It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: onehuman
I think it is very rare to build a ship with planks that are placed vertically in the hull.
To me they are clearly placed upwards (or downwards) whereas the usual setup is for the planks to be placed horizontally along the hull.
Many reasons exist for this, a main one is weight and a lot less ribs to connect the whole vessel together.
I honestly don't think it's a vessel. If it is, it was designed by an idiot or somebody who didn't derive their ship-building ability from traditional methods.
In other words it could be a non-western design or a highly experimental one, or built by an idiot.
Or as I feel, not a vessel at all.
originally posted by: visitedbythem
Planks don't go that direction, and they are too close together to be ribs./ I crewed on an antique wooden racing schooner
My first impression was it being a palisade (a stake wall). As such, there could be a very old fort under all that sand.
This makes me think of the legend of Langurroc. The story here is that beneath the big dunes of Crantock, near Newquay in Cornwall, England,
there was once a village. It was apparently buried during a sand storm, and hence the dunes. Another idea is of a meteorite impact, but without either
a crater and/or minerals it’s dubious. Particularly interesting though, especially given this thread, is the theory that it was caused by a tsunami
- this itself could have been the result of the Great Lisbon Earthquake, All Saints Day, 1755. Now looking at the the location of this find in
Canada, if the tsunami did indeed cause widespread coastal damage on both sides of the Atlantic, to include funnelling substantial waves along the
Bristol Channel, then it could potentially have dislodged enough sand as to bury a small village or fortification. Or it could indeed have beached
some ships.
Actually, that particular tsunami did reach Canada: upload.wikimedia.org...
It is probably more likely that the Yankee Gale would be such a cause, but I don’t think the tsunami should be ruled out until there is a
valid date on whatever that thing is.
I’m inclined to agree. If I’m correct with the tsunami idea then we’re looking at 6 months after the start of the Bay of Fundy
Campaign. I’m willing to wager that it’s a small fishing stockade which belonged to either the Mi'kmaq or the French, whom were both allied
against the British.
As to the fate of the stockade, I’m thinking to rule out weather because its walls would surely not be standing if it was, say, a nor’easter.
Secured into normal land, maybe, but surely not on a beach. I’ll guess that stockades were not necessary 100 years later so if the Yankee
Gale had anything to do with it then it, or indeed a previous hurricane, would probably have just blown it into the sea. Bear in mind that we’re
probably not talking about an actual fort, unless it’s part of what may have been a larger fortification further inland, but rather a small
defensive structure to protect fishermen.
Anyway, I haven’t been able to find anything historical about the tsunami impacting upon the Maritimes at all, at least not to the extent of
affecting military activities. The islands apparently have very big tides at the best of times, but one thing worth considering about Cascumpec Bay is
that there are considerable sand deposits and a natural reef there so it is certainly understandable as to how anything on a beach in that area could
be inundated with sand. As such, it could be feasible that the tsunami would have had the potential to disrupt the reef and thus shift a substantial
amount of sand.
So the big question is; was the cause an ordinary tide for the area, a storm or, indeed, a major geological event?
Naturally, this is all assuming it’s a fort rather than a ship.
Reports from Antigua, Martinique, and Barbados note that the sea first rose by 1.5m, followed by large waves.
originally posted by: Raggedyman
originally posted by: visitedbythem
Planks don't go that direction, and they are too close together to be ribs./ I crewed on an antique wooden racing schooner
A racing schooner, made to run light and fast in any breeze
Didn't crew an old ship of the line, a deep hulled cargo ship made for Atlantic crossings with a hull full of heavy products, iron guns, but a racing schooner
I don't really think you are all that up on wooden hull engineering because you crewed a wooden hulled racing schooner, just saying
Don't forget to not tell too many people about it
originally posted by: visitedbythem
originally posted by: Raggedyman
originally posted by: visitedbythem
Planks don't go that direction, and they are too close together to be ribs./ I crewed on an antique wooden racing schooner
A racing schooner, made to run light and fast in any breeze
Didn't crew an old ship of the line, a deep hulled cargo ship made for Atlantic crossings with a hull full of heavy products, iron guns, but a racing schooner
I don't really think you are all that up on wooden hull engineering because you crewed a wooden hulled racing schooner, just saying
She was built in 1930 for George Roosevelt. President Roosevelsts nephew. 77 foot. teak decks, red velvet cabins. Mine was by the galley. I could smell the ripe pineapples hanging in baskets. As crew I worked on the boat. Sanded refinished inspected, sewed sails, you name it. Here she is