“What news of La Pérouse?” The Lost Explorer

So they say,
That's why hypothesis is in speculation, convinced though Galaups 2 ships are in the bay mudflats at the end of Corte Madera Creek, and where Cook was attacked.
Starting to take really close look at the Bounty story too, and it's not jelling.
Pretty hard to lay a name on a burned ship though. especially with possible cover-up documentation and records, probably will never get passed wild speculation.
Did find this sword used in the Mexican American War, interesting
seems to be French made dating to the time of Galaup


U.S.-Mexican War Swords | Bullock Texas State History Museum

Looks French to me. Scavenged form California?

This Mexican saber is unique in that it is engraved on one side with the phrase "No me sacres son razon" (Do not draw me without reason) and on the other side with the words "No me envainar sin honor" (Do not sheath me without honor).
Last edited:


Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
Interesting conspiracy theories, but that is only what they are, conspiracy theories. In the cases of Cook's death and the Bounty mutiny we have numerous eyewitness accounts of events, and in the case of La Perouse oral tradition in the Solomon Islands and the discovery of numerous artifacts identified as belonging to the ships has settled his fate as well.
All claim to be Bounty's anchor? When obviously the one being displayed on Ptcairn Island is different from the pictures of the other proclaimed Bounty anchors, looks like the 2 smaller anchors are the same anchor, just one picture is in black and white and the other is in color. Looks more like Hawaii than Tahiti to me though. Pitcairns "beach" seabed is mostly all rock.

sword with same inscription

Wonderful French Rapier or Dueling Sword (Item ANTWEP 4-6; FRAN 4-18)​
DESCRIPTION: This is a magnificent sword of the dueling type used in the early-to-late 17th century and is related to the épée or colichemarde, the latter having a blade that features a wide forte which narrowed drastically toward the point after the forte ended. They were very popular and used right up to about 1800. The shape of such a rapier combines good parrying qualities with good thrusting abilities and its light weight also adds to the use of it as an extremely effective and lethal weapon. The sword that we offer here has all the qualities as mentioned, but it also has obvious connections to the nobility of the gentleman who owned it and wielded it. On the blade in the French language is the following as best I can translate: “Only honor would compel my use.” These words that the original owner had engraved upon this blade marks him as a believer in the chivalry of the age, practically nonexistent today. The sword has a special blade in its construction, as well. It starts with the upper eight inches being an inch wide and then there begins a radical narrowing of the blade right to the tip. This was an innovation that gave the weapon a strength for thrusting yet so very lethal with its deadly point. The grip is wire wrapped with brass supports that prevent the wrap from unraveling as seen on many swords with wire wrapping. This sword’s knuckle guard is in the “D” shape while the counterguard in clamshell is in highly decorated baroque floral design. The double-ring ricasso is also quite ornate, as is the pommel. So, in essence, here we have a very beautiful classic rapier, but also a sword that was a very lethal weapon of the romantic past. The saying on the blade evidences that a true gentleman once treasured it and no doubt it was his constant companion. This is a very important historical relic indeed!
PRICE: $4,590.00

Apparently Custer had the same inscription on a sword
Apparently made in Germany, Solingen

French Officers were allowed to choose their own swordsmiths

probably a longshot, Texas museum sword being linked to Galaup

Son of the Morning Star
Last edited:


Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
The flag on Astrolabe is a tricolor, and thus an anachronism.

It seems after some research Jean-François de Galaup had a major interest in following in Captain Cooks footsteps, Captain Cooks mission was to find a water Passage from East to West, in "North America". Galaup was said to of used some of Cooks maps. In fact the only map of the "Journey made by Galaup" is said to be of San Francisco Bay.
Which to me is the worst map of the San Francisco Bay I have ever seen.
It is my conclusion that Galaup was probably over run by the indigenous people of San Rafael Bay, most likely in Portola Creek, with the ships being burned eventually with the remnants of the ship floating down river out to the mud flats near the Bay.
I suspect that most historians would dismiss this as a conspiracy theory.

In Fact, Captain James Cook probably met the same fate in Corte Madera Creek as Galaup and his ships, most likely covered up by the secret nature of the mission "finding a water passage West to East" , highly unlikely an island nation like Hawaii would of killed Cook fearing reprisals from an advanced civilization with nowhere to go but open sea. Also it would of made recruitment for future expeditions and settlement, more difficult, if the nature of the indigenous inhabitants of the San Francisco West Coach were considered hostile.
The date of Jame Cook's death was reported as 14 February 1779. The survivors of the expedition returned to England in October 1780. If your theory is true either the surviving members of the expedition lied to their superiors in England when they returned, or else they told the truth to their superiors and then the superiors ordered a cover up.

A third possible reason for the Capt. Cook Whitewash cover-up could possibly be that San Francisco and California was considered Spanish Domain, not wanting to cause a War with Spain and a possible entry into the Revolutionary War on the side of the Americans, the location and circumstances surrounding Capt. Cooks demise were changed for political reasons. Most likely politics continuing to come into play, the disappearance of Galaup and his 2 ships, were also covered-up. Taking a lesson from the English.
According to the treaty of Aranjuez signed 12 April 1779, France and Spain agreed to go to war against Britain and help the American colonies. When preparations were ready Spain declared war on Britain on 21 June 1779. So when Cook's crew returned to Britain in October 1780 Spain had been at war with Britain for 1 year and 4 months so the motive of covering up exploration in Spanish territory to keep Spain out of the war would not have been very strong.

After examining "The Bounty" story this doen't make any sense either.
My theory is that after Bligh got back to England and told what happened to Cook in San Francisco, and the crown hearing of Gold, Bligh was sent on a mission back to San Francisco.
Probably to resupply at Botany Bay Australia, and then Hawaii, then to upper north America and down to San Francisco Bay.
At some point, Probably after leaving Hawaii, Bligh probably decided he wasn't going to go back to San Francisco and get massacred like Cook. Probably went back to Hawaii. Leaving Hawaii with Crew going back to England came up with this Mutineer story to keep himself in good standing with the Crown. My guess is the plan was to have the Crew dropping him off in a launch on the Solomon islands and taking the launch into Botany Bay and claim Mutiny. With Fletcher Christian and the Crew heading back to Hawaii and one of the smaller islands and setting the bounty on fire.

Tahiti for Breadplants? :)

Hawaii would of been more likely, for the onion plant and other more valuable, and more exotic vegetable stock.
My guess is that the Bounty never went to Pitkin Island and that it lays burned on the seabed off one of the smaller Hawaiian Islands.

So yet another exploring voyage conspiracy? Note that Blight, I mean Bligh, would have falsely accused crew members of mutiny according to that theory. Note that HMS Pandora was sent to find the alleged mutineers and captured 14 of them in Tahiti. Pandora sank on the way back and 31 crewmen and 4 prisoners drowned. Back in England 4 of the alleged mutineers were acquitted, 3 were pardoned, and three were hanged. Bligh and the others who made up the mutiny story would have had a lot of blood on their hands.

And what about the inhabitants of Pitcairn Island who believe they are partially descended from Bounty mutineers and use the surnames of several of the mutineers.
Last edited:
Misinformed? Maybe moved there at a later date?
Still say the official Bounty story doesn't jive. Now looking at the claimed anchors of the Bounty, and seeing discrepancy. the story of Blighs open vessel voyage suposedly compleing a voyage of more than 3,500 nautical miles (6,500 km; 4,000 mi) to the west in the launch to reach safety north of Australia in the Dutch East Indies (modern Indonesia) and began the process of bringing the mutineers to justice.
The fact that a Naval Vessel would be dispatched all the way from England to go just to Tahiti for Breadfruit.
Why not just dispatch a ship from Australia, to bring the Breadfruit back to Botany Bay?
I think his Mission was to return to California, Via Botany Bay, Australia, then Hawaii, onto the west coast.
With Bligh on the mission that saw Cook supposedly massacred in Hawaii, Bligh would of been the logical choice to lead an exhibition of interest for the crown, back through the Pacific.
Like I said, I think the crew and possibly Bligh had second thoughts of leaving Hawaii and going back to Inner San Francisco Bay, and said to heck with that.
Odds are he would of come across both Hostile Natives again and possibly Spanish Ships defending territory.

As far as Breadfruit go, Why go all the way to Tahiti for Breadfruit?
When the fruit could be found in Madagascar 1/3 the distance from England?
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions