Cape Canaveral Shipwreck finds

[Black Duck]

After years of going over the data from the discovery's found off Cape Canaveral by GME under contract with the State of Florida, consulting with Robert Marx, other professional archaeologist and historians, collecting data about anchor size and tonnage of the ships, cannon, that were recorded sinking in that area, researching the information on what was on these ships, (writings on what cargo they carried) narrowing down the possibility of where these ships could be in the area by surveying 5,200 ln. miles ( process of elimination) GME has determined with the help of several professional archaeologist what four of the Five shipwrecks are. With a good opinion on the 5th shipwreck.
The Orlando judge in 2018 said that site two is the French ship Trinite even without definitive proof.
GME has proof positive of what was discovered, Six sites, five shipwrecks.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[Magoopeter]

I believe the Judges knowledge is limited in these matters and the evidence against you is, Hear Say!

To say a ship was French is one thing, to say the French or who owned the ship at the time it was sunk is another.

look at the English and French records, of how many time a ship was taken as a prize in the English channel, some ships changed hands three or four times a year.

English cannons on Spanish Armada ships, would that make it English?

Was it a ship French ship with Huguenot’s fleeing France, is that a French ship?

I worked one wreck for three months, we knew what the wreck was, but to prove what it was needed circumstantial evidence, to make that knowledge fact, you can only do that by gathering the evidence, by investigation of the site.
The Court should deal in facts

I hope you win this case in the long run and I also hope you and your shareholders are compensated well.

 

[Black Duck]

Yes you are correct, and I do not think this ship is the Trinite do to the evidence we do have against that, ( It must be Pedro Mendez ship, with captured material going to Cuba) but GME is not pushing that issue, even if that Judge is wrong, GME is ok with that one, " History will be written incorrectly yet again because of this judges opinion" but that's not GMEs problem. Its the other 5 sites and Four shipwrecks that GME discovered that cannot be disputed to to the tonnage of the ships that went own in that area and the size of the anchors GME found.

 

[Black Duck]

On another but same note; everyone knows there are bad players ( dishonest people working for the State and it is being allowed ) The State Archaeologist do not want anyone but nonprofit people working anywhere in Florida and that is a fact in fact stated by a Fed parks and Rec. guy in a deposition, also by a letter from Mary Glowacki to Tim Parsons, several other letters to Tim Parsons, and so far that evidence has again been ignored by the courts in Florida. To date. Just over looked.
Had FDOS and France not collaborated and negotiated with out GME's involvement (tortious interference) to recover the Six shipwrecks, these recoveries would be out the water and mostly potentially setting in a museum for everyone to enjoy.
GME will not give up we will keep coming back and keep coming back.

 

[Magoopeter]

A judges and law makers are advised by academics/ archaeologist funded by the state, the laws that are set out are not inclusive of all in society they are influenced by those who have their own academic interest at heart.

What is better for society, to leave a wreck to rot on the seabed, to lose a wealth of educational and historical information, or to commercially salvage the shipwreck using archaeological methods. Providing jobs for archaeologist divers and crew, contributing towards tax revenue, growing tourism, while providing resources for study.

MAARER.com we are now getting recognition and working with national museums, in the beginning we were called treasure hunters and thieves.

One day the discrimination and insults of this people towards law abiding citizens will be recognised for what it is, exclusion and discrimination, I hope that one day to call a shipwreck explorer a treasure hunter, in terms of making them appear to be a thief, will be on the level of calling a black person the unforgivable N word.

 

[TheRealTim]

When my name comes up, I'm going to respond. Primarily to say that neither I or the folks I worked with at DOS are "bad players" or "dishonest." Those kind of ad hominem attacks are unnecessary. This is getting perilously close to saying that I lied under oath, which I don't appreciate or find humorous. It's one thing to discuss professional judgement or disagreements about the law or preservation strategies, even in light of a ruling from a judge. It's another thing to suggest perjury. I don't think that's cool, at all. I'd certainly never put myself or my family at risk by lying under oath.

If anyone is interested, you can read the actual ruling from the Administrative Law Judge, here: https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/2021/21001610.pdf

 

[Black Duck]

Well Tim you are exactly what I called you, and you know it,
And yes the Judge this judge ignored the Marry Glowacki letter and so did you, in fact you most certainly said things that were not true, or you are just incompetent, There is 20 people that would testify that the State archaeologist are bad players, and you were are one of them. Sorry Treasure net not the place for this, BUT its the truth. And since you brought it up, here is the Document the Judge over looked , HMMMM. But he did say what we did bring up was diagnostic.
And the 11th Circuit court said France and the State of Florida ( you Tim, as you caused this)collaborating and negotiating’ with France to recover the shipwreck sites discovered by GME without its involvement. So lets make sure the facts are here. Mr Parsons. Now lets see what the State does to correct this ruling.

 

[TheRealTim]

Well Tim you are exactly what I called you, and you know it,
And yes the Judge this judge ignored the Marry Glowacki letter and so did you, in fact you most certainly said things that were not true, or you are just incompetent, There is 20 people that would testify that the State archaeologist are bad players, and you were are one of them. Sorry Treasure net not the place for this, BUT its the truth. And since you brought it up, here is the Document the Judge over looked , HMMMM. But he did say what we did bring up was diagnostic.
And the 11th Circuit court said France and the State of Florida ( you Tim, as you caused this)collaborating and negotiating’ with France to recover the shipwreck sites discovered by GME without its involvement. So lets make sure the facts are here. Mr Parsons. Now lets see what the State does to correct this ruling.

I haven't spoken with or to Dr. Glowacki in years, so I don't have much to say about that. She obviously had her own perspective on the matter so if she has anything to say she can speak for herself.

The ALJ's ruling is nuanced, as rulings usually are. I encourage everyone to read it critically for themselves, but ultimately the judge ruled that DHR acted appropriately in suspending and then revoking GME's permit. If you disagree with the judge's ruling, that's your prerogative. But accusing me of lying under oath and thereby perjuring myself is a serious accusation. I appreciate the moderators allowing me to respond, and I commit to keeping my responses respectful and above board on this. I'm not interested in getting down in the ditch and flinging insults, but I will defend myself. To that end, if anyone has specific questions that I can answer in the interest of clarification, I will do that. But I can only speak for myself and not for anyone else.

Again, rather than take anyone's word for it in this thread, any interested person can and should read the ruling as well as all of the previous filings on the case docket. They're available for free at the DOAH website and can be accessed via the link I posted last night.

EDIT: I feel like I should also point out that I never collaborated with anyone on the recovery of any material from the Trinite shipwreck, France or otherwise. Since that wreck and the material on it belong to France, that would have been entirely in their court. There was never any "negotiation" about recovery. It just flat out didn't happen.

 

[Black Duck]

I haven't spoken with or to Dr. Glowacki in years, so I don't have much to say about that. She obviously had her own perspective on the matter so if she has anything to say she can speak for herself.

The ALJ's ruling is nuanced, as rulings usually are. I encourage everyone to read it critically for themselves, but ultimately the judge ruled that DHR acted appropriately in suspending and then revoking GME's permit. If you disagree with the judge's ruling, that's your prerogative. But accusing me of lying under oath and thereby perjuring myself is a serious accusation. I appreciate the moderators allowing me to respond, and I commit to keeping my responses respectful and above board on this. I'm not interested in getting down in the ditch and flinging insults, but I will defend myself. To that end, if anyone has specific questions that I can answer in the interest of clarification, I will do that. But I can only speak for myself and not for anyone else.

Again, rather than take anyone's word for it in this thread, any interested person can and should read the ruling as well as all of the previous filings on the case docket. They're available for free at the DOAH website and can be accessed via the link I posted last night.

EDIT: I feel like I should also point out that I never collaborated with anyone on the recovery of any material from the Trinite shipwreck, France or otherwise. Since that wreck and the material on it belong to France, that would have been entirely in their court. There was never any "negotiation" about recovery. It just flat out didn't happen.

Ok lets leave this where it is then, so we do not get track

 

[TheRealTim]

Ok lets leave this where it is then, so we do not get track

I am absolutely fine not discussing this on the internet, where no one is held accountable. In fact, I don't want to be compelled to reply in defense of my professional and personal reputations every time you type my name online. How much further you want to take the discussion is entirely up to you. I am happy to leave it here, but if you continue to accuse me of wrongdoing you can count on me responding. It's only fair, right?

I've never had a personal issue with you, and I'm not interested in having a grudge. We were on opposing sides of a court case. We both felt like we were doing our jobs. We can just leave it at that and move on as far as I am concerned.

 

[Black Duck]

Well, you are right, and I will say good point, enough said, point is made, and its ongoing, and the next round is coming up so let's see what happens.

 

[Salvor6]

Why not incorporate your company as a non-profit 501-c3 organization and put all your finds in a museum. Then sell some of the finds as excess inventory. The Metropolitan Museum of New York does that every year.

 

[TheRealTim]

Why not incorporate your company as a non-profit 501-c3 organization and put all your finds in a museum. Then sell some of the finds as excess inventory. The Metropolitan Museum of New York does that every year.

I've actually had conversations with people in and out of the salvage/treasure hunting industry about something similar before. Federal and state laws (not just in Florida) essentially prevent, or at least, inhibit significantly, profit motivated recovery of archaeological materials. The reality is that the statutory environment is unlikely to change, so if people want to find a for-profit solution outside of the cultural resource management industry then they need to adapt.

My thought for years has been that a good business model would be to have a 501c(3) adjunct to a for-profit media or production company. The non-profit site could work with professional archaeologists, state and federal organizations, international players, etc., and through grants and donations conduct identification, study, and eventually scientific recovery of historic shipwrecks. The profit motive would be in licensing and production rights every step along the way. That's the gist, though I realize it's more complicated than that.

It's certainly not any riskier than the "traditional" treasure hunting model, and it has been done before.

This is just my opinion and I don't want to paint with a broad brush, but I think there's a romance associated with old-school treasure hunting that probably isn't there with more integrated business models where projects don't end with coins in necklaces and gold chains draped across shoulders.

 

[Black Duck]

The 501C 3 model just doesn't work in the long run, as it takes to much money to run a successful operation and when you get anyone from the government archaeologist pool you will never get anything done for lack of experience and knowledge of what to do in the water. Just saying

 

[TheRealTim]

The 501C 3 model just doesn't work in the long run, as it takes to much money to run a successful operation and when you get anyone from the government archaeologist pool you will never get anything done for lack of experience and knowledge of what to do in the water. Just saying

There are a number of long-running archaeological non-profits around the country. Many of them are aligned with museums, and some are more forward-facing than others. I know of at least one non-profit that is active in the cultural resource management sector, and their work has resulted in many books, articles, presentations, etc., though I suspect there are more around the country that I just don't know about.

Every operation and project requires money, successful or not (and depending on what "success" means organizationally and professionally). One can raise money through investors or debt, both of which assume significant risk and require a profit motive. Private and government grants are an effective funding mechanism for non-profits, and since archaeological non-profits are often associated with museums there is sometimes a built-in donor base willing to contribute. There is actually less inherent risk in the non-profit side of things because no profit motive is involved or implied. Exceptional archaeology funded by grants is happening every day, and all you have to do is open a National Geographic or Archaeology Magazine to see it. Government archaeologists are usually tasked with a pretty specific set of annual goals established under law, so their roles can vary from state to state and agency to agency. There are plenty of federal archaeologists that are mostly contract managers and do QC on reports completed by consultants. Others are literally in the trenches actively working.

Then there's the cultural resource management world, where clients hire archaeologists to meet regulatory requirements. There is actually AMAZING work done all the time conducted by contract archaeologists, but it doesn't make the news as much. I think there is a lot of potential for integrating non-profits with the for-profit CRM businesses, but it would likely require substantial front-loading of staff, overhead, etcetera and there probably aren't many companies out there with the margins to make that happen.

Point being, there are great archaeologists doing outstanding work, today, in public, private, and non-profit sectors. I wouldn't say one sector is inherently better than any other (I've worked in all of them). They're driven by different goals, and sometimes do things differently, but to paint with a broad brush and say that someone is inexperienced or ineffective because they work at XYZ instead of ABC isn't a statement that holds water in my opinion.

If anyone wants to talk about this stuff in more detail, maybe a new thread is in order. We've strayed pretty off-topic and I don't want to rub the moderators the wrong way!

 

[sphillips]

I haven't spoken with or to Dr. Glowacki in years, so I don't have much to say about that. She obviously had her own perspective on the matter so if she has anything to say she can speak for herself.

The ALJ's ruling is nuanced, as rulings usually are. I encourage everyone to read it critically for themselves, but ultimately the judge ruled that DHR acted appropriately in suspending and then revoking GME's permit. If you disagree with the judge's ruling, that's your prerogative. But accusing me of lying under oath and thereby perjuring myself is a serious accusation. I appreciate the moderators allowing me to respond, and I commit to keeping my responses respectful and above board on this. I'm not interested in getting down in the ditch and flinging insults, but I will defend myself. To that end, if anyone has specific questions that I can answer in the interest of clarification, I will do that. But I can only speak for myself and not for anyone else.

Again, rather than take anyone's word for it in this thread, any interested person can and should read the ruling as well as all of the previous filings on the case docket. They're available for free at the DOAH website and can be accessed via the link I posted last night.

EDIT: I feel like I should also point out that I never collaborated with anyone on the recovery of any material from the Trinite shipwreck, France or otherwise. Since that wreck and the material on it belong to France, that would have been entirely in their court. There was never any "negotiation" about recovery. It just flat out didn't happen.

Is their evidence that the French built Trinite belonged to France when it sank, assuming it is the Trinite?

 

[Black Duck]

Is their evidence that the French built Trinite belonged to France when it sank, assuming it is the Trinite?

The Trinite was on a resupply, colonization effort, the solders on board were not reg military and were unpaid volunteers, going to Florida for a better life, it was not built as a war ship or military ship, and was not on a military mission when it sank, nor was it in battle when it sank, the king did donated 100,000 franks to the cause, because he wanted the Huguenots gone from his country, there is NO documentation that says any different in history. French did not have a Navy until 1622
The Trinite did not have any monuments on the Manifest not one, Delgado did however add Ribualt's name to a 457 year old document to make it look like it did. "Facts"

 

[Magoopeter]

When my name comes up, I'm going to respond. Primarily to say that neither I or the folks I worked with at DOS are "bad players" or "dishonest." Those kind of ad hominem attacks are unnecessary. This is getting perilously close to saying that I lied under oath, which I don't appreciate or find humorous. It's one thing to discuss professional judgement or disagreements about the law or preservation strategies, even in light of a ruling from a judge. It's another thing to suggest perjury. I don't think that's cool, at all. I'd certainly never put myself or my family at risk by lying under oath.

If anyone is interested, you can read the actual ruling from the Administrative Law Judge, here: https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/2021/21001610.pdf

I haven’t read the full case but will do and thank you for the link,

How did the state recognize or qualify the Trinite as a Warship, under the definition of War Ship.

 

[sphillips]

The Trinite was on a resupply, colonization effort, the solders on board were not reg military and were unpaid volunteers, going to Florida for a better life, it was not built as a war ship or military ship, and was not on a military mission when it sank, nor was it in battle when it sank, the king did donated 100,000 franks to the cause, because he wanted the Huguenots gone from his country, there is NO documentation that says any different in history. French did not have a Navy until 1622
The Trinite did not have any monuments on the Manifest not one, Delgado did however add Ribualt's name to a 457 year old document to make it look like it did. "Facts"

Thx, fascinating

 

[Black Duck]

I haven’t read the full case but will do and thank you for the link,

How did the state recognize or qualify the Trinite as a Warship, under the definition of War Ship.

They didn't, there is no proof of this do to the fact there is no proof. And no one has proven that nor has it been ruled on.