The FBI Files: Dents Run Civil War Gold

[ucnegold?]

The truth is, Plaintiff never wanted an open and honest discussion of the facts, because he was never looking for the truth. He had a belief and a narrative to fulfill (as well as a TV show to sell) and anything that contradicts that, he deletes, misrepresents or ignores.

It was about this time last year when the FOIA files were first released, I recall Plaintiff was actually open, accepting of and responsive to the opinions of others, especially with regard to the Gravimeter survey report. He just didn't understand how to read it. I believe GoDeep was the first to respond with a real understanding of the report and pointed out the glaring differences from what Plaintiff had claimed all along. This was actually being helpful to the Plaintiff.

There were many over on that site, including myself, that were willing to pour through the files with an unbiased opinion, but nothing in the files could be found to support Plaintiffs claims. It's my opinion that Plaintiff or his associate/consultant never expected the files to contain as much information as was released to the public or they wouldn't have been embarrassing themselves in those YouTube videos and podcasts prior to the release.

Until the FOIA release their version of events was left unchecked and allowed to spread wildly. Now that the truth has been released, it's not a good look for the Plaintiff and associate. The treasure tales are a running joke in the forums. The YouTube videos and magazine articles are enduring embarrassments. He is scoffed at for even reporting the site to authorities. Even the Geophysical Surveyors and Excavator Operator are content to leave them twisting in the wind saying little or nothing in support. I read where the Operator refused to answer any questions on the possible night dig or potential use of his equipment, only saying "That would ruin a good story either way," he said with a laugh.

 

[GoDeep]

There were many over on that site, including myself, that were willing to pour through the files with an unbiased opinion, but nothing in the files could be found to support Plaintiffs claims. It's my opinion that Plaintiff or his associate/consultant never expected the files to contain as much information as was released to the public or they wouldn't have been embarrassing themselves in those YouTube videos and podcasts prior to the release.

He always accused me of being a skeptic and biased. But that isn't true. I had no vested interest in the outcome, none. He only labeled me that because I kept digging up evidence, none of which supported his beliefs. I've never found any contradictions in the record that show the FBI was being nefarious in any way and trust me, I've looked hard. What I did find time and again though was evidence that refuted what Plaintiff was claiming.

 

[GoDeep]

Now, I gave Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt on his story of, "In 1969 a Dozer built a road over the site and collapsed the cave in necessitating the cave to be backfilled in" in so far as maybe some local told him the story.

However, now that we know the story can't be true, personally, I believe he fabricated the whole dozer story. The question is why?

Now, this speculative, but in looking at the "cave" evidence (we now know the "cave" was only a washed out void under the boulder and ended at the start of road bed) and looking at his bore hole "evidence", he knew there wasn't actually a cave under the road, that it was just rocky fill from the road and he needed a plausible explanation for it so what better than a dozer caved it in and they "backfilled" it in!

 

[GoDeep]

The thing is, Plaintiff always ignores evidence that contradicts his preferred narrative. In this case, he completely ignores that the road is built across a natural drainage valley/gully.

See Lidar Image attached below, the whole dents run "site" is spanning this gully. And in order to bridge this gully, they would have filled it in to keep the road progressing at the incline they built it at (otherwise you'd have a big dip in it to cross this gully), but as you notice, there is no dip because they filled it in and I wouldn't doubt a good 10 feet of fill at the deepest point of gully!

Plaintiff don't like facts though...

Heres a picture that shows the gully coming down the hill and in the dead center of it, where the orange fence is, is where Plaintiff claims he detected gold and silver. Also, note the boulder on the left, this also lies right in the middle of the gully, hence why it's being eroded under by flowing water during wet periods. Plaintiff never considered these facts when making his self-fulfilling conclusions.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

... See Lidar Image attached below, the whole dents run "site" is spanning this gully. ...

Well go-deep, you gotta hand it to those CW soldiers ~150 yrs. ago, for burying the treasure at the EXACT SPOT that enabled them to foil would-be future treasure thieves. They anticipated the future water channel/gully to create these problems, *Purposefully* to better hide their treasure, and throw would-be skeptics like you off the track.

Hey, it worked pretty good. Shows you *just* how well they engineered the hiding of this treasure, future pickles, etc... Tsk tsk

 

[GoDeep]

Here's a bombshell: Plaintiff reasonably knows there was no night dig!

Plaintiff knows that the "eyewitness" statement from a local resident (Cheryl Elder) who saw lights, hammering noises and back up alarms was actually hearing diesel gator 6x6's utv's with backup alarms patrolling the dig site. Why? Because plaintiff and his associates were there themselves that night!!!

On Oct. 10, 2018, When asked by a forum member why, after being barred from observing the dig by the FBI, he didn't just hike around the back and watch, Plaintiff admits they came back to the site that night.

My research uncovered that Plaintiff never mentioned again that he was there himself that night. He first makes the false allegation of the FBI doing a night dig in October of 2018, after a witness, Cheryl Elder, was interviewed by the news and told her story of what she thought she heard and saw that night. (see post #64 for her story). Since then, he always defers to the witness's testimony to support his allegation of there being a night dig. Why? Plausible deniability I suppose. If he's asked directly under oath or in court filings, he'd have to admit there was no night dig, that all he observed were 6x6 John Deere gators going up and down the hill.

Now, to those on this site, this is nothing new, we already know through photo evidence there was no night dig, but it's great to have corroborating evidence from Dennis himself as he was actually there that night of the alleged dig and there is NO PLAUSIBLE scenario where, if Dennis had himself observed (even if through the trees) them digging that night, he wouldn't have told the courts and the papers.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.......... there is NO PLAUSIBLE scenario where, if Dennis had himself observed (even if through the trees) them digging that night, he wouldn't have told the courts and the papers.

Once again : Excellent sleuthing working Go-deep.

But somehow, some way, I have a suspicion that Dennis will find some way for this NOT to be a contradiction. Some how, some way, where there WAS a night-dig (in the brief moment he turned-his-back, or whatever).

There will always be a way to wriggle out. Because you have to remember that the FBI would have anticipated all these moves. And constructed the evidence to make it *APPEAR* that Dennis is caught in a lie. So the more you find incriminating evidence against a fabulous treasure, is NOT "evidence of NO fabulous treasure". It's merely evidence of a giant coverup, conspiracy, and treasure. !


Ya gotta hand it to those crafty sneaky FBI guys, eh ?

 

[GoDeep]

The other option is he lied and they never did come back that night. As we all know, Plaintiff has an ongoing battle with the truth.

I suspect he did come back at night though, and the truth just slipped through there in an early post, never to be mentioned again as it didn't help the new found narrative they decided to go with that fall after the dig, that the FBI dug at night.

I viewed all his posts from the dig in March until October (a good 100+ posts) and not once did he accuse the FBI or even hint that there was any clandestine night dig. The night dig accusation first appeared in October around the time when the witness, Cheryl Elder was interviewed.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... The night dig accusation first appeared in October around the time when the witness, Cheryl Elder was interviewed.

Well of course. And it's kind of hard to argue with an eye-witness, isn't it ?

 

[ucnegold?]

Plaintiff admits they came back to the site that night.

Very inconsistent statements from Plaintiffs. You might recall that Plaintiff's son could not even recall if he worked (as a local law enforcement officer) that evening after the Day 1 dig as stated in the Podcast video linked in GoDeep's post 469 (page 24 of this thread). One would think that the events of that evening would be crystal clear in their minds forever.

Funny how that YouTube video of the podcast has since been removed from YouTube access and can no longer be viewed. Go to Post 469 and check it out, it's gone!

Could the Plaintiff's be embarking on a "clean-up" mission to erase these inconsistencies? If so, they got a lot of work to do.

Again, as I have stated before, this was the single most important event in their quest for treasure and fame yet there is no clear recall of events or evidence of them being on-site at a time (evening after the Day 1 dig) that is so critical to the proving whether or not there were ongoing excavations and convoys at the site. Would you not have taken videos/pictures of all this when you were sneaking around the site? Would you not have presented this information in your case by now?

As for the "eyewitness" Plaintiff's associate clearly estimates (in the National Press Conference video) that her residence was 100 yards to the right of the green tent. This puts her vantage point too far from basecamp and provides no view of the excavation site or even any definitive view of activities at the base camp. Any reasonable jury would be skeptical of this testimony just based on personal experience of trying to ascertain what one is seeing at a distance equivalent of a football field away.

 

[SS_Wonder]

Unfortunately, GoDeep's excellent investigation of the parada fraud is on full display here allowing parada to go back thru his postings/media, etc. and attempt to clean up items that prove he has been lying about dents run since day 1.

Fortunately, we have factual evidence here showcasing parada's lies and deceptions that he cannot modify.

 

[GoDeep]

Further documented knowingly false statements by Plaintiff:

In 2018, Plaintiff claimed that, "We found rooms and walls inside the cave just where the map said they would be"

This is a false statement, the map never detailed where rooms and walls were inside the cave. Take it from the Plaintiffs mouth, in Plaintiffs 2021 youtube video below starting at 24:30, Plaintiff describes the "map" the psychic drew him:

"He drew a map real fast and drew a big V shape...and at the top left of the V he drew a circle and over here he drew where there would be a cave..."

I believe Plaintiff also posted a rendition of the map or the map itself, it was nothing more than a "V" and a couple of circles on it, I'll have to see if I can still find it.

his youtube video Description of the map starting at 24:30

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Unfortunately, GoDeep's excellent investigation of the parada fraud is on full display here allowing parada to go back thru his postings/media, etc. and attempt to clean up items that prove he has been lying about dents run since day 1.

Fortunately, we have factual evidence here showcasing parada's lies and deceptions that he cannot modify.

And that's what makes this particular treasure legend SUCH a "case example". Ie.: FOR ONCE we have something, in-this-digital age that we live in, where facts (of the origin of a treasure story) can be sorted out.

And FOR ONCE the participants (claimants) are right here, alive, that we can interview.

So while I realize it only allows to debunk *just this one* , yet : It should make us think twice when it comes to all the other treasure legends of history (Yamashita, Pearl ship, Oak Island, Lost dutchman, etc....). You have to wonder if they too aren't just ghost-stories "gone awry" as well.

 

[SS_Wonder]

Perhaps GoDeep should make a request to his congressman for a hearing concerning the money the fbi spent following a liar’s story with no credible evidence. Money spent on the actual dig as well as court time.

GoDeep’s testimony would be epic.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.....

GoDeep’s testimony would be epic.

Correct. A breath of fresh air to show the actual live-time-evolution of a silly legend gone awry.

 

[GoDeep]

Perhaps GoDeep should make a request to his congressman for a hearing concerning the money the fbi spent following a liar’s story with no credible evidence. Money spent on the actual dig as well as court time.

GoDeep’s testimony would be epic.

The problem with this is the FBI hired their own ground scans which showed the possibility of large metallic mass, so the FBI wasn't just digging on Plaintiffs word. Now, if you could prove that Plaintiff was lying to the FBI, now that may be grounds for the FBI to bring criminal charges against Plaintiff for lying to an FBI agents, but I doubt the FBI would ever bring a civil suit for monetary damages, it's just not worth the time or expense.

I have noticed a big difference between what Plaintiff claims on the forums and what he told the FBI and what he put in his court filings. He was pretty careful about what he told the FBI and I haven't connected any dots that show he was lying to the FBI, just to the public.

 

[GoDeep]

Another bombshell:

Just how deep is the treasure according to Plaintiff?

1. May 21, 2007: 6 feet under

2. June 3, 2011: 8 feet under

3. March 5, 2019: 10 feet under

4. March 11, 2023 12 feet under

6 feet under:

8 feet under:

10 feet Under:

12 feet Under:

 

[SeabeeRon]

Come on now! Ya know it just keeps sinking! All that TONS of GOLD!!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Come on now! Ya know it just keeps sinking! All that TONS of GOLD!!

haha, And besides : As with any treasure legend, the bigger the treasure, the deeper it must be ! If it were a "mere 1 ton" of gold, then shucks, it would be a mere 6 ft. deep. But when it's plural tonS of gold, then it HAS to be insanely deep.

This is standard for any treasure legend: They are always insanely deep (Oak Island, etc....). No one ever asks themselves why depth would make any difference in how well it's hidden. Ie.: Whether it's a foot, or 10 ft. deep, it is still Equally as hidden, so long as the surface is smoothed over, fluffed up, etc.... So what additional hiddeness does insane depth provide ?

 

[ucnegold?]

Yea, lots of inconsistencies over the years in Plaintiff’s said depth of the cache. When initially interviewed by the investigators on 1-26-18 he did clearly state the depth of the gold cache was approximately 5.5’ – 6’. This might be considered the closest thing to sworn testimony provided by the Plaintiff.

Subsequently on 1-31-18, the investigators sent a Survey Team along with the Plaintiff to conduct testing with a Two-Box metal detector, GPL and some other rudimentary methods. (ref FOIA FILE 5, pages 81-85)

Despite any unverifiable readings those instruments may have yielded, the most rudimentary method of inserting a metal rod into the drill holes and listening for the sound of impact with metallic objects was probably the most reliable and telling test conducted.

The Survey Team inserted and 8-foot metal rod into the drill hole #16 then lined with a pvc tube (the supposed hole where Plaintiff claimed gold appeared on the drill bit) the 8-foot metal rod dropped into the tube to a depth approximately 6 feet and stopped abruptly making contact with what appeared to be a soft, muddy surface. No audible metallic sounds could be heard. The test was repeated several times, each time the 8-foot metal rod dropped into the tube to a depth approximately 6 feet and stopped abruptly making contact with what appeared to be a soft, muddy surface. No audible metallic sounds could be heard.

In the images and account of the ensuing excavation it was apparent the reason the rod had stopped abruptly was the earth below the excavated depths was comprised of shale/rock requiring use of the hydraulic hoe-ram to break-up and remove. Images seem to show that further excavation was limited by this geology. Hence, no sinking of any treasure was happening here either. Just sinking feelings for all involved.