Replies to post #75059 on Seafarer Exploration Corp (SFRX)

[hedge_fun]

Why would dating the wreck be of importance......

without a target in mind?

Big deal, they figured it is a wreck between 1554 and 1572.

Unless you can ID a target that sank in that timeframe that hasn't been located, that's useless information. The date would only be useful in confirming a target.

But feel free to explain why it is big news, in your opinion.

GL

[Raider21]

Quote: Raider: so it seems to me that since Roger Smith documented the wreck as a mid-1500s wreck years ago and SFRX has recovered a mid-1500s coin that the evidence is good that it is indeed a 1500 wreck site. Would you agree with that? I would think that is some pretty big news that has been verified.
👍️ 0
____________________________________________

I don't believe there was ever any doubt that the Juno site was likely mid-16th Century. That was determined well before SFRX involvement. Later, I believe marine archaeologist jim Sinclair came to the same conclusion.

As I had accurately predicted the Melbourne site was flotsam and not an actual wreck site, I also predict that the Juno wreck was a scuttling (deliberately done). Although not common, this happened on other occasions. One was the Almiranta of the 1598 New Spain fleet out of Havana. Having made it out of the Ne Bahama Canal, she was leaking badly and couldn't be repaired. With seas calm, everything was transferred off of her onto two other ships and she was left to sink. In my opinion, that's possibly what happened at Juno thus the reason why the site is devoid of cannons. Of course that's just my opinion. If there is treasure there, and SeaSearcher proves that, then my theory is wrong.