Friendly Metal Detecting Forums   Myers Depot Metal Detectors
List all sponsors

Go Back   Friendly Metal Detecting Forums > Metal Detecting > Caches, Old Bottles, and other Treasures

Reply
  
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #461  
Old 11-26-2022, 11:35 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 246
Default

Is Plaintiff being intellectually dishonest?

Note the Title of Plaintiffs latest Thread "The DOJ/FBI needs more time, WHY?"

WHY, Plaintiff Asks? He knows darn well why as the reason was written in his own Joint Status Report (see post #353 for full report):

Notwithstanding that the DOJ did NOT file for a "4 month Delay" as Plaintiff falsely claimed (see post #365), but rather proposed a summary judgment schedule with required filings beginning as soon as January 31st and all filings wrapped up by March 31st, the WHY was clearly laid out by the DOJ: "Within the next 60 days", the Attorney attending to the Dents Run case also has 5 Summary Judgement Motions, 5 Motions to Dismiss, 2 Responsive Pleadings, Written discovery and depositions in 7 other cases and work on 3 complex post-conviction criminal matters.

At any rate, Plaintiff countered with his own recommended summary judgement schedule lasting 2 months and the judge essentially met them in the middle, with filings starting as soon as December 21st. (See post #417)

Name:  aaintellectually1.jpg
Views: 64
Size:  25.5 KB


Here's "WHY", written in your own Joint Status Report:


Name:  aaintellectually2.jpg
Views: 62
Size:  46.1 KB

Last edited by GoDeep; 11-27-2022 at 12:15 AM.
Reply With Quote


  #462  
Old 11-27-2022, 12:00 AM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 18,222
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
....

Note the Title of Plaintiffs latest Thread "The DOJ/FBI needs more time, WHY?"....
And you no doubt can surmise, the reason the plaintiff tries to say that the DOJ/FBI is unjustifiably "dragging their feet". And you can no doubt surmise why plaintiff then asks the rhetorical question: "WHY ?"

It's because : He hopes to create the insinuation that : The DOJ/FBI *must be hiding something*. Ie.: that they're "up to no good". Hence : There MUST BE A FABULOUS TREASURE.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #463  
Old 11-27-2022, 12:16 AM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 246
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And you no doubt can surmise, the reason the plaintiff tries to say that the DOJ/FBI is unjustifiably "dragging their feet". And you can no doubt surmise why plaintiff then asks the rhetorical question: "WHY ?"

It's because : He hopes to create the insinuation that : The DOJ/FBI *must be hiding something*. Ie.: that they're "up to no good". Hence : There MUST BE A FABULOUS TREASURE.
Yes sir, it's just all about creating a false narrative to promote a story he's trying to sell!
Reply With Quote


  #464  
Old 11-27-2022, 01:16 AM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 18,222
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
.... He hopes to create the insinuation that : ....
Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
... it's just all about creating a false narrative to promote a story he's trying to sell!
And to be clear, the plaintiff could actually believe this insinuation.

The evidence for the notion that people can actually accept that as "proof of something nefarious", you need look no further than all his faithful fans, that ACTUALLY THINK those dots necessarily connect (ie.: that there's a conspiracy).

Hence, so too can Dennis be convincing himself of this. In the same way it was so easy for fans to fail this logic test, so too can the proponent himself believe this.

As said : It fails the logic test. But .... let's be honest : Not everyone is logical. Doh !
Reply With Quote


  #465  
Old 11-27-2022, 01:47 AM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 246
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
And to be clear, the plaintiff could actually believe this insinuation.

The evidence for the notion that people can actually accept that as "proof of something nefarious", you need look no further than all his faithful fans, that ACTUALLY THINK those dots necessarily connect (ie.: that there's a conspiracy).

Hence, so too can Dennis be convincing himself of this. In the same way it was so easy for fans to fail this logic test, so too can the proponent himself believe this.

As said : It fails the logic test. But .... let's be honest : Not everyone is logical. Doh !
It's true people can convince themselves, but in the instant case, Dennis is creating his own false narrative through dishonesty, so, no, i don't believe he himself believes most of what he's pedaling. He knows darn well he's intentionally misleading people and he knows darn well the evidence doesn't support any gold being found and it's why he's had entire threads deleted, banned people and intentionally made multiple false statements and retreated to the one place he can (kind of) control the narrative.

If he truly believed it, he'd have no problem with engaging people with the facts of the case when someone, like you or me, enters his thread and disagrees with him!

Last edited by GoDeep; 11-27-2022 at 03:13 AM.
Reply With Quote


  #466  
Old 11-27-2022, 12:46 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 18,222
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
... .no, i don't believe he himself believes most of what he's pedaling. ...

Then my only suggestion is this : Even though what you're saying could be true, yet : If you "give him the benefit of the doubt" (that he could actually believe this), then : The subject/focus will switch to the data. And the subject/focus will STOP being on whether it's : "Deliberate lies".

Because, let's be honest : To call someone a deliberate liar is a form of name calling. And YES THE TITLE MAY BE ACCURATE ! However, people still receive that as personal insults (no one likes to be called a liar).

So if you play the "good cop" (as you saw that I did on the FB post), *then* people are more likely to spar about the actual data. Rather than "sparring about motives".

I just think that instead of him, and the D.R. faithful, instead of seeing the case-being-explored, will instead see it as an issue of "personal attacks". And seeing as how your material has left no-stone-unturned, then : Motive doesn't matter. When the public realizes these "more plausible explanations", then : Prior motives are a secondary issue.

And as I say, as wild as it might sound : People who start these type stories *might indeed* actually believe them. Someone I know quite dearly is the type to easily fall for conspiracy theories (9-11, covid, etc....) And : Yes, it's just in some people's blood to "see boogeymen behind every bush". And they might be quite sincere.

Take it for what it's worth. I'm just thinking ahead to potential push-back, that the faithful would reach for, when your phrasing (prolific accusations of lying) is seen within the body of evidence. And I would hate for that to be the reason that they fail to open their eyes and see that the evidence, that there's no fabulous treasure, is clearly there.

And yes : I'm fully aware that a lot of your research is not simply about the treasure-versus no-treasure. That yes, a lot of your evidence HAS been to show flip-flops and contradictions in-his-very-own statements. And yes, that can be construed as "lying". I'll grant you that. But these conspiracy types (if in fact they are sincere) will often back-pedal and have some fanciful way that you've misconstrued their prior statements, blah blah blah. So again, you'd only end up arguing whether or not those constituted "lies". So perhaps you could phrase it "curious contradictions", rather than "lies". So that he's not seeing it as name-calling (ie.: to play the "good cop')
Reply With Quote


  #467  
Old 11-27-2022, 01:03 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 18,222
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
....

If he truly believed it, [B][I]he'd have no problem with engaging people with the facts of the case ....
Let me push back on this ^ ^ a little, if I may :

As I say, someone I dearly love is one-of-those-types who is easily swayed by conspiracy theories (9-11, covid, etc....) .

And it's exactly the opposite of what you're saying here ^ ^ : When this person engages with persons who "explain-away" the conspiracy, that this person ENDS the dialogue with the challenger. And simply "writes that person off" as someone who's not worth the time to try to convince. Ie.: Will announce that the skeptic "just doesn't get it" and "isn't worth my time to continue debating", etc.....

For personalities like yours and mine, that's not the case. I agree with you that your-type personality will WELCOME push-back and challenges to our notions, so that ... heck ... we can see if we need to alter a stance on something. Sure . But just be aware that others don't see that need. They don't challenge themselves to hear & answer competing views.

Therefore, again, Dennis lack of rising-to-the-occasion (and deleting competing views) might not be evidence of lying. He might simply be THAT closed minded. And if I'm wrong, and it's evidence of deliberate lying, yet I still say : Play good cop, and give the benefit of the doubt. Ie.: Lip service. Just call it "curious contradictions" and it removes what someone can construe as personal attacks.

JMHO
Reply With Quote


  #468  
Old 11-27-2022, 01:21 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 246
Default

Originally Posted by Tom_in_CA View post
Play good cop, and give the benefit of the doubt. Ie.: Lip service. Just call it "curious contradictions" and it removes what someone can construe as personal attacks.

JMHO
You make some good points Tom, but for me, that ship has long sailed. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for literally years. Yes, some of the analysis is open to interpretation, but there is also numerous documented incidents of outright dishonesty (lies, lies of omission, misleading, misrepresentation, forging etc) by Plaintiff.

He has lost the right to any "benefit of the doubt" (even if it's just lip service) in my eyes, even if it makes it more palatable to his believers. Now, I just call it the way the evidence paints it.
Reply With Quote


  #469  
Old 11-27-2022, 03:39 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 246
Default

Further documented incidents of possible false statements by Plaintiff:

- Is there evidence that a purported Police Officer at the time, Kem Parada (and his father, Dennis), were willfully and knowingly breaking the law by violating a lawful Cease and Desist Order issued not once, but twice by the State of Pennsylvania DCNR?

- Is there also evidence that Kem Parada, was also not being honest when he said everything they were doing was "legal and open and honest" and that they put the site "on hold for 4-5 years" after receiving the cease and desist?

Yes and Yes.

1. Attached see the first Cease and Desist dated April 6th, 2012 where they were trespassed from doing any detecting at Dents Run for among other things, threatening and harassing DCNR employees and local residents as well as following and filming DCNR employees and residents. Ignoring this first cease and desist, they were again caught at Dents Run, with detecting equipment, by a DCNR Ranger and issued a second Cease and desist dated Nov. 29th, 2014.

2. Attached see two example posts (and there are more) by Plaintiff dated during the time the cease-and-desist orders were active where they admit they continued to detect at Dents Run and they brag about how they are going to continue to ignore (thus violate) the cease-and-desist order(s).

3. In the attached youtube video at starting at 8:30 Kem Parada, purports he was a police officer at the time for 10 years and states, "So we were open and honest. I've been working Law Enforcement for 10 years....so we were doing everything legal...and it came to the point that we were ordered off the site....so we hit a stand still...and Dents Run was just on hold for 4-5 years"

Conclusion: Kem Parada's claims are verifiably untrue that they were "doing everything legal" and that Dents Run was on "hold for 4-5 years" after the cease and desist. They were literally caught red handed by a Pennsylvania Ranger violating the cease and desist order 2 years after the first one was issued and admitted in public posts that they continued to work the site and even admitted they were going to continue to violate the cease-and-desist order(s)!!

Name:  aatrespass1.jpg
Views: 55
Size:  74.8 KB
Name:  aatrespass2.jpg
Views: 54
Size:  60.4 KB

Name:  aatrespass3.jpg
Views: 55
Size:  52.6 KB

Name:  aatrespass4.jpg
Views: 55
Size:  44.5 KB

Name:  aatrespass5.jpg
Views: 53
Size:  50.9 KB


Last edited by GoDeep; 11-27-2022 at 07:43 PM.
Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
  #470  
Old 11-27-2022, 08:33 PM
ucnegold? ucnegold? is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 29
Default

The podcast video is full of inconsistencies. This is yet another example of why their publicism of the "story" draws so many sympathizers and critics. I have never heard or read anything referring to 99% readings of gold and silver. This directly contradicts Enviroscan's survey report or anything else in the released files. I don't recall seeing images of any holes excavated to 20 feet in depth. The excavator machine did not even have the capability of vertically digging 20 feet.

Does it strike anyone as strange that the guest interviewed on the podcast can't even remember if he worked overnight during the period of this supposed "night dig"? This was a "life changing" event for these guys, they seemingly can recall every other detail including how many times the LE agent used the restroom. The story is bizarre.

Yes, there is no doubt, these trespassers were not complying with and were purposely defiling the site and the DCNR order. As a law-abiding citizen who loves to treasure hunt, this is the kind of stuff that ruins the hobby for the rest of us.

I have to laugh when they say the returned to the site and got none of the same readings for gold or silver. You do know that they (FK) were handed all of their copper locator rods and trash to carry off the site on Day 2. The images in the investigation files prove that these locator rods and pvc pipes were excavated by the investigators and in fact were left in the ground by the trespassers after being ordered to remove all of their property from the site. So, are we to believe they returned and placed new locator rods in the roadbed? Let's say they just returned with some non-invasive means of sampling the ground for gold and silver. If so, is that not another example of them acting in non-compliance with the DCNR order and essentially breaking the law?
Reply With Quote


3 members found this post helpful.
  #471  
Old 11-27-2022, 09:59 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 18,222
Default

Originally Posted by ucnegold? View post
.... locator rods ....
Originally Posted by ucnegold? View post
.... they say the returned to the site and got none of the same readings for gold or silver. ....

Wait ! Are you saying that the "readings" ^ ^, being spoken about here, were coming from LRL or dowsing rods ??

OOOhhhh PPPUUULLLEEEeeeaaassee
Reply With Quote


  #472  
Old 11-27-2022, 10:07 PM
GoDeep's Avatar
GoDeep GoDeep is offline
Full Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Posts: 246
Default

Anyone catch how Kem Parada apparently doesn't realize he's essentially confirming that the FBI had no motive to "steal" any gold should they find it?! Go to 22:30.

Last edited by GoDeep; 11-27-2022 at 11:50 PM.
Reply With Quote


  #473  
Old 11-27-2022, 11:25 PM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 18,222
Default

Originally Posted by GoDeep View post
Anyone catch how Kem Parada doesn't apparently realize that he's essentially confirming that the FBI had no motive to "steal" any gold should they find it?! Go to 22:30.

That is pretty "telling", and speaks "very loudly", when you need go no further than the proponent's own statements : To defeat the very notion they're trying to claim.

Reply With Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Reply


Tags
civil war gold, dennis parada, dents run, fbi dents run gold, lost civil war gold

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.