Perhaps an adjustment might be in order. There's mountains of assumption that the maps are a hoax. There's no hard evidence, no absolute proof. How can there be? You're also assuming that so-called or self-styled experts never make mistakes. The likelihood of this happening may be in the order of the number of cases in which an innocent person is wrongly convicted in courts in the free world, perhaps less, but this can nevertheless happen.
The idea the maps are genuine is a non-starter - pirate treasure maps are a literary invention and trope rather than historical reality. There is a consensus that pirate treasure maps are fiction among historians. Furthermore, pirates very rarely buried treasure (Kidd's buried treasure on Gardiner's Island is the only notable exception). A summary from the recent
pirate exhibition at the National Maritime Museum: "While pirates certainly sought and captured valuable cargo, they almost never buried their treasure: they mainly spent it quickly. Pirates also
didn’t make secret maps to help find buried treasure". Do you have any evidence to the contrary? No, of course not. There are converging lines of evidence the Kidd-Palmer maps were drawn in the early 20th century. This was already posted pages back. For example, one of the maps (the Sarah Kidd Map) was forensically examined and determined to have modern pencil marks under 'CHINA SEA' and on the compass rose:
The Metropolitan Police Laboratory
New Scotland Yard
London
9th August, 1951
The words 'China Sea' and the diagram indicating the points of the compass in red have obviously been inked in over pencil marks. In modern black lead (i.e. graphite) pencils clay is incorporated in the lead it would be a relatively simple matter to demonstrate the presence of this substance in the pencil marks on the questioned document.
Accompanying this letter by The Metropolitan Police Laboratory was a report by Wilson R. Harrison (M.Sc., Ph.D.), the Director of the Home Office Forensic Science Lab (South Wales and Monmouthshire) who examined the same map. He determined: "I have examined the colouring matter of the ink of the initials and date. This was not written with any of the coloured inks in use in the seventeenth century." He also stated: "in my opinion, the only conclusion which is justified on the evidence is that the initials W.K. were not signed by Captain Kidd and that other evidence points to the map being a comparatively recent production on what might very well be an old sheet of parchment."
True believers that Kidd drew the maps such as Paul Hawkins have argued that Elizabeth Dick gave a
copy of the Sarah Kidd Map for the forensic examination. The problem, however, is the map is clearly described as a "parchment" in the police records: "One piece of parchment with drawing thereon". Secondly, a letter by one of Dick's associates dated 14 August 1951 is clear the map provided to police for inspection and forensic examination was the original and owned by Hubert Palmer before Dick inherited it (I have access to this letter). This disproves Hawkins. In your book you also argued that it might have been a copy. Nope. It was the original. Aside from this forensic evidence based on pencil marks and ink, Harrison concluded the map must have been modern based on the style of the cardinal points symbol on the map, which does not resemble the compass rose on maps from the 17th or 18th century.
The Kidd-Palmer maps have been studied by experts in cartography and paleography at the British Library, although they did not have access to an original map (like Harrison did) but copies, they determined the Kidd-Palmer maps were obviously not drawn in the 17th or 18th century based on the style of writing on the maps. A few of these experts were mentioned pages back notably Peter Barber, MA, FSA, FRHistS, Map Librarian, Map Library, The British Library:
When I came to the Map Library in 1987 I had spent 12 years in the Department of Manuscripts and had done extended courses in palaeography. In my last decade in Manuscripts I had also been increasingly involved with manuscript maps and charts. On the basis of this, and after consulting colleagues who specialise in palaeography I had come to the conclusion that these 'charts' were, in effect, not reconstructions or, if reconstructions, then so loosely based on originals as to be in effect new creations. My main reasons for reaching this conclusion were paleographic and contextual.
He also went on to say that the Kidd-Palmer maps are a "amalgam of elements from clichéd treasure maps" (Stevenson).
So there is historical, forensic, paleographic, and other evidence the maps are a hoax. Combined these independent lines of evidence all point toward the exact same conclusion. Furthermore, if the maps are a hoax we would expect their provenance not to date back or trace before the early 20th century. It is not a coincidence the maps cannot be shown to predate Arthur Cutler (who sold the maps to Palmer).
It's a serious risk to clear thinking and reasoning not to recognise this, and I feel that you shouldn't be falling foul of it. Also, I have no idea whether Kidd ever drew a treasure map, and I doubt anybody does, including you. Maybe he did but, admittedly, perhaps or probably not these!
Pirate treasure maps are a literary invention and trope. I can say I know Kidd never drew a treasure map since they were invented centuries after he died and were popularized by Robert Louise Stevenson in the late 19th century.
You keep telling people that they're posting nonsense because you see no 'evidence' , and nor do your vaunted 'experts', but the truth is that you're not looking for potential evidence because you've previously dismissed the possibility of its existence due to assumption, prejudice and bias. Maybe you should be considering whether you're the one not thinking as clearly as you could or should be.
Where is the evidence the maps are authentic and Kidd drew them? 47 pages and you/Randawg72 have presented nothing while ignoring all the contrary evidence. If I then claim (like any reasonable person) you are arguing in *censored*, I get reported.
so sorry but I can't give source references. However I have written what I found based true recorded accounts and logical probability. 
