Past Oak Island drill results?

John421

Jr. Member
Dec 26, 2014
39
9
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Hi all, I'm new here :)

I am wondering if anyone knows if past OaK island drilling results are on display or accessible at a Museum or anywhere else? In particular I would like to know more about the drilling that took place in 1955 by George Greene, and in 1967 by Becker drilling at the request of Dan Blankenship and George Tobias. These results were discussed in various articles and books but I would love to see detailed specifics on them.

According to the book "The Oak Island Mystery" in 1955 Greene drilled 4 holes, two, six, ten and fourteen feet in a line from the north side of the Chappel shaft. In the first 3 holes, layers of oak timber were encountered at 10 foot intervals, and in the 4th hole encountered an extensive cavity of 40 feet (though the depth of this cavity was not explicitly stated here it was stated as 40-45 feet by other sources).

These drill holes were also mentioned in a newspaper article that I found here (2nd link down, though it is also mentioned in the 3rd and 4th link):

Oak Island Treasure - the world's greatest treasure hunt - George Greene

The article states "In the four holes that Greene sunk into the island he found platforms of oak every 10 feet down to the 111.7 foot level".

So it would seem from the above article that Greene was possibly drilling through the original oak platforms every 10 feet that must have extended further into the sides of the money pit wall on at least one side, and they were left there by the searchers in 1803, because they were so far embedded it may have been easier just to saw or break them off than to try to pry them out. The big question is, how many layers of oak platforms did Green actually hit every 10 feet? I can't find the answer to this published anywhere.

Then in 1967 Becker drilling (Triton's hired crew) drilled into what is described in D'arcy O'Connor's book as a 30' X 30' clay filled chamber, at the original depth of 172 to 202 feet down. This is said to be almost directly below the Hedden shaft. This chamber has hand worked blue puddled clay that was poured in to it in 18 inch layers. They could tell it was poured in in layers because small stones in the clay sunk to the bottom of each poured in layer, and so showed up stratified in the clay every 18 inches. Since the small stones were reportedly evenly spaced at 18 inches, this suggests that the cavity had even (or fairly even sides) and is likely to be a room with straight walls (because a cave with uneven walls would have caused the poured in layers of clay to be at different thicknesses. In regards to all of this, I would really like to know how many 18 inch layers of clay they drilled through? It would seem that they must have went through 20 layers, and if so were the layers every 18 inches exactly?
 

Last edited:
There is a lot of extremely important recent lost information like this. For example, the clay cavity that Blankenship drilled in to was said to extend from 160 down to 190 feet (the original depth would be about 172 to 202 feet since 11-12 feet of the surface area was bull dozed off by dunfield. If there was a layer of clay marked by stones every 18 inches, the odds of this happening accidentally in nature would probably be something like 1 in 25 to the 20th power, which is a very large number. There is so little documentation of any of Triton's drill tests and it's really unfortunate because the proof of man made construction is in these drillings.
 

:laughing9: :laughing7: :laughing9: :laughing7: :laughing9: :laughing7: :laughing9: :laughing7:

It's so funny when people think that its all true!
 

:laughing9: :laughing7: :laughing9: :laughing7: :laughing9: :laughing7: :laughing9: :laughing7:

It's so funny when people think that its all true!


So you obviously think it is not true. So answer this, if Dan Blankenship wanted to fake drilling results, why not come up with a piece of gold chewed off of something from 174 feet down (original depth of 185-186 feet) instead of a piece of brass? I mean, if you are going to lie, why not lie big?

If you think the brass was really brought up from below, how did human smelted brass get in large chamber completely filled up with puddled clay?- 30 straight feet of the stuff except for where it hit items that clearly should not be 200 feet below the surface? And how did 30 consecutive feet of puddled clay get down there where bedrock existed every where else starting between 170 and 180 feet down? Think about it. Bedrock starts at between 170 and 180 feet everywhere else except for a very large area just 10-20 feet from the money pit, and this area has what to all appearances is hand worked clay going down to 200 feet (20 feet below where bedrock exists everywhere else). These findings are either lies or they prove artificiality. Again, if lies, why lie about things so mundane that were only mentioned once to author D'arcy O'Connor and never mentioned again (other than being present in all of Triton's plans for the big dig)?

See page 258 of this link for Triton's outlined bigdig plans (noticed the chamber full of puddled clay with brass indicated):

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q...onepage&q="scope of the 1988 planned"&f=false


It's so ridiculous when people don't realize this is all true in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. :laughing7:
 

Last edited:
Go ahead, just keep believing the lies. The lies sell books. The lies sell TV shows. They are all still lies.
 

Chasing a dream takes courage doubting is easy. What if someone had told Indiana Jones there was no temple of doom?



thats-not-funny.jpg
 

Go ahead, just keep believing the lies. The lies sell books. The lies sell TV shows. They are all still lies.


Jason, you crashed my thread with your negativity and derision, the least you could do is answer some of my questions directed to you. Questions too hard?
 

Show me the proof of ANYTHING ever being found. Where are the artifacts? Where can I see them myself? Who owns them? Oh..... that's right. They don't exist because the "treasure" is in selling the lie to millions of people who will believe anything.
 

This board is littered with threads that have been commandeered by the if-you-can't-prove-it-to-my-personal-satisfaction fraternity. We get it, you don't think there's anything there. Is there a problem with people with different opinions having a discussion?
The original poster here posed some specific questions that I think some of us find interesting. I, for one, would love to see a discussion of those original questions.
 

Back to the original post - assuming the core samples were interpreted by a geologist or savvy civil engineer the definition of "puddling clay" is a specific technique developed by British canal engineer James Brindley and would date the site post 1780 - IF it was truly that and not glacial clay deposited naturally.

Clay is a mineral resource of Nova Scotia and was deposited in sufficient quantity by the glaciers to make it a commercially mined.

http://novascotia.ca/natr/meb/data/pubs/89egs01/89egs01_Introduction.pdf

By 1955 the original pit had been excavated to 90 feet - more than once. By the Turo Company in 1849, but it flooded. In 1861 the Oak Island Association re-excavated the pit that deep and it "collapsed into either a natural cavern or booby trap". "Further excavations were made in 1866, 1893, 1909, 1931, 1935, 1936, and 1959" So, nothing of the original pit exists to the 100 ft level or even deeper.

Oak Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

This board is littered with threads that have been commandeered by the if-you-can't-prove-it-to-my-personal-satisfaction fraternity. We get it, you don't think there's anything there. Is there a problem with people with different opinions having a discussion?
The original poster here posed some specific questions that I think some of us find interesting. I, for one, would love to see a discussion of those original questions.

Thanks! I don't have a problem with a hardened skeptic coming in to debate, but Jason is a hit and run kind of guy. Spews negativity then avoids every single question asked of him because he has no chance of winning a debate with someone that knows a lot about Oak Island.
 

Back to the original post - assuming the core samples were interpreted by a geologist or savvy civil engineer the definition of "puddling clay" is a specific technique developed by British canal engineer James Brindley and would date the site post 1780 - IF it was truly that and not glacial clay deposited naturally.

Clay is a mineral resource of Nova Scotia and was deposited in sufficient quantity by the glaciers to make it a commercially mined.

http://novascotia.ca/natr/meb/data/pubs/89egs01/89egs01_Introduction.pdf

By 1955 the original pit had been excavated to 90 feet - more than once. By the Turo Company in 1849, but it flooded. In 1861 the Oak Island Association re-excavated the pit that deep and it "collapsed into either a natural cavern or booby trap". "Further excavations were made in 1866, 1893, 1909, 1931, 1935, 1936, and 1959" So, nothing of the original pit exists to the 100 ft level or even deeper.

Oak Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Charlie, thanks for your well thought out post. a few problems. #1 is that the clay (rather man worked or glacial clay) is all the way down to 200 feet where it should absolutely should not be because the bedrock layer started around 170-180 feet, (and 2) the clay has objects within it that should not be there either, such as the brass. at the original depth of 184 feet, that is 17 feet deeper than any man had ever been on the island at that time, and I don't think brass would get down into the island via drilling. And #3, the clay was stratified with small stones every 18 inches, which would not likely to be occurring naturally. Especially if we are talking every 18 inches through 30 feet of clay, which would mean there are 20 layers of the stuff. Unfortunately the information that made it into D'arcy O'Connor's book is vague so I need to hope to find complete drilling records.
 

Show me the proof of ANYTHING ever being found. Where are the artifacts? Where can I see them myself? Who owns them? Oh..... that's right. They don't exist because the "treasure" is in selling the lie to millions of people who will believe anything.


Here you go. Unless of course you think Dan Blankenship would lie about finding brass, scroll down to the bottom right hand photo on this page:

Artifacts found on Oak Island | Oak Island Treasure

This piece of brass could not possibly have gotten completely surrounded by clay at the original depth of 185-186 feet unless it was put there by someone. Since no one had been that low post 1795, it had to have been put there pre 1795.
 

just wondering if those drilling cores are saved so we could see the finds?
 

Yes, I do think he would lie. But you are far beyond being able to distinguish fact from fantasy that I will leave you to your little illusion.

And no, I am far from a "hit and run" guy like you accuse (as if you know anything about me), but I debate in facts and there are zero facts in Oak Island, just stories on top of stories.
 

Dig back further. There are glacial sinkholes of 400 to 800 ft deep, or even 300M (1,000 ft), in the karsk around the glacial edge - including the Nova Scotia area. 200 ft deep is just a walk in the ice-age park.

http://www.glaciologia.it/wp-conten...Q_III_4_FullText/1_SGFDQ_III_4_Ford_11_19.pdf
Karst Landform - The Canadian Encyclopedia
Sinkholes in glacial drift underlain by gypsum in Nova Scotia, Canada - Springer

"Bedrock" Showing softer shale plates uplifted at 80° angles in Nova Scotia.
http://novascotia.ca/natr/meb/data/pubs/01egs01/01egs01.pdf
 

Last edited:
just wondering if those drilling cores are saved so we could see the finds?

Jeff, I wonder about the drill cores too. One of the problems is that Dan Blankenship has concentrated all of his efforts on finding the treasure but I don't think he much cared what outsiders thought, in regards to rather any of it was real or not. He knew what he was drilling through was real and that is all that really mattered to him. In one regard I applaud Dan for not caring to prove this to the nay sayers, but on the other hand, recorded data has been temporarily or maybe even permanently lost. It may not matter for much longer though ;)
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top