Thanks Ron. Yes, see my update in the above post.
The FBI Files: Dents Run Civil War Gold
- Thread starter GoDeep
- Start date
Since it references fictional characters, no I’ll not read it.
Connecticut Danny
Junior Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2023
- Messages
- 77
Who enjoy banning members.
The authors of this book just posted a link to their book on the Dent’s Run FB page. Wonder if they will let it stay?!?
Rudy
Admin
I can't believe this thread is still getting posts. 
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,753
Did you happen to catch this line, in the Amazon description
" ...Some claim it's fiction, but there’s plenty of reason to believe otherwise...."
Actually, more correctly that should read :
"... Some claim it's true, but there's plenty of reason to believe otherwise..."
"The compelling story that blends adventure, mystery, deception, murder and mutiny with actual history."
I read the sampling which is six pages of the Prologue and includes an account of events taking place in 2018. The authors erroneous description of the Gravimeter survey of the site is nothing like the official records. The authors are obviously confused in this regard. This certainly isn't actual history. I know it's a fictional story but one would think they would reference the "real" non-fiction information made available in the FOIA files or in GoDeep's thread to lend some credibility to their writing.
Last edited:
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,753
Regarding this teaser :
" ...Some claim it's fiction, but there’s plenty of reason to believe otherwise...."
Here's where ALL these treasure legends get muddied up : Notice they all have true names, dates, places, events, etc.... So all you gotta do is "throw in a treasure". And when ANYONE says "it's fiction", then the faithful only have to point to the true names, dates, places, and events, and can proudly proclaim : It's not fiction.
But common sense logic doesn't work like that . Yes it's true that perhaps 95% of the story is indeed true (and that's being OVERLY generous in the case of D.R. ). But if the 5% part (the fabulous treasure) part ISN'T true, then : It does ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD to our purposes. And if they say : "It's merely a matter of sorting fact from fiction", then notice : THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT ! And if it turns that the treasure part is "fiction", then .... No amount of "sorting fact from fiction" makes a treasure appear.
But the casual reader (swept up in "treasure fever") doesn't see this slight of hand. They get caught up in the real names, dates, and events, and assume that there HAS to be a treasure.
If you've ever read the treasure magazines of the 1960s & 1970s, I'm convinced that all those "stolen military loot" and "lost mine" treasure yarns are the same thing. In fact, a friend of mine even submitted one of those stories for a mid 1970s treasure magazine yarn (just to get the $100 for article acceptance fee/pay). It was entirely made up fiction. HOWEVER, he had faded newspaper clippings, names of nearby events, people, dates, mining ventures, etc.... All of which weren't made up. Only the treasure part was made up. But shucks, how can you argue with the story when it has a FADED NEWSPAPER CLIPPING ? And once you add the drawing of the miner posing next to his burro, then .... by golly .... IT MUST BE TRUE !
We got a good laugh wondering if anyone actually went out looking for that one.
" ...Some claim it's fiction, but there’s plenty of reason to believe otherwise...."
Here's where ALL these treasure legends get muddied up : Notice they all have true names, dates, places, events, etc.... So all you gotta do is "throw in a treasure". And when ANYONE says "it's fiction", then the faithful only have to point to the true names, dates, places, and events, and can proudly proclaim : It's not fiction.
But common sense logic doesn't work like that . Yes it's true that perhaps 95% of the story is indeed true (and that's being OVERLY generous in the case of D.R. ). But if the 5% part (the fabulous treasure) part ISN'T true, then : It does ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD to our purposes. And if they say : "It's merely a matter of sorting fact from fiction", then notice : THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT ! And if it turns that the treasure part is "fiction", then .... No amount of "sorting fact from fiction" makes a treasure appear.
But the casual reader (swept up in "treasure fever") doesn't see this slight of hand. They get caught up in the real names, dates, and events, and assume that there HAS to be a treasure.
If you've ever read the treasure magazines of the 1960s & 1970s, I'm convinced that all those "stolen military loot" and "lost mine" treasure yarns are the same thing. In fact, a friend of mine even submitted one of those stories for a mid 1970s treasure magazine yarn (just to get the $100 for article acceptance fee/pay). It was entirely made up fiction. HOWEVER, he had faded newspaper clippings, names of nearby events, people, dates, mining ventures, etc.... All of which weren't made up. Only the treasure part was made up. But shucks, how can you argue with the story when it has a FADED NEWSPAPER CLIPPING ? And once you add the drawing of the miner posing next to his burro, then .... by golly .... IT MUST BE TRUE !
We got a good laugh wondering if anyone actually went out looking for that one.
Last edited:
GoDeep
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2022
- Messages
- 753
It's kind of a conflict of the ego for Plaintiff. On the one hand, his swollen ego likes that there's a favorable book about his "adventure", on the other hand, it's like he doesn't realize someone else is advertising on, and profiting off of, his Facebook group and followers!
Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,753
I don't fault Dennis for "ego". Because when you think of it : That's 90% of our hobby. We all LOVE show-&-tell, don't we ? That's why our forums are FILLED with show & tell of our latest finds, research, treks, etc.... That's only human nature. So I'm not faulting Dennis for that.
But it's quite another thing when there's no SHOW & TELL to begin with. Doh !
Not me!
I say that every time I see new posts to this thread... Tom could get a response from a cadaverI can't believe this thread is still getting posts.
The thread will go silent as soon as parada admits his fraud.I say that every time I see new posts to this thread... Tom could get a response from a cadaver
We don't care how long it goes... personally I am just amazed its still going..The thread will go silent as soon as parada admits his fraud.
In the most recent docket entry in this case, the Plaintiff’s lawyer argues the FBI’s declaration about the need to protect generic “non-public investigative techniques and procedures”. The following is an excerpt from document 44:
“The FBI’s supporting declaration also lacks the requisite details, stating only that knowledge of some unidentified techniques and procedures could bring other treasure hunters “in close proximity to the FBI investigators[.]” 4th Seidel Decl. ¶ 93. Even with this very limited justification, however, the FBI fails to explain logically how the mere proximity of others to the Dents Run excavation would allow criminals and others to circumvent the law. This hardly qualifies as even a remote possibility, much less a likely result from disclosing the operational plans here of a once-in-a-lifetime search for buried gold at least as to the FBI.
At bottom the FBI essentially is arguing for a blanket exemption from the FOIA’s disclosure requirements for all its operational plans without considering whether disclosure of specific plans would cause specific foreseeable harm. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, however, forecloses such an approach by codifying a “foreseeable harm” standard that permits withholdings under the FOIA only if “the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by the exemption.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A).
Here the FBI has not made the required showing of a direct link between revealing the operational plans at issue and harm to this precise kind of investigation in the future. There is no evidence in the record that the FBI has ever before conducted an excavation to locate missing Civil War era gold or is likely to do so in the future. The uniqueness of the so-called “investigation” at issue forecloses the FBI’s argument that revealing operational details of how it conducted that excavation would cause a harm against which Exemption 7 protects.” END
We now know from the public record of videos, social media, podcasts and forums that the Plaintiff himself has teased over and over, claiming to know where there is more gold at Dents Run and would be willing to work with the FBI if they don’t screw him, even claiming to have told this directly to the lead Investigator at Dent’s Run. The odds of there being any truth in Plaintiff’s claims are slim to none, however there is always the possibility that another such FBI investigation could take place with someone, somewhere in the future. It is certainly not out of the question that someone could stumble upon a cache of Civil War era gold. At least for now, it is none other than the Plaintiff himself who perpetuates the possibilities of another FBI involved excavation.
Now, as to whether or not the FBI has ever been involved in searching for civil war gold and artifacts, one only need to read the following article to learn that the investigative work they do is highly sensitive and very successful when searches are conducted accordingly with non-public investigative techniques and procedures. While not an excavation per se, the article describes millions of dollars in artifacts and gold recovered in these "so-called investigations". I for one am glad to see that history is being saved.
www.historynet.com
“The FBI’s supporting declaration also lacks the requisite details, stating only that knowledge of some unidentified techniques and procedures could bring other treasure hunters “in close proximity to the FBI investigators[.]” 4th Seidel Decl. ¶ 93. Even with this very limited justification, however, the FBI fails to explain logically how the mere proximity of others to the Dents Run excavation would allow criminals and others to circumvent the law. This hardly qualifies as even a remote possibility, much less a likely result from disclosing the operational plans here of a once-in-a-lifetime search for buried gold at least as to the FBI.
At bottom the FBI essentially is arguing for a blanket exemption from the FOIA’s disclosure requirements for all its operational plans without considering whether disclosure of specific plans would cause specific foreseeable harm. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, however, forecloses such an approach by codifying a “foreseeable harm” standard that permits withholdings under the FOIA only if “the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by the exemption.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A).
Here the FBI has not made the required showing of a direct link between revealing the operational plans at issue and harm to this precise kind of investigation in the future. There is no evidence in the record that the FBI has ever before conducted an excavation to locate missing Civil War era gold or is likely to do so in the future. The uniqueness of the so-called “investigation” at issue forecloses the FBI’s argument that revealing operational details of how it conducted that excavation would cause a harm against which Exemption 7 protects.” END
We now know from the public record of videos, social media, podcasts and forums that the Plaintiff himself has teased over and over, claiming to know where there is more gold at Dents Run and would be willing to work with the FBI if they don’t screw him, even claiming to have told this directly to the lead Investigator at Dent’s Run. The odds of there being any truth in Plaintiff’s claims are slim to none, however there is always the possibility that another such FBI investigation could take place with someone, somewhere in the future. It is certainly not out of the question that someone could stumble upon a cache of Civil War era gold. At least for now, it is none other than the Plaintiff himself who perpetuates the possibilities of another FBI involved excavation.
Now, as to whether or not the FBI has ever been involved in searching for civil war gold and artifacts, one only need to read the following article to learn that the investigative work they do is highly sensitive and very successful when searches are conducted accordingly with non-public investigative techniques and procedures. While not an excavation per se, the article describes millions of dollars in artifacts and gold recovered in these "so-called investigations". I for one am glad to see that history is being saved.
Busted! A dedicated FBI agent rescued treasured Civil War artifacts from thieves, swindlers, and unscrupulous collectors
Over an illustrious 20-year career, FBI agent Robert K. Wittman recovered an estimated $300 million worth of stolen artworks and historical relics.
www.historynet.com
Last edited:
GoDeep
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2022
- Messages
- 753
Great Research Ucnegold! This link alone shows the FBI's art crime team has recovered significant historical treasures previously without the need to "steal" them. I'd also add, the link to previously recovered Civil War treasures by the FBI art crime team begs the question I once asked Plaintiff:In the most recent docket entry in this case, the Plaintiff’s lawyer argues the FBI’s declaration about the need to protect generic “non-public investigative techniques and procedures”. The following is an excerpt from document 44:
“The FBI’s supporting declaration also lacks the requisite details, stating only that knowledge of some unidentified techniques and procedures could bring other treasure hunters “in close proximity to the FBI investigators[.]” 4th Seidel Decl. ¶ 93. Even with this very limited justification, however, the FBI fails to explain logically how the mere proximity of others to the Dents Run excavation would allow criminals and others to circumvent the law. This hardly qualifies as even a remote possibility, much less a likely result from disclosing the operational plans here of a once-in-a-lifetime search for buried gold at least as to the FBI.
At bottom the FBI essentially is arguing for a blanket exemption from the FOIA’s disclosure requirements for all its operational plans without considering whether disclosure of specific plans would cause specific foreseeable harm. The FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, however, forecloses such an approach by codifying a “foreseeable harm” standard that permits withholdings under the FOIA only if “the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by the exemption.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A).
Here the FBI has not made the required showing of a direct link between revealing the operational plans at issue and harm to this precise kind of investigation in the future. There is no evidence in the record that the FBI has ever before conducted an excavation to locate missing Civil War era gold or is likely to do so in the future. The uniqueness of the so-called “investigation” at issue forecloses the FBI’s argument that revealing operational details of how it conducted that excavation would cause a harm against which Exemption 7 protects.” END
We now know from the public record of videos, social media, podcasts and forums that the Plaintiff himself has teased over and over, claiming to know where there is more gold at Dents Run and would be willing to work with the FBI if they don’t screw him, even claiming to have told this directly to the lead Investigator at Dent’s Run. The odds of there being any truth in Plaintiff’s claims are slim to none, however there is always the possibility that another such FBI investigation could take place with someone, somewhere in the future. It is certainly not out of the question that someone could stumble upon a cache of Civil War era gold. At least for now, it is none other than the Plaintiff himself who perpetuates the possibilities of another FBI involved excavation.
Now, as to whether or not the FBI has ever been involved in searching for civil war gold and artifacts, one only need to read the following article to learn that the investigative work they do is highly sensitive and very successful when searches are conducted accordingly with non-public investigative techniques and procedures. While not an excavation per se, the article describes millions of dollars in artifacts and gold recovered in these "so-called investigations". I for one am glad to see that history is being saved.
Busted! A dedicated FBI agent rescued treasured Civil War artifacts from thieves, swindlers, and unscrupulous collectors
Over an illustrious 20-year career, FBI agent Robert K. Wittman recovered an estimated $300 million worth of stolen artworks and historical relics.
What would be the FBI's motive for "stealing" this alleged gold? Plaintiff has never articulated a reasonable or plausible motive. One motive Plaintiff seems to articulate is to "avoid paying out a finders fee".
1. To personally enrich the agents? No. Plaintiff himself testified there was as many as 75 agents at the scene alone, and scores of others who would have been ancillary to the removal, transportation, storage, guarding, processing and selling of it. Finding 100's, if not 1000's of people to all simultaneously agree to violate their oath and commit felony theft (plus a host of other related crimes) and not have a single leak is so statistically improbable, even Plaintiff isn't accusing them of that.
2. Funding the FBI itself? No. I figured it out previously, and as valuable as the alleged stash appears to mere mortals, it'd only fund the FBI's operations for a few days as the FBI's annual direct budget is over 10 billion!
3. Avoid Paying a Finders Fee? No. First, he's never cited any law that guarantees him any finders fee to begin with. I do recall that he's stated that in a verbal conversation he had with the FBI lead agent, the lead agent said "yes" to Plaintiffs inquiry about a Finders Fee, but he fails to mention any specific terms they came to, nor can point to any contract that was drawn up. Curious, given at the time he had legal representation. And if the FBI did "agree", it may have been they "agree" in principle, in so far as , if gold was found and its origin and ownership determined, they wouldn't fight a finders fee, should the law require it.
4. Elephant in the room: The FBI would have to find gold first, then have it forensically analyzed to determine its origin and true ownership, before one could even broach the subject of finders fee's.
When it comes to Motives, in the instant case, the FBI would have every motive to publicize the find as it'd bring much needed positive publicity to a much maligned organization.
Last edited:
There are lots of misleading inaccuracies and accusations in this recent article (link below) but for all the “hot air” contained therein, the author makes one brilliant point:
“Nine tons of gold doesn’t just disappear and then reappear somewhere else without there being some record of it.”
Thank you for making that point so precisely. Despite arguing nonsense to bolster the Plaintiff’s accusations, the author only serves to confirm there never was any gold that disappeared or reappeared anywhere, ever. Not in the Civil War era and not in early March of 2018.
C'mon, FBI. Just admit you stole the civil war gold – HotAir
