Odyssey Marine Article...

[Alexandre]

Salvage is when you put back into the market goods that have economic value, only.

Archaeology is when those goods, having or having not any economical value, are considered the have archaeological value, as well - that is, they are valued for the information they contain, or are able to unlock, when considered with an archaeological perspective.

In land archaeology, when you do salvage, you are plundering and ransacking History - helas, when you do it underwater, people tend to consider that a romantic and adventurous activity.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Darren in NC]

Salvage is when you put back into the market goods that have economic value, only.

No argument there. By intent, salvage deals only with economic recovery.

Archaeology is when those goods, having or having not any economical value, are considered the have archaeological value

Again, no argument. That is one of the great lessons history lovers have taught salvors. It is also why many salvors are also history lovers, too.

...ransacking History - helas, when you do it underwater, people tend to consider that a romantic and adventurous activity.

Discovering treasure has been romantic and adventurous from the beginning of time. I doubt you'll change human nature.

No serious treasure hunting group would be permitted to salvage without a qualified archie present, so your argument about ransacking history is moot. If you really care about destruction, fight dredging.

I had a principal in high school who acted much like many extreme archies today. Instead of helping the cheerleading squad work through their problems, he banned cheerleading from all sports. Their absence sure didn't bring much cheer or morale to the games.

This is not an either-or proposition, but a both-and. As Mariner aptly posted, let's work together.

 

[Panfilo]

Alexandre, you have to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges, you can’t mix them all up and reach any kind of valid conclusion. You are asking what would the American public think if you destroyed an important historical wreck just for fun? They would, and I’m not American, I presume think you are crazy, there is no logic to your action. Is this example supposed to compare with what Odyssey did in Cabo de Santa Maria? I fail to see the logic here Alexandre. Let’s suppose for a second that the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concludes and rules that the Mercedes was a state vessel on a commercial mission therefore not subject to Sovereign Immunity. The court would award Odyssey a percentage of the recovered coins IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT INTERNATIONAL LAW. Therefore Odyssey could not be branded as pirates and their behavior could not be criticized by the Spanish government more so since the coins never entered Spanish waters, were the property of private merchants and they are being claimed by the rightful descendants.

How about if a descendant of Samuel Chester Reid shows up in Portugal to claim his granddaddies’ compass and they tell him it’s a sovereign ship that belongs to Portugal? Apples with apples?

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Panfilo we don't have to agree, but what Odyssey did was wrong ! Plain and simple ! The Spanish government made it quite
clear that no Spanish shipwreck was to be touched.
In the court report Judge Pizzo makes note that Odyssey had the Mercedes in their sights from the beginning. For Odyssey to
play dumb after the fact shows there true character and intent.
They only took the coins from the site also planned, they didn't want any other artifacts as this would point to the Mercedes.
But they make out to be archeologist's
I do agree the descendants should get something, But I want Spain to be the controlling party not a US company that will only
think of their bottom line and nothing else.
Ossy

 

[Salvor6]

Very good point Panfilo and Darrens comment about returning artifacts back to the mainstream of commerce is the intent of the law. What More And Beyond is arguing about is pure fantasy. I invited my hero, Filipe Castro to join our discussion and give his opinion but he said he is too busy with teaching and publication. We shall see.

 

[aquanut]

Mariner,
Spain laid claim to the salvage of the Juno and La Galga. Spain was only interested in those ships that supposedly had treasure aboard. Seahunt was a treasure salvor. Deductive reasoning here... Also, I would hope that the researchers we have here aboard Tnet could shed some light from the archives of Seville or elsewhere on the ships manifests. I too seem to remember that theses ships were carrying treasure, but I can't say for certain.
Aquanut

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Here you go Salvor6 all the way from fairy land. http://www.abc.es/gestordocumental/uploads/cultura/ody_report_and_recomm.pdf
Ossy

 

[Salvor6]

Here YOU go Ossy: here is a whole fleet of Spanish Royal Naval ships under orders of the King of Spain that sank in Florida waters. They are now being excavated by the University of West Florida. Problem is that theres no treasure on board. Therefore Spain is not interested: http://www.flheritage.com/archaeology/projects/shipwrecks/emanuelpoint/.
Let me ask you something Ossy, why doesn't Spain claim any of the 1715 fleet wrecks currently being salvaged by treasure hunters? How about the Atocha? Why does Spain allow treasure hunters to salvage Spanish warships in Equador? They (Equador) even signed the UNESCO Convention to preserve UCH.

 

[Panfilo]

Mariner, Dave Horner states in reference to the Galga: “This frigate carried a substantial cargo of miscellaneous Mexican commodities destined for European markets as well as more than $1,000,000 of treasure from King Ferdinand VI”. With respect to the Juno he is very vague: “…bound for Cadiz and loaded to the gunwales with caudales de Indias” One can certainly agree that there was an important shipment of silver in both of these frigates. Hope it is of help.

 

[Salvor6]

Mariner the wreck that Sea Hunt found was not the La Galga but a coastal trader carrying coins from that era. The La Galga was found by John Amrhein buried under a sand dune: http://www.thehiddengalleon.com/.
Check out that link and click on "wreck location" for an aerial view of where the La Galga lies today.

 

[mariner]

Salvor 6,

Yes I understand that one of the wrecks that SeaHunt claim to have found found and that was the subject of Spain's intervention in the courts might not have been LaGalga, but I don't think that either SeaHunt or Spain knew that at the time. SeaHunt claimed that they had spent $1.5 million dollars looking for the two wrecks, and Spain intervened in the Appeals Court case, at the behest of the US Government. I assume that SeaHunt must have thought that the two ships were carrying valuable cargoes to have spent that amount of money, but the nature and value of the cargo was not brought up in the Appeals Court case in 2000.

Spain's intervention (again at the behest of the US Government, who had earlier tried to intervene itself but was ruled to have no standing in the matter) was intended to establish the principle that under the 1902 Treaty of Friendship between the US and Spain, Spanish shipwrecks in US waters, and vice versa, were not "abandoned" except by specific action or declaration, and as such were not covered by the 1987 Abandoned Ships Act. Therefore title of Spanish wrecks did not devolve to the coastal states (Virginia, in this particular case) but remained the property of the original owner or its successors, be that the State or a private individual. The Court agreed with this principle, and found in favour of Spain. It doesn't actually matter whether whether the wrecks that were found by SeaHunt actually were the Juno and LaGalga, it was the principle that the US and Spanish Governments were trying to establish, and they succeeded in doing so.

SeaHunt were ordered to hand over to Spain all the artifacts they had recovered during their search, but I don't think that these included any "treasure", as such.

My point is that this intervention by Spain was not motivated by the hope that they would get a financial gain. Its intervention was just a part of a plan by the United States Government, mostly National Parks and the Department of State, to prevent Spanish shipwrecks in US waters from being salvaged. No permits for new finds have been issued since, as far as I can tell, and will not be issued in the future for wrecks in US waters that were owned by the Kingdom of Spain, whether they were Sovereign Vessels or on commercial missions.

Personally, I don't think that Spain's intervention in the Black Swan case was was motivated by financial gain, either. They just want to stop others from salvaging the wrecks of ships that were owned by the Kingdom of Spain when they sank. However that does not align with the LOS definition of Sovereign Vessel, which has been well established over the years, and should continue to be the touchstone.

Of course, the 1902 Treaty also covers privately owned Spanish ship wrecks in US waters, and though these are protected from unwelcome Salvage claims, their owners can choose to have them recovered, and are entitled to do so. Anybody finding a wreck that belonged to Hernan Cortes or his descendants should contact me, as I am the sole agent for the present heir to Cortes in such matters. Needless to say, any recovery would have to be carried out using the highest standards of underwater archaeological techniques and practices, but I see nothing wrong with the commercial disposal of artifacts, including their sale to suitable museums and other such repositories where the public can have access to them.

Mariner

 

[Vox veritas]

Salvor 6,

Yes I understand that one of the wrecks that SeaHunt claim to have found found and that was the subject of Spain's intervention in the courts might not have been LaGalga, but I don't think that either SeaHunt or Spain knew that at the time. SeaHunt claimed that they had spent $1.5 million dollars looking for the two wrecks, and Spain intervened in the Appeals Court case, at the behest of the US Government. I assume that SeaHunt must have thought that the two ships were carrying valuable cargoes to have spent that amount of money, but the nature and value of the cargo was not brought up in the Appeals Court case in 2000.

Spain's intervention (again at the behest of the US Government, who had earlier tried to intervene itself but was ruled to have no standing in the matter) was intended to establish the principle that under the 1902 Treaty of Friendship between the US and Spain, Spanish shipwrecks in US waters, and vice versa, were not "abandoned" except by specific action or declaration, and as such were not covered by the 1987 Abandoned Ships Act. Therefore title of Spanish wrecks did not devolve to the coastal states (Virginia, in this particular case) but remained the property of the original owner or its successors, be that the State or a private individual. The Court agreed with this principle, and found in favour of Spain. It doesn't actually matter whether whether the wrecks that were found by SeaHunt actually were the Juno and LaGalga, it was the principle that the US and Spanish Governments were trying to establish, and they succeeded in doing so.

SeaHunt were ordered to hand over to Spain all the artifacts they had recovered during their search, but I don't think that these included any "treasure", as such.

My point is that this intervention by Spain was not motivated by the hope that they would get a financial gain. Its intervention was just a part of a plan by the United States Government, mostly National Parks and the Department of State, to prevent Spanish shipwrecks in US waters from being salvaged. No permits for new finds have been issued since, as far as I can tell, and will not be issued in the future for wrecks in US waters that were owned by the Kingdom of Spain, whether they were Sovereign Vessels or on commercial missions.

Personally, I don't think that Spain's intervention in the Black Swan case was was motivated by financial gain, either. They just want to stop others from salvaging the wrecks of ships that were owned by the Kingdom of Spain when they sank. However that does not align with the LOS definition of Sovereign Vessel, which has been well established over the years, and should continue to be the touchstone.

Of course, the 1902 Treaty also covers privately owned Spanish ship wrecks in US waters, and though these are protected from unwelcome Salvage claims, their owners can choose to have them recovered, and are entitled to do so. Anybody finding a wreck that belonged to Hernan Cortes or his descendants should contact me, as I am the sole agent for the present heir to Cortes in such matters. Needless to say, any recovery would have to be carried out using the highest standards of underwater archaeological techniques and practices, but I see nothing wrong with the commercial disposal of artifacts, including their sale to suitable museums and other such repositories where the public can have access to them.

Mariner

Gentlemen,
this writer became active and produced the allegations made by Sea Hunt to the Ministry of Culture of Spain to get the finder's right established by Spanish law, which is 50% of the value of what was found or contained in the find. In parallel, Sea Hunt signed an agreement with the ministry. This occurred on 21 June 2003. I think I'm pretty qualified to say in this matter. Sea Hunt never officially said to have found the JUNO / GALGA. I repeat, the finder's right were recognized (and the award of 50%) and the agreement signed.
I insist, Sea Hunt never officially said to have found these two wrecks. Another thing was what the press said, but this is a tactic employed by several companies.

 

[mariner]

Vox,

I genuinely have the greatest respect for you and your work, but I suggest you read the transcript of the US Court of Appeals hearing in May 2000. Although I think the hearing was entitled an SeaHunt-vs-Unidentified Wrecks, it was clear that SeaHunt thought that the wrecks they had found, and obtained permits from the Commonwealth of Virginia to recover, were those of the Juno and LaGalga. I have not looked at the transcripts for some time, but will dig them out of my files in the next few days and check them.

Of course, I believe you that there were discussions some three years later between a re-constituted SeaHunt and Spain, and that an agreement to allow SeaHunt to recover the vessels was made, and subsequently thwarted by the US National Parks service, but I never really understood why Spain did this. Perhaps, having established the principles about Spanish shipwrecks in US waters, they wanted to give SeaHunt the chance to recover the $1.5 million that they had spent on their their original search, for which the Appeals Court offered them no compensation.

Mariner
Mariner

 

[Vox veritas]

Vox,

I genuinely have the greatest respect for you and your work, but I suggest you read the transcript of the US Court of Appeals hearing in May 2000. Although I think the hearing was entitled an SeaHunt-vs-Unidentified Wrecks, it was clear that SeaHunt thought that the wrecks they had found, and obtained permits from the Commonwealth of Virginia to recover, were those of the Juno and LaGalga. I have not looked at the transcripts for some time, but will dig them out of my files in the next few days and check them.

Of course, I believe you that there were discussions some three years later between a re-constituted SeaHunt and Spain, and that an agreement to allow SeaHunt to recover the vessels was made, and subsequently thwarted by the US National Parks service, but I never really understood why Spain did this. Perhaps, having established the principles about Spanish shipwrecks in US waters, they wanted to give SeaHunt the chance to recover the $1.5 million that they had spent on their their original search, for which the Appeals Court offered them no compensation.

Mariner
Mariner

Mariner,
I checked many documents from 1998 to 2000 and do not remember seeing one where SH claims to have found evidence of JUNO / GALGA. My impression is that there were certain "rush" to make it happen. In fact, everything came from Spain. But I may be wrong.

 

[trinidad]

Just a couple things. I'm rereading the Fernandez Duro book "Naufragios de la Armada española" (Spanish navy shipwrecks) and curiously, although it is generally accepted that it is a very well documented work, there is not mention at all about the Reina Mercedes (Black Swan). It's strange that a so exhaustive list of spanish shipwrecks (in a limited space of time because Fernández Duro died in 1908) he didn't mention it, and more strange because he lived the most of his live on the same century when happened the Reina Mercedes disaster and it was a very famous armed conflict beetween Spain and England. Could be possible that Fernandez Duro, navy official of the spanish army, didnt considerate the Reina Mercedes a flagship of Spain? Or is it an unbelievable lapse on such a meticulous writer?
Second thing. Vox, it´s strange that you use against Odyssey (in others forums) the argument that they never denied hardly and publicly the "price" of the coins from the Black Swan and a lot of public accusations, so Odyssey were saying that the "price" and the accusations were right, (because who keeps the silence accept what others says about him), and in the SeaHunt- Juno/Galga case you insist in the argument that SeaHunt never said they found the Juno and La Galga while everybody were saying they did.

 

[Vox veritas]

Just a couple things. I'm rereading the Fernandez Duro book "Naufragios de la Armada española" (Spanish navy shipwrecks) and curiously, although it is generally accepted that it is a very well documented work, there is not mention at all about the Reina Mercedes (Black Swan). It's strange that a so exhaustive list of spanish shipwrecks (in a limited space of time because Fernández Duro died in 1908) he didn't mention it, and more strange because he lived the most of his live on the same century when happened the Reina Mercedes disaster and it was a very famous armed conflict beetween Spain and England. Could be possible that Fernandez Duro, navy official of the spanish army, didnt considerate the Reina Mercedes a flagship of Spain? Or is it an unbelievable lapse on such a meticulous writer?
Second thing. Vox, it´s strange that you use against Odyssey (in others forums) the argument that they never denied hardly and publicly the "price" of the coins from the Black Swan and a lot of public accusations, so Odyssey were saying that the "price" and the accusations were right, (because who keeps the silence accept what others says about him), and in the SeaHunt- Juno/Galga case you insist in the argument that SeaHunt never said they found the Juno and La Galga while everybody were saying they did.

Trinidad, I hate to accuse anyone. I just notice some undeniable facts that can prove with official documents. Sea Hunt in official documents that I have seen and verfic never mentioned Juno / Galga. It is for this reason that the legal department of the Ministry of Culture of Spain was recognized by the award of 50%, otherwise it would not have done.

 

[trinidad]

Ok. I do have to believe you hate to accuse if you say so. Me too. And I take my hat off before you because you have the wonderful ability of answering what you want and not what you´ve been asked for. And talking about other thing: how comes that Spain mentions all the time the "precedent" of the Juno and La Galga to avoid the payment of a "salvor right" to Odyssey (Ministry of Culture soustain publicly that never paid to SeaHunter) and there is a document where it´s recognised the 50% award? Did SeaHunter get the money or something directly from a spanish ministry or from a Spain-USA Foundation? Or there was a debt recognition but it was never paid? Just curious.

 

[MORE AND BEYOND OSSY]

Here YOU go Ossy: here is a whole fleet of Spanish Royal Naval ships under orders of the King of Spain that sank in Florida waters. They are now being excavated by the University of West Florida. Problem is that theres no treasure on board. Therefore Spain is not interested: http://www.flheritage.com/archaeology/projects/shipwrecks/emanuelpoint/.
Let me ask you something Ossy, why doesn't Spain claim any of the 1715 fleet wrecks currently being salvaged by treasure hunters? How about the Atocha? Why does Spain allow treasure hunters to salvage Spanish warships in Equador? They (Equador) even signed the UNESCO Convention to preserve UCH.

Good point Salvor6 , I don't know why ? maybe some like Alexandre can answer that question.
If your asking me if I had a say would I claim for Spain, you bet ! But i would do it fairly and made sure that the country of
origin would have a say. As I have said before a 50/50 split would be fair.
The gold Emerald cross's that came off the Atocha belong in a museum not in some ones private collection.
The point of the Mercedes and I know Odyssey want to do a deal, their smash and grab tactics didn't go down to well.
Ossy

 

[mariner]

Vox,

I have dug up the published judgement of the US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, in the case Sea Hunt vs Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, Cases no. 99-2035/36. SeaHunt were being represented at the hearing by David Jeremy Bederman of Atlanta, Georgia.

Despite the title of the case, here are verbatim extracts from the judgement:

Item (13) This in rem admiralty action concerns the sovereign rights of the Kingdom of Spain to two of its Royal Naval vessels, LA GALGA and JUNO, which were lost off the shores of present-day Virginia in 1750 and 1802 respectively. Pursuant to the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), Virginia has asserted ownership over the shipwrecks and has issued Sea Hunt permits to conduct salvage operations and recover artifacts from the wrecks. These efforts resulted in the discovery of two wrecks believed to be LA GALGA and JUNO. Sea Hunt filed an in rem admiralty complaint, and the district court ordered an arrest of the shipwrecks, appointing Sea Hunt the exclusive salvor. The district court found that Spain retained title to JUNO, but had expressly abandoned LA GALGA in the 1763 DefinitiveTreaty of Peace. See Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified Vessel or Vessels, 47 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Va. 1999) The district court also denied Sea Hunt a salvage award.

Item (14) As sovereign vessels of Spain, LA GALGA and JUNO are covered by the 1902 Treaty of Friendship and General Relations between the United States and Spain. The reciprocal immunities established by this treaty are essential to protecting United States shipwrecks and military gravesites. Under the terms of this treaty, Spanish vessels, like those belonging to the United States, may only be abandoned by express acts. Sea Hunt cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that the Kingdome of Spain has expressly abandoned these ships in either the 1763 Treaty or the 1819 Treaty of Amity, Settlement and Limits, which ended the war of 1812. we therefore reverse the judgement of the district court with regard to LA GALGA, and affirm the judgement of the district court concerning JUNO and the denial of a salvage award.
Item (18) The Commonwealth of Virginia ............... Sea Hunt has spent about a million dollars in conducting remote sensing, survey, diving and identification operations. Sea Hunt claims that its efforts have resulted in finding the remains of LA GALGA and JUNO.

Item (23) In order for Virginia to acquire title ............ Sea Hunt and the Commonwealth argue that the the ASA requires application of an implied abandonment standard for shipwrecks in coastal waters, and that Spain has abandoned LA GALGA and JUNO ..........

Item (49) Third, Article XX provides ..... ....... The district court found that this included the wreck of the LA GALGA. See Sea Hunt, 47 F Supp. 2d at 689. It is anything but clear, however .............................

Item (47) ........................ Sea Hunt and the Commonwealth urge that "on the continent" included coastal waters, and that consequently the 1763 Treaty constitutes an express abandonment of LA GALGA. ......................

Item (64) We affirm the district court's denial of a salvage award to Sea Hunt. ............................. Sea Hunt knew before bringing this action that the JUNO was a Spanish ship and that Spain might make a claim of ownership and deny salvage. .................... Because Sea Hunt had prior knowledge had prior knowledge of Spain's ownership interests and had reason to expect Spain's ownership claim and refusal to agree salvage activity on JUNO, Sea Hunt can not be entitled to a salvage award."


It's absolutely clear from the above that Sea Hunt had identified the two wrecks as Juno and La Galga, or believed this to be the case. This is a summary of the judgement. If you go into the actual transcript, I am sure you will find even more specific evidence to that effect, as you will if you look at the original district court case where Sea Hunt applied for the arrest of the two wrecks. At no time in this Appeal Court Hearing did Sea Hunt and their lawyers try to get round Spain's intervention by trying to say that the two wrecks were not the Juno and La Galga.

Mariner

 

[Vox veritas]

Vox,

I have dug up the published judgement of the US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, in the case Sea Hunt vs Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel or Vessels, Cases no. 99-2035/36. SeaHunt were being represented at the hearing by David Jeremy Bederman of Atlanta, Georgia.

Despite the title of the case, here are verbatim extracts from the judgement:

Item (13) This in rem admiralty action concerns the sovereign rights of the Kingdom of Spain to two of its Royal Naval vessels, LA GALGA and JUNO, which were lost off the shores of present-day Virginia in 1750 and 1802 respectively. Pursuant to the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (ASA), Virginia has asserted ownership over the shipwrecks and has issued Sea Hunt permits to conduct salvage operations and recover artifacts from the wrecks. These efforts resulted in the discovery of two wrecks believed to be LA GALGA and JUNO. Sea Hunt filed an in rem admiralty complaint, and the district court ordered an arrest of the shipwrecks, appointing Sea Hunt the exclusive salvor. The district court found that Spain retained title to JUNO, but had expressly abandoned LA GALGA in the 1763 DefinitiveTreaty of Peace. See Sea Hunt, Inc. v. Unidentified Vessel or Vessels, 47 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Va. 1999) The district court also denied Sea Hunt a salvage award.

Item (14) As sovereign vessels of Spain, LA GALGA and JUNO are covered by the 1902 Treaty of Friendship and General Relations between the United States and Spain. The reciprocal immunities established by this treaty are essential to protecting United States shipwrecks and military gravesites. Under the terms of this treaty, Spanish vessels, like those belonging to the United States, may only be abandoned by express acts. Sea Hunt cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that the Kingdome of Spain has expressly abandoned these ships in either the 1763 Treaty or the 1819 Treaty of Amity, Settlement and Limits, which ended the war of 1812. we therefore reverse the judgement of the district court with regard to LA GALGA, and affirm the judgement of the district court concerning JUNO and the denial of a salvage award.
Item (18) The Commonwealth of Virginia ............... Sea Hunt has spent about a million dollars in conducting remote sensing, survey, diving and identification operations. Sea Hunt claims that its efforts have resulted in finding the remains of LA GALGA and JUNO.

Item (23) In order for Virginia to acquire title ............ Sea Hunt and the Commonwealth argue that the the ASA requires application of an implied abandonment standard for shipwrecks in coastal waters, and that Spain has abandoned LA GALGA and JUNO ..........

Item (49) Third, Article XX provides ..... ....... The district court found that this included the wreck of the LA GALGA. See Sea Hunt, 47 F Supp. 2d at 689. It is anything but clear, however .............................

Item (47) ........................ Sea Hunt and the Commonwealth urge that "on the continent" included coastal waters, and that consequently the 1763 Treaty constitutes an express abandonment of LA GALGA. ......................

Item (64) We affirm the district court's denial of a salvage award to Sea Hunt. ............................. Sea Hunt knew before bringing this action that the JUNO was a Spanish ship and that Spain might make a claim of ownership and deny salvage. .................... Because Sea Hunt had prior knowledge had prior knowledge of Spain's ownership interests and had reason to expect Spain's ownership claim and refusal to agree salvage activity on JUNO, Sea Hunt can not be entitled to a salvage award."


It's absolutely clear from the above that Sea Hunt had identified the two wrecks as Juno and La Galga, or believed this to be the case. This is a summary of the judgement. If you go into the actual transcript, I am sure you will find even more specific evidence to that effect, as you will if you look at the original district court case where Sea Hunt applied for the arrest of the two wrecks. At no time in this Appeal Court Hearing did Sea Hunt and their lawyers try to get round Spain's intervention by trying to say that the two wrecks were not the Juno and La Galga.

Mariner

Mariner, I do not have all documents on the matter because it took the police house searches in which someone will have to explain in due course. Then they had much interest in this matter and some of the allegations that 2006 no longer exist, including those related to the same subject and Sea Hunt agreement with the Ministry of Culture. As I said, among the themes covered, was the Mercedes, because I was managing with Portugal and Spain to work in this wreck, among other things, to fill the museums (as is evidenced by phone calls recorded by police). But apparently Odyssey passed us. Follow the accumulation of coincidences related to everything that is Sea Hunt, Juno / Galga, Mercedes, Odyssey. But I do not believe in coincidences. Only fools believe in them.