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.
InvestorsHub Community Guidelines
Effective 7/15/2023, Last updated 1/03/2024. Changes highlighted below.
* No offensive language about anyone 'Offensive language' are terms labeled as such by authorities such as Merriam Webster. Examples of this are "squaw" or "retard". The official definition is labeled "offensive."
(( im guessing that calling someone a worthless lying sack of human excrement as in post 74704, quoting someone doesn’t make it correct, would meet and exceed the standards above))
(( and it’s clear that this doesn’t exclude Kyle, who i believe is within the realm of anyone))
Per: InvestorsHub Guidelines for Moderators
Below are guidelines for Moderators on stock specific boards about what should be considered when reviewing posts.
. Offensive language about anyone should be removed. "Offensive language" are terms labeled as such by authorities such as Merriam Webster. Examples of this are "squaw" or "retard". The official definition is labeled "offensive."
Posting on the Board as a Moderator
The way a Moderator chooses to post on the board is often perceived to be a guideline for other Users. If the Moderator frequently violates the TOS others are going to feel it is permissible for them to do so also.
Glad to help
Thanks for the info. You have a great understanding of it. You are the historical authority of seafarer. I’m betting that you have the Torres debacle down cold.
Since seafarer won the case against Torres, doesn’t that separate them? When they realized that he had defrauded them, they cut him loose.
I enjoyed watching a video about him, reading about him, and his ability to con people. A catch me if you can (Abagnale) that unfortunately mislead seafarer as well.
Still can’t believe that they didn’t check up with Abagnale’s supposed medical degree. But that’s why they unfortunately get away for awhile anyway with their con game.
Interesting read:
On April 17, 2020, the Company filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida against Michael Torres (“Torres”), regarding fraud, fraud in the inducement, breach of contract and civil theft under Florida law, as well as for injunctive relief to cancel shares issued. Such shares are currently locked up with the transfer agent pending ruling of the Court. The civil theft claim seeks triple the damages for monies paid to Torres, plus attorney’s fees and costs. Torres filed a motion to dismiss which was denied by the Circuit Court on July 28, 2020. Torres filed a general denial in an answer. Seafarer was in the discovery phase of the case when both sides agreed to a mediation of the matter. Mediation of the case occurred in January 2021, and the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement which is formally being entered, which includes cancellation of all shares issued to Torres.
On January 18, 2022, Seafarer received notification from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit that 61,183,646 restricted common shares from the Defendant could be returned to the Plaintiff. On January 19, 2022, such shares were returned to the treasury stock of Seafarer and accounted for by Seafarer’s transfer agent. The settlement also included “Defendant (Torres) has agreed and hereby it is recognized by the Court that Defendant has made a full retraction of his assertions…” and agreed to pay back an undisclosed amount of money to Seafarer that the Company does not anticipate being able to collect.
Interesting, why did he admit to being libel?
Volentine admitted to his tortious conduct,
Just pulled this off the website
Says that the case is still open
https://hover.hillsclerk.com/html/case/searchResults.html
Put in his name when you get there and tell the judge that it is still open
Darrel Volentine,
It’s interesting that the judge joined the libel case with people who bought or sold stock because of it. Libel suits stand alone
Sorry for the duplication but the cut and paste section of the post was incoherent
Case
Status Filed Case Type
Click for Additional Information click here to open the case informationClick this button to create a report for the case 14-CA-008902 SEAFARER EXPLORATION CORP VS
VOLENTINE, DARRELL Open 2014-09-03 Libel-Slander
Just pulled this off the website
Says that the case is still open
https://hover.hillsclerk.com/html/case/searchResults.html
Put in his name when you get there and tell the judge that it is still open
Interesting read ….
On September 3, 2014, the Company filed a lawsuit against Darrel Volentine, of California. Mr. Volentine was sued in two counts of libel per se under Florida law, as well as a count for injunction against the Defendant to exclude and prohibit internet postings. Such lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit is based upon internet postings on www.investorshub.com. On or about October 15, 2015, the Company and Volentine entered into a stipulation whereby Volentine admitted to his tortious conduct, however the stipulated damages agreed to were rejected by the Court, and the Company is proceeding to trial on damages against Volentine in a non-jury trial on December 1, 2015. The Defendant is the subject of a contempt of court motion which was heard on April 7, 2016, whereby the Court found a violation and modified the injunction against the Defendant, and imposed other matters of potential penalties against the Defendant. The Court also awarded attorney’s fees against the Defendant on behalf of Seafarer for such motion. The Defendant subsequently attempted to have such ruling, evidence and testimony attacked through a motion heard before the Court on October 24, 2016. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s motion after presentation of the Defendant’s case at the hearing. The Plaintiff has set the matter for entry of the attorney’s fees amount due from the Defendant for hearing in December 2016. As well the Plaintiff has set for hearing its motion for sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees for frivolous filing of the October 24th motion, which motion is also set for hearing in December 2016. The Plaintiff filed a renewed and amended motion for punitive damages in the case on September 11, 2016, which has not been set for hearing. The Defendant had also filed a motion for summary judgment on the matter of notice entitlement pre-suit, which motion is pending before the Court. The Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against the Defendant for the motion for summary judgment being frivolous under existing law, and such motion is pending ruling on the motion. On December 7, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the Defendant’s motion for sanctions, and essentially attempting to rehear the motion for contempt against the Defendant. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s motions, and renewed the ability of the Company to seek attorney’s fees on such matter, which hearing has not been set at present. On February 28, 2017, the Court entered an Order denying the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Company has filed a motion for punitive damages in March 2021 to be added to the cause of action and to be heard by the Court. The counsel for Volentine filed a motion to withdraw which was granted on March 7, 2021, and Volentine was given 60 days to obtain new counsel or proceed without such. The Company is seeking to get such matter to trial as soon as possible. Volentine, as of the date of this publication, has not obtained new counsel.
What good news made the hive swarm?
Hedge, since you obviously have a very good grasp on TOS and are on the board.
I’m in need of some more clarification and I suspect that there are other people who would greatly benefit from your expertise.
I think that it would be easier for you to talk us through by providing a few actual posts. Looking forward to hearing how you, as a board member, would respond to whether any of these posts violated the terms of service? Having been contacted and warned about violating TOS by you, please educate me before I make any further mistakes!
Here are a few:
1. “I would have to ask if he's in on a con job regarding Melbourne. Same with Kyle.??Are they stupid or are they con artists? I'll be nice and just say they're both STUPID. What choice do I have?”
2. “Are you saying this isn’t a dry hole? ??How ‘bout you put up or shut up? ??Same for the rest of the sheep. ??Or will you carry SFRX’s water if it is just another dry hole? “
3. “I think you meant, lay another turd……. ??That’s what they’re known for in the industry, turd laying. ??There is a huge gap in what they want to be known for (industry leading recovery process, game changing tech) and what they’re actually known for. ??The gap is so wide you could place 15B turds end to end within said gap.??Most shareholders have gotten so used to the smell, there won’t be any ramifications if they lay yet another turd at Juno.”
4. Here are some one liners that were used by the same poster. I pulled out a few:
But hey, the hot air balloon has taken off.
It’s hot air until it isn’t.-a hot air balloon ride. -a good hot air balloon ride
Enjoy the hot air balloon ride,
Enjoy the hot air balloon ride,
get the hot air balloon?
It was a hot air balloon ride
the concept of a hot air balloon ride.
Both SFRX and APR@ are known for the hot air balloon rides.
The wood worms were a rare species called…….treasurous poopus. ?Like SFRX, they’re very special. coveredinwormpoopbro……
The miracle of worm poop. Mint condition silver,
The worm were “allegedly” smart enough to…… poop on all the treasure, except maybe the one coin they found.
exploring the oceans floor in search of worm poop, cuz
covered in worm poop
5. These are some single shots at other different posters:
Did I call you a liar? No. ?Nad-less? Well……if the shoe fits. “
#chickenshit
so hard to understand?
#simpledenialdumbass
#spewyourbullshit
Looking forward to hearing how you, as a board member, would respond to whether any of these posts violated the terms of service? Thanks again!
Hedge, You didn’t answer the question. Plenty of deflection but no evidence. You know that for 100% certainty that they have experience in the dredge because of past statements? Are you familiar with the term “poisoning the well “? It’s your logic that drives your argument against the company.
Now really, in the building, designing of the dredge by the company you’re 100 % certain that they have no expertise nor did they consult with anyone who had any expertise?
If you’re right, I think that I need to know more about your conclusion. Please clarify again for me. Thanks
According to Hedge:
73783
“Someone with far more salvage experience that those on Team SFRX commented on the dredge. He made his point and you made yours, which was by design.“
I need further clarification about this evaluation of the dredge.
How do you know that: “someone with far more salvage experience than those on Team SFRX commented on the dredge.”
This information will be valuable in my future evaluation of sfrx.
You are a board member that would evaluate the post. Is that correct?
I never said Team SFRX consulted with any……
experts, which is likely the main reason they haven’t located or ID a treasure wreck since inception.
So they didn’t consult with any experts, and you know that how?
Quote from hedge:
“Someone with far more salvage experience that those on Team SFRX commented on the dredge. He made his point and you made yours, which was by design.“
Can you please give us the names on Team SFRX? Alphabetical order would be great and would you also tell us which experts that they consulted with
Interesting that I have been warned about violating the board’s terms of service by Hedge.
I have read and reviewed what I have posted and I can’t see how this is possible. I did not berate, attack the person in question (Raider21). I never said that he was not an expert. I said that I am a featherweight. I was directly posting about the dredge. Which qualifies under the terms of agreement.
So, I’m not sure why I can’t counter the conclusions that he brought up.
As a businessman who ran his own company for years, I think that I have some knowledge about how a business works. I would not build a dredge but….
So, from that perspective, it seems that sfrx would put together a team of experts and engineers, who are knowledgeable about what they needed the dredge to accomplish. It’s what any business would do. Don’t you agree?
Maybe it’s focused on keeping the archaeological evidence as intact as possible. I don’t know. Nobody knows.
I just think that both sides should have an equal opportunity to speculate and provide an alternative explanation for why the people who have already decided that they have all the answers with out having actually examined the technology they are so quick to dismiss it.
“But these discoveries paled when compared to his discovery of November 1890, when he illuminated a vacuum tube wirelessly—having transmitted energy through the air.
This was the beginning of Tesla's lifelong obsession—the wireless transmission of energy.”
I love to read and the above account is what has drawn me to watch the sfrx saga. Wireless transmission of energy! Amazing.
“
Raider gave an opinion, which all Ihub members are allowed to give. Perhaps you don’t like it, but there is always tomorrow. I’m sure someone will have an opinion you won’t agree with then either.
That’s how Ihub was designed. You’ll notice you can even click a Bullish or Bearish button when making a post. “
I’m so confused. You repeatedly berate people on the board, over and over again, take their comments out of context and twist them beyond belief, and I am the one who is violating the terms of service? Amazing
“When you state 'I’m no salvage expert. Im the featherweigh', you were being honest. Whereas you aren't, I am.”
Are you the only salvage expert that can design a dredge? Can evaluate a dredge without actually having personally examined it? Is that what you’re saying? I did not realize that you were the only expert in the field available for consultation.
Ultimately, any reasonable person would grant that the seava3000 , aka the sand sucker by Sir Hedge, was built by sfrx for a specific range of purposes that were designed and developed for that goal.
Would it be too much to assume that they are more in tune with what their specifications for their dredge would have to be?
Would it be possible that they have first hand knowledge that the arm chair experts don’t have?
Or, should they have consulted with the armchair experts on this board for their opinion on how the dredge should have been built?
I’m no salvage expert. Im the featherweight. I’m just trying to point out the obvious biases and negative conclusions that certain people make.
I’m just trying to figure out how someone can watch a video, post that it would not work on carpet almost immediately, without having even worked with it, seen it up close,
Again, what settings are available for suction? Are there other settings? Would it be possible that if the device was running on another level that the video would have been obscured? Nobody knows! I’m pretty sure that they didn’t test it on the carpet.
I don’t know. Never seen it and don’t claim to make assumptions based on bias with out having all the facts.
Revisiting a topic that I have brought up twice but has been not addressed by Sir Hedge, I have decided that perhaps the best solution is to make the it a single point and make the questions simple.
Here is the quote that I am referring to and am attempting to understand the foundation behind this declaration.
72722
“The platform is an unpatentable shallow water ROV built around readily available third party sensors. “Even the “alleged” machine learning algorithms touted by SFRX are not a new idea and are being used by many other providers of subsea survey sensors.”
I would love to know the answers to the following questions. Please share them with us as we are looking forward to reading your answers soon.
1. is this your quote from a post 72722, on the investors hub board, specifically sfrx?
2. Have you ever seen this “shallow water ROV before?
3. How close physically have you come to the “shallow water ROV”?
4. To be clear, is this “shallow water ROV” is in fact the same as the one pictured on the sfrx website, facebook page ?
5. Now, you have made several claims about the “shallow water ROV “ in this post. Would you agree with this statement?
6. Have you ever seen the inside workings of the “shallow water ROV”?
7. If so, please share the date(s), time(s) of this examination.
8. How did you get your knowledge about the algorithms that you make mention of in your post?
9. What exactly are these “readily available third party sensors “?
10. Since they are so readily available, and you know what sensors they use, I would think that you would be happy to out the system in the “shallow water ROV”
Sir Hedge used or tried to use a study that proved his point. I read the study. You conveniently left out that It’s twenty years old, it was done by a single person who had to operate the entire system and the boat both, they didn’t examine any targets, they left out any targets that were below six nanotesla.
@. copied and pasted from study @
“”At a sensor to target distance of 2 to 3 meters there will need to be at least 1-2 kilograms of iron. This can produce a 1-2 nT anomaly that is detectable in a magnetically clean environment.””
“”Upon final completion of data acquisition, anomalies equaling six nanotesla (nT) or more were flagged, plotted and individually cataloged. The number of anomalies cataloged as a result of this process totaled 1,370.””
((So, from what I’ve read, this study was done, twenty years ago, its better to have at least two people doing the survey, the technology is old, they tossed out targets below six nanotesla that the old technology found, …. Yet, sir hedge used the study to prove his claim. Amazing. When challenged, he ignores his facts and twists his logic to make a predictable conclusion.
Can you tell us what the weight of the targets that were, say , five nanotesla?
Hedge makes up the argument:
“If someone needs credentials to comment, doesn’t…. “
((More drama queen babble))
So, please show us the post that i made that statement. I noted that Raider21 brought up his credentials that he had expertise with dredges then stated that sfrx dredge can’t work on carpet.
I never mentioned, stated, implied that credentials were required for anyone.
According to Sir Hedge:
“So if it’s not your opinion, is it……
((Never offered my opinion, I was trying to understand how someone could watch a video, bring up their expertise, and then conclude that the sfrx dredge would not work on carpet)))
“FACT?”
(( never said that or anything like that, that is your opinion, comment, conclusion not mine.))
“Was the world supposed to be overwhelmed and in awe when they saw the video?”
((Drama queen babble …. Never implied that the world was to be overwhelmed. Your comment, conclusion, inference … building up the straw man … but you’re the only person who could dream up a conclusion like that …. Thanks for sharing. But, nobody but you brought it up! ))))
“They said the dredge is still being tested, which means…..it ain’t ready for prime time.”
((((Amazing, if it is being tested, then it is not ready for prime time. What did I tell you about those if then logic statements? What stage of development are they currently in? You don’t know. Are they tweaking the batteries? Are they trying to balance the suction power with the goal of limiting the disruption of the site? How about the hose diameter? In my opinion you don’t know and don’t want to know. ))))
“For almost 5 years SFRX has said the tech works. What credentials do they have to make such a claim?”
(((( thought you said that credentials weren’t required. ;@). What credentials do you have that they don’t work? How do you know that they don’t work? Are they supposed to bow down to Sir Hedge, invite him to actually look over the company business? Isn’t that insider trading? ))))
“In other words, where is the treasure?”
((( indeed! Where’s the treasure? That’s what everyone wants to know!!)))
“Have a great weekend!!!”
(((Thanks, you too!)))
It’s not my opinion. Raider21 has brought up the issue. I’m just trying to figure out how much actual access he had to the dredge.
He said that he had experience with dredges and then unequivocally said that the sfrx dredge basically that it would not work on carpet.
I think that since he brought in his expertise he should let us know how he came to this conclusion.
I never said that you needed credentials. Have you or he ever actually examined it? That’s the question.
What direct contact did raider21 have with the dredge? Has he ever actually examined it? Simple question! Is that simple enough?
Raider21 went to great lengths to make sure that his credentials were properly listed so as to ensure that his conclusion was properly appreciated.
Thanks. But I’m curious, how many hours do you have using the machine? What settings are there? How does the suction handle the variable conditions? Which diver were you?
If you don’t have any factual information about the dredge, then how did you come to your conclusions?
Adding more for hedge:
Sorry, I forgot that you love to ignore the core issues.
If Raider21 has not actually examined the dredge in question, then how can he make any factual statements about it.
Raider21 went to great lengths to make sure that his credentials were properly listed so as to ensure that his conclusion was properly appreciated.
Thanks. But I’m curious, how many hours do you have using the machine? What settings are there? How does the suction handle the variable conditions? Which diver were you?
If you don’t have any factual information about the dredge, then how did you come to your conclusions?
I’m remembering that several times when we visited the “dead animals museum” in NYC. (At least that’s what my perceptive daughter called it)
Anyway, several times we went through it with the goal of visiting the visiting artifacts area. We dropped at least $8-10 bucks per person to see it. It was in addition to the cost of entering the museum. Thousands and thousands each weekend did the same thing as I had to ask the guards because of the long lines. If (since we don’t know yet) the treasure is found, I would pay for the right to see it and be introduced to the technology discovered it. I spent extra in several European cities to see extra exhibits.
Thanks for your input. Seems like the weather doesn’t really want to cooperate. Someone posted the weather report for the area and it looked pretty crappy.
Only in the world of Sir Hedge, quoting his post verbatim
“You have someone here who says he sees…… “
Amazing! Tell us more please …. Oh, wait, you can’t, but you can make it up.
“Kyle a couple of times a month in Melbourne. I have no idea if that is true or not. “
Then why in the world would you say that? Why speculate about what you don’t know?
“In his opinion things won’t happen as quickly as some think. “
In whose opinion? Kyle’s? The made up phantom? How did you learn about this opinion? So, how did you come up with this conclusion?
“I am not shocked by such a suggestion. I have said that myself. “
I’m not shocked that you would bring up an unsubstantiated person who has unsubstantiated opinions that you are privileged to make up.
“If they had data to support a claim treasure was on site, we would have already seen it.“
More brilliant speculation. Have you stopped beating your wife? Your assumption that if this then that is true is is inherently flawed. Not that this matters to you.
“Of course that’s just my opinion. And even though SFRX has never found treasure, I am the one that is said to always be wrong”.
How clever is your word salad. Adding a disclaimer about an unsubstantiated statement that you made up.
“Hope it works out for ya and TB fries me up some crow.”
Purposely misleading the facts with intent to discredit a company is nothing to laugh about.
Why did sir hedge not point out that
1) report was 2003
2) and it clearly stated:
Attempts to visually inspect and/or identify anomalies were not conducted as part of this survey
Yet, Sir Hedge has purposely avoided these facts, the truth, and made misleading statements about what is actually found in the report.
He makes claims that the report does not!
Why?
Survey Summary
• This summary discusses the purpose, time frame, location, equipment used, methodology, personnel, weather conditions, sea conditions and data gathered during a remote sensing survey conducted by Dick Johnson for Tulco, Ltd. in the summer of 2003.
• The purpose of the survey was to systematically investigate an area of ocean floor for indications of historically significant submerged and/or buried cultural resources.
More specifically, the intent of this survey was to detect local distortions (anomalies) in the earth's magnetic field, in an effort to locate the remains of an early period sailing vessel.
.
Survey data was collected on thirty-eight separate days between June 10th and August 23 of 2003 and was limited primarily by sea state and weather conditions. Seas in excess of three feet and/or thunderstorms occasionally precluded survey work during this time period.
• Attempts to visually inspect and/or identify anomalies were not conducted as part of this survey
(Interesting, my comment)
26.87978 -80.05337 But don’t tell! ;@)
Since Sir Hedge has trouble with sarcasm, I think it would be appropriate for me to disclose that the above coordinates are for humor and sarcasm only. ;@)
More speculative word salad
Conclusions based upon speculation is speculation
So that means that the technology that was used was twenty years ago. Am I reading this correctly? And technology has not improved since then?
What year did they search Juno ? How many nautical miles, did they search? What was the speed at which they searched? How wide of a search area for each pass? How deep did the the signal go? Did they locate the “worm poop” site? Any other information you could share would be greatly appreciated
One of my bad habits is that I just love learning about new things. I’ve been reading about patents for metal detecting and this was interesting to me. Make of it as you wish. I’m not claiming any expertise except that I am currently a featherweight per SirHedge.
US Patent for Pulse induction metal detector Patent (Patent # 5,414,411)
Below is a cut and paste paragraph from the patent noted above
The high frequency of transmitted pulses together with a relatively fast integration time of 100 msec and the fast response RC coupling network (also 100 msec) all cooperate to produce a pulse induction metal detector that can detect low conductivity, nonferrous metals such as gold in highly mineralized environments. The system uses a differential integrator circuit to eliminate common mode noise. A short sampling delay, the fast integrator response time, together with the RC coupling network having the same time constant, permits a faster sweep of the target area without an accompanying reduction in sensitivity, increase in noise, or false signals and better discrimination between ferrous and more valuable non-ferrous metals of lower conductivity.
Sir Hedge, I’m glad that you’re sticking with your opinion about patents (or anything) nobody is trying to change your mind about anything.
To quote you, there are good minds who believe that it can’t be done. I’m not one of them.
I believe that there are two sides of the coin and that is why I and others present the other side, if there is another side. It’s not personal, it’s business.
It’s just that you are not saying, in my opinion, this is what you think is true or false about something. Your appear to have an agenda (my speculation) that’s driving your speculation. Im just asking you to follow up with the facts that back up your claims and admit when your claims are currently speculative.
Your claim that it has been years of not providing evidence that the “shallow water ROV” is actually true. I never debated that fact. What conclusion that can be drawn is the point of conflict.
News flash, only sfrx knows. Why they haven’t is known to them alone. Period. You don’t know. I don’t know.
But your conclusion that it proves that the technology doesn’t work is an argument from absence! You can’t make any factual statements from it. But, anyone can speculate on what it means.
So, here’s the other side of the coin. My speculation. I’m the feather weight regarding sfrx, but here goes.
One, if it was me, I wouldn’t patent it. Period. They are not going to mass market it so why do it?
Next, I’m going to present an apple to oranges example. When you have the optometrist takes a picture of the back of your eye, you can thank the gentleman who invented it. I actually saw the prototype and it was amazing. He didn’t patent it for years as he didn’t want the technology out before he could get the funding to build it on a mass scale. He sent amazing photos to promote it, and they all wanted the technology. Again, apples to oranges speculation is just that: speculation.
And I was very impressed when you said that what I said about the possibility of having the technology ripped off by the Chinese you said that it was priceless. If the technology works, then it would make it very valuable and perhaps priceless.
Notice that i said if. I don’t know if it works, you don’t know that it doesn’t. The story is not fully written yet. Do you agree?
I also enjoyed that you speculated about the coins that have been found. I never would have thought about them being pocket change. You bought human drama into the discussion. I briefly thought about all the lives lost and wondered whose money was found.