Oak Island Treasure Revelations

[Carl-NC]

1. There is NO definitive evidence that cribbing was used; only log platforms.

Actually, there is no evidence of log platforms, either. It's just part of a long-embellished story.

 

[Oak Island Sage]

Sorry, if i didn't make myself clear...
1. There is NO definitive evidence that cribbing was used; only log platforms.

2. The the clayish till on oak island as documented by Dunfield, will NOT safely support the cutting/digging of niches into the shaft walls to support 14ft long logs for the platforms.

3. The walls CANNOT be baked in order to harden/strengthen them to support 14ft logs for the platforms.

4. Cribbing MUST be used to dig a vertcal shaft down to 100ft.

5. If the dispositors DID use cribbing while digging the shaft, the platforms to traverse the shaft would be on the inside of the shaft attached to the wall cribbing that is holding back the dirt.

6. If the depositors DID use cribbing, the wall cribbing is holding back the dirt so the depositors would NOT even have access to the dirt behind the wall cribbing to cut/dig niches for the 14ft long logs.
And there is no need to because they are using cribbing.

7. Since there is NO definitive evidence the depositors used cribbing, they would have had to have removed all of the cribbing while placing log platforms every 10ft as they filled the shaft.

8. Cribbing MUST be removed from the bottom up BUT it CANNOT be removed because the bottom cribbing carries the load of ALL the cribbing above it,
The only time cribbing is removed is when digging a well. The cribbing is replaced with stone walls/support as it is removed. The stone walls then carry the load

9. To close a vertical shaft, the top 10 or 20ft of the cribbing gets removed and the shaft opening is then covered and filled in with dirt.

Conclusion: if the depositors dug a 100ft deep shaft, they WOULD HAVE HAD to have used cribbing!

They could NOT have removed the cribbing.

Therefore, if the depositors DID use cribbing, then the Onslow company (1803) SHOULD HAVE found cribbing left behind by the depositors...NOT log platforms.

 

[Oak Island Sage]

Hi chalkoutline, if no cribbing was found and the shaft was approximately 180 ft deep we have to consider that the clay walls were firm enough for deep cut niches, those deep cut ledges would only have to support the combined weight of twenty four 6" x 14ft logs, no spoil. These log platforms were used purely to safely reach the required depth with several short ladders the platforms were not filled to avoid extra weight on the niches. After the tunnels to Smiths Shore and the West Tunnel (see CAD) then the rest of all logs the platform up about the fifty feet level became superfluous to requirements, and they were probably hauled up to be used elsewhere. Dan and I both felt that the tons of spoil excavated in the Money pit was most probably dumped at the curved peninsula of Isaac's Point. And we were both of the opinion that no treasure was ever put in the Money Pit, and to reiterate it was actually designed to function as a deep sand sump (see CAD) And remember folks you heard it from me first.
Oak Island Sage

 

[releventchair]

Hi chalkoutline, if no cribbing was found and the shaft was approximately 180 ft deep we have to consider that the clay walls were firm enough for deep cut niches, those deep cut ledges would only have to support the combined weight of twenty four 6" x 14ft logs, no spoil. These log platforms were used purely to safely reach the required depth with several short ladders the platforms were not filled to avoid extra weight on the niches. After the tunnels to Smiths Shore and the West Tunnel (see CAD) then the rest of all logs the platform up about the fifty feet level became superfluous to requirements, and they were probably hauled up to be used elsewhere. Dan and I both felt that the tons of spoil excavated in the Money pit was most probably dumped at the curved peninsula of Isaac's Point. And we were both of the opinion that no treasure was ever put in the Money Pit, and to reiterate it was actually designed to function as a deep sand sump (see CAD) And remember folks you heard it from me first.
Oak Island Sage

To calculate the weight of 6-inch by 14-foot oak lumber, you can use the following formula:

• Weight = Length (inches) x Width (inches) x Thickness (inches) / 12 (to convert to feet) x Density of oak (in pounds per cubic foot).
• For oak, the density is approximately 67 lb/ft³.
• For a 6-inch by 14-foot piece, the volume is 1 cubic foot (6 x 14 x 1/12 = 1).
• Therefore, the weight is 67 lb/ft³ x 1 ft³ = 67 pounds.
  Thus, a piece of oak lumber measuring 6 inches by 14 feet weighs approximately 67 pounds.
  
  2

 

[TruthbeTold]

The description pot bellied stove came from a discussion I had with the late Fred Nolan, he claimed that when he moved a large boulder with his Back Hoe excavator underneath it he found the remains of a "pot bellied stove", it was his description. I can only suggest that either the miners used some sort of wood burning metal container in the Money Pit or they just lit a small fire on top of the clay covering that levelled out the rough surface of the logs in the sleeping quarters platforms The covering contained wood ash and charcoal and Coconut Fibres.

Oak Island Sage

Obviously, the potbellied stove Nolan supposedly found could not have been used to heat a house. Just like every other find of common artifacts of human habitation on oak island it must be related to treasure.

 

[ARC]

Hi chalkoutline, if no cribbing was found and the shaft was approximately 180 ft deep we have to consider that the clay walls were firm enough for deep cut niches, those deep cut ledges would only have to support the combined weight of twenty four 6" x 14ft logs, no spoil. These log platforms were used purely to safely reach the required depth with several short ladders the platforms were not filled to avoid extra weight on the niches. After the tunnels to Smiths Shore and the West Tunnel (see CAD) then the rest of all logs the platform up about the fifty feet level became superfluous to requirements, and they were probably hauled up to be used elsewhere. Dan and I both felt that the tons of spoil excavated in the Money pit was most probably dumped at the curved peninsula of Isaac's Point. And we were both of the opinion that no treasure was ever put in the Money Pit, and to reiterate it was actually designed to function as a deep sand sump (see CAD) And remember folks you heard it from me first.
Oak Island Sage

The "money pit" was appropriately named due to the vast amount of money wasted chasing a wise tale.

Nothing like searching an old livestock / ship watering well over and over and over and over.

Makes for great TV though it seems.

 

[Carl-NC]

To calculate the weight of 6-inch by 14-foot oak lumber, you can use the following formula:

• Weight = Length (inches) x Width (inches) x Thickness (inches) / 12 (to convert to feet) x Density of oak (in pounds per cubic foot).
• For oak, the density is approximately 67 lb/ft³.
• For a 6-inch by 14-foot piece, the volume is 1 cubic foot (6 x 14 x 1/12 = 1).
• Therefore, the weight is 67 lb/ft³ x 1 ft³ = 67 pounds.
  Thus, a piece of oak lumber measuring 6 inches by 14 feet weighs approximately 67 pounds.

If it's a round log, volume is π*r^2*length = 4750in^3 = 2.75ft^3 which is 184 lbs.
If it's a square log, volume is a*a*length = 6048in^3 = 3.5ft^3 which is 235 lbs.

 

[chalkoutline]

we have to consider that the clay walls were firm enough for deep cut niches,

How exactly do you fact check your stories or do you just accept what you are told?

I only have Google AI and i explained in an earlier post regarding brick making. Clay is not strong enough which why they mix in sand and organic material to strengthen it. When dried, it will support a couple of 100 pounds.
Google AI also indicate when clay gets wet it turns into slushy mess so you would encountere this once get got below sea level. At 180ft your are 145 ft below sea level yet the clay soil is strong enough for log platforms without cribbing.

Does the actually sound plausible to YOU?

Needless to say i wont be buying your book and i am done talking about cribbing. Im sure the others on thread are glad.

 

[chalkoutline]

it was actually designed to function as a deep sand sump (see CAD) And remember folks you heard it from me first.

This just getting embarrassing...

No, mining companies did not start using deep sand sumps to control water in the 1700s.

 

[Armchair detective]

It was discussed elsewhere that in order to have logs, 10' dirt, logs, etc that it must have been built that way on the way OUT of the shaft.

Note that as you are installing yet another floor, you look down and there is the top of the 10' of dirt right there buttressing up the sides of the shaft, therefore allowing logs to be installed without fear that the underside of notches would give way.

Ingenious engineering, don't you think?

Still leaves the problem of the belief that you can't dig a shaft in this type soil without cribbing.

 

[Oak Island Sage]

How exactly do you fact check your stories or do you just accept what you are told?

I only have Google AI and i explained in an earlier post regarding brick making. Clay is not strong enough which why they mix in sand and organic material to strengthen it. When dried, it will support a couple of 100 pounds.
Google AI also indicate when clay gets wet it turns into slushy mess so you would encountere this once get got below sea level. At 180ft your are 145 ft below sea level yet the clay soil is strong enough for log platforms without cribbing.

Does the actually sound plausible to YOU?

Needless to say i wont be buying your book and i am done talking about cribbing. Im sure the others on thread are glad.

Hi chalkoutline

How exactly do you fact check your stories or do you just accept what you are told?

I only have Google AI and i explained in an earlier post regarding brick making. Clay is not strong enough which why they mix in sand and organic material to strengthen it. When dried, it will support a couple of 100 pounds.
Google AI also indicate when clay gets wet it turns into slushy mess so you would encountere this once get got below sea level. At 180ft your are 145 ft below sea level yet the clay soil is strong enough for log platforms without cribbing.

Does the actually sound plausible to YOU?

Needless to say i wont be buying your book and i am done talking about cribbing. Im sure the others on thread are glad.

Hi chalkoutline, I read books and applied simple logic to the discoveries made by previous seekers.
The distance between the niches is ten feet so the walls were quite capable of supporting the log platforms in the area between them. When the mine was dry and under full operation there was no danger of any clay turning to mud, most of the log platforms were later taken out for use elsewhere so there was just a vacant space below where flood tunnels entered the main shaft. When it eventually became necessary to flood the mine the sand contained in the inrushing sea water settled at the bottom of the Money Pit which acted as - a sand sump. You have to read the CAD in my book to better understand why this separation process to remove potentially clogging sand was used, it was to obtain clear water essentially required to protect the stored treasure. It's your prerogative to buy the book or not of course but you should at least read it.

OaK Island Sage

 

[Cryptid1990]

Hi Cryptid, Am I right in thinking that you have not actually read the book yet? Captain Kidd did sail to Oak Island, the book will show where his ship Adventure Prize anchored in Joudary Cove and what treasure he unloaded. I can promise you that this book is not in any a rehash. As for the Knights Templar connection I know very little about that subject but they may have stored their own treasures on Oak Island because the undersea level flood tunnel protection system provided an impregnable storage facility.

Oak Island Sage

I read the book and it is awful. You present no evidence for any of your far-fetched claims. Repeatedly asserting something over and over with no evidence (e.g., "Captain Kidd did sail to Oak Island"), does not make it true. Can you provide a single peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal that argues Kidd traveled to Oak Island? I'll wait...

 

[releventchair]

I read the book and it is awful. You present no evidence for any of your far-fetched claims. Repeatedly asserting something over and over with no evidence (e.g., "Captain Kidd did sail to Oak Island"), does not make it true. Can you provide a single peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal that argues Kidd traveled to Oak Island? I'll wait...

Zero reviews on the multiple Amazon mentions.
How in the heck does a book have zero reviews?
So I looked else where to find ; Zero reviews.
Must be a ghost.

 

[Cryptid1990]

Zero reviews on the multiple Amazon mentions.
How in the heck does a book have zero reviews?
So I looked else where to find ; Zero reviews.
Must be a ghost.

The physical copies (hardcover £28; softcover £18) are massively overpriced so I doubt anyone will buy those to review. I bought the Kindle Edition for £7 which is also overpriced. I only bought it because Oak Island Sage stated his book reproduces a map drawn and signed by Captain Kidd. However, it turns out I already knew about that map and posted a variant of it in another thread. The map ("Deadman's Island") and signature is almost certainly a hoax. Regardless of its dubious provenance, the island depicted on the map is clearly not Oak Island. In other words, Oak Island Sage is using a hoax map not even of Oak Island for his belief Captain Kidd sailed to Oak Island.

 

[GravelTeeth]

Sorry, if i didn't make myself clear...
1. There is NO definitive evidence that cribbing was used; only log platforms.

2. The the clayish till on oak island as documented by Dunfield, will NOT safely support the cutting/digging of niches into the shaft walls to support 14ft long logs for the platforms.

3. The walls CANNOT be baked in order to harden/strengthen them to support 14ft logs for the platforms.

4. Cribbing MUST be used to dig a vertcal shaft down to 100ft.

5. If the dispositors DID use cribbing while digging the shaft, the platforms to traverse the shaft would be on the inside of the shaft attached to the wall cribbing that is holding back the dirt.

6. If the depositors DID use cribbing, the wall cribbing is holding back the dirt so the depositors would NOT even have access to the dirt behind the wall cribbing to cut/dig niches for the 14ft long logs.
And there is no need to because they are using cribbing.

7. Since there is NO definitive evidence the depositors used cribbing, they would have had to have removed all of the cribbing while placing log platforms every 10ft as they filled the shaft.

8. Cribbing MUST be removed from the bottom up BUT it CANNOT be removed because the bottom cribbing carries the load of ALL the cribbing above it,
The only time cribbing is removed is when digging a well. The cribbing is replaced with stone walls/support as it is removed. The stone walls then carry the load

9. To close a vertical shaft, the top 10 or 20ft of the cribbing gets removed and the shaft opening is then covered and filled in with dirt.

Conclusion: if the depositors dug a 100ft deep shaft, they WOULD HAVE HAD to have used cribbing!

They could NOT have removed the cribbing.

Therefore, if the depositors DID use cribbing, then the Onslow company (1803) SHOULD HAVE found cribbing left behind by the depositors...NOT log platforms.

Strong points, but as usual, we can talk mostly in terms of likelihoods rather than certainties. The "standard" way of doing things may be rather moot if the diggers were not professionals at that task, or had agendas which superseded civil engineering wisdom. There could be variables which argued in favor of taking more risk. Perhaps at some times of year a clayish till can be more stable than at others. A wet season would seem to be more risky for collapse. Is there a dry season in Nova Scotia? Early fall perhaps? And of course my old fallback position: unlikely things do happen, so we can't rule out an anomalous run of good luck where the gods of chance smiled upon the endeavour, up to a point.

Maybe the diggers of the Money Pit worked at the edge of danger, neglecting cribbing as far down as they could. Maybe below the 90-foot level there was some sort of collapse ... maybe the purported 90-foot stone was a grave marker for unfortunate souls who got killed when they ventured "too greedily and too deep."

I'll repeat my wish that some part of the show should be dedicated to re-creating these theories on virgin ground, testing how far manual labor can dig straight down in clayish till, etc. It would be in the same spirit as past History Channel-type specials where academics attempted to recreate the methods used on the Egyptian pyramids, the Easter Island statuary, and the Wright Flyer, among others.

--GT

 

[chalkoutline]

Perhaps at some times of year a clayish till can be more stable than at others.

I've been thinking about this earlier today...
In the 1960s my dad built a fallout shelter. The soil at his house was clayish till. Him and 2 friends dug hole 12'x10' to a depth of 5ft deep by hand. When they started using buckets they decided to bring in a backhoe. The backhoe finished the digging to a depth of 10 to 12 feet.
The walls looked vertical but they had a slight angle to them so the top was wider than the bottom which kept dirt from sliding down. So YESI You can dig a shaft in clayish till.

If my dad's dig continued the bottom of the pit would have gotten smaller and smaller the deeper he dug.

From Dunfield, we know the walls were at 60 degrees and by the time he reached 100ft, the bottom was 10x10 or 12x12.

Im in the process of a move and haven't had time to run the numbers but I plan to plot a series of graphs using different angles from 90 to 60 degrees to see just how deep one can get at those angles

I was also going to look at his old photosand his diagrams to look for new clues

I should be able to get to it monday.

 

[chalkoutline]

I've been thinking about this earlier today...
In the 1960s my dad built a fallout shelter. The soil at his house was clayish till. Him and 2 friends dug hole 12'x10' to a depth of 5ft deep by hand. When they started using buckets they decided to bring in a backhoe. The backhoe finished the digging to a depth of 10 to 12 feet.
The walls looked vertical but they had a slight angle to them so the top was wider than the bottom which kept dirt from sliding down. So YESI You can dig a shaft in clayish till.

If my dad's dig continued the bottom of the pit would have gotten smaller and smaller the deeper he dug.

From Dunfield, we know the walls were at 60 degrees and by the time he reached 100ft, the bottom was 10x10 or 12x12.

Im in the process of a move and haven't had time to run the numbers but I plan to plot a series of graphs using different angles from 90 to 60 degrees to see just how deep one can get at those angles

I was also going to look at his old photosand his diagrams to look for new clues

I should be able to get to it monday.

It could be google ai is thinking you can't dig vertical walls without cribbing. So i thought i would ask 80 degree walls, what about 70 degrees, etc..

 

[TruthbeTold]

It could be google ai is thinking you can't dig vertical walls without cribbing. So i thought i would ask 80 degree walls, what about 70 degrees, etc..

Why waste your time attempting to uncover the construction details for something that never existed?

Oak island sage’s comments so far have only proven that they too have written fiction in an attempt to make money off of the oak island scam train.

 

[chalkoutline]

It could be google ai is thinking you can't dig vertical walls without cribbing. So i thought i would ask 80 degree walls, what about 70 degrees, etc..

Google AI says...
Yes, a hole can be dug in clayish till without cribbing (shoring) by sloping the walls

Why waste your time attempting to uncover the construction details for something that never existed?

Oak island sage’s comments so far have only proven that they too have written fiction in an attempt to make money off of the oak island scam train.

I was thinking about this today to shed light on the 3 boys; not the 100ft shaft.

Lets suppose the boys were able to dig down 30ft with angled walls. That could make their story plausible; however, if the angled walls need to be at a 60 degree (i.e., Dunfield), then their story is proven false.

 

[chalkoutline]

It could be google ai is thinking you can't dig vertical walls without cribbing. So i thought i would ask 80 degree walls, what about 70 degrees, etc..

Google AI says...
Yes, a hole can be dug in clayish till without cribbing (shoring) by sloping the walls

Also...
Fiirm conditions of the clayish till allows for steeper slopes, sometimes up to 60 degrees,

Dunfields dig matches AIs answer. That means. That means the boys could only dig 12ft.

Im not convinced the angle is linear but rather...more angle is needed the deeper you dig.