Not possible digging that deep.

[lokiblossom]

There is a difference between digging in the soil of the prairies, where you could dig 100' without hitting one rock, and digging in the glacial till and bedrock of NS.

And, I might add within a few yards of the Atlantic Ocean.
Cheers, Loki

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Robot]

Again saying "Never"... to a Cornish Miner..Where There's a Will There's a Way!

There is a difference between digging in the soil of the prairies, where you could dig 100' without hitting one rock, and digging in the glacial till and bedrock of NS.

And, I might add within a few yards of the Atlantic Ocean.
Cheers, Loki

As at Oak Island, the method of "Submarine Tunneling" was invented by the Cornish Tin Miners of the 18th Century.

Tunnels in Cornwall England extended out under the Ocean for several miles.



Several Mines in Nova Scotia have extended their Shafts and Tunnels under the known Water Tables, with the help of these Cornish Miner's technologies.

The workings of No. 1 and No. 2 Colliery of the Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Company at Sydney Mines are the most extensive under-sea workings, occupying an area of 3 square miles under the entrance to Sydney harbour. The face of the deeps, in 1916, was about 1¾ mile distant from the shoreline, and the workings are being further extended through an area leased from the Dominion Coal Company, which will provide the Nova Scotia Company with an immediate extension of its submarine workings, and with access to its own areas lying farther out to sea; distant 3½ miles from the shore.

 

[Dave Rishar]

Several Mines in Nova Scotia have extended their Shafts and Tunnels under the known Water Tables, with the help of these Cornish Miner's technologies.

The workings of No. 1 and No. 2 Colliery of the Nova Scotia Steel & Coal Company at Sydney Mines are the most extensive under-sea workings, occupying an area of 3 square miles under the entrance to Sydney harbour. The face of the deeps, in 1916, was about 1¾ mile distant from the shoreline, and the workings are being further extended through an area leased from the Dominion Coal Company, which will provide the Nova Scotia Company with an immediate extension of its submarine workings, and with access to its own areas lying farther out to sea; distant 3½ miles from the shore.

Would they have been able to do this without Industrial Revolution technology, far from home, in secret?

I can think of a few ways to dig a hole that deep. Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to do it while holding true to the story of what was found. That doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done, but it does mean that the question requires an answer more specific than "Cornish miners."

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

Would they have been able to do this without Industrial Revolution technology, far from home, in secret?

And without leaving any evidence?

 

[Roadhse2]

Maybe it wasn't done in secret...just another mining company digging an exploratory hole...and soon forgot when they left.

Maybe the 'vaults' were safe rooms or lunch break rooms or tool rooms or even bathrooms...

Point being, there are lot's of things that could be going on with burying a treasure not one of them...

 

[Robot]

Yes, their technology was functional, but their Courage and Will far surpassed ours!

Would they have been able to do this without Industrial Revolution technology, far from home, in secret?

I can think of a few ways to dig a hole that deep. Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to do it while holding true to the story of what was found. That doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done, but it does mean that the question requires an answer more specific than "Cornish miners."

Botallack was a submarine mine, with tunnels extending under the sea, in places for half a mile

My Theory has the Freemasons in the Royal Navy using the Royal Engineers along with the work from Cornish Miners to build their Oak Island Depository.

It is speculative and awaiting the proof which I believe is slowly coming to the surface with each digging on Oak Island.

As they said in the past:

Don't Touch that Dial and Stay Tuned for a Special Announcement!

 

[Dave Rishar]

And without leaving any evidence?

There was a rope, or a pulley, or a sawed branch with wear marks on it, and/or a depression in the ground, and/or lights on the island the night before, and/or an eldery gent that confessed to burying a pirate treasure there on his deathbed...depending on which version of the story that you choose to believe, anyway.

One of them might be mostly right. I haven't made up my mind on this yet.

 

[Roadhse2]

There was a rope, or a pulley, or a sawed branch with wear marks on it, and/or a depression in the ground, and/or lights on the island the night before, and/or an eldery gent that confessed to burying a pirate treasure there on his deathbed...depending on which version of the story that you choose to believe, anyway.

One of them might be mostly right. I haven't made up my mind on this yet.

Even if all of them are right...which one points to a 200 foot deep pit, tunnels, water traps, finger drains.....anything? Extensive workings that would take more than a few nights with lights and men to accomplish...

To me the whole story is built on nothing but wishful thinking (with a scam or two tossed in), the island had normal commerce of different kinds for many years before the 1700's 'discovery' of a tree branch cut off, with marks, rope or pulley....or any of these other revelations...

 

[Raparee]

View attachment 1394329

Botallack was a submarine mine, with tunnels extending under the sea, in places for half a mile

Did the miners there in Cornwall have to deal with anhydride?

 

[Robot]

Anhydride? I would presume "Not"...Anhydrous? Very much so!

Did the miners there in Cornwall have to deal with anhydride?

Anhydride is a major industrial chemical widely used for preparing acetate esters
Natural organic acid anhydrides are rare, because of the reactivity of the functional group.

On the other hand...

Anhydrous ammonia is used as fertilizers either as its salts, solutions or anhydrously.

I am almost positive that these Miners in Cornwall had to deal with Fertilizer Dished Upon Them from Skeptics!

 

[Dave Rishar]

I am almost positive that these Miners in Cornwall had to deal with Fertilizer Dished Upon Them from Skeptics!

Be entirely positive. I want to know exactly how that hole was dug.

Remember...it has to fit with the narrative. I know that the hole could be dug, but how did they do it under those circumstances while fitting with the stories that have been passed down to us?

 

[Raparee]

Anhydride is a major industrial chemical widely used for preparing acetate esters
Natural organic acid anhydrides are rare, because of the reactivity of the functional group.

On the other hand...

Anhydrous ammonia is used as fertilizers either as its salts, solutions or anhydrously.

I am almost positive that these Miners in Cornwall had to deal with Fertilizer Dished Upon Them from Skeptics!

View attachment 1394849

Sorry. I was referring to anhydrite. The following is from Graham Harris, a civil engineer, regarding the geology of Oak Island"

Geologically the island is a drumlin. Composed almost entirely of dense glacial till, it is a remnant of the last Ice Age. This till overlies anhydrite bedrock, with which is associated some minor limestone. Anhydrite possesses the dubious property of being exceedingly soluble, more so in salt water than in fresh. Paradoxically Oak Island is the only island in the region to be underlain by anhydrite. On the adjacent mainland, and on other islands in the region, sounder limestones and slates can be found at shallow depth.

…digging the first shaft through dense till into the underlying anhydrite is a simple operation fraught with little peril. But once the excavation fills up with water, drawn into it through systemic seepage paths within the anhydrite, these seepage paths will enlarge progressively. The greater the pumping activity the greater the rate of solution of the anhydrite and, of course, the greater the rate of inflow. Once started it is a vicious circle, and one likely to prove catastrophic as the solution passages enlarge. (Recovering the Oak Island Treasure, Graham Harris, C&G Association Journal, Spring 2002)

So...the question remains. How would the Cornish miners have dealt with the anhydrite?

 

[Honest Samuel]

I hope and wish that year 2017 will be the year that the brothers find the treasures that I believe that is there.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... the treasures that I believe that is there.

And such is the faith of the faithful. And such is the lure of treasure-lore. So fun and compelling to believe. Because no one wants "to be left out". So you put aside all critical skeptical thinking.

Stop and think for a minute Samuel: If you ... or anyone .... is going to HIDE something (think real hard) .... then what the heck difference does 10 ft. versus 100 ft. make ? Either way, once you re-pack the surface (to erease your evidence of just having dug a hole), then it's EQUALLY HIDDEN from surface view. It does not become MORE hidden, when you go deeper. Either way, it's invisible from the surface.

But naturally, this common sense logic will fall on deaf ears. Why ? Because it's too fun to believe in treasure legends. That's why treasure magazines from the 1970s sold so many. They were all filled with lost mines, stolen stage coach loot, etc..... Heck, throw in a a few "it has been said that...." type conjectures, then add a drawing of a miner posed next to his burro .... and by golly, it MUST be true. Right ? A buddy of mine even sent in one of those articles (to get the $50 submission fee for accepted articles). Totally made up conjecture. But he threw in a few faded newspaper clippings so it had actual names and dates, .... presto, a treasure story. We had a good laugh wondering if anyone ever went looking for that .

 

[Roadhse2]

"We had a good laugh wondering if anyone ever went looking for that ."

Heck yeah! I found it too...

 

[petetherocker]

One of the major problems for me is that OA is probably the least suitable location to bury something without being seen, with hundreds of islands far from prying eyes, they choose one within a hundrerd feet of the mainland, rolleyes....

 

[gemee]

I hope and wish that year 2017 will be the year that the brothers find the treasures that I believe that is there.

It will.

 

[n2mini]

i agree, but there probably was hardly anyone on the mainland 300 years ago to see them and know what they were doing. Also i believe some thing buried 100 feet is better hidden then something 10 feet in that it takes more work to dig it up and anything can happen along the way to keep you from getting to it, time involved, cave ins etc. at just 10 feet you'd find that in half a days work...

 

[Roadhse2]

That reasoning also brings up the question as to why anyone would bury something so deep, if it is so hard to retrieve later when you want it, why put it so deep? Even discounting flooding of the shafts, look how much machinery and work it is taking now just to get a shaft that is accessible by men to those depths. Imagine the amount of people digging by hand and supporting supplies it would take to come back and get a treasure you were trying to hide from everyone else. How would you keep them quiet later once the work was done, kill them all off? Give the treasure all away in wages for such a large crew?

If it was an item you were burying so that no one would ever find it again, why not simply destroy it and get the same effect? Weighing it down and tossing in the ocean would be more effective to keeping something from ever being found again.

So ten feet under would be the better choice if your plan was to come back one day and get it...simple, one or two man job...concealment being your main concern with no surface clues, the same as if buried 200 foot down.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... at just 10 feet you'd find that in half a days work...

Believer's comments like the one above.

a) "Cornish miner's abilities" and the

b) "300 yrs. ago no one to see them and know what they were doing ..."


All such believer's statements bring me to this logical challenge back to them: Even if you could devise reasons and schemes that something *could* conceivably happen, still does not mean: "Ergo, it happened". For example: I could devise a means and a scheme and a reason why a 10 yr. girl with only one arm rowed a raft from San Francisco to Hawaii in 1875. Any objection that anyone could raise, I could find a way in which is *could* be possible.

Eg.: if you said "she'd run out of water", I could say "she went during the rainy season and brought lots of water jugs along. If you said "she'd run out of food", I could say "she brought a fishing pole". If you said "it would take several years of drifting I could say "she arrived in Hawaii years later when she was now 13. If you said "why in the world would she even do such a thing?" , I could muse all sorts of reasons.......

But NONE OF THESE proves that it actually happened. In other words, to simply find some far out crazy hypothetical reason why someone would be so stupid or physically able, still doesn't mean: "Ergo, it therefore had to have happened".

So the burden of proof that something historically happened does not rest on the skeptic's ability to dis-prove it. On the contrary: The burden of proof rests on the persons making the preposterous claim that it DID happen. Simply devising an elaborate scheme of how it *could* have been done, or why a person *might* have wanted to do it, doesn't mean: "Ergo therefore it did, of necessity, happen".