CapnGeorge
Full Member
thankyou for your comments, yes, i agree with what you are saying, but you can never be worn down when you know that what you are saying is right.
The Captain Kidd Treasure Maps and Oak Island
- Thread starter gjb
- Start date
For the benefit of readers of this thread, to verify you have solved the Shugborough inscription - this would require (a) submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal such as Cryptologia (that publishes papers on undeciphered texts and unsolved cryptograms), (b) passing review by surviving the scrutiny of multiple independent experts (usually double-blind review) such as historians and cryptanalysts (who will rigorously test your methodology you used to decipher the inscription as well as point out flaws, inaccuracies with your hypothesis and confirmation bias), (c) publication, (d) post-publication review (ongoing scrutiny by a broader range of experts) and/or cryptographic replication (e) scholarly consensus meaning the overwhelming agreement of experts across multiple disciplines and finally (f) institutional acknowledgment - Bletchley Park and the custodians of Shugborough Hall, the National Trust. The poster I put on ignore has achieved none of this. 
It should be noted that dozens to hundreds of people have published books claiming they have "solved" the inscription. Academics, seldom, if ever, take these books seriously and none of these authors who claim to have solved the inscription have proven that they have done so.
As I explained in my previous comment:
Passing peer review does not guarantee a proposed solution is correct, but it shows that experts have had an opportunity to scrutinise the hypothesis or proposed solution and this at least infers it has plausibility and is supported by evidence, furthermore, the quality of research has been evaluated. The hypothesis may of course still be wrong (and can be retracted) which is why there is post-publication review and/or replication and finally scholarly consensus. Also, if no better explanation emerges, the hypothesis may become widely accepted. Confidence in a hypothesis or proposed solution increases if independent researchers agree or test the hypothesis to replicate or find consistent results.
Summary:
1. Formulate a hypothesis (colloquial theory) as a proposed testable explanation or propose a solution.
2. Gather evidence to test and support the hypothesis.
3. Draw a conclusion (accepting, modifying, or rejecting the hypothesis based on the evidence).
4. Verify the hypothesis or proposed solution by (a) to (f) above including independent corroboration.
It should be noted that dozens to hundreds of people have published books claiming they have "solved" the inscription. Academics, seldom, if ever, take these books seriously and none of these authors who claim to have solved the inscription have proven that they have done so.
As I explained in my previous comment:
Passing peer review does not guarantee a proposed solution is correct, but it shows that experts have had an opportunity to scrutinise the hypothesis or proposed solution and this at least infers it has plausibility and is supported by evidence, furthermore, the quality of research has been evaluated. The hypothesis may of course still be wrong (and can be retracted) which is why there is post-publication review and/or replication and finally scholarly consensus. Also, if no better explanation emerges, the hypothesis may become widely accepted. Confidence in a hypothesis or proposed solution increases if independent researchers agree or test the hypothesis to replicate or find consistent results.
Summary:
1. Formulate a hypothesis (colloquial theory) as a proposed testable explanation or propose a solution.
2. Gather evidence to test and support the hypothesis.
3. Draw a conclusion (accepting, modifying, or rejecting the hypothesis based on the evidence).
4. Verify the hypothesis or proposed solution by (a) to (f) above including independent corroboration.
Last edited:
Hi Cryptid1990, as I believe the "Deadman Island Map" was drawn, dated and signed by Captain William Kidd I will now apply my own rationale to your summary.For the benefit of readers of this thread, to verify you have solved the Shugborough inscription - this would require (a) submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal such as Cryptologia (that publishes papers on undeciphered texts and unsolved cryptograms), (b) passing review by surviving the scrutiny of multiple independent experts (usually double-blind review) such as historians and cryptanalysts (who will rigorously test your methodology you used to decipher the inscription as well as point out flaws, inaccuracies with your hypothesis and confirmation bias), (c) publication, (d) post-publication review (ongoing scrutiny by a broader range of experts) and/or cryptographic replication (e) scholarly consensus meaning the overwhelming agreement of experts across multiple disciplines and finally (f) institutional acknowledgment - Bletchley Park and the custodians of Shugborough Hall, the National Trust. The poster I put on ignore has achieved none of this.
It should be noted that dozens to hundreds of people have published books claiming they have "solved" the inscription. Academics, seldom, if ever, take these books seriously and none of these authors who claim to have solved the inscription have proven that they have done so.
As I explained in my previous comment:
Passing peer review does not guarantee a proposed solution is correct, but it shows that experts have had an opportunity to scrutinise the hypothesis or proposed solution and this at least infers it has plausibility and is supported by evidence, furthermore, the quality of research has been evaluated. The hypothesis may of course still be wrong (and can be retracted) which is why there is post-publication review and/or replication and finally scholarly consensus. Also, if no better explanation emerges, the hypothesis may become widely accepted. Confidence in a hypothesis or proposed solution increases if independent researchers agree or test the hypothesis to replicate or find consistent results.
Summary:
1. Formulate a hypothesis (colloquial theory) as a proposed testable explanation or propose a solution.
2. Gather evidence to test and support the hypothesis.
3. Draw a conclusion (accepting, modifying, or rejecting the hypothesis based on the evidence).
4. Verify the hypothesis or proposed solution by (a) to (f) above including independent corroboration.
1. I have formulated my hypothesis that Captain Kidd set foot once on Oak Island to store a great treasure as stated by him on his dated and signed Deadman Island map.
2. I have gathered a considerable amount of evidence based on what is drawn on the Deadman Island map that still existed in 1960, like the triangular pond, the swamp, and secret Jetty in Joudary Cove. Plus the surrounding islands still located around Oak Island. The Meisner Point where the Spaniards cut logs, all of these things are clearly depicted on Captain Kidd's Deadman Island map that he drew in 1699. The indisputable evidence is that these things are still there now.
3. The conclusion is obvious to anyone with an once of common sense is that the author of the Deadman Island map was - Captain William Kidd.
4. Only a real professional hand writing expert could identify William Kidd's handwriting on the map, not an amateur buddy like the one you used Ollie, was his name by any chance Stan Laurel?
Oak Island Sage
Researchers should actively seek evidence that both supports and contradicts their hypothesis before moving on to (3) testing (hence I said "test and support"). Contradictory evidence is often the most informative because it can reveal that the hypothesis needs to be modified or rejected. In contrast, your posts repeatedly show you ignore all contradictory evidence and hold a dogmatic belief. Myself and other posters in the other thread posted contradictory evidence and you openly ignored it. In terms of supportive evidence, you even fail; for example, why can you not produce a single authenticated historical document from the 17th century that mentions Kidd sailed to Oak Island?Hi Cryptid1990, as I believe the "Deadman Island Map" was drawn, dated and signed by Captain William Kidd I will now apply my own rationale to your summary.
1. I have formulated my hypothesis that Captain Kidd set foot once on Oak Island to store a great treasure as stated by him on his dated and signed Deadman Island map.
2. I have gathered a considerable amount of evidence based on what is drawn on the Deadman Island map that still existed in 1960, like the triangular pond, the swamp, and secret Jetty in Joudary Cove. Plus the surrounding islands still located around Oak Island. The Meisner Point where the Spaniards cut logs, all of these things are clearly depicted on Captain Kidd's Deadman Island map that he drew in 1699. The indisputable evidence is that these things are still there now.
3. The conclusion is obvious to anyone with an once of common sense is that the author of the Deadman Island map was - Captain William Kidd.
4. Only a real professional hand writing expert could identify William Kidd's handwriting on the map, not an amateur buddy like the one you used Ollie, was his name by any chance Stan Laurel?
Oak Island Sage
Note that one of the most rigorous historical practices ('Devil's Advocate') involves searching for the strongest possible arguments against one’s own hypothesis or proposed explanation (I do this myself regularly). This is something absent in your book and in none of your posts. Furthermore, you have never actually tested your hypothesis. Historical hypotheses are primarily tested by assessing the authenticity and reliability of a historical source. Example: is document X authentic? Have you ever done this for the Deadman Island map? No. Testing the authenticity of a historical document is a process known as external criticism. It is something you ignored which was posted in the other thread (e.g., the watermark on the parchment map). You ignored this evidence because it disproves the map is authentic (17th century). However, I am not interested in going over this again. It seems you are derailing multiple threads by discussing the Deadman Island map(s).
Last edited:
CapnGeorge
Full Member
Yawn Yawn! no need for any of that, it's all in the book!For the benefit of readers of this thread, to verify you have solved the Shugborough inscription - this would require (a) submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal such as Cryptologia (that publishes papers on undeciphered texts and unsolved cryptograms), (b) passing review by surviving the scrutiny of multiple independent experts (usually double-blind review) such as historians and cryptanalysts (who will rigorously test your methodology you used to decipher the inscription as well as point out flaws, inaccuracies with your hypothesis and confirmation bias), (c) publication, (d) post-publication review (ongoing scrutiny by a broader range of experts) and/or cryptographic replication (e) scholarly consensus meaning the overwhelming agreement of experts across multiple disciplines and finally (f) institutional acknowledgment - Bletchley Park and the custodians of Shugborough Hall, the National Trust. The poster I put on ignore has achieved none of this.
It should be noted that dozens to hundreds of people have published books claiming they have "solved" the inscription. Academics, seldom, if ever, take these books seriously and none of these authors who claim to have solved the inscription have proven that they have done so.
As I explained in my previous comment:
Passing peer review does not guarantee a proposed solution is correct, but it shows that experts have had an opportunity to scrutinise the hypothesis or proposed solution and this at least infers it has plausibility and is supported by evidence, furthermore, the quality of research has been evaluated. The hypothesis may of course still be wrong (and can be retracted) which is why there is post-publication review and/or replication and finally scholarly consensus. Also, if no better explanation emerges, the hypothesis may become widely accepted. Confidence in a hypothesis or proposed solution increases if independent researchers agree or test the hypothesis to replicate or find consistent results.
Summary:
1. Formulate a hypothesis (colloquial theory) as a proposed testable explanation or propose a solution.
2. Gather evidence to test and support the hypothesis.
3. Draw a conclusion (accepting, modifying, or rejecting the hypothesis based on the evidence).
4. Verify the hypothesis or proposed solution by (a) to (f) above including independent corroboration.
Hi crptid1990, The Deadman Island map was drawn By Captain Kidd in 1699, it depicts an island in Mahone Nova Scotia called today Oak Island. To suggest that there would have been a clear record of the location of this treasure island made by the Scottish privateer would normally be illogical, but this was drawn at a time when he was convinced that the French Passes would prove his innocence to the charge of piracy. Had this incriminating map fallen into the wrong he would not need to have waited two years to be hung.Researchers should actively seek evidence that both supports and contradicts their hypothesis before moving on to (3) testing (hence I said "test and support"). Contradictory evidence is often the most informative because it can reveal that the hypothesis needs to be modified or rejected. In contrast, your posts repeatedly show you ignore all contradictory evidence and hold a dogmatic belief. Myself and other posters in the other thread posted contradictory evidence and you openly ignored it. In terms of supportive evidence, you even fail; for example, why can you not produce a single authenticated historical document from the 17th century that mentions Kidd sailed to Oak Island?
Note that one of the most rigorous historical practices ('Devil's Advocate') involves searching for the strongest possible arguments against one’s own hypothesis or proposed explanation (I do this myself regularly). This is something absent in your book and in none of your posts. Furthermore, you have never actually tested your hypothesis. Historical hypotheses are primarily tested by assessing the authenticity and reliability of a historical source. Example: is document X authentic? Have you ever done this for the Deadman Island map? No. Testing the authenticity of a historical document is a process known as external criticism. It is something you ignored which was posted in the other thread (e.g., the watermark on the parchment map). You ignored this evidence because it disproves the map is authentic (17th century). However, I am not interested in going over this again. It seems you are derailing multiple threads by discussing the Deadman Island map(s).
On his last voyage whilst on a kings mission he did as much as he could to avoid the label of being a pirate. When against the odds he eventually succeed getting a huge treasure to Oak Island, he then became over confident, and that's when he drew the Deadman Island map. The whole clandestine operation was underway on the island (before Captain Kidd even got there) and it was top secret facility. In the completed subterranean network of linked flood tunnels the protected repository contained accumulated treasure, it was to be melted down and then the miscellaneous items of treasure would be converted into gold or silver coinage.
It was a highly illegal but well organised covert service used by other captains, so it was not something the perpetrators would wish to be known to be associated with for fear of a public execution and there would be no records.
The one vital slip made was that Captain William Kidd impetuously drew the extremely incriminating Deadman Island map., why he wished to do this at that late stage is a mystery because it served no useful purpose, perhaps he was just over excited and pleased with his success thus far to think calmly.
Ironically while there are habitual nay sayers like you Ollie (with some personal agenda to continually raise doubts as to the authenticity of the Deadman Island map) the treasure may never be found and recovered. I hope that others in the flock will remember this in the future, and consider that maybe they backed the wrong horse.
Oak Island Sage
Last edited:
There is no physical or literary evidence for a buried or deposited treasure on Oak Island. After posting 241 comments on this forum and publishing a book you do not provide a shred of evidence. Similarly, Gjb, provides no evidence for his claim there was a "planned deposit" on Oak Island for a treasure. Where are the historical documents or physical evidence? If you are not providing any physical evidence or evidence from authenticated historical sources - why should anyone take your far-fetched and wholly unsubstantiated claim serious? 
Last edited:
Bocaj
Sr. Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2024
- Messages
- 412
- Reaction score
- 260
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Detector(s) used
- Left and right side of the brain
I think the main issue results from the difference between state sponsored privateering and piracy.There is no physical or literary evidence for a buried or deposited treasure on Oak Island. After posting 241 comments on this forum and publishing a book you do not provide a shred of evidence. Similarly, Gjb, provides no evidence for his claim there was a "planned deposit" on Oak Island for a treasure. Where are the historical documents or physical evidence? If you are not providing any physical evidence or evidence from authenticated historical sources - why should anyone take your far-fetched and wholly unsubstantiated claim serious?
Piracy operated mostly in secret and outside of state control and with limited access to the means of civilization. That means most of all no documents, diaries etc. On top of that as pirate ships mostly sink into nowhere, there is not much archeological evidence neither. We have mostly a white (or if you prefer black) paper which enables all kinds of speculation. Conclusion of those which stay unavailable to verification because of missing facts.
The above is the reason why we are mostly moving in circles where charlatans can mix with serious researchers as both can present little to no evidence supporting their theories. Apart from actually finding that treasure there is no hope that this situation ever changes. This includes the Palmer maps - as I pointed out there is still a possibility that they contain something authentic (very small possibility but it will be sufficient to keep the show going).
As such asking for "physical evidence or evidence from authenticated historical sources" is a fruitless enterprise as the very topic doesn't provide much if any of substance. The Palmer maps as a product (physical at least) of the early 20th century is a much better topic for a serious researcher then the piracy of the 17/18th century.
I corresponded with more staff from the Shugborough Estate who have now outright denied CapnGeorge's controversial comment:
I showed a screenshot of this comment. As further proof of the Shugborough Estate's official position, they pointed me to the following: https://heritagerecords.nationaltrust.org.uk/HBSMR/MonRecord.aspx?uid=MNA181338
This again contradicts and disproves CapnGeorge. I intend to write a letter to the 6th Earl of Lichfield and curators at the estate so they can comment. In a month or so, I shall post their response (if I receive anything). CapnGeorge is claiming he has solved the inscription and Lord Lichfield/the Estate have acknowledged this in secret. This is a highly dubious claim to say the least and has already been denied by staff at the Shugborough Estate. If the 6th Earl of Lichfield comes back denying this as well, CapngGeorge is digging a bigger hole for himself.
Last edited:
If Captain Kidd visited Oak Island, it would almost certainly have been mentioned in the sworn testimonies of his crew during his trial in 1701. Two of his crew members including the ship's surgeon, Robert Bradinham, testified against him. Nine of his crew were co-defendants and they made testimonies. None of these mentioned anything about oak island. Additionally, there were pre-trial depositions ordered by Lord Bellomont (1699) since Kidd was arrested in Boston before sent to London (Newgate Prison). None of these depositions by Kidd's other crew members mentioned anything about Oak Island. This silence is significant since the pre-trial depositions provide an accurate timeline of Kidd's activities including where he had traveled before his arrest. Overall, the absence of evidence from the pre-trial depositions and trial testimonies that Kidd visited Oak Island infers evidence of absence (he never went there). If Kidd had hidden treasure underground or been involved in burying a treasure on Oak Island - his crew members who were co-defendants would have most likely used that information as a bargaining chip during interrogations to trade for their life but the testimonies are totally silent about any of this because it never happened.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 2,655
- Reaction score
- 3,312
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Washington
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
"logwood," not "logs." The map says so.
Bocaj
Sr. Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2024
- Messages
- 412
- Reaction score
- 260
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Detector(s) used
- Left and right side of the brain
Not really my theory to defend! Also Kidd was a privateer not a pirate (with some episodes of suspected piracy in the Indian ocean) so his history is quite well documented. Not so Avery and many real pirates. It is also much easier like in the above case to prove negatives like he was not on OI. Which I agree on. But in general I find it difficult to trace the exact movement of Kidd and Avery.
I have yet to find a complete testimony of some of his crews to cover the whole voyage. The logbook is missing (stolen as Kidd claimed). Didn't he start a new one on the QM? Or the sloop he sailed later? Where are those? As he was a privateer he was obligated to document his voyage! They must have been archived why have they never been discovered?
I have yet to find a complete testimony of some of his crews to cover the whole voyage. The logbook is missing (stolen as Kidd claimed). Didn't he start a new one on the QM? Or the sloop he sailed later? Where are those? As he was a privateer he was obligated to document his voyage! They must have been archived why have they never been discovered?
Hi Bocaj,
some very pertinent questions indeed and the location of these and other papers may shed some further light of various views expressed on here (or not). Possibly the most important missing document is the logbook for the QM's return journey and it must have existed for them to have sailed back (daily bearings, direction, speed, distance covered etc all needed to be recorded) and should provide a lot more detail as to where they stopped and why apart from Annobon, Anguilla, St Thomas' and Hispaniola etc. All we really know without the log itself is based on witness statements commencing with Kidd having left Tulear, Madagascar and- "gone to the West Indies fully laden" according to two marooned sailors picked up by a passing British warship there in July 1699 and apparently did not stop again again the island of Annobon where Kidd showed the famous passes to John Ellms. Ellms confirmed they were in French and offered to translate them into Latin. They must have stopped elsewhere before Annobon and Anguilla if just for fresh water but where and why the silence? There is one unconfirmed statement that Kidd stopped to exchange news mid ocean with a more famous commander crossing the Atlantic in the opposite direction but nothing else until Anguilla. The crew members who stayed with Kidd all gave multiple testimonies but they seemed to have been cabin boys or passengers and would not have actually navigated the ship so shed little light on any further locations stopped at etc. However, senior officers and sailors aboard would know and they would have been the Captain, master (John Ware) and possibly boatswain (Michael Galloway or Calloway) and other experienced sailors (including William Whitely-mate) and apart from Kidd they seemed to have stayed with QM at Hispaniola and went to Curacao but only gave one testimony between them: Ware's in June 1701 in which he said he was forced to go with Kidd and had done nothing wrong - although he does seem to have set himself up comfortably in South Carolina after leaving Curacao! Ware signed this testimony if anyone wants to check his signature. So where might the log be: it may have stayed with Ware, Galloway or Whiteley at Hispaniola and lies in an obscure archive amoung family papers somewhere, it may have gone back from Curacao with John Hales a QM passenger who had plenty to say back in London or it may also have gone with Kidd to Boston on the Antonio. Bellomont may have been referring to it when he stated seizing papers found on Kidd which helped to identify the exact location of the QM in the West Indies. If Bellomont did seize it and sent it back to Blighty privately, I have my suspicions as to who he sent it to and by which ship or it may have been amoung the "three several Parcels which are Journals of Captain Kidd’s proceedings" which the Admiralty Board were given in April 1700 by Captain Wynn. Hopefully, the logbook still survives.
Hi Bocaj,
some very pertinent questions indeed and the location of these and other papers may shed some further light of various views expressed on here (or not). Possibly the most important missing document is the logbook for the QM's return journey and it must have existed for them to have sailed back (daily bearings, direction, speed, distance covered etc all needed to be recorded) and should provide a lot more detail as to where they stopped and why apart from Annobon, Anguilla, St Thomas' and Hispaniola etc. All we really know without the log itself is based on witness statements commencing with Kidd having left Tulear, Madagascar and- "gone to the West Indies fully laden" according to two marooned sailors picked up by a passing British warship there in July 1699 and apparently did not stop again again the island of Annobon where Kidd showed the famous passes to John Ellms. Ellms confirmed they were in French and offered to translate them into Latin. They must have stopped elsewhere before Annobon and Anguilla if just for fresh water but where and why the silence? There is one unconfirmed statement that Kidd stopped to exchange news mid ocean with a more famous commander crossing the Atlantic in the opposite direction but nothing else until Anguilla. The crew members who stayed with Kidd all gave multiple testimonies but they seemed to have been cabin boys or passengers and would not have actually navigated the ship so shed little light on any further locations stopped at etc. However, senior officers and sailors aboard would know and they would have been the Captain, master (John Ware) and possibly boatswain (Michael Galloway or Calloway) and other experienced sailors (including William Whitely-mate) and apart from Kidd they seemed to have stayed with QM at Hispaniola and went to Curacao but only gave one testimony between them: Ware's in June 1701 in which he said he was forced to go with Kidd and had done nothing wrong - although he does seem to have set himself up comfortably in South Carolina after leaving Curacao! Ware signed this testimony if anyone wants to check his signature. So where might the log be: it may have stayed with Ware, Galloway or Whiteley at Hispaniola and lies in an obscure archive amoung family papers somewhere, it may have gone back from Curacao with John Hales a QM passenger who had plenty to say back in London or it may also have gone with Kidd to Boston on the Antonio. Bellomont may have been referring to it when he stated seizing papers found on Kidd which helped to identify the exact location of the QM in the West Indies. If Bellomont did seize it and sent it back to Blighty privately, I have my suspicions as to who he sent it to and by which ship or it may have been amoung the "three several Parcels which are Journals of Captain Kidd’s proceedings" which the Admiralty Board were given in April 1700 by Captain Wynn. Hopefully, the logbook still survives.
Last edited:
Hi Cryptid1990 The evidence thatThere is no physical or literary evidence for a buried or deposited treasure on Oak Island. After posting 241 comments on this forum and publishing a book you do not provide a shred of evidence. Similarly, Gjb, provides no evidence for his claim there was a "planned deposit" on Oak Island for a treasure. Where are the historical documents or physical evidence? If you are not providing any physical evidence or evidence from authenticated historical sources - why should anyone take your far-fetched and wholly unsubstantiated claim serious?
Hi Cryptid1990, all this stuff that you like to put forward like the water mark suggestion is just a smoke screen, to impress the gullible members of the Flock, you can't fool all the people all of the time.Researchers should actively seek evidence that both supports and contradicts their hypothesis before moving on to (3) testing (hence I said "test and support"). Contradictory evidence is often the most informative because it can reveal that the hypothesis needs to be modified or rejected. In contrast, your posts repeatedly show you ignore all contradictory evidence and hold a dogmatic belief. Myself and other posters in the other thread posted contradictory evidence and you openly ignored it. In terms of supportive evidence, you even fail; for example, why can you not produce a single authenticated historical document from the 17th century that mentions Kidd sailed to Oak Island?
Note that one of the most rigorous historical practices ('Devil's Advocate') involves searching for the strongest possible arguments against one’s own hypothesis or proposed explanation (I do this myself regularly). This is something absent in your book and in none of your posts. Furthermore, you have never actually tested your hypothesis. Historical hypotheses are primarily tested by assessing the authenticity and reliability of a historical source. Example: is document X authentic? Have you ever done this for the Deadman Island map? No. Testing the authenticity of a historical document is a process known as external criticism. It is something you ignored which was posted in the other thread (e.g., the watermark on the parchment map). You ignored this evidence because it disproves the map is authentic (17th century). However, I am not interested in going over this again. It seems you are derailing multiple threads by discussing the Deadman Island map(s).
The obvious glaring flaws in your usual banal argument is the fact that things that Captain William Kidd drew, dated and signed on his "Deadman Island" Map in 1699 were still there in 1960, before searcher excavations gradually destroyed them on Oak Island.
Things drawn by Captain Kidd's on the Dead Man Island Map.
1. The surrounding islands drawn by Captain Kidd on his Deadman Island map have modern names now, but - they are still there around the vicinity of Oak Island.
2. The location of the Spanish stockpile of timber depicted on Kidd's map at Meisner Point is - still there.
3. The coast line that runs up to the East River area, - is still there.
4. The Anchorage Jetty drawn on the map is located in Joudary Cove, it's located on the north side of Oak Island, and it's still there.
5, The Swamp/wetlands that Captain Kidd said was fed by a fresh water stream (that started at the triangular reservoir), that swamp is still there in the same depicted area about three hundred yards to the north.
6. The triangular shaped pond (reservoir) was (in 1960) located close to the South Shore, this is exactly where Captain Kidd indicated it was situated and he drew it on his Dead Man Island map.
7. The compass drawn by Captain Kidd on the Deadman Island map is accurate even today at Oak Island.
Top all that Ollie.
Oak Island Sage.
Last edited:
Ollies works do confirm the notion Kidd signed any treasure map is hogwash.
Nothing like incriminating ones self. Let alone exposing a potential caches locale!
What evidence have we of the results of such under judicial duress? Ahh that's right. No more "treasure" after.
You've had plenty of facts presented disclaiming Kidd and a signed map. Not by any one person alone.
Which does make you outnumbered when you offer a signature authenticator and are suggesting a diversionary direction by arguing watermark on parchment. Instead of your alleged signature confirmations credibility. Perhaps why you keep accusing those who call your bluff as ganging up on you.
While offering conjecture as a substitute for any proof to the contrary regarding maps. (Again.)
Far more damning evidential facts than your conjecture has countered ; even in your fictional writing..
[There are other lines of evidence the Kidd-Palmer maps were not drawn or owned by Captain Kidd. In 1951, one of the maps was forensically examined by Wilson R. Harrison from the Home Office Forensic Science Laboratory, who concluded the map is a “comparatively recent production on what might very well be an old sheet of parchment”. A separate report by the Metropolitan Police Laboratory found modern pencil marks under ink of the words “China Sea”, and a compass rose on the map (both these reports can be accessed in a file at the National Archives). The latter is not surprising, when it is realised the compass rose on the Kidd-Palmer maps is highly unconventional and would not have appeared on an actual nautical chart. Rather, it has much more in common with compass roses on fictional maps.]
Last edited:
CapnGeorge
Full Member
I stand by my solution in the book. Where's yours?
There are far more differences than similarities between the Deadman Island map and Oak Island. Again, your confirmation bias is on display. Another forum member already pointed out the profound differences but you ignore them. To the east of the Deadman Island map is "Ye Mainland". How on earth do you explain this? Where is there a mainland or extensive coastline to the east of Oak Island?
Bocaj
Sr. Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2024
- Messages
- 412
- Reaction score
- 260
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Detector(s) used
- Left and right side of the brain
There are quite a few documents amiss. The QM's logbooks (the one before it was taken, the return voyage, the trip to Curacao and the logbook of the sloop Antonio. At least the last one should have been confiscated with the sloop. I also do not understand why the crew and passengers were not questioned to give detailed accounts of the voyage. Even those in inferior positions could count days and how often they stopped on their way. In any case their should be much more documentation of that expedition available. (Un)fortunately I am sailing far away from civilization so my research is limited to what is available on the net. Maybe someone else can dig deeper.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2003
- Messages
- 2,655
- Reaction score
- 3,312
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Washington
- Detector(s) used
- Custom Designs and Prototypes
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
8. A south-view profile of the island that looks nothing at all like Oak Island, including what I will now formally name "Swamp Mountain."
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Sponsored Vendors
View all →
