Some Notes Re: Construction of the Money Pit

[releventchair]

I have three accounts of the log platforms
1. Log platforms every 10ft for only first 30ft
2. Log platforms every 10ft down to 90ft
3. Log platforms for first 30ft, one at 50ft and another at 70ft.
The only thing common is the first 30ft.

I attached a drawing of the platforms. I didn't attach it as proof but its consistent with how i envision when I hear the term Log platforms. No wall support.

It wasn't clear to me, when you hear Log platforms, you envision wall support too?

i don't believe everything I read of accounts without actual evidence.
No uncorrupted Notary signed off? Then it isn't too convincing a document.
Two Nuns and a Priest say there were ten platforms unearthed one below the other? I'll still be suspicious.

IF four flat platforms were unearthed from a sunken spot I could consider them cribbing walls yes.
Wells were often shored at the bottom when stone was available to keep them from eroding. (Water entering being low. Once water was struck only dig a little farther. As if you had a choice. (A water tank only needed to be a deeply sat as you wanted to build it.)

Walls from From a well. Or a water tank. Or a simple shelter.
Water sprinkled on a dirt floor allowed continued compaction in between sweepings. Entire yards being swept in history. Till they gleamed.( Better than splinters in your feet from planks when floors.) No rot either.
Accounts of early American settlement mention bark(?) lined dug spots for shelter the first year(s). I'm elsewhere online with someone in a pinch or I'd look up the source for the shelters in Walden written by Thoreau.

 

[chalkoutline]

i don't believe everything I read of accounts without actual evidence.
No uncorrupted Notary signed off? Then it isn't too convincing a document.
Two Nuns and a Priest say there were ten platforms unearthed one below the other? I'll still be suspicious.

IF four flat platforms were unearthed from a sunken spot I could consider them cribbing walls yes.
Wells were often shored at the bottom when stone was available to keep them from eroding. (Water entering being low. Once water was struck only dig a little farther. As if you had a choice. (A water tank only needed to be a deeply sat as you wanted to build it.)

Walls from From a well. Or a water tank. Or a simple shelter.
Water sprinkled on a dirt floor allowed continued compaction in between sweepings. Entire yards being swept in history. Till they gleamed.( Better than splinters in your feet from planks when floors.) No rot either.
Accounts of early American settlement mention bark(?) lined dug spots for shelter the first year(s). I'm elsewhere online with someone in a pinch or I'd look up the source for the shelters in Walden written by Thoreau.

Thanks. I appreciate your collaboration.

 

[Carl-NC]

3. None the less, the next part of the story is... they start digging and find log platforms every 10ft.

Why in the world do you accept "log platforms" "every 10 feet" as being absolute fact? This is such an unreliable part of the story. As was the block & tackle. I've seen the following versions:

• They saw a block & tackle
• They saw marks on a limb, as if there had once been a block & tackle
• They saw a sawed-off limb, as if to hide evidence of a block & tackle

The pick marks on the wall of the hole is also unlikely unless they were digging out loose soil in a hard-rock pit. All of these elements are more likely to be embellishments of an otherwise boring story of teens pretending to be treasure hunters.

Strong evidence of a sinkhole comes from the sinkhole that occurred just 150 yards from the pit in 1878. Also the sinkhole that was found on the mainland in 1949 that had a layer of stones and even (gasp!) a layer of logs.

No one is going to be able to prove to you that it was a sinkhole, or disprove that it was not. Throw out the unreliable parts of the story -- which, frankly, is most of it -- and then look at what has actually been provably found -- which, frankly, is nothing. In a civil trial, the preponderance of evidence would say it's a sinkhole. In a criminal trial, this thing would be dead on arrival.

 

[Armchair detective]

Still chewing on this stuff.

Don't think it's a water well however. Wouldn't that have its own form of "cribbing", i.e. a rock or stone side wall to prevent cave-in? Didn't hear anyone encountered that.

 

[chalkoutline]

Why in the world do you accept "log platforms" "every 10 feet" as being absolute fact? This is such an unreliable part of the story. As was the block & tackle. I've seen the following versions:

• They saw a block & tackle
• They saw marks on a limb, as if there had once been a block & tackle
• They saw a sawed-off limb, as if to hide evidence of a block & tackle

The pick marks on the wall of the hole is also unlikely unless they were digging out loose soil in a hard-rock pit. All of these elements are more likely to be embellishments of an otherwise boring story of teens pretending to be treasure hunters.

Strong evidence of a sinkhole comes from the sinkhole that occurred just 150 yards from the pit in 1878. Also the sinkhole that was found on the mainland in 1949 that had a layer of stones and even (gasp!) a layer of logs.

No one is going to be able to prove to you that it was a sinkhole, or disprove that it was not. Throw out the unreliable parts of the story -- which, frankly, is most of it -- and then look at what has actually been provably found -- which, frankly, is nothing. In a civil trial, the preponderance of evidence would say it's a sinkhole. In a criminal trial, this thing would be dead on arrival.

All good points.
I mentioned many, many times the indentation drawing the boys curiosity. I only mentioned a pulley of some kind once because I found that point to be questionable and did not rely on that..

I also mentioned there were three different accounts about the log platforms which I also question; however, the decrepancies were the platform intervals reported by the onslow dig in 1803 from 30 to 90 ft down not from the first 30ft dug by the three boys in 1795.

As a result, I only believe the report of log platforms for the first 30ft

Although i speculat on methods, i don't like speculate on motive but if I had to guess, the onslow company didn't find any log platforms below 30ft but added them along with the inscribed stone to encourage additional funding; especially since I have proven the lack of cribbing reports would indicate no one had previously been that deep.

Feel free to maintain your theory of a sinkhole; that's i what I thought too but since I didn't feel i could ignore the reports of log platforms, it had to be filled in sinkhole hole.

Armchair made a case for a fence and another about pick marks and smooth walls which made me change my mind.

I could ignore the pick marks/smooth walls but since they came from the same 1795 story as the log platforms how do I justify believing one part but not another. That would seem like i was picking and choosing my facts to suit my narrative.

If you ignore both points it could indeed be a 30ft sinkhole; however, I have a hard time believing a sinkhole would be reported as an indentation.

I am not suggesting you should agree with me. But I hope ive made my methodology and reasoning clear.

While typing this response, I did have another thought. If someone knew the soil make up of the first 30ft, one could prove or disprove the pick marks/smooth wall. To disprove this point would call into question the log platforms. Unfortunately, that's not my expertise.

 

[chalkoutline]

All good points.
I mentioned many, many times the indentation drawing the boys curiosity. I only mentioned a pulley of some kind once because I found that point to be questionable and did not rely on that..

I also mentioned there were three different accounts about the log platforms which I also question; however, the decrepancies were the platform intervals reported by the onslow dig in 1803 from 30 to 90 ft down not from the first 30ft dug by the three boys in 1795.

As a result, I only believe the report of log platforms for the first 30ft

Although i speculat on methods, i don't like speculate on motive but if I had to guess, the onslow company didn't find any log platforms below 30ft but added them along with the inscribed stone to encourage additional funding; especially since I have proven the lack of cribbing reports would indicate no one had previously been that deep.

Feel free to maintain your theory of a sinkhole; that's i what I thought too but since I didn't feel i could ignore the reports of log platforms, it had to be filled in sinkhole hole.

Armchair made a case for a fence and another about pick marks and smooth walls which made me change my mind.

I could ignore the pick marks/smooth walls but since they came from the same 1795 story as the log platforms how do I justify believing one part but not another. That would seem like i was picking and choosing my facts to suit my narrative.

If you ignore both points it could indeed be a 30ft sinkhole; however, I have a hard time believing a sinkhole would be reported as an indentation.

I am not suggesting you should agree with me. But I hope ive made my methodology and reasoning clear.

While typing this response, I did have another thought. If someone knew the soil make up of the first 30ft, one could prove or disprove the pick marks/smooth wall. To disprove this point would call into question the log platforms. Unfortunately, that's not my expertise.

BTW, I believe the original 1795 story indicated they saw a tree nail which is a wooden peg. As the story spread, i can see how it changed to something a broader audience would understand.

 

[chalkoutline]

BTW, I believe the original 1795 story indicated they saw a tree nail which is a wooden peg. As the story spread, i can see how it changed to something a broader audience would understand.

With regards to the smooth walls...personal experience tells for this to happen, they would be digging looser fill or a different type of fill than that of the walls which indicates they were digging in a previously filled in hole.

 

[Carl-NC]

they came from the same 1795 story

There is no "1795 story." It was a verbally-passed tradition until the mid-1800s.

I have a hard time believing a sinkhole would be reported as an indentation.

Sinkholes collapse and fill in over time, until they look like a depression. This particular sinkhole could have occurred 100 years or more prior. And it may not have been all that deep. Assuming that the boys did find some logs around 10 feet deep, that could be roughly the depth of the original sinkhole.

indicated they saw a tree nail which is a wooden peg.

Yes, that's another version I had forgotten about. If the block & tackle element was subject to so many changes, why would anything else be considered reliable?

 

[TruthbeTold]

Many posts in this thread remind me of the narrator on the fictional tv show, "the curse of oak island".

A lot of "Could it be?" and "What if?"

 

[Armchair detective]

Don't worry about it.

Fifty years from now the folklore will be...

"....and when those three dug into the ground
they discovered some flagstones AND
CRIBBING..."

Tales are amended when there are obvious holes in them, else who would believe them?

 

[Armchair detective]

Still, it seems to be a given that the three boys did not encounter cribbing else it would have been mentioned as a strong point that there was previous digging, and also if there was cribbing it would have been safe to just continue digging by themselves.

 

[Armchair detective]

More to the point, lack of cribbing means it's unlikely that any type of professional type mining took place, so a pro mine operation doesn't look possible.

Which leaves the idea that someone dug without cribbing, which infers an amateur or someone in a terrible hurry.

 

[Armchair detective]

Don't think the Onslow Co actually installed cribbing.

If you KNEW you were going to dig to 90 ft, you would certainly put in cribbing, but Onslow didn't know that - they had expectations of "just a little deeper" and they would have it.

Truro did not actually dig in the original pit, but probed with 90 ft augers.


Regarding post 149, the 100 ft tunnel appears to be a natural watercourse. It's probably 100% full now, but was it always?

There appears to be a chamber at end. Anything in it?
The channel appears to be going in a northeast direction - Smith's cove is due east. Doesn't look like anyone is looking there.

 

[chalkoutline]

Don't think the Onslow Co actually installed cribbing.

If you KNEW you were going to dig to 90 ft, you would certainly put in cribbing, but Onslow didn't know that - they had expectations of "just a little deeper" and they would have it.

Truro did not actually dig in the original pit, but probed with 90 ft augers.


Regarding post 149, the 100 ft tunnel appears to be a natural watercourse. It's probably 100% full now, but was it always?

There appears to be a chamber at end. Anything in it?
The channel appears to be going in a northeast direction - Smith's cove is due east. Doesn't look like anyone is looking there.

Google AI says...
In 1803, the Onslow Company, known for its work in construction and potentially the infamous Oak Island search, used timber (specifically wood like pine and oak) for its cribbing. Cribbing is a temporary structure made of interlocking supports, often referred to as "box cribs," and in that era, wood was the primary material.

 

[Armchair detective]

Hold the phone.

What I've read is the Onslow Co was ESTABLISHED and shares sold for the PURPOSE of digging in the money pit - no previous construction/mining experience was noted.

Somebody made something up

 

[Armchair detective]

Sorry for the inference that you made something up - should have said someTHING made something up.

 

[Armchair detective]

Just a footnote ... TUNNELS

Here are some screenshots from COOI Season 3 Disc 1. Some Texas fellows claimed to use "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging" to produce the tunnel map shown.

The blue is open tunnel, green is flooded.

The parts that follow the shore (and the three "legs" extending under the sea) would be consistent with mining for the fool's gold which was shown to exist on the south shore during an interview with Dan Henske on the COOI.

If the diggers were following veins, they pulled out a LOT of ore, and there were a LOT of them working over a long period of time.

Why no history? Only frobisher's journeys has a similar history. ('course my butt was paddled for even considering that this was frobisher's operation).

 

[Armchair detective]

Also you would expect some vent holes.

 

[Armchair detective]

Maybe it's a sewer system.

 

[Carl-NC]

Some Texas fellows claimed to use "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging" to produce the tunnel map shown.

Did they show the monstrous coils, and the equally monstrous power source, that would be required to pull this off? Did they show the process of burying the monstrous coil so that the tunnels runs through the coil? You can be assured they certainly did not use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging.