Placing a value on the French monument removed by the Spanish and lost at Sea.

[huntsman53]

The big mystery in all of this, is why would Ribault turn his' Flagship, the La Trinité South from Fort Caroline past St. Augustine and what is now Cape Canaveral both of which we know had a fairly heavy presence of Spanish in these locations. Makes no sense if he was headed back to France! Also, it is unlikely Ribault would have sailed towards the South to avoid a Hurricane since most Hurricanes would have come from the South, Southeast or East.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[ARC]

When watching the video on the wreck...

I could swear I saw the name on it... it looked like...

"S.S. Minnow"



Oh... and everyone knows...

nothing makes good ballast better than French Statues in pieces.... especially on a Spanish ship.

:P

 

[AllAtSea]

All this stuff, location, hurricanes, French or Spanish, right guns or wrong guns, etc, etc, is all ably dissected in the judgement. Until you've read it, you're all wasting your time.

 

[enrada]

In the picture at the beginning of this post(or another post) shows the monument erected on land. Why would the French take the monument down and load it on a ship? Only the Spanish would have reason to remove any symbol of French occupation of this land and haul it away.

 

[huntsman53]

In the picture at the beginning of this post(or another post) shows the monument erected on land. Why would the French take the monument down and load it on a ship? Only the Spanish would have reason to remove any symbol of French occupation of this land and haul it away.

I agree wholeheartedly and historical accounts place the monument erected on land. Also, the shear fact that the shipwreck with the monument and French cannons was found somewhere off the Canaveral area, makes it more likely that it is a Spanish Galleon that was headed to Havana with the spoils of the conquest before going back to Spain. IMHO, although much of the facts do not add up, the Lawyers and Expert witnesses twist the facts to meet their needs to get what they want. Why a Federal Judge cannot see through this mist of BS, is beyond me!

 

[AllAtSea]

I agree wholeheartedly and historical accounts place the monument erected on land. Also, the shear fact that the shipwreck with the monument and French cannons was found somewhere off the Canaveral area, makes it more likely that it is a Spanish Galleon that was headed to Havana with the spoils of the conquest before going back to Spain. IMHO, although much of the facts do not add up, the Lawyers and Expert witnesses twist the facts to meet their needs to get what they want. Why a Federal Judge cannot see through this mist of BS, is beyond me!

There is evidence for two monuments having been erected on land in 1562, but there were numerous such monuments. Persuasive evidence was presented in the case for there being several monuments loaded on La Trinite for the 1565 expedition, which ended with La Trinite wrecked. Really, just read the judgement, it's all in there, cross-referenced with something like a thousand pages of supporting material. When you've gone through all that, come back with valid theories that fit the available evidence.

 

[huntsman53]

 

[releventchair]

This article does not mean it is accurate....

It does hint of the ship not having been unloaded yet. (So ,would stone have been added to the hold yet?)
Mention of partial salvage too. (Note some bronze cannon pulled).


[It was Ribault’s four larger ships that were wrecked probably between Ponce Inlet and Cape Canaveral, and thus are of interest to expedition archaeologists. First was Ribault’s 32-gun flagship, La Trinité, owned by the crown. It was a galleass, a hybrid galleon-type warship propelled by both oars and sail, and a relatively small one at around 150-160 tons. It does not appear that La Trinité was unloaded before the storm, which makes it a particularly promising target for an archaeological survey, both due to the presence of iron detectable by magnetometry and the wealth of potentially preserved material culture.

A significant amount of munitions, armament, and supplies are listed on its 28 April 1565 manifest. Iron objects which are likely preserved include 20 berches (large faucons or falcons, a class of cannon); four chiens (another artillery class); 977 cannon balls; 300 iron pikes; 1,300 nails; 100 corsets of armor; 3,153 pounds of stock iron; two anvils; a large iron bowl; a sheet of iron; and a variety of small items including tongs, hooks, pincers, and other hand tools.

Some of the ship’s bronze cannon were salvaged by surviving crewmembers, but there is no other record of significant salvage activities taking place.

La Trinité was stranded on a sandbar for some time before succumbing to the waves, suggesting that the shipwreck may be preserved in a more intact condition than the other three, which broke to pieces in the surf soon after running aground.]

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/14lostfleet/background/french-fleet/french-fleet.html

 

[QuartermasterD]

There is evidence for two monuments having been erected on land in 1562, but there were numerous such monuments. Persuasive evidence was presented in the case for there being several monuments loaded on La Trinite for the 1565 expedition, which ended with La Trinite wrecked. Really, just read the judgement, it's all in there, cross-referenced with something like a thousand pages of supporting material. When you've gone through all that, come back with valid theories that fit the available evidence.

Maybe I missed it in an earlier post, but is there any citation for the evidence that was presented to suggest several monuments were loaded onto the Trinite for the 1565 expedition? I don't see anything regarding this in the judgement document and I don't have access to any other case files. In my opinion, this is the most important evidence in the case.

 

[xaos]

Interesting read on the subject http://staugustinereport.net/index_htm_files/Trinite.pdf

 

[xaos]

LAMP:
We know from a recently discovered document in the Spanish archives that a French survivor testified that five of these monuments were loaded on Ribault’s fleet before departing France, and we know that the four ships that wrecked did not have the time or tide to unload their ships at Fort Caroline. With this stone monument, and the bronze artillery, and the location at Cape Canaveral, there is really no doubt that this is the Trinité.

 

[FISHEYE]

I found several intact ships timbers on the beach at the cape after the 3rd 2004 hurricanes that were exposed after 40 feet of dunes washed away.The 4th hurricane reburied the timbers.Most of the timbers were what you call the knee's that were from a lower deck.They were huge.3 foot across and 4 feet thick and 20 feet long so i would assume they are from a 100 to 150 ton ship.There were other straight timbers there as well.I pulled several bronze spikes out of them some intact and bent and others were snapped off.A friend told me a mast washed up the day before i got there.Bronze cannons have been found in the dunes in this area and also a big iron anchor.

 

[QuartermasterD]

LAMP:
We know from a recently discovered document in the Spanish archives that a French survivor testified that five of these monuments were loaded on Ribault’s fleet before departing France, and we know that the four ships that wrecked did not have the time or tide to unload their ships at Fort Caroline. With this stone monument, and the bronze artillery, and the location at Cape Canaveral, there is really no doubt that this is the Trinité.

I read this, but it does not specifically state if it refers to the 1562 or 1564 expedition. The image of a book page at the beginning of this thread already documents the 1562 expedition taking 5 monuments (which GME argues can all be accounted for in some way), so it is intuitive to suspect that LAMP is referring to the same 5 monuments unless they directly state a year. Is there any more detail on this recently discovered document?

 

[jenbooks]

I refuse to line another entity's pockets and pay for information that should be free, so there is no way for me to read the evidence. Besides, would you not agree that it is fairly easy for Lawyers and so-called experts to make evidence fall in line with their case against the opposition and that the Courts and it's Judges are no more the wiser??!!

You can get it all free by registering on Pacer then on Pacer Pro as an individual.

 

[QuartermasterD]

If anyone is registered for PACER, please post the language from the case documents that clarifies the recently discovered document in the Spanish archives. I have to wait 7-10 days for an activation code to be sent by standard mail. Thanks!

 

[xaos]

How did you register for PACER? You put your credit card number in and you are there. Do you have a credit card?

The image of a book page at the beginning of this thread already documents the 1562 expedition taking 5 monuments (which GME argues can all be accounted for in some way

Where did you get that information from?

I would look at reading this entire article with the numerous links. There is information about the 2 voyages, number of monuments, and eyewitness accounts recorded of the voyage(s).
There is the Dieppe Museum in France which has a Ribault Memorial.

Quite a bit of information here but there is no internet based spoon feeder.

 

[QuartermasterD]

How did you register for PACER? You put your credit card number in and you are there. Do you have a credit card?

Where did you get that information from?

I would look at reading this entire article with the numerous links. There is information about the 2 voyages, number of monuments, and eyewitness accounts recorded of the voyage(s).
There is the Dieppe Museum in France which has a Ribault Memorial.

Quite a bit of information here but there is no internet based spoon feeder.

Credit cards are optional for PACER registration and I'm not giving them mine since the website is ambiguous on whether or not I will be charged: https://www.pacer.gov/reg_pacer.html

If you’re asking how I concluded that GME believes all 5 of the original monuments can be accounted for, see Black Duck's post on the first page: “if you do you research you will see that 5 came over in 1562, 3 went back to France in 1562 and one was captured in 1564 and taken to Spain, that leaves one, the one GME found…”

The purpose of wanting to know more about the historical document from the Spanish archives that shows more monuments were brought to Florida in 1564 is because it definitely negates GME’s argument, so it’s a really interesting piece of historic information that I think a lot of people would like to see for themselves.

I'll read anything you provide (that doesn't require my credit card info), but I'm not sure which article you are suggesting to read. If it's the LAMP article you posted earlier, it doesn't answer any of my questions regarding the recently discovered document. Neither does the case judgement document. I just want to know more about the recently discovered document - who, what, and when?

I believe I read through everything provided in this thread and I haven't seen any specifics regarding this document. I feel like it's the smoking gun for this case.

 

[xaos]

If you’re asking how I concluded that GME believes all 5 of the original monuments can be accounted for, see Black Duck's post on the first page: “if you do you research you will see that 5 came over in 1562, 3 went back to France in 1562 and one was captured in 1564 and taken to Spain, that leaves one, the one GME found…”

So, that post, is all the information you used for your conclusion? There are plenty of other references to the details of the monuments to consider. Did you do any research as Black Duck suggested? other than

I'll read anything you provide

The case was determined on the known manifest, cannon identification, of course the monument, and surviving eyewitness accounts of the sinking. There could have been a hundred monuments, and it would have no bearing on the decision.

 

[huntsman53]

So, that post, is all the information you used for your conclusion? There are plenty of other references to the details of the monuments to consider. Did you do any research as Black Duck suggested? other than

The case was determined on the known manifest, cannon identification, of course the monument, and surviving eyewitness accounts of the sinking. There could have been a hundred monuments, and it would have no bearing on the decision.

Bull Shiite!! If a factual not made up document can show that the monument found by GME was not on the Trinite and in turn proves that the ship is not the Trinite, then it has a lot of bearing on the decision.

 

[QuartermasterD]

So, that post, is all the information you used for your conclusion? There are plenty of other references to the details of the monuments to consider. Did you do any research as Black Duck suggested? other than

The case was determined on the known manifest, cannon identification, of course the monument, and surviving eyewitness accounts of the sinking. There could have been a hundred monuments, and it would have no bearing on the decision.

I'm not sure why you are so aggressive. Even your last reply had a disrespectful undertone that I had to consciously ignore. I politely asked if anyone could provide a citation for the evidence that more monuments were brought to Florida in 1564 because I would like to read it.

I like learning about the history of Florida, but dealing with your attitude is taking the enjoyment out of it.