Dent's run hit main stream news.

[www.foxnews.com]

Was just going to post that! Looks like the FBI stole the gold, eh?

ah there goes that ever so reliable FBI again

[www.earthscan.co.nz]

Looks like somebody embarrassed the FBI into actually participating in a wild goose chase.

But who knows?

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

I don't see how how the FBI can be accused of stealing. The gold was being transported by federal troops. They were digging on state owned land. The only thing these guys can say they had coming was to see it be dug up.

I believe it’s more the way the government handled it. Once again leading to a trust issue. People just want transparency. Seems the government isn’t in the go find it business.....but let someone like us find something and we get a different picture of Uncle Sam... one with his hand out. So much history would not have been recovered with out people like us. Seems pointless sometimes to find it....

I am baffled. I can't understand WHY you would tell anyone who deosn't need to know. A slow, careful, inconspicuous dig would of been the answer.

You dont want to get caught digging on PA state land without permission.

You can do light prospecting on state land. That includes digging.

PA. State Parks are no problem when you ask permission. The thing is, the few that I have gotten the go ahead in here in PA, didn't give permission slips...and I always ask for one. They wave me on and say "you're good to go".
Does that mean I don't have to stop and ask in the future because permission was granted once?.....not sure and never stopped back in for a second or third verbal....to me, one is enough for each park until they say different.

Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [www.foxnews.com]
> -hunters-lawyer-say-fbi-acting-suspicious-in-wake-
> of-dig-at-pennsylvania-site

I don't get it. Why is all the md'rs, on all the forums (including some in this thread) interpreting this as if "Something was found" ? And that therefore "loose lips sink ships" and "big bad govt.", etc.... Read closer. Do you see any gold ? Do you see any treasure ? NO ! It's all conjecture. It's all merely smoke and stink and attention the original clowns brought upon themselves and the story. Begging LEO agencies and media , insisting they "found" (past tense) a "treasure".

And no matter HOW many dry holes come up, No matter HOW much attention the finally get from the govt. (that they begged and got legal with), the fact that there's no treasure to show, NEVER means : "There's no treasure". NNNnneeeooo. It only means a grand conspiracy that surreptitiously secreted the treasure away, in the dark of the night, with black helicopters, right ? And every person that had "squinty eyes", and every "noise in the night", was *most certainly * evidence of the grand conspiracy, right ?

And no matter how many holes they dig, the fact of nothing there, doesn't disprove it. It's merely a little deeper. Or a little more to the left. Or a little more to the right, etc... (Is that beginning to sound like Oak Island to you?)

Why can't the fact that nothing was found, mean "nothing was there" ? Why does it necessarily mean that a treasure was *actually* there, yet big bad govt. ) was in a conspiracy to keep it for themselves. Why can't it simply mean: "Nothing was there" ? They can speculate on conspiracy theories till the cows come home. But it doesn't make it, of necessity, true.

This is nothing but a silly ghost story legend. Oh sure, LIKE ANY GOOD YARN: It will be based around real names, dates, and events. Right ? And you can knock yourself silly with names, date, and events that might be 100% true. But does that necessarily mean "Treasure" ? NO ! That's no different than the treasure mag's of the 1970s that were PACKED FULL of "lost mines" and "stolen stage loot" stories. All of them contained real city names, some faded newspaper clippings, a drawing of a miner posed next to his burro, and ...... Presto, it must be true, right ?

Those of you here that are 'dissing the FBI, or 'dissing the foolishness of F.K. and his buddy for "blabbing", seem to think there's an underlying premise of "something was there". Says who ? Since when is that a premise ? Instead of 'dissing the govt., or 'dissing the clowns that started this media circus, that's all a moot point. If there's no treasure, there's no treasure !



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/10/2018 09:34PM by Tom_in_CA.

The time for the clowns and the acrobats and the dancing bears has passed, there was no treasure

Should have let them watch the dig. With these accounts of convoys of government vehicles, including two armored trucks, transferring something, and with the government probably now refusing to turn over records, the certainty that there was gold in that hole will only build,

That was my point. Im even baffled how the FBI came into it....... then dug a hole where they alledged the gold was seemly in the night...... covered up the hole.......alledged it was an on going investigation...... and sealed the records. Now i have to ask you Tom ...... how do you know there was no gold any more than they knew there was? (really i just wanted to throw some gas on your fire Tom.... breath buddy breath.... its pretty unimportant to most of us)

To me it's about the story. I'm not concerned with the treasure AT THIS POINT. The story needs to be proved/disproved and the way to do that is a trial. IF they can prove the accounts of many armored vehicles, FBI hours logged showing night work, eye witness testimony, or if an FBI agent comes forward, then this would prove that there was activity at night. THAT IS ALL I AM INTERESTED IN!

Did they or did they not do some shady things in this situation? A trial will reveal all.

Dubious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Should have let them watch the dig. With these ac
> counts of convoys of government vehicles, includin
> g two armored trucks, transferring something, and
> with the government probably now refusing to turn
> over records, the certainty that there was gold in
> that hole will only build,

Dubious: I gaurantee you: If they had let FK watch the entire dig (showing nothing was there), then ........ gauranteed : FK would have come up with some other grand conspiracy or explanation. Eg.: A little deeper. A little more to the right. A little more to the left. The govt. came and got it before we arrived, etc...


dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was my point. Im even baffled how the FBI c
> ame into it.......

You're "baffled" ? As to why the LEO's or govt. became involved ? Dewcon : I'll bet that ... if you gave me a year, like they had, I TOO could create an equal media/govt. circus JUST LIKE THEM. Over any spot of public land I wanted to. Eg.: If I showed up at state or federal offices, insisting a treasure existed on some part of their land, saying I wanted to dig holes, split treasure with them, etc....

The reason the FBI was there, was because the clowns went on a multi-year campaign, drawing attention to themselves, insisting there was a treasure at a certain spot. Enlisting lawyers, etc.. And now you're "baffled" as to why someone finally went to put this matter to rest ? As I say, I bet, that given enough time & energy, I can accomplish the same phenomenon, on any speck of public land too. Thus the "smoke" does not mean "fire". It only means they went making a big spectacle of themselves.


dewcon4414 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now i
> have to ask you Tom ...... how do you know there w
> as no gold

Dewcon, Do you see what you are doing here ? It is the classic burden-of-proof switch. The skeptic says "prove it was/is there ". The faithful says "prove it isn't there".

Or am I misunderstanding you ?


Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To me it's about the story. I'm not concerned with
> the treasure AT THIS POINT.

"the treasure" ? Doesn't this assume/infer there's a "treasure" in the first place ?


Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The story needs to be
> proved/disproved and the way to do that is a trial
> . IF they can prove the accounts of many armored v
> ehicles, FBI hours logged showing night work, eye
> witness testimony, or if an FBI agent comes forwar
> d, then this would prove that there was activity a
> t night. THAT IS ALL I AM INTERESTED IN!
>
> Did they or did they not do some shady things in t
> his situation? A trial will reveal all.

Beyonder, here's the problem with this: If "suspicious people loading things into trucks" blah blah means "treasure", then ... gee. ... I guess there's treasures around every corner.

Eg.: I came to work at 4am today. And as I passed the local supermarket back alley-dock , I saw men (with squinty eyes no less) unloading and loading vehicles on a truck dock . Hmmmm. And when I went home last night after work, the neighbor was walking her dog, and failed to say "hi" to me. She avoided my glance, and was acting suspiciously. Hmmmm. And when I got up at 3:30am, to get ready to go to work, I saw a suspicious light on, at the neighbor's house, down the street. Hmmmm. And at the end of the block, there is some curious geometric lines, at a *supposed* fountain concrete thingy. Hmmmm . And then , at the scene of a fire burning in an abandoned building a week ago in my city, I attempted to get close, but the cops were shooing people away, behind yellow ticker tape. Hmmmm. I smell a rat with all of this, don't you ?

Don't you see ? Just like UFO's, bigfoot, or ANY salacious juicy story, you can ALWAYS find supposed "smoking gun" links. Like horoscopes: You can ALWAYS find some way to fit them into the narrative of whatever desired outcome you want. And hence, no matter WHAT those govt. people did (after years of pestering by FK), that ANY presence they would have had, would have been woven into "suspicious activity" and "conspiracy", etc.....

Tom, no wonder you got on Time Out over at that other place. Lack of proper “tinfoil hattedness”. They hate that!

Rick Kempf
Gold Canyon AZ- where there is no gold

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dubious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Should have let them watch the dig. With these
> ac
> > counts of convoys of government vehicles, includ
> in
> > g two armored trucks, transferring something, an
> d
> > with the government probably now refusing to tur
> n
> > over records, the certainty that there was gold
> in
> > that hole will only build,
>
> Dubious: I gaurantee you: If they had let FK wat
> ch the entire dig (showing nothing was there), the
> n ........ gauranteed : FK would have come up wit
> h some other grand conspiracy or explanation. Eg.
> : A little deeper. A little more to the right.
> A little more to the left. The govt. came and go
> t it before we arrived, etc...
>
>
> dewcon4414 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That was my point. Im even baffled how the FBI
> c
> > ame into it.......
>
> You're "baffled" ? As to why the LEO's or govt. b
> ecame involved ? Dewcon : I'll bet that ... if
> you gave me a year, like they had, I TOO could cre
> ate an equal media/govt. circus JUST LIKE THEM. O
> ver any spot of public land I wanted to. Eg.: If
> I showed up at state or federal offices, insisting
> a treasure existed on some part of their land, say
> ing I wanted to dig holes, split treasure with the
> m, etc....
>
> The reason the FBI was there, was because the clow
> ns went on a multi-year campaign, drawing attentio
> n to themselves, insisting there was a treasure at
> a certain spot. Enlisting lawyers, etc..
> And now you're "baffled" as to why someone finally
> went to put this matter to rest ? As I s
> ay, I bet, that given enough time & energy, I can
> accomplish the same phenomenon, on any speck of pu
> blic land too. Thus the "smoke" does not mean
> "fire". It only means they went making a big spec
> tacle of themselves.
>
>
> dewcon4414 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Now i
> > have to ask you Tom ...... how do you know there
> w
> > as no gold
>
> Dewcon, Do you see what you are doing here ? It i
> s the classic burden-of-proof switch. The skeptic
> says "prove it was/is there ". The faithful says
> "prove it isn't there".
>
> Or am I misunderstanding you ?
>
>
> Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To me it's about the story. I'm not concerned wi
> th
> > the treasure AT THIS POINT.
>
> "the treasure" ? Doesn't this assum
> e/infer there's a "treasure" in the first place ?
>
>
> Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The story needs to be
> > proved/disproved and the way to do that is a tri
> al
> > . IF they can prove the accounts of many armored
> v
> > ehicles, FBI hours logged showing night work, ey
> e
> > witness testimony, or if an FBI agent comes forw
> ar
> > d, then this would prove that there was activity
> a
> > t night. THAT IS ALL I AM INTERESTED IN!
> >
> > Did they or did they not do some shady things in
> t
> > his situation? A trial will reveal all.
>
> Beyonder, here's the problem with this: If "susp
> icious people loading things into trucks" blah bla
> h means "treasure", then ... gee. ... I guess ther
> e's treasures around every corner.
>
> Eg.: I came to work at 4am today. And as I passed
> the local supermarket back alley-dock , I saw men
> (with squinty eyes no less) unloading and loading
> vehicles on a truck dock . Hmmmm. And when I wen
> t home last night after work, the neighbor was wal
> king her dog, and failed to say "hi" to me. She a
> voided my glance, and was acting suspiciously. Hm
> mmm. And when I got up at 3:30am, to get ready t
> o go to work, I saw a suspicious light on, at the
> neighbor's house, down the street. Hmmmm. And
> at the end of the block, there is some curious geo
> metric lines, at a *supposed* fountain concrete th
> ingy. Hmmmm . And then , at the scene of a fire
> burning in an abandoned building a week ago in my
> city, I attempted to get close, but the cops were
> shooing people away, behind yellow ticker tape. H
> mmmm. I smell a rat with all of this, don't you
> ?
>
> Don't you see ? Just like UFO's, bigfoot, or ANY
> salacious juicy story, you can ALWAYS find suppose
> d "smoking gun" links. Like horoscopes: You can
> ALWAYS find some way to fit them into the narrativ
> e of whatever desired outcome you want. And henc
> e, no matter WHAT those govt. people did (after ye
> ars of pestering by FK), that ANY presence they wo
> uld have had, would have been woven into "suspicio
> us activity" and "conspiracy", etc.....

Holy smokes! I am not talking about treasure! I don't care about treasure at this point! They could of found drugs or bodies or whatever. Stick to the facts.Were there multiple armored cars at night? Were there digs going on during the night. Did they shut down portions of a public highway. Build the facts first. Armored cars don't mean treasure. Or is it all made up by the eye witnesses?

Why can't you see I am trying to be objective with this? The entire story maybe a farce, but we need to prove that. Lets debunk/prove the presented evidence NOT the existence of treasure!

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

>
> Holy smokes! I am not talking about treasure! I do
> n't care about treasure at this point! They could
> of found drugs or bodies or whatever. Stick to the
> facts.Were there multiple armored cars at night? W
> ere there digs going on during the night. Did they
> shut down portions of a public highway. Build the
> facts first. Armored cars don't mean treasure. Or
> is it all made up by the eye witnesses?
>
> Why can't you see I am trying to be objective with
> this? The entire story maybe a farce, but we need
> to prove that. Lets debunk/prove the presented evi
> dence NOT the existence of treasure!

Beyonder, if you're "not talking about treasure", then .... YOU TELL US: what do all those reported things indicate ?

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Holy smokes! I am not talking about treasure! I
> do
> > n't care about treasure at this point! They coul
> d
> > of found drugs or bodies or whatever. Stick to t
> he
> > facts.Were there multiple armored cars at night?
> W
> > ere there digs going on during the night. Did th
> ey
> > shut down portions of a public highway. Build th
> e
> > facts first. Armored cars don't mean treasure. O
> r
> > is it all made up by the eye witnesses?
> >
> > Why can't you see I am trying to be objective wi
> th
> > this? The entire story maybe a farce, but we nee
> d
> > to prove that. Lets debunk/prove the presented e
> vi
> > dence NOT the existence of treasure!
>
> Beyonder, if you're "not talking about treasure",
> then .... YOU TELL US: what do all
> those reported things indicate ?

Could be anything. But if you start looking at treasure, its putting the cart before the horse.

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

>
> Could be anything. But if you start looking at tre
> asure, its putting the cart before the horse.


Yes. If someone wishes to muse "treasure", then SURE ! Any thing you see, walking down any random street, can become suspicious, uncanny, etc.... Kind of reminds of the Area 51 UFO nuts : Any and all activity around there , or any employee coming and going who scratches his nuts, is ........ CERTAIN PROOF of aliens and UFO's housed there.

gullible: easily fooled or cheated; especially: quick to believe something that is not true... As defined by Merriam-Webster.

I'm gonna put on my foil hat and keep a sharp eye out for more conspiracies now.

What do the Feds have to hide in this case??? All the secrecy is what causes doubt, gossip, crazy fish stories, conspiracy, ect.....Oh ya just trust us (we didnt find anything).....now seal the documents along side the JFK folder...LOL. I dont believe in aliens or bigfoot, thus the Feds didnt find anything valuable....makes sense.

They finally found Jimmy Hoffa.....

Arkansas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do the Feds have to hide in this case??? All
> the secrecy is what causes doubt, gossip, crazy fi
> sh stories, conspiracy, ect.....Oh ya just trust u
> s (we didnt find anything).....now seal the docume
> nts along side the JFK folder..

History is FILLED with this behavior, by powers-that-be, that does NOT mean "something is up" (bigfoot, aliens, dents run, etc...). For example:

a) If I walked in to my local police station tomorrow, and attempted to go behind the counter and view various paperwork, I bet I would get stopped (Is something therefore fishy ?)

b) If my employees, attempted to come into my office (or even standing there, in my office, upon personal invitation), and proceeded to open our check register, look at A/R lists, etc.... I might stop them and say "proprietary info".

c) A week ago, there was a fire in our city, a few blocks from my work. I walked down there to take some pix of the fire in progress, and was held back behind a yellow tape and cop-cars. Not even the media who had shown up to get some live shots, was allowed past a certain point. I smell a rat, don't you ?

"If you see something say something".

The accounts of armored trucks and digging all night long as well as shutting down the road mean something. IF TRUE they wouldn't do that for no reason.

There are only a few possibilities:

Everyone is lying and exaggerating and therefore nothing was there.

OR

The accounts are true and they did it because:

A) They wanted to distract people or have the appearance of something going on.

or

There was something there of great importance. Treasure, drugs, pot plants, dead bodies, whatever.

If the accounts are proven true, which is more likely to be true? A or B?

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

>
> There was something there of great importance.
>

Well, of course, it can only be option B. Right ?

There is utterly no denying any good conspiracy theory. Why ? Because you can never disprove them. That means that they, of necessity, are true treasure-pointers. Right ?

And so too do the suspicious people I saw yesterday (and the *supposedly* random geometric lines in my backyard fountain), *supposedly* point to nothing. Right ? But no: They point to treasure.

I am harkening back to a documentary I saw as a kid, called "The Legend of Boggy creek" [en.wikipedia.org]

By the time us kids were done watching this movie, we were spell-bound believers. How on earth could anyone dispute concrete evidence such as this ?

Tom_in_CA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyonder-Pa Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > There was something there of great importance
> .
> >
>
> Well, of course, it can only be option B. Right
> ?
>
> There is utterly no denying any good conspiracy t
> heory. Why ? Because you can never dis
> prove them. That means that they, of nec
> essity, are true treasure-pointers. Right ?
>
> And so too do the suspicious people I saw y
> esterday (and the *supposedly* random geometric li
> nes in my backyard fountain), *supposedly* point
> to nothing. Right ? But no: They point to tre
> asure.
>
> I am harkening back to a documentary I saw as a ki
> d, called "The Legend of Boggy creek" [en]
> .wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Boggy_Creek
>
> By the time us kids were done watching this movie,
> we were spell-bound believers. How on earth could
> anyone dispute concrete evidence such as this ?

Can we agree that MOST of the time, people do things for reasons? If there is evidence that a peculiar set of events were going on, there must be a reason for it. The cost for that operation, IF TRUE, would be close to a million or more dollars. IF TRUE, someone would have to be accountable for that expenditure. Correct? This would have to be logged to keep the budget correct and by looking into these records, you can find various facts to support a supposition. Enabling you to find other facts eventually coming to a conclusion.

I understand somewhat, that facts can be twisted, however at this point, in order to be objective, you have to observe them as just facts. Example: IF TRUE, the appearance of so many armored cars in the area can have only two meanings. They were there just as show or they were utilized. Again, which is more likely?

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

> Can we agree that MOST of the time, people do thin
> gs for reasons? If there is evidence that a peculi
> ar set of events were going on, there must be a re
> ason for it. The cost for that operation, IF TRUE,
> would be close to a million or more dollars

Beyonder, It seems you're appealing to the "where there's smoke, there's fire" rationale, right ? And "The govt. wouldn't have spent this money and time, if there's weren't something suspicious (ie.: "treasure") going on there" Right ? After all, otherwise, they wouldn't have spent the money or time, right ?

Ok, here is a challenge for you : Google "examples of government waste". And after you are done reading dozens of examples of millions spent and wasted, then .... you come back and tell us whether $$ spent = obvious treasure present.

I work with the govt. contracts (as a sub down the pecking order of road paving projects, in my business). So I get a taste of govt. bureaucracy in my business. Or ... don't believe me: Just google "examples of government waste", and see for yourself. I think you will come to the conclusion that: Govt. $$ pumped down a rat-hole, does NOT necessarily point to anything inparticular.

In this case: It only points to two clowns who spent YEARS getting legal beavers sic'd on LEO agencies, govt., state, etc.... And we're supposed to be "baffled" now, as to why someone finally went out there and tried to put this silly matter to rest ?

As I've said: I TOO can get the SAME media and govt. circus present, on ANY speck of public land. Just give me enough time, to bark up enough trees, make enough stink, and ... I too can get someone out to look around, maybe show up in a "black vehicle " (a sure sign of conspiracy), etc..... And then I TOO, can point to the smoke and attention I've brought on my speck of land, as "proof of a most certain treasure".