Sorry you don't know me at all and that conclusion is totally of the track.
In any case I have quite an ample experience with tampered photos (digital or otherwise) and this one seem to my quite a genuine one (there is never a 100% of course). If at all it could have been Palmer but I doubt that he would exchange the maps from one place to another - it seems to be a tight fit.
If someone here can please give the source of that photo it would be appreciated
For what I have read so far the maps appeared with each one providing more details (which is kind of suspicious). Your version would totally contradict this sequence as the Coral Island Map is quite detailed. Please provide any letter or other prove that shows such an early knowledge of those details before the Morgan chest in 32.
I find it truly sad that the forum has come to this, where thinking, reasoning and polite debate have become unfashionable, where questioning is discouraged and where hubris and aggressive responses dominate and even seem to be expected.
I also find it odd, particularly from the number of Likes the first post attracted, that there’s such an easy acceptance of this and have to wonder if it has actually been thought through at all. We’re investigating concoctions promoted by Howlett and perpetuated by Edmunds but here we see an outright denial that this might be yet another example.
I’ve previously written about the question of which map was potentially the first found only to find that, as here, people had already made up their minds that Howlett couldn’t possibly have been wrong about this. I can’t remember on which platform I first raised the question and I can’t find the paper on my computer but, essentially, the thinking is as follows.
Palmer always refers to the Hardy Chest as ‘Kidd’s Chest’ and writes that he showed the map found in this chest to Admiral Hall who expressed a great deal of interest in it while observing that it was of little use without a latitude or longitude.
However, it should be noted that there is absolutely nothing on two of the published maps to suggest that they would have been at all useful in locating a treasure, since they contain no instructions whatsoever that would lead to that end. Thus, in what way might they be termed or even considered to be treasure maps?
So, the first question would be why would Palmer show Hall a map with nothing of any note written upon it, this being either the ‘Plain Map’ or the ‘Sarah Kidd Map’ which doesn’t even actually say ‘Sarah
Kidd’? What would Hall have found of such considerable interest on either of these maps that would lead him to believe that they warranted an in-depth study by experts at the admiralty or even elsewhere such as the British Museum?
We know that Hall was definitely not shown the ‘Skeleton Map’ or ‘Key Chart’. The only other map that contains anything that would spark such great interest would have been the instructions and interior detail of the ‘Coral Island Map’. Surely, the other maps just don’t cut it.
Then we have the ‘Wilkins Postcard’ on which Wilkins informs the recipient (unknown) that this (the Coral Island Map) is actually the map that Admiral Hall was shown and wanted to take away to be assessed by the admiralty and other experts. In fact, the ‘Coral Island Map’ would certainly seem to be significant enough to warrant doing this, but not the other two.
Thus, if it be accepted that the map in the Hardy Chest was shown to Hall and that the observation by Wilkins on the postcard is correct then it would be valid to conclude that the map found in the Hardy Chest was the Coral Island Map.
Given recent research by Cryptid1990, we may add to this the fact that Palmer reported the finding of the map in the Hardy Chest to Driscoll prior to 1930, and the same question arises. What was so special about either the Plain Map or the Sarah Kidd Map to prompt Palmer to tell Driscoll about it and then for him to get excited enough to write about it as a treasure map?
There’s also the matter of timing. Palmer apparently showed Hall the map at a meeting of the local Conservative Club which makes sense as Hall was the local MP from 1925 to 1929. I was unable to discover whether Hall lived in Eastbourne after 1930 (or even before), but we know that the Morgan Chest was purchased before the bureau was obtained in late 1932. Was Hall even living in Eastbourne at that time?
Then we have Palmer’s observation that it was the significance of the map in the Hardy Chest that prompted him so actively to pursue Kidd relics and to search for further Kidd maps. He was hoping to find a latitude and longitude which Cutler eventually provided in January, 1933. Would Palmer really have been that excited about the Plain Map or the Sarah Kidd Map?
The foci of Palmer’s attention are the Skeleton Map, the map in the Hardy Chest and, ultimately, the Yunnan Parchment. He never mentions the other two maps, one of which we are told considerably excited Admiral Hall’s attention. I noticed during my own research that I tended to dismiss the Plain Map and Sarah Kidd Map from consideration, and it was this that first gave me pause for thought. It didn’t exactly make sense.
Hence, I feel that there’s enough evidence in Palmer’s correspondence with Wilkins to prompt the suspicion that the map in the Hardy Chest may have been the Coral Island Map. In any event, I fail to understand why anyone would demand that we accept what Howlett and Edmunds have presented as being fact in this matter. I have to question whether they’re the most reliable of reporters, and they have entirely themselves to blame for that.
The above is not a statement of fact, it’s a question inviting discussion, and the answer is not, “I’ve decided that Edmunds can’t possibly be wrong so there’s nothing to discuss and I’ve no intention of considering an alternative.” I suggest that we don’t know either way, while feeling it possible that the matter could be as described, but hopefully the Driscoll correspondence might shed some light on the subject should this come to light.
Doubtless, such observations will be ignored and it will continue to be maintained that Palmer was old or that Wilkins switched the chests, that it’s impossible that Howlett and Edmunds jumped to the wrong conclusion, arranged the pieces to fit and then photographed the ‘evidence’. That the photograph is 'genuine' doesn't make what it says necessarily correct, and it really shouldn't be necessary to have to point this out.
So, why is this narrative not being questioned? As in other matters of received ‘wisdom’ concerning the maps, why have people presumably, and hopefully, thought carefully about it and then completely rejected the possibility? And please don’t tell me yet again that it’s because Edmunds says so and that there's a photograph to 'prove' it.
PS. And could we not try to be more polite in our discussions?
