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

[franklin]

When Finder's Keepers ran in to trouble with the State of Pennsylvania and claimed that they were trying to steal the gold they believed they had found. Both sides setting up hidden cameras to watch each other. Finder's Keepers most likely went to a United States District Court and filed a petition for recovery of the gold they suspected they had found. And also that other hunters or the State of Pennsylvania were attempting to recover the gold themselves. Then a judge would have issued a court order. The FBI was then instructed by the judge to protect all interest in this affair both for the State of Pennsylvania, Finder's Keepers and what may belong to the United States Government. Since no gold was found, then the case is closed as for Finder's Keepers finding anything at all. Finder's Keepers may very well end up paying for all of this should the US Government want their lost funds for wages, time lost and expenses. Finder's Keepers could get a bill upwards of $30,000 or more.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[loco oro]

To have a legit two way debate, open mindfulness should be what we all bring to the table,and that I believe begins with what we do know, which is,none of us was in dents run in 1863 and none of us was there in march 2018,so alot of un informed speculation ,the only thing that I can be reasonably certain of is the feds were investigating on protected state lands,now ask yourselves what would be needed,for the a court to authorize a dig,to appease a treasure hunternot likely, so what were they doing,I don't pretend to know, but the gravity of the act speaks for itself.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... there MUST be legit reason for the investigation, or it would not take place

Sure. And let me give you that "legit reason" : It's due to all the legal stinks and insisting and media circus that the dudes brought about. Period.

As I've said: I bet if you gave me 10 years, I too could bring about the same results, on any public land anywhere.

 

[loco oro]

Sure. And let me give you that "legit reason" : It's due to all the legal stinks and insisting and media circus that the dudes brought about. Period.

As I've said: I bet if you gave me 10 years, I too could bring about the same results, on any public land anywhere.

I respectfully disagree,without evidence, without merit,you would be laughed at,and warned that it's a wildlife management area, and to tamper with anything would bring charges,just as he was told for years,to believe that it was authorized to stop the stink,well that's fantasy, and to think that anyone can manipulate government entity's to there will, is ni eve,substantial actions,take substantial evidence, even with evidence it is hard to get the government juggernaut to act,simply put its NOT logical to believe that that you can harass the feds to act on hearsay when there's no threat involved, try it and lets see what comes first,government cooperation or inaction

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... NOT logical to believe that that you can harass the feds to act on hearsay ....

Correct. The government would not act on hearsay. We agree. However: if you go back and look at the videos of these guys getting interviewed by the media, and all of their text inputs on forums regarding the matter, you will see that they always phrase it in past tense "found ". Thus they were doing their darndest to convince anyone who would listen, that this was not hearsay.

 

[wainzoid]

Go for it Tom. Your ten yrs will be up at 11:00 am est March 21 2028. Keep us updated.

 

[loco oro]

Agreed, but in that instance it would behoove the court that was petitioned to require evidence from the petitioner, be it the feds or the t hunters.the state adamantly refuses any invasive activities that would disturb the natural habitat of the endangered elk herd, a state court, or fed court cannot act as a mediator of nothing, and that would be the case,if there was nothing,no historical evidence witnessed or confirmed by a indisputable source,not t hers with metal detectors and a legend, if that turns out to be the case,dcnr would raise h#@ for being ignored and overridden. Granted the gold bars buried doesn't carry any weight with me or you, so I ask do you really think a judge of any court would order any kind of investigation, survey, excavation or else without merit, I think not. Is this not a logical assumption, that our court's are responsible in their decision, and acted on more than a legend?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Agreed, but in that instance it would behoove the court that was petitioned to require evidence from the petitioner, be it the feds or the t hunters.the state adamantly refuses any invasive activities that would disturb the natural habitat of the endangered elk herd, a state court, or fed court cannot act as a mediator of nothing, and that would be the case,if there was nothing,no historical evidence witnessed or confirmed by a indisputable source,not t hers with metal detectors and a legend, if that turns out to be the case,dcnr would raise h#@ for being ignored and overridden. Granted the gold bars buried doesn't carry any weight with me or you, so I ask do you really think a judge of any court would order any kind of investigation, survey, excavation or else without merit, I think not. Is this not a logical assumption, that our court's are responsible in their decision, and acted on more than a legend?

Governments do silly things, and waste taxpayer money on fruitless activities, all the time. Just Google " government waste examples" and you will see.

But strangely enough, this whole conversation is sort of a moot point. Isn't it ? Because they've ALREADY dug . And they have found nothing. Hence that seems to throw water on your theory, doesn't it ? Smoke in this case, did not mean fire. And FBI presence did not mean. " the story must therefore have Merit"

Unless, of course, you're going to go down the conspiracy theory route . That the treasure was secreted away in a hush-hush job , and nobody knows about it. Eh ?

 

[Honest Samuel]

It is always good to hear from professor Tom.

 

[Bum Luck]

Tom is skeptical about almost everything.

And the opposite of skeptical is ........... ?

One other thing: gold has a way of not being lost for long - must have something to do with value......

It loves being found - heck, thats why we're all here. There has to be a reason why

1, the guys that buried it didn't go back for it, and

2. the Army didnt look for it. Nor was there a paper trail for that.

Now, digging's hard work, and before I dig I want there to be a reasonble chance it's worth the effort.

I read my KvonM.

 

[Honest Samuel]

Tread very carefully when dealing with any government pertaining to buried treasures. Good hunting and good luck.

 

[Clay Diggins]

And the opposite of skeptical is ........... ?

credulous
adjective

1. willing to believe or trust too readily, especially without proper or adequate evidence; gullible.

 

[Bum Luck]

Yep. I was thinking gullible.

It's got that onomatopoeic thing going on.

 

[1320]

This mystery will likely live forever since the FBI has forbidden anyone to talk about it. It will be an on going investigation that can't be talked about for the next 20 years at least.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

This mystery will likely live forever since the FBI has forbidden anyone to talk about it. It will be an on going investigation that can't be talked about for the next 20 years at least.

Instead of seeing this as a "mystery", why can't this simply mean: "no treasure was, or is, there" ?

Notice that this does not prove anything either way. The silence on someone's part is not a smoking gun to "therefore it exists" or "existed"

In the same way: If I march into my city hall or police dept. in my city, and start asking for all sorts of police records on various cop business, I have no doubt that they're going to give me a cold shoulder , make me jump through hoops, or simply say : "Sorry, that's confidential". And,... so ... What ? Does that prove the "police are up to no good" ? Or that "treasures exist and they're trying to hide the fact " ?

And if you think about it, let's just say that no one is under some sort of gag order (if the details of what you're saying is correct). And let's just say that, instead, everyone involved was saying straight out: "nothing was there". Would have solve this ? Nnneeoo. That would simply mean a slight-of-hand coverup, where ... truth is, they found it but aren't 'fessing up. Or that it's deeper. Or a little to the right. Or a little to the left.

Any and every arriving factoid can, given enough contingencies and stretches: Be made to be further proof of the treasure.

 

[sgtfda]

This mystery will likely live forever since the FBI has forbidden anyone to talk about it. It will be an on going investigation that can't be talked about for the next 20 years at least.

This is not Russia! Not talk about it for 20 years. Bull! Your not FBI so talk all you want. Oh wait! This is a national security issue. Total silence is ordered. FK should just admit they were wrong and move on. By saying what the FBI ordered you are already talking about it.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

To claim the FBI told somebody not to talk about something is silly. Such an order comes either from the law, a court, or from an agreement willingly entered into by two or more parties. It's not the job of law enforcement to instruct anybody regarding what can or can't be discussed. To claim the FBI told them not to discuss it sounds like a very weak excuse.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[1320]

Instead of seeing this as a "mystery", why can't this simply mean: "no treasure was, or is, there" ?

Notice that this does not prove anything either way. The silence on someone's part is not a smoking gun to "therefore it exists" or "existed"

In the same way: If I march into my city hall or police dept. in my city, and start asking for all sorts of police records on various cop business, I have no doubt that they're going to give me a cold shoulder , make me jump through hoops, or simply say : "Sorry, that's confidential". And,... so ... What ? Does that prove the "police are up to no good" ? Or that "treasures exist and they're trying to hide the fact " ?

And if you think about it, let's just say that no one is under some sort of gag order (if the details of what you're saying is correct). And let's just say that, instead, everyone involved was saying straight out: "nothing was there". Would have solve this ? Nnneeoo. That would simply mean a slight-of-hand coverup, where ... truth is, they found it but aren't 'fessing up. Or that it's deeper. Or a little to the right. Or a little to the left.

Any and every arriving factoid can, given enough contingencies and stretches: Be made to be further proof of the treasure.

What I meant is that this is what we'll hear from the instigators going forward. They will never tell us "we found nothing." They will use the "on going government gag order" to conceal the fail and continue to believe (and have others believe) that the gold is still there. "Did you find gold?" Answer: "Uh, we're not allowed to discuss it"......

 

[1320]

To claim the FBI told somebody not to talk about something is silly. Such an order comes either from the law, a court, or from an agreement willingly entered into by two or more parties. It's not the job of law enforcement to instruct anybody regarding what can or can't be discussed. To claim the FBI told them not to discuss it sounds like a very weak excuse.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

Agree 100%

 

[Philvis]

I just pray they didn't find a Templar Cross pointing NE to Oak Island or West to Lake Michigan.