Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
How long do I or anyone else have to stay tuned????? Five years, ten years?????? Better things to do, I'm sure.
Undoubtedly and provable, I know allot more than anyone posting on this board what sub-bottom profiling is all about. I've been there. As to SFRX, show me one clue they've been there. As the smoke blows in the wind, the bottom line stands - this company does not know how to find profitable treasure wrecks. I've been a cheer leader with intelligent comment which goes unheeded. Have it your way.
Taking it one giant step further, valid remote sensing technology offers SFRX the following;
1. Survey magnetometry for detection of ferro-magnetic material. (Questionable achievement in SFRX application?)
2. Diver operated ferrous/nonferrous metal detector systems presumed to be deployed by divers on a near daily basis.
3. Operated from surface boat large coil, deep penetrating ferrous/nonferrous metal detection system )recommended numerous times by capted and myself)
4. Sub-bottom low frequency profile system - if applicable based on geological conditions for sub-bottom penetration. Recommended numerous times by capted and myself.
5. Side-scan sonar. Not applicable in this apparent situation as targets are presumed to be in sub-bottom.
So, thus I ask "Hot Spurs", what;s the new secret weapon and who of competence will operate it?
The "real deal" whatever is that? Sounds to me like the last days of the Third Reich. Historically, do you understand what I'm implying?
The divers are paid I'm sure (?) and the cited "experts" get paid also I'm sure (?) but said experts aren't proven historic shipwreck finders. I again ask the question (thus far unanswered) show me validation as to where I'm wrong? As to site #3, historically, I've been a supporter hoping that this mystery be solved. As the old saying goes; No shipwreck - no treasure. Thats what seem to be the suttle reality of it all. If I'm wrong please show me otherwise.
Sorry to disappoint you scots but your cited "experts" are not wreck finders. Forgive me if I'm wrong but show me otherwise. Paid names are not the issue here. Finding the wreck is and you just aren't on it yet by along shot.MY OPINION.
Juno Beach wreck, to my understanding, was the big deal launch of this company over five years ago. I have posted many times that for what I know about the site, its a looser, thus my reason of never understanding how this was the foundation of this company???? From my understanding, its not the site #2 "nuts & bolts" site (what a joke). I know nothing about the "new equipment" and solemnly have to question the expertise of the would be operator. I only say this as I have no respect for the CEO, who frankly has no experience, to make this selection. My family has been in this game for quite some time now, so I know a little of what I'm saying here. Tell me what the equipment is, the expertise of the operator and I'll either support it or not. Many, many, times past, capted and I have posted here what to use as applied remote sensing technology but apparently its gone unheeded. So why should I care?
Ace is one of the best pros. SFRX has. If there's a trail to follow, he has the capability to do it. Sinclair or even DeBry are not shipwreck finders. That's my opinion and I'm confident I can back it up.
Ace is till working with SFRX.
To the moment, I do not know anything further but believe I'll have facts tomorrow. As far as I'm concerned, Ace is a front point man leader. If there is a trail to follow, he can do it.
Don't know this to be "fact" but rumor is something of an involvement in his or another associated deal. Will pursue the facts of the matter,
Words circulating in certain circles that "Ace" isn't with the SFRX team anymore. Anybody able to add to this? I will probably know more soon.
They and when? This has been the on going returic for how long now? Any treasure yet?
How exciting. Whats the show about?
Its all really extraordinary. Because of the UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage Treaty, few if any credited academic institutes support anything having to do with treasure hunting. Especially an entity that has absolutely no background or credibility with the marine sciences or for that matter any credibility whatsoever in the marine treasure hunting field. The only credibility I see here is the presence of Jim Sinclair who I don't believe is there for nothing. So is this to say that a zero success penny stock company is going to talk about all the billions of dollars in sunken treasure lying along the Florida Coast but we've not found a lick of it in over five years. Makes me question the credentials and motives of a sponsor for such an event?
In my opinion, it would seem far more prudent to put a success under ones belt like conclude the discovery of the actual site #3 wreck site and thus join the ranks of treasure finders. Not treasure talkers.
I'm now confused. What's the information session? Rather embarrassing I would say at this point. Frankly, what's there to talk about?
As for the Queen's Jewels. No one should be of the opinion they're on the "Concepcion" (Which Concepcion and where?)
Again citing documentation of renowned archival researcher Jack Haskins;
Archives of the Indies, Seville, Spain
CONTRATACION 640: List of jewels destined for the Queen of Spain aboard Ubilla's Capitana. Micro Film 15 folios. Educate me.
Educate me please. What was the actual name of Ubilla's Capitana?
I say again I'm not a historical authority on the 1715 Fleet. Someone posted couple days ago that actually there were two lost ships of the fleet that bore the name "Concepcion", so I suppose one has to ponder which one is it?
"A quote from long ago". What do you think historic research is? Its very simple to understand. Actually I don't need to be knowledgable about the 1715 Flee4t shipwrecks which I don't claim to be. What I posted was the direct notation from Jack Haskins, one of if not thee most authoritative and renowned Spanish Colonial Shipwreck researchers of our time. What he wrote, is what he wrote. It seems you're not pleased with this information? If any doubts about the authenticity of the source, here it is again;
Archives of the Indies, Seville, Spain
ESCRIBANIA 1058C, from WWNB #12, Page 68
Thats the source (it will be a quote from long ago)
Unfortunately, the "Researchers" aren't saying anything with back up documentation. Wonder why?
Of course this is all speculation one way or the other. If you're of the opinion they're probably finding other things by now, would't that more than cover the three items needed for a salvage permit?
No Spanish ship was just named "Concepcion". Typically a long name like you mentioned such as
"Nuestra Señora Limpia y Pura Concepcion". Haskins stated Concepcion simply to keep it short.
I have posted repeatedly that what is termed Site #3 is not the actual wreck site but a sizable piece of flotsam that broke away from the main shipwreck wherever it is. This would have carried the cannon, and the few artifacts found there (including the platters). I say this because it appears that all this site has produced thus far is a large piece of side or decking with iron fasteners. No lower hull ballast stones, no additional cannons, no olive jars or broken shards, no artifacts, no treasure and those things associated. At least not to date reported. This being said, this is not anything representative of a real shipwreck site at least in my opinion. The consultants previously put in the spotlight here so many times should also know better. Again only my opinion.
According to the Jack Haskins research statement, he puts in parentheses (must have been way off shore) He also said "The Concepcion grounded on Cape Canaveral with only 7 men escaping, who stayed in the water 3 days on a quartel of the ship.
As Haskins made the statement "must have been way off shore", I for one take his opinion seriously. If you examine a chart of Cape Canaveral, there are outer shoals, miles off. One for example is "The Bull". If I understand correctly, with the wrecks of most all of the other 1715 ships, after hitting and sinking on the reefs frontal to the beaches, survivors made it in on floating pieces of wreckage, along with bodies, all of which washed up onto the beaches. Haskins research finding is the only one, at least that I know of, where the 7 survivors were in the water for three days. How they were saved is not said in the statement. Either they were spotted and picked up by a reconnoitering vessel or just eventually were washed ashore. In any case it seems obvious the wreck of the "Concepcion" didn't occur close to shore like the others. Just my take on things.
I don't know that as I have no association with these people. I would imagine it should be soon. Perhaps the delay is because where they were working, they expected to add allot more to the number.
capted. I know who Joel Ruth is but nevertheless without seeing actual photographs of the coins along with proof as to where they actually came from, I'd have my doubts. I've just heard all too many coins stories that can't be substantiated. As I recently posted, I had actually seen the photos of the 300+ gold doubloons recently found as sent to me by a reliable source.
You seem to know a little more than others about the subject so be specific. How many "Concepcion's" lost in the 1715 Fleet disaster? One, two, or more?
The Haskins research notations are specific. This is a 1715 Fleet "Concepcion" Validation of this fact is found in;
Archives of the Indies, Seville, Spain
ESCRIBANIA 1058C, WWNB #12, Page 68
Read my post again, wherein I ask the question of were there two "Concepcion's" lost in the 1715 Fleet disaster? I don't know much about the ships lost. I would believe that if in fact this is one and the same, then there's probably a real problem. Also read the Haskins research note. Grounded (wrecked) off Cape Canaveral. Obviously well off shore to have had everyone lost with the exception of 7 men found floating on a piece of wreckage of a sort. That in itself strongly indicates it was well off shore. How far off shore is the site #3 flotsam? How far from Cape Canaveral? (flotsam is my opinion)
Were there two "Concepcion's" lost in the 1715 disaster? I would suggest someone make inquiry of SFRX's researcher.
Forwarded to me from the research records of Jack Haskins is the following notation. (For those who don't know who Haskins was, he along with Dr. Eugene Lyons are the most renowned American AGI, Seville, Spain archive researchers. The notation says;
ESCRABINIA 1058C, From WWNB #12, Page 68, On 1 Mar. 1975 (meaning when found)
The Concepcion grounded on Cape Canaveral with only 7 men escaping, who stayed in the water 3 days on a quarter of the ship (must have been a way off shore)
My take on this is that this 1715 "Concepcion" wrecked on one of the outer shoals off Cape Canaveral (miles off shore. Check a chart) and these survivors drifted on a part of the ship (?) If this is one and the same "Concepcion", well, figure it out for yourselves. Allot of miles in between.
My "guess" would be that Ace already knew allot about site #3 based on his personal knowledge of the Heartland finds thus believing it to be a high potential winner. That combined with the SFRX ability to acquire state leases (something I have yet to understand), he probably saw this as a win-win situation. Here again in my opinion, I don't believe he still came to realize that what Heartland found and where SFRX is now might be nothing but a large piece of flotsam that settled there thus the absence of the other things that would be expected. I am still of that opinion. I and also capted posting here have emphasized the dire necessity of trying to establish a trail and follow it. The problem is this is not the Hensel and Gretal story of intentionally following the dropped bread crumbs. The next real trail link could be a football field away or miles away from where the main requisite settled. A shipwreck site and its outer areas contained spilled cannons. A good expanded magnetometer search should be revealing this evidence which apparently hasn't happened thus far. What here is so commonly referred to as the main site (#3) is not that at all or they'd be recovering good stuff. Just my opinion of course. Love to see this mystery solved.
No the find is not public yet but I received the photo of the stacks of doubloons from one of the divers on my I-phone. It's imminent there will be a release soon. Corrigan Beach is the location of one of the 1715 shipwrecks. Don't know which one. This find has nothing to do with the previous 52 gold coins found by another group (?) Other contractors are apparently finding real treasure.
Well, the 1715 Fleet anniversary has passed. A number of posters here implied the company was probably waiting for this date and event to announce there sire #3 finds to date. What happened. Anything?
I've just seen photos of a second find actually made on the anniversary. Over three hundred gold escudos from the Corrigan Beach area.
The direction is where the trail leads, if there is one established. Where are the iron cannon this ship carried? Those are big magnetometer anomalies.
Getting closer in which direction? Thats the question.
One big difference Sctts. From the time of the big anchor discovery in the Quicksands, Fisher was finding, and continued to follow a trail of dribbling of treasure coins & (three silver bars), artifacts and some ballast and broken olive jar shards. Yes, it took them a long time but the coins and bars identified what they had and would have when they eventually came to find the main site.
In this case, the trail evidence, so far, seems to be pieces of wood and iron fasteners. Maybe theres more and they're waiting to announce it on the 1715 Fleet 300 year anniversary????? Not long to wait. Thats this coming week end, isn't it?
If I may ask, how does your post equate into the finding of treasure which seems to be lacking????
You may want to again read post #40387 "Below is a little history in Site #3 - hotspurs
One must admit it historically presents a pretty good case as to why the material found relates to possibly being from a 1715 shipwreck. The recovered plates bearing the name "Dona Juana Isabel de Chabez Espinosa de los Monteros" have been said by posters to be plates belonging to a passenger who was said to be on the elusive 1715 Concepcion. Also, if I recall correctly, the wife of the ships captain??? What troubles me is the fact that although the plates have been shown here in numerous posts in the past, the documentation evidence supporting the above assumptions of association have never been produced in evidence. At least not here that I'm aware. I still contend that these items found along with the cannon and pieces of the ships structure do not represent the main wreck site but are likely a piece of flotsam from that particular ship??? An opinion only.
Manifests don't contain contraband. Otherwise it wouldn't be contraband. QJ does not have exclusive rights to all 1715 wrecks, found and unfound. Produce Florida State validation of that please.
If there actually is enough evidence of a trail to follow, he (Ace Ridgley) has the ability to follow it and read the signs. I still maintain that opinion.
Gets permits but apparently doesn't find treasure or am I mistaken? As to the Concepcion in the area; a football field distance away or miles? That's why I have near continuously emphasized the need to connect the dots, follow the trail (if there is one). They are not on the wreck yet in my opinion but then what do I know.
Do as you so please. Putting it simply, SFRX is not on the shipwreck site bearing treasure and artifacts yet. If you have facts that say otherwise, why not share? That is my very strong opinion. As said before, what do I know.