Quote: Let me ask you then?
Why would the state require a extensive site plan for the ring site?
_____________________________________________________
First of all let me ask you, do you know what a underwater 'site plan' is? Its a mapping of a shipwreck site using a bearing azimuth that's positioned, usually in the proximity of the center of site. Measurements of bearing and distance are then done of exposed/visible objects. Bearing and distance is also recorded of assumed ferrous/non-ferous objects in the sub-bottom (but of course by your statements and others) the Timmy Toy already knows what these sub-surface objects are. That how a sight plan is produced as recorded by the underwater site planner/s. If this plan is based on total reliance of what Timmy Toy says, I wouldn't bet the life of an ant on it. If the plan consists of superficially observed objects, well then super-do, experienced divers or the contract archaeologist should be capable of readily identifying said objects; anchors, cannons, partially exposed piles of treasure, etc. I doubt that is the case which all equates to more barn yard bull crap.