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 important is all this to the fact that its now August 26th, the weather is turning and there's apparently no trail, no wreck, no treasure? The rumor now is Ace is not even leading the hunt.
Actually you have neither. By what evidence revealed so far, you just don't have anything the resemblance of a real shipwreck site. A large piece of wood (flotsam) with some iron fittings is not a shipwreck site. If the dots are being connected and a trail has been established, maybe then something might happen. Thats the way I see it but so what.
Certainly hope not.
Nevertheless what they found is the real deal. SFRX needs to start by finding a shipwreck first.
Not too important. Sad summer.
No. The recent gold find on the news was found (I believe) by Queens Jewels, LLC.
The summer is almost gone. If there are "trail" dots to connect, Ace wold are is doing it. No trail - no wreck - no treasure. As capted brought up before, is the right survey remote sensing technology being applied by the right experienced operators?
I agree with this and always have. The big question with a big question mark is the unknown distance between the dots. That's what a good survey is all about.
Allot of pure dreaming here but nothing wrong with that. We all dream don't we?
To the contrary. I neither said or implied no such thing. The expertise of these persons doesn't even come into play at this point as SFRX has yet to find a shipwreck with treasure. Furthermore you might want to Google DeBrys credentials as a valid marine archaeologist based upon his recent involvement in the Madagascar Capt. Kidd silver bar scam where by involvement UNESCO challenged and stated there findings on his credentials. Let the pros (?) currently doing the field work for SFRX do their thing and reframe from flaunting cosmetic names.
Sinclair and/or DeBry aren't the paid consultants who are going to find it.
Wonderful, Marvelous. Have they found any treasure fir you?
Frankly speaking, there is no evidence they're on a "real deal site". Probable large piece of flotsam, yes. Actual real honest to goodness shipwreck site, no. (you know, shipwreck site with things like multiple cannons, ballast rocks, olive jars, shards, goodie artifacts, treasure, those kind of normal things that spell shipwreck site) Of course, this is only my opinion.
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)