There's always next season. Lobster fishing may prove far more profitable.

Quote: And I'm not serious about lobster scenario
__________________________________

When one can't find treasure in over ten years and your supposedly "on the wreck" and can't prove it in now two years + or -, lobster fishing may well, be the more serious scenario.

Quote: Yep, he said "the wreck would just be visible."
__________________________

He said, who said. Don't have a clue what you're talking about? Getting to the point which really is the point, there obviously isn't a wreck where the CEO said it was. So now whats coming up for the next act? Maybe in another season or two?

Quote: Really?? That's news to me...so why would anybody own or buy a magnetometer?
___________________________________

Are you actually serious?

Quote: Looking forward to the continued amusement as they milk Melbourne for all it’s worth.
______________________________________

I would have to believe that worth is rapidly diminishing. As to any new treasure hunting advanced technology magic black boxes, they have come and gone in this so called industry. One of the big ones that duped investors out of millions was promoted by a Georgia based company named Admiralty, Corp. They had a first generation, second generation, third generation marine analytical treasure finder. The only problem was it never found any thing but they sure had a long run of novice investor support.

Mine aren't claims. They're facts that can be supported. On the other hand, yours are smoke and mirror responses as you apparently have no way of refuting established facts. By the way, you have evidence they're on the wreck. Answer that simple question please. After all, didn't the CEO make that statement about two years ago?

Quote: Amused about claims
____________________________

The posts here have been on going amusement now for years.

Can you believe that. "who takes over INOH" Like asking who's going to sit at Goldberg's kitchen table writing the next pump and dump while he's at the Fed. country club. It takes guts. really.

Quote: Trust me...everyone knows it.
_____________________________________

Trust you? Everyone knows what. That there is no actual wreck site there? I know most with experience and common sense know it but I didn't know everyone did. Thanks for that opinion.

I'm not trashing the company. If presenting historical facts that counter your belief that your on a shipwreck is trashing the company, well, so be it. Thats your interpretation. If I had direct intent to trash the company as you so put it, believe me you would well know it.

Quote: Sonic the Hedgehog and Raider of the Flotsam Arc share the same theory.
_______________________________________

You continue in total denial of facts as it doesn't fit your rather dire circumstances. No shipwreck plain and simple. If I'm wrong then show me "facts" that say otherwise. You also have no problem labeling those with opposing opinion with select name insults. Apparently thats all you've got.

Thanks. You can pick one up for me. Make it the Mango Man special. The one with .005 calories.

All this continuous marathon ballroom dancing with these people is really pointless other than to at least present the facts as one can realistically see them. To date they have no shipwreck located. Not one single piece of evidence to prove otherwise. Some scant pieces of a early 18th Century shipwreck I'm inclined to agree. A shipwreck site - No. This is just my opinion but coming from a professional perspective.

Quote: SURE, I could cut and paste 90-99% of wreck discovery examples where "FLOTSUM" isn't within the Wikipedia description per discovery!!

Shall we continue???
___________________________

Yes, lets continue. I have provided you with hard core facts citing but a few historical examples of famous Spanish galleon shipwrecks and associated flotsam but you choose to brush that all aside. Now we're to believe Wikipedia is an authority on the details of overall circumstances of historic colonial period shipwreck sinking's. This becomes more humorous by the day. Are any of the historically documented examples I provided on but four famous Spanish galleons that sank and resulted in breakaway flotsam in Wikipedia? Absolutely not. Does Wikipedia cover Jack Haskins 1715 research findings on the Concepcion and how she obviously wrecked way off shore and only six survived on "flotsam" for three days before being rescued. What page is that on in Wikipedia. "Shall we continue"?

Quote: Alvarez was the only one to escape unscathed, at least for now.
____________________________

Alvarez is a Dominican Republic stock hustler of the same cloth cut as Goldberg. Unfortunately they won't touch him, being a Dominican National.

Let me be clear,

ESCRIBANIA 1058C, From WWNB #12, page 68, on March 1975 (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)

"MUST HAVE BEEN A WAY OFF SHORE" IS HASKIN'S STATEMENT, NOT MINE.

A correction required.

In my previous post it states

ESCRIBANIA 1058C, From WWNB #12, page 68, on March 1975 (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)

"three days on a quarter of the ship" is not correct. It should not say "quarter". The computer spell check did that and I failed to see it before posting. The word written by Haskins is "Quartel" for which I find no translation, and apparently Haskins didn't either.

Quote: This is a perfect example of a extremely rare situation as far as wreckage and salvage
__________________________________

Not at all an extremely rare situation. A galleon hits a submerged reef or sand bank after which pounding seas begin to fracture and break up the upper structures of the ship. The main concentration of the treasure and negative buoyancy cargo remains there. The broken, buoyant break away sections go for miles. Such was the proven case for, mentioning but a few, the;

The 1622 Atocha. When eventually found, the lower hull with its bulk treasure was in one concentrated pile. Her bronze artillery and portion of treasure and artifacts were scattered for many miles. That included one of her very large anchors. Those things were found, were the result of flotsam, some of which were found miles into the quicksands area. Spanish documents as well confirmed that parts of her side and decking were actually found washed up onto one of the Marquesa Keys also miles from the main hull concentration. I believe by definition thats called "flotsam".

The 1631 San Joseph, stuck a reef on the south side of Panama. Most of that main concentration of lower hull treasure and most of her bronze cannons were found there and recovered by the Spaniards. A breakaway section "flotsam" traveled for miles spewing treasure along the way into deep water until that section of "flotsam" grounded in front of a small cay.

The 1641 Concepcion wrecked on the Silver bank north of the Dominican Republic. When discovered by Phips in 1687 and Webber in 1978, the main concentration was found in two sections within about 100 yards of each other. Spanish documents state that weeks and months after the wreck, portions of her upper structures, including cargo and some treasure was found on the shores of the north coast. Thats distance of about 85 miles. Thats. plain and simple, called "flotsam".

The 1656 San Francisco Xavier blew up and sank off of Cadiz, Spain in an engagement with the English. The hull and bulk treasure went right to the bottom in over a hundred feet of water. The stern section of the galleon ablaze in fire, drifted into the shoreline miles away. Thats defined as "flotsam"

I could go on but if you haven't got the point by now perhaps you just never will.

The renowned, now deceased, archival researcher Jack Haskins in his research on 1715 shipwrecks, produced this information which I have posted previously and it proved quite unpopular;

ESCRIBANIA 1058C, From WWNB #12, page 68, on March 1975 (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)

Its obvious the ship hit a reef or sand bank and broke up with but seven survivors who were adrift (on a piece of flotsam) for days. Is there a reef or sand bank there in 40 feet of water + or - where SFRX is working? If the wreck was there, it didn't just go plop and sink there in that water depth. As the Haskins's research disclosed, the Concepcion hit shallow and came apart. I have always taken the position (and still do) that what has been found thus far was brought in by "flotsam". The main hull and treasure would be on a shallow which according to the charts is miles away. Connect the dots.

By the way, the HISTORICAL FACTS I cite herein is not at all just opinion so anything I have stated is not at all misleading to the average shareholder or other persons.

The facts are more than clear. This has not proven to be the actual site of the shipwreck. So where is it? Thats what treasure hunting is all about. Some find. Some don't.

Thats the idea. What I have said many a time in the past. Follow the trail. Connect the dots. Thats not as simple as it may sound, especially if prohibited from using excavation devices. Following that last sentence I've written, I should add almost next to impossible.

257 cow hides were inevitably stored down in the hold but it doesn't necessarily mean the box of gifts, including the plates, were stored there also. I would imagine that box received more care but then who knows?

That's a good theory but doesn't likely represent the complete picture. That piece of flotsam traveling an unknown distance, wallowing in heavy seas inevitably discharged much of its content. That was the case with the 1631 San Joseph which wrecked on a reef on the Pacific side of Panama. A large section of the ship (flotsam) went for miles before actually grounding off a small cay. Researcher Jack Haskins believed there would be a bonanza of treasure contained within. When finally found some years ago, what remained was rather disappointing. It can be either way.

Did it ever occur to you that when Heartland found the items, they worked the area extensively and found nothing further>

Got to give it to you. At least one can find good entertainment here if nothing else. I can even laugh. I'm not on the flypaper.

Why do you belabor this by showing pictures of (valid) artifacts found by Heartland (not SFRX) over ten years ago? Don't forget the one single cannon also from the general area (also originally found by Heartland). Post some photos of some "significant" artifacts recovered or even photographed on the bottom in situ.There aren't any are there. These pieces associate (including the cannon) with a fair size part of the shipwreck that broke away. Part of that side or upper deck fragment has already been seen and photographed along with a deadeye strap (by SFRX) That's called flotsam. No one seems to want to explain why there's no ballast stones, lower hull structure, no olive jar shards, no artifacts, no treasure. Furthermore no additional cannons or anchors. In my book it leads to two choices. 1.) there is no shipwreck there or
2.) There's a shipwreck there just as you want to believe there is but this outfit lacks the professionalism and expertise to find it. For me, I would choose #1. But then and here again what would I know. I take note there are experts posting here that have an answer for just about everything including one ton plus cannons floating on wooden doors. Excuse me, that should be singular, not plural.

How long do you wish to continue beating your dead horse. You don't have a shipwreck. Maybe next season just like last season. Its been funny in the eyes of many for a long time now.

For most its rather simple to understand. Dr. Baer is a creditable professional. Nevertheless he simply erred in his statement "late 16th or early 17th Century" He very well knows its early 18th Century (1700's). What amuses me is that they keep showing these deteriorated plate rims found by Heartland, but in all these years they can't produce anything of "significance" as found by themselves. The word flotsam is continuously rebuked as it doesn't fit the picture they so much want. Of course if its a one ton cannon floating on a wooden door, that they apparently want to understand (in mockery). Absurd.

Are you saying a cannon floating on a door doesn't qualify? What a sad prolonged drama.

I have no doubt that a select few that we recall here, who strongly aided and abetted Goldberg's pump and dumps, are now hiding under a rock somewhere. I hope they get nailed as well. Wow. Those mangoes are smelling putrid.

That doesn't even include the trailer load of 50 cases of rotten "mangoes" sitting in front of Goldberg's house.

I address this correction to you. 1715 falls into the 18th Century. I do believe the artifacts as found by Heartland, Inc. over a decade ago are probably from a 1715 shipwreck if not the Concepcion. I'd have to read his report again but I do believe Dr. Baer believes that as well. I outrightly believe what had been found is that of a piece of the wreck (flotsam) and that the main wreck site isn't there. The archival research produced by the late Jack Haskins also supports this as well.

For some, things need to be repeated but I don't mind.

Raider21 Friday, 09/07/18 06:10:22 AM
Re: hedge_fun post# 53771 0
Post # of 53787
For me, I see little doubt that the material found by Heartland, Inc. over a decade ago is that coming from an early 18th Century Spanish shipwreck. (The marine archaeologist reports do agree I believe) It is my understanding that the things they found (one cannon, a flintlock pistol, some plate rims, cannon balls?) were found in a relatively short period of time. SFRX is now been in this same general area, and beyond for years, and has found nothing but a buckle, a deadeye strap, some wood and a bunch of iron spikes. This before or now is not evidence of a actual shipwreck site. So am I missing something. What is the current evidence to prove otherwise?

May I say that I have just seen this. Long, long over due but it has finally happened. I want to congratulate all of the honest, forthright people who were persistent in the frustrating effort of exposing this low life creature. Justice is finally here. I guess this is now farewell to all.

Well, it doesn't take much intelligence to read those reports and understand that they are not on the shipwreck. I do believe I've explained flotsam more than a dozen times but then we have the mockery of some with posts like a cannon floating on a wooden door. Facts are facts and there are those that find them hard to deal with. Who knows, maybe next season. Follow the trail if you know how.

Quote: Thanks for the entertainment sir!!

Just comical!
_______________________________

Believe me when I say, the credit is all yours.

For me, I see little doubt that the material found by Heartland, Inc. over a decade ago is that coming from an early 18th Century Spanish shipwreck. (The marine archaeologist reports do agree I believe) It is my understanding that the things they found (one cannon, a flintlock pistol, some plate rims, cannon balls?) were found in a relatively short period of time. SFRX is now been in this same general area, and beyond for years, and has found nothing but a buckle, a deadeye strap, some wood and a bunch of iron spikes. This before or now is not evidence of a actual shipwreck site. So am I missing something. What is the current evidence to prove otherwise?

Quote: They're actually on and upon a 1700's wreck
___________________________________________________

You don't mind sharing the evidence do you? With no evidence what you say is a very misleading statement.

Probably the next best thing. Certainly haven't made it in the treasure hunting game.

I've checked the P & S profile. No background whatsoever that I can find as relating to remote sensing marine technology. It never seems to stop. ..And the band played on. So entertaining.

Doesn't seem like anyone is overly impressed with the Crypto and space age technology pitch?