If referring to the gravimeter scan results contracted by the FBI, these can be found on Page 6 of this thread. Post #112 I believe.
The FBI Files: Dents Run Civil War Gold
- Thread starter GoDeep
- Start date
If referring to the gravimeter scan results contracted by the FBI, these can be found on Page 6 of this thread. Post #112 I believe.
rogueaviation
Full Member
Awesome! Thanks!
Has parada dumped all the knowledge he had that no one else knew and turned history upside down yet?
Did the U.S. Senate intervene yet as parada stated they would to force the FBI to admit that they stole the dents run gold?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Did the U.S. Senate intervene yet as parada stated they would to force the FBI to admit that they stole the dents run gold?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
How can you force someone to admit that they stole something, if they didn't steal something ?
This statement simply grants the very thing that's up for dispute. And : "Says who ?"This kind of reminds me of the O.I. saga: It's NEVER that it's not there, or wasn't there. Even if someone in the O.I. drama finally acknowledges that there's nothing there, then they simply muse : "Someone found it already 100 yrs. ago and has just kept mum", blah blah.
Notice that it's NEVER that there's *not* a fabulous treasure. Why can't people just grant that there never was a treasure ? Why does there have to be a starting premise of "fabulous treasure", and no amount of data can ever controvert that ?
Article from October of this year...
https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2022/10/pa-fbi-civil-war-gold-dents-run/
https://www.spotlightpa.org/news/2022/10/pa-fbi-civil-war-gold-dents-run/
GoDeep
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2022
- Messages
- 754
I contacted the author of that article shortly after it was published and directed him to this thread. He replied and said he would check it out, so we are getting through to some of the media!
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
Thanx SS-wonder.
Glad that article didn't sugar coat the introduction, of the "psychic" aspect in that article. I wish the TV show (William Shatner, etc...) had introduced the story that way. But instead, they sort of seemed to have .... uh ... conveniently skipped that part of the Dennis story.
Why ? I mean, gee , wouldn't the inclusion of the psychic have made the story more credible to the viewing public ?
GoDeep
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2022
- Messages
- 754
Further documented incidents of possible false statements by Plaintiff:
As has become almost compulsory by Plaintiff, just today Plaintiff knowingly and purposely makes false statements regarding his court case, see attachment below:
1. "The DOJ filed for a 4 month delay" As was discussed in post 365, the DOJ did NOT "file for a 4 month delay in the case" as Plaintiff falsely claims, see here: https://metaldetectingforum.com/showpost.php?p=3429524&postcount=365
2. "Our court case is on hold until Jan 29th" This is another knowingly untrue statement made just today by Plaintiff as per the latest ruling on 11/7, the judge ordered that the defendants to file their motion by December 21st and Plaintiffs response is ordered to be filed by January 9th so the case is in NO WAY on hold until Jan 29th as Plaintiff falsely claims:
Court Order 11/7/22
ORDER entering the following schedule for further proceedings in this matter: (1) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before December 21, 2022; (2) Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion shall be filed on or before January 11, 2023; and (3) Defendant's Reply shall be filed on or before February 1, 2023. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 11/7/2022. (lcapm1)
3. "WE have the proof to show what the FBI did at Dents Run" I predict time will prove this to be a false statement:
-First, they don't have proof as in actual evidence, just accusations, as if they had actual evidence, it would have been in their motion to compel lead FBI Agent In Charge, Jake Archer, to sit for questioning under penalty of perjury, a motion they lost for lack of evidence. Let that sink in, they lost that motion as they had no evidence to compel the judge to rule in their favor.
-Second, i predict their claim that they "plan to go public with it" will be another false statement as they've been claiming this for years they are going to "go public" and never do. There's always a "reason" why they can't tell you just yet...Ironic given they accuse the FBI of stalling!
As has become almost compulsory by Plaintiff, just today Plaintiff knowingly and purposely makes false statements regarding his court case, see attachment below:
1. "The DOJ filed for a 4 month delay" As was discussed in post 365, the DOJ did NOT "file for a 4 month delay in the case" as Plaintiff falsely claims, see here: https://metaldetectingforum.com/showpost.php?p=3429524&postcount=365
2. "Our court case is on hold until Jan 29th" This is another knowingly untrue statement made just today by Plaintiff as per the latest ruling on 11/7, the judge ordered that the defendants to file their motion by December 21st and Plaintiffs response is ordered to be filed by January 9th so the case is in NO WAY on hold until Jan 29th as Plaintiff falsely claims:
Court Order 11/7/22
ORDER entering the following schedule for further proceedings in this matter: (1) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before December 21, 2022; (2) Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion shall be filed on or before January 11, 2023; and (3) Defendant's Reply shall be filed on or before February 1, 2023. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 11/7/2022. (lcapm1)
3. "WE have the proof to show what the FBI did at Dents Run" I predict time will prove this to be a false statement:
-First, they don't have proof as in actual evidence, just accusations, as if they had actual evidence, it would have been in their motion to compel lead FBI Agent In Charge, Jake Archer, to sit for questioning under penalty of perjury, a motion they lost for lack of evidence. Let that sink in, they lost that motion as they had no evidence to compel the judge to rule in their favor.
-Second, i predict their claim that they "plan to go public with it" will be another false statement as they've been claiming this for years they are going to "go public" and never do. There's always a "reason" why they can't tell you just yet...Ironic given they accuse the FBI of stalling!
Last edited:
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
But .... go-deep, you're forgetting what the plaintiff means by "proof". You're forgetting how he defines "proof".
"Proof" can merely be : Lack of proof. Because, don't you remember that : The FBI is scrubbing and redacting and withholding (d/t delays). So therefore : The lack of evidence is simply ALL THE MORE EVIDENCE !
Same concept for words like "found" (as in ... a fabulous treasure). You can say you "found" (past tense) a fabulous treasure, even without ever seeing a red-cent of it.
Thus : You need to get a new dictionary Go-Deep. You are obviously not up on the latest definitions
Damn! Well it lasted longer than I thought it would!!
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
HHhhhmmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that the entire page itself is down. Not just that singular post. Right ?
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
Yes : To Dennis' credit, he let it stand for a few weeks. I know that at least his son read it (d/t he chimed in at one point). So I'm assuming that Dennis must have read it as well ? If so, then to his credit : He didn't yank it right away.
I wonder what changed all of the sudden ?
Was just on it, seemed OK.
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
well, it must just be me who's blocked. Here's the message I get :
"This content isn't available right now
When this happens, it's usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it's been deleted. ..."
But in any event : The post I put up about 11/4-ish is now gone, right ?
Amazing.
GoDeep
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2022
- Messages
- 754
But .... go-deep, you're forgetting what the plaintiff means by "proof". You're forgetting how he defines "proof".
"Proof" can merely be : Lack of proof. Because, don't you remember that : The FBI is scrubbing and redacting and withholding (d/t delays). So therefore : The lack of evidence is simply ALL THE MORE EVIDENCE !
Same concept for words like "found" (as in ... a fabulous treasure). You can say you "found" (past tense) a fabulous treasure, even without ever seeing a red-cent of it.
Thus : You need to get a new dictionary Go-Deep. You are obviously not up on the latest definitions
Fortunately, we don't need to worry about what Plaintiff considers "proof" as the judge is the final arbiter of the facts and will continue to judge the case based on the evidence before him. (As will we on this forum!)
Last edited:
