Not possible digging that deep.

[Roadhse2]

Yes...and then later changed those claims to saying there are no flood tunnels...and when dug a second time, none found...

No idea why that would be said in the first place and then reversed, unless it was part of plan to get investors excited, which seems to happen a lot with this island...

Part of the reason it is so hard to untangle this whole mess....so many claims have been made just to attract investors it is tough to figure out which are true and which are not...

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[gazzahk]

I was looking for pics of smiths cove pre all the treasure hunters (especially Dunfield) and this is the earliest I could find.



Looks very different from today.

edit: Looking at those logs stacked there makes you wonder if they are the same logs being dug up by Dunfeild 90 years later in the earlier pic shown...

 

[Roadhse2]

gazzahk...

"I have read (do not remember where) that some speculate the coffer dam was build by treasure hunters not pre treasure discovery as well. "

How do those that speculate propose they would have built the drains, dug a 24' deep well/sump, covered the beach with rock and gravel, eel grass, fibre, etc, etc., with no coffer dam, beneath low tide waters?

 

[Charlie P. (NY)]

I'm not convinced the "finger drains" were a human construction. The group that reported them in the mid 1850's found a line of rocks under the soil. That could just as easily have been a silted up natural run-off creek.

When was the last time anyone actually saw one of these in life? This is like the "90 ft stone" that takes on a life of it's own in the retelling.

 

[Roadhse2]

Charlie P.

Mid 60's to 1970...

About 8" wide each with flat capstones on top...

 

[ECS]

I was looking for pics of smiths cove pre all the treasure hunters (especially Dunfield) and this is the earliest I could find.

View attachment 1398528

Looks very different from today.
Looking at those logs stacked there makes you wonder if they are the same logs being dug up by Dunfeild 90 years later in the earlier pic shown...

That stack of timbers is very interesting.
What was their purpose?

 

[Raparee]

That stack of timbers is very interesting.
What was their purpose?

Odds are they were just yarded there for hauling to the sawmill.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....so many claims have been made just to attract investors it is tough to figure out which are true and which are not...

Roadhse2, your input is a breath of common sense. I would also add to what you're saying here: Such "claims" need not only to have been "to attract investors". They could also have been the run-away imagination of sincere people who simply read-too-much into any silly thing they see.

This psychology manifests itself all the time in "treasure fever". And the people spinning some theory , can be quite sincere, and not lying at all. And the minute someone makes a conjecture, then person #2 picks it up as absolute fact (the wonderful telephone game at play).

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Looks very different from today....

High tide vs low tide, timing of pix, can make a big difference on how a beach looks.

Also, I'd venture to say that if you took a pix of ANY beach, worldwide, from the 1890s vs today, it will look "different". Shoreline's change all the time. Especially anywhere, within 100's of miles, where sand-mining occurred (for glass making & construction, concrete, etc...) Because sand migration goes on up and down shorelines, and mother nature robs sand from elsewhere to fill voids, even eventually affecting beaches 100+ miles away!

Hence I would not expect any beach pix from the 1890s, anywhere, to resemble a current beach "look".

 

[ILikeTreasureStories]

If the island had been owned by a fish company, it would have been used as a herring weir. https://www.mainememory.net/artifact/7714 The natives taught the first European settlers how to channel fish into manmade weirs, and when the tide receded, you collect the fish. Connecting islands with these weirs reduces the amount of "piles" you have to drive in the mud. Especially if you plan on doing this on a mass scale. The Maine coastline is still littered with old weirs. The island would need a sizable port with, I am guessing, at least 20 feet of water at low tide to sustain trading ships of its day. Islands are naturally horrible ports as they are not protected from storms. Another logical explanation is that the fish company kept sheep, pigs, etc. on the island. That was a very common purpose for islands right up to the early 20th century.

 

[Roadhse2]

The fishing stations that were in common use in the area were not ports for large vessels...which by the way, you were close on the water depth at port as galleon type of ships had a 12 to 14 foot draught depending on tonnage of the ship and so needed clear water of at least a few feet deeper than that to make port...

The stations were merely where the fish were processed with a small pier or wharf out over the water for the smaller fishing trawlers to pull up to, unload the fish, fish processed in a building on the wharf so that entrails and waste could just be dropped back into the sea during processing...packed for shipping and then transported to a port or ship at anchor.....many examples of these online.

 

[seekerGH]

You are trying to say they needed all of those tunnels, pits, and other stuff, to gather salt water on a small island, so they could boil it off (in a small fire pit)?

A large amount of firewood would have been required to keep kettles boiling, so they would bring firewood over to a small island?
Place it in a small pit (12 x 25 feet) for what, a few kettles, a large trough pan? Salt would have to be transported off the island on tides as well?

What have you got that makes any logical sense?

What ever happened to the Masons hiding the treasure of Alexandria there....that is far more logical in a relative sense.

Dunfield’s conclusions. The Californian geologist Robert Dunfield carried out extensive excavations in search of the treasure on Oak Island in 1965-66. He did not find any treasure, but as one would expect from an experienced and qualified geologist he did carry out an extensive scientific appraisal of the island. His findings, which did not generally become publicly available until the year 2003, have effectively destroyed the flood tunnel myth. To summarise his findings relating to the flood tunnel:

· The Windsor limestone layer intersects the bedrock surface of Nova Scotia along a “strike line” which passes through Oak Island. The Windsor layer is not parallel to the surface, and is instead inclined at an angle to the horizontal. The strike line is the line along which the Windsor layer intersects the surface of the bedrock, and it passes under the Oak Island Money Pit at a depth of about 140 feet [45 metres] (20) (21).

· As is common with limestone formations throughout the world, the Windsor is honeycombed with natural cavities and natural water courses, and they are the source of the water which floods the Money Pit. The flooding of the pit is thus a purely natural phenomenon (22) (23).


· He was unable to find any artificial flood tunnels despite extensive dragline excavations at the Money Pit itself and at the so-called Cave-in Pit which lies on the line linking the Money Pit to the finger drains at Smiths Cove and which is the line of the theorised artificial flood tunnel (22), (23), (24).

· He showed nearly all of the water flooding the Money Pit came from the ocean about three quarters of a mile [1 kilometre] east of Oak Island where seawater enters the Windsor and flows through its natural cavities and fissures to enter the Money Pit from below. He demonstrated this by spectroscopic tests showing most of the water entering the Money Pit was from the ocean rather than from the sea immediately adjacent to Oak Island (22), (23), (25).

It is apposite at this point to allow Robert Dunfield to express his conclusions in his own words:

“We resolved the water problem completely beyond a shadow of a doubt. Water enters through a natural water course and caves typical to the limestone and gypsum of the Windsor formation...... it would be impractical if not impossible to dig a flood tunnel 562 feet from the beach to the Money Pit. The Windsor would have flooded them out.” (22)

“As you understand from the sketch I sent to you flood tunnels to the Money Pit are ruled out owing to the presence of the Windsor formation at 140 feet in depth”. (23).

“We did not see evidence of any drains or tunnels.” (24).

 

[Roadhse2]

"What have you got that makes any logical sense?

What ever happened to the Masons hiding the treasure of Alexandria there....that is far more logical in a relative sense."

hahahahahaha Yeah...that makes logical sense, to pick this one island out of thousands, near shore, to bury anything....

No tunnels involved, no Money Pit, Cave In pit, or anything else concerning treasure is tied to Smith's Cove...

The salt produced wasn't shipped anywhere, except on the fish it was preserving....

I am not going to list again "What have you got that makes any logical sense?" as I have done that in previous posts, that apparently you didn't bother to read....and has more logical evidence than any other theories put out there so far. If you have one with known evidence, I would be glad to hear it....

And while the herring weir story is ok...it doesn't take into account any of the items found in Smith's Cove when it was excavated and that cannot just be ignored to 'make' the story 'right'...

Hogs on the island sounds good though...having raised hogs before, having them to toss the fish guts too would make a good second income from a waste product...Plus if they were like any of mine, any treasure would have been found already as much as they root and dig...

Your added bit about the Windsor formation is what I had referred to in an earlier post and that no tunnels were ever found....You seem to be confusing my posts as to having something to do with supposed tunnels or treasure, when it has nothing to do with either...only the use of Smith's Cove and the items found there

 

[gazzahk]

High tide vs low tide, timing of pix, can make a big difference on how a beach looks.

Also, I'd venture to say that if you took a pix of ANY beach, worldwide, from the 1890s vs today, it will look "different". Shoreline's change all the time. Especially anywhere, within 100's of miles, where sand-mining occurred (for glass making & construction, concrete, etc...) Because sand migration goes on up and down shorelines, and mother nature robs sand from elsewhere to fill voids, even eventually affecting beaches 100+ miles away!

Hence I would not expect any beach pix from the 1890s, anywhere, to resemble a current beach "look".

yep sure

here is a pic from the 1930s

 

[gazzahk]

“We did not see evidence of any drains or tunnels.” (24).[/I]

Great post.. Do you have the source of these conclusions I would be interested to read them.

 

[gazzahk]

gazzahk...

"I have read (do not remember where) that some speculate the coffer dam was build by treasure hunters not pre treasure discovery as well. "

How do those that speculate propose they would have built the drains, dug a 24' deep well/sump, covered the beach with rock and gravel, eel grass, fibre, etc, etc., with no coffer dam, beneath low tide waters?

Sorry my friend it was a long time ago I read it. Did not pay to much attention to it. Just using my memory to highlight the difficulty in knowing which reports about Oak Island are true and which are just people reporting what they want to see.

 

[Roadhse2]

gazzahk...

Since I have already listed everything I think and why I think it, in previous posts...

I am going to back out of here now and not respond to the same o questions over and over that were already covered...

But I do want to thank you for an interesting conversation on all of this....sane, courteous, even when we didn't agree....I will keep watch for any new developments that may be posted, but going to try to bite my lip on a lot of it and not reply...lol

So thanks!

Later....

 

[seekerGH]

Great post.. Do you have the source of these conclusions I would be interested to read them.

Dennis King's article on the "Finger Drains"

We did an expose on Oak island about 10 years ago. Of course, tracing it back to Smith and the early foundation of luring farmers and investors with the story of the golden 10 commandment tablets. (Smith wasnt run out to the mountains of Utah for no reason)

I am going to back out of here now and not respond to the same o questions over and over that were already covered...

Retreat! Retreat!
furthermore....

There was an excavation in 1897 that found a concrete vault at 160', (yet for unexplained reasons, no documentation of recovering or opening the vault?) (see images below) ?!?!? And what about the Triton Group in the 70's?

Back to the Dunfield reports. A geologist in the early 60's finds and describes how the pit gets filled with water....does not find any evidence of the drains or tunnels....that should be very important, no? now there are wooden finger drains, perhaps later attempts to dewater? Show me in those excavation images from the early 1900's where the wooden finger drains are again?

as noted by the excavation images, everything has been wiped out, and leveled with the excavation...yet now swords and coins are found? (speaking of 'salt' at a site)

From the Dunfield work...1960's...
(estimate of depth of the excavation in these images?)


From work in 1909!

 

[gazzahk]

as noted by the excavation images, everything has been wiped out, and leveled with the excavation...yet now swords and coins are found? (speaking of 'salt' at a site)

The fake sword was not found on Oak island and the Laginas debunked that one themselves. The coins were not found anywhere near Dunfield excavations and were found with modern metal detector equipment which Dunfeild did not have.

There is no evidence that the Laginas are 'salting' there evidence. In fact the lack of evidence over the 4 seasons is what gives the show its credibility.. If they were going to fake evidence we would have something better then an old railway spike and piece of wood.

Also the references quoted (only checked 22,23,24) in that article do not exist from those footnotes. That drain article is not very well sourced.

 

[gazzahk]

gazzahk...

Since I have already listed everything I think and why I think it, in previous posts...

I am going to back out of here now and not respond to the same o questions over and over that were already covered...

But I do want to thank you for an interesting conversation on all of this....sane, courteous, even when we didn't agree....I will keep watch for any new developments that may be posted, but going to try to bite my lip on a lot of it and not reply...lol

So thanks!

Later....

Thank you to.. I really enjoy the discussions here. I am fascinated by this 200+ year old treasure quest... It shows what lengths people will go to on the rumor/legend of a treasure.

The problem is the treasure hunters lie to get funding from investors and the treasure finders lie to stop paying out to investors so it is very difficult to know what historical information is actually true.

The only thing I am almost 100% certain of is that there is no treasure still there....