Civil War Payroll gold may have been found in Elk County PA

[ECS]

... There is a lot more to treasure hunting and doing the TV thing than anyone knows until its you on site with a film crew , then it sinks in.

Its called entertainment economics and keeping a smile on the face of the consumer the programs sponsor is selling to.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[IMAUDIGGER]

No message

 

[NorCalSmitty]

Film

Ya, But what I been posting has been on TN for many years and not much new info. We been filming our work at Dents Run from day one for 7yrs. so now we have offers from movie and TV series because most of the filming is done and ready to edit. Problem is we need the FBI to bring this to a end so we can sell it. The more I talk the less its worth . May 15th is our dead line for the FBI to tell my lawyer something good and we will hold off but from the way things are going I don't think that will happen.

We had a great treasure hunting story before the FBI came in , now it gets BIGGER each day.

What production (don’t hear them called film companies much anymore) company still uses film that costs a fortune to edit these days??

Nobody I know in the industry still uses film for documentaries so it will be interesting to find out who is running that company.
Are they Hollywood based or east coast?

 

[FinderKeeper]

What production (don’t hear them called film companies much anymore) company still uses film that costs a fortune to edit these days??

Nobody I know in the industry still uses film for documentaries so it will be interesting to find out who is running that company.
Are they Hollywood based or east coast?

East coast, hay I am old school, so its called film company to me .

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I definitely see your view, and would like to point to your post as a point of case of (belief) influencing a view ,and your logic is sound, but my point is to make clear that in the absence of fact,documentation, evidence, then one should take a neutral stance and not let our belief's influence how we precieve ,....,

Interesting. It almost sounds as if this is saying: "Don't discount that a treasure might exist at a given-location. UNTIL evidence is forthcoming to the contrary". Otherwise, one's preconceptions/beliefs [that a treasure doesn't exist], has colored and steered his view. Have I capsulized your view correctly ?

If so, here's the problem with this. It's putting the burden of proof on the skeptic to prove a treasure ISN'T there. Rather than the proponent to prove there IS a treasure there.

And the problem is: When a skeptic tries to show weak spots in the daisy-chain, The faithful grasp for ANY remote contingency. Eg.: Given enough slaves and enough years, etc... And in their mind's eyes, this therefore proves a treasure is 100% . Because the skeptic has failed to prove 100% to the negative.

But using this logic, I could say that 100 gold bars exists in yours or my backyard. And you must remain neutral (ie.: can't doubt). Unless proof were shown to the contrary. That's putting the burden of proof on the wrong end.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

When we did the TV show for History Channel on American Unearthed #13...

America Unearthed. The credentials become stellar, when someone has been on such-a-show as this.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... Tom of Ca. and I will join you ...

Grab your shovels and let's go Sam ! Can't argue with the iron-clad proof that's been presented.

 

[3cylbill]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUN.....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[Tom_in_CA]

That is a point most take for granted when invoking the Mel Fisher name into a discussion about treasure legends- the Atocha was not a legend, it was a documented lost Spanish treasure galleon, what was unknown was where it went down.

Now these lost Civil War paymaster gold stories, be it Union or Confederate, Dents Run or a I/2 ton of gold in the Everglades, are just that, stories that lack the documentation of a real lost shipment of an army's pay, not withstanding most payments were paid in script, with a small amount of gold coin for officers pay.

Ok. But I'll be the devil's advocate here: We (Mel Fisher) accepted the "stories" about the downing of a ship, as true historical fact. Ok, but WHY CAN'T the "stories" of the Dent's run account equally be "historical fact" to pursue ?

What made Mel's "story" *true*, and the Dent's story *un-true* ? Because to the Dent's Run faithful: They consider the "story" to be on equal merit of historicity. And if you try to dispute them as to the roots (age) of the story, then it just devolves into a side debate. And then the problem becomes: Sure as $hit, they find some allusion to a name, date, and event, that precedes some 1973 origin. So in their mind's eyes, that makes it "history". Not "legend"

Of course, what this fails to take into account, is that ALL good treasure legends are based on names/dates/facts/events . Around-which is built the legend for the cool story, eh ? So if 99% is true (names/dates/events), and add in a treasure story (the 1%) , then the story can't be doubted, eh ? So anyone who tries to doubt, finds themselves debating about the 99% !!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... if they did shows that only found treasure how many do you think we would see. ... .

Oh my ... say it isn't so : So you are finally admitting you HAVEN'T found (past tense) a treasure ??

Then I would kindly suggest you go back and change scores of media interviews, posts, and claims. Because this is NOT what you've been claiming.

 

[ToddsPoint]

The US and Confederate gov't paid their soldiers in script...paper money...not silver or gold. Have you ever heard of a coin spill being detected on a battle field featuring freshly minted silver dollars with the dates 1861-1865? How about ONE silver dollar, freshly minted, with those dates being found on a battlefield? ***crickets*** Gary

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Does anyone else see a massive problem with this statement?

Yes. The word "finds" tends to indicate they've "found" (past tense) something. Right ?

But wait: If they haven't dug them up yet, how do they know they've "found" (past tense) something ? Oh, excuse me, I was only applying common sense logic to the English language. Silly me.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

The US and Confederate gov't paid their soldiers in script...paper money...not silver or gold. Have you ever heard of a coin spill being detected on a battle field featuring freshly minted silver dollars with the dates 1861-1865? How about ONE silver dollar, freshly minted, with those dates being found on a battlefield? ***crickets*** Gary

I am utterly certain that finders-keepers can find some conspiratorial remote-contingency answer, to bat away this objection.

 

[3cylbill]

..

 

[loco oro]

Interesting. It almost sounds as if this is saying: "Don't discount that a treasure might exist at a given-location. UNTIL evidence is forthcoming to the contrary". Otherwise, one's preconceptions/beliefs [that a treasure doesn't exist], has colored and steered his view. Have I capsulized your view correctly ?

If so, here's the problem with this. It's putting the burden of proof on the skeptic to prove a treasure ISN'T there. Rather than the proponent to prove there IS a treasure there.

And the problem is: When a skeptic tries to show weak spots in the daisy-chain, The faithful grasp for ANY remote contingency. Eg.: Given enough slaves and enough years, etc... And in their mind's eyes, this therefore proves a treasure is 100% . Because the skeptic has failed to prove 100% to the negative.

But using this logic, I could say that 100 gold bars exists in yours or my backyard. And you must remain neutral (ie.: can't doubt). Unless proof were shown to the contrary. That's putting the burden of proof on the wrong end.

Just to clarify Tom,I was speaking of the current activities, and claims made,that until it is clear that someone is misleading as to what was found, or that the feds acted on no credible information ,and that would speak volumes to their ineptitude, and reckless disregard to state authority, I feel that they,and finders, should be given the opportunity to lay all cards on the table to justify all that has (currently taken place) I agree the burden of proof lies with the claimants, as to proof of the historical validity the story, I believe the feds, the actionable authority to allowing this to take place, well they had best acted upon more than nothing, otherwise this should be unacceptable to everyone, so I meant that until all information acted upon is divulged, we should remain neutral, and open to possibilities, when (we)have no evidence otherwise,

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Just to clarify Tom,I was speaking of the current activities, and claims made,that until it is clear that someone is misleading as to what was found,.....

But if we apply that to the notion of "100 gold bar are buried in yours or my's backyard". Do we apply that the possibility remains true ? Till "it is clear that someone is misleading" ? If so, then the devil-in-the-details is that no skeptic can EVER make "clear that the claimant is mis-leading". Because the claimant will be forever finding some remote contingency by-which-it-*might* still be true & possible.

So the skeptic is forever being tasked with a game of whac-a-mole And unless he can supposedly disprove every single "might-be-possible" contingency, then the proponents conclude: "Therefore it, of necessity, did happen". Eh ?

 

[loco oro]

I would like to add, my personal opinion that treasure is, or was at that location is unlikely, my logic is simple, who would bury gold that they just killed what 9 soldiers to steal, right where they committed murder and theft,that would defy logic, but I am curious as to weather there was evidence that something along those lines took place, if there is no evidence that was acted upon, that should be put on CNN, and someone, including the authoriizing court should be held accountable, I support Dennis, and until it becomes clear that they, the court, the feds acted on nothing, I remain open to possibilities, and remain hopeful, it would make a fantastic story if.....

 

[pepperj]

Whenever I see someone posting negative comments that tells me there is a jealous person. I guess it's human nature. Positive comments come from a man who is comfortable in his own shoes. One that has no need to put someone down constantly to make himself feel important. Take a close look in the mirror. Which are you.

Yes your statement has merit on that it holds true of one knocking down another to make themselves look better.

But please don't mistake it for one that doesn't care for being taken for a simple fool.

When somebody shows something that has merit, hard work, or a possession, it doesn't matter what and somebody knocks it, then its jealousy.

Selling half truths, a story, a dream, a might be, could be, or tangled web of one's thoughts isn't jealousy it's saying "Please don't play me for a fool"

Reading stories of lost mines, and treasures was the dreams of adolescence naivety that most grew out of, but some still believe that they can seduce others into believing.

There is many that are very comfortable in their own shoes, that will call a spade a spade and that doesn't make them feel any more important.

Make it be known that many will give everyone involved in this adventure a big for the recoveries that documented as legitimate.

 

[Bud Aurum]

But if we apply that to the notion of "100 gold bar are buried in yours or my's backyard". Do we apply that the possibility remains true ? Till "it is clear that someone is misleading" ? If so, then the devil-in-the-details is that no skeptic can EVER make "clear that the claimant is mis-leading". Because the claimant will be forever finding some remote contingency by-which-it-*might* still be true & possible.

So the skeptic is forever being tasked with a game of whac-a-mole And unless he can supposedly disprove every single "might-be-possible" contingency, then the proponents conclude: "Therefore it, of necessity, did happen". Eh ?

But the Skeptic is not forced to watch the Game of whac-a-mole or disprove a thing, he can just go wash a load of clothes or spend time with the dog and let the treasure hunters do their thing.

Your Bud Aurum

 

[pepperj]

But the Skeptic is not forced to watch the Game of whac-a-mole or disprove a thing, he can just go wash a load of clothes or spend time with the dog and let the treasure hunters do their thing.

Your Bud Aurum

"let the treasure hunters do their thing."
True if it causes no harm to anyone.
But if they imply something that will generate self income/profit, or causes expenses to the advertising/backers world that can be associated with a production that isn't entirely true-is that ethical?
Snake oil salesmanship has always had a negative response with the general public.
Slowly things leak out to the general population and it trickles down to things that are realistic in their world.
The reality detecting programs on discovering relics that are priced out at the highest unrealistic values has indeed proven a great negative thinking from some permissions that view the idiot box as scripture. What is the value of this or that the start asking, before anything is ever recovered?
Permissions that have yet to be obtained start thinking "What if, this or that"
True fact: Because of a local historical rumour that a British payment in silver went missing, I have had two landowners bring this up as it maybe/could be on their property. This is because of this silly idiot box that sits in the corner and spews non/half-truths to sell advertising. That or some author writing a historical snippet has to put some meat into the publication to justify the book being in existence.