Dent's run, don't you dare!

This thread:
[www.treasurenet.com]

So the guy who said he found the Dent's run treasure, eggs people on to get them banned. He is having a good time at everyone's expense but no one can see they are ALL being manipulated.

This type of actions on Tnet destroy the credibility and integrity of the site. Would be nice if this could be rectified.

I don’t know Dents Run from the Cannonball Run, but that forum seems like it is full of a bunch of whackadoodles.

ChrisMD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don’t know Dents Run from the Cannonball Run, but that forum seems like it is full of a bunch of whackadoodles.


You got that right, and if you think that's bad, you should read the LRL and dowsing forums there

I couldn't think of a worse torture then to be forced to read those forums.

fantastic responses lol

T-Net Sucks! True Story!

88junior Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> T-Net Sucks! True Story!


Sounds like fake news - lol

Far fetched stories and power tripping moderators is the name of the game over there. Post all the obviously faked finds you want and no problem but dare not question anything. A big clown show I never waste my time viewing.

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This thread:
> [www.treasurenet.com]
> on/584617-no-update-finderkeeper-dent-s-run.html
>
> So the guy who said he found the Dent's run treasu
> re, eggs people on to get them banned. He is havin
> g a good time at everyone's expense but no one can
> see they are ALL being manipulated.
>
> This type of actions on Tnet destroy the credibili
> ty and integrity of the site. Would be nice if thi
> s could be rectified.



Beyonder, thank you for the link. My "search" function doesn't work there during the ban, so I was unaware of the resurrected topic .

I was a major dissenter skeptic on the May-ish thread, which more or less led to my ban . Not so much the "skepticism", but .... by pointing out that skepticism gets stern warnings. That constituted "questioning the mods", which is the ban. But .... let's be honest, the real reason is: No skepticism and no poking fun at magic wands.

I had a great time reading this new T'net link. And the refreshing breath of fresh air replies here on Dankowski on this thread. And the refreshing voice of common sense skeptics there on that thread.

Yet... sadly ... as before: The mod's there critically warn anyone who dares raise a voice of common sense critical questions. Ie.: only assenting views allowed. Any dissenting view (NO MATTER HOW POLITELY FORMED), is seen as "aggressive", "attacking", etc... WTF ? What's wrong with that forum ?? How did it get to be so big ? There are other forums that allow pro/con views, that don't have near the # of participants. How in the heck is T'net so big, with such a glaring flaw as that ?

Essentially, like the giant thread in May -ish :

a) This "finders-keepers dude comes on saying he's "found" (past tense) a fabulous treasure.

b) But ... truth is, his definition of "found", is to have a map & a legend. Where he believes he's honed the area down to a single meadow or cave or hill or something.

c) His dowsing rod or LRL points a certain direction (and we all know how scientific this is, eh ?)

d) Now it's merely a matter of getting a detector that can go 50 feet deep. And pinpointing the exact spot. And attaining heavy equipment to dig the hole, blah blah blah

e) And getting government clearances, sorting out taxes, legal things, blah blah blah.

But REST ASSURED, he's "found" this supposed treasure. The fact that he's never seen or recovered anything, doesn't mean he hasn't past-tense "found" it. He is simply be foiled by red tape, govt. clearances, technical digging aspects, etc...

f) So he goes to all the news people he can, and makes a big stink. And some news agency takes the bait, and runs an article or news clip saying "has the such & such treasure been found ?" And FK gets lawyers to prod the govt. A big stink arises.

g) Whenever gullible md'rs see a big stink and a news story, well ......... By Golly, it must be true, right ? Because after all, "where there's smoke, there's fire, right ?" None of the gullible md'rs stop to realize is that the only "smoke" , is the giant self-invented stink that FK made. And is confusing definitions of "found".

And FK keep assuring the world that the news will break "this week ". Or "this month", etc... But those multiple dead-lines come & go. And of course there's always a good reason for the further delays , eh ? Added govt. investigations, another bug arose, lawyers added another step, blah blah blah.

Thank goodness others can see through the nonsense too. But sad for the state of affairs at T'net. It used to be a good forum.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2018 04:23PM by Tom_in_CA.

To be fair, here is the story, and at this time, it seems like just that. A story.

[www.readingeagle.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2018 02:09PM by Beyonder-Pa.

What would be funny is if everyone started posting on the newest thread that they have just found 10 gold bars, make it great with some crazy location. Since the rules state you can't even allude that a story isn't true, you'd have a thread full of gold bar stories.

[www.treasurenet.com]

Local Treasure hunters debunk Dent's Run Gold story

Courier Express



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 06:16PM by Jackpine.

ChrisMD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What would be funny is if everyone started posting
> on the newest thread that they have just found 10
> gold bars, make it great with some crazy location.
> Since the rules state you can't even allude that a
> story isn't true, you'd have a thread full of gold
> bar stories.
>

Heck, you don't even have to have pix for show & tell. Because, remember, the definition of "found" there, can simply mean that you have a legend, some cryptogram clues, and have narrowed down this supposed "10 gold bars", to a certain meadow, a certain lake bottom, and certain canyon, etc...

Now it's merely a matter of draining the lake, bringing in earth-movers, dealing with future tax issues, govt. clearances, heavy equipment, etc... But rest assured: You've "found" (past tense) 10 gold bars. And it's beyond question or critique, right ? If someone says "where's the 10 gold bars ?", all you have to do is say that mysterious men with suspicious armored cars, came during the night, and secreted it away. If someone says "prove it", you merely say "Prove it didn't happen " . And then, as you can see, the burden of proof falls on the skeptic to prove this grand conspiracy DIDN'T happen. Rather than the claimant to prove it DID happen.

Why are md'rs falling all over themselves believing this nonsense ? Read the T'net thread, and you'll see that ... clearly ... 80% or more of the respondents seem to think that some conspiracy existed . Eg.: "big bad govt" or "FK shouldn't have blabbed", etc... As if to imply that something was there, IN THE FIRST PLACE ! Why are md'rs falling for this silly leap of logic ? Because treasure stories are SO fun to believe in . When it comes to "treasure", the human mind puts skepticism and rationale thinking aside. Because we want SSeeeooo hard to believe. "Lest you be left out".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 09:14PM by Tom_in_CA.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChrisMD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What would be funny is if everyone started posti
> ng
> > on the newest thread that they have just found 1
> 0
> > gold bars, make it great with some crazy locatio
> n.
> > Since the rules state you can't even allude that
> a
> > story isn't true, you'd have a thread full of go
> ld
> > bar stories.
> >
>
> Heck, you don't even have to have pix for show & t
> ell. Because, remember, the definition of "found
> " there, can simply mean that you have a legend, s
> ome cryptogram clues, and have narrowed down this
> supposed "10 gold bars", to a certain meadow, a ce
> rtain lake bottom, and certain canyon, etc...
>
> Now it's merely a matter of draining the lake, bri
> nging in earth-movers, dealing with future tax iss
> ues, govt. clearances, heavy equipment, etc... Bu
> t rest assured: You've "found" (past tense) 10 go
> ld bars. And it's beyond question or critique, r
> ight ? If someone says "where's the 10 gold bars
> ?", all you have to do is say that mysterious men
> with suspicious armored cars, came during the nigh
> t, and secreted it away. If someone says "prove i
> t", you merely say "Prove it didn't happen " . An
> d then, as you can see, the burden of proof falls
> on the skeptic to prove this grand conspiracy DIDN
> 'T happen. Rather than the claimant to prove it D
> ID happen.
>
> Why are md'rs falling all over themselves believin
> g this nonsense ? Read the T'net thread, and you'
> ll see that ... clearly ... 80% or more of the res
> pondents seem to think that some conspiracy existe
> d . Eg.: "big bad govt" or "FK shouldn't have bla
> bbed", etc... As if to imply that something was
> there, IN THE FIRST PLACE ! Why
> are md'rs falling for this silly leap of logic ?
> Because treasure stories are SO fun to believe in
> . When it comes to "treasure", the human mind put
> s skepticism and rationale thinking aside. Becau
> se we want SSeeeooo hard to believe. "Lest you b
> e left out".

I think you are making the leap. If I had a spot where I thought there was treasure, I wouldn't tell anyone. DON"T ever tell anyone! That's the point I was making.

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I think you are making the leap. If I had a spot w
> here I thought there was treasure, I wouldn
> 't tell anyone. DON"T ever tell anyone! That's the
> point I was making.

Here's the operative difference : You would not have "thought there was a treasure" via a ghost-story legend like he was chasing . Or ... I certainly hope so .

But sure, if someone has a REAL lead, and a TRUE "spot", then sure. The operative difference is: FK has no rationale basis to keep using the word "found" (past tense) at.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > I think you are making the leap. If I had a spot
> w
> > here I thought there was treasure, I woul
> dn
> > 't tell anyone. DON"T ever tell anyone! That's t
> he
> > point I was making.
>
> Here's the operative difference : You would not h
> ave "thought there was a treasure" via a ghost-sto
> ry legend like he was chasing . Or ... I certain
> ly hope so .
>
> But sure, if someone has a REAL lead, and a TRUE "
> spot", then sure. The operative difference is: F
> K has no rationale basis to keep using the word "f
> ound" (past tense) at.

Agreed!

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But sure, if someone has a REAL lead, and a TRUE " spot", then sure. The operative difference is: FK has no rationale basis to keep using the word "found" (past tense) at.

What should be obvious in this, is that FK is playing a different game. We see him out on the baseball diamond with a football and argue he's playing the game wrong. He not. He knows there never was a treasure there. He's after fame, notoriety, and TV money. Thats why he puts everything out. Thats why he involves every newspaper, radio, park word and even dragging in the FBI. He knew nothing would be found, but getting the FBI on scene now gives him a scapegoat and now he can play the role of the victim. He's just trying to get a TV show to pay him for "Treasure Quest: Dents Run"

The Great KvM wrote that the treasure isn't in the treasure, the treasure is in the story.

silverfiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom_in_CA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > But sure, if someone has a REAL lead, and a TRUE
> " spot", then sure. The operative difference is:
> FK has no rationale basis to keep using the word "
> found" (past tense) at.
>
> What should be obvious in this, is that FK is play
> ing a different game. We see him out on the baseb
> all diamond with a football and argue he's playing
> the game wrong. He not. He knows there never was
> a treasure there. He's after fame, notoriety, and
> TV money. Thats why he puts everything out. That
> s why he involves every newspaper, radio, park wor
> d and even dragging in the FBI. He knew nothing w
> ould be found, but getting the FBI on scene now gi
> ves him a scapegoat and now he can play the role o
> f the victim. He's just trying to get a TV show t
> o pay him for "Treasure Quest: Dents Run"
>
> The Great KvM wrote that the treasure isn't in the
> treasure, the treasure is in the story.

This is wild supposition. Where are your facts?

Keep in mind I neither support the story nor disbelieve it.

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> This is wild supposition. Where are your facts?
>
> Keep in mind I neither support the story nor disbe
> lieve it.


Facts? Its interpretation of the facts. Everything FK has done is out there because he publishes it himself. All you have to do is start asking "why". Why would he do this and that? Why would he court TV producers and write his own AP news releases? What would be the likely motivation and how does that reflect back on his actions for years?

Analyze and interpret.

silverfiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > This is wild supposition. Where are your facts?
> >
> > Keep in mind I neither support the story nor dis
> be
> > lieve it.
>
>
> Facts? Its interpretation of the facts. Everythi
> ng FK has done is out there because he publishes i
> t himself. All you have to do is start asking "wh
> y". Why would he do this and that? Why would he
> court TV producers and write his own AP news relea
> ses? What would be the likely motivation and how
> does that reflect back on his actions for years?
>
> Analyze and interpret.

Okay, where is the proof of this?

I guess this is what you do when your retired eh?

Cal_cobra Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess this is what you do when your retired eh?


if you mean me I am no where near retired. I am just trying to pan out a story is all.

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> This is wild supposition. Where are your facts?
>
> Keep in mind I neither support the story nor disbe
> lieve it.


Why is the burden-of-proof on Silverfiend to prove that there's no treasure ? Why isn't the burden of proof on the claimant to prove there IS a treasure (or conspiracy, etc...) ? Seems to me you've shifted the burden of proof.

As for your neutrality: I realize you keep saying that : "You neither support or dis-believe". The trouble is: Your subsequent writings belie that you are .... in fact .... sympathetic with the existence of a treasure there. Why don't you just come out and say it ?

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > This is wild supposition. Where are your facts?
> >
> > Keep in mind I neither support the story nor dis
> be
> > lieve it.
>
>
> Why is the burden-of-proof on Silverfiend to prove
> that there's no treasure ? Why isn't the burden
> of proof on the claimant to prove there IS a treas
> ure (or conspiracy, etc...) ? Seems to me you've
> shifted the burden of proof.
>
> As for your neutrality: I realize you keep saying
> that : "You neither support or dis-believe". The
> trouble is: Your subsequent writings belie that y
> ou are .... in fact .... sympathetic with the exis
> tence of a treasure there. Why don't you just com
> e out and say it ?

No one mentioned treasure LOL He said FK was making stuff up to be famous. Let's back up that statement with proof was all that I was asking.

What I believe is irrelevant as the discussion isn't about me. It's about the story.

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> No one mentioned treasure LOL He said FK was makin
> g stuff up to be famous. Let's back up that statem
> ent with proof was all that I was asking.


The "proof" is in the evolution of events. Ie.: No gold ever shown/produced, yet a media/forum circus that he is proud of. In fact, I believe if you go back through all his T'net posts, you will see this heavily hinted at. That .... if he brings attention , gets a show, gets his 20 min. of fame, etc.... then he "wins" (his words, not mine).

>
> What I believe is irrelevant as the discussion isn
> 't about me. It's about the story.

Uhhh, but ask yourself: What is "the story" ? It's about TREASURE. It's a "treasure" story. Hence it is VERY MUCH ABOUT TREASURE. The only problem is ...... there is no treasure. Only assertions, claims, wild fanciful conspiracy tales, etc....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 05:23PM by Tom_in_CA.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > No one mentioned treasure LOL He said FK was mak
> in
> > g stuff up to be famous. Let's back up that stat
> em
> > ent with proof was all that I was asking.
>
>
> The "proof" is in the evoluti
> on of events. Ie.: No gold ever shown/produced, y
> et a media/forum circus that he is proud of. In f
> act, I believe if you go back through all his T'ne
> t posts, you will see this heavily hinted at. Th
> at .... if he brings attention , gets a show, gets
> his 20 min. of fame, etc.... then he "wins"
> (his words, not mine).
>
> >
> > What I believe is irrelevant as the discussion i
> sn
> > 't about me. It's about the story.
>
> Uhhh, but ask yourself: What
> is "the story" ? It's about TREASURE. It's a "tr
> easure" story. Hence it is VERY MUCH ABOUT TREAS
> URE. The only problem is ...... there is n
> o treasure. Only assertions, claims, wi
> ld fanciful conspiracy tales, etc....[
> /b]

So you are saying the proof is his forum posts. Ok that's a fair enough presentation of evidence. You are saying you have seen an "attention getting" pattern.

The story in the article is really about the FBI potentially covering something up. Agreed?

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The story in the article is really about the FBI p
> otentially covering something up. Agreed?


This is a loaded question. It fails to ask: What BROUGHT ABOUT that story , in first place ??

I'll give you a hint : It was the big media circus and prodding by FK and his buddy, prodding LEO agencies (getting lawyers, etc...), for un-told years leading up to that.

You too could do the same thing, given enough time, over any speck of public land. And then the moment anyone shows up and scratches their nuts, has squinty eyes, and drives a govt. vehicle: Presto, draw all sorts of "coverup" conclusions. Never mind what brought about that "smoke" in the first place, right ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 06:05PM by Tom_in_CA.

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > The story in the article is really about the FBI
> p
> > otentially covering something up. Agreed?
>
>
> This is a loaded question. It fails to ask: What
> BROUGHT ABOUT that story , in first
> place ??
>
> I'll give you a hint : It was the big media circu
> s and prodding by FK and his buddy, prodding LEO a
> gencies (getting lawyers, etc...), for un-told yea
> rs leading up to that.
>
> You too could do the same thing, given eno
> ugh time, over any speck of public land. And then
> the moment anyone shows up and scratches their nut
> s, has squinty eyes, and drives a govt. vehicle:
> Presto, draw all sorts of "coverup" conclusions.
> Never mind what brought about that "smoke" in the
> first place, right ?

A reminder to others observing:

To me this is a civil discussion. No hostilities here on my side at least lol

Now what brought about the LEO prodding about was the report of treasure. I agree with you 1000%. But so what? The fact that there was a story of treasure doesn't change the reported activities of LEO stated in the article. THAT is what I am trying to discern.

However, by your logic.

The fact that there isn't treasure, means we shouldn't even discuss the POSSIBLE, elaborate amount of manpower and vehicles used to investigate and conceal the activities of the LEO stated in the article. Correct?

beyonder, you will have to look up FK's own words and action on TNET as I have stopped frequenting that place.

You are treating the "news article" (and I use that term loosely) as if it was gospel, written by Geraldo from his own Capone vault level of research

The truth is that FK created that AP news release, it says exactly what he wanted it to say.

silverfiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The truth is that FK created that AP news release,
> it says exactly what he wanted it to say.

Bingo. A breath of fresh air.

As I say, I could do the same thing as FK, on any speck of land. Complete with armored cars, media, and FBI. Just give me enough years, enough lawyers, enough whining, enough posting on md'ing forums (with past tense "found"), and I can bring about the same results, on any speck of public land you point to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 07:10PM by Tom_in_CA.