Bad day for conspiracy nuts

carew4me · February 18, 2013 9:56PM

and Ron Paul

Gold at N.Y. Fed is intact, some purer than thought, audit finds

CaptHenway · February 18, 2013 10:23PM

The conspiracy nuts will just dismiss the report as part of the conspiracy.

guitarwes · February 18, 2013 10:32PM

<< The conspiracy nuts will just dismiss the report as part of the conspiracy. >>

yep, it's all a conspiracy. Nothing is as it seems.

jmski52 · February 18, 2013 10:37PM

Have the audit results and the assay results been made public? If not, let's see the names of the auditors and their qualifications. I always have to wonder why anyone who wants accountability from the Fed or from the government is always dismissed as a conspiracy nut. Why is that?

Public companies have to file quarterly reports and annual reports and an annual audit is required by the government to protect the interests of investors. Why should the Fed or the government be exempt from the same type of accountability?

It's not as if they've never lied about important questions.

So I simply ask, why the dismissiveness for wanting an accounting? Is the attitude simply, "What difference does it make?"

OPA · February 18, 2013 10:48PM

<< The conspiracy nuts will just dismiss the report as part of the conspiracy. >>

And we know who they are, don't we.

derryb · February 18, 2013 10:52PM

At least they were independent auditors.

Results do not confirm gold has not been leased.

Ft. Knox, where the "vast majority" of US gold reserves are supposedly held is the actual concern among us conspiracy nuts.

jmski52 · February 18, 2013 10:53PM

It's customary to assay gold bars prior to transfer, is it not?

ricko · February 18, 2013 10:57PM

Good point jmski52, and whether or not they are leased or over 'papered' is another issue ....Cheers, RickO

CaptHenway · February 18, 2013 11:11PM

<< It's customary to assay gold bars prior to transfer, is it not? >>

No, because if you take metal off of it to assay you invalidate the weight. That would be like cracking a dozen eggs open at the supermarket to check them before buying them.

jmski52 · February 18, 2013 11:46PM

I think that all depends on which entities and which bars are involved. When the US Assay Office was pouring bars, I'm sure that they weren't re-assayed when they were transferred to Ft. Knox, and I'm sure that when the Comex was operating in a legit manner, the bars identified as good delivery bars didn't have to be assayed. But, I would venture to say that bars that have been leased out multiple times and that have been sitting in vaults for decades are being sampled now prior to shipment, at the insistence of their owners.

Wasn't there a case not too long ago in New York where a woman who wanted her gold from a bank was refused because of the cost of re-assaying the bars? And after retaining lawyers, she finally got her gold?

And then, there is the issue with tungsten in London good delivery bars. Enough said on that.

If the Germans want their gold, do you really think that they won't have it assayed? It would not only be irresponsible, but crazy not to do so.

tneig · February 19, 2013 12:03AM

Never a bad day for conspiracy nuts. Never a good day either, come to think of it.....

I want to see how the Germans do getting their gold... then the next guy...

Be something to find out that is where the mint has been getting all the gold and that
the individuals are the ones that have it...

roadrunner · February 19, 2013 12:51AM

I read the article but have serious doubts that this was a proper and thorough audit. I doubt it. Seems like a wash job to me as 87% of the US bars appear to be missing.

All we know is that 1% of the "listed" bars were tested for purity by drilling holes for assay. A total of 10 ounces of gold was assayed. 10 ounces? Out of 13.6 MILL ounces total?
And the citizens of the US were given a "bonus" of $43,500 to their bottom line as 3 of the 367 bars tested higher than their inventory value. With less than 1% of the bars
actually tested, one can confidently say that the results of 3 being "high" are totally meaningless.

What we don't know:

If ALL the bars were counted, weighed, inspected, and serial numbers checked against some sort of inventory.
If ALL the bars were not counted (likely) was a 10-30% representive and totally random check of bars in EVERY vault conducted?
Did the auditors thoroughly check both sets of books (leases, sales, purchases, swap records) to find out who is legally entitled to the gold? Is it encumbered in any way?
Are bars counted more than once on any of the paperwork? How much of the gold is in US coin format (ie melted 90% pre-1933 gold coin)?
What about the 367 bars with holes drilled in them? Don't those have to be remelted and repoured into GD bars? And if the holes drilled into them were only near the surface, it
doesn't rule out bars that could have tungsten cores.

Frankly, it's extremely unlikely that auditors were allowed to see any "official" gold ownership paperwork.

What we do know:

34,021 bars were reported by the inventory. Assuming these are the larger 400 oz good delivery bars, this is 13,608,400 ounces or about 42 tonnes. Huh? Where's the Beef?
The NY FED supposedly holds around 45% of all US gold or about 3660 tonnes. So by my math we're roughly short on bars by a factor of 87. There should be approx 296,000
US bars in those vaults, and a lot more if you include the approx 3500 tonnes of gold being held for other govts. This was an audit? My B.S. meter just pegged off scale.

At best, a 13% audit was done on total bars, and approx 0.12% of the bars tested for some type of purity. Either the article/reporter is totally bogus or the audit was....or both.
I'm surprised the LA Times or USTreasury didn't do a better job of proofing this article before letting it out on the street.

No conspiracy here.....but no audit either. I would like to know what happened to the unaccounted for 87% of US good delivery bars. But more importantly, how much of the US
gold has been sold or leased? I would find it nearly impossible to believe that not a single gold bar has been sold or leased over the past 20 yrs. A true audit would answer this.

OPA · February 19, 2013 1:11AM

<< The conspiracy nuts will just dismiss the report as part of the conspiracy. >>

You predicted it.

carew4me · February 19, 2013 1:35AM

<< 

<< The conspiracy nuts will just dismiss the report as part of the conspiracy. >>

You predicted it.

>>

Perhaps those you are unshakeable in their opinion of conspiracy are THEMSELVES part of the conspiracy
to sell Gold to us all.

Fess up! those who insist this is all a ruse....WHO ARE WORKING FOR?

a shadow banker group funded by the Illuminati would be my guess.

DO NOT TRUST THEM!

jmski52 · February 19, 2013 2:02AM

As a QC professional in a previous life, I would have to state that assaying 10 oz out of 13.6 million oz is not considered a "statistically significant" sample, nor would that be considered valid by any buyer in most every material producing industry.

lol.

tneig · February 19, 2013 2:08AM

Inability to do a full inventory is not acceptable, eh? CVS or Walmart can do it on a regular bases! Would they settle for 13% inventory.

Reporting of the higher value bars is bad news. Likely done to "set your frame of thinking" to maybe there's more.
However, a mistake in those 3 bars, means that 1 out of every 122 bars in inventory is incorrect in some way (high or low). Not good!

Only matters how much you have.
Doesn't matter how much they have, unless you're German or the next nation in line. (Batman smack)

<< All we know is that 1% of the "listed" bars were tested. 3 of the 367 (34,021 total?) bars tested higher than their inventory value. With less than 1% of the bars actually tested, one can confidently say that the results of 3 being "high" are totally meaningless.
At best, a 13% audit was done on total bars, a >>

CaptHenway · February 19, 2013 2:26AM

<< As a QC professional in a previous life, I would have to state that assaying 10 oz out of 13.6 million oz is not considered a "statistically significant" sample, nor would that be considered valid by any buyer in most every material producing industry.

lol.

>>

The article says that there were 367 tests, not ten. The sample from the tested bars did not have to be a full ounce.

Jcarney · February 19, 2013 2:58AM

<< Why should the Fed or the government be exempt from the same type of accountability? >>

Simple. If the truth came out about a lot of things, there would be revolution.

roadrunner · February 19, 2013 3:25AM

<< As a QC professional in a previous life, I would have to state that assaying 10 oz out of 13.6 million oz is not considered a "statistically significant" sample, nor would that be considered valid by any buyer in most every material producing industry.

lol.

>>

Even more laughable is that's 10 oz. out of 118 MILL ounces if you count the 87% of the available bars that were apparently ignored.

And that's 10 oz out of the total US gold stocks of 262 MILL ounces. The article clearly states that only 10 oz of total gold was assayed. The other 69 ounces from drilling 367 bars was
returned to the USTreasury. 10 oz.....69 oz.... it all pales next to 262 MILL ounces. And as far as we know, those 367 bars used for testing came from the non-tungsten bar vaults.

And in the event the drilling came up with tungsten identified in just a single bar, what are the odds that this fact would have been discloeed in the audit for J6P to read about?

But I will sleep well at night knowing that 3 bars tested for higher purity out of the total US inventory of 655,000 bars. The mope continues.

johnny9434 · February 19, 2013 4:05AM

its all a ploy to throw everyone off

jmski52 · February 19, 2013 4:09AM

We don't know how many bars were actually drilled. We only know how many "tests" were done. We don't know what they are calling a "test". Are they calling each drilling a "test" or are they calling each chemical assay a "test"? Further, they don't indicate how many bars were "tested".

Since they only consumed 10 oz of the total 79 oz that was drilled, were they making up a composite sample from each drilling, i.e. from a cross-section of a bar or were they making up a composite sample from multiple drillings? In making up a composite sample, you mix the entire sample obtained from various sampling points. If that's the case, they didn't even drill into 367 bars, and since they returned >87% of all the material that they drilled from the bars, they only tested 13% of all the material obtained from their drilling.

Either way, their sampling/testing can hardly be considered "representative" enough to be considered reliable for the entire stack of bars. No way. If there are 34,021 bars in NY, even a sampling population of 367 separate bars only represents 1/20th of 1%. That's an audit? What a bunch of bush leaguers.

That's where the actual facts end. The rest is speculation, and that's ok, because we love speculation.

CaptHenway · February 19, 2013 4:27AM

In the classic Robert Heinlein novel "Stranger In A Strange Land," set in what was then the future, he created a class of professional witnesses called "Fair Witnesses." One of the major characters happened to employ one as a secretary.

In one scene, set in the country out on a patio, the character is trying to explain Fair Witnesses to a third character. He asks the Fair Witness what color that barn over there on that hill is, and she says "Red, on this side." He then explains to the third character that the Fair Witness would not tell you what color the other side of the barn is unless she went over to the other side of the barn and looked at it, but when she got back she would qualify her answer by saying that it might have been repainted since she looked at it.

The point of course is that most information is by its very nature somewhat dated, and that a reasonable amount of both common sense and faith must be used or we could never "know" anything.

The Treasury could re-melt, re-assay, re-cast, re-weigh, re-number, re-count, re-stack and re-seal every ounce of gold in its inventory, at tremendous cost and the waste of some gold up the refinery smokestack, and within a month somebody would say "Well, how do we know that it is still there NOW???"

bronco2078 · February 19, 2013 4:43AM

How about they don't assay anything , just list the numbered bars in 2 columns , those that are leased and those that are unencumbered.

roadrunner · February 19, 2013 4:52AM

<< How about they don't assay anything , just list the numbered bars in 2 columns , those that are leased and those that are unencumbered.

>>

That's the ticket. Granted, the gold is probably there. The only real question is who owns it? That's what the audit should determine. No sense in wasting any
audit monies if ownership will not be divulged. The audit they just did was a waste of money. And how convenient that it took them 2-3 yrs to "inspect" 34,000 bars with the
report showing up just AFTER the German central bank decided it wanted its gold back. Maybe we can even give the Germans some extra pure gold back too....lol. The audit
works out to be about 5-7 bars per day inspected over those 2-3 yrs. Good work if you can get it.

The Fort Knox gold is another bag of worms however.

Amigo · February 19, 2013 5:16AM

Thank you Roadrunner. You always speak for many of us that never give you a pat on the back. Thank you for taking all the time you do in posting, many here appreciate it.

OnlyGoldIsMoney · February 19, 2013 5:50AM

<< The conspiracy nuts will just dismiss the report as part of the conspiracy. >>

Spot on.

cohodk · February 19, 2013 8:19AM

Never believe anything from the LA Times.

TheTalkingWalnut · February 19, 2013 9:52AM

Oh. I thought this was about drones and I thought the bad news was the disclosure that they've been up since 2007 despite being "outlawed".

derryb · February 19, 2013 7:36PM

<< Never believe anything from the LA Times.

>>

Rght. Like some ace reporter from the LA Times dug through the dirt and came up with an investigative scoop.

Investiigative journalism went out the window when Washington created Imbedded ("in bed with") journalists. The LA Times, and every major news organization, received the same press release. The Treasury Dept. "wrote" this story.

". . . pure disinformation and propaganda. It wasn’t an audit, it was just a report, and it was just a report of what the government says it owns in the Fed, but not actually going into the Fed. So to me the whole thing was just total rubbish.They didn’t send in auditors, they just did a report of some paper at the Treasury’s office. So, again, don’t necessarily believe what you read in the newspapers. You really have to look behind the facts to make a determination as to what the picture truly is.” - James Turk

This was actually a good day for conspiracy nuts. It provided them further evidence of the ever growing attempt to control public economic perception. There was a time, not too long ago, that questioning official inflation and unemployment numbers made one a conspiracy nut. Anyone who buys groceries and gas or is looking for a job now knows otherwise.

Speaking of drones (and conspiracy nuts), does anyone recall what was once said about those that ridiculously claimed that Washington had the ability to control airplanes by remote control?

Most of us choose what to believe, the rest believe what they are told to believe. Controlling the economy includes controlling economic perception.

ebaytrader · February 19, 2013 8:26PM

This is quite the discussion.

derryb · February 19, 2013 9:05PM

tin foil is more effective around your wallet.

piecesofme · February 19, 2013 9:10PM

Jcarney nailed it...If the truth came out about a lot of things, there would be revolution and i'll add that it would be a very different, uncomfortable world we'd be living in.
If there aren't Gov't conspiracies, why do paragraphs of official documents get "blacked out" when they do get released to the public...up to 50 years after the fact?

jmski52 · February 19, 2013 9:29PM

The government drones aren't all being flown up in the air. There are plenty of them collecting checks of various sorts. Of those, some actually earned them, but way too many haven't. Some of them even wear nice suits.

USMoneylover · February 20, 2013 1:17AM

Went to Wendys yesterday...their 5 pc. chicken nuggets are now 4 pc. Inflation? Never!

AnkurJ · February 20, 2013 1:52AM

<< Went to Wendys yesterday...their 5 pc. chicken nuggets are now 4 pc. Inflation? Never! >>

It's a 6 piece here!

Yukoncornelius1 · February 20, 2013 1:55AM

HMMM I wonder about those who think the government is totally honest about everything and never hide anything.

What should we call them... I know they're just plain NUTS!!!!

mrpotatoheadd · February 20, 2013 2:09AM

The "So why does paypal want my SS Number?" thread on the US forum got me to thinking... the government assumes everybody is a liar and a cheat and it's just business as usual- nothing to see here, move along, folks. But if you assume the government lies and cheats, you're a conspiracy nut.

Just sayin'...

Zubie · February 20, 2013 2:25AM

<< 

<< Went to Wendys yesterday...their 5 pc. chicken nuggets are now 4 pc. Inflation? Never! >>

It's a 6 piece here!

>>

That's not chicken...

TwoSides2aCoin · February 20, 2013 3:08AM

This thread caused the price of gold to drop

USMoneylover · February 20, 2013 3:46AM

<< 

<< 

<< Went to Wendys yesterday...their 5 pc. chicken nuggets are now 4 pc. Inflation? Never! >>

It's a 6 piece here!

>>

That's not chicken...

>>

In that case, I'm glad I got a 4 piece instead of a 6 piece!

CaptHenway · February 20, 2013 4:42AM

Grab your ankles.......

Pokermandude · February 20, 2013 4:52AM

<< Grab your wallets...... >>

FYP

Jcarney · February 20, 2013 5:01AM

<< Jcarney nailed it...If the truth came out about a lot of things, there would be revolution and i'll add that it would be a very different, uncomfortable world we'd be living in.
If there aren't Gov't conspiracies, why do paragraphs of official documents get "blacked out" when they do get released to the public...up to 50 years after the fact? >>

I don't say that lightly either. And for those that would say "bring it on", I believe that a revolution now, in the US, would be the most horrific event the world has ever seen. Different and uncomfortable wouldn't begin to describe it.

OPA · February 20, 2013 5:19AM

<< Jcarney nailed it...If the truth came out about a lot of things, there would be revolution and i'll add that it would be a very different, uncomfortable world we'd be living in.
If there aren't Gov't conspiracies, why do paragraphs of official documents get "blacked out" when they do get released to the public...up to 50 years after the fact? >>

It's for your own good. Truth almost leaked out after Roswell, but that was a glitch.

It's called a "Need to Know"...and nosy J6P's don't need to know.

percyb · February 20, 2013 6:18AM

<< 

<< The conspiracy nuts will just dismiss the report as part of the conspiracy. >>

yep, it's all a conspiracy. Nothing is as it seems. >>

Of course that wasn't a real photo of gold bars.

Spooly · February 20, 2013 6:43AM

I blame the drop in gold on the "CU Gold Cartel"........

Wolf359 · February 20, 2013 6:44AM

The fact they did anything at all to actually "audit" the Gold means they've been getting a lot of inquires. Same as the Queens visit to the London vault. Somebody big wants their Gold back is my guess. So they trot out a nonsense audit to quell the fires.

OPA · February 20, 2013 9:28AM

<< The fact they did anything at all to actually "audit" the Gold means they've been getting a lot of inquires. Same as the Queens visit to the London vault. Somebody big wants their Gold back is my guess. So they trot out a nonsense audit to quell the fires. >>

Yup...another conspiracy.

Wolf359 · February 20, 2013 9:58AM

<< 

<< The fact they did anything at all to actually "audit" the Gold means they've been getting a lot of inquires. Same as the Queens visit to the London vault. Somebody big wants their Gold back is my guess. So they trot out a nonsense audit to quell the fires. >>

Yup...another conspiracy.

>>

You sure talk a lot for a guy with a hidden profile. Why don't you open your profile, so we can all know who you are.

cohodk · February 20, 2013 10:30AM

<< 

<< 

<< The fact they did anything at all to actually "audit" the Gold means they've been getting a lot of inquires. Same as the Queens visit to the London vault. Somebody big wants their Gold back is my guess. So they trot out a nonsense audit to quell the fires. >>

Yup...another conspiracy.

>>

You sure talk a lot for a guy with a hidden profile. Why don't you open your profile, so we can all know who you are. >>

Maybe he is part of the conspiracy.
.

piecesofme · February 20, 2013 10:37AM

You sure talk a lot for a guy with a hidden profile. Why don't you open your profile, so we can all know who you are

With over 10k posts' and having a bitter old mean man attitude in nearly every single one of them, I don't need to see a profile. Like in a game of blackjack, the board reads.
Of course, all in fun OPA. Don't get all bent out of shape now.

Bad day for conspiracy nuts

Comments