I read this article – shared by Mr. V.T. – and was stunned, and, I suspect you will be too, particularly in the context of those stories about gold repatriation that we’ve been following over the past few years.  You’ll recall that the whole “repatriation” game wa kicked off by the late Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, when he repatriated some of that country’s gold. Others quickly jumped on the bandwagon – Ecuador, Austria, the Netherlands – and then it became serious when Germany wanted to repatriate its gold from the New York Federal Reserve, from Paris, and from London.  You’ll recall that when that happened, there was a greatDEAL of thumb-twiddling, stuttering, hemming and hawing from all parties concerned, including the Bundesbank, but the bottom line was that Germany did not recover very much. Then China and India and Russia started buying the stuff in record amounts, only to find (in China’s case), that some of the bars, at least on the commercial markets were filled with tungsten.

Now there’s this:

US Government Lost 7 Fort Knox Gold Audit Reports

That’s right, not one, not two, not even three, but seven audit reports.

A closer look is in order. The article’s author, Mr. Koos Jansen, points out a reassuring statement to Congress made by Mr. Eric Thorson:

“Currently the Office Inspector General of the Treasury is responsible for the audits of the gold reserves at the US Mint. At the congressional hearing of the Gold Transparency Act in 2011 Inspector General (IG) Eric Thorson stated:

“‘Before I discuss the details of the audits that are the topic of this hearing, I want to make one point very clear: 100 percent of the U.S. Government’s gold reserves in the custody of the Mint has beenINVENTORIED andAUDITED. Furthermore, these audits found no exceptions of any consequence. I also want to assure you that the physicalSECURITY over the gold reserves is absolute. I can say that without any hesitation, because I have observed the gold and the security of the gold reserves myself.’

“He said this, but there is no proof. His statement “100 percent of the U.S. Government’s gold reserves in the custody of the Mint has been inventoried and audited“ is impossible toCONFIRM, as we’ll see later on.”(All emphases in the original)

But, as Mr. Jansen searched for these audits, he couldn’t find them:

“In short, the US National Archives could not extradite the 7 audit reports I requested.The reports were not present at the National Archives, the OIG or at the Treasury Department. I doubt an attempt to SUBMITTING a FOIA request directly to the Treasury Department” will bring me anything; likely it will be a waste of time as I had already contacted all possible government departments separately, which could not deliver me the reports I was looking for despite none of them was unwilling to help me. I will, however, submit a couple of new FOIA’s at the US government regarding gold audits.

“The reports I did find, and are now publiclyAVAILABLE, are:

“Coincidentally, or not, these reports are exactly the same ones as listed by Thorson at the congressional hearing in 2011 (exhibit 1, framed in red). It seems these 6 reports (5 documents) are the only ones “currently in existence” and the remaining 7 have mysteriously disappeared.”
(All emphases in the original)

Digging further, Jansen noticed what he calls “anomalies”:

“The compartments at the Mint were placed under official joint seal, whereas the FRBNY compartments were never placed under official joint seal (as we can read on page 11 of the 1980 audit report).

“This suggests the gold at the FRBNY was stored so it could be easily transported in and out of the vaults, possibly through a corridor to the adjacentPRIVATE vault at 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza – read thispost by BullionStar gold researcher Ronan ManlyFOR MORE INFORMATION on the construction of the FRBNY vault and the connection to the vault across the street that was owned by JP Morgan, but recently bought by Fosun (October 2013), a Chinese investment conglomerate.

“Let’s read more about the audits at the FRBNY conducted under the continuing audits program, aQUOTE from the 1981 report:

‘The audit procedures followed [at the FRBNY] are essentially the same as those followed at Bureau of the Mint depositories, except that assaySAMPLES are not taken to verify the purity of the gold.

“AQUOTE from the 1985 report:

‘Although the quality of the gold in the custody of the Federal ReserveBANK of New York cannot be readily assayed, …’

“Not only were the vault compartments at the FRBNY exempt from being sealed, in addition, for an unknown reason assay tests were never performed at the FRBNY!”((All emphases in the original)

Now, if this is true, then it would go a long way to explain why Germany has been experiencing such difficulties getting its gold back if such conditions have persisted over time. JansenCONTINUES by pointing out the implication of this:

“More from the 1985 report:

‘The audit procedures followed [at the FRBNY] were essentially the same as those followed at Mint institutions except that assaySAMPLES were not taken to verify the purity of the gold and the audited gold was not under committee control after the audit. As a result, the gold at theBANK [FRBNY] is considered unaudited.’

“According to the reports available to us, in 1985 the committee had to conclude the gold at the FRBNY was never audited! The intention in 1975 was to audit the gold at the FRBNY, but then, a few years down the road the gold at the New York Fed was mysteriously exempt from theCONTINUING audits program.”(All emphases in the original)

Then there’s another anomaly, namely, the lack of any credible documentation indicating independent assays:

“Moving on to the assay tests conducted at the US Mint. AnOVERVIEW starting from 1953:

*In the 1953 report we could read 26 bars (0.00002 % of the total stash at that time) were assayed from bore samples. The assay tests found no irregularities. The assayer is unknown and there was no assay report included in the audit report.

*In 1974 the New York assay office tested 95 bars. Two tetrahedron-shaped chips were removed form the top and bottom of each bar assayed. The assay tests found no irregularities. There was no assay report included in the audit report.

*In 1977, presumably, one bar in every fiftieth melt (one melt is approximately 20 bars) was assayed, irregularities were found in two meltsthe vault had to be opened twice more in the presence of the Joint Sealing Committee and the gold reevaluated”. The assayer is unknown and there was no assayREPORT included in theAUDIT report.

*For all other ‘publicly available’ audit reports (1980, 1981, 1985, 1986) it’s very briefly mentioned assay tests were conducted, presumably for one in every fiftieth melt. No irregularities were found. The assayer is unknown and no assay reports have been included in the audit reports.

*For the audits performed in 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1983 and 1984 under theCONTINUINGaudits program allegedly 1 in 50 melts has been assayed, although there are no audit reports, nor assay reports, nor do we know who the assayer was.

*It’s likely 97 % of the audited gold by theCONTINUING audits committee has not been assayed by an independent assayer. In 1977 the New York assay office, which is a subsidiary of the US Mint, conducted the assays. For the other years we don’t know what office performed the checks.”
(All emphases in the original)

Then there’s yet another anomaly,CONNECTED TO the US “coin gold”, and this anomaly is a key(in my opinion):

“Why haven’t we ever seen any assays of “coin bars”? Coin bars are “assaying 899 to 901 per mille or 915 1/2 to 917 per mille”, roughly 90 % pure, and these types of bars allegedly form the bulk of the US official gold reserves. Former US Mint director Edmund Moy has stated in 2013 US reserves contain mainly coin bars because of the great confiscation in 1933 by President Roosevelt, when US citizens were forced to hand in all physical gold. All the golden coins that were handed in supposedly accumulated to the greatest gold pile on earth. However, as I’ve written in my post Where Did The Gold In Fort Knox Come From? Part One, all golden coins that circulated in the US before 1933 could not have supplied the US official gold reserves to the extent Mr Moy has stated.” (Emphases in the original)

Finally, Mr. Jansen comes to his scenarios:

“If we carefully read the scarceAUDIT reports available to us, we notice the audit procedures were revised in 1983. As a result more than 1,700 tonnes at the Fort Knox and the Denver depository, that were both fully audited and sealed at that time, needed to be re-audited.

“When thinking about these re-audits, three scenarios pop to mind:

  1. In 1983 the OIG found out something was amiss with the audits performed 1974 – 1982. It was decided to destroy several audit and assay reports and no less than 1,700 tonnes needed to be re-audited.
  2. The US government wishedTO OPEN the vaults of audited gold to lease or sell the metal on the open market. An excuse was needed to break the seals. The BGFO and Mint staff was replaced by the OIG and the “revised audit procedures” were invented as a reason to open several compartments.
  3. The auditors were bored and decided to re-audit 1,700 tonnes.

“Why else would so much gold have been re-audited?”

As one can imagine, my high octane speculation is quite a bit different than Mr. Jansen’s, and again it goes to the point that one has to look at the modern financial picture from more than a conventional point of view, simply because the conventional point of view no longer makes any sense. Note that the following things emerge from his analysis:

  1. Audits were done of the Mint and various depositories;
  2. Audits were not adequately done of the NY Federal Reserve;
  3. It is alleged that the NY Fed has “secret tunnels”CONNECTING it directly to JP Morgan, a facility recently bought by a Chinese investment firm;
  4. The “coinage” gold recovered by the Roosevelt administration in its gold confiscation of the early 1930s does not appear able toACCOUNT for all the coinage gold in existence within the US depository system.

So we have:

  1. Chinese involvement;
  2. More gold in the system that would appear to beACCOUNTED for by various estimates;
  3. secret tunnel between the US centralBANK and a major US prime bank, and hence their involvement in “something.”

For those who have beenPAYING attention, and particularly paying attention to my Covert Wars and Breakaway Civilizations, this constellation of indicators almost exactly fits the pattern discussed there of (1) stolen gold from Khoumintang China, which was “swapped” for bonds issued directly – and secretly – by the US Federal Reserve, which bonds appear to have been issued with deliberateERRORS allowing them to be subsequently denounced as forgeries and frauds, (2) “coinage” gold, which sources could include not merely the gold confiscated by Roosevelt, but also gold confiscated by Axis pluner (including the gold recovered by the Nazis and extracted from the teeth of concentration camp victims), which would account for the discrepancies noticed by Mr. Jansen; (3) the indications of the secret participation of a major US prime bank in a scheme of secretFINANCE.

In short, I suggest that once again, we are looking at more indicators of the existence of such a hidden system, indicators which in this case conform to the patterns I have argued here and elsewhere constitute the elements of a vast hidden system of finance for covert operations and black projects research. When analysts finally start waking up to those possibilities, and begin tracking down more details and connecting more dots, then it will get very interesting.

See you on the flip side…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s