there are no sacred cows -- research wize

[ivan salis]

folks often are in a rush to "go dig" so they do not do original research or even do a good proper review of past "research" upon which they spend a lot of time, effort and money trying to run down the leads on .

folks seeking flaws in research in the past -- need go not farther that the "spotswood" letter of Oct 24th, 1715 -- governor spotswood of virginia wrote to british sec stanhope telling him of events related to the 1715 fleets wrecks and such *----

many "important" research people used this letter as a basis to say that one of the original 1715 fleet vessels was lost in nassau sound (the san miguel or french prize take your pick)

however a careful reading of the letter (done by me) clearly revels its true meaning ---its said * that a barcalonga (bark thus the wrong type of vessel --error #1) was sent form havana to get VIPs and treasure from the wrecksite ( get stuff from the wreck sites* (thus the 1715 wrecks had already occured --error #2 ---thus it could not have been one of the fleet vessels --error #3) thus from the letter it is very clear that the vessel is in fact a rescue and recovery bark sent after the main 1715 fleet wrecked.--it also states that it is about 40 miles northward of st augustine -- which matches nicely given the enterance / exit points for st augustine in 1715 ---

the cause of the mix up is two earlier spanish notes about the original fleet vessels that got co mingled information wize with the oct 24.1715 letter

the first is a statement made by the pilot major of the 1715 fleet --- that the "missing" vessels broke ranks with the rest oif the fleet the day before the storm hit and thus were on a more northly tack .

the second is a sept 20,1715 statement that admireal salmon made --that he feared the missing vessels broke up in deep water off st augustine since wreckage of a large vessel or vessels was found on the NORTH COAST of st augustine.

the researchers somehow thought this to mean on the coast north of st augustine thus they mixed it and the oct 24th letter together and wound up twisting the meanings of both documents.

these are about two totally differant events - that is now painful clear

this shows the real importance of good "proper" research--- read the info for yourself or get the flaws and red herrings of others. --- Ivan

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[ivan salis]

humm 63 looks and not one peep from anyone ?

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI IVan: Not in my field of err, ah, expertise, so I am not qualifed to talk, just read. Sounds 5 x 5 to me. Keep posting.

Don Jose de La ancha

 

[ivan salis]

reale ,my good freind you can read thus you can do "research" --thats all research is really reading documents and maps and understanding what you are reading ----. do not be put off of doing research on your own saying "ohh only the big time pro's can do it" because that type of thinking is just what kept this "error" above alive for 40 years ---no one dared to really look at the real source "informantion" for themselves to see if it indeed said what the "pro's" said it did.- (at least till I did-- while it will not make me alot of freinds in some quarters ---I stand by my statement -- in research there are no sacred cows* )--- track down or find and read the documents and maps that are quoted as "the source" for yourself to see if you actually agree with others veiws of what it means or says , do not blindly accept the statements of others as "fact" without reviewing it-- --just cuz its written by a "big" name person does not mean it is 100% correct, because they are mere humans and could have been having an "off" day when they did that bit of research, ,I say this with deep respect for those researchers of the past who have provided us with so much information thru the years to review in the first place.--- ----Ivan

 

[ivan salis]

110 views and only one person said anything at all ? geez yer being a tight lipped bunch -- rough crowd to please I guess . --- excellent info on 3 1715 fleet related vessels and zip to say about it?.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

HI IVAN, I followed your advice and now have found Atlantis, only needs a deep sea submersible to supply final physical proof. see TN'r has found Atlantis

Don Jose de La Mancha

p.s. Keep em coming my friend, excellent data.

 

[ScubaFinder]

Ivan, I think most of us know this pheomenon well. Not to say it wasn't well written and interesting, just nothing new to most of us. Add to the above mentioned errors, the fact that navigation equipment was also subject to large errors, people were subject to lying or hiding details, and as you know, document translation requires a bit of "personal interpretation" as well. Combined they give you a sizeable margin of error.

In my opinion, even the best research can only get you to within a few miles. At that point, it's back to the basics for me, I walk the beach, often without even taking a detector. Just looking and seeing what is laying around. I have located one wreck site this way already, and it worked well for Kip Wagner before all the new technology and internet documentation.

I've seen several folks get so tied up in the technology and paperwork, that they forgot to actually go LOOK and see if the wreck was there. Kip found 5 of the 6 known 1715 sites by walking on the beach and observing what he saw...unfortunately, that too is becoming a lost art.

Jason

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Right on scuba, I agree. Instruments are not a substitute for a head properly used.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[ivan salis]

I agree -- I have found several wreck site by looking at the "rocks" on shore -- bits of ballast stone washed ashore from near shore wrecks --- many folks see them yet fail to understand what they are looking at and that they are "out of place" == they just mindlessly jump and play about paying not any mind ay all to the "rocks" on a otherwize flat sand and sea shell beach --- LOL ---being an " alert and observant" person with an "good mind" is still one of the best tools around .

 

[FISHEYE]

Ivan,

it goes like this:Say you have 50 people all lined up in a row.You tell the first person something like"the ship sank at st augustine"then have that person repeat what you told him to say to the person standing next to him,and so on all the way to the 50th person.by the time the 50th person gets the messege.he says"the ship sank in sebastian"Wether the spanish communicated by word of mouth or by letter im sure the story changed quite a bit before it reached whoever it was intended for.mainly the king that lost all his treasure.for those that survived the 1715 wrecks,they told all kinds of stories so they wouldnt lose thier heads or be inprisoned for the rest of thier lives for loseing the kings badly needed treasure.

 

[ivan salis]

fisheye you are correct -- there were folks who were accountible --like admiral salmon ( Capt General Ubilla's #2 MAN ) -- as head of the salvage group after Ubilla's death it was his hide on the line to account for the 1715 fleet vessels where abouts and where the king's treasure was at --

he was in st augustine during the recovery vetting any and all the of the reports of wrecks and what was recovered to make sure he was in the know about what was being sent back message wizeto the king so that if he was asked any thing he could answer properly -- his position / rank / status and possibly his life depended upon it.

you are correct that the closer you get to the "source" the purer the message (the more its "retold" the more twisted it becomes normally)-- salmon was told by the captains doing the recovery and exploring first hand -- men who knew their hides were salmons for the asking. thus his knowledge was straight from the horses mouth so to speak --- so his reports would be about as clear as it comes historically speaking *

the english govenor of virgina ( spotswood) spy network was very impressive -- he was the guy who put
Lt. Maynard on Blackbeards trail --thru info gotten by his spy network --- spotwoods network was so good that the spanish account of the nassau sound wreck sent from st augustine was sent from cuba to mexico on oct 19, 1715 --- and spotswoods account was on oct 24th 1715 --a mere 5 days later --- given the sailing time differance from st augustine to cuba / virgina --- basically as one report went from st augustine to cuba another went to virgina -- very impessive I'd say .

Ivan

 

[Narked1]

Back to the point of Ivan's original post,
The few that have replied to this post have all made good points. As ScubaFinder pointed out, this is fairly well known phenomenon. But I'll make two points here which I believe to be true:

First: Even though someone conducts research for years and years, or does anything else for years and years for that matter, a "kind reminder" or a "refresher" never hurts to hear in order for us to keep our "eye-on-the-ball" so-to-speak.

And Second: For those that are new to conducting research and don't have the advantage of advanced training in either anthropology, archaeology, or the salvage business, this is really good educational information. Basic, simple, and to-the-point information that may help a set of new, fresh set of eyes see something that others may have overlooked.

For myself, I am still only a neophyte at conducting research after having conducted research on numerous shipwrecks along the north coast of Egypt for the past 6 years. Some of these sites are well documented (but there's still more to learn), and others that are virtually unknown. Unfortunately, from the salvage perspective, all are in most likely hood not worth the time and effort. But hey! For me it's fun to do as part of owning a dive center here.

Thanks for the post Ivan. I always look forward to the "Pearls of Wisdom" that are shared here.
Mike

 

[ivan salis]

your welcome -- my point is to recheck and make sure the "facts" you are going by are indeed valid "facts" -- not that hard to do normally as anyone who is stating "facts" or their theory --will give "source" to back their theory --thus by checking the "source"you can then see for yourself ---if their speaking the truth or if you have a differant "take" on the information or if its total BS that they are "shoveling" --- notes as to your "source" are "required" to have folks take you seriously --- other wize anyone can claim any wild tale is true if no "proof" is required to back up what they say.

and if you are doing any type of serious research one should validate all the information and sources that your using to insure that your not mixing bad information into your research.