasure - if it is still there - lies on an atoll, and if you can't see/follow the trail, stop wasting your time, - as you are mine.

7 November 2025:

I solved the maps years ago and its on record but the simple maths key codes may be too difficult for some!! Over and Out! Goodbye.

You have also posted what you wrote in Anson's Gold is "proven":

But a proven opinion Sir, and like I said, I did not/could not look, the book was to tell the story for the benifit of interested parties. just trying to be helpful. laying it all out for you. Your choice whether or not you want to take any of it on board. That's all folks!

Yet when someone, like me, reasonably asks for evidence or for you to substantiate your far-fetched claims you fail to. If you had "proven" (solved the meaning or deciphered) the SI a decade ago in Anson's' Gold, do you not think this would be mentioned in the academic community by now? As another poster pointed out in another thread:

I call it uneducated behavior to basically shout "I solved it" without any prove [proof]

This has to be the most bizarre experience I have ever had on an internet forum debating someone. The impression I get from your attitude here and book (having read it) is you are not interested in evidence but someone who desperately wants to get credit and fame for solving something, despite not validating their research and failing to provide proof. You have not solved either the Kidd-Palmer maps or the SI. If you had solved the Shugborough inscription do you not think heritage experts and/or curators from the Shugborough estate would have at least mentioned this somewhere? Instead, they have clarified the inscription remains unsolved and no historian has taken your claim serious. Why have you never submitted a paper on your alleged "decipherment" for peer-review? Your claim to have solved the Kidd-Palmer maps is contradicted and disproven by the fact I was the person to first solve them and I actually provide the proof (the RI map) in my own thread.

Years ago I found a £10,000 diamond ring for a lady who had lost it in the sea off Majorca. Go on, Craptic! we are all waiting - 'No he didn't!' 'Anson's Gold' is out there, standing the test of time including all that students of the charts need to know (including the solution) and you hate it, because 😇 you can't change it! Get a grip! try and create something new and positive yourself re the charts.

Again, bizarre; and more childish insults ("craptic"). What relevance does a ring have to what is being discussed?

Anyway, I do not think there is any further need for us to communicate so you are going back on my ignore. In good faith, I gave you a chance to substantiate your claims. You never did, and posted nonsense about the Illuminati, made more unsubstantiated claims, went off-topic (about a ring) or posted insults. Not worth my time. 🔚

Edit: having re-read Anson's Gold yesterday, I realised George Edmunds does not only claim (without evidence) to have solved the Kidd-Palmer maps and to have deciphered the SI, but also solved the lost treasure of Jerusalem (!) and Rennes-le-Château. From the back cover:

This revelation [decipherment of the Shugborough inscription] also proves the direct link to Rennes-le-Château in the south of France and is enigmatic 'religious' mystery. A mystery no more.

 

[CapnGeorge]

You have repeatedly asserted on this forum that you "solved" the Shugborough inscription (SI) and Kidd-Palmer maps:

26 June 2026:

24 March 2025:

13 September 2025:

7 November 2025:

You have also posted what you wrote in Anson's Gold is "proven":

Yet when someone, like me, reasonably asks for evidence or for you to substantiate your far-fetched claims you fail to. If you had "proven" (solved the meaning or deciphered) the SI a decade ago in Anson's' Gold, do you not think this would be mentioned in the academic community by now? As another poster pointed out in another thread:

This has to be the most bizarre experience I have ever had on an internet forum debating someone. The impression I get from your attitude here and book (having read it) is you are not interested in evidence but someone who desperately wants to get credit and fame for solving something, despite not validating their research and failing to provide proof. You have not solved either the Kidd-Palmer maps or the SI. If you had solved the Shugborough inscription do you not think heritage experts and/or curators from the Shugborough estate would have at least mentioned this somewhere? Instead, they have clarified the inscription remains unsolved and no historian has taken your claim serious. Why have you never submitted a paper on your alleged "decipherment" for peer-review? Your claim to have solved the Kidd-Palmer maps is contradicted and disproven by the fact I was the person to first solve them and I actually provide the proof (the RI map) in my own thread.


Again, bizarre; and more childish insults ("craptic"). What relevance does a ring have to what is being discussed?

Anyway, I do not think there is any further need for us to communicate so you are going back on my ignore. In good faith, I gave you a chance to substantiate your claims. You never did, and posted nonsense about the Illuminati, made more unsubstantiated claims, went off-topic (about a ring) or posted insults. Not worth my time. 🔚

Edit: having re-read Anson's Gold yesterday, I realised George Edmunds does not only claim (without evidence) to have solved the Kidd-Palmer maps and to have deciphered the SI, but also solved the lost treasure of Jerusalem (!) and Rennes-le-Château. From the back cover:

You obviously do not understand logic and common sense. My book is full of information for the student of the charts; it's up to them if they want to use it, it makes no difference to me. By the way, keep mentioning 'Anson's Gold'. It's great for sales. It's out there, full of informative stuff, and you can't do anything about it! The evidence you keep seeking is all there with informative ways to use it, nobody is telling you that you have to! I show valid, sensible common sense solutions, and it is the same solution using and solving Wilkins hidden clues. I didn't make the figures up, but they always figure out to 138 and 19, the same as on Anson's monument. Strange that, don't you think? Hardly a coincidence, and like i said, ' I didn't make any of it up!' You can't change the maths even if you wanted to. It really gets to you, doesn't it, that I've shown the way? A normal, polite person would say; 'OK, that's good and interesting, thanks for the info and effort, but I'll see what I can find.' Your response: Insults and discredit. I see you are avoiding (expected) my question regarding why you go out of your way to discredit and insult an author who publishes information for the benefit of the reader. We are still waiting. Did you not question 'Maritime Scholar/Historian'.? To be a Speaker on cruise ships for 5 years (I was) on those subjects, you have to be! They won't accept anyone who doesn't know what they are talking about! I've also had boats most of my life, together with the necessary qualifications. I have also helped excavate Blackbeard's shipwreck, the 'Queen Ann's Revenge'. All part of knowing something about maritime history. What have you done besides copying information out of someone else's book? I suppose you could probably give excellent talks on how to insult and discredit the public. If you prefer, i could call myself; 'Treasure Chart and Code Scholar'. Would you prefer that? I suppose the cap fits better 😇. Someone is saying that the back cover tells how I solved the Jerusalem treasure. More blatant lies! Can't stop yourself, can you. Jerusalem gets a mention in the book as part of an offshoot investigation. That's all you can do isn't it, lie. And Rennes le Chateau? Anyone can see that the Poussin painting, which is part of the sage here, is the same as that copied onto Anson's Monument. I point out the link. At the same time, pointing out that those searching for the Rennes 'treasure', will be looking for a long time. Rennes is merely the link to a treasure, the details of which can be found in the cypher on the monument. The saga at Rennes is telling you where to look. Some people just have their heads buried in the sand, it is too complicated for them. I am allowed to state my views, aren't I? Let's see what your published views are, as you seem to know it all. No! I get it! You are going to say that Anson had that 'Shepherdess' scene created and Poussin copied it!! Magic! Keep publicising the book, guys.

You have repeatedly asserted on this forum that you "solved" the Shugborough inscription (SI) and Kidd-Palmer maps:

26 June 2026:

24 March 2025:

13 September 2025:

7 November 2025:

You have also posted what you wrote in Anson's Gold is "proven":

Yet when someone, like me, reasonably asks for evidence or for you to substantiate your far-fetched claims you fail to. If you had "proven" (solved the meaning or deciphered) the SI a decade ago in Anson's' Gold, do you not think this would be mentioned in the academic community by now? As another poster pointed out in another thread:

This has to be the most bizarre experience I have ever had on an internet forum debating someone. The impression I get from your attitude here and book (having read it) is you are not interested in evidence but someone who desperately wants to get credit and fame for solving something, despite not validating their research and failing to provide proof. You have not solved either the Kidd-Palmer maps or the SI. If you had solved the Shugborough inscription do you not think heritage experts and/or curators from the Shugborough estate would have at least mentioned this somewhere? Instead, they have clarified the inscription remains unsolved and no historian has taken your claim serious. Why have you never submitted a paper on your alleged "decipherment" for peer-review? Your claim to have solved the Kidd-Palmer maps is contradicted and disproven by the fact I was the person to first solve them and I actually provide the proof (the RI map) in my own thread.


Again, bizarre; and more childish insults ("craptic"). What relevance does a ring have to what is being discussed?

Anyway, I do not think there is any further need for us to communicate so you are going back on my ignore. In good faith, I gave you a chance to substantiate your claims. You never did, and posted nonsense about the Illuminati, made more unsubstantiated claims, went off-topic (about a ring) or posted insults. Not worth my time. 🔚

Edit: having re-read Anson's Gold yesterday, I realised George Edmunds does not only claim (without evidence) to have solved the Kidd-Palmer maps and to have deciphered the SI, but also solved the lost treasure of Jerusalem (!) and Rennes-le-Château. From the back cover:

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Gentlemen, I have already asked that the sniping stop and to post by our rules. If need be I will put several on temporary timeouts and then you cant post at all, and if need be I will lock this thread down.

CapnGeorge and Cryptic end the insults, sniping at eacj other, and violating our rules now.! There will not be a 2nd warning!

 

[Cryptid1990]

I put CapnGeorge on ignore and am no longer responding but for the benefit of readers of this thread: I contacted the Senior Collections and House Officer at Shugborough Estate to ask whether they acknowledge George Edmunds has solved (or deciphered) the inscription since this is what he claims. As expected, their position is: no - it remains unsolved. Anyone can email the estate for this clarification. The Shugborough Estate's official position — is that the inscription remains unsolved. I think that clarification finally ends this matter. 🔚

 

[CapnGeorge]

Gentlemen, I have already asked that the sniping stop and to post by our rules. If need be I will put several on temporary timeouts and then you cant post at all, and if need be I will lock this thread down.

CapnGeorge and Cryptic end the insults, sniping at eacj other, and violating our rules now.! There will not be a 2nd warning!

Nothing more to be said on the matter, It's all in the book!

 

[CapnGeorge]

I put CapnGeorge on ignore and am no longer responding but for the benefit of readers of this thread: I contacted the Senior Collections and House Officer at Shugborough Estate to ask whether they acknowledge George Edmunds has solved (or deciphered) the inscription since this is what he claims. As expected, their position is: no - it remains unsolved. Anyone can email the estate for this clarification. The Shugborough Estate's official position — is that the inscription remains unsolved. I think that clarification finally ends this matter. 🔚

It's all in the book!

 

[CapnGeorge]

It's all in the book!

Did the Shugborough Estate tell you why they said I have'nt solved it? No! You are not privy to my conversations with Lord Litchfield, they all know it has been solved. They will not admit it because they want to keep the secret and mystery of the Monument. That is important to them. Thank goodness you are going to ignore this. I can have some peace now!

 

[Oak Island Sage]

Did the Shugborough Estate tell you why they said I have'nt solved it? No! You are not privy to my conversations with Lord Litchfield, they all know it has been solved. They will not admit it because they want to keep the secret and mystery of the Monument. That is important to them. Thank goodness you are going to ignore this. I can have some peace now!

Hi CapnGeorge, I share your feeling of your feeling of great relief at being ignored by Oliver Smith aka Criptid1990.

There are some people who simply cannot face being wrong, they will argue with you relentlessly just to wear you down, then finally (out of pure frustration and the desire for peace) you might even give in and change your mind to agree with that person. At that point feeling triumphant they will promptly change their mind, agree with you, and then -- accuse you of being fickle.

Oak Island Sage