The FBI Files: Dents Run Civil War Gold

[ucnegold?]

Ok, below is a link to an interview with the Plaintiffs’ with eyewitness accounts. How would this stand up to cross-examination? What questions would you ask of the Plaintiff? What of the body language of the two when some questions are asked and answered?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDo6ZCdsmng

One interesting thing I noted in this interview is that Plantiff says the investigators kept FK separated from the DCNR when at the excavation site. This is not surprising to me given the long and strained relationship of the two and the circumstances under which the Plaintiffs were ordered to vacate the premises by the DCNR.

Also, by the way admitting in this interview that they did not take their trash and copper LRL rods as the state had ordered when told to vacate. How did the presence of all these copper rods in the earth affect the Gravimeter?

It’s probably a big reason why the Plaintiffs were confined to the base camp for the most part. This was a criminal investigation, and we now know that Plaintiff had also accused the DCNR of illegalities. Keeping the two parties separated seems like solid LE protocol. The DCNR would be operating in official capacity for the state in witnessing the excavation and environmental conditions. Their presence at the excavation was warranted and perhaps they too were being observed by LE.

The Plaintiffs were not needed at the excavation site and had no official business being on location at all but nevertheless, they were generously granted permission to observe the excavation for a period of time.

 

[Pete e]

I can well believe there are caches of gold and silver coins from the Civil War and other "troubled" periods in American history still awaiting to be discovered.

I am not talking about caches measured in tons, but rather small caches of a pound or so, hidden in mason jars ect..

Could any of these caches be related to any of the famous treasure legends, I don't know, but would keep an open mind and assess the merits of each story on a case by case basis...

However, as soon as I hear "psychics" and "long range gold detectors" are involved, straight away all credibility is lost....

 

[GoDeep]

Ok, below is a link to an interview with the Plaintiffs’ with eyewitness accounts. How would this stand up to cross-examination? What questions would you ask of the Plaintiff? What of the body language of the two when some questions are asked and answered?
.

Question: "Did you observe actual gold bars/bullion/coins being removed from the ground or in the possession of the FBI at anytime during or after the dig?"

Answer: "No"

Question: "Then by default, you have not had any of the alleged gold forensically or historically examined to determine its origin/prevenance, correct?"

Answer: "Correct"

Question: "Then why are you making claims as to its origin?"

Answer: "To distract people from the above two facts"

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Question: "Did you observe actual gold bars/bullion/coins being removed from the ground or in the possession of the FBI at anytime during or after the dig?"

Answer: "No"

Question: "Then by default, you have not had any of the alleged gold forensically or historically examined to determine its origin/prevenance, correct?"

Answer: "Correct"

Question: "Then why are you making claims as to its origin?"

Answer: "To distract them from the above two facts"

This is along the lines of the crazy usage of the past-tense word "found". How does a person assume they've "found" something, when they never saw a single red cent ?

Easy: Because guys like Dennis think that if they narrow a supposed treasure down to a "certain swamp" or a "certain valley" or "certain cave", then presto: They've "found" (past tense) a treasure.

Now it's merely a pesky matter of bringing in heavy equipment, draining the swamp, overcoming govt. red tape, sorting out finder's fees and legal issues, etc..... But rest assured: A treasure is "found" (past tense).

Makes no sense whatsoever !

 

[GoDeep]

3. Was there a cave under the road? Plaintiff claimed there was a cave, divided into "3 rooms" with two "man made walls" separating them with a 14' water fall inside. Short answer: No, we were again misled by Plaintiff.

Let's first take a look at the location of the "cave" in question. Its entrance is located on the southern end of a large boulder that lies just off the road and straddles a natural drainage gully where water from the mountain naturally drains through.

Here's the boulder when viewed from the road:





Here's the boulder and "cave" entrance from the south side with the road running behind it:




Here's a lidar scan that shows the boulder lies in a natural draining valley:

 

[GoDeep]

3. Was there a cave under the road? Cont'd:

Now let's look at Plaintiffs first ever post describing the "cave". Note how there was no mention of it being collapsed. Note how it describes 3 rooms with man-made walls separating them, a large "firepit" in room 2 and even a 14 foot "waterfall". Also note the claim about a civil war soldier having made the "walls", a claim that couldn't be known unless you literally had a time machine.



Now let's look at every significant photo of the cave ever posted by plaintiff.

Here is the entrance with a man crawling out, it gives you a scale of just how short the ceilings actually are. Plaintiff even testified in the Atlantic article that they enlarged the "cave" passage by pulling rocks out:



Here is the cave, looking from the entrance to the back of the cave. Note there are no evidence of "3 rooms", "large burn pit", "2 man made walls", or a "14' waterfall" as described by Plaintiff in his initial description. You can nearly see the back of the cave where it turns dark (based on a video he himself posted the back is about another 5 feet from where it turns dark as it turns a small bend). Plaintiff describes it as "35" feet long, while the FBI's incursion into it, estimates it be "25" feet long. Even though depth of field can be hard to judge in a picture, I'd agree their estimates are correct and it is 25-35 feet deep.



Next up, this is the back of the cave, notice how it narrows down and notice how we transition from the smooth ceiling of the boulder to the road bed and its loose rock packed with dirt and clay:




And this is the very back of the cave, note in this picture, they have copper rods driven into this back wall what Plaintiff himself described as the back of the cave in room "3" and that had to put up the steel support as it transitioned from the boulder ceiling into the loose rock of the road, demonstrating there is no true cavern beyond this point:

 

[GoDeep]

3. Was there a cave under the road? Cont'd:

Next up we have Plaintiffs video of the cave. Notable points about the video:

1. It does not support there being any true rooms, man-made walls, large burn pit or a 14' waterfall. It appears these were embellishments, speculation or simply made up from his imagination.

2. It supports that this is merely a washed out, narrow void under a boulder straddling a gulley. It is not a true "cave".

2. At one point in the video, it pans from the back of the cave towards the entrance where we can see the light of the entrance and back to the back of the cave where you can see the steel support, confirming that the "cave" is indeed only 25-35 feet long. See video starting at 5:40




What to make of the pictures of the "bones" and "crutch", which are clearly just debris? Where in the cave are those located? They don't appear in the video and in the pictures, you can see the "ceiling" is only inches above them. Assuming these pictures are even from the Dents Run "cave"(plaintiff was posting around this time about other caves he was exploring too) One can only conclude these were small pockets washed out from under the rocks in the roadbed, which would be expected given it lies in a drainage gulley:

 

[GoDeep]

3. Was there a cave under the road? Cont'd:

In later postings, Plaintiff claimed that beyond this boulder, it was a "collapsed cave" collapsed in when a Dozer was making the road in 1969. Does the evidence support this? Short answer, No.

Let's examine the evidence:

1. Here Plaintiff describes the bulldozer collapsing in the cave in 1969 when the road was being built:



2. However, the road couldn't have been built in 1969, as this 1941 aerial photo clearly shows the road there in 1941. I've asked Dennis for clarification on the road/dozer, but haven't heard back. I'd suspect he talked to the DCNR or a local who told him about a Dozer sinking in there. However, given the road is composed of loose rock, clay and dirt, and a wet gulley flows right under it, it would be expected that it would be undermined under the road by flowing water and you would have periodic collapses and sink holes, in fact, Plaintiff describes a sink hole on the site even in the years he was there.



3. In these pictures, we see excavated depth to a good 8-12 feet. One of the pictures even being right in front of the boulder. Notice that it is composed of loose rock, clay and dirt. This is not indicative of there ever being a cave there. This type of soil will not support a roof, only small voids washed out under rocks.

Conclusion: There is no "cave" under the road. There never was. The cave is simply a 25-35 foot long washed-out void under a boulder that straddles the gulley. Any collapses on the road are simply undermining from flowing water. There is no evidence to support any true rooms, nor any man-made walls, nor any cave beyond the boulder other than washed out voids under smaller rocks.

 

[SeabeeRon]

This "cave" issue has always bothered me.

Is his "cave" in the video at the location the FBI dug? How could it be!?!

Where is the "cave" he claims has rooms and Indian Bones??!?

 

[SS_Wonder]

Cave = washed out area under rock

 

[atomicbrh]

Any halfway student of the United States civil war knows there is no gold.
Both sides were too busy trying to kill each other and survive.

 

[GoDeep]

This "cave" issue has always bothered me.

Is his "cave" in the video at the location the FBI dug? How could it be!?!

Where is the "cave" he claims has rooms and Indian Bones??!?

It's always bothered me too and once i dived into the evidence, it turns out we were again misled. Yes, his "cave" is near where the FBI dug, however, it's nothing more than a narrow, wet void under a boulder and the bones nothing more that debris under some washed out voids.

And the burn marks, hard to say. Maybe some kids started a fire in there at one time, however, as an experienced spelunker myself, i can say that many caves have black marks in them that amateurs mistake for burn marks when they are not, given how he describes the cave vs. what it really is, i'd definitely classify him an amateur. Being it has water running in it, if there was a "fire" pit in there as he claimed, it'd be fairly recent as anything from the civil war would be long washed away in my opinion.

Here's some pictures of the caves I've explored, this is what "real" caves look like. The road composition at Dent's Run will not allow for any chamber with 14' waterfalls to form as Plaintiff's imagination has conjured. You need solid bedrock, as in these caves i've explored, for it to occur.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Cave = washed out area under rock

This "cave" issue has always bothered me.
....

3. Was there a cave under the road? ....

Now that I think of it, "caves" seem to be another part & parcel for any good treasure lore. Just like, ever since the Atocha, you can't mention "shipwreck" these days without people thinking of "treasure". Even though there's a million shipwrecks with no "treasure".

I've noticed this psychology when local beach storms in my area reveal old ship-ribbing from wrecks of 100+ yrs. ago on the beach (just innocent fishing trawlers or pleasure boats). And sure enough, passerbys, seeing the exposed boat frame ribs sticking up out of the sand, think: "treasure". And they call me telling me I ought to detect in this area.

But I assure them that this spot has no more potential than anywhere else. Since the perpetual recurring ribs they see are simply some past industrial fishing boat, and none of anything in this area has anything to do with "treasure".

So too is it with the buzzword "cave" : For some reason, the imagination runs wild, and you are forced to assume "treasure", at the mere mention of the word "cave".

 

[atomicbrh]

I finally took the time to read the whole Atlantic article.
The author researched his article very well.
Somebody took entertainment from a "clairvoyant" way too far.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....
Somebody took entertainment from a "clairvoyant" way too far.

I do not deny Dennis & gang (and scores of other md'rs and people) from subscribing to mystical fortune telling, tarot cards, ouiji boards, magic wands, etc.... It's a free country. Do what you want.

But .... wouldn't this have tipped off the FBI that they were entering into a realm of superstition and magic ? NOT THAT THEY CAN OBJECT to Dennis' and gang opining is such things. That's fine.

I wonder if they had told Dennis : "Sorry, we do not consider that sufficient grounds to search for a treasure", that Dennis could have gotten a legal team to try to prove the validity of such tools-of-the-trade ? All that Dennis would have to do is show the world that the techniques are reliable.

If so, the FBI and Dennis would have saved themselves a lot of expense. But : All such hocus pocus has been subjected to double-blind tests over decades & decades. And shown to be nothing more than claiming generalities, or random eventual chance, etc....

This is simple objective statistical odds. If Dennis can overcome that and show his particular clairvoyant is reliable (in double blind tests) or his particular LRL or rod is reliable (in double blind tests), then sure : Bring it on. But alas : No such ability has ever been shown. Isn't the FBI wise enough to have spotted those buzz-words ?

 

[GoDeep]

Any halfway student of the United States civil war knows there is no gold.
Both sides were too busy trying to kill each other and survive.

Exactly, the obscene amounts of gold they are claiming 9+ tons, would have exceeded the South's entire GDP. It makes no sense, and Plaintiff knows this, it's why he moved the goal posts and came up with new explanations such as it was deposited over many years and came by ship, train and wagon from the Spanish, KGC, Civil war and even the Indians. The claims aren't supported by any evidence whatsoever and are beyond farcical. Heck, he hasn't even established one single ounce of gold was at the site...

 

[GoDeep]

Isn't the FBI wise enough to have spotted those buzz-words ?

As i recall, the FBI makes no mention that FindersKeepers ever told them the origin of their discovery was at the hands of a "Psychic". I see no mention of it in their warrant, nor anywhere in the file. I suspect Plaintiff knew enough not to reveal that to them, which if true, shows yet another big lie of omission by Plaintiff.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... it's why he moved the goal posts and came up with new explaniations......

It's the same "grasp for straws" mentality we've all seen for years with Oak Island : Whenever a skeptic comes up with some pushback : The "faithful" will come up with elaborate just-so-stories of how *maybe* (just maybe) some giant conspiracy , or 1000 men digging for 10 yrs , blah blah blah, *could* have done this seemingly impossible task or amount.

And then they sit back, with their arms crossed, and think that the ball is somehow now in the skeptic's court to disprove this fanciful extreme contingency. As if they think that if that "what if?" can't be DISPROVED, that : Therefore, a fabulous treasure must exist.

Well gee, I can do the same thing for the "treasure" in my backyard : I can dream up all sorts of ways it *could* have happened. And unless you can DISPROVE all my fanciful story, does that mean there necessarily is a treasure in my backyard ? OF COURSE NOT.

So: Just because Dennis can dream up a way that 9 tons of gold could appear at this site (if you drained enough of the world's treasuries) does NOT mean : "Ergo, it had to have happened".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

As i recall, the FBI makes no mention that FindersKeepers ever told them the origin of their discovery was at the hands of a "Psychic". I see no mention of it in their warrant, nor anywhere in the file. I suspect Plaintiff knew enough not to reveal that to them, which if true, shows yet another big lie of omission by Plaintiff.

Ok. Thanx for the clarification. I didn't think the FBI would be that asleep at the wheel.

Yes, if all they had to go on was Dennis's claims (banging on their doors for years), and yes, if he kept that "minor detail" mum, then .... sure ... I guess the FBI isn't to be faulted.

And you have to ask yourself why Dennis wouldn't shout such details from the mountain tops ? (he certainly let it slip on md'ing forum posts, and he certainly let pictures of his L-rod slip in here and there). The mere fact that he opted to stay silent on that aspect (if that's the case here) to the FBI , should tell you that .... deep down inside, he knows it's contentious, debatable, inconclusive, not proven, disputed, frowned on, etc.......

 

[GoDeep]

The thing about the "Cave" is, if anyone wants to confirm that it was all one big embellishment by Plaintiff, it's still there, undisturbed. The FBI even sent a man into it, and they estimated it to be about 25 feet long and they saw no evidence of any gold, artifacts or human occupation (other than plaintiffs' man-made steel archway he inserted to keep the roof from falling in). Here's their report on it. And though Plaintiff says you can't trust the FBI, one can go up there and confirm for themselves: