The FBI Files: Dents Run Civil War Gold

[Tom_in_CA]

............
They don't have anything to show that is worth further exploration ......

Huh ? What do you MEAN that : "They don't have anything to show that is worth further exploration...." ?

OF COURSE THEY DO ! Here is what is worth : "Further exploration" : All those things that the G-men conspired to cover up, white-wash, lie about, steal, fail-to-turn-over records about in-a-timely-fashion, etc.... All those ingredients MOST CERTAINLY point to : Fabulous Treasure. Don't they ? Hence indeed worth : ".... further exploration"

After all, what do the G-men have to hide. WHY ELSE would they be delaying the instantaneous turning over of all demanded material ? HOW ELSE do they explain the treasure legend ? HOW ELSE do they explain the armored trucks and full hotels ? IT CAN ONLY MEAN : Fabulous Treasure. Right ??

 

[Tom_in_CA]

There are strict rules for archeological digging ....

Yup. Those laws were to : Ensure that common laymen (like you and I and FK) do not get to lay our hands on fabulous treasures.


Hey, ya gotta hand it to those sneaky G-men, for coming up with the 1979 APPA laws. So that they could whisk away fabulous treasures from right under our noses. RIGHT ?

 

[ucnegold?]

Fabulous Treasure. Right ??

I guess it really is Groundhog Day again!

 

[GoDeep]

Huh ? What do you MEAN that : "They don't have anything to show that is worth further exploration...." ?

OF COURSE THEY DO ! Here is what is worth : "Further exploration" : All those things that the G-men conspired to cover up, white-wash, lie about, steal, fail-to-turn-over records about in-a-timely-fashion, etc.... All those ingredients MOST CERTAINLY point to : Fabulous Treasure. Don't they ? Hence indeed worth : ".... further exploration"

After all, what do the G-men have to hide. WHY ELSE would they be delaying the instantaneous turning over of all demanded material ? HOW ELSE do they explain the treasure legend ? HOW ELSE do they explain the armored trucks and full hotels ? IT CAN ONLY MEAN : Fabulous Treasure. Right ??

What is the obsession with posting this train of thought on every single page of this thread? I mean this in all due respect, but do you have anything new to add to the discussion because at this point, in my opinion, it's just being a troll. We get it, we got it, read the room.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Go-Deep, I am making fun of FK's proposed logic, that he'd come up with to circumvent all the damning info about the D.R. yarn. Thinking : "This is what he'd probably say ". It is meant to RIDICULE the D.R. narrative. It is "tongue in cheek" I am very much on your/our side that : There's no merit to D.R.

 

[GoDeep]

Go-Deep, I am making fun of FK's proposed logic, that he'd come up with to circumvent all the damning info about the D.R. yarn. Thinking : "This is what he'd probably say ". It is meant to RIDICULE the D.R. narrative. It is "tongue in cheek" I am very much on your/our side that : There's no merit to D.R.

We knew this 100 pages ago. Totally (and I suspect purposely) missed the point.

 

[GoDeep]

Let me put it succinctly so you can understand how I feel:

I've put years into gathering information, obtaining court records, reading countless pages, watching videos, studying the evidence and even taking a trip from Minnesota out to Dents Run to gather more evidence all to test and measure the validity of Plaintiffs claims.

I then put a lot of work into making high effort, new content posts that expose factual evidence about the case and after each and every post I make, nearly the first response is always a low effort regurgitation of the same old hypothetical shtick about how FK could explain it all away. I find it incredibly dismissive of my efforts and insulting.

 

[lumbercamp]

 

[GoDeep]

Thanks for posting this, extremely interesting! What was the approximate date of this paper/article?

Interesting that he mentions the silver legend. Plaintiff had floated what I believe was this legend in how alleged "silver" ended up in the cave.

I wonder if the reference to the guy who found a wagon wheel was Jack Schall?

 

[lumbercamp]

It was in the Oct 13, 1975 issue of the "Harrisburg Evening News", but reprinted in our local paper in Dec. that year.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... dismissive of my efforts and insulting.

GoDeep, I have told you, and you don't deny, that I am INSULTING FK & gang. Showing what they will probably say, and by showing how implausible those potential comebacks will be. That THEY TOO do not hold water, under scrutiny. And to do so, I have done it "tongue in cheek" method.


But if you find that "insulting", then : Point duly noted. I will figure out how to make fun of his potential comebacks in a way that don't insult you. Because heaven's knows that it's exactly as you said : You have done a LOT of legwork. And I do NOT want to discourage that. If his D.R. yarn ever went forward with publicity , then it is research work like yours, that will be the "balanced comment" that anyone researching will land upon.


It is the type of "balanced comment" that can never be had for the century-plus old legends. Since, of course, their entire "proof" is always/only/ever the LEGEND ITSELF. Ie.: There's no pix, no persons-to-interview, there's no paperwork in-live-time to compare, etc.... SO THERE'S NO WAY TO SHOW HOW SILLY THEY ARE . But this one is current tense (with all the same ingredients as the centuries old ones). So it is the PERFECT "case example" , that we can study, of how these stories get started. And a perfect look at the psychology , of the believers, who fall for them.


Anyhow, I do not want to offend you, so how about this : I will not speculate what silly pushbacks he *might* offer, UNTIL he actually offers them. So that , like yourself, will only be responding to what HE says. Not what I say that he "might" say. Ok ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

View attachment 590825

Well at least this starts off honestly : "According to legend ........". Hence presto, what is our proof of this legend ? Well of course, THE LEGEND ITSELF. Can anyone spell "circular reasoning" ?

 

[Connecticut Danny]

Do not assume any treasure story is true without true research. Not everything that you read is true. Summer is coming soon.

 

[Connecticut Danny]

Good night Tom from the great state of Connecticut.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Do not assume any treasure story is true without true research. Not everything that you read is true. Summer is coming soon.

Good point. And you're right that JUST because someone renders a legend as proof of itself, does not mean that it's necessarily false. Because, after all : Eye witness testimony is indeed considered "evidence" in a court of law. Right ?

So perhaps someone eye-witnessed a treasure 200 yrs. ago (eg.: the burial, yet never went back, yet told their tale to someone else on their deathbed, etc...) Ok, Sure. Then if that is what was being examined now, 200 yrs. later, then yes, that's "testimony", not "legend"


But here's the rub : The "legend" characterization that I'm speaking of IS NOT where we're looking at the "guy on his death bed's" supposed verbal testimonial. IT IS THE GUY who claims TO HAVE HEARD this testimony. Or worse yet, the guy who heard from the guy who heard from the guy who heard...... etc... So you and I are not really examining the "guy on his deathbed" testimony. We are now relying on 3rd and 4th degree -removed testimony.

So at SOME POINT IN TIME, it becomes the demeaning characterization of the word "legend" that I was implying.


But yes, if someone is referring to first-person singular (the actual witness, Ie.: actual person who buried or witnessed), as being our word "legend", then yes, you would be correct that it is not right to be dismissive of that definition of "legend". But that was not what I was alluding to when I was dismissive of "legends"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...and so it drags on!

Yup. So that AT NO POINT are we allowed to say that : There wasn't a "fabulous treasure". It's just one-more-legal-hoop here. And one-more-legal-hoop there. Or : A little more to the right. A little more to the left. A little deeper. But at NO POINT are you allowed to say that there wasn't a fabulous treasure.

(BTW : There was no fabulous treasures on Boardwalk main beach yesterday )

 

[GoDeep]

Latest filing deadlines:


02/20/2024
MINUTE ORDER granting Defendant's Unopposed [52] Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant's Opposition and Reply shall be filed on or before February 29, 2024, and Plaintiff's Reply shall be filed on or before March 14, 2024. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/20/2024. (lcapm1) (Text entry; no document attached.)

 

[too_pointer]

Latest filing deadlines:


02/20/2024
MINUTE ORDER granting Defendant's Unopposed [52] Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant's Opposition and Reply shall be filed on or before February 29, 2024, and Plaintiff's Reply shall be filed on or before March 14, 2024. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/20/2024. (lcapm1) (Text entry; no document attached.)

I like Curse, so go after that !
too_

 

[ucnegold?]

I like Curse, so go after that !

Too, I presume you are speaking of The Curse of Oak Island?

If so, I don’t really see any correlation between OI and Dent’s Run. They are both considered “treasure related” stories but the similarities end there. The Oak Island tv series is really just documenting the systematic search for an alleged treasure. Unlike Dent’s Run, Oak Island really has no controversy or conspirators claiming a government absconded with the treasure. It’s interesting TV to a large audience.

Unlike the FK group, The Lagina’s and group have invested heavily in the hunt and have actually acquired a stake and own some of the land on which they are searching. Their research is extensive. The equipment and techniques they are using are worthy of televising because the audience has responded. They are careful to remind viewers that they don’t really know anything for sure but are working towards finding an outcome, whatever it may be. They have actually found interesting items along the journey which according to some, seem to date back centuries. There really isn’t anything to “go after” as you say, just good TV IMO.

Dent’s run has none of this. Nothing of the alleged treasure was ever found at Dents Run by the Plaintiff or Defendant. The FK group does not own the land and refused to even lay down a bond that would have allowed them to use a drilling rig on site. The research was shoddy at best. There is no credible, corroborating evidence for any part of the Dents Run story or to even place any depositing party at the spot. Then there is the elephant in the room – the Plaintiff has claimed in forums and social media, without any credible evidence that the government absconded with this alleged gold and conspired to cover it up. There is nothing interesting about DR from a TV viewers perspective. It’s only a case of sour grapes and cliffhangers that never come to be.

Dent’s Run is a worthy topic of discussion in this forum mostly because it is somewhat “treasure related” because of the legend and the “treasure hunter’s” lawsuit for records is currently still playing out in the court system. Do the Plaintiff’s claims have merit? Will the DOJ be ordered to release every minute detail of the investigation, even at the risk of exposing sensitive operations and the identities of LE personnel just doing their job? How will the outcome possibly affect treasure hunting law in the US? Have the Plaintiff’s actions helped or hindered the hobby? Lots to “go after” as you say here.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... Dent’s Run is a worthy topic of discussion in this forum mostly because it is somewhat “treasure related” because of the legend and the “treasure hunter’s” lawsuit for records is currently still playing out in the court system. Do the Plaintiff’s claims have merit? .....

Yes, that's what makes this current bruhaha a great case-example-to-study. Because in the case of O.I. we are not at liberty to go back to the sources. The original claimants. There's no one to cross-examine. Eg.: the original supposed hole dug, and so forth. So in the case of O.I. , we are at the whims and mercy of the legend itself. A vicious circle of the legend being the proof-of-itself. Contrast to THIS legend, and it's all recent. Within the lifetimes of people still here , recent enough that we can examine THEIR sources. Therefore this one lends itself to easy refutation. Contrast to O.I. and .... it can never be examined that way.

But there are similarities that I love about these 2 legends which D.R. has been able to shed a lot of light on. That I am going to insist is the SAME as O.I. Namely : The psychology involved in how-such-legends get born IN THE FIRST PLACE. Because now that D.R. unfolded in "live -time" (and been shown to be baseless), we can see that : So too is this the likely culprit in how So many, from 100 and 200 + yrs. ago, probably also be chalked up to the same psychology.

But unlike the ones from history (that you can never "put to rest"), this one you could. But I suspect that all the old yarns (yamashita, Dutchman's lost mine, pearl ship, etc....) are going to invariably be the same thing as D.R. was. OH SURE WE CAN'T PROVE IT NOW, but .... D.R. was a great case example of how these things get started.

And a great example how people just unquestionably give them merit. I mean, everyone tends to be leery of govt. ,eh ? (America's favorite hobby is to gripe about the govt. authority over them). So it's easy to lend credence to a conspiracy theory, right ? And everyone loves a good treasure story (lest you be "laughed at all the way to the bank"). Thus it is SO easy for these campfire legends to just simply become supposed truth, after a mere few generations.