accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

[ivan salis]

accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

first we need to know how many vessels there was in the joint fleet altogether -- 12 vessels in total if one includes the french vessel griffon * * which was the only vessel to survive the hurricane --it returned to brest , france ) --so minus the french vessel from the 12 ship total -- that leaves a total of 11 spanish ships sunk in total -- 5 of these were Ubilla's fleet , and 6 in Echeverz's fleet .

8 vessels were stuck together as the main fleet ( this was all 5 of ubilla;s fleet -- plus the 2 major treasure vessels of Echeverz fleet carrying the kings treasure and the dutch prize vessel "Olandesa "/ san miguel-- aka as "senora de la popa" which Echeverz wrote from as his shelter (real) during recovery operations (thus it was in the area of loss near the two main treasure vessels of Echeverz fleet)-- thus we know that the 8 vessels sank together are all of Ubillas fleet (5) and the two main treasure vessels plus the dutch prize vessel of Echeverz's fleet (3)

while 4 vessels * split off earlier before the main storm struck the fleet * -- it was the griffon and 3 of Echeverz frigate type vessels according to the tesimony of Capt Nicolas de Ynda taken in havana on august 16th , 1715 ( santo domingo #419)-- Ynda was the pilot major of Ubilla's Almiranta --two days before the storm struck the french vessel griffion left the main fleet -- one day before the strom struck the frigate san miguel (tobacco hauler) left the fleet thats #1-- the day of the storm the frigate " Concepcion" left the main fleet #2 and the third frigate type vessel from Echevez must then be the french prize vessel --also known as "El Ciervo" --(unknown exactly when she departed but as he said 3 frigates of Echeverz fleet and with all the other vessel accounted for it must be this one)

of the 3 missing Echeverz vessels only one was "offically" listed as carrying treasure ---the "Concepcion" but all most likely had large amount of smuggled gold and silver aboard them as well as trade goods--the Concepcion is reported to have had some survivors wash ashore in the cape area after floating for a couple days on a hatch cover . --which leads many to think she was lost at or slightly below the cape area .

Admerial salmon ( who was 2nd in charge of the fleet until Ubilla died -- then he was in charge of it and who was in charge of the recovery operations) stated --in his sept 20th letter to the king --9 vessels are sunk and 2 galloeones of echeverz are missing -- note 9 +2 =11 vessels -- ( PS Echeverz fleet was called the "galloenes" so no the "treasure vessels were not "missing")--( thus the 8 main fleet vessels and the concepcion* were known lost and "accounted for" by salmon) and he said of the other 2 there is little doubt that they sank upon the high seas because wreckage of a large vessel or vessels was found on the north shore of st augustine (debris was found on the northern st augustine coastline )--that could be from either the french prize vessel --"el ciervo" and / or the tobbaco hauler San Miguel ( however it might be some wreckage from another vessel )

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[itmaiden]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

I think the accuracy of his account is lacking.

itmaiden

 

[ivan salis]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

which one IT and why? after all one is the head pilot of the fleet * (ynda) and the other the #2 in command of the fleet (salmon) both were on the scene and there when the events occured .

 

[itmaiden]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

As you well know Fisheye, this account contradicts other accounts. Which one are you more likely to believe ? Based on a clue on an old map, and also based on my own "finds" I can dispute at least part of this account for sure.
Right now I am in the process of matching up a significant ship structure with the nationality that built the ship, which is difficult because of some similarities in the construction for that time period. But this structure is identical to one I found in another section of the combined fleet.

This was a powerful hurricane. The Melbourne discovery is going to be vital in verifying any account. We can only guess at the order the ships may have ended up in after leaving Havana and after being hit by the storm. Spanish "Ships" often travelled in tight formation for security. However, that may have been difficult going through the Florida straits. Smaller vessels could have sailed abreast of the larger ones, but I suspect the most condensed the fleet could have been were 3 to a row. But even that is questionable when looking at Ocean Topography for the area. The Straits do bottleneck in a couple of places, and as the ships approach Cape Canaveral, they do have to head Northeasterly a little early to avoid the shoals.

The storm was a Hurricane, nothing less. The distance of ocean affected by such a storm is so great, I do not see it as feasible for "ships that allegedly separated" from the main fleets to have survived. If a ship such as the French ship left 1 day ahead, it is possible. But in one and the same day, the ships could not travel far enough fast enough to avoid catastrophe. Could there be a larger scatter pattern for the fleets ? Sure there could be, given the fact they have to give each other room leaving out of the harbor and taking great care going through the Straits. These ships were heavy laden. The Gulf Stream does facilitate the speed of travel. However, the normal current was being disrupted by the impending Hurricane. How many times have you watched an area 2 to 3 days in advance of an approaching Hurricane ? Have you noticed the seas ? This Hurricane hit them hard and fast for sure. We do know there is wreckage from this fleet from the Sebastian area down to the Hutchinson Island area. That is not a small storm. Upper bands of the Hurricane hit the Sebastian area, and I will tell you that upper westward bands hit at the Hutchinson Island area also based on old photos showing debris scatter patterns. So just how large was the top half of this beastly storm ? I do think the Hutchinson Island area was closer to the eye of the storm perhaps. I do not think it was a tight eye. I think the outer bands were the most powerful for this storm and that the top part of the fleet took the hardest hit.

itmaiden

which one IT and why? after all one is the head pilot of the fleet * (ynda) and the other the #2 in command of the fleet (salmon) both were on the scene and there when the events occured .

 

[GOHO]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

My Thoughts....


I believe their were only 11 ships of the Plate fleet and the Griffon a French ship held in Havana from sailing until the treasure fleet was ready to depart because fear of them warning pirates of the treasure fleets departure. So 12 ships left Havana harbour!

I think of the Storm that sank the fleet as a storm like Hurricane Francis or Jean in 2004. I believe the storm came pretty much straight in from the east because one of the letters states that "the sun never rose that day". I also think the eye of the storm came across near St Lucie because Lima's ship (which is not the wedge wreck at pepper park) stayed intact wedged between to reefs. If Lima's ship had been in the eye wall like Salmon or Ubilla it would have been disintegrated the same as their ships.
In some of the letters from the survivors they give fairly accurate distances to the salvage camps from Lima's camp at (27'15) and from his ship at (27'10) to the Capitiana (10 leagues away). After a month or two the distances between all the wrecks is stated as 15 or 16 leagues. The biggest problem with these numbers are people try to put them on a modern day map, that wont work unless you know how to convert them to Spanish measurements.
Echeverez did have a couple ships separate from the fleet the day of the storm and a couple days before the storm. I think the wreck that Rex Stalker has in his area is the ship that left the day of the storm. The ship that left 2 days before the storm is wrecked farther north not sure if its north of St Augustine or South (that is a translation issue). I think the letter says "to the leeward of St Augustine" and the translator said North. The Griffon made it back to France and did not even know that there was a storm. He separated 3 days before the storm hit.

There wouldn't have been a disaster if Echeverez didn't sail so slowly, holding up the entire fleet. Ubilla had to wait on him many times sailing up the channel. That's why the ships separated, they knew it was dangerous sailling the Bahama channel so slowly and they wanted to get out of there.

 

[itmaiden]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

I think the Pepper Park Wreck got caught within the eye and sailed with the eye as it moved onto shore. There was another wreck I located that better fit the description of the Urca. Time will tell hopefully before any more storms destroy more wreckage. Other wreckage at Hutchinson I believe occured just before from the westward bands of the hurricane. If there were any ships behind these, they were most likely pushed further out to sea by the lower bands....and/or totally immersed in sand

itmaiden

My Thoughts....


I believe their were only 11 ships of the Plate fleet and the Griffon a French ship held in Havana from sailing until the treasure fleet was ready to depart because fear of them warning pirates of the treasure fleets departure. So 12 ships left Havana harbour!

I think of the Storm that sank the fleet as a storm like Hurricane Francis or Jean in 2004. I believe the storm came pretty much straight in from the east because one of the letters states that "the sun never rose that day". I also think the eye of the storm came across near St Lucie because Lima's ship (which is not the wedge wreck at pepper park) stayed intact wedged between to reefs. If Lima's ship had been in the eye wall like Salmon or Ubilla it would have been disintegrated the same as their ships.
In some of the letters from the survivors they give fairly accurate distances to the salvage camps from Lima's camp at (27'15) and from his ship at (27'10) to the Capitiana (10 leagues away). After a month or two the distances between all the wrecks is stated as 15 or 16 leagues. The biggest problem with these numbers are people try to put them on a modern day map, that wont work unless you know how to convert them to Spanish measurements.
Echeverez did have a couple ships separate from the fleet the day of the storm and a couple days before the storm. I think the wreck that Rex Stalker has in his area is the ship that left the day of the storm. The ship that left 2 days before the storm is wrecked farther north not sure if its north of St Augustine or South (that is a translation issue). I think the letter says "to the leeward of St Augustine" and the translator said North. The Griffon made it back to France and did not even know that there was a storm. He separated 3 days before the storm hit.

There wouldn't have been a disaster if Echeverez didn't sail so slowly, holding up the entire fleet. Ubilla had to wait on him many times sailing up the channel. That's why the ships separated, they knew it was dangerous sailling the Bahama channel so slowly and they wanted to get out of there.

 

[ivan salis]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

oh there is no doubt that the french vessel griffion was "forced" to sail with the fleet to prevent "news" leaks to pirate types -- their only choices were sail with the fleet or sit two additional weeks "in port" in havana before departing --easy choice for the french capt -- as the storm was approaching I'm quite sure he said screw those slow overloaded wallowing hogs --I'm getting the heck out of here. ( and by getting back ahead of the fleet he could tell folks the spanish treasure fleet was on their way inbound * -- little did he know at the time but not a one other vessel from that group other than his would make it back)

 

[Sapper23]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

If it helps any,

Just north of St. Aug. Inlet; coins and personal item's, pottery
have been found relating to the fleet. but these items can come from a
anywhere.??

 

[pcolaboy]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

Since I'm located on the north-central Gulf Coast, i've spent most of my time researching local colonial wrecks. However, as of late I've begun taking a strong interest in the 1715 fleet.

At the risk of being laughed out of the forum for suggesting it, has anyone considered the possibility that one or more of the ships, or siginificant chunks of them could have been carried over dunes between Lucie Inlet and Ft. Pierce and deposited into the Indian River?

Sound crazy? Well before you totally dismiss this notion, you must know I've lived my entire life on a coast that has had more than it's fair share of direct hits by major hurricanes and I've seen what they can do. In 1975, the storm surge from Hurricane Eloise (only a Cat 2 storm) carried a 500 ton crew boat over the front beach and deposited it into the lagoon. The surge from Hurricane Camile in 1969 carried several 100 ton trawlers through the town of Ocean Springs, Mississippi and smashed them in the back bayou. In 1979 Hurricane Frederic carried a 3000 ton target ship from it's moorings in the Gulf, and over the dunes on Perdido Key only to be redeposited back in the gulf just offshore as the surge receeded.

Hypothetically speaking of course, if indeed a heavily-ladened, wooden, spanish galleon was exposed to these same forces and somehow managed to remain somewhat intact while being carried over a barrier island, it would probably be smashed to bits on the other side by its own weight and the subsequent forces of the surge itself. If this happened, could it not be plausible that none of the salvage crew knew of these vessels because they had disintegrated after being deposited on the river side and were totally covered by water and sand?

Just a thought.

Pcola

 

[GOHO]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

You are right on in your thinking of a storm surge carring a ship over the dunes..... In the Gulf, There are higher storm surges because the water has no place to go but its a little different on the east coast. We do have storm surges and i know of at least two vessel that are 100 yards back in the mangroves south of Ft Pierce but there is no evidence of a 1715 vessel crossing the dune. It is known that thru out history that certain areas on the coast would breach and open an inlet and it might stay open for a couple years and another storm could close it. I think maybe it's possible that some time in history a vessel got carried into the lagoon but i doubt 1715 fleet.

 

[ivan salis]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

sapper 23 -- please note that salmon wrotethe following info ----there is little doubt they sank on the high seas (ie in deeper water than the spanish could salvage at the time) because "wreckage of a large vessel or vessels was found on the "north coast / coast north"( folks dicker of which way is the proper translation) of st augustine.--- the 1715 era items you say come from just north of st augustine might be related to what salmon is speaking of in his sept 20th, 1715 letter.

 

[itmaiden]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

I know of 2 places where debris crossed the dunes into the river from the 1715 fleet. However, it is already under lease. The debris were large chunks but didn't travel far over the dunes, and the dunes were quite narrow at those areas. The debris may be from one and the same ship or possibly 2 different ships. I have yet to locate any other debris from the fleet in the lagoon.

itmaiden

Since I'm located on the north-central Gulf Coast, i've spent most of my time researching local colonial wrecks. However, as of late I've begun taking a strong interest in the 1715 fleet.

At the risk of being laughed out of the forum for suggesting it, has anyone considered the possibility that one or more of the ships, or siginificant chunks of them could have been carried over dunes between Lucie Inlet and Ft. Pierce and deposited into the Indian River?

Sound crazy? Well before you totally dismiss this notion, you must know I've lived my entire life on a coast that has had more than it's fair share of direct hits by major hurricanes and I've seen what they can do. In 1975, the storm surge from Hurricane Eloise (only a Cat 2 storm) carried a 500 ton crew boat over the front beach and deposited it into the lagoon. The surge from Hurricane Camile in 1969 carried several 100 ton trawlers through the town of Ocean Springs, Mississippi and smashed them in the back bayou. In 1979 Hurricane Frederic carried a 3000 ton target ship from it's moorings in the Gulf, and over the dunes on Perdido Key only to be redeposited back in the gulf just offshore as the surge receeded.

Hypothetically speaking of course, if indeed a heavily-ladened, wooden, spanish galleon was exposed to these same forces and somehow managed to remain somewhat intact while being carried over a barrier island, it would probably be smashed to bits on the other side by its own weight and the subsequent forces of the surge itself. If this happened, could it not be plausible that none of the salvage crew knew of these vessels because they had disintegrated after being deposited on the river side and were totally covered by water and sand?

Just a thought.

Pcola

 

[itmaiden]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

And who knows how much new development has been built on top of "treasure" or "archaeological artifacts". There have been several instances of construction crews finding treasure along the coast. What we don't know is if it was intentionally buried, or lost with time and sand, or washed up at the time of the disaster. But considering the tales I've heard I would say "buried".

itmaiden

You are right on in your thinking of a storm surge carring a ship over the dunes..... In the Gulf, There are higher storm surges because the water has no place to go but its a little different on the east coast. We do have storm surges and i know of at least two vessel that are 100 yards back in the mangroves south of Ft Pierce but there is no evidence of a 1715 vessel crossing the dune. It is known that thru out history that certain areas on the coast would breach and open an inlet and it might stay open for a couple years and another storm could close it. I think maybe it's possible that some time in history a vessel got carried into the lagoon but i doubt 1715 fleet.

 

[billinstuart]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

After the last hurricane, a ships keel was located west of the dunes near Normandy beach. Tommy Gore noticed it also. Turns out this timber had washed up on the beach and was drug by tractor to its western location.

This keel was from the SS America, from the 1800's. All the timbers were on the beach. I recovered one piece and gave it to the Elliott museum. Unfortunately, some idiot at the state identified the debris a bridge timbers, and the 60' keel went to the dump.

Point is..stuff doesn't necessarily wash over the dunes!

did I mention my contempt for state experts?

 

[itmaiden]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

bill - in - stuart...

If treasure was a snake it would bite you bill. Well almost. Don't discount waves and winds Bill.

itmaiden

Point is..stuff doesn't necessarily wash over the dunes!

 

[rgecy]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

There are other threads on this topic from several years ago. I remember seeing a picture somewhere of cannon and an anchor being found when a house foundation was being dug at the corrigans site.

I firmly believe there was some debris that washed over the dunes in other areas. I have heard several people say they have fund coins along the bask side of the dunes on the indian river shore line.

Robert

 

[billinstuart]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, just that there may have been intervention in some cases. I have no doubt there is indeed stuff west of the dunes. Dunes are comprised of wind blown sand, and are very fragile. The timbers from the America were well up on the beach at Normandy, which was relatively steep. Within a couple days the sea reclaimed all of the timbers on the beach, btw. In any case, items in the dunes will settle pretty quickly and be covered with sand as vegetation reestablishes itself.

A couple miles north, the sea breached the dunes easily and was creating new inlets in a couple places. Had this occurred in the area of the America, those items would have washed into the Indian River. I'm also positive that much treasure was buried by survivors. Unfortunately, these lands are owned by someone and are often difficult to hunt. I did spend some time after the last storm hunting some of these exposed areas, to no avail.

 

[itmaiden]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

Regarding "intervention", that is possible also. There are 2 sites I know of that were "haulover" sites in order to access the lagoon. One was in the Wabasso area, the other a road from the Mosquito Lagoon. The Wabasso haulover site was chosen because of the narrowness and ease of crossing the dune area.

itmaiden

 

[signumops]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

Into the storm…

These issues are maker-breakers for some of us. Answers mean success in the hunt. They are serious issues which surface at least once a year in this forum if not more often, charged by threads like this one, regarding the identity of the missing vessels of the 1715 fleet. I have watched and read with great interest some of the information that has come to light over the last 5 or 6 years here in the Shipwreck forum and had to do some research on the matter myself while writing Tommy Gore’s book. Of course, as a kid I had a copy of “Pieces Of Eight” which I presumed to be the definitive source of all things attached to the 1715 fleet, and as a worker bee on the salvage, also presumed that there were only a few wrecks that could be found. Now that I think back, there were many silent indications of how little was actually known about the vessels and where they were. That was forty years ago and I can vouch for the ignorance of “twenty-somethings”. There’s been a lot of digging in the last forty years and during thirty of those, I was not armed with a shovel... but I still heard some rumors.

A number of things have changed since the publication of “Pieces Of Eight” to wit:

Fishers have cataloged and charted many latter discoveries on the wrecks and saved digital copies of the charts… a tremendous assistance, which can hardly be appreciated.

Dozens if not hundreds of new crews have set about excavating wreckage over the years.

New original lease areas were subsequently explored, producing new wreck sites. Many of these are NOT in the current holdings of the Fishers.

The Florida master-site file was closed to the public. We don’t know who found what and where they found it if it was not inside the original Real 8 - Treasure Salvors combine area(s). This circumstance, by the way, represents a real opportunity for the Shipwreck Forum to supply a public service. We should attract all the players whose sites are now closed by the BAR and publish their pink sheets (the copies of their daily logs).

There was a period of time where NO salvage data was reported to the state of Florida and that data has not been recovered from the Federal government… it is held by the Fed or in the estates of certain salvors (if it actually existed in some fungible form at all originally).

There have been a number of talented researchers who have published their findings concerning the 1715 wrecks, including Mendel Petersen, Carl Clausen, Bob Weller and Bob Marx. And, certainly, don’t forget my hero, Charles Dana Higgs.

I have to rely upon the translations of Spanish documentation performed by others to make sense of the 1715 disaster, and Mendel Petersen has provided me with the most print I can get my hands on highlighting some of the key information. His book “Funnel Of Gold”, published in 1975, sets out some first-person declarations that must be considered. I quote…

“On September 20, he (Admiral Salmon) completed a letter to the King, in which he gave the account of the disaster in detail:

Even though I am greatly distressed it doesn't excuse my obligation to inform you of the unfortunate loss of the whole fleet of Mexico and the galleons of Tierra Firme, which occurred on July 31, having left Havana on the 24th, and having entered the canal we were hit by a great storm the 28th, which grew worse every hour. At first I had to run on the two lowest sails, then even though I lowered them the wind carried them away, broke the mainmast and shattered the rudder and tiller, and the bow was stove in. I dropped anchor in 12 brasas (60 feet) of water, then both cables broke, in 2 hours I was in 4 brasas (20 feet) of water, on the rocks, and at the second blow on the reef the ship split into 3 parts, the bottom sunk, and the bow and stern washed up Qn the beach, from which almost all were saved, although 82 were drowned. The flagship had sunk 2 leagues away 4 hours earlier with the loss of the General and 200 persons.

The leading Galleon and their flagship beached 5 leagues away and all the rest close together on the same island. The number thought lost is 9, and 2 missing but surely sunk, because we have sighted wreckage on the n. coast of San Agustin, Florida. ...”

So, the 60 foot depth line along the Treasure coast is roughly 10 miles from shore. Therefore, Salmon’s boat was pushed shoreward, totally without sail or steering, at a rate of around 5 mph if it made it to the 20 foot depth in two hours time. A pretty impressive drift rate!! Some serious wind!! Also, a clue regarding draft… 20 feet. Overall, I’ve found most of the wreckage to begin in about 14 feet of water for the wrecks I’ve worked on (1715 wrecks). I guess I really need to extend the search a ways out. The remark about cited wreckage north of St. Augustine I tend to dismiss in view of the following. I quote Petersen once more…

“According to a deposition of one of the pilots, they had gone aground or had been wrecked between 27° 15" and 27° 50" north, a distance of about thirty-five miles. The survivors of each vessel were in some instances separated from the survivors of other ships and had no way of knowing the full extent of the disaster.

Between July 31 and August 6 or 7, Admiral Don Francisco Salmon surveyed the damage to the combined fleet and found all vessels wrecked or beached. Among the latter were three frigates.”

De Inda delivered his letters to the governor and gave a deposition in which he recounted what had happened:
He said at first, that…

the 30th day of the last month, July, being at latitude 28 degrees open sea, the said fleet and squadron of Tierra Firme, under the Captain of Sea and War Don Antonio Echiceis y Zubiza was attacked by a storm so strong that having maintained itself through to the next day on which they lost the greater part of the sails and masts and seeing it impossible to maintain themselves in the severe weather obliged the ships to beach themselves, with the loss of General Don Juan Esteban de Ubilla, their Captain and according to the news that came in later 200 men drowned with their Captain, the same thing happened to the flagship and most of the other ships, so of the said fleet as of the squadron, that in total there are eight lost that may be found from 27 degrees 15 minutes to 27 degrees 50 minutes [north].1”

27 degrees 50 minutes parallels the back porch of the McClarty museum. 27 degrees 15 minutes is about 10 miles south of the Douglas Beach wreck (Nieves ?). This leads me to believe that there is a wreck far south that has yet to be worked, and, it is not in the Fisher holdings. Furthermore, the fleet was at 28 degrees north when things began to go sour. The Rex Stocker wreck is at approximately 28 degrees 2 minutes north. Hmmmmmm. Also, there is the remark about the three, beached frigates. Which would those be exactly? Petersen did not say. Also, according to the quotes, the storm actually started on the 28th, so the fleet wallowed for three days. I am beginning to think that the storm actually organized itself right in the Bahama channel and that it was a very large creature and slow moving as it organized. This would explain the illusion of an additional storm following on August first… it was actually the rear eye wall of the storm. We have read more than one reference to the ‘second’ storm, including the works of Bob Weller. The rear eye wall would be the felon, which moved so much wreckage AWAY from shore.

If the storm was as I described and it took more than 12 hours for the eye to move across the peninsula from east to west, then the NE quad, the traditional widow-maker quadrant, could possibly have had it southern traverse line roughly at the latitude of present-day Sebastian. This line would generally transect the storm’s geometry at a midway point representing the mid latitude of its overall dimension on the longitudinal plane. This would account for the lapse in time between the destruction of the first ship in the line onshore and her sisters following along further south. Because the Sandy Point wreck was so completely destroyed, I would have to think that it was located on the southern extremity of the eye-wall. This would mean that the eye of the storm was approximately 50 miles in width. If it took 12 hours (or more) to pass a fixed point and it had to cover a distance of 50 miles to traverse the extents of the eye-wall’s diameter, it was moving at just a little over 4 miles per hour, possibly stalling as it came ashore (statistically the usual case).

Up until a few years ago, I always believed the ships were pushed ashore in a NW direction, and then possibly a NE direction with the passing of the eye-wall as I always thought that the storm was typical and moved from the SE to the NW. With this latest idea of a direct traverse east to west, it would mean that the tangent eye-wall forces would force ships from the NE to the SW in the NE quad of the storm, and would tend to push the ships in the southern tangent directly to shore. This is only of interest when you are trying to determine where wreckage was taken SEAWARD. That wreckage trail is the one we now need to follow. I have been going in the wrong direction. The idea also clears up some confusion about the messy scatter in the Wabasso area which some experts claim is part of the Corrigans wreckage. I don’t think so. I think that the stones, guns and anchors to the south of Wabasso are a separate vessel, but which one? This theory also would give serious credence to the “cannon wreck” actually being crumbs of Ubilla’s capitana.

I would also like to point out that there is another serious contender for membership in the 1715 fleet, which lies near-shore that nobody seems to consider. It is not in the Fisher lease areas, nor is it around Vero. Some readers might know about it, and the state definitely knows about it.

 

[itmaiden]

Re: accounting for the 1715 fleet vessels by their own " offical records"

The problem occurs when considering the location of wrecked ships was based on found wreckage on the beach. Considering how far flotsam can travel, especially in swirling waves and winds, it would be easy to be off 3/4 of a mile to a mile and even further.

So back to the drawing board.

itmaiden