What's new

What happened to the Kidd-Palmer treasure maps?

Sheesh, what a big argument over old rope about Kidd and now this stuff which is from about 10 years ago when Marty and Rick Lagina ran it on The Curse of Oak Island.

Blah blah blah, Anson, the Royal Society, a 'coded map....that relied on constellations' etc the episode went.

Anyone got anything new thats not just a rehash?
 

Attachments

  • argue.webp
    argue.webp
    214.8 KB · Views: 49
Last edited:
You're so clever, by calling it all rubbish, please tell us all what the real answers are and why the calculations (figures on the charts) are wrong.
 
You're so clever, by calling it all rubbish, please tell us all what the real answers are and why the calculations (figures on the charts) are wrong.
I remember you started rubbishing our ideas first - so play surprised if that happens to you as well! What have you got to show? Nothing more than most others here - ideas that in your own opinion are right.

Your number playing is funny - good for those who have no experience in math. The coordinates don't fit - use another meridian put a 1 in front of them and swap N for S and E for W. I can prove it's buried below St. Peters in Rome using your methods! And this is just for starters.
 
It appears you are just not capable of using common sense. My proposals are practical and fit in with what it is all about, not number playing- not St Peters in Rome! I didn't make the figures up, Wilkins obviously did, and just because I propose the obvious most sensible use of his figures, it's all rubbish. Wilkins hints at Pinaki in a lot of his books, why? why not any other atoll? Please show us how the coordinates on the key chart do not fit Pinaki when measured from the Cadiz meridian.
 
Thought I'd take a peek at TreasureNet, and there you are, all (most) still going around in circles. Craptid still burying his head in the (coral) sand with all his letters. I've said this before, - a treasure chart is for solving, but nobody in this thread seems capable of doing it. Who wrote what and when, appears to be more important. Some things need to be addressed while I think of them; the postcard sketch by Wilkins. This was sent to me by a colleague in Australia many years before my book was published. The map profile on it is unmistakably the same as on the charts, more proof he drew them. You have to be blind if you cannot see that. Cryptids quote;
.......the impossibility of Wilkins being the hoaxer as he had no knowledge of the maps until 1932'. Unquote. Cryptid is on another planet! Wilkins drew them and conned everyone into thinking he didn't! He was a habitual liar. Who do you think secreted these hoax maps into the furniture? It was Wilkins in collaboration with Hill Cutler, the dealer ideally positioned to do so, before passing them on to Palmer. What was in it for him? I wouldn't know. Ask Wilkins. Why didn't he go after the treasure? Why didn't he go after any of the 100s of others he wrote about closer to home? Anyone contemplating going to the middle of the South Pacific Ocean in the 30s/40s would need a lot of money and be prepared to do a lot of sailing. The same applies today. Cryptid again, quote: ......the Kidd-Palmer maps have nothing to do with Pinaki atoll, this is nonsense you (me) made up.' Unquote. This statement is proof he is not capable of in-depth research, so here's the answer, using Wilkins' map figures, NOT mine: Everyone (those with common sense and intelligence) knows the maps are based on the 1795 Spanish map of JFI. It is so blatantly obvious. It was easy for Wilkins to locate this chart, knowing the Anson file mentions JFI and a Spanish treasure linked to the Spanish Captain General Estaban Ubilla. JFI was a popular place for pirates and stories of buried treasure. Wilkins unearthed the Anson file, probably sometime in the 1920s or before. Quote: ' Treasure Hunting; 'Among the First Lord's papers in the confidential archives of the British Admiralty, in Whitehall, London are documents telling of the adventures of past hunters........' So the subject is a SPANISH treasure! And if you didn't know it, the Spanish used Cadiz as their meridian or starting point for navigation. Wilkins could have put any name on the charts; he chose Kidd for reasons explained in previous threads. Strictly speaking, they should be known as the Ubilla-Palmer charts. The code key for solving the charts is to put '1' in front of Wilkins' figures, giving us LAT 19.16N and 131.30E. Well fancy that, the almost exact position of Pinaki atoll from Cadiz. Wilkins, with his continuing efforts to confuse, has put N for S and E for W. Adding the 6.30 Cadiz meridian gives us 138 degrees longitude West from London. Can Cryptid get his glasses on and see that I did not make any of the above figures up?
THEY WERE PENNED BY WILKINS! I am not likely to get an apology; he'll be too busy working out ways to call me a liar again.
Let us look at the 'Mar Del' maps in his Skeleton Island book. Why did he include two, almost identical, with different direction figures? None of you has questioned this because you don't know. The map within the book, figures only, add the first two rows;
18+7+30+14 = 69. Bottom row; 7+8+4 = 19 (ring a bell at all?)
Inside covers map; add figures, first two rows; 18+7(disguised as 71, those in the know would know that) +26+18 = 69.
Two sets of '69', why? Well let's see, add them together and we get 138, the longitude of Pinaki from London, together with the figure of 19 for latitude. I told you Wilkins was devious. And NO cryptid, I didn't make those figures up either!!!
On the same charts is; Lat.d.m.d. A head scratcher, until you know that it decodes out to Lat 19 via the decoding of Anson's monument. There are people out there saying I made it all up! Really? It just goes to show, you cannot see what is staring you in the face. Because you haven't or cannot work it out yourselves, you rubbish the practical and sensible, genuine work of others, one in particular. Possibly too far advanced for you at this stage, but Anson built into one of his monuments on his Estate, a cypher, in Times Roman capital letters on two lines.. Guess what? when decoded, they give two figures: 138 and 19. Now, where have we seen that before?? and NO cryptid, I didn't make Anson's monument up!! What a stupid and silly man to say I made it all up.
No mention of Anson etc in any of Wilkins' files etc? By virtue of his codes,lies and deviousness, he was keeping it secret, as did Anson, it was a secret expedition to recover a treasure. But anyone doing serious in-depth research will know that he sent part of Anson's file to searchers on JFI in the 1950s, more proof he knew all about it.
Geoff Bath has done some good stuff, and I think I read somewhere - no mention of Anson etc? Possibly because he was concentrating on Oak Island and gathering together documents and letters etc about the Kidd maps saga and maybe not extending his research far beyond his 'bubble'. This was his 'thing', mine was solving the charts.
There are numerous other clues dotted around in his books, all giving the same answer when you know how to work them Another one, probably ignored, is a line in one of Wilkins' books: 'Eyeless and hairless, on th' island Pristarius'. Put there for a reason, containing clues. What he is really doing is drawing your attention to; Prime Star Scorpius. I'm not going into astromaths here, but when you know how to use the astro charts, guess what?; 138 and 19 come out again. No cryptid, I didn't make 'Pristarius' up, it's your favourite friend and master, honest! That's all. Read the book if you want to see other clues giving the same answer.
I shall wait, trembling in my seat, waiting for cryptid to find ways of telling everyone that everything said above is all lies, nonsense and made up! And I've just asked myself the question: 'Why would I want to do that?'
A couple of points and evidence to add, I missed previously; A couple of you, cryptid included are saying that George Anson buried a treasure on JFI. He did? News to me. Perhaps you can show me the evidence. Or maybe again - no proper research employed here.
In 1940, Wilkins wrote an article for an American publication (those who have carried out the research will know what I am talking about). He included a typical rubbish map/chart, again based on the Bartholomew Sharp style he previously used. The attached concocted story is him trying to persuade you of links to Oak Island, What Wilkins is doing is in fact, dropping big hints once again to Pinaki, with reefs, coral, Palms etc. He even shows the reef entrance where you can row into the lagoon, exactly as on Pinaki. The map profile is like a fat eel, for one of two reasons: he knew what the atoll looked like but didn't want to show it for obvious reasons. Or, he had not seen a profile, so he used a description and guesswork. However, the big giveaway is his included drawing of a ship blowing up! A bit odd that, don't you think? Well, no, it proves he knew all about the Anson file and the letters within, where Captain Webb mentions having to blow his ship up! Nowhere else is this mentioned. Cryptid likes to say I made everything up! Not something I made up, cryptid, have a look yourself. And what about this other guy -Freeman? who also appears to know everything and rubbishes the knowledge of others. I think we would all like to see how he is going to prove all the above is rubbish and that the ship is really linked to St Peter's in Rome! And, if I made it all up, why is Bernard Keiser still looking for a Spanish treasure on JFI? Nothing found after over 10 years of digging. Perhaps, maybe, it's not there!
 
A couple of points and evidence to add, I missed previously; A couple of you, cryptid included are saying that George Anson buried a treasure on JFI. He did? News to me. Perhaps you can show me the evidence. Or maybe again - no proper research employed here.
In 1940, Wilkins wrote an article for an American publication (those who have carried out the research will know what I am talking about). He included a typical rubbish map/chart, again based on the Bartholomew Sharp style he previously used. The attached concocted story is him trying to persuade you of links to Oak Island, What Wilkins is doing is in fact, dropping big hints once again to Pinaki, with reefs, coral, Palms etc. He even shows the reef entrance where you can row into the lagoon, exactly as on Pinaki. The map profile is like a fat eel, for one of two reasons: he knew what the atoll looked like but didn't want to show it for obvious reasons. Or, he had not seen a profile, so he used a description and guesswork. However, the big giveaway is his included drawing of a ship blowing up! A bit odd that, don't you think? Well, no, it proves he knew all about the Anson file and the letters within, where Captain Webb mentions having to blow his ship up! Nowhere else is this mentioned. Cryptid likes to say I made everything up! Not something I made up, cryptid, have a look yourself. And what about this other guy -Freeman? who also appears to know everything and rubbishes the knowledge of others. I think we would all like to see how he is going to prove all the above is rubbish and that the ship is really linked to St Peter's in Rome! And, if I made it all up, why is Bernard Keiser still looking for a Spanish treasure on JFI? Nothing found after over 10 years of digging. Perhaps, maybe, it's not there!
I can't remember anyone (apart from you) talking about Anson's treasure.

The idea to link the poem to some star is interesting but in general you fit the facts to your conclusion and that simply is a very bad method in a highly speculative environment like treasure hunting. Cryptid's research is much better in that regard.

Which doesn't mean we don't appreciate a healthy dose of speculation and free association from time to time - yours including. Only your dismissive tone of our research and your guru-like insistence that we have to take your word as gospel is annoying.

I for my part did my best to give my interpretation of the maps. It doesn't include any complicated decoding but assumes that they do not really hide the facts. Its not your idea but never the less I can ask to respect what others think even if they disagree - is that not so?

Pinaki is a nice place to visit and if I get the chance I will sail there but when it comes to similarity to the maps there are others that are much better fits. Honestly apart from the lagoon there isn't much else.
 
Ah Bocaj, and I thought you were one of the more sensible ones. Now falling into the trap of looking for a similar island! Why are you ignoring Wilkins figures? I didn't make them up. They clearly give the lat and long of Pinaki from Cadiz. Wilkins knew all along we are dealing with a Spanish treasure. And what is complicated about the code key, - putting a '1' in front. I would'nt have thought that was too complicated for you!
 
Ah Bocaj, and I thought you were one of the more sensible ones. Now falling into the trap of looking for a similar island! Why are you ignoring Wilkins figures?

Because I came to the conclusion that this map (or the original that it was copied from) was drawn by someone with nautical experience knowing the island. I think to understand most of what the map shows and the only thing missing are the coordinates. Whoever and for whatever reason draw those maps took it from some real island I am quite convinced of this.

Also, when in doubt I prefer a simple theory above a complicated one. Your idea that involves basically all know mythical treasures at once is maybe good for the next Indiana Jones movie but contradicts real life experience.

I didn't make them up. They clearly give the lat and long of Pinaki from Cadiz. Wilkins knew all along we are dealing with a Spanish treasure. And what is complicated about the code key, - putting a '1' in front. I would'nt have thought that was too complicated for you!

It is not about being complicated - the math is very basic but it is just one of an almost infinite amount of combinations that point to all kind of places on earth (or even on the moon if you like) using the numbers of the coordinates and other "hints".

Numerology is a quite interesting field of mathematics and can easily drive any person nuts believe me. Watch the movie PI, it shows it well.

That said I do appreciate some ideas and the research you have done in your book but can't follow you in your conclusion to connect them all to find the "Big Whoop" - courtesy of Monkey Island..
 
I fear that it may be pointless trying to provide some background here, based on potential evidence in my possession and from what I’ve actually seen, because people simply declare that what they don’t like, or what doesn’t fit their narrative, has to be wrong.

However, in fairness to George, I’ll try yet again. When Ron McKenzie first contacted me, I’d already investigated the possibility that Lord Anson may have been involved, but had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the proposition.

This goes back to my research into the world of treasure hunting in the 1920s and 30s, and in the present day. I don’t agree with Ron (under whatever name he writes) or George that there’s definitely a map DNA or ‘über map’, but I do agree that there’s definitely a source from which the Palmer and Wilkins maps were drawn, and I’ve seen and handled a portion of it.

I can’t believe that I’m having to say this time and time again, but while Wilkins definitely drew up his maps he didn’t necessarily conjure up the instructions. He was provided with them, they were taken from other maps. There was a source. Why do people outright refuse to consider this even a possibility?

Despite what Cryptid declares to be the case, Wilkins did base his maps on the island that the owners of the source maps believed to be where the treasure was buried, and that just happens to be Juan Fernandez or Robinson Crusoe Island, though this doesn’t mean that they were right.

Wilkins had a copy of the original map outline, and wasn’t convinced of the identity, though he did eventually wonder if Kidd might have sailed with Dampier early in his career. How the owners came to identify the island as Juan Fernandez, I don’t exactly know. However, they seemed to be considering Lord Anson’s treasure. I also don’t know if they were aware of the Herradura ‘treasure’, because the timing of the discoveries there (Latcham) is unclear.

In any event, I obtained and read the two source books El Tesoro de Lord Anson and El Tesoro de los Piratas de Guayacán and, at the request of Ron McKenzie, translated them both into English (I'd lived and worked for a time in South and Central America). So, I was well aware of thoughts concerning Lord Anson’s treasure.

Once I’d seen the original source material I had the confirmation I needed that the Palmer maps actually originated from the same place. The maps all seemed to be part of a set. The owners thought that each indicated a treasure, but I wasn’t convinced of that. However, as this source contained material dating back to the 1740s it seemed possible to me that this might be why thoughts of a possible Anson treasure became linked to the maps.

One other thing did occur to me: that Wilkins may have been complicit in the Palmer scam. He knew about the source of his own maps and he was associated with a very shady character who I believe may have been the individual who leaked the information to him. Of course, that individual could independently have known or have been in league with Hill Cutler, but I felt that this would have been quite a coincidence.

Cutler could have suggested that Palmer contact Wilkins in order to add credibility to his scam and to encourage Palmer to pursue his dream of expanding his collection and set up a Pirate Museum. However, I did feel that this was highly speculative as I could find no evidence to support it, and Wilkins’ brother, who also befriended Palmer and visited him, would seem not to have known about such an arrangement. Cryptid's arguments against this would seem to have merit.

There’s a further question: if the Palmer maps are part of a scam, why copy the original content so exactly, including colour, and include the original instructions? These do seem to be intentional copies, not totally new creations, so maybe they weren't actually drawn in order to be part of a scam, used simply because they were convenient and looked the part. This is not to say that the actual source of the Palmer and Wilkins maps is not fake or even another scam, but it didn’t look like it to me. Unfortunately, I couldn't convince the owners to have the contents of the file assessed.

Bear in mind that just because the maps we’ve been presented with are clear 20th century creations doesn’t mean that they don’t convey genuine information, that is to say, should they be copies of earlier documents. The originals are potentially still out there somewhere, but nobody is looking for them because they’ve decided that they know for a fact that they don’t exist! From where I’m sitting, this is truly mind boggling.
 
Because I came to the conclusion that this map (or the original that it was copied from) was drawn by someone with nautical experience knowing the island. I think to understand most of what the map shows and the only thing missing are the coordinates. Whoever and for whatever reason draw those maps took it from some real island I am quite convinced of this.

Also, when in doubt I prefer a simple theory above a complicated one. Your idea that involves basically all know mythical treasures at once is maybe good for the next Indiana Jones movie but contradicts real life experience.



It is not about being complicated - the math is very basic but it is just one of an almost infinite amount of combinations that point to all kind of places on earth (or even on the moon if you like) using the numbers of the coordinates and other "hints".

Numerology is a quite interesting field of mathematics and can easily drive any person nuts believe me. Watch the movie PI, it shows it well.

That said I do appreciate some ideas and the research you have done in your book but can't follow you in your conclusion to connect them all to find the "Big Whoop" - courtesy of Monkey Island..
Your;.......but it is just one of an almost infinite amount of combinations that point to all kinds of places.' Er- no! The Wilkins coordinates pinpoint Pinaki exactly, and why would Wilkins mention this particular lonely atoll early on in one of his books, with other mentions over the years? And why did Charles Edward Howe spend years searching here 100 years or so ago? Can you not see, the island/atoll, can only be Pinaki? Also, perhaps you did not know it, Pinaki is the only one with a large coral block having the old Spanish code signs on it. So I don't think any of the above falls in line with your;......all kinds of places on earth....! One other thing; Why would Admiral Lord George Anson put the coordinates of Pinaki, in cypher, on a monument at his Estate? Can you explain that? (And it wasn't me who did the engraving, honest!)
 
Your;.......but it is just one of an almost infinite amount of combinations that point to all kinds of places.' Er- no! The Wilkins coordinates pinpoint Pinaki exactly, and why would Wilkins mention this particular lonely atoll early on in one of his books, with other mentions over the years?

I wouldn't call adding 100 and swapping N for S and W for E 'exactly'! Also Pinaki is at Lat 19.23 not 19.16 (that would be Nukutava) and Long 138.40 - 6.15 = 132.25 (Cadiz 0) not 131.30! Not what I call exactly neither (60sm off) and off course it was only used after 1753 in Spain. I doubt that Anson would have used it six years after his expedition! In any case you almost always find some Prime Meridian for other ideas as well.

Wilkins has published a lot of treasure stories so mentioning Pinaki is nothing strange.

And why did Charles Edward Howe spend years searching here 100 years or so ago? Can you not see, the island/atoll, can only be Pinaki? Also, perhaps you did not know it, Pinaki is the only one with a large coral block having the old Spanish code signs on it. So I don't think any of the above falls in line with your;......all kinds of places on earth....!

Pinaki has apart from a lagoon (with a very different form) and maybe turtles nothing in common with the island of the maps. You simply ignore the facts that don't fit your ideas!

One other thing; Why would Admiral Lord George Anson put the coordinates of Pinaki, in cypher, on a monument at his Estate? Can you explain that? (And it wasn't me who did the engraving, honest!)

Did he? Or did you decode it wrong? Like Numerology also the art of Cipher is something that can drive one nuts.

You can't know for sure you got the right cipher because the amount of encoded text is too small to give an unique result. The amount of valid ciphers is large and you picked the one that fits your idea. It is you not him who read coordinates in to them!

Don't get me wrong I do not mean to totally dismiss your idea but I can't see why it is better then all the others published before. Nothing you have written differs from the Oak Island or other ideas. They all have some way of decoding the maps the 'right' way.
 
Last edited:
Thought I'd take a peek at TreasureNet, and there you are, all (most) still going around in circles. Craptid still burying his head in the (coral) sand with all his letters. I've said this before, - a treasure chart is for solving, but nobody in this thread seems capable of doing it. Who wrote what and when, appears to be more important. Some things need to be addressed while I think of them; the postcard sketch by Wilkins. This was sent to me by a colleague in Australia many years before my book was published. The map profile on it is unmistakably the same as on the charts, more proof he drew them. You have to be blind if you cannot see that. Cryptids quote;
Wilkins was shown the map in the Hardy Chest (Coral Island) by Hubert Palmer when he first visited him in 1932. However, he was not allowed to purchase it (Palmer refused to sell), take a photograph or reproduce a similar drawing for his book Captain Kidd and His Skeleton Island (hence the 'Mar Del' maps look dissimilar). Wilkins though made a private sketch of the map on a postcard after his visit. It is obvious he was relying from faulty memory since he wrote "woods" instead of "trees" and the postcard sketch is less detailed than the original map. Furthermore, Wilkin's writing on the postcard and the writing on the Coral Island is clearly different.

Compare:

1768154414514.webp

(Coral Island Map)

1768154500812.webp


(Wilkin's postcard sketch)

Most noticeably all "L"s on the Coral Island map look different to Wilkin's "L"s. The "L"s on the Coral Island map point downward.

This is actually strong evidence Wilkins was not the hoaxer - he had to rely on his imperfect memory to draw the Coral Island map - and hence made some mistakes - plus the writing style on both is different. Note as well that Wilkins made a mistake with "Death Valley". The words "Death Valley" do not appear on the Coral Island map nor does "Woods" (Wilkins by mistake wrote "Woods" instead of "Trees").

1768155786092.webp

(Coral Island Map)

1768155845919.webp

(Wilkin's postcard sketch)

To sum up, the postcard sketch is not proof Wilkins was the hoaxer but the opposite.

.......the impossibility of Wilkins being the hoaxer as he had no knowledge of the maps until 1932'. Unquote. Cryptid is on another planet! Wilkins drew them and conned everyone into thinking he didn't! He was a habitual liar. Who do you think secreted these hoax maps into the furniture? It was Wilkins in collaboration with Hill Cutler, the dealer ideally positioned to do so, before passing them on to Palmer. What was in it for him? I wouldn't know. Ask Wilkins.
Hubert Palmer first wrote a letter to Wilkins in May 1932 to invite him to inspect the map from the Hardy Chest. About a week later, Wilkins then traveled to Eastbourne, to visit Palmer at his house. Palmer's letters make clear he never met Wilkins before May-June 1932 and he only prior knew Harold T. Wilkins' name by having read his books on pirates such as Hunting Hidden Treasures (1929):

"Dear Mr. Wilkins
We are strangers to each other, though I say I know you pretty well from some of your books on pirate islands and seas... I wonder if you could spare time to run down here one day next week and see a queer old chest in my little collection of relics.
Bath (2013, III, p. 27)

One of Wilkins' private manuscripts (owned by Gjb [quoted on same page]), makes clear Wilkins had never met Palmer before 1932 (this explains why Wilkins never mentioned Palmer in any of his published writings prior to that year since he had no knowledge of him then [he first mentioned Hubert Palmer in an article a year later, "Captain Kidd's Treasure", The Passing Show May 6 [1933]). There is nothing in any of Palmer's letters and his correspondence with A. Hill-Cutler to suggest that Cutler was familiar with Wilkins; on the contrary, the silence about this suggests Cutler and Harold T. Wilkins had never met in person. One also gets the impression from Wilkins' writings that he had never visited Eastbourne prior to visiting Palmer in 1932. There are multiple lines of evidence to seriously doubt Wilkins was the hoaxer; one of these I earlier discussed and was mentioned by Gjb (see above): are you saying that Wilkins was deceiving his own brother? Wilkins brother invested a lot of time investigating the maps.

Why didn't he go after the treasure? Why didn't he go after any of the 100s of others he wrote about closer to home? Anyone contemplating going to the middle of the South Pacific Ocean in the 30s/40s would need a lot of money and be prepared to do a lot of sailing. The same applies today.
Wilkins wrote about a lot of different treasure maps and treasure hunts but you are claiming Wilkins actually knew the location (X marks the spot) of a buried treasure but at the same time you expect us to believe he never tried to dig it up or recover it and most bizarrely left clues to rival treasure hunters to find. :dontknow:

Cryptid again, quote: ......the Kidd-Palmer maps have nothing to do with Pinaki atoll, this is nonsense you (me) made up.' Unquote. This statement is proof he is not capable of in-depth research, so here's the answer, using Wilkins' map figures, NOT mine: Everyone (those with common sense and intelligence) knows the maps are based on the 1795 Spanish map of JFI. It is so blatantly obvious.
"Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy where someone tries to prove a point simply by stating it as fact, without providing actual evidence or reasoning, essentially repeating the claim or presenting it as self-evident." 🤦‍♂️

It was easy for Wilkins to locate this chart, knowing the Anson file mentions JFI and a Spanish treasure linked to the Spanish Captain General Estaban Ubilla. JFI was a popular place for pirates and stories of buried treasure. Wilkins unearthed the Anson file, probably sometime in the 1920s or before. Quote: ' Treasure Hunting; 'Among the First Lord's papers in the confidential archives of the British Admiralty, in Whitehall, London are documents telling of the adventures of past hunters........' So the subject is a SPANISH treasure! And if you didn't know it, the Spanish used Cadiz as their meridian or starting point for navigation. Wilkins could have put any name on the charts; he chose Kidd for reasons explained in previous threads. Strictly speaking, they should be known as the Ubilla-Palmer charts.
You do not provide any evidence for these far-fetched claims. You might as claim Wilkins "unearthed" a lost play by Shakespeare.

The code key for solving the charts is to put '1' in front of Wilkins' figures, giving us LAT 19.16N and 131.30E. Well fancy that, the almost exact position of Pinaki atoll from Cadiz. Wilkins, with his continuing efforts to confuse, has put N for S and E for W. Adding the 6.30 Cadiz meridian gives us 138 degrees longitude West from London. Can Cryptid get his glasses on and see that I did not make any of the above figures up?
Why would he do any of that? Can you answer that question? According to you, Wilkins knew the location of a buried treasure (worth millions) and was searching for it himself but what treasure hunter leaves clues for competing treasure hunters? Why did he not dig it up?

THEY WERE PENNED BY WILKINS! I am not likely to get an apology; he'll be too busy working out ways to call me a liar again.
Let us look at the 'Mar Del' maps in his Skeleton Island book. Why did he include two, almost identical, with different direction figures? None of you has questioned this because you don't know. The map within the book, figures only, add the first two rows;
18+7+30+14 = 69. Bottom row; 7+8+4 = 19 (ring a bell at all?)
Inside covers map; add figures, first two rows; 18+7(disguised as 71, those in the know would know that) +26+18 = 69.
Two sets of '69', why? Well let's see, add them together and we get 138, the longitude of Pinaki from London, together with the figure of 19 for latitude. I told you Wilkins was devious. And NO cryptid, I didn't make those figures up either!!!
You can add different numbers to get different latitude or longitude by this silly arbitrary exercise. Why not add only 18 + 7 + 30?

On the same charts is; Lat.d.m.d. A head scratcher, until you know that it decodes out to Lat 19 via the decoding of Anson's monument. There are people out there saying I made it all up! Really? It just goes to show, you cannot see what is staring you in the face. Because you haven't or cannot work it out yourselves, you rubbish the practical and sensible, genuine work of others, one in particular. Possibly too far advanced for you at this stage, but Anson built into one of his monuments on his Estate, a cypher, in Times Roman capital letters on two lines.. Guess what? when decoded, they give two figures: 138 and 19. Now, where have we seen that before?? and NO cryptid, I didn't make Anson's monument up!! What a stupid and silly man to say I made it all up.
No mention of Anson etc in any of Wilkins' files etc? By virtue of his codes,lies and deviousness, he was keeping it secret, as did Anson, it was a secret expedition to recover a treasure. But anyone doing serious in-depth research will know that he sent part of Anson's file to searchers on JFI in the 1950s, more proof he knew all about it.
Geoff Bath has done some good stuff, and I think I read somewhere - no mention of Anson etc? Possibly because he was concentrating on Oak Island and gathering together documents and letters etc about the Kidd maps saga and maybe not extending his research far beyond his 'bubble'. This was his 'thing', mine was solving the charts.
There are numerous other clues dotted around in his books, all giving the same answer when you know how to work them Another one, probably ignored, is a line in one of Wilkins' books: 'Eyeless and hairless, on th' island Pristarius'. Put there for a reason, containing clues. What he is really doing is drawing your attention to; Prime Star Scorpius. I'm not going into astromaths here, but when you know how to use the astro charts, guess what?; 138 and 19 come out again. No cryptid, I didn't make 'Pristarius' up, it's your favourite friend and master, honest! That's all. Read the book if you want to see other clues giving the same answer.
I shall wait, trembling in my seat, waiting for cryptid to find ways of telling everyone that everything said above is all lies, nonsense and made up! And I've just asked myself the question: 'Why would I want to do that?'
You are one of hundreds, if not thousands of individuals who claim to have "solved" or "decoded" the Shugborough inscription:

A spokesman for the property (now owned by the National Trust) was quoted in 2014 asserting, "We get five or six people a week who believe they have solved the code so we are a bit wary of them now."
Most of these people are amateur researchers and cranks. If you had actually solved it, scholars would have paid attention to your theory or proposed solution. None have done because it's patent nonsense. The same year you published your book, another crank claimed to have solved it; two years earlier, another crank did. :sleepy2:
 
Last edited:
Wilkins was shown the map in the Hardy Chest (Coral Island) by Hubert Palmer when he first visited him in 1932. However, he was not allowed to purchase it (Palmer refused to sell), take a photograph or reproduce a similar drawing for his book Captain Kidd and His Skeleton Island (hence the 'Mar Del' maps look dissimilar). Wilkins though made a private sketch of the map on a postcard after his visit. It is obvious he was relying from faulty memory since he wrote "woods" instead of "trees" and the postcard sketch is less detailed than the original map. Furthermore, Wilkin's writing on the postcard and the writing on the Coral Island is clearly different.

Compare:

View attachment 2240480
(Coral Island Map)

View attachment 2240481

(Wilkin's postcard sketch)

Most noticeably all "L"s on the Coral Island map look different to Wilkin's "L"s. The "L"s on the Coral Island map point downward.

This is actually strong evidence Wilkins was not the hoaxer - he had to rely on his imperfect memory to draw the Coral Island map - and hence made some mistakes - plus the writing style on both is different. Note as well that Wilkins made a mistake with "Death Valley". The words "Death Valley" do not appear on the Coral Island map nor does "Woods" (Wilkins by mistake wrote "Woods" instead of "Trees").

View attachment 2240494
(Coral Island Map)

View attachment 2240495
(Wilkin's postcard sketch)

To sum up, the postcard sketch is not proof Wilkins was the hoaxer but the opposite.


Hubert Palmer first wrote a letter to Wilkins in May 1932 to invite him to inspect the map from the Hardy Chest. About a week later, Wilkins then traveled to Eastbourne, to visit Palmer at his house. Palmer's letters make clear he never met Wilkins before May-June 1932 and he only prior knew Harold T. Wilkins' name by having read his books on pirates such as Hunting Hidden Treasures (1929):


Bath (2013, III, p. 27)

One of Wilkins' private manuscripts (owned by Gjb [quoted on same page]), makes clear Wilkins had never met Palmer before 1932 (this explains why Wilkins never mentioned Palmer in any of his published writings prior to that year since he had no knowledge of him then [he first mentioned Hubert Palmer in an article a year later, "Captain Kidd's Treasure", The Passing Show May 6 [1933]). There is nothing in any of Palmer's letters and his correspondence with A. Hill-Cutler to suggest that Cutler was familiar with Wilkins; on the contrary, the silence about this suggests Cutler and Harold T. Wilkins had never met in person. One also gets the impression from Wilkins' writings that he had never visited Eastbourne prior to visiting Palmer in 1932. There are multiple lines of evidence to seriously doubt Wilkins was the hoaxer; one of these I earlier discussed and was mentioned by Gjb (see above): are you saying that Wilkins was deceiving his own brother? Wilkins brother invested a lot of time investigating the maps.


Wilkins wrote about a lot of different treasure maps and treasure hunts but you are claiming Wilkins actually knew the location (X marks the spot) of a buried treasure but at the same time you expect us to believe he never tried to dig it up or recover it and most bizarrely left clues to rival treasure hunters to find. :dontknow:


"Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy where someone tries to prove a point simply by stating it as fact, without providing actual evidence or reasoning, essentially repeating the claim or presenting it as self-evident." 🤦‍♂️


You do not provide any evidence for these far-fetched claims. You might as claim Wilkins "unearthed" a lost play by Shakespeare.


Why would he do any of that? Can you answer that question? According to you, Wilkins knew the location of a buried treasure (worth millions) and was searching for it himself but what treasure hunter leaves clues for competing treasure hunters? Why did he not dig it up?


You can add different numbers to get different latitude or longitude by this silly arbitrary exercise. Why not add only 18 + 7 + 30?


You are one of hundreds, if not thousands of individuals who claim to have "solved" or "decoded" the Shugborough inscription:


Most of these people are amateur researchers and cranks. If you had actually solved it, scholars would have paid attention to your theory or proposed solution. None have done because it's patent nonsense. The same year you published your book, another crank claimed to have solved it; two years earlier, another crank did. :sleepy2:
If you want to be blind to the obvious, I'll let you get on with it. The Anson code? mine is the obvious sensible practical solution. Anson was a naval man, the solution is naval/navigation related to his expedition. As I said, you are always blind to the obvious. For some strange reason it appears you cannot accept that, because you can't work anything out, then neither can anyone else! A decent sort would say; 'That's a good clever effort, but I don't go along with it because..........?? So let's see your workings! I have more important things to do at the moment, so will not be wasting any more time on it.
 
I wouldn't call adding 100 and swapping N for S and W for E 'exactly'! Also Pinaki is at Lat 19.23 not 19.16 (that would be Nukutava) and Long 138.40 - 6.15 = 132.25 (Cadiz 0) not 131.30! Not what I call exactly neither (60sm off) and off course it was only used after 1753 in Spain. I doubt that Anson would have used it six years after his expedition! In any case you almost always find some Prime Meridian for other ideas as well.

Wilkins has published a lot of treasure stories so mentioning Pinaki is nothing strange.



Pinaki has apart from a lagoon (with a very different form) and maybe turtles nothing in common with the island of the maps. You simply ignore the facts that don't fit your ideas!



Did he? Or did you decode it wrong? Like Numerology also the art of Cipher is something that can drive one nuts.

You can't know for sure you got the right cipher because the amount of encoded text is too small to give an unique result. The amount of valid ciphers is large and you picked the one that fits your idea. It is you not him who read coordinates in to them!

Don't get me wrong I do not mean to totally dismiss your idea but I can't see why it is better then all the others published before. Nothing you have written differs from the Oak Island or other ideas. They all have some way of decoding the maps the 'right' way.
Re the coordinates, I am surprised you are not aware that 300 years ago there were no navigation satellites. Of course those figures are not precise, Obviously they could be 1 or 2 degrees out. You are trying to pick an unnecessary and silly argument. Thought you had more sense than that. You are also not wise to ignore Wilkins 'Pristarius' clue. Are you also forgetting that sailors in those days navigated by the stars? When you understand it, and consult the star charts, his clue gives us 138. The long of Pinaki from London. Well! Who would have believed it? I'm not going to wait for more negative replies, as I told cryptid, I have more important things to do at the moment and may look in on TreasureNet in a couple of months time.
 
Re the coordinates, I am surprised you are not aware that 300 years ago there were no navigation satellites. Of course those figures are not precise, Obviously they could be 1 or 2 degrees out. You are trying to pick an unnecessary and silly argument. Thought you had more sense than that.

It was you not me who claimed they fit 'precisely'. I just pointed out your exaggeration. How 'silly' of you to throw that back to me!

You are also not wise to ignore Wilkins 'Pristarius' clue.

Did I? I contrary I found this the idea that has most merit. You are right with the star navigation idea and it is interesting to read.

I did break my head about that poem too and must say that the idea this is pointing to a star is quite a good one. But which one? There are other solutions as well - Aries or other similar sounding ones. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_point_of_Aries - An idea that fits much better in my opinion.

All in all if you would take a step back and take our criticism of your methods seriously you contributions to this topic would become valuable.

Are you also forgetting that sailors in those days navigated by the stars? When you understand it, and consult the star charts, his clue gives us 138.

Well they did partly but the instruments we have now (clocks and optical) where not very precise or non-existent than, also math was not very broadly taught so most used dead reckoning. Actually much of the failures of Anson's expedition resulted from that fact.

The long of Pinaki from London. Well! Who would have believed it? I'm not going to wait for more negative replies, as I told cryptid,

You see, you pick the prime meridians as they fit your idea best. Again it was not used by the Admiralty before 1767 so certainly not use by Anson (maybe his ghost because he died in 1762!). Again who is blind man here?

I have more important things to do at the moment and may look in on TreasureNet in a couple of months time.

As you told us many times already and frankly this is quite insulting - no one force you to come here and your time isn't more valuable than ours!
 
Note as well that Wilkins made a mistake with "Death Valley". The words "Death Valley" do not appear on the Coral Island map
I always wondered why he wrote this on that map. It comes from that poem. But where does the poem originate? Any idea? Did Wilkins invent it?
 
Wilkins' version re the charts discovery- you believe is gospel, IS WRONG!. You believe it because he wrote it! Many times, he has been proven unreliable and not to be trusted. I know who I would believe; Anthony D Howlett, who spent years on the case : A London barrister at the Board of Trade, the Remembrancer of the City of London (senior officer of the City of London Corporation, - the City's Ceremonial Officer and Chief of Protocol). Active on 'D' day plus 1. President of the Sherlock Holmes Society of London. Who is anyone seriously going to believe? Wilkins, the unreliable liar, or Anthony Howlet? steadfast, genuine and highly respected. I wish he were here so you could face him and call him a liar.
George, I have to say that you are very wide of the mark. We have primary source material, that is, letters from Hubert Palmer to Harold Wilkins showing (indeed, proving) that Howlett got virtually everything wrong. Just as you trusted Howlett, he had trusted Elizabeth Dick, and because she got everything wrong then so did he. He wasn't a liar, he was misinformed and too trusting.

There's a counter to your claims that Howlett's credentials are proof that he got things right and Wilkins got everything wrong. I observe in my book:

"Howlett did approach Wilkins for information concerning the discovery of the maps, but was rebuffed in no uncertain terms. Wilkins was not prepared to share his hard-won information with other writers when there was a perfectly good account (his) already in print. ... In any event, Howlett had his revenge on Wilkins by disparaging both him and his account, writing:

...when I first came into contact with him ... he was, to put it mildly, mentally disturbed.

Here, Howlett the barrister [specialist lawyer] is implying that his layman’s view of Wilkins’ apparent frame of mind in the mid-1950s was at that time relevant to an episode that occurred twenty years earlier. This is nonsense, and Howlett, being a lawyer, must have known it. His stand posits that Palmer’s far from lucid verbal rambling to his home help, when he was touched by senile dementia, can be taken as factual, but Wilkins’ statements in mid-life, while Palmer had all his faculties and could refute them, cannot, because Wilkins himself, in the last five years of his own life, was observed to be somewhat eccentric."

This is not the proper thinking of a legal mind. Howlett clearly permitted his dislike of Wilkins to colour his judgement. When I approached Howlett to inform him that I had Palmer's letters he just ignored me, telling me that you were writing the definitive account of the maps. He obviously didn't tell you that I had the correspondence and, in that, completely let you down. Your belief in him is totally misplaced.
 
I wouldn't call adding 100 and swapping N for S and W for E 'exactly'! Also Pinaki is at Lat 19.23 not 19.16 (that would be Nukutava) and Long 138.40 - 6.15 = 132.25 (Cadiz 0) not 131.30! Not what I call exactly neither (60sm off) and off course it was only used after 1753 in Spain. I doubt that Anson would have used it six years after his expedition! In any case you almost always find some Prime Meridian for other ideas as well.

Wilkins has published a lot of treasure stories so mentioning Pinaki is nothing strange.



Pinaki has apart from a lagoon (with a very different form) and maybe turtles nothing in common with the island of the maps. You simply ignore the facts that don't fit your ideas!



Did he? Or did you decode it wrong? Like Numerology also the art of Cipher is something that can drive one nuts.

You can't know for sure you got the right cipher because the amount of encoded text is too small to give an unique result. The amount of valid ciphers is large and you picked the one that fits your idea. It is you not him who read coordinates in to them!

Don't get me wrong I do not mean to totally dismiss your idea but I can't see why it is better then all the others published before. Nothing you have written differs from the Oak Island or other ideas. They all have some way of decoding the maps the 'right' way.
Just add a little bit more Information on Pinacki.

The Englishman Samuel Wallis was the first recorded European to visit Pinaki Atoll on June 6, 1767, while searching for the "Southern Continent". Wallis named the atoll "Whitsunday". Frederick Beechey found Pinaki uninhabited in 1826, but he observed that there were huts on the island as well as small reservoirs for the collection and preservation of fresh water cut in the coral rock. The water is brackish and horrible to drink, but enough to survive on. Salt water permeates through the coral into the wells. Other than that, there is no fresh water on the atoll. other than water in green coconuts.

The island on its reef forms a broken ring almost enclosing a lagoon, which has a shallow tidal spillway facing west. Pinaki lies 14 km southeast of Nukutavake, which is the closest land. Vairaatea Atoll lies 51 km to the west of Pinaki. Pinaki Atoll measures 3 km in length, and its width is less than 2 km. It has a land area of 1.3 km2 and a lagoon area of 0.7 km2. Pinaki is uninhabited, but it is visited on occasion by villagers from neighboring Nukutavake. It is part of their commune.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 100644.webp


Pinacki, there is no treasure. It has nothing to do with treasure other than Charles Edward Howe searching there on the mistaken belief that treasure was there. The owners of the atoll, the villagers of Nukutavake tolerated him there for about 7 years. Until he started digging up graves. And of course, the much-reported 1934 Hamilton expedition was based on Howe's lies. They soon abandoned the site for another atoll.

The northern side of the Atoll where the village is, with a few huts and a church, is where the locals go ashore; Trying to come ashore anywhere else on the atoll is suicide. Below is looking from the north.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 093736.webp


Landing even in good weather is formidable. The coral heads are everywhere, and there is no real safe anchorage. You can see the coral barrier from an aerial shot below.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 093952.webp


You always have to have a crew on the boats visiting anchored offshore.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 094034.webp


This reality, even in calm weather, you do not have a soft sand beach to land on. Even with row boats of olden days, it was even harder. It was the only time you saw the locals tense, landing, and casting off from the atoll.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 094255.webp


Getting onto these Atolls are a team effort. The locals from Nukutavake know where to land, as under white water about an inch under water is razor sharp coral that wrecks boats and cuts skin down to the bone. My arms and legs still bear the scars of a mis-timed landing.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 094221.webp


There is no safe anchorage on the atoll. For 9 months of the year, wind, tide, and swell prevent a safe landing. Even in calm conditions, you surf the wave up onto the coral reef. Miss time catching the wave, you pay for it. The white water is the death zone you have get over.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 094325.webp

Here is the church below. There are a few huts nearby on the northern side of the atoll.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 093315.webp


The coral pass is only ankle deep, and in no way can you enter the lagoon in a boat. Deepest part knee deep.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 093038.webp

Inside the lagoon, there are some coral islets above only very small.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 094450.webp


On the coral islet, there is a rock with a circle, an upside-down L, and an arrow from memory. The alleged Spanish marks? However, a visitor to the island claimed Howe made the marks himself to gain support from backers.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 094153.webp


The islanders of Nukutavake go there once or twice a year to cut copra. It is a community effort. they of course, stay on the atoll during copra cutting season. They fish in the lagoon. You have to be aware of Ciguatera fish poisoning, a form of food poisoning caused by eating warm water reef fish that carry ciguatoxin. The name is likely derived from the word "ciguatera"

Screenshot 2026-01-13 110953.webp


The locals have a trick with the fish they catch in the lagoon. They place the fish near black ants. If the black ants refuse to eat fish, then it has Ciguatera. If the ants eat the fish, then it's okay to eat. The guys below are fishing at the entrance to the lagoon side. See how shallow the pass is.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 094956.webp


So any claims that long boats full of treasure entered the lagoon are just pure flights of fantasy. Landing on the atoll is perilous to begin with. There were seven graves on the other side of the entrance. They were all female. French archaeologists dug them up and re-interred them below. That was the reason why Charles Howe was kicked off the island and eventually out of Polynesia.

Screenshot 2026-01-13 123615.webp


The reality is that there never was any treasure on Pinacki connected to Anson or any other alleged treasure. The atoll being connected to a buried treasure of captain kidds charts is a flight of fantasy. Wilkins reported on the treasure story, alleged to be connected to the island by newspaper reports on how and later stories of Hamilton snowball. It created a sensation like any other treasure tale in the 1930s.

But it does not stop the odd visitor from daring to dream.

Crow
 
Last edited:
I always wondered why he wrote this on that map. It comes from that poem. But where does the poem originate? Any idea? Did Wilkins invent it?
Yes, Wilkins invented the 'Pristarius' poem. The poem dates to February 20, 1933, shortly after Palmer acquired the ‘Key Chart’ (Skeleton Island Map). It’s partly based on the true-life experiences of Captain Harold Orchard who believed he could identify the island.

Pristarius was Wilkins’ substitute name for the island, this being a near-rhyme of the assumed island’s name which he obviously chose not to reveal.

I did think that Death Valley might derive from the name he initially gave to the island (from the apparent text ‘skeleton’ in the border at right). However, I’ve a feeling that there’s a tale of treasure being buried in some dark forbidding valley having a mysterious unfathomable lake.

Wilkins firmly believed that the Skeleton Map was not originally Kidd’s and that the treasure it referred to wasn’t his. Wilkins wrote an unpublished novel in 1958 called Death Valley Island based on how he thought Kidd might have come upon the maps. In it, he describes such a valley and the deposit of a treasure chest on an island called Yunnan (for obvious reasons).

Wilkins observes of the poem: “In October 1958, a man, without my knowledge or permission, published these copyright lines in the London ‘Wide World Magazine’ in which he fathered these onto ‘Old salts at Yokohama’. This man was even naif enough to suppose that this place name, Pristarius, was that given to it by the old salts and wrote that he had vainly searched for it. He did not tell me that he had illegally published this verse, but wrote me a slick and oily letter asking me to tell him, as the only man now alive who knew, the actual name and location of this ‘angels island’. He found, in my reply, as he said, that he and I ‘did not speak the same language’. We certainly do not, in point of common decency or respect for literary copyright.”

The man, of course, was Howlett, and the episode is the source of the ill feeling between the two.
 
Lots of pretty pictures of and things of Pinaki thanks. Nothing new, except of course, hundreds of years ago, the coral shape/form/depth etc would be a bit different to that today.
Yes, Wilkins invented the 'Pristarius' poem. The poem dates to February 20, 1933, shortly after Palmer acquired the ‘Key Chart’ (Skeleton Island Map). It’s partly based on the true-life experiences of Captain Harold Orchard who believed he could identify the island.

Pristarius was Wilkins’ substitute name for the island, this being a near-rhyme of the assumed island’s name which he obviously chose not to reveal.

I did think that Death Valley might derive from the name he initially gave to the island (from the apparent text ‘skeleton’ in the border at right). However, I’ve a feeling that there’s a tale of treasure being buried in some dark forbidding valley having a mysterious unfathomable lake.

Wilkins firmly believed that the Skeleton Map was not originally Kidd’s and that the treasure it referred to wasn’t his. Wilkins wrote an unpublished novel in 1958 called Death Valley Island based on how he thought Kidd might have come upon the maps. In it, he describes such a valley and the deposit of a treasure chest on an island called Yunnan (for obvious reasons).

Wilkins observes of the poem: “In October 1958, a man, without my knowledge or permission, published these copyright lines in the London ‘Wide World Magazine’ in which he fathered these onto ‘Old salts at Yokohama’. This man was even naif enough to suppose that this place name, Pristarius, was that given to it by the old salts and wrote that he had vainly searched for it. He did not tell me that he had illegally published this verse, but wrote me a slick and oily letter asking me to tell him, as the only man now alive who knew, the actual name and location of this ‘angels island’. He found, in my reply, as he said, that he and I ‘did not speak the same language’. We certainly do not, in point of common decency or respect for literary copyright.”

The man, of course, was Howlett, and the episode is the source of the ill feeling betwe

Wilkins was shown the map in the Hardy Chest (Coral Island) by Hubert Palmer when he first visited him in 1932. However, he was not allowed to purchase it (Palmer refused to sell), take a photograph or reproduce a similar drawing for his book Captain Kidd and His Skeleton Island (hence the 'Mar Del' maps look dissimilar). Wilkins though made a private sketch of the map on a postcard after his visit. It is obvious he was relying from faulty memory since he wrote "woods" instead of "trees" and the postcard sketch is less detailed than the original map. Furthermore, Wilkin's writing on the postcard and the writing on the Coral Island is clearly different.

Compare:

View attachment 2240480
(Coral Island Map)

View attachment 2240481

(Wilkin's postcard sketch)

Most noticeably all "L"s on the Coral Island map look different to Wilkin's "L"s. The "L"s on the Coral Island map point downward.

This is actually strong evidence Wilkins was not the hoaxer - he had to rely on his imperfect memory to draw the Coral Island map - and hence made some mistakes - plus the writing style on both is different. Note as well that Wilkins made a mistake with "Death Valley". The words "Death Valley" do not appear on the Coral Island map nor does "Woods" (Wilkins by mistake wrote "Woods" instead of "Trees").

View attachment 2240494
(Coral Island Map)

View attachment 2240495
(Wilkin's postcard sketch)

To sum up, the postcard sketch is not proof Wilkins was the hoaxer but the opposite.


Hubert Palmer first wrote a letter to Wilkins in May 1932 to invite him to inspect the map from the Hardy Chest. About a week later, Wilkins then traveled to Eastbourne, to visit Palmer at his house. Palmer's letters make clear he never met Wilkins before May-June 1932 and he only prior knew Harold T. Wilkins' name by having read his books on pirates such as Hunting Hidden Treasures (1929):


Bath (2013, III, p. 27)

One of Wilkins' private manuscripts (owned by Gjb [quoted on same page]), makes clear Wilkins had never met Palmer before 1932 (this explains why Wilkins never mentioned Palmer in any of his published writings prior to that year since he had no knowledge of him then [he first mentioned Hubert Palmer in an article a year later, "Captain Kidd's Treasure", The Passing Show May 6 [1933]). There is nothing in any of Palmer's letters and his correspondence with A. Hill-Cutler to suggest that Cutler was familiar with Wilkins; on the contrary, the silence about this suggests Cutler and Harold T. Wilkins had never met in person. One also gets the impression from Wilkins' writings that he had never visited Eastbourne prior to visiting Palmer in 1932. There are multiple lines of evidence to seriously doubt Wilkins was the hoaxer; one of these I earlier discussed and was mentioned by Gjb (see above): are you saying that Wilkins was deceiving his own brother? Wilkins brother invested a lot of time investigating the maps.


Wilkins wrote about a lot of different treasure maps and treasure hunts but you are claiming Wilkins actually knew the location (X marks the spot) of a buried treasure but at the same time you expect us to believe he never tried to dig it up or recover it and most bizarrely left clues to rival treasure hunters to find. :dontknow:


"Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy where someone tries to prove a point simply by stating it as fact, without providing actual evidence or reasoning, essentially repeating the claim or presenting it as self-evident." 🤦‍♂️


You do not provide any evidence for these far-fetched claims. You might as claim Wilkins "unearthed" a lost play by Shakespeare.


Why would he do any of that? Can you answer that question? According to you, Wilkins knew the location of a buried treasure (worth millions) and was searching for it himself but what treasure hunter leaves clues for competing treasure hunters? Why did he not dig it up?


You can add different numbers to get different latitude or longitude by this silly arbitrary exercise. Why not add only 18 + 7 + 30?


You are one of hundreds, if not thousands of individuals who claim to have "solved" or "decoded" the Shugborough inscription:


Most of these people are amateur researchers and cranks. If you had actually solved it, scholars would have paid attention to your theory or proposed solution. None have done because it's patent nonsense. The same year you published your book, another crank claimed to have solved it; two years earlier, another crank did. :sleepy2:
Re the cypher, other researchers have stayed silent because they can't bring themselves to admit that I may have got it right. So much waffle, they are blind to the fact that Anson was a naval man. Show us your intelligent work and proof that it is impossible for Anson to produce a cypher giving the coordinates that he gave to his Captain Webb. I and a lot of others have devoted a lot of time to finding the solution and published the results. Until you can do the same, perhaps you should stay quiet.
Where does it say Wilkins was looking for the treasure himself? Show us. It's news to me. He knew he could never get there. He was playing a game full of lies/deceit, and clues to see if anyone else could work out where the Spanish treasure island was.
Can you not also see that by you and others accepting the Anson connection, you are accepting the Spanish connection (JFI/Cadiz/Webb) and by the same token, rubbishing the Kidd connection. Good for you!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom