Some Notes Re: Construction of the Money Pit

[GravelTeeth]

Log levels have always made sense.

Digging a shaft is begging for a rock to come out of the side of it and ruining your day. Cribbing or floors would prevent that, and floors take less material.

Not a bad initial thought, BUT take it just a bit further ... if they are mining the fill/clay itself, and they've cleared enough at any given depth to put down a floor, what's left to mine? The mining would have to go off into a side tunnel, which we agree they found no evidence of, or down, which they've now just blocked with the floor. As these platforms had no reported trap doors in them, we are rather stuck with the conclusion that they were constructed on the way back up.

My feeling is that, if they were ever real, they were for the express purpose of having a "filled" pit without the weight of all the back-fill crushing what was at the bottom, which is likely to have been the structure augered into by Truro.

I'm beginning to think the last level at ~90 feet, either with a log platform or without, was a waterproof layer on top of the final structure, which kept the flooded "chamber" below it from filling the Money Pit to tide level. Perhaps the structure below was always intended to be underwater unless and until the rightful owners came back and knew how to turn off the tap, so to speak. But I continue to gather data and opinions.

--GT

 

[Armchair detective]

Off to the library to try to research shaft digging techniques 1700's.
A beta deduction is that the first diggers were way back or complete amateurs - no side cribbing was EVER noted on any version of the legend/history.
Shaft digging was its own profession requiring training.

Don't know if this tidbit is relevant, but Fire Setting was a 1500 - 1600 mining technique.
You build a fire next to a rock face or floor and get out. The fire expands and weakens the rock, making it easier to work.

A tally of reasons to dig a shaft:
1. Water
2. Coal
3. Sulfur (for black powder)
4. Clay
5. Fool's gold
6. Salt...
7. ...Oh yeah, bury a treasure.

 

[Carl-NC]

Off to the library to try to research shaft digging techniques 1700's.

An excellent book on early mining techniques is De Re Metallica, published in 1556. It has tons of woodcut illustrations that, alone, are impressive. It was translated to English by a mining engineer named Herbert Hoover.

 

[Armchair detective]

Welp, that particular book wasn't in the library, so I ordered it.

Broke a personal rule...

"NEVER SPEND MONEY TRYING TO SOLVE THE
OAK ISLAND MYSTERY !!!"

 

[Carl-NC]

There are free PDFs of it online, though I much prefer a hardcopy.

 

[Armchair detective]

Thanks for the idea, but the Google PDF only has the last half of the book - to do with processing/smelting. The good stuff was in the first half.

I'm trying to get the picture of how you "build" a working mine - mine shaft. Beta deductions are that this was only an exploratory shaft, and they did not find what they were looking for, most likely gold. (If it was a "working" mine, the shaft would have had cribbing.)

Any other suggestions for books? Thanks.

 

[SSR]

Thanks for the idea, but the Google PDF only has the last half of the book - to do with processing/smelting. The good stuff was in the first half.

I'm trying to get the picture of how you "build" a working mine - mine shaft. Beta dedtctions are that this was only an exploratory shaft, and they did not find what they were looking for, most likely gold. (If it was a "working" mine, the shaft would have had cribbing.)

Any other suggestions for books? Thanks.

That's not how one mines gold. You'd chase surface mineralization which does not exist there since it's loose glacial till. In alluvial zones you'd be looking for benches and digging horizontally when you hit pay. No one would ever go 180 feet down to bedrock on a hope and a prayer. You'd also never contain the walls of such a wet soil. If you were given a volcanic pipe then you would mine it vertically, if applicable. At the Ovens nearby there was that volcanic mineralization. The French had identified it as early as 1608 and named that area Cap Prospect. It later had a minor gold rush in the 1890s. Early colonials would have known exactly where to look for gold. You, being aware of semiotics, might want to consider gold being the Pythagorean Theorem. You can mine for that with Morris's very geometric survey.

 

[Armchair detective]

Ok - got my book. Processing.

 

[chalkoutline]

So they left all of that easy-pickings "gold" around the shoreline and instead dug a 100-foot deep hole to see if they could find more gold? That makes as much sense as the forge-in-the-hole idea. Does anyone even think about what they are posting?

The depression being caused by a sinkhole is a highly likely scenario.
The depression being caused by a dug well is a possible scenario.
The depression being caused by a buried treasure is a very unlikely scenario.
The depression being caused by a treasure buried 100 feet deep is a vanishingly unlikely scenario.
The depression being caused by all the subsequent fantasies is just plain silly.
C'mon folks, Occam's razor is sharp and effective; use it.

Growing up my next door neighbor had a sink hole in their back yard. It was about 10 feet deep and 3 feet in diameter.

Not long after that discovery, a neighbor behind and two yards over had another sinkhole. It was cone shaped about 30 ft across and 20 ft deep.

A guy came and exploded to find a small cave system under the neighborhood.

This experience tells me a sinkhole diameter is dependent on how deep the void is that it is filling. I am not sure a void below 90 feet would be deep enough to significantly disturb the till above that it would be seen on the surface. Especially it it is clay as suggested in previous posts.

 

[chalkoutline]

Growing up my next door neighbor had a sink hole in their back yard. It was about 10 feet deep and 3 feet in diameter.

Not long after that discovery, a neighbor behind and two yards over had another sinkhole. It was cone shaped about 30 ft across and 20 ft deep.

A guy came and exploded to find a small cave system under the neighborhood.

This experience tells me a sinkhole diameter is dependent on how deep the void is that it is filling. I am not sure a void below 90 feet would be deep enough to significantly disturb the till above that it would be seen on the surface. Especially it it is clay as suggested in previous posts.

BTW, I was about 10 years old. The cone shaped sinkhole swallowed a mature tree and the top was about 10 ft above the hole.

According to AI...In St. Louis, the depth to the St. Louis Limestone bedrock can vary, typically found between 3 and 120 feet below the surface.

 

[chalkoutline]

Not a bad initial thought, BUT take it just a bit further ... if they are mining the fill/clay itself, and they've cleared enough at any given depth to put down a floor, what's left to mine? The mining would have to go off into a side tunnel, which we agree they found no evidence of, or down, which they've now just blocked with the floor. As these platforms had no reported trap doors in them, we are rather stuck with the conclusion that they were constructed on the way back up.

My feeling is that, if they were ever real, they were for the express purpose of having a "filled" pit without the weight of all the back-fill crushing what was at the bottom, which is likely to have been the structure augered into by Truro.

I'm beginning to think the last level at ~90 feet, either with a log platform or without, was a waterproof layer on top of the final structure, which kept the flooded "chamber" below it from filling the Money Pit to tide level. Perhaps the structure below was always intended to be underwater unless and until the rightful owners came back and knew how to turn off the tap, so to speak. But I continue to gather data and opinions.

--GT

I've been giving some thought to the platforms ... how they may have been constructed and what was found at some of the levels.

While acknowledging the discrepancies in reports of how many platforms there actually were, one of the areas where the re-tellings seem most consistent is in claiming that:

1. the walls of the shaft were hard-packed, while the "fill" was easier to dig, as if previously disturbed.
2. oak logs/poles that made up the platforms had their ends firmly embedded in the walls of the shaft.

This presents a bit of a logical conundrum. In order for it to be true, the logs would have to be longer than the diameter of the shaft. Imagine, if you will, a crew of people constructing this. The oak logs that will form the platforms are handed/hoisted down to workers at the bottom. These workers in turn can drive one end of the logs into the hard clay sides to "embed" them, but what about the other side? If they are angling the log downward into a horizontal position, either the upward end will have to come to rest flush with the side of the shaft but not penetrating it, OR it can be forced to scrape the side until it is horizontal, leaving a big gouge in the hard-packed clay and potentially undermining the integrity of the wall on that side, making it now disturbed earth as well and no longer the "virgin" hard-pack as described. We are told that the discoverers and later syndicates could see the pick marks on the walls, but we aren't told they found any big chunks gouged out near the ends of the platforms. It's not like those oak logs were hinged in the middle so that both ends could be driven laterally. Even if we imagine that the shaft was originally wider to accommodate the full length of every platform log, then the earth placed on top of the ends and the shaft narrowed as it rose, that would still mean disturbed earth at the sides. Sure, they could tamp it down a little, but the kind of compression that would leave it looking untouched was probably not within their tech level.

There could be scenarios I haven't thought of that would be consistent with the reported features.

More thoughts to follow.

--GT

I appreciate your posts because they make me think about stuff I never thought of.

I think i would fill the shaft to where I wanted the next log platform and tamp/pack it down putting pressure on the shaft walls. Then I would then carve a shelf on opposite sides widening the wall above to allow the logs to drop in on top of the packed till below. Then pack till on top of the logs and into the widened wall area above the logs. Once the logs are tamped/packed, continue to fill to the next log platform.

 

[GravelTeeth]

I appreciate your posts because they make me think about stuff I never thought of.

Thank you.

Then pack till on top of the logs and into the widened wall area above the logs. Once the logs are tamped/packed, continue to fill to the next log platform.

The time spent to pack it so firmly as to be relatively seamless I guess would be no more outrageous than the time it took to prepare all those logs, plus all the other features we think they may have engineered in this enterprise.

Ever see a show called Devs? One of the plot devices is

Spoiler

a machine they've created which through some quantum mumbo jumbo can see back in time.

Wouldn't it be cool to have just a couple of hours of fly on the wall "footage" of the original construction taking place at Oak Island? 225 years of speculation and so few answers.

--GT

 

[chalkoutline]

Growing up my next door neighbor had a sink hole in their back yard. It was about 10 feet deep and 3 feet in diameter.

Not long after that discovery, a neighbor behind and two yards over had another sinkhole. It was cone shaped about 30 ft across and 20 ft deep.

A guy came and exploded to find a small cave system under the neighborhood.

This experience tells me a sinkhole diameter is dependent on how deep the void is that it is filling. I am not sure a void below 90 feet would be deep enough to significantly disturb the till above that it would be seen on the surface. Especially it it is clay as suggested in previous posts.

More thoughts on a sinkhole...
Let's suppose there is a chamber/ void about 15ft high at a depth of 115ft.

the void opens up a 13ft diameter hole in thr ceiling allowing the clay till above to drop into the void forming a cone shaped pile of till on the bottom of the void.; moving 30ft of till above. (Just guessing, not calculating)

Since the till is clay I guess a 13ft diameter sinkhole could drop 30ft on the surface.

You could then assume the land owner would realize the danger and fill it using log platforms and till.

I googled could a sinkhole look like a man-made dig...
Yes, the till (or topsoil) above a sinkhole can sometimes have an appearance that might be mistaken for a man-made hole

Something like this would explain the initial discovery of 3 platforms in 1795 and what looked like man-made workings when digging continued by future searchers down to 90ft. However, this wouldn't explain the log platforms down to 90ft.

Im having doubts about the most likely cause being a sinkhole.

 

[Armchair detective]

WeOn the other hand, if they were mining for almost anything else, you'd expect side tunnels. The only side opening ever found that wasn't created by searchers, to my knowledge, was the flood tunnel egress at 111 feet. Any other features would have to be below the water encroachment. If the depths of such a mine had not always been subject to that flood, you could have all sorts of workings and cribbed side shafts that have never been seen. Maybe the probed structure that originally rested at ~98 feet (pre-collapse) was the last repose of the tools and stuff the miners had used.

--GT

We overlooked the obvious - THE 111 TUNNEL WAS A SIDE TUNNEL !!!

So they hit.water and had to abandon.

 

[chalkoutline]

More thoughts on a sinkhole...
Let's suppose there is a chamber/ void about 15ft high at a depth of 115ft.

the void opens up a 13ft diameter hole in thr ceiling allowing the clay till above to drop into the void forming a cone shaped pile of till on the bottom of the void.; moving 30ft of till above. (Just guessing, not calculating)

Since the till is clay I guess a 13ft diameter sinkhole could drop 30ft on the surface.

You could then assume the land owner would realize the danger and fill it using log platforms and till.

I googled could a sinkhole look like a man-made dig...
Yes, the till (or topsoil) above a sinkhole can sometimes have an appearance that might be mistaken for a man-made hole

Something like this would explain the initial discovery of 3 platforms in 1795 and what looked like man-made workings when digging continued by future searchers down to 90ft. However, this wouldn't explain the log platforms down to 90ft.

Im having doubts about the most likely cause being a sinkhole.

More thoughts on sinkholes...

Try Not laugh at my drawing. It shows 5 figures/steps from the creation of a sinkhole, the first dig to 90ft and then the digging of a parallel shaft.

All the reported flooding could be explained by hydraulic pressure that pushes up seeking sea level once a searcher removes enough till allowing the sea water to take control.

I would say this is the answer if it weren't for those pesky log platforms down to 90 feet.

 

[GravelTeeth]

We overlooked the obvious - THE 111 TUNNEL WAS A SIDE TUNNEL !!!

So they hit.water and had to abandon.

At two-and-a-half feet wide by four feet tall, the 111 tunnel would have made an awfully awkward passage for people. Folks were shorter back then, but not that much shorter! But perhaps it was just the beginnings of a tunnel and would have been enlarged as they progressed.

I was thinking of adding to my earlier post also because from the book I'm currently reading I learned that Hedden group's shaft, which was thought to at least partially overlap the original Money Pit, encountered in ~1936 a tunnel at 93 feet which they took to be an original flood tunnel. No other details were given there for its dimensions or other characteristics. Also, a round tunnel was found by Chappell group in ~1931 at 155 feet in their shaft somewhat southwest of the MP and speculated to be the flood tunnel from the south shore.

--GT

 

[Armchair detective]

All the reported flooding could be explained by hydraulic pressure that pushes up seeking sea level once a searcher removes enough till allowing the sea water to take control

This is interesting.

Suppose that the purpose of the platforms/dirt was to form a hydraulic plug to keep water from welling up from below.

Maybe to stabilize the soil to allow the sinking of another shaft?

Time for all the miners to chime in.

 

[TORRERO]

One of the deeper levels in the Money Pit found by Onslow reportedly had a layer of charcoal. It has been speculated that there was a wood-fired smithy on that level for the purpose of fixing/honing the diggers' tools as they went deeper. This doesn't really make any sense, either in the presence of an oak log platform or its absence. With a diameter of only between seven and thirteen feet (depending on the source), there could not have been room for such a setup and still have space for the diggers to dig. Even if you imagine the smithy on a ledge to one side, the eventual removal of that ledge as the dig progressed would not allow then for a "layer" of charcoal, as it all would drop to the lowest level of progress. The only thing that could explain the various layers of deposit is that they were laid down on the way up. An active smithy while tunnelling up would not work either, because if the roof was still being excavated, there'd be no place for the exhaust/smoke to go.

So, while there may have been such a charcoal layer, I don't see how it could have been from any type of forge works.

I think we need additional open-minded ideas about what the Money Pit shaft, if man-made, could have been for. This wouldn't rule out its use for treasure later. Someone here suggested a saw pit. That's a good start. With the presence of the charcoal layer, another possibility, though kinda far-fetched, is a charcoal "clamp", where wood was stacked and burned for the purpose of creating the charcoal, which had many industrial uses. But forty feet under the surface is very deep for such a thing -- probably unheard of.

Anyway. Just some musings. Make of them what you will.

--GT

Is it me, or is questioning how you keep oxygen in the tunnel while burning charcoal a legitimate question ?? burning shit 40 feet deep all that smoke rises but it's also eating up the oxygen in the shaft.. how could someone breath while burning shit at 40 feet ?
And there is no way to tunnel that UP and install those platforms as you go, they could only have done that by tunneling DOWN to the bottom, lowering whatever it is they did, to the bottom, then fill it in with dirt and build a platform every 10 feet or so coming back up.
I don't believe there is anything down there... if someone put something down there, then they never intended to return for it...
Consider the time frame and dates of when this was supposed to have been made ? and all they had was crude iron tools to dig that shaft and put those logs in, every 10 feet ? and they planned on coming back... ha ha ha I call BS..
It's possible that this was originally supposed to be a well, that was what the first lad thought.. when he found a rope with pulley .....
Someone decided that the old well would be a wonderful FU hiding place so dumped their stuff down the well, lowered themselves down and built those platforms coming back up... Mystery solved..

 

[GravelTeeth]

Is it me, or is questioning how you keep oxygen in the tunnel while burning charcoal a legitimate question ??

No it's completely legit, an excellent point raised by both you and Carl-NC. I don't know why the early searchers wouldn't have thought of that themselves when they were tossing these possible explanations around.

Apparently miners of old did use small tin lamps that burned whale or seal oil as a lighting source, but I imagine on such a small scale it would be much longer before oxygen deprivation became a concern.

--GT

 

[TORRERO]

No it's completely legit, an excellent point raised by both you and Carl-NC. I don't know why the early searchers wouldn't have thought of that themselves when they were tossing these possible explanations around.

Apparently miners of old did use small tin lamps that burned whale or seal oil as a lighting source, but I imagine on such a small scale it would be much longer before oxygen deprivation became a concern.

--GT

Also a thought... does whale or seal oil burn differently than other types of fatty oils ? because I'm thinking that these types of oils might be readily available to seamen or seafarers, but not to the general mining communities.. and would have to be brought in at great cost...