The FBI Files: Dents Run Civil War Gold

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)

aaintellectually1.jpg


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


aaintellectually2.jpg
 
Last edited:
....

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. :roll:
 
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. :roll:

Yes sir, it's just all about creating a false narrative to promote a story he's trying to sell!
 
.... He hopes to create the insinuation that : ....

... 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. :roll: Doh !
 
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. :roll: 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:
... .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')
 
....

If he truly believed it, 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
 
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.
 
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)!!

aatrespass1.jpg
aatrespass2.jpg

aatrespass3.jpg

aatrespass4.jpg

aatrespass5.jpg

 
Last edited:
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?
 
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:
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.

:roll:
 
Were there armored trucks at the dig site that moved in convoys? (part 2)

Recall that in part one (post #84 ) we discussed that the number of claimed "armored trucks" at/near the site grew from the original claimed two trucks to as many as five in the most recent telling of the story. What did the actual witnesses identify at/near the Dents Run Site on those fateful days back in March of 2018? She identified 2 Lenco Bearcats, which is an Armored Military Style Personnel Carrier. See attached video clip (go to 53:40 in the video) of her interview below, complete with a picture of what she says she saw.

This makes perfect sense given that Plaintiff himself testified on numerous occasions there were dozens upon dozens of armed FBI police swarming over the Dents Run Site, see attachments below.

Conclusion: Plaintiff wants to ignore his own testimony and his own witness interviews that clearly demonstrate that the "armored" trucks seen were for the FBI military police at the site. He's twisted it, despite evidence to the contrary, to fit a narrative that they were "hauling gold" when in fact, his own testimony and witness interviews support they were hauling FBI police.




aaapc1.jpg

aaapc2.jpg

aaapc3.jpg

aaapc4.jpg

aaapc5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Excellent work again go-deep. When I had seen the previous citation of "armored trucks " , I immediately thought of what the average person thinks of when we use the term "armored vehicle " : Namely, the type like Brinks armored vehicle that does bank work. Ie.: Specifically for moving valuables.

But yes, the word armored vehicles can describe other military vehicles too. Like personnel movers. Anyhow, I gave Dennis the benefit of the doubt, and figured they WERE the type "armored ", like Brinks. And said that this would be ONLY for preparation for the amount of loot that Dennis had spent 13 years banging on doors about. And that it need not indicate that anything was actually FOUND.

But you've done a great job at providing the explanation of "armored " to be much more benign.

I'm sure that the "faithful " .... even if/when they comprehend this benign explanation, would still gripe and say: "But gee, why all those dozens of G-men LEO people ? Something HAD to be cooking, or else they wouldn't have been expending the time and resources. To which I would say :

1) That was ONLY the result of Dennis' 13 years of knocking on government and media doors insisting there was a fabulous treasure there. And

2) the same people that see "resources and time spent " by the government as proof that the story is true, would no doubt be the same type people who would not hesitate to agree that our government wastes time and money on LOTS of things. I mean .... shucks .... since when HASN'T the gov't. been riddled with bureaucracy and waste, on SCORES of things they do ? So: why is this one suddenly the exception where Government is now incapable of waste and over-reaction ? :?:
 
2) the same people that see "resources and time spent " by the government as proof that the story is true, would no doubt be the same type people who would not hesitate to agree that our government wastes time and money on LOTS of things. I mean .... shucks .... since when HASN'T the gov't. been riddled with bureaucracy and waste, on SCORES of things they do ? So: why is this one suddenly the exception where Government is now incapable of waste and over-reaction ? :?:

Exactly. Shows how powerful confirmation bias can be.


I've long said Plaintiff only sees evidence through the lens of confirming his preferred story. If the evidence contradicts his story he deletes it, alters it, buries it, forges it, distorts it or just plain old makes it up.
 
For those leery of links:

Actual talking, breathing witness being interviewed by no less than Plaintiff himself! What did she identify seeing? Not gold, not bank trunks, but 2 Lenco Bear Cats , a military style armored troop transport (plus several SUV type vehicles). Perfect for transporting the dozens of armed FBI Police Plaintiff himself testified seeing. Never does a single witness testify seeing any gold, but all of them claim to have seen multiple FBI agents!

Which begs the rhetorical question, why is Plaintiff ignoring/misrepresenting actual testimony of his own witnesses that point to what those trucks were actually hauling?

witness1.jpg

witness2.jpg
 
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.

30:27 of the podcast
The closed caption of the video-summed it up.

What they "believe to be a human femur at the denture on site":laughing:

What does all this mean-somebody had their foot jammed so far in their mouth the denture was lodged in the femur?
 
....

What they "believe to be a human femur ....

And don't you know that NO good treasure story would be complete, if it didn't have a skeleton (or human bones) there. It's just par for the course.

That plus : Insane depths, coverup hush conspiracies (knights templars, KGC, FBI, etc...), booby traps, etc..... In fact, the more impediments and the more there's no proof, simply means ALL THE MORE PROOF of "fabulous treasure".

The moment you add a skull, or a skeleton, or a bone, then.... by golly ... there MUST be a fabulous treasure there !! :roll:
 
Last edited:
30:27 of the podcast
The closed caption of the video-summed it up.

What they "believe to be a human femur at the denture on site":laughing:

What does all this mean-somebody had their foot jammed so far in their mouth the denture was lodged in the femur?

Yeah, one has to have a sense of humor when it comes to this case!

Did you see this post of the claimed "bones", it's clear there were no bones, just sticks that were spun into a clue to support a most fabulous treasure tale! https://metaldetectingforum.com/showpost.php?p=3422234&postcount=176

Also, check out here were plaintiff claims they told the FBI about the alleged bones, and then in another post, claim they didn't tell the FBI about the bones. Both can't be true, so one or the other is a lie, doesn't really matter which: https://metaldetectingforum.com/showpost.php?p=3422196&postcount=173
 
Back
Top Bottom