What happened to the Kidd-Palmer treasure maps?

[Cryptid1990]

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.

I think instead Wilkins confused the maps since he was working from memory.

Take a look at the position of "Death Valley" on his sketch of the Coral Island Map:

Now look at the same position (bottom left) of the so-called Skeleton Map:

There's a skull (and bones?):

There is no doubt it is a skull if you enlarge the image in better quality. I therefore think it is probable Wilkins labelled this bit of the map "Death Valley" because there is a skull (and bones?) but he confused what map he saw this on since he did not own any of the four maps.

 

[CapnGeorge]

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 Wilkins wrote an unpublished novel in 1958 called Death Valley Island based on how he thought Kidd might have come upon the maps.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.

Geoff and I respect each other; we have been corresponding off and on for many years (before TreasureNet), and we have our respected and respective differences, of course, on some aspects of this saga. Over the years, I think, we have gone down different avenues, Geoff concentrating more on background material and perhaps Oak Island. Whereas my goal has always been to solve the charts. One of our differences appears above, quote: 'Pristarius was Wilkins' substitute name for the island' Here's what I believe; Wilkins is really saying 'Prime Star Scorpius'. And remember, 100s of years ago, especially in the vastness of the South Pacific Ocean, they had to navigate by the stars. The major/giant/Alpha star in the Constellation Scorpius is Antares. When you know how to use Star Charts, the figures that come out are 138 and 19. The coordinates of Pinaki. Confirming this, one of the Webb letters gives the clue 'Altitude Schuba'. This relates to Dschuba in the Constellation Scorpius. (And no cryptid, I did not make any of that up, as you like to tell everyone). So, Pristarius is really relating to--- Stars? Not an island name? Maybe Geoff will comment.
I will take the opportunity here (although I've said it before), A lot of you are accusing me of trying to force my theories/work/ methodology/ ideas, etc, as gospel and must be right. I have never said that. All I have ever done in my books and on this thread is put to you the facts, new and old, as researched by me over many years (Stars above, an example). At the same time, I have put forward my theories and solutions, as I see them. I did state somewhere, 'None of it is dictatorial'. If I think some of what I am reading is, in my eyes, silly, I'll say so; that again is my prerogative. Same as some of you do with my proposals. The information is there to help you. It is my prerogative to believe that what I say is perhaps right, but I'm not perfect. It is up to you to do what you want with my info, whether you believe it or not. Having said that, it is amusing that so many still think the charts are real and penned by Kidd. But there you are, if that is what you want to believe, that is your prerogative!

 

[CapnGeorge]

I think instead Wilkins confused the maps since he was working from memory.

Take a look at the position of "Death Valley" on his sketch of the Coral Island Map:

View attachment 2240739

Now look at the same position (bottom left) of the so-called Skeleton Map:

View attachment 2240740

There's a skull (and bones?):

View attachment 2240741

There is no doubt it is a skull if you enlarge the image in better quality. I therefore think it is probable Wilkins labelled this bit of the map "Death Valley" because there is a skull (and bones?) but he confused what map he saw this on since he did not own any of the four maps.

If you consult Freeman, he will probably say it is St James!

 

[Bocaj]

I think instead Wilkins confused the maps since he was working from memory.

Take a look at the position of "Death Valley" on his sketch of the Coral Island Map:

View attachment 2240739

Now look at the same position (bottom left) of the so-called Skeleton Map:

View attachment 2240740

There's a skull (and bones?):

View attachment 2240741

There is no doubt it is a skull if you enlarge the image in better quality. I therefore think it is probable Wilkins labelled this bit of the map "Death Valley" because there is a skull (and bones?) but he confused what map he saw this on since he did not own any of the four maps.

To be honest I can't see any skull and always took those for ground rock formations. In any case they clearly lead to the treasure at 20 E. The poem is reverence to both the skeleton(s?) and the path but the sketch he did was before the Skeleton Map - how did he know? Was Palmer really his only source or did he know more - as GJB believes? Is it possible he did know which island and its position? 'Death Valley' has no real relation to the maps - where else would he got that idea from?

 

[gjb]

To be honest I can't see any skull and always took those for ground rock formations. In any case they clearly lead to the treasure at 20 E. The poem is reverence to both the skeleton(s?) and the path but the sketch he did was before the Skeleton Map - how did he know? Was Palmer really his only source or did he know more - as GJB believes? Is it possible he did know which island and its position? 'Death Valley' has no real relation to the maps - where else would he got that idea from?

Take a look at Wilkins' own maps. Death Valley is in the same position and is accompanied by a Lake on both maps, just as he recounts in his novel Death Valley Island. The lake isn't drawn on his postcard map. The map of Juan Fernandez that he based his maps on has a 'Hunters Gulley' at that location (but no lake). Nevertheless, I feel that the Lake is significant in some way.

A modified version of the instructions on the Skeleton map, taken from a typescript in Wilkins' files, was published in 1967 and reads:

360 yards V D North three stumps 50 feet Depart centre of triangle, 4 rocks 20 feet S (or 5) Depart stakes in edge of Lake Start til E

Wilkins has included the Lake yet again, this time the instructions applying to a certain "Skillington" Island.

 

[Bocaj]

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.

Not so different really. Certainly no anchorage and also difficult spot to land even with all hypothetical changes. Dangerous really to be close (they had no engines and the flat island doesn't give any protection from the wind with the swell breaking around it and no place to anchor. maybe before it was deep enough to enter the lagoon with a small boat but where would you leave the ship? Adrift? From a nautical point of view that place makes no sense at all - even more so 300 years ago - without an engine!

All in all you cherry-picking facts, numbers, meridians and of course ignore all the other details presented in the maps. Also never take a number as it is but use all kind of operations until you get the 'right' one. As said I do like some of your ideas, why not start from there? I agree also that those maps where created from a man of the sea.

 

[Bocaj]

Take a look at Wilkins' own maps. Death Valley is in the same position and is accompanied by a Lake on both maps, just as he recounts in his novel Death Valley Island. The lake isn't drawn on his postcard map.

The position is the similar but west of the mountains with the orientation very different. I think he could not decide which of the valleys are called 'death valley' both as there are at least two on that island. Also it is possible to see it as one with the form of and 'L' - that would explain the differences.

published in 1967 and reads:

360 yards V D North three stumps 50 feet Depart centre of triangle, 4 rocks 20 feet S (or 5) Depart stakes in edge of Lake Start til E

Wilkins has included the Lake yet again, this time the instructions applying to a certain "Skillington" Island.

Funny he changed V R into VD even its is clearly visible a 'R'. He is no seaman for sure )as most who tried to read the maps).

V R is a nautical term describing the distance an object can be identified as such from the coast. Means you can clearly distinguish the three stumps from a distance of about 360 yards North of it. If you are closer the cliff will probably cover them as well as the reefs don't allow for a passage closer. Further away they are probably too small to distinguish them.

I think the whole saga started with the 'Avery letter' and someone made the same conclusion that I did: "W.K." in the letter stand for William Kidd. That may or may not be the truth. It could also be that someone else had simply the same initials. In any case whoever draw those maps incooperated much of the information of the letter into the maps but moved the whole site from the Lizard to a distant tropical island. Someone I am quite convinced who did know that island. Was there any treasure there - maybe but I doubt after reading the second encrypted letter that they didn't recover it.

In any case the tale continued with those who kept the information for the following centuries until some of it resurfaced in form of the maps, letters and other information that we are breaking our heads over now.

Wilkins was a collector like Palmer only he specialized in stories. I doubt that he invented the maps or even the 'valley' or the 'lake'. Who gave that clue to him? I like to know more information on that captain and also were is that unpublished story to find?

 

[CapnGeorge]

Not so different really. Certainly no anchorage and also difficult spot to land even with all hypothetical changes. Dangerous really to be close (they had no engines and the flat island doesn't give any protection from the wind with the swell breaking around it and no place to anchor. maybe before it was deep enough to enter the lagoon with a small boat but where would you leave the ship? Adrift? From a nautical point of view that place makes no sense at all - even more so 300 years ago - without an engine!

All in all you cherry-picking facts, numbers, meridians and of course ignore all the other details presented in the maps. Also never take a number as it is but use all kind of operations until you get the 'right' one. As said I do like some of your ideas, why not start from there? I agree also that those maps where created from a man of the sea.

I have photo's of row boats on Pinaki lagoon. They got there, even if dragged. So who is to say there could not be a chest or two in them in the past?

 

[CapnGeorge]

Not so different really. Certainly no anchorage and also difficult spot to land even with all hypothetical changes. Dangerous really to be close (they had no engines and the flat island doesn't give any protection from the wind with the swell breaking around it and no place to anchor. maybe before it was deep enough to enter the lagoon with a small boat but where would you leave the ship? Adrift? From a nautical point of view that place makes no sense at all - even more so 300 years ago - without an engine!

All in all you cherry-picking facts, numbers, meridians and of course ignore all the other details presented in the maps. Also never take a number as it is but use all kind of operations until you get the 'right' one. As said I do like some of your ideas, why not start from there? I agree also that those maps where created from a man of the sea.

All the 'other details presented' are mostly colour added by Wilkins to try and make them look good and half presentable. He was having a laugh really, drawing all the gullible people in, but kept his atoll clues, i.e. coral sand/lagoon/palm trees/reefs etc.etc. They appear on all his maps!
I've learned to ignore these 'other' details, they are rubbish and nothing to do with the final objective. Stick with the only proven facts; the lat and long on the Key chart. Try and keep calm, take on board my thread re GB yesterday, if you read it, I'm just having my say😇
Ignore if you wish.

 

[Bocaj]

I have photo's of row boats on Pinaki lagoon. They got there, even if dragged. So who is to say there could not be a chest or two in them in the past?

They probably used an exceptional high tide to bring them there. Fisherman are there for months and know the tides but I would assume someone who hides a treasure is in a hurry and hasn't got the patience of a fisherman. Also the risk to run aground with chests heavy on gold - why would he choose such a place? Difficult to retrieve also once you are back in England.

There are much better (and closer) places to hide (and retrieve) a treasure. Somewhere you can travel without raising suspicion. See the second encrypted 'Avery Letter' as an example for what I mean. "8 & 4 is perfectly easy on all occasions" - which means that - at least with Avery's treasure - it was hidden close to a place that you can travel without raising any suspicion.

That island has no attraction at all - only an idiot would hide his treasure there. Anson doesn't come over as a very likable person but an idiot he was not!

All the 'other details presented' are mostly colour added by Wilkins to try and make them look good and half presentable. He was having a laugh really, drawing all the gullible people in, but kept his atoll clues, i.e. coral sand/lagoon/palm trees/reefs etc.etc. They appear on all his maps!
I've learned to ignore these 'other' details, they are rubbish and nothing to do with the final objective. Stick with the only proven facts; the lat and long on the Key chart. Try and keep calm, take on board my thread re GB yesterday, if you read it, I'm just having my say😇
Ignore if you wish.

Regarding Wilkins:
I agree in that he had much more knowledge than he was willing to share. Even where that island was. He claimed he invented his chart but it is certainly a copy of some existing island with additions. Why else would he have soundings in them? He left out 'Mar Del (which one?)'. If he invented why not put 'Sur' there?

 

[CapnGeorge]

To clarify, my previous post meant the Kidd-Palmer maps (not the Mar Del maps), however, my point applies to the latter as well:



You can take the shapes of the islands on both the Kidd-Palmer maps and Mar Del maps and find them closely resemble a dozen (if not more) real islands. As an example, Richard Knight was convinced the island on the Kidd-Palmer maps matches Hon Tre Lon; Rupert Furneaux, the Providenciales, and so on. The shape also vaguely resembles early maps of Nantucket. Any similarities are coincidental.

Compare the images you posted:

View attachment 2219547

To Hon Tre Lon:
View attachment 2219548

Why should the chart of Juan Fernandez be preferred over Hon Tre Lon? For the record, I do not think the Kidd-Palmer maps have anything to do with Hon Tre Lon, or Juan Fernandez. I am merely using Hon Tre Lon as an example to highlight you can find many different similar shaped islands and the shape similarity is purely a coincidence.

I am not remotely convinced Wilkins Mar Del maps are related to Juan Fernandez island; you state:



Again, I would say this is coincidence; in fact, the shape is not a very close match (Mar Del island is wider at middle-bottom):

View attachment 2219550

There are admittedly "hills" in the same location (on left of both maps) but that's about it; trees are not in a similar position. No matching desert, palms, wrecks, etc; "rock(s)" appear on the right on the Mar Del map, but on the opposite side on the other map. There are far more differences than similarities between these maps. Furthermore, Wilkins (1950) seems to contradict your claims.

According to Wilkins (1950):

View attachment 2219551

I will quote the relevant text:

"However, my London published was insistent on having a chart. Now I have some knowledge of pirate charts of the 17th and 18th centuries and am familiar with their peculiar style and cartographic detail. I sat down in my den and out of my imagination I drew a chart such as a 17th buccaneer might have produced. I modified the outline of the island as I remembered it from the real Kidd treasure chart belonging to the collector. I made my island about 3 miles long by 2 miles wide running NE to SW., and marked it South China Sea. I incorporated as much detail from the collector's chart as he would allow and I put in such tropical features as coral reefs, coco-palms, a landing place, hills, a 'death valley', and at the bottom added the initials of Kidd and the date 1669. I thought it was obvious that my island must be in the tropics. I even inverted he compass points giving a true north, geographic, not magnet, which was not in the collector's chart. I added a legend of the cache which was totally different from the original. It was meant only as an illustration for my book."

This contradicts your earlier comment:


If you read Wilkins though, what he actually says is he made up the (legend) instructions "only as an illustration for my book".

Wilkins made up the instructions on the Mar Del maps. His own article even summarised the map was from his imagination: "The author drew up a treasure map out of his imagination." The Mar Del Maps have nothing whatsoever to do with instructions to a buried treasure on Oak Island, or anywhere for that matter since Wilkins was clear he made the instructions up out of whole cloth.

Last sentence- Wrong! The Mar Del maps have to be used together (why are the instructions different??) they evaluate out to the lat and long of Pinaki. Fancy that, I wonder why?? As I said to Bocaj, keep calm, if you can't get your head around it don't worry. But cryptid, really! I did not make those figures up!

 

[CapnGeorge]

They probably used an exceptional high tide to bring them there. Fisherman are there for months and know the tides but I would assume someone who hides a treasure is in a hurry and hasn't got the patience of a fisherman. Also the risk to run aground with chests heavy on gold - why would he choose such a place? Difficult to retrieve also once you are back in England.

There are much better (and closer) places to hide (and retrieve) a treasure. Somewhere you can travel without raising suspicion. See the second encrypted 'Avery Letter' as an example for what I mean. "8 & 4 is perfectly easy on all occasions" - which means that - at least with Avery's treasure - it was hidden close to a place that you can travel without raising any suspicion.

That island has no attraction at all - only an idiot would hide his treasure there. Anson doesn't come over as a very likable person but an idiot he was not!


Regarding Wilkins:
I agree in that he had much more knowledge than he was willing to share. Even where that island was. He claimed he invented his chart but it is certainly a copy of some existing island with additions. Why else would he have soundings in them? He left out 'Mar Del (which one?)'. If he invented why not put 'Sur' there?

Anson DID NOT bury any treasure!

 

[Bocaj]

Anson DID NOT bury any treasure!

Yes true - but whoever does would not use such a place!

 

[CapnGeorge]

Yes true - but whoever does would not use such a place!

Somebody did!

 

[Bocaj]

To conclude: I find your case tor that atoll not convincing at all.

- based almost entirely on the coordinates
- the numbers do not directly provide your island but must be explained by multiple arithmetic operations (+100,+10,XCH N-S,XCH W-S)
- are based on meridians not in use in Anson's expedition's time
- there is no direct connection of those charts to Anson
- the atoll is dangerous to approach and land by a traditional engine-less ship and too far away for a retrieval (even in todays time!)
- you explanation of Wilkins charts contradict its nautical meanings (d.m.d. means: degree minute decimal)
- Wilkins states he invented his charts (I agree he may not have told the truth) but still you present no evidence for that other then a general suspicion of his character
- the choices of which clues you ignore and which to follow seem totally based on the task to confirm your conclusion which is certainly an invalid method (see arguments of his atoll clues - palm trees etc but ignoring mountains why?)

 

[CapnGeorge]

I'll let you get on with it. I'm going for a lie down. Let me know when you have written a book with all the answers. Adios

 

[CapnGeorge]

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.

Hi Geoff. Part of the Anson file is a 'Derrotero', A Spanish map deposited (obviously) by the Spanish. It is his/their equivalent of the traditional treasure map (you know all this), known as 'the map with many lines' but with no 'X' marks the spot. It is much more subtle. Neither Wilkins nor Latcham could work it out. I did, and once again, when you know how to read the geometry, it is showing Pinaki (the P on the map) at 131 longitude. This is where Wilkins got the original figures from. And for those who disagree (Some are bound to, they hate to see a practical/correct solution by someone else). I didn't create the derrotero or the geometry on it. Someone did and for the reason it shows the location of 'the' island/atoll, when you know how to read it.

 

[gjb]

Hi Geoff. Part of the Anson file is a 'Derrotero', A Spanish map deposited (obviously) by the Spanish. It is his/their equivalent of the traditional treasure map (you know all this), known as 'the map with many lines' but with no 'X' marks the spot. It is much more subtle. Neither Wilkins nor Latcham could work it out. I did, and once again, when you know how to read the geometry, it is showing Pinaki (the P on the map) at 131 longitude. This is where Wilkins got the original figures from. And for those who disagree (Some are bound to, they hate to see a practical/correct solution by someone else). I didn't create the derrotero or the geometry on it. Someone did and for the reason it shows the location of 'the' island/atoll, when you know how to read it.

Hi George
I wasn't aware that Latcham was involved in the quest for Anson's treasure. Are you saying that Latcham's Herradura investigation relates to Anson, and that the Guayacan search is related to the searches on JF and at Horcon? I thought Ron McK and you had decided that all activities related to Cousino were the result of some ploy by Wilkins. I know that Wilkins mentions Latcham, but I've seen no evidence that they communicated. In any event, I could never get my head round Ron's convoluted multiple threads and ultimately gave up trying!

 

[CapnGeorge]

Hi George
I wasn't aware that Latcham was involved in the quest for Anson's treasure. Are you saying that Latcham's Herradura investigation relates to Anson, and that the Guayacan search is related to the searches on JF and at Horcon? I thought Ron McK and you had decided that all activities related to Cousino were the result of some ploy by Wilkins. I know that Wilkins mentions Latcham, but I've seen no evidence that they communicated. In any event, I could never get my head round Ron's convoluted multiple threads and ultimately gave up trying!

I don't think he was, he got involved, by Wilkins sending him the derrotero because he couldn't fathom it out and thought maybe Latcham could,(because of his speaking Spanish and knowledge of digs etc on the coast), which is how Latcham was able to reproduce it. They obviously did communicate in the 1930s, but I was never able to locate any of the correspondence. Cousino and Co. got mixed up with the Coquimbo search on the coast in the 1940s. Something dodgy was going on with a copper plate dug up showing a 'modern' naval gun from the early 1900s! The problem is, the Webb letter was sent back to Anson by someone back in the 1700s. Can only be someone he trusted to do so on his death. It was never dug up on the coast. By the way, I have yet to see a comment on my recent 'Pristarius' thread to you. Did you see it?

 

[Bocaj]

The Latcham story is a quite interesting one and I can see why George gets carried away with it. But I do like his way to run through history and his intent to unite all the loose ends of it.

The issue here is to be extra hard on yourself because the depths you are diving depletes your tank and if you don't surface from time to time you simply go mad (before drowning that is).

George wasn't able to locate any correspondence so how does he know Wilkins send him a derrotero? Because that map point to this Atoll? Again his interpretation and in the end his arguments become proves of - his arguments.

​