Replies to post #25613 on Seafarer Exploration Corp (SFRX)

[SuperNova$]

Indeed, I would LOVE to be enlightened by "verifiable" information as to that.

However I am fairly confident none will be forthcoming. Very nice volume today, hmmmm.


$SFRX

MM76

[fink]

It's been presented in the past.
But so confusion doesn't run rampant,

"Sovereign Submerged Land Easement No.303690"

Google it.


There is already an easement granted. Any encroachment will be shot down.


"In furtherance of the issues raised above, the BBWR requests that the XXX be prohibited from performing any investigative word within out easement"
......,
" Please notify me is to the status of any authorization request filed with the District for archeological investigations within the vicinity of 'OUR' easement by XXX or any other Group."



I pray for the pps and the inflated market cap KK can pull Site3 off. One old refurbished ship and two lousy sites can hardly justify any market cap over $4mm.

[Raider21]

Don't agree. It is not to the State of Florida's financial interests since they don't commercially sell their received division of artifacts and treasure. At least they haven't in the past. Their interest is historical. In truth, I believe the state would be overjoyed if this Site #3 proved to be something else other than a 1715 Fleet wreck. If I'm wrong and there is evidence on public record proving otherwise(sale of treasure) I would like to know. This is a SFRX ballgame with allot to gain. As to the state, I believe they'd be joyous if this Site 3 proved to be something new other than another 1715 Fleet shipwreck as they have been accumulating artifacts and treasure from these particular wrecks for over forty years now. Be that what it may, the existing evidence apparently seen by some does point to a 1715'er.