The FBI Files: Dents Run Civil War Gold

[GoDeep]

This thread is dedicated to critically examining the evidence surrounding the FBI's dig on March 12-14, 2018, for alleged lost/stolen gold at Dents Run, PA, as well as a suit filed on 1/4/2022 by Plaintiff, Dennis Parada in Finders Keepers LLC USA Vs. The Department of Justice to compel and expedite the release of the FBI files related to the dig.

Critical, thoughtful debate of the evidence is encouraged, and all members are welcome to post here, no matter your viewpoint! We may not always agree, but please remember to be respectful of other members opinions. I have compiled voluminous statements, photos and documents over the past few years that I'll be sharing as soon as possible to bring you up to date. I am signed up to PACER, a paid court document system, which gives me almost instant access to any new filings in the case that I will share as soon as they are filed such as new motions, orders and joint status reports.

Links:

FBI Files: For those looking to examine the FBI files released to date, including pictures, files, Gravimeter site report, notes, email correspondence etc : https://vault.fbi.gov/alleged-missi...nbdZRwW2Ew8eY1mDHudmVDd8Nb7LuzDmfadExvG0GSNzE

Finders Keepers LLC USA Vs. The Department of Justice: For those wishing to follow along with the court docket, including free access to most filings such as the original complaint, FBI warrant, Motions, etc: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61687543/finders-keepers-usa-llc-v-us-department-of-justice/

PACER: For those wanting full and instant access to all case filings, you can sign up here, cost is .10 cents per page: https://pacer.uscourts.gov/

 

[GoDeep]

A Brief History: In 1974, Dennis Parada, current owner of Finders Keepers LLC, along with several of his furniture store co-workers at the time, sat down with a psychic. The psychic had been provided a story of a fabled stolen Civil War era cache of gold. Upon reading the story, the psychic, being overcome by voices that were not his own and with his eyes looking to the ceiling, brought his pen down upon a map laid out before him on the table and exclaimed, "Denny, i want you to go to this spot", and that spot was Dents Run.

Dennis narrowed the Dents Run search area down to a large boulder that straddled a dry run with a small void, just big enough for a man to crawl under. The boulder sat just to the side of an old roadbed that ran up the mountain and Dennis figured the void under the boulder ran up under the road and may have collapsed at some time in the past. Several decades were spent probing and enlarging out the passage, digging bore holes into the road and scanning the roadbed with various metal detectors, long range detectors and dowsing rods. Though no samples of gold were ever recovered, the instruments they were using indicated possible gold and silver under the roadbed.

In 2012, Dennis and his crew were trespassed from any further treasure hunting at the Dents Run site by the Pennsylvania DCNR for among other things, harassing, following and taking photos of Dents Run area residents and PA DCNR employees. They ignored this legal trespass notice and continued to probe Dent's Run until they were caught by a PA DCNR Officer over two years later and were again issued a follow up trespass order.

Apparently out of options, in early 2018, Dennis contacted and met with the FBI to tell his story of Dents Run. Interested in his story, the FBI contracted a gravimeter test to be administered at Dents Run, which revealed a possible high-density mass of 7-9 tons. The FBI then obtained a warrant to excavate the site on March-12-14, 2018. After 3 days on the site, the FBI reported they found nothing at the dig site. Dennis did not believe this to be true and sought to have the warrant and the FBI files released to himself and the public. After 4 years, the majority of the file has been released by the DOJ. We will be critically examining the evidence contained in the FBI file, the legal filings of Plaintiff (Finder Keeper LLC) and any past and present claims of Plaintiff.

Sources:

"A LOST TROVE OF CIVIL WAR GOLD, AN FBI EXCAVATION, AND SOME VERY ANGRY TREASURE HUNTERS" by Chris Heath The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...ania-civil-war-treasure-gold-hunt-fbi/638445/

The FBI files: https://vault.fbi.gov/alleged-missing-civil-war-gold-in.../

Plaintiffs' previous testimony from various online forums, groups and publications.

 

[GoDeep]

After reading "A Brief History" above, i'd recommend reading the following:

- Plaintiffs Complaint, filed against the DOJ on 1/4/22 found here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854.1.0.pdf

- FBI Warrant, signed 3/9/2018 by the Honorable Richard A. Lloret, and affidavit by lead FBI Special Agent in Charge, Jacob Archer, in support of said warrant: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854.1.1_1.pdf

- Article. This article is particularly relevant as the author actually spent time with Dennis and even visited the site and he doesn't just accept everything told him as fact: "A LOST TROVE OF CIVIL WAR GOLD, AN FBI EXCAVATION, AND SOME VERY ANGRY TREASURE HUNTERS" by Chris Heath The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...ania-civil-war-treasure-gold-hunt-fbi/638445/

 

[GoDeep]

Updated list of topics 11/21/24.

For those new to this thread, here's a brief list of some of the topics discussed and where to find them:

1. Were Plaintiffs barred from observing the dig? Plaintiffs claimed the FBI had agreed to allow them to observe the dig while it was taking place. However, once the dig began, Plaintiffs and/or their associates indicated they were barred from viewing the dig and made to sit in their car, only being led up to an empty hole after the dig had concluded. Page 2, Post #39: https://metaldetectingforum.com/showpost.php?p=3416436&postcount=39

2. Did a nighttime dig take place? Plaintiffs claimed that after the first day of dig at approximately 3:00PM, they were told by the FBI they could go home as the digging had ended for the day. Plaintiffs would later claim that after they left, at approximately 700PM, the FBI started digging again and dug overnight into the early morning hours. This night dig is when Plaintiffs claim gold was found and removed. Page 4, Post #61-64: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3417460

3. Was there a cave under the road? Plaintiffs have long claimed there was a cave under the road, complete with several rooms and what appeared to be man-made walls as well as possible human bones. Page 10, Post #185-189: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3422876

4. Were there armored trucks at the dig site that moved in convoys? Plaintiffs claim there were armored trucks at the dig site (and by his belief, loading gold) and that they moved in convoys. Page 5, Post #84 and #90: https://metaldetectingforum.com/showthread.php?p=3418680#post3418680

5. Did EnviroScan's Gravimeter readings indicate 7-9 Tons of Gold at Dents Run? Plaintiff had on numerous occasions indicated that the Enviroscan Gravimeter gave readings of gold and silver at dents run. Page 6, Post #112, 113: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3420313

6. Did plaintiffs strike gold when drilling bore holes in the roadbed over a decade ago? Plantiffs had testified and several public posts that when drilling test holes on the roadbed about the "cave", that they struck gold and that their bit when pulled out of the holes had what appeared to be gold on them. Page 2, Post #23: https://metaldetectingforum.com/showpost.php?p=3415995&postcount=23

7. Why did the Plaintiffs contact the FBI to dig at Dents Run? Plaintiffs have long claimed they did it because they trusted the FBI and "wanted to do it right" but was this the real reason? Page 2, Post #24: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3416010

8. Was an early Enviroscan Gravimeter Map forged to read "high density" areas? High density areas are consistent with higher density metals such as platinum, gold and tungsten. Page 7, Post #133-135: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3421403

9. At one time, did Plaintiffs themselves admit they weren't always completely honest when posting statements about Dents Run online? Page 5, Post #99: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3419217

10. Are the published Dents Run Gold stories that first appeared in the treasure magazines and books of 1960's and 1970's have any traceable, historical basis in fact or were they largely complete fiction? Page 16, Post #314-320: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3426716

11. Did Plaintiffs have nighttime photos from their trail cams? At times they indicated they did, at other times they indicated they didn't. Which is true? Page 5, Post #91 & #93: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3419048

12. Is the gravimeter and Enviroscan report infallible? or was it wrong and did it contradict Plaintiffs own ground scans? Plaintiff had spent years scanning the site with his own testing equipment, was it contradicted by the Enviroscan Gravimeter scan of the site? Page 6, Post #112,113: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3420313

13. How was the Dent's Run site discovered: map, psychic or random chance? The record contains all 3 possibilities, but which one is supported by the evidence? Page 14, Post #278: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3424202

14. Does Plaintiff Actually Believe The FBI is lying when they said they found No Gold and would he work with the FBI again? Page 2, Post #30 https://metaldetectingforum.com/showpost.php?p=3416270&postcount=30

15. Why did Plaintiff insist on using the wrong metal detecting instruments at the test site, despite being warned by all 3 manufactures of them that they would not give accurate readings in the waterlogged conditions present at the site? Page 51, Post 1014: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3473657

16. Was Plaintiff dishonest when he claimed the PA DCNR bond would only allow him to drive in copper stakes at the site when he was exploring for the gold? Yes, in fact, the bond stated he could dig 20+ holes over 20+ feet deep! : Page 51, Post 1006: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3473562

17. Did Plaintiff knowingly misrepresent the time site photo's were taken in order to make it appear the FBI dug at night? Yes, Page 88, Post 1742-1754: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3493782

18. Plaintiff won't show you why the PA DCNR won't work with him at the Round Island Falls "Stonehenge Site", but we will. Page 117, Post 2335-2338: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3530440

19. Current Site and cave pictures from our trip to Dents Run, 12/2023: Starting on page 85 thru Page 88: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3491364

20. Was Plaintiff Present at the Dig site to personally witness the FBI dig past the depth at which his own tests and the FBI's test indicated there was gold at, which means Plaintiff knows no gold was found? Yes. Page 126, Post 2513: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3537575

21. Was there standing room in the cave, skeletons, artifacts, man-made walls, waterfalls and multiple rooms in the cave as Plaintiff claims? No. Page 125, Posts 2483-2500: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3535324

22. Were Plaintiffs and the FBI actually metal detecting over multiple brass rods driven into the ground from above and below in the cave, giving false readings? Yes.
A. Brass Rods driven under the road from underneath the boulder. Page 90, Post 1793: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3496045
B. Plaintiff admitting that both his tests and the FBI's gravimeter test were performed over the brass rods hidden in the ground. Page 54, Post 1072: https://metaldetectingforum.com/ind...-dents-run-civil-war-gold.298506/post-3475291

 

[Tom_in_CA]

oh sheessshhhh Can't we all just stop at your post #2 here (about the psychic) and simply disregard everything else that follows ?

AAAarrrgggghhhh

 

[GoDeep]

oh sheessshhhh Can't we all just stop at your post #2 here (about the psychic) and simply disregard everything else that follows ? AAAarrrgggghhhh

I know most of these questions we already know the answers to, but I'm documenting them more for histories sake (and the sake of the media and members here who don't know the full story) as one person had been controlling most of the narrative for years and multiple sources had been incorrectly reporting Plaintiffs account of the events surrounding the dig as fact.

Tom, you have a more in depth understanding of the case then most, but much of this evidence will be new to many members and perhaps some of it even new to you, plus there's been compelling new revelations in the court case that have dropped just in the past week.

Edit: My "Brief History" above is how the story should be told if one weren't omitting pertinent facts to steer a preferred narrative.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

You can scroll back on this forum (key word search Dents Run), where all your questions have already been discussed ad nauseam. So : Just go there for the answers to all these questions. To engage in the wack a mole game of explaining away all the supposed salacious conspiracy details, would simply be to dignify the story. As if there were something there to need-to-be answered, in the first place.

 

[GoDeep]

You can scroll back on this forum (key word search Dents Run), where all your questions have already been discussed ad nauseam. So : Just go there for the answers to all these questions. To engage in the wack a mole game of explaining away all the supposed salacious conspiracy details, would simply be to dignify the story. As if there were something there to need-to-be answered, in the first place.

Normally, I'd agree with you, but this is an evidence based discussion and isn't a rehash of previous claims/opinions/debates on here which were absent any of the tangible evidence that has been uncovered the past few months and this forum does not contain even 1 percent of the site time logs, site event logs, fbi photos, Site Gravimeter Report, FBI reports, witness statements, court filings, affidavits, motions, rulings, Plaintiff statements, videos, warrants, trespass notices, historical documents etc etc that I will be posting. Hell, there's even been two significant court rulings just in the past week.

A select few members on here who followed the now deleted thread, can no doubt testify to the fact that most of this will be completely new information/evidence to the majority of members (and visitors) to this site.

Also, keep in mind, this isn't just a thread about the dig, it's also a thread about the ongoing civil suit, Finders Keepers LLC USA VS. The Department of Justice, which just had a major ruling on the case this past week. This is an ongoing case that warrants following and discussion.

Edit: Also, i respectfully disagree that discussing the actual evidence gives credit to or dignifies Plaintiffs story. In fact, in my opinion, letting only Plaintiffs story and "facts" remain unchallenged is what brings credibility to his story.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... In fact, in my opinion, letting only Plaintiffs story and "facts" remain unchallenged is what brings credibility to his story.

On this forum, You will find no shortage of skeptical challenges to FK's fantasy. Maybe on some other forum there are no challenges allowed. But not here.

....but this is an evidence based discussion

There is no evidence. The stuff you're listing as evidence (that someone is supposed to dispel, or other wise it means: A treasure exists), is akin to "So & so has squinty eyes. Therefore he *must* be hiding something". Or "So & so heard a funny noise and saw strange lights", blah blah blah. Those are not evidence. Nor are they worthy of dispelling ,... as if they were evidence. And all those things have already been discussed ad nauseam already anyhow.

Why not simply read the threads about this already present here ?

 

[Barry]

Not sure why you would even care, unless you have a dog in the fight that you have not disclosed..Either way, havnt your threads been deleted elswhere?

Cyberstalking..

Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization. It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel.

 

[GoDeep]

I'll repeat once, this isn't just about past events, it is also about current events, specifically the suit brought against the DOJ in Finders Keepers LLC USA Vs. The Department of Justice, a case in which a major ruling just dropped this week which i'll post up later this evening when i get home.

Now, i completely understand this isn't a topic/thread that interests everyone, but that's the beauty of the internet, a simple click of ignore and you'll never have to read another sentence of it again!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

...., this isn't just about past events, it is also about current events, ....

Sure. It's past event, and current event, about a baseless suit.

Anyone can come up with a "string of suspicious events" (people with squinty eyes, mysterious lights seen in the distance, etc...) and those do not constitute "evidence of a treasure".

Example : I can come up with the same salacious story-line about aliens at Area 51. And say that : "Unless you can explain to me these 20 salacious suspicious things, to my satisfaction, then presto: There must be aliens at Area 51".


On the contrary, it's up to the claimant to prove aliens at area 51. So too is the same logic here : It's not up to skeptics to prove there ISN'T treasure. It's up to the believer to prove there IS treasure.

I can do the same footloose mind-games with things involving JFK assassination, chemtrails, 5g towers, etc.... And give you a "salacious list" of things to show that the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are trying to take over the world, blah blah

Dennis' complete line of reasoning is that if he can't get every person to dance to his drum, then that MUST mean : Vast Treasure.

 

[SeabeeRon]

On this forum, You will find no shortage of skeptical challenges to FK's fantasy. Maybe on some other forum there are no challenges allowed. But not here.

Yes challenges are allowed here as long as they are respectful and within Forum Guidelines.

 

[SeabeeRon]

Not sure why you would even care, unless you have a dog in the fight that you have not disclosed..Either way, havnt your threads been deleted elswhere?

Cyberstalking..

Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization. It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel.

I don’t believe this is a case of “cyberstalking”.

Members are free to discuss any old or new evidence in the current court case that Finders Keepers LLC has filed.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I don’t believe this is a case of “cyberstalking”. ....

Yeah, it's cool. A hobbyist chit-chat forum wouldn't be interesting, if opposing views didn't get posed. I don't fault the OP for asking, and being interested. It just seemed odd coming on the direct heels of a 17 page post on this very subject. Like ...... are we going to make another 17 pages now ?

 

[GoDeep]

First, for those who haven't been following the lawsuit or haven't had access to the lawsuit files, a "brief" overview:

Exhibit 1: See attached Plaintiffs original FOI (Freedom of Information) document request to the DOJ Office of Records Management dated 5/8/2018. After some back and forth between counsel and the DOJ records department, DOJ ultimately stated that it had over a 1,000 documents and pictures relevant to Plaintiffs request and that it would take several years to produce the requested documents.

Nearly four years later, with not a single document having been produced by the DOJ, Plaintiff hired the counsel of Anne Weismann Esq. who specializes in FOIA requests, to file suit against the DOJ to compel production of the FBI file. Plaintiffs' initial complaint, filed 1/4/22 against the DOJ can be read here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854.1.0.pdf

Upon filing suit and an answer being received, it was ordered in pertinent part: "The court hereby orders the FBI to process Plaintiff's FOIA request at a rate of 1,000 pages per month with the first production due in 30 days and productions thereafter every 30 days; and the court further orders that the FBI provide Plaintiff all non-exempt responsive records at no cost to Plaintiff; and the court further orders that the FBI implement Plaintiff's prioritization and first process the enviroscan report and the photographs before processing the remaining documents, with the exception of the videotapes, which shall be the subject of a further order." For those wishing to read the entire order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854.15.0.pdf

The court has continued to order Joint Status Reports between the two parties. Joint status reports force the two parties to work together to produce the documents and work out any differences the two parties may have without need to constantly bother the court.

The entire case docket, with most relevant filings, can be found here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/61687543/finders-keepers-usa-llc-v-us-department-of-justice/

Case brief continues in the next post.

Exhibit 1, Plaintiffs original FOI request:

 

[GoDeep]

Case Brief continued:

One area of contention with Plaintiff was that the DOJ had originally stated there were approximately 17 videos pertinent to his request. That number was later reduced to 4, with the explanation by the DOJ being that the referenced "17 videos" was 4 videos being made into 17 shorter videos as they only process video clips in short segments due to the time it takes to review and redact any classified information that may be contained in them.

It was also learned by Plaintiff at this time that the 4 videos were, in fact, video's Dennis P. himself had given to the FBI. However, it should be noted that it would not have been unlikely for the DOJ records keeper to not know who originally gave the FBI the videos as their job is to only produce what is in the file and they rarely know anything themselves about the actual case they are providing documents and video from as they are not the agents in the field who conducted the dig.

Upon learning this new information, Plaintiff brought a motion accusing the FBI of concealing or destroying evidence where they asked the judge to sanction the DOJ by awarding attorneys fee's and also to allow them to put lead FBI agent Archer under oath and question him about the dig (deposition him). In support of their motion, they attached a picture of an FBI agent at the dig site appearing to take video.

Plaintiffs motion for depositions can be read here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854.24.1.pdf

Plaintiffs motion for sanctions (attorneys fees) can be read here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854.23.1.pdf

The DOJ records department, upon receiving this motion and picture, contacted the FBI Pennsylvania field office that conducted the dig to inquire who was the agent in the picture taking videos. The FBI responded that it was an employee of the Office of Public Affairs and they had contacted him to see if he had the video files from the dig, which he replied in the affirmative and turned over approximately 52 minutes of short video clips to the DOJ records to review and produce to plaintiff. Here is the FBI's reply to Plaintiffs motions:

DOJ's reply to Plaintiffs motion to compel depositions: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854.27.0.pdf

DOJ's reply to Plaintiffs motion for sanctions (attorney's fees):
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854/gov.uscourts.dcd.238854.29.0.pdf


At that time, having read Plaintiffs motion, as well as the DOJ's response, I pointed out that their motion contained only accusations and no actual evidence and their chances of prevailing in their motion was nearing zero. Plaintiff did not agree with my assessment and put his chances nearing 50/50. Plaintiff time and again mistakenly believes that his beliefs and accusations are evidence.


- Only a few weeks ago, Plaintiffs boasted that "there was no way they could lose this case". As it turns out, that was premature, as Plaintiff was just handed his first major defeat, see exhibit 2 below, as the judge denied their motion for attorneys fees and denied their motion to deposition the lead FBI agent in charge of the dig. In pertinent part below exh. 2:

Where the case stands now, all but approximately 15 minutes of video has been produced. Plaintiff recently claimed that the "case is just getting starting", however, i predict that once the remaining video is produced, we will shortly thereafter see a motion for summary judgement by the DOJ that will be granted and the case will be shortly closed.

Exhibit 2, Plaintiffs loss in his motion for sanctions (attorney's fees) and to deposition the lead FBI agent in charge:

 

[Tom_in_CA]

All of this failure to lickety split react to demands from some dude's demands, reminds me of the time , when I was in my 20's, that I got a ticket for running a red light near my house in my city. I could have SWORN that it only stayed yellow for a split second, thus causing me to run the light. My pleas fell on deaf ears to the cop who gave me the ticket.

Lo & behold, my neighbor happened to know that the city, on that exact day, had been playing with the timing mechanism, for a traffic calming experiment on this busy intersection. I realized then that it was not my imagination !

So I decided to fight my ticket. It was merely a matter of getting into the city's public work's traffic dept. records, right down to the daily reports from the singular dude working on the traffic lights, his exact timing (to coincide with my ticket), etc.... I even went so far as to try to deposition the city's traffic dept. head-person with a summons to show up for my ticket hearing. And then show all this proof to the traffic court judge, eh ?

But I was hit with constant bureaucratic delays and stonewalling. I ended up giving up, and just paying the ticket. It wasn't worth the time of red-tape and apathy at bureaucratic desks. They have crybabies coming in every day demanding this and that, complaining about this and that. And I was just an annoying buzzing fly.

So too does Dennis' meeting of apathy, bureaucracy, stonewalling, and delays, does NOT mean : "Gold". This is just standard operating procedure for any LEO agency. And personally, I don't blame them. There are hoops to jump through, for good reason. Otherwise, everyone would be barging into public offices everyday, demanding that everyone drop everything and give me report after report to my satisfaction, on every subject at my whim. It doesn't work like that.

 

[atomicbrh]

Bottom line is government(local, state or federal) can twist regulations, laws and even the constitution to do what they want to do.
And fbi is a part of the government.

 

[davidlhyde63366]

Tom lives for this stuff