Some Notes Re: Construction of the Money Pit

[chalkoutline]

I recognize Google AI has problems but it is this response that made me rethink the mp shaft. If you are cribbing down 90ft, why would you remove and replace with logs knowing you have to do it again to retrieve...

It is not possible and extremely dangerous to dig a 100-foot deep well without cribbing or other shoring methods. The deep, narrow shaft would face a severe and immediate risk of collapse, which could result in a fatal accident for anyone inside. For this reason, wells this deep are drilled by professionals, not dug.

Do you agree cribbing is needed?
what about a well? Does the same apply?
Im honestly interested in knowing and you seem more knowledgeable than me.

Today's technology for vertical shafts was used on the garden shaft and suspends all the cribbing from the top and designed to support cribbing weigh for a specific depth.

Im honestly curious how they cribbed in the 1700 since they wouldn't have had the 3ft bolt they use today.

 

[TruthbeTold]

Amazing as to the rationale that folks will make up in order to support an entirely fictional story.

 

[chalkoutline]

Amazing as to the rationale that folks will make up in order to support an entirely fictional story.

You're probably right but there is no way to prove it fictional unless you prove it couldn’t happen.

I believe the truth lies in the cribbing. As mentioned...
it's a convincing case to ask... why would someone bury a treasure that deep knowing they have to repeat the dig to retrieve it.
It's an even stronger case to question...how could they dig and crib a 100ft shaft and leave no trace when filling the shaft with log platforms and till knowing they would have to dig, crib and fill again to retrieve what theyburied. .

If the 1700 cribbing process supports this theory then I would be convinced the so called depositors never buried something that deep and certainly not an inscribed stone at 90ft to be found later by the onslow company.

The theory of an indentation from a filled sinkhole or well (assuming the well didn't need cribbing too) could be a reason why the three teenagers dreamed of treasure and start digging.
If it is, then I wouldn't be able to disprove the origin of the legend.

If anyone knows how to prove the three teenagers didn't see something that sparked their curiosity, I am all ears.
That would be the only way to prove it entirely fiction.

 

[chalkoutline]

You're probably right but there is no way to prove it fictional unless you prove it couldn’t happen.

I believe the truth lies in the cribbing. As mentioned...
it's one thing to question why would someone bury a treasure that deep knowing they have to repeat the dig to retrieve it.
It's an even stronger case to question...how could they dig and crib a 100ft shaft and leave no trace when filling the shaft with log platforms and till knowing they would have to dig, crib and fill again to retrieve what theyburied. .

If the 1700 cribbing process supports this theory then I would be convinced the so called depositors never buried something that deep and certainly not an inscribed stone at 90ft to be found later by the onslow company.

The theory of an indentation from a filled sinkhole or well (assuming the well didn't need cribbing too) could be a reason why the three teenagers dreamed of treasure and start digging.
If it is, then I wouldn't be able to disprove the origin of the legend.

If anyone knows how to prove the three teenagers didn't see something that sparked their curiosity, I am all ears.
That would be the only way to prove it entirely fiction.

Once again from Google AI...
The depth of a 13-foot diameter sinkhole is highly variable and unpredictable, but it could range from a few feet to over 100 feet deep. While some sinkholes are about as deep as they are wide, others have very different dimensions and shapes.

so a 13ft diameter sinkhole, 30ft deep seems quite possible.

BTW, I was a supporter of Armchair's mine theory until I Google AI told me about cribbing needed at that depth.

 

[chalkoutline]

Once again from Google AI...
The depth of a 13-foot diameter sinkhole is highly variable and unpredictable, but it could range from a few feet to over 100 feet deep. While some sinkholes are about as deep as they are wide, others have very different dimensions and shapes.

so a 13ft diameter sinkhole, 30ft deep seems quite possible.

BTW, I was a supporter of Armchair's mine theory until I learned about cribbing needed at that depth.

Since the group likes new theories...
Could it be someone came to OI to bury treasure, found the 13ft diameter sinkhole 30ft deep and realized it would be easier to fill a hole than dig an fill.
Concerned it might sink more, they added log platforms to support the till they added to cover the treasure.

This would explain why the 3 sisters, who descended from Daniel McGinnis, to say the boys found 3 chests and showed jewelry from the 1795 find. Allegedly found.

 

[chalkoutline]

Since the group likes new theories...
Could it be someone came to OI to bury treasure, found the 13ft diameter sinkhole 30ft deep and realized it would be easier to fill a hole than dig an fill.
Concerned it might sink more, they added log platforms to support the till they added to cover the treasure.

This would explain why the 3 sisters, who descended from Daniel McGinnis, to say the boys found 3 chests and showed jewelry from the 1795 find. Allegedly found.

Since the lack of cribbing could disprove the treasure theory, I gave it some more thought. Here’s what I came up with...

They arrived on island by boat. They disassembled the boat for cribbing.
After burying the treasure at 100ft, they removed the cribbing to reassemble the boat and leave.😁

 

[Carl-NC]

why would you remove and replace with logs knowing you have to do it again to retrieve...

One of a hundred elements in the narrative that make no sense whatsoever. Whether cribbing is needed depends on the geology. In hard rock not so much, but I assume in OI's glacial till it would be an absolute requirement, at least if survival is an expectation. Same with a well in that soil. That's another nod toward a sinkhole, which would naturally self-collapse over time.

 

[n2mini]

Some of the first searchers claimed to see pick ax marks and or smooth sides of the hole as they dug down. Which made them think it was pre-worked material. How they distinguished original workings vs their own I don't know. In the sink holes I've seen in person and on tv/video NONE of them had smooth sides of any sort. Jagged with small and large ledges per say all the way down.. Some wider at the top others wider at the bottom.. Did any of the early searchers crib the walls as they dug down to the 90'? I don't recall hearing of them doing that. Just finding the wood platforms as they dug down..

 

[Armchair detective]

If this works you will be seeing a screenshot of a presentation by Eagle Canada to the COOI team regarding results of seismic testing at 100 ft.
(As shown Season 6, disc 2).

If you look VERY closely, you will see a tiny black dot to the right of the orange spot and above the yellow spot. This is C1.

Still looking closely two tiny black dots below the yellow spot. The lowest to the right is H8.

The "trail" up and to the right was believed to possibly be the flood tunnel.

Now....

Point 1 The "trail" is bent - you would expect a man dug tunnel to be straight.

Point 2 The location of these dots can give a direction of the tunnel - doesn't look like it's going to Smith's cove.

 

[chalkoutline]

Some of the first searchers claimed to see pick ax marks and or smooth sides of the hole as they dug down. Which made them think it was pre-worked material. How they distinguished original workings vs their own I don't know. In the sink holes I've seen in person and on tv/video NONE of them had smooth sides of any sort. Jagged with small and large ledges per say all the way down.. Some wider at the top others wider at the bottom.. Did any of the early searchers crib the walls as they dug down to the 90'? I don't recall hearing of them doing that. Just finding the wood platforms as they dug down..

The question being addressed is...what caused the indentation in the ground that prompted the boys to start digging.
A filled in treasure site
A filled in well
A filled in sinkhole
A filled in mine shaft
Based on you input, I would agree that a sinkhole would not have pick marks.

If you believe the three sisters who said the 3 boys found treasure,..that would point to a filled treasure site.

According to Google AI, there were no such reports (pick marks) by the onslow company in 1803 when the continued the shaft in 1803 when they used cribbing to dig to 90ft.

 

[chalkoutline]

The question being addressed is...what caused the indentation in the ground that prompted the boys to start digging.
A filled in treasure site
A filled in well
A filled in sinkhole
A filled in mine shaft
Based on you input, I would agree that a sinkhole would not have pick marks.

If you believe the three sisters who said the 3 boys found treasure,..that would point to a filled treasure site.

According to Google AI, there were no such reports (pick marks) by the onslow company in 1803 when the continued the shaft in 1803 when they used cribbing to dig to 90ft.

BTW, I was learning toward a sinkhole because you might want use log platforms to support the fill above in the event the sinkhole dropped again.
Using logs for the others wouldn't really be needed.

 

[chalkoutline]

BTW, I was learning toward a sinkhole because you might want use log platforms to support the fill above in the event the sinkhole dropped again.
Using logs for the others wouldn't really be needed.

One could make the case that a depositor dug a 30ft hole, placed the treasure i the bottom and then used log platforms to support the fill and keep it from being directly on the treasure.

I know it doesn't report finding treasure but could other aspects of the original 1795 account support this idea? Or does it make clear they found fill between all log platforms.

I don't know the detailed account enough which is why im asking.

 

[chalkoutline]

One could make the case that a depositor dug a 30ft hole, placed the treasure i the bottom and then used log platforms to support the fill and keep it from being directly on the treasure.

I know it doesn't report finding treasure but could other aspects of the original 1795 account support this idea? Or does it make clear they found fill between all log platforms.

I don't know the detailed account enough which is why im asking.

Knowing this group likes new theories, here is my latest...

The Indentation was due to a treasure site.they dug a 30ft deep hole, placed the treasure on the bottom. They used log platforms to hold the fill above keeping it off the treasure.

The depositors came back, claimed the treasure then refilled the hole with fill between all log platforms. However, because of the cavity, there wouldn't be enough fill to make it level at the surface so they placed a layer of flagstones on top before the final layer of fill.
This shortage of soil is why there was an indentation.

Along come three boys, see the indentation and begin digging but when it starts getting too dangerous without finding treasure they would be convinced if they could just keep digging they would find it

 

[n2mini]

What if the original story is true to an extent. They saw a depression and started digging. Actually did find a chest or 3 and quit as there is no reason to go any further right. Word had gotten out they were digging some how so to cover up actually finding their treasure, not knowing if it might be taxed, taken from them for some reason etc. They played along with the story of needing help to continue the dig.

 

[chalkoutline]

What if the original story is true to an extent. They saw a depression and started digging. Actually did find a chest or 3 and quit as there is no reason to go any further right. Word had gotten out they were digging some how so to cover up actually finding their treasure, not knowing if it might be taxed, taken from them for some reason etc. They played along with the story of needing help to continue the dig.

That is quite possible. With your scenario where they actually found treasure they still would have found it dangerous digging below 30ft so they would have kept their discovery a secret because they were planning on returning to dig more.

So for me the question is why did they stop at 30ft in 1795?
It got too dangerous without wood cribbing.

 

[n2mini]

Story goes they quit as they claimed to need help. Whether that was because it was too dangerous and needed money for cribbing, or they found their treasure and no real need to keep going. Anthony Vaughn is the only one who helped the Truro Group with their dig. Why was that, to me is the big question.. Did the other 2 move away, did they have jobs and families and no time for it, or did they already find their treasure and walked away. He was also ended up being Samual Balls Executor.. His name pops up alot within the Oak Island area and MP story.. Also owned an island near by that he eventually sold to S Ball who apparently was well off.. How well off Anthony Vaughan was would be nice to know... Along with the other 2 original diggers..

 

[chalkoutline]

Story goes they quit as they claimed to need help. Whether that was because it was too dangerous and needed money for cribbing, or they found their treasure and no real need to keep going. Anthony Vaughn is the only one who helped the Truro Group with their dig. Why was that, to me is the big question.. Did the other 2 move away, did they have jobs and families and no time for it, or did they already find their treasure and walked away. He was also ended up being Samual Balls Executor.. His name pops up alot within the Oak Island area and MP story.. Also owned an island near by that he eventually sold to S Ball who apparently was well off.. How well off Anthony Vaughan was would be nice to know... Along with the other 2 original diggers..

I did a couple of quick searches...
1803 to 1805 the onslow company dug 90ft. All three boys were involved

1849 Truro company dug 90ft.
Vaughan was involved, land was leased from John Smith. Daniel McGinnis had died.

It sounds like the location had been lost because they had to relocate the MP

 

[chalkoutline]

I did a couple of quick searches...
1803 to 1805 the onslow company dug 90ft. All three boys were involved

1849 Truro company dug 90ft.
Vaughan was involved, land was leased from John Smith. Daniel McGinnis had died.

It sounds like the location had been lost because they had to relocate the MP

Google AI explains how a vertical shaft would have been cribbed...

Yes, miners in the 1700s and earlier used a technique that involved digging beneath a timber frame (cribbing) so it would lower to provide support for the next section of a vertical shaft. This method was a variation of a technique called "drop-shaft sinking"

It begins by building rectangular cribbing frames the dimensions of the vertical shaft. The frame uses notches and stacked like Lincoln logs.
The stack gets lowered into the shaft by digging under the bottom frame.
The next frame is placed on top.

So when the shaft reaches the appropriate depth, the cribbing frames would be stacked on top of each other and resting on the bottom of the shaft.

Because they are all stacked you cannot remove them from the bottom up so there is no way the depositor could have removed them when filling the shaft and leave log platforms behind.

so the depositors would have removed the top 4ft or so of cribbing frames, put planks over the opening and cover with fill.

This is what the 3 boys should have seen had the depositor buried treasure at 100ft.

 

[chalkoutline]

Google AI explains how a vertical shaft would have been cribbed...

Yes, miners in the 1700s and earlier used a technique that involved digging beneath a timber frame (cribbing) so it would lower to provide support for the next section of a vertical shaft. This method was a variation of a technique called "drop-shaft sinking"

It begins by building rectangular cribbing frames the dimensions of the vertical shaft. The frame uses notches and stacked like Lincoln logs.
The stack gets lowered into the shaft by digging under the bottom frame.
The next frame is placed on top.

So when the shaft reaches the appropriate depth, the cribbing frames would be stacked on top of each other and resting on the bottom of the shaft.

Because they are all stacked you cannot remove them from the bottom up so there is no way the depositor could have removed them when filling the shaft and leave log platforms behind.

so the depositors would have removed the top 4ft or so of cribbing frames, put planks over the opening and cover with fill.

This is what the 3 boys should have seen had the depositor buried treasure at 100ft.

Based on this information, it's safe to say, treasure was never buried at 100ft+.
So if treasure wasn't buried that deep then the inscribed stone wasn't left by depositors at 90ft.

 

[chalkoutline]

Based on this information, it's safe to say, treasure was never buried at 100ft+.
So if treasure wasn't buried that deep then the inscribed stone wasn't left by depositors at 90ft.

I want to thank Carl-NC, N2MINI and Armchair for posting their counter arguments and collaboration that helped shape this conclusion and changed my mind regarding the sinkhole theory.

I believe the initial 30ft dig was indeed real and very well could have been a treasure site where the log platforms used to support fill creating a chamber for the treasure.
- CO