Parry wrote:
>
> elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F20BE52.AE441B8D@cloud9.net>...
> [snip for length]
> > > > from the csicop article:
> > > > http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-03/i-files.html
> > > >
> > > > Geologist E. Rudolph Faribault found "numerous" sinkholes on the mainland
> > > > opposite Oak Island, and in a geological report of 1911 concluded there was
> > > > "strong evidence" to indicate that the purported artificial structures
> > > > on the
> > > > island were "really but natural sink holes and cavities." Further
> > > > evidence of
> > > > caverns in the area came in 1975 when a sewage-disposal system was being
> > > > established on the mainland. Approximately 3,000 feet north of the island,
> > > > workmen excavating with heavy machinery broke through a rock layer and
> > > > discovered a 52-foot-deep cavern below (Crooker 1993, 144). Fred Nolan
> > > > insists that, earlier, in 1969, while drilling on Oak Island, Triton
> > > > broke into a
> > > > cavern near the fabled treasure shaft at a depth of 165 feet.
> > > > "Blankenship and
> > > > Tobias figured that the cavern was man-made," said Nolan, "but it isn't,
> > > > as far
> > > > as I'm concerned" (Crooker 1993, 165). And Mark Finnan (1997, 111), writing
> > > > of "the unique geological nature of Oak Island," states as a fact that "naturally
> > > > formed underground caverns are present in the island's bedrock." These
> > > > would account for the flood "booby-traps" that were supposedly placed to
> > > > guard the "treasure" (Preston 1988, 63).
> > >
> > > The above doesn't actually address the sinkhole theory in question,
> > > though it does mention sinkholes on the mainland and other details
> > > irrelevant to the island.
> >
> > But I've reaad that sinkhole(s) have occured on the island itself. I'm
> > not convinced that the "pit" was one, but it's a reasonable theory.
> >
> > > Preston seems in error to say that the
> > > underground caverns in the bedrock account for the flooding of the
> > > Pit. According to the story, the flood tunnel occurred 50 ft or
> > > thereabouts above bedrock in the overburden, while the caverns occur
> > > dozens of feet below the top surface of the bedrock, so they can't be
> > > connected.
> >
> > I think the geology of the island as I understand it (limestone and
> > all), the fact that it rises only a few feet above sea level, and the
> > action of hydrostatic pressure sound like reasonable elements which
> > could easily lead to the flooding of any hole dug on the island.
>
> Right, but Preston was suggesting the underground caverns account for
> the flooding, when they are actually far below the point where water
> flowed in.
But what I'm suggesting is a 'blow-out'. When rock stresses or external
hydrostatic pressure, in the vicinity of an underground excavation,
exceed the rock strength and an implosion ensues. Though relatively
infrequent the phenomenon is well documented.
The island is composed almost entirely of dense glacial till which
overlies anhydrite bedrock, with which is associated some minor
limestone. Anhydrite possesses the property of being exceedingly
soluble, more so in salt water than in fresh. So, water can be drawn
into an excavation 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, the
greater the rate of inflow. Once started it is a vicious circle, and one
likely to prove catastrophic as the passages enlarge.
I'm not an expert in geology, but it seems that it's like drilling into
a sponge sitting in deep water. At any time the water might seep in and
fill the hole; water always seeking its own level.
I don't claim that there might not be other factors.
>
> > > > from "Critical Analysis of the Oak Island Legend":
> > > > http://pws.prserv.net/djoltes/oakisland/
> > > >
> > > > To explain the "mysterious" filling of the pit with sea water, one need
> > > > only look at the geology of the island. It is quite small and only a
> > > > few feet above sea level, after all. Several of the more reasonable
> > > > geologists who have examined the site have stated that much of the
> > > > rock underlying the island is limestone (the limestone bedrock begins at
> > > > between 160 and 180 feet), and is certainly filled with faults
> > > > and voids. Indeed, some accounts state the the lost treasure has likely
> > > > escaped discovery by "falling into a void in the rock." Thus the
> > > > filling of the pit with water is easily explained. There is nothing
> > > > mysterious about the effect of hydrostatic pressure in such an area. In
> > > > fact, there is an area in eastern Africa where seawater is present in
> > > > crevices near the surface a number of miles from the coast; the
> > > > water has infiltrated that far inland through voids in the underlying
> > > > rock strata.
> > > >
> > > > What most likely happened on Oak Island was that once the diggers
> > > > reached a certain depth the pressure exerted by sea water
> > > > flowing through the channels and fissures in the rock became too great
> > > > for the earth remaining in the Pit, so a "blow-out" occurred and
> > > > the Pit was filled as would any hole dug to such a depth in close
> > > > proximity to a body of water. It must be remembered that the island
> > > > rises a maximum of thirty feet above sea level, and the Pit was dug to a
> > > > depth of over 100 feet. Thus, it extended at least 70 feet below
> > > > mean sea level and would be subject to considerable pressure at that
> > > > depth. Many writers have asserted this is impossible due to the
> > > > "hard clay soil" which is found on the island. This assertion is
> > > > incorrect, however: while the surface soils are indeed firm clay, one
> > > > needs only to dig to between fifty and one hundred feet to encounter
> > > > sandy, rocky subsoils which are much more water permeable.
> > > > Early accounts of the legend state that the diggers were removing "one
> > > > bucket of earth for every two of water" by the time they reached
> > > > the ninety foot level, so the Pit was wet long before the initial
> > > > disaster occurred and it became filled with water.
> > >
> > > Again this doesn't address the sink-hole theory, but does support the
> > > idea that the booby trap is a natural phenomenon, which should be the
> > > default assumption anyway. A more comprehensive theory will have to
> > > account for the man-made materials drawn from the earth, the evidence
> > > of offshore handiwork, and other anomalies.
> >
> > Read the whole web page. I think it adresses most of these points.
>
> Certainly a better article than the CSICOP one. I won't take the time
> to cross-reference the article with what else I've read, but do
> question his dismissiveness of man-made materials which have been
> churned up even by 20th century expeditions. The sinkhole theory still
> isn't fleshed out, as it involves more than establishing that
> sinkholes can occur.
Sure, what's really needed is a 3-D sonar map of the island so that all
the underground cavities can be interpreted. Then any promising areas
could be investigated w/ fiberoptics and core sampling. At any rate I'm
not convinced of the sinkhole theory either. After all, people buried
things all the time in the days before insured banks.
>
> > In another place
> >
> > http://www.oakislandtreasure.co.uk/natural.htm
> >
> > I read:
> >
> > "A natural pit was in fact discovered in 1949 on the shore of
> > Mahone Bay, five miles to the south of Oak Island, when workmen
> > were digging a well. Just as with the 'Money Pit', reports of a
> > stone platform and layers of logs invoked the excitement of
> > another pit yet given the geographical behaviour of this area,
> > such flights of fancy were soon dismissed."
> >
> > so it's not unreasonable to consider that the "Oak Island" legend has a
> > similar genesis.
>
> I wouldn't think they have a similar genesis, as this latter story is
> obviously a copycat.
I'll need a cite before I'll believe that. Everything I've read leads
me to conclude the opposite.
>
> As a last footnote to the tale, I just read in Fortean Times that the
> site's owners have the land up for sale: "We're asking $7 million.
> [...] If we factored the buried treasure into the price, we'd be
> asking for $50 million." If you have the scratch, I have a shovel. The
> article also notes that the Oak Island Tourism Society failed to raise
> the money to buy the place, and despair that it will be developed for
> luxury housing.
Ah, that'll just be another "Money Pit". Maybe they could build the
buildings around the pits so people can go and asphyxia... explore them
in their spare time.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 |
|