We got a dig and identify permit". That is great news, and if told truthfully it
would have probably managed a small gain on the PPS. BUT - it had to be shrouded in mysterious wording with claims that led us to believe it was a Salvage Agreement. I got excited, but I called the state to ask ... and was told nope, just a 1 a-31 exploration permit that did not grant or guarantee SFRX artifact ownership, division oftreasure or 80-20 splits.
82. In the above section of the post, V____ is untruthful here, and when he continuously reposts such matters, since the permit issued by the State of Florida is in two parts being a survey permit, and a dig and identify permit, with complete transition to a recovery permit under such agreements with the State. V_____ makes such untruths without due enquiry into the actual agreements in place or the status of such permits.
1) Site 3 is a KNOWN TREASURE SITE - Problem, no treasure has ever
been pulled from it, a pistol, a cannon, a platter ... great but a treasure wreck has stacks of bars and chests full of silver and gold, not a platter. The platter, while very nice, could have been traveling on any ship. Almost every ship afloat had nice dining wares in the captains quarters, a single silver platter does not make a treasure galleon.
83. In actuality to the above portion of the post, there was readily available information to V_____ that there was treasure in the form of actual coins from such wreck that is the subject of such site. As a matter of fact, it was one of SEAFARER's actual archaeologists who made recoveries on such site. And in fact there were three platters that were found on such site, which included the name of the wife of the very Captain of the ship being pursued. All such matters are were publicly available from the State of Florida records that were publicly available. The site in issue is a known site, far removed from the falsities that V______ posts.
I am suppose to get records from the State of Florida today.
Just sayin'
Look forward to Kyle's "sworn testimony" next week, don't you?
would have probably managed a small gain on the PPS. BUT - it had to be shrouded in mysterious wording with claims that led us to believe it was a Salvage Agreement. I got excited, but I called the state to ask ... and was told nope, just a 1 a-31 exploration permit that did not grant or guarantee SFRX artifact ownership, division oftreasure or 80-20 splits.
82. In the above section of the post, V____ is untruthful here, and when he continuously reposts such matters, since the permit issued by the State of Florida is in two parts being a survey permit, and a dig and identify permit, with complete transition to a recovery permit under such agreements with the State. V_____ makes such untruths without due enquiry into the actual agreements in place or the status of such permits.
1) Site 3 is a KNOWN TREASURE SITE - Problem, no treasure has ever
been pulled from it, a pistol, a cannon, a platter ... great but a treasure wreck has stacks of bars and chests full of silver and gold, not a platter. The platter, while very nice, could have been traveling on any ship. Almost every ship afloat had nice dining wares in the captains quarters, a single silver platter does not make a treasure galleon.
83. In actuality to the above portion of the post, there was readily available information to V_____ that there was treasure in the form of actual coins from such wreck that is the subject of such site. As a matter of fact, it was one of SEAFARER's actual archaeologists who made recoveries on such site. And in fact there were three platters that were found on such site, which included the name of the wife of the very Captain of the ship being pursued. All such matters are were publicly available from the State of Florida records that were publicly available. The site in issue is a known site, far removed from the falsities that V______ posts.
I am suppose to get records from the State of Florida today.
Just sayin'
Look forward to Kyle's "sworn testimony" next week, don't you?
2
