I know..I know your response is going to be the same thing...sfrx has not found treasure in years...blah blah. Same record on repeat.
👍️ 0
___________________

Precisely. Well said.

I do think the seasercher works, I'm just not sure there is treasure at Juno.
Why the big hold up ?
Scanning should be done by now. So it should be easy to find treasure if it exists.
Just my opinion.
👍️ 0
___________________

But SFRX has already stated they recognize gold and silver targets on the Juno wreck site. Have they not? Find it amazing they just don't have the time to prove that. I have my own assumptions why.

Quote: Yes but would a device like the sea searcher be valuable?

Absolutely and if you argue that point it will just show your age.

Technology is the future. Sure we got things done before it existed, but now that it's here it's here to stay. That is just the way it is.

Mel Fisher for example will admit it was accidental he found the shipwreck. Gi kinda disagree because he spent years looking for it but that is the story.

If he had a sea searcher it would not have been accidental it would have been known there was treasure there before they even broke ground and no need to use blowers.

I can't imagine what your argument would be, but my intuition tells me you are going to say the "old" way is better.
👍️
_________________________________________

I certainly have no objections or problems with acceptance of new PROVEN technologies. Everything you say is just marvelous with the exception of one thing. SeaSearcher has to date not found treasure. When they can actually show recovered gold and silver treasure recovered from the Juno site as a result of SeaSearcher's performance, then you have something to talk about. Until then it's all worthless words.

Suggest you wait and see on this one.'Other salvage companies' found and salvaged significant treasure wrecks without the likes of SeaSearcher which remains to be unproven respective to pin-pointing and actually recovering gold or silver from the Juno wrecksite. I prefer to say 'scuttle site' but that's just me.

Quote: I'm sure you have precise knowledge of that particular vessel because you know everything about treasure hunting. You have absolutely no understanding of exactly what that ship was, what happened to it or what is under there right now. You "think" you know but you don't. Just like you think you know the SeaSearcher technology does not work but you don't. You mock SFRX as a clown show. You mock Reynolds tech as the Timmy Toy. You know so much from your perch atop of the treasure hunting industry. I'm thinking nobody should be searching any wrecks without consulting you first. Then you could give your blessing to proceed or not. Pure arrogance.
👍️ 0
_________________________________

Based upon your reply it's obvious I have 'pissed on your parade' and you don't like it. Sorry. Up to this very day, The SFRX / Reynold's actual track record equates to a big fat zero. All talk and no show.

Quote: So you know everything about what happened 500 years ago in a storm on that vessel? So it sits in 80 feet of water with complete knowledge of what is down there, how it got there, why it got there etc? You must be the absolute king of treasure hunters. SFRX must be suffering big time without your amazing expertise and clairvoyance,
👍️ 1
___________________________________________

No I don't know precisely what happened 500 years ago in a storm but I can tell you one thing (supported by archival testimonies in other instances), lower gun deck artillery (cannons) were not jettisoned during a severe storm / hurricane, with the gun ports closed and secured. Look, I know that nobody likes it when someone 'pisses one their parade' but that's just the way it is. No I'm not clairvoyant. I might say I have more experience than you and have the knowledge and the ability to apply common sense.

Quote: Very amusing that you knew that dumping cannons in a storm or hurricane occurred in those days yet have repeatedly pinned your "common sense" comments that because there are no cannons there's no treasure. I'm sorry but that is not common sense it is just your opinion. That ship could well have dumped those cannons, tried to outrun the storm and losing that race sunk in 80 feet of water off Juno.
👍️ 0
_____________________________

It seems you didn't fully understand my explanation. Yes, of course they jettisoned cannons but never all. They couldn't. Lower gun deck ports were closed and secured when running in foul sea conditions, particularly hurricanes. A galleon fleet didn't 'out run' a storm or hurricane; they weathered it. So be very amused if you will.

Quote: You keep making the statement below Raider but is it not possible that the Juno 1500s wreck got caught in a storm/hurricane and dumped the cannons in order to lighten the ship to try and outrun it? And after not being successful at that maneuver sank in 80 feet of water where as you mentioned it could not have been salvaged in those days? The state of FL found a mid-1500s coin as did SFRX just under the surface which would indicate that treasure went down with the vessel?
_______________________________

I can cite many instances where cannons were jettisoned while weathering a hurricane or severe weather conditions. These were usually pieces off the higher elevated bow or stern castles. Under these adverse conditions they never had the ability to jettison lower gun deck cannons. I can cite actual occurrences with the 1605 fleet, 1622 fleet and the 'Concepcion of the 1641 fleet. It was common. As to the one little silver coin supposedly found on or at the Juno site, don't get to excited over that. That could have dropped out of a hole in a sailors pocket. So with no outlying reefs that the Juno wreck could have struck to cause her sinking, she just wallows in and sinks off the beach in 80 feet of water. For me, very amusing to say the least.

Quote: I don't know what part you are confused on?
👍️ 0
__________________________

I'm not confused on any part. Up to this point there is no absolute evidence shown respective to any so called SeaSearcher pin-pointed gold or silver targets. Words, not facts. Apparently a number of you are in denial with a total conviction to believing everything Reynolds toy says is undeniable fact yet to date there is no on-site evidence. This is really a show or is circus a better word.

Quote: That's fine. Proof is coming for you.

How would you like to see it?

On a TV show
a documentary
A Press release
__________________

The wanna-be, gonna-be statements on going. Yes I realize, what else can you say. Certainly, I also know about opinions but I'll give you another one. This folly will continue with ongoing delays and excuses. Well, who really cares about excavating and proofing pin-pointed gold and silver when after all the word game will suffice - Oh, the SeaSearcher works but we just haven't the time yet to prove that on site. Get serious.

Quote: I agree, many more excuses to come. I'm sure.
___________________________________

I just wonder how long they can keep this charade going. Just my opinion but I believe this has turned into a cover your ass operation.

Anyone with common sense and at least some background knowledge of Spanish Colonial period shipwrecks and salvage would realize a sunken ship lying in eighty feet of water apparently completely devoid of artillery (cannons) is not loaded with treasure. Free diving to this depth and conducting such laborious work in the 16th Century was next to impossible. Here again, IN MY OPINION, this ship was scuttled. Nevertheless, here in fairytale land one can believe whatever they want. Oh yes, I know the SeaSearcher works but remains unproven (actual gold or silver salvaged) on this site.

Quote: I think there is because the sea searcher works great.
__________________________

Of course you want to believe that and I can't blame you.

Nevertheless. that said, there is no 'from on-site' evidence that it actually works at all.

Keep banking on the If's.

As for me I find it absolutely amazing how the Bla, Bla, Bla goes on and on, as does the scanning goes on and on but SFRX just can't seem to find the time to do one proofing excavation on one of its significant gold or silver targets on site. Appears to me to be more of a 'cover my ass' operation going on. Very amusing.

You keep putting Reynolds the toy maker on a pedestal when there is no actual on-site hard evidence that the SeaSearcher truly works. As to the SeaVac, that too is a toy which probably 99% of the people on this board would not know. It is not an excavation tool for removing overburden off of a shipwreck. I can see its application within the shipwreck, sucking out small sand pockets, etc.Ok. As I posted before, Reynolds did not invent this. This was previously engineered and custom built for absolutely essential use during the salvage of the 1857 'S.S.Central America' lying in near 8,000 feet of water. The Juno site in 80 feet of water would be far better served (excavation) by the use of six or eight inch venturi system with it's pressurized water supply coming from the surface support vessel moored over the site. Reynolds designs toys but obviously knows nothing about historic shipwreck salvage with same applying to Kennedy as well. Neither of them ever had the experience. If I'm wrong meaning that they have, please correct me.

Whether it is with the state of Florida or any other governmental agency issuing salvage contracts, most companies (SFRX included) fail to include an indemnification clause (a legal firewall) whereas if the salvor is sued by a foreign entity, they have to first go through the governmental agency that issued the contract. That agency thus becomes the 'firewall' protecting the salvor. The state of Florida, for one will never do that.

Very True.

Quote: What is the oldest cannon recovered from a ship off the coast of Florida?

Just wondering from a cannon expert
👍️ 0
___________________

Sixteenth Century cannons recovered by Bobby Pritchett in the Cape Canaveral area.

Very early Sixteenth Century Verso breach loading swivel guns and a Bombardetta deck cannon were recovered in the Florida Keys decades ago.

I certainly wouldn't expect anything to be done on my recommendation or opinion. You say THEY KNOW THERE'S TREASURE THERE. I wouldn't bet the life of an ant on that statement. Until such time when they actually excavate and identify a "treasure target", it's all folly. I find it amazing that you apparently didn't understand my stated analysis. I don't care if the ship sank (scuttled) 500 years ago or 300 years ago. The site is devoid of cannons which certainly weren't recovered by native free-divers in 80 feet of water. Even if they were, so they recovered the cannons but left the treasure. Whether you believe Timmy's toy works or not it adds up to nothing but nonsense until such time when a proof dig is performed and actual treasure is produced. It just seems they don't want to do that.

Quote: I am pretty sure it took Mel 17 years give or take and to his admission it was an accident they found treasure.

I am sure raider and hedge would have called him a loser every day for 17 years until mel was successful. Lol

Now he is a legend.
👍️ 3
_____________________

To the contrary. Mel Fisher was never a loser. Not like Kennedy, Fisher was a 'hands-on' successful salvor both on a number of the 1715 and 1733 shipwrecks, well before he finally found the1622 Atocha.

Sensible explanation but I just don't buy it but who cares.

What's constantly swept under the rug is the 'assumption' that this is a treasure laden galleon lying in 80 ft. of water but has no artillery (cannons).
This was a near impossible free-diving depth for conducting salvage. The explanation is quite simple. The ship had seaworthiness problems, was anchored in presumably calm seas, stripped, and all content including cannons transferred to another ship or ships after which she was scuttled. Historically this occurred on occasion before but not necessarily at anchor but rather on the high seas.

Quote: The sea searcher works...
👍️ 0
_______________________

"The sea searcher works" you say but with absolutely no verification buy actual excavation of a TREASURE target within the wreck site. Can't help but wonder why they wouldn't want to do that? On second thought I don't believe I have to wonder.

Quote: "If you want an update they are scanning and scanning as much as possible and they are moving WAY faster than before."
__________________________________

Scanning, scanning, and scanning but just can't afford the time for a excavation crew to dig one hole and verify that the technology actually works. What a comedy.

Quote: Proof to the public should be coming soon when they start recovering treasure and artifacts...$frx
Bullish
BULLISH
____________________________

When might that be. Next season? These people have the magic wand telling them exactly where the gold and silver is but just can't seem to find time to dig it up. In spite of all explanations (excuses?), common sense tells one why. At least that's my opinion.

Quote: It doesn't change the fact that is works and is solely owned by Seafarer Exploration. Which as a shareholder is a GREAT thing.
________________________

You like to keep saying that but with no factual evidence to support the statement.

When excuses cease and an actual non-ferrous (gold or Silver) pin-pointed target on the wreck site is excavated, that should more than suffice as real evidence. Everything else comes down to bottom line nonsense.

Quote: Tech works, Dive with super dredge (Sea Vac 3000), bring up shiny stuff, announce. But we want to play the archeology and scanning game.
________________________________________________________

The Tech works. Really? On what 'hands-on' factual evidence do you base that statement? Actual non-ferrous (supposedly gold or silver treasure) readings pin-pointed on the Juno wreck thus excavated and PROVEN? No I didn't think so.

As regarding the Sea Vac 3000 sand sucker toy, that's a joke. I qualify making that statement in so much that I have been part of excavation teams using air-lifts, water venturi systems and blowers. I know what it takes to remove overburden covering an early period wreck site.

Quote: It will be because there IS treasure and the sea searcher works.
_____________________

A shipwreck with the treasure remaining but no canons. Hilarious.

Quote: Seems the truth is hard to swallow
________________________________

Yes, some of you should think about it.

Sorry but I don't buy the Gulf Stream story.

This is what NOAA reports today.

GULF STREAM HAZARDS
None.

The approximate location of the west wall of the Gulf Stream based on the Real Time Ocean Forecast System as of Monday, August 12th.

44 nautical miles east of Ponce Inlet. 28 nautical miles east of Port Canaveral. 22 nautical miles east of Sebastian Inlet. 14 nautical miles east of Fort Pierce Inlet. 8 nautical miles east of Saint Lucie Inlet.

Quote: Just got an update from a known source.
The gulf stream current came in full blast about three weeks ago.
Divers had an extra 40lbs on them and were still being swept from the bottom.
Therefore it is what it is for now.
Stay tuned
👍️ 1
_______________________

With strong current issues like that (not necessarily surprising) divers put out on-bottom traverse lines. Considering where the wreck is located, that's an extreme westerly shift for the Gulf Stream. Easy to check on NOAA

Quote: You said it yourself. The sea searcher works.

The shipwreck at Juno is huge. There were a crap ton of delays with the complete redesign of the sea searcher. Then power issues. Undercurrent issues. The bottom line is they hardly scanned anything. Maybe like 10-15 percent of the site from the bottom which is the least likely to have treasure. I am not making excuses that is the shi...y truth. It is what it is. No one is happy about it.
____________________________________________________

Got to ask. Who makes this stuff up? Doesn't exactly align with the CEO statements.

A Spanish galleon in 80 feet of water. No evidence of a to windward reef that she would have hit, so just lying there in 80 feet of water devoid of cannons but loaded with treasure. How remarkable. All the telltale signs of a scuttled ship with every thing removed first. Historically, this would not be the only time this has happened.

Fairytale believers along with a masterful toy maker. Seems that's what the company is all about. As before, my prediction, the scanning will go on and on while they try to figure out how to cover their asses. Just my opinion of course.

'Huge shipwreck' laden with treasure but no cannons. How amazing.

Quote: There is absolutely treasure at Juno beach. That is not even a question. The only question is how much...... and that is what we are waiting to find out.
________________

"That's not even a question". Really? All talk with no actual evidence whatsoever. It's difficult to even believe you are serious.

Quote: It's like it's just a useless, time-wasting argument for argument sake.
Bullish
BULLISH
__________________________________________

You are indeed correct. Useless, time wasting.

The company is non-productive. All talk and no results.

Quote: The locations and types of metals identified match the SeaSearcher's reading precisely, confirming its effectiveness in detecting underwater artifacts.
_________________________________________________________________

But of course they just can't seem to produce and show any factual evidence.

....And the farmer hauled another load away. What a pile of barnyard bull-shit.

All the on going eloquently written 'we wanna be, we'll gonna be.

By all means avoid any mention of the UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage Treaty which bans treasure hunters in nearly all ocean coastal countries.

Quote: Glad to have them on ignore still.
_____________

So easy to stick your head in the sand and ignore facts. One the other hand you;'ve proven yourself to ne a hot air ballon specialist and have made money. Congratulations. So no problem keeping this SFRX folly running while this nonproductive CEO rakes in a grand a day.

It's not a matter of diving. That comes with the program. Its all a matter of excavating (digging) but they don't seem too interested in doing that. Now into August and they have proved nothing.

As one might expect, the SeaSearcher scan continues and in my opinion will go on indefinitely until they try and figure out how they are going to cover their asses. Seems to me this is all far more important than to excavate but one of these alleged gold and silver targets thus proving the technology works and the project will be a success. Apparently common sense does not apply.

Yes, those are real treasure finders. Not talkers.

QUOTE: So, I find it quite amazing that when you present another idea, honestly a really a trivial idea, in this case, such as lighting, this concept must not be allowed. It must be challenged. It must be misconstrued. Period.

Even if it was as simple as pointing out that weather conditions should also be considered with regard to working on the water. Do you really have to contravene this?

Look, let me try and make this simple for you to understand as you obviously are not a mariner. If a land based operation and if by forecast and actual visual evidence there are threatening thunderstorms (with lightening), then of course you don't leave the dock. If already out on site and these conditions as described are imminent, then back to the dock it is.

Your insistence on wanting to stay on this subject seems more and more like smoke screen trying to cover the fact that the company CEO and his toy maker have not and do not know how to find and salvage sunken treasure.

Quote: You do realize that they are not 80 miles away. Right?

Or are you just horsing around? I’m thinking maybe you are.
______________________

Of course I'm aware of that. Point is that just because of a thunderstorm the big boys don't up anchor and run. You really don't get it, do you?

Quote: I brought up the possibility of lightning because it is clearly a possibility every day. It is in the forecast. Your forecast that you provided.
_________________________

As I said before 'trying to pick there out of the horse shit'.

I've been on expeditions where we were 80 miles off shore for up to three weeks at a time. So do you think just because we're subject to a line squall and some lightening, we up anchor and run for port. Get serious.

Apparently all you're doing is smoke screening for an inexperienced company that continuously displays its incompetence and lack of results.

Quote: Just how safe is it to be on the ocean with the possibility of lightning? Are you saying that it is good to go? Or, did you even read the report?
_________________________

Sorry to tell you this but what you are trying to do is 'pick the rye out of the horse shit'. The NOOA forecast covers a lengthly part of the eastern coast line.
I'm a mariner and a seasoned diver / salvor. At sea, particularly at this time of year thunderstorms and short duration squalls come and then they go.

You are, as it appears, a landlubber and apparently know little about being at sea.

Hang in there. The scanning will go on and probably on and on and on for very good reason. Seems they just don't want to dig.