IPT Journal - Stickel's Conclusions About the Evidence He Claims to Have Obtained from the Archeological MTP Project

Stickel's Conclusions About the Evidence He Claims to Have Obtained from the Archeological MTP Project

In Section 1.4 of his report, Stickel says that a tunnel on the McMartin site could have been dug out as a trench and then roofed with wood or it may have been dug out from under an existing foundation. In the latter case, the tunnel could have had wood covering in place to protect tunnel travelers from falling dust or to help hold up the ceiling. "In either scenario such a tunnel may have had posts of wood and/or other materials (e.g. iron) to serve as shoring reinforcement and as a support system." Stickel lays out nine test expectations that he believes should be met if tunnel(s) existed under the McMartin preschool:

1) An opening(s) (entrance and/or exit) large enough for human passage should be present permitting access from the surface down into a tunnel feature.

2) Tunnel architecture should by linear or curvilinear (i.e. an elongated passageway leading in a definable direction(s).

3) Tunnel architecture (especially depth or height and width) should be large enough to accommodate adult human passage.

4) The walls and/or uncovered soil ceiling in the tunnel should have "signatures" or markings indicating whether the tunnel had been dug by hand and/or by a machine (e.g. a backhoe).

5) There should be a compacted dirt floor (compacted by human traffic) distinguishable from surrounding non-tunnel soil which should not be that compacted.

6) The tunnel could be open (i.e. traversable and unfilled).

7) The tunnel may be naturally (i.e. natural process of erosion and soil redeposition) or artificially (by human action) filled in with soil. Such fill should be distinguishable from the natural soil matrix of the site in terms of color and/or by texture, and compaction (i.e. fill would be less compact than soil forming the tunnel's walls, floor and ceiling).

8) Tunnel fill may have inclusions of:

A) Natural stones and/or other natural items or;

B) Artifacts and/or ecofacts (e.g. butchered animal bones).

9) Although a tunnel of the type sought in this project may not be directly datable (e.g. in contrast to a construction date molded into the concrete of a railroad tunnel), the tunnel may be dated indirectly by the dates on artifacts contained within it if any are present.

A secret room, according to Stickel, would have to meet essentially the same expectations, in addition to being large enough for possibly restricted but "face-to-face" interaction among "a number of people." Since people tend to spend more time in rooms than in tunnels, one would expect to find artifacts such as "chairs, couches, tables, a lighting system, etc. . . ."

Stickel then discusses the application of remote sensing instrumentation, reviewing his experience with "various kinds" of remote sensing, noting that he and a colleague published the "most extensive underwater remote sensing survey (which utilized multiple types of instruments) ever conducted in European Archaeology."¹⁶³ That experience convinced him that Ground Penetrating Radar was appropriate for the McMartin Tunnel Project.

Stickel concludes that he found one possible tunnel, one definite tunnel and one possible underground secret room.¹⁶⁴ The "definite" tunnel ran from an entrance/exit from under Ray's room (classroom #4); and followed a sharp right (south) to the southwest corner under Ray's room where the "possible" secret room was located. Then it traveled east under the wall foundation that divided Ray's room from room #3, then over to the east wall and up to the entrance/exit in the room's northeast corner. The actual excavation ended about ž of the way through the room towards its east wall.