The Treasure of Captain William Kidd.

Thanks, good to know. At least a documented place he stopped on his way. I always wonder why people look for that island in so many places because his journey is more or less documented. His crew would have corrected the account given of his voyage.

Given that he claimed to have hidden a that extremely valuable treasure one can assume that the authorities would have questioned any crew they could get hold on about any landfall. Also I am quite sure his crew was suspicious of him hiding anything out of the bounty. For what is well documented they didn't like or trust him very much!
He didn’t trust them and they didn’t trust him.

I think Kidd was definitely a calculating kind of guy who protected his backend just in case. I think the treasure is real and within a day’s sail from NYC.
 

I do wonder if the treasure really is on Charles Island.

I've been on the island a few times in my life but l do remember a large rock l saw as a kid and wondered if it was buried there. I'll have to go back and look, but due to the 30+ years, erosion, hurricanes and other storms, the island has changed.
 

a3f5a7df3636ff80b60eded0e5cbe63a.webp

Some variation of the key map I found on the net.

Does anyone know the source of it?
 

He didn’t trust them and they didn’t trust him.

I think Kidd was definitely a calculating kind of guy who protected his backend just in case. I think the treasure is real and within a day’s sail from NYC.
You understand don't you that someone had to unload and haul and bury that treasure wherever it is, unless he killed those who did that work, he had to trust someone...
 

You understand don't you that someone had to unload and haul and bury that treasure wherever it is, unless he killed those who did that work, he had to trust someone...
As we calculated above assuming that Kidd's estimate of the value in the 17th century was right and around 2/3 of it was gold I came to a minimum of 450kg. Quite a weight to move around! That means at least someone else must have known its location.

If he killed those who carried it then it could hardly be of his crew. He was tried for the murder of one quite disputable death (his gunner) - hard to imagine they would not have persecuted him for some crew members disappearance!

He could have used slaves he bought locally but that also would have carried some risks. Simply keeping them controlled and also while being property their disappearance would have been at least noticed.

I understand that those facts were also known to the authorities and that might very well be the reason why they hanged him ignoring his offer to bring them to the treasure. It is simply to strange a story that anyone who can count one and one together could have fallen for it in the 17th century.
 

View attachment 2204641
Some variation of the key map I found on the net.

Does anyone know the source of it?

I think this "map" was used in a newspaper or magazine article in the 1950's.
A comical and very inaccurate recreation of the 'Key' chart. They even added verbiage from the 'Coral' chart at the top. It's especially amusing that they misinterpreted the coordinates, and even changed the N in the Lat to the Roman numeral 'IV'.
 

As we calculated above assuming that Kidd's estimate of the value in the 17th century was right and around 2/3 of it was gold I came to a minimum of 450kg. Quite a weight to move around! That means at least someone else must have known its location.

If he killed those who carried it then it could hardly be of his crew. He was tried for the murder of one quite disputable death (his gunner) - hard to imagine they would not have persecuted him for some crew members disappearance!

He could have used slaves he bought locally but that also would have carried some risks. Simply keeping them controlled and also while being property their disappearance would have been at least noticed.

I understand that those facts were also known to the authorities and that might very well be the reason why they hanged him ignoring his offer to bring them to the treasure. It is simply to strange a story that anyone who can count one and one together could have fallen for it in the 17th century.
450kg is around 1000 pounds. Yes it’s a lot, but nothing crazy. A few trips with some help (man or beast) or multiple trips alone and that would do it. I’m not sure the value of gems back in the day so I can’t speak to that. Easier to carry and much lighter.

He left about 50 pounds of gold and 50 pounds of silver on Gardiner’s Island. Which would lead me to believe he probably had a bunch of caches around the same size more or less. Easier to spread it out by yourself versus having it all in one spot, which he could easily lose everything in one foul swoop.
 

450kg is around 1000 pounds. Yes it’s a lot, but nothing crazy. A few trips with some help (man or beast) or multiple trips alone and that would do it. I’m not sure the value of gems back in the day so I can’t speak to that. Easier to carry and much lighter.
I already calculated it with gems (if not it would be 750kg). It would take around 20 trips for a man alone (possible but only from one place close on land to another). Donkey would be a possibility but on a small island you won't any find larger animals.
He left about 50 pounds of gold and 50 pounds of silver on Gardiner’s Island. Which would lead me to believe he probably had a bunch of caches around the same size more or less. Easier to spread it out by yourself versus having it all in one spot, which he could easily lose everything in one foul swoop.
He distributed gifts to many people when he came but most if not all was collected by agents of the crown later. Even at Gardiner’s which I presume was the biggest part he did not bury it himself but just left the task with the owners.

What is true is that distributing a huge treasure over different places make much more sense then to bury it all at one spot. But maybe the circumstances did not allow for that. Or simply it was one of Kidd's not brilliant ideas. For all what I read of him he wasn't really that bright. That's one of the reasons I doubt that huge treasure was his as that would have made him one of the most successful pirates of all time. He was anything but.
 

I already calculated it with gems (if not it would be 750kg). It would take around 20 trips for a man alone (possible but only from one place close on land to another). Donkey would be a possibility but on a small island you won't any find larger animals.

He distributed gifts to many people when he came but most if not all was collected by agents of the crown later. Even at Gardiner’s which I presume was the biggest part he did not bury it himself but just left the task with the owners.

What is true is that distributing a huge treasure over different places make much more sense then to bury it all at one spot. But maybe the circumstances did not allow for that. Or simply it was one of Kidd's not brilliant ideas. For all what I read of him he wasn't really that bright. That's one of the reasons I doubt that huge treasure was his as that would have made him one of the most successful pirates of all time. He was anything but.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say the guy was not bright. He was wealthy and wanted to go back to sea. He probably made a few mistakes along the way, especially killing that guy with the bucket. Dumb people don’t get to know the kingmakers of his day like he did.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he spread the wealth around, like he did on Gardiner’s, with multiple prominent families of the time. Up and down the coast and all around Long Island New York. Maybe the Gardiner’s got spooked and dropped a dime because they didn’t want to lose their land charter from the king. Others with less to lose just pocketed the loot.
 

I wouldn’t go so far as to say the guy was not bright. He was wealthy and wanted to go back to sea. He probably made a few mistakes along the way, especially killing that guy with the bucket.
This was far from the only mistake he did.
  • first: He took the job. The contract was extremely unfavorable to him and his crew.
  • The ship wasn't very good build neither as the journey progressed it was basically falling apart and sunk later in St Marie.
  • He lost his crew to bragging and insulting a navy ship and then took new crew from the worst possible place (his home port of New York)
  • There were very few French ships in the East indies and even less pirates - He seem to had no idea about what he was doing there
  • He trusted the wrong people (upper class Englishmen)

Dumb people don’t get to know the kingmakers of his day like he did.
Yes they do if they are fools that can be used to whatever the powerful like to use them to! History is full of them. Just look at most governments these days. Fools all around being used by the one procent to cover their robberies of the rest of us!

I wouldn’t be surprised if he spread the wealth around, like he did on Gardiner’s, with multiple prominent families of the time. Up and down the coast and all around Long Island New York. Maybe the Gardiner’s got spooked and dropped a dime because they didn’t want to lose their land charter from the king. Others with less to lose just pocketed the loot.
Quite possible, but on the other hand they would have asked him to provide a list of those gifts he did. As he credibility was all he could rely on it would have been logical to report everything he gave away but we can't know for sure. What they collected was less then 7000£.
 

This was far from the only mistake he did.
  • first: He took the job. The contract was extremely unfavorable to him and his crew.
  • The ship wasn't very good build neither as the journey progressed it was basically falling apart and sunk later in St Marie.
  • He lost his crew to bragging and insulting a navy ship and then took new crew from the worst possible place (his home port of New York)
  • There were very few French ships in the East indies and even less pirates - He seem to had no idea about what he was doing there
  • He trusted the wrong people (upper class Englishmen)


Yes they do if they are fools that can be used to whatever the powerful like to use them to! History is full of them. Just look at most governments these days. Fools all around being used by the one procent to cover their robberies of the rest of us!


Quite possible, but on the other hand they would have asked him to provide a list of those gifts he did. As he credibility was all he could rely on it would have been logical to report everything he gave away but we can't know for sure. What they collected was less then 7000£.
The guy was definitely not a patsy.

He was calculating.
 

The guy was definitely not a patsy.

He was calculating.
Calculating for what exactly? Did you read the terms of his contract? Did he need money? No he didn't, he was quite rich and a respected NY citizen with no need for such an adventure. He was a fool who never should have sailed those waters, both literally (he had no experience in the East) nor politically (his sponsors being the most important politicians of Britain when he left). Unfortunately for him the Tories came into power and his Whig friends had to get rid of him as he was an embarrassment to them.

If he was calculating then his calculation didn't sum up at all - this is what I would call a fool! It is also why I think he didn't invent this buried treasure because he was a fool and honesty is the most foolish thing one can have in a nest of vipers. Some vipers that ruled Britain from the day the Dutch occupiers invaded them. There was a reason why the Jacobite movement lasted so long.
 

William Kidd was only wealthy by marriage. Almost overnight he was thrust into New York high society and suddenly the governor, Dukes, Lords, and King Willam III wanted to recruit him for an important mission. How could he say no? I'm sure that social status and loyalty to England were his motivations, not money or political pressure.
I don't believe Kidd was a fool nor a liar. But the term "Patsy" is a bit harder to defend. Since his privateering venture failed to produce any pirates to prosecute, his new 'friends' decided to make Kidd an example and convict him instead.
 

William Kidd was only wealthy by marriage. Almost overnight he was thrust into New York high society and suddenly the governor, Dukes, Lords, and King Willam III wanted to recruit him for an important mission. How could he say no?
As I said - he was a fool because of him entering in a world he didn't belong. How to say no? Well you don't. If you live long enough around people that speak of loyalty all the time you also learn to say "yes, but" - finding the right excuses is half of the job. Obviously he was untrained.
I'm sure that social status and loyalty to England were his motivations, not money or political pressure. I don't believe Kidd was a fool nor a liar.
Only a fool can enter a den of thieves and think to survive it by telling the truth!
But the term "Patsy" is a bit harder to defend. Since his privateering venture failed to produce any pirates to prosecute, his new 'friends' decided to make Kidd an example and convict him instead.
Well they had overdone their thievery a bit so the opposition took over (Tories), who knows maybe KIdd would have had a hero's welcome if his backers would have been still in power? Attacking EIC protected Indan ships was in their interest as their BoE was a EIC competitor.

Kidd's story could have been different. But then this is how politics works everyone in power grabs as much as they can while the party last and after it they leave it to the oppsition to cleanup the mess.

He was simply an amateur in that game and couldn't keep up ith the professionals. A believer in the values of the "Glorious Revolution" - a fool like most small people these days believing in more or less the same talk, never really getting the fact that they are beeing played their whole lives.

Well these days you don't get the gallows but a mountian of debt a divorced wife if at all and gentic tastless food. I probably would prefer the gallows.
 

Give this number to some psychic or remote viewer and let them "see" is and what is related to this number.
The world between psychic and metal detector. Anyone ever tried studying history? It would reveal a lot more then treasures...
 

Your point is?
The truth is there - in between all those letters and documents, written between the lines. I mean those documents that have been proven authentic, also the state papers and even the novels of the 18th century are essential to understand the story.

The ignorance of history is quite frustrating here. Most here if at all read some modern books about it mostly of those who already failed to find the treasure instead of doing the research for themself s.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom