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.
I don't believe capted made that statement. Please provide that particular post number if convenient. Juno Beach is one wreck site as I have always understood it. Numerous groups have surveyed and worked on this site in the past and it always proved a looser.
Its spelled Concepcion. Not Conception. Value of about a billion dollars. Really? By verifiable marketing, and audited book keeping, there is no treasure wreck that has ever been found including the 1622 "N.S. Atocha" or the "S.S. Central America" (richest gold find ever made to date) that has resulted in anything near a billion. Good number for story telling though. Of course that's just my own opinion, isn't it.
"There is no more following a trail" Really? So are you saying all the most very common things on a main wreck site like hundreds/thousands of ballast rocks, intact (and mostly broken Spanish olive jars), other ceramics, coins and artifacts all over the place, these things are already being encountered under and around this eighteen foot piece of wood. Is that what you're implying? Hope you are right but doesn't sound like it to me. Actually none of these comments matter when the hard work being devoted to this current location will prove it out one way or the other.
What - no treasure? Just blow a hole down through the 18ft. length timber and into the treasure vault and WOW here it is. Most of the posts I read here are like "chickens in the hen house" Get real. Now (and before) you have to work backwards. Follow the trail. This is not the actual wreck site. FOLLOW THE TRAIL. Who am I? Its my own my own personal opinion. Good luck - how many times have I wished that?
Besides financial donation would you please allow me and others to understand what SFRX has contributed to the marine sciences over the past five years?
Credit where credit is due which goes to SFRX for its ability to get Florida State permits but after over five years of treasure hunting, isn't it time to see some treasure brought up on deck? Of course, that's my opinion but believe shared by others.
capted: I don't believe Juno is the "nut and bolt" site. I believe that was a site #2, wasn't it? Regardless, I agree with what I think you're saying. In my own opinion, the Juno wreck is a waste of time. I know of (as I posted before a number of times) a number of creditable people who spent aloof time not only electronically surveying (mags., detectors, etc.) but also worked over and around the ballast without results.To me site #3 is the real deal. Again, just my own opinion, they just aren't on the wreck yet. No ballast, no olive jars, or shards, etc., etc., etc.
Good forecast. Let me say that with those conditions, Mel Fisher wouldn't have missed a day putting the blowers down and diving. So good luck SFRX.
Aren't recovery permits issued on the basis of something to actually recover? Just asking.
In my own opinion, the hope and prayer for this company is where they are. Tangible. Just follow the trail. As to the Juno site - "And the band played on".
Diving of course but you need a actual wreck site too. Follow the trail if capable.
It's like most of the posts here are about the anticipated Christmas presents when it might help if you had a Christmas tree first all. Get it?
Now its said this ship was armed with 44 iron cannon and the accountability on this particular site is but one, and the mag search produced no more? My opinion only, there's some serious expanded survey work to be done.
The Juno wreck was a looser before they ever got there, is a looser now and probably always will be. The salvation of this company appears to be the fabled site #3 and that's why they're there. That has hope although there appears to be no evidence of this being a real verified actual wreck site. Follow the trail. This is only my opinion.
So are you saying they're salvaging all that treasure without a salvage permit or Florida state agent/s on board?
Addressing ships ballast, how right you are by your referrals. I have dove most of the Spanish shipwrecks of the 1733 fleet scattered throughout the Florida Keys. These galleons had carried just as much treasure as the 1715 fleet but the only major difference being most did not sink violently and thus were mostly intact and near thoroughly salvaged. Point is that each site is represented by BIG ballast piles. None of the known Spanish treasure shipwrecks (main site) are devoid of ballast rocks; period. It was not uncommon when the ship was built to pour in "basket ballast" (small rocks between the frames) with sometimes even mortar mix. On top of that came the larger ballast rocks, the weight being essential for the ship to maintain a low center of gravity because of the high free-board and high masts carrying strained wind blown sail. If a galleon of 500 tons plus displacement was carrying say 100 tons of treasure, why move ballast? True, there were cases where ballast was sometimes removed from certain vessels in port. The bricks of Williamsburg, Virginia came over as a ballast/cargo. The Atocha of 1622, with all its treasure aboard, has a ballast pile.
In my opinion its out of place to try and come up with all kinds of speculative excuses as to why this particular "section of wooden wreckage" is thus far devoid of ballast.Like capted (and I) have previously posted, there's oe sure sign of a Spanish shipwreck site: ballast (normally creek bed rock) and broken olive jar shards all over the place. Any here yet? If the no ballast theory was even remotely correct, explain why, in its place, there aren't stacks of tons of silver and gold bars, chests of coins concentrated and scattered all over the presumed site? Here again, as capted accurately pointed out, there are powerful boat-operated (and diver) deep penetrating ferrous/non-ferrous metal underwater detection systems that can be applied and, cutting-to-the-chase,will tell one if there are quantities of precious metals there.
I am not trying to rain on anyones parade as this is undoubtedly part of what could be a 1715 shipwreck but I just believe there isn't yet enough evidence to label it as thee shipwreck site. That's my opinion.
Contradiction. To date there appears to be no proven certainty that they are on a WRECK SITE. That of course depends on what your definition of a wreck site is. A part of a wooden shipwreck that may very well be a piece of break away flotsam with a scant sprinkling of artifacts is not by professional definition a WRECK SITE. Having been on wreck sites before, this is my conclusion - my opinion. Follow the trail.
Believe it or not but my sentiments exactly. I was about to write a similar post. No guessing necessary.
Proper spelling is Concepcion, not Conception.
Straight forward factual post.
Sorry but that just doesn't wash. I'm very familiar with the WWII iron pick ups. One of the major companies that worked the Florida Keys right on up the eastern seaboard was a Miami based company - Hemstead & Macgraph (not sure of the spelling). That said, they picked up shallow water cannons off of many the 1733 fleet wrecks (when accessible) and "da. da" a number of the 1715 wrecks. Even so, isn't it strange that there still remained some iron cannon's on most of these wrecks? I could actually list them, particularly the Florida Key sites. Now here we are at a potential wreck site in (I assume of 45 feet of water) with very limited visibility but they just knew where the cannons were and without magnetometers, blowers to uncover them (before the advent of SCUBA diving equipment, they just removed all of the cannons. OPINION - Don't think so. Reality is reality.
Perhaps thats the right word "ponder". Like CaptEd questioned in a recent post; any olive jars or broken shards? My question also before, plus the biggie; any ballast stones? Wood (portions of a broken ship) floats. Thats how the cannon and couple of artifacts got there. That is not uncommon. The, what I call the "Jack Haskins" wreck on the Pacific side of Panama ("San Joseph" 1631), the recently found break away section of that wreck was supposedly like seventeen miles away from the main wreck site. Jim Sinclair knows the exact distance as he has dove the more recently found section. From my perspective a big piece of probably decking is nothing to warrant believing the actual wreck is found. If so there should be coins, artifacts and including lots of broken olive jars and BALLAST all over the place. Hope that comes soon or you "just ain't there yet". Well, thats my opinion.
How do you think "a" cannon got there? Where's the ballast? Parts of decking float, sometimes long distances. Thats not just my opinion but a proven fact in many shipwreck profiles.
Facts. Where are they? A real artifact, treasure producing shipwreck site or shipwreck related recoveries of fragments of timber and conglomerates of iron objects? I'm not making a statement. I'm simply asking the question. Follow the trail. In my opinion you are not there yet. A hundred yards or ten miles, you're not there yet. My opinion. Do you mind?
It usually starts with actually having a genuine treasure and artifact producing shipwreck site first regardless what its name may prove to be. I don't see evidence that has happened yet, or has it? If so, whats the evidence? Know how to follow the trail.
Would you please tell me how you come to the conclusion that "they have a nice wreck down there". The only thing publicly known thus far is two plates and a pistol found years ago plus a single cannon, some pieces of wood and iron conglomerates of sort, on the bottom in that area. That definitely associates to a wreck, of course, but cannot be concluded as being "thee" wreck site. On the projects I've been on, I've seen these situations before. What has been seen/found so far is valid evidence there is a wreck, hopefully nearby. So thats just my opinion.
I have seen the photos of the pates posted here numerous times before. I have addressed this very issue here before in specific detail. That is, the plates are a reality as is the name recognizable on the plates. Simply, to connect the dots, isn't it common sense that if research has produced that name being a passenger on the 1715 "Concepcion", that segment evidence would be posted here to the benefit of shareholders and would be investors? There would be no further question. While on the subject of photos, I for one don't recall seeing one encouraging photo of anything of significance having been recovered from this site to date. Is that a secret too? I read constant posting about diving but I believe its time to reapply the remote sensing survey tools and find the wreck. Well, thats just my opinion. Good luck.
No doubt in your mind. Really? Tell me what substantiates that?
Let me tell you how it is. I personally met Goldberg and well know the person he is. A lying scam artist. If Goldberg is in any way a part of this new scheme, well then the bottom line is CRAP. Money lost. When this clown pays me and all of the rest of my diver comrades what he owes us, I might believe he's a candidate for a liars rehabilitation program, at the least.
Scaglione has been released from jail for quite some time now. He is supposedly working as a para-legal for some Miami law firm but is able to renew his attorney status with the Florida Bar after four or five years. That's what I have heard.
First it might help if you actually have a shipwreck site. As someone who has just a little bit of experience in the field, I see no evidence of that yet. My posts are intended to be constructive not destructive. In my opinion, some serious survey work has to be done, expanding from where the first positive evidence was found; the plates, the pistol, a cannon, etc. Good luck. Go get it. Its out there somewhere. I believe I suggested before; plate with name + supposed passenger list with same name = identity. Why the reluctance to simply do that? If I understand this correctly, SFRX has a contract with the State of Florida, so assuming a treasure wreck is found, based on what you say, isn't it logical that Spain would also go after Florida?
The plate is a fact. Everything else you have to say are assumptions, none of which to date can be proven. If SFRX divers have't been able to bring up anything worthy to date, how can anyone believe divers are going to go out and simply dive in 40 to 50 feet of water with poor visibility and pick up treasure or anything else for that matter. The plate and the supposed passenger list document is a fast way to the truth. Thats my point of view plain and simple.
When I post here I honestly try to be fair and factual. All of you optimistic posters keep soothing each other with "when the weather gets better". There was never any confirmation of a Site 3 actual wreck site when the weather was good. If to the contrary, why hasn't the state issued an actual salvage contract yet? I make a suggestion. Numerous times I have seen the posting of the photographs of the plates found by Heartland. These appear to be State of Florida inventory photographs. As the story goes, according to the research of DeBry, the name inscribed on the plates was a passenger on the 1715 "Concepcion". That presents a very simple process. The State of Florida validates said name on the pates and research expert DeBry produces the actual copy of the documentation validating this same person as being on the said passenger list, and I believe the stock would make a "Mount Everest" climb. That's just my opinion. Any problem with that? Come good weather keep a professional survey going with experienced people. Diving, per say, is only part of it. Good luck.
From what I can see, the line is in the water and there just aren't no fish. Come good weather; establish and follow the trail.
Good diving - sea conditions along with the concentrated efforts being made should then tell all. I still believe some further survey work lies ahead. Just my opinion.
After five years, anytime soon should have been yesterday. Are they on the wreck or are they not? So why no photos? Just asking.
Yep (as you put it) I'm the same poster that addressed Cuba before. You say "but the treaty was ratified as a founding member nation before Castro took over". This is not an issue of a founding member of UNESCO proper. This is an issue of specifically the UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage Treaty.
I kindly suggest you re-check your facts as they are not correct. Castro took power in 1959. The UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage Treaty was established November 2, 2001. Cuba signed (ratified) the treaty on May 26, 2008. Here again I suggest you actually read the treaty. The bottom line is no private sector contracting as relating to any sort of commercial distribution and intended profit gain from recovered material (artifacts/treasure). A country cannot simply rescind their participation without undoubtedly going through the International Court of Justice -Hague, Netherlands. Cuba does not have an open-door to Gringo treasure hunters or any others. Sound facts plus opinions. Check out the facts.
The sites announced so far have not proved productive so apparently DeBry has not contributed very much in my opinion. Keep in mind there are other creditable researches and professional treasure hunting entities who have the same goals in mind. Nothing new and no rabbits to pulled out of the hat. Outside of the U.S., the few countries that haven't yet signed the UNESCO Underwater Culture Heritage Treaty don't just grant exclusive contracts to entities that have no success credentials. Granted you can't achieve much when sea conditions are what they are during these winter months. Survey work is restricted and divers are limited as to what they can achieve. On the other hand, when you are actually "ON a wreck", treasure and artifacts are recovered even with limited dives. In my opinion, extended survey should be on the agenda when the sea conditions improve.
Now thats a really interesting conglomerate but apparently not a SFRX find. I would think it time to post some of their own finds.
In all fairness let me say that my opinionated comments are based only on limited disclosure of information and as I had said before "scuttlebutt" rumors that I pick up on on occasion. My comments are not meant to imply that this company does not have good divers who are making best efforts possible. What I am rendering is the opinion that if in fact they were on "thee" wreck site, coins and exciting artifacts would be showing up with little doubt and I would imagine the trumpets would be blaring from the mountain tops. Why not? When concentrations of ballast (and more cannon) begin to appear along with the so typical associated material (treasure and artifacts), then there's certainly good reason to be enthusiastic. That should all come in due time if the trail is properly discerned. Again, good luck. I'd like to see this mystery solved.