Oak Island Treasure Revelations

[chalkoutline]

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.

Google AI seems to agrèe with my theory...

Yes, when digging a hole in clayish till without cribbing (shoring) in 1700, it is necessary to slope the walls to be less steep as you dig deeper to prevent cave-ins, which are caused by gravity putting pressure on the soil.

 

[Carl-NC]

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

If the bottom is 10' across and the hole is 100' deep, then the top will be 125' across. The 60° wall angle is only needed if safety is a concern. Otherwise, anyone can dig a vertical hole as deep as they like, until it fails.

These trips into speculative fantasy can make anything seem possible, but that doesn't make it probable or even plausible. Digging a 100' deep hole (or deeper) to bury a treasure that you would expect to one day retrieve is just dumb. Doing it on an island with a peak elevation of 30' is pure stupidity. No one is going to do that, and there is no evidence that anyone ever did. So explaining the possible ways it could be done either means you have time to waste, or you are writing a book.

Right now, Mr. Francis' hypothesis that someone built an underground repository would make more sense than someone who just buried a treasure 100' deep. But, again, doing this on a 30' high island is just... idiotic. And, again, there is zero evidence that anyone ever did this. It is speculation piled on top of speculation, with nothing that can be tested or proven. As Wolfgang Pauli would say, all of this stuff is "not even wrong."

 

[Jeff H]

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

I am curious as to what evidence would it take for you to consider that this story might be just a legend?

 

[Oak Island Sage]

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.

I came on this website to promote my book and to give my honest opinion to polite question put to me, if you don't agree with my answers that's your problem. I found some of your your remarks to be offensive so I have no intention arguing with you especially regarding the authenticity of Deadman's Island map, and William Kidd signature, as far as I and previous experts were concerned it is genuine. You said that the signature is "almost certainly a hoax", why because you can't have have actual the answers you want.
Why not not pay you own handwriting expert for a professional opinion, on second thoughts don't waste more money, you probably wouldn't agree with him/her either.
Oak Island Sage

I am curious as to what evidence would it take for you to consider that this story might be just a legend?

Hi Jeff H: The only time that most people would be convinced that the story real and not merely a legend is when the treasure is finely retrieved and on display, perhaps initially in the Halifax Museum, at Nova scotia. If and when that happens there will still be some people will still arguing about the construction of the empty Money Pit, and doubting the authenticity of the Deadman's Island map with Captain's Kidd's signature.
What the people now should be is asking what is the connection between the empty Money Pit (sand sump) and the subterranean flood tunnel protected Treasure Repository located a great distance away, that's where my CAD shown in my book comes in. The Repository was left booby trapped and the system has to be deactivated first before the treasure can be safely recovered by an underground route. The reason for this procedure is because the accumulated treasure is located under sea level and deep below virgin ground in the mid section of the island. Unless the present searchers get smart and make me an offer very soon that's where it will stay forever.
I am the only man on the planet who has a 95% chance of bringing the present searchers quest to a successful conclusion and pushing 86 I ain't getting any younger.

Oak Island Sage

 

[robertk]

I am the only man on the planet who has a 95% chance of bringing the present searchers quest to a successful conclusion

Anything one man figures out, another man can figure out sooner or later.

 

[chalkoutline]

What the people now should be is asking what is the connection between the empty Money Pit (sand sump) and the subterranean flood tunnel protected Treasure Repository located a great distance away,

I am curious as to what evidence would it take for you to consider that this story might be just a legend?

Jeff H
When confronted by evidence that definitively shows one cannot dig a shaft 100ft shaft deep in clayish soil without cribbing...Apparently, there is no evidence that will change their mind.

When presented with the cribbing practices used before 1700 and that once in place they cannot be removed indicating the Onslow company would have found more than just log platforms in 1803...Apparently, there is no evidence

So what has been the response...
1. They baked and harden the clayish till with potbelly stoves which were not invented until the early 1800.

Add the fact that baking clayish till will not harden it which is why baked clay bricks need sand and organic material in order for bricks to support a couple of hundred pounds.
So this claim is false.

2. In addition, the MP wasn't for hiding treasure but rather it was 183ft and used as a sand sump to keep the mine dry where the real treasure is buried.
However, common sense tells you...not only that it couldn't be done without cribbing but sand sumps weren't used until the 1800s.
This claim is false.

3. Now the claim is...those who dug the shaft were risk takers. One must have evidence of such a claim because i can equally claim they weren't.

I would hope the diggers were smart enough that after a few cave ins/deaths they would have realized they needed wall support. If not, they were not only risk takers but also stupid or is it because they were stupid so they were risk takers.
This claim without evidence is just a guess at best just to keep the legend alive...They didn't need cribbing because they were risk takers...really?

Any time someone changes their theory to something else after being challenged shows their theories are built on clayish till and not supported by cribbing!
See what i did there?

I believe the lack of cribbing completely debunks the 1803 Onslow company dig indicating they found no log platforms nor did they find the 90ft stone because no one could have previously dug a shaft there. Therefore, all searches after the Onslow company are also debunked.

This is why I am now focusing on the original 30ft deep dig by three boys in 1795.

 

[Carl-NC]

as far as I and previous experts were concerned it is genuine.

Do you cite those experts in your book?

 

[Cryptid1990]

I came on this website to promote my book and to give my honest opinion to polite question put to me, if you don't agree with my answers that's your problem. I found some of your your remarks to be offensive so I have no intention arguing with you especially regarding the authenticity of Deadman's Island map, and William Kidd signature, as far as I and previous experts were concerned it is genuine. You said that the signature is "almost certainly a hoax", why because you can't have have actual the answers you want.
Why not not pay you own handwriting expert for a professional opinion, on second thoughts don't waste more money, you probably wouldn't agree with him/her either.
Oak Island Sage

The provenance of the Deadman's Island map cannot be established before the 1940s. Edward Rowe Snow claimed to have purchased it from a "New York Dealer" c. 1940, who said it came from the manuscript collection of Henry Bentinck, 1st Duke of Portland. This highly questionable claim about record of ownership has not been verified. A variant of the same map was first published in LIFE (21 July 1952).

The style of the map is undeniably in the vein of the fictional map in Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island (1883), for example, on the main island, there is a hill named "Lookout Hill" which resembles Spyglass Hill. There is a "chest buried here" on the map = X marks the spot ("bulk of treasure here" [X] in Stevenson's map), while an anchorage symbol appears on both maps in the same place i.e., north inlet. Stevenson's map has a small island off the southeastern coast named "foul place" while the Deadman's Island map has a small island off the southeastern coast named "Booby island", and so on. It does not take an expert to realise that terms like "chest buried here" and X marking the spot for buried treasure were not written or drawn on authentic 17th-18th century maps. It was Stevenson who popularised this on his map in Treasure Island and it is a literary trope in pirate fiction. Even the name of the island "Deadman's Island" is probably from Stevenson: "Fifteen men on the dead man's chest— / Yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum!".

Based on the dubious provenance of the map and its style obviously being post-1883, the map is almost certainly a hoax and most probably drawn in the early 20th century (the same as the Kidd-Palmer maps). Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

What "experts" determined the map was genuine when the style of the map clearly is not 17th/18th century? 🤦‍♂️ You have been asked repeatedly to name these experts. Who were they? If you cannot answer this, do you at least have the integrity to retract your false claim?

 

[Armchair detective]

There is some evidence to apply to the cribbing/no cribbing argument.

In season 6? Rick and Marty dug a 40' deep trench in an attempt to find a flood tunnel. They put a camera on the excavator bucket to look around.

1. You can OBSERVE the fact that the surface DOES crumble away and trickle into the.hole.

2. You can OBSERVE that the trench DID NOT immediately collapse.


Counterpoint - there is an "extra" in the COOI DVDs where Dave Blankenship talked about saving his dad when he was down 10X and the tank walls started to collapse - an emergency pull-up. This means there are some conditions where the shaft walls on OI DO collapse.

 

[Oak Island Sage]

There is some evidence to apply to the cribbing/no cribbing argument.

In season 6? Rick and Marty dug a 40' deep trench in an attempt to find a flood tunnel. They put a camera on the excavator bucket to look around.

1. You can OBSERVE the fact that the surface DOES crumble away and trickle into the.hole.

2. You can OBSERVE that the trench DID NOT immediately collapse.


Counterpoint - there is an "extra" in the COOI DVDs where Dave Blankenship talked about saving his dad when he was down 10X and the tank walls started to collapse - an emergency pull-up. This means there are some conditions where the shaft walls on OI DO collapse.

Armchair detective, Dan told me personally on Oak Island that when he was deep down in the 22" metal Casing he cut a hole in the side to see if he discover anything. He then played water in a powerful hose through the hole, bad idea. This washed away the clay creating a cavity and the unsupported clay wall above that started to collapse, and the resulting pressure started to close in the Casing above his head. He was pull up just in time before the casing closed in. This near disaster was caused by the introduction of water, no water entered any part the subterranean system of Oak Island including the Money Pit while treasure was brought to the mine, it was later flooded to protect the treasures in the repository for an indefinite period.

Oak Island Sage

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Post deleted. Cryptic, we have rules against insulting members and you are breaking them, please post by our rules.

 

[chalkoutline]

, no water entered any part the subterranean system of Oak Island including the Money Pit while treasure was brought to the mine

Oi Sage,
Out of curiosity...how do you know this?

According to the story, the Onslow company dug 90ft before quitting for the day. When they came back in the morning, the shaft was fill to sea level and went up and down with tide.

Since the seawater didn't come rushing because they left the shaft thinking they would find treasure the next day. The only explanation i have is...the weight of the till was heavy enough to prevent weakened limestone from fracturing. Once the Onslow company remove enough weight of the till, the limestone fractured and flooding the shaft.

This is condition exits all over the limestone, gypsum bedrock of oak island.

Its a pretty bold statement to say that they never encounterd the same issue when digging of the treasure mine....no water entered the mine.

I'll ask again...how do you know this?

 

[chalkoutline]

Oi Sage,
Out of curiosity...how do you know this?

According to the story, the Onslow company dug 90ft before quitting for the day. When they came back in the morning, the shaft was fill to sea level and went up and down with tide.

Since the seawater didn't come rushing because they left the shaft thinking they would find treasure the next day. The only explanation i have is...the weight of the till was heavy enough to prevent weakened limestone from fracturing. Once the Onslow company remove enough weight of the till, the limestone fractured and flooding the shaft.

This is condition exits all over the limestone, gypsum bedrock of oak island.

Its a pretty bold statement to say that they never encounterd the same issue when digging of the treasure mine....no water entered the mine.

I'll ask again...how do you know this?

BTW, the same thing happens when you dig an adjacent shaft and then tunnel towards the MP. As soon as you remove enough till from the tunnel, the seawater from the Money will come rushing in and floor tha adjacent shaft via the breached tunnel.

 

[Oak Island Sage]

Oi Sage,
Out of curiosity...how do you know this?

According to the story, the Onslow company dug 90ft before quitting for the day. When they came back in the morning, the shaft was fill to sea level and went up and down with tide.

Since the seawater didn't come rushing because they left the shaft thinking they would find treasure the next day. The only explanation i have is...the weight of the till was heavy enough to prevent weakened limestone from fracturing. Once the Onslow company remove enough weight of the till, the limestone fractured and flooding the shaft.

This is condition exits all over the limestone, gypsum bedrock of oak island.

Its a pretty bold statement to say that they never encounterd the same issue when digging of the treasure mine....no water entered the mine.

I'll ask again...how do you know this?

Hi chalkoutline
It is hard to explain if you have not seen my CAD illustrated in my book, but I will try to reveal the principle involved as best can. Be prepared for a awful lot to swallow with no definitive proof because it is based on my own hypothesis or assessment of what has been found on Oak Island.
If you put your thumb on the top of a drinking straw and plunge it into a class of water inside the straw it is still dry because of the trapped air bubble, however if you lift your thumb the water level rises.
The extensive subterranean net work of linked flood tunnels and deep shafts beneath Oak Island (see CAD) work in a similar way to protect the stored treasures, At the top of the sloping West tunnel at a higher position a huge bubble of deliberately trapped air is holding back sea water preventing its stagnant level from rising and flooding the treasure. Any future attempt to enter the repository once the flooding system was primed would instantly release the purposely trapped air, just like lifting your thumb. This was an effective booby trap that still exist and works today, that is unless after two hundred years the mine is already completely flooded.
To reiterate, they did not need to let any seawater into the protection system until imminent danger threatened, and eventually it did, that is how why remains primed today waiting for fools to rush in. As I believe the repository is located under sea level then the complete deactivation of the flooding process is first vitally requisite.
When other shafts let in seawater during more modern search projects it was either seeping through previous searcher excavations, or perhaps subterranean freshwater streams also brought in sea water. The Money Pit Area has had so many holes drilled and shaft sunk it's like a Swiss cheese below ground, anyway in my opinion no treasure was ever stored anywhere near there.
Read the book then politely ask me questions and I will try to give you my honest opinion and answers on anything appertaining to Oak Island.

Oak Island Sage

 

[chalkoutline]

Be prepared for a awful lot to swallow with no definitive proof because it is based on my own hypothesis or assessment of what has been found on Oak Island.

I understand what you are saying. I also understand its hard to prove without digging.

That's not my point. My point is...what you describe is very complex for pre 1700. In cases like this i would do more research an find a similar implementation i could cite.

I quick Google AI search reveals the methods you describe were not in use until the 1800s.

Im not buying your book.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Hi chalkoutline
It is hard to explain if you have not seen my CAD illustrated in my book, but I will try to reveal the principle involved as best can. Be prepared for a awful lot to swallow with no definitive proof because it is based on my own hypothesis or assessment of what has been found on Oak Island.
If you put your thumb on the top of a drinking straw and plunge it into a class of water inside the straw it is still dry because of the trapped air bubble, however if you lift your thumb the water level rises.
The extensive subterranean net work of linked flood tunnels and deep shafts beneath Oak Island (see CAD) work in a similar way to protect the stored treasures, At the top of the sloping West tunnel at a higher position a huge bubble of deliberately trapped air is holding back sea water preventing its stagnant level from rising and flooding the treasure. Any future attempt to enter the repository once the flooding system was primed would instantly release the purposely trapped air, just like lifting your thumb. This was an effective booby trap that still exist and works today, that is unless after two hundred years the mine is already completely flooded.
To reiterate, they did not need to let any seawater into the protection system until imminent danger threatened, and eventually it did, that is how why remains primed today waiting for fools to rush in. As I believe the repository is located under sea level then the complete deactivation of the flooding process is first vitally requisite.
When other shafts let in seawater during more modern search projects it was either seeping through previous searcher excavations, or perhaps subterranean freshwater streams also brought in sea water. The Money Pit Area has had so many holes drilled and shaft sunk it's like a Swiss cheese below ground, anyway in my opinion no treasure was ever stored anywhere near there.
Read the book then politely ask me questions and I will try to give you my honest opinion and answers on anything appertaining to Oak Island.

Oak Island Sage

Why should he waste money on yet another fictional book about oak island?

 

[BennyV]

Why should he waste money on yet another fictional book about oak island?

Yawn.

 

[Oak Island Sage]

I understand what you are saying. I also understand its hard to prove without digging.

That's not my point. My point is...what you describe is very complex for pre 1700. In cases like this i would do more research an find a similar implementation i could cite.

I quick Google AI search reveals the methods you describe were not in use until the 1800s.

Im not buying your book.

Hi chalkoutline, of course that's your privilege but apparently by your rationale any theory that does not have a similar implementation is unsafe. You are referring to methods that was in common use a hundred years later, whilst I referred to a top secret facility excavated in approximately 1697 which was unique. There has to be a first time for everything or nothing new would be invented.

It is some peoples dogmatic demands for unequivocal evidence and provenance that has prevented the recovery of the Oak Island Treasure.

I have tried to blaze a safe trail for those people who keep an open mind to follow, and who are not slaves to public opinion, but hey if you guys want to go your way then I wish you and truthbetold good luck on your own intrepid journeys.

Oak Island Sage

 

[chalkoutline]

Hi chalkoutline, of course that's your privilege but apparently by your rationale any theory that does not have a similar implementation is unsafe. You are referring to methods that was in common use a hundred years later, whilst I referred to a top secret facility excavated in approximately 1697 which was unique. There has to be a first time for everything or nothing new would be invented.

It is some peoples dogmatic demands for unequivocal evidence and provenance that has prevented the recovery of the Oak Island Treasure.

I have tried to blaze a safe trail for those people who keep an open mind to follow, and who are not slaves to public opinion, but hey if you guys want to go your way then I wish you and truthbetold good luck on your own intrepid journeys.

Oak Island Sage

Oi Sage,
My true focus is on whether or not the MP story is real or not. You should know my approach and methods by now.

I do not just state its a hoax wothout evidence.
I also do not just say "no one would bury a treasure that deep so it is a hoax" although its common sense its not evidence either.

My approach assumes its true then i focus on "could they have done what they claim and how they would have done it.

Then i look for all the information i can find.. typically i start with a simple question to Google AI...can someone dig a 100ft shaft without cribbing in 1700? Adding 1700 to the question is extremely important to get a period correct response.

When google ai states No, i now have to fact check Google AI.

I research soil makeup,
I researched the bedrock on OI how it fractures, natural cavities, water ingress and sinkholes
i researched how wells were dug,
i research how vertical shafts are dug with cribbing,
i research how holes are dug without cribbing
I put time and effort into all my research before i ever post in this forum because its a tough crowd.

Like i mentioned, im only focused on proving the MP story is true or false. Today i proved it false so my research is complete.

With regards to your research. I have no interest in a new theory/story; however, i am a fact checker and clearly you have many holes in it. Holes mean its just another story nothing more and i am not talking about evidence and citations.
Im talking about a theory that can be defended when challenge. Which you cannot.

Lets take look at your last claim...
"Someone has to be first..."
Come on you don't know "they" were first?
You just came up with that angle to get the last word.

But you are correct though... there are firsts but they don't come out of thin air. They are concieved from improving or applying existing technology in a different application.

So its my opinion, you need to research the "how" would they do that and make sure the methods are period correct.

I proved the MP story is exaggerated [cribbingis an absolute must]. I know you, don't agree but what if im right. Will your theory still work or is it solely dependent on the MP story being true. You need to work through this scenario and have an answer.

You came to this forum to promote your book: however, i think you got lucky because you should now realize where the holes are in your theory and you have time to plug them before you meet with rick and marty.
-CO

 

[Carl-NC]

It is some peoples dogmatic demands for unequivocal evidence and provenance that has prevented the recovery of the Oak Island Treasure.

Not true. Folks have been digging there for 230 years without a scrap of evidence beyond a depression in the ground. In fact, the evidence that does exist has been blithely ignored. The only thing that has prevented the recovery of the OI treasure is the existence of the OI treasure.

I realize that you now postulate the treasure is now on another part of the island, but your proposal is even more preposterous than a simple buried treasure, and lacks even a depression in the ground. But you know, I think that's exactly what COOI should do: move operations to the other side and start digging. Let's see what doesn't happen.