Can you imagine working at the following Company?

Ooops !

It has a little over 500 employees with the following statistics:

29 have been accused of spousal abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad checks
117 have bankrupted at least two businesses
3 have been arrested for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
14 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are current defendants in lawsuits
84 were stopped for drunk driving ( in 1998 alone)


Can you guess which organization this is?

Click here for the answer.

Rage Against The Machine-Man

June 6, 2015 by Daniel Spaulding

Rage Against The Machine-Man                         ~ just "think" ole bruce or whatever "that" fucking "thing" is .... could've "flopped" outta the "closet" a lot sooner ...if it weren't fer ALL the EVIL "rest" of US Lol  wonder if "it"  is gonna give thum med~als back  hehe sick twisted off cum~pass fucks  heheeehehe  ...wonder what "training" um gonna "have" 2 take Lol  does "it" fall under anger man~eg~ment or hate man. or  how's bout go fuck yer self management ....:o Oops..... c "it's" ALL our fault's ... don't u c ... Huh !

The central role that technology plays in modern man’s life leaves him often all too indifferent or oblivious to those who would use that same technology to subvert society and control entire populations. Modern man needs his smart phone not only to conduct business transactions and communicate with distant loved ones, but also to watch the latest funny cat video on YouTube, post messages in Brony chat forums, and download Japanese anime porn. As such he cannot be bothered to notice that CIA-connected companies monitor and record his actions on social media and plant malicious software on his smart phone to gain easy access to all his contacts and movements.
Being tracked, recorded, and catalogued is a small price to pay for the convenience and escapism near-wondrous technology provides to modern man. After all, if he cannot be concerned with the fact that he consumes mediocre food products saturated in chemicals hazardous to his health, why would he be bothered with the fact that distant, faceless bureaucrats, intelligence analysts, and corporations have him under perpetual surveillance, with the goal of constructing his “minority report” threat profile, or conversely selling him superfluous products before he even knows that he desires them? After all, he has far more important things to worry about, like following the latest gossip on Bruce Jenner.

Call me Caitlyn…Or else! Adweek   ~ LOL or yer ass "will"B "placed " in some "course" those "en~light~ened"  folks will C 2 it  hehe :o

Indeed, fashioning himself “sophisticated,” modern man is all too often unaware of the far more sinister aspects that technology, or rather the technocracy that manages it. While some human rights activists rightfully protest the push for autonomous robotic drones for military use, there is far less alarm over the growing intrusion of decision-making artificial intelligence into the more mundane aspects of human life. (Apple co-founder Steve Woznaik, among others, has warned that the rise of A.I. bodes ill for humanity.)
Billionaire oligarch Warren Buffett, a financial elitist if there ever was one, recently opined that artificial intelligence will soon be tasked with deciding who lives and who dies in hypothetical emergency situations. It’s not hard to imagine that once the precedent is set, super computers, with full access to the best information that the NSA, Google, and their fellow travelers can provide, will be given wide latitude in deciding who lives and who dies in a wide variety of situations, not only in traffic accidents.

Sociologists of the former Soviet Union used to proclaim the “the scientific-technical revolution,” a society based on a scientifically organized hierarchy. In the 20^th century the American existentialist philosopher William Barrett spoke of their vision, which he dreaded, in which “all citizens must be organized effectively,” and that “everything that exists – man as well as natural resources – is to be placed within the framework of technical scientific planning.” He further observed:

Jurgen Habermas, leader of the [neo-Marxist] Frankfurt school, argues that science and technology have become the decisive productive forces in society and accordingly must command a central social role. One’s rank in the technical-scientific hierarchy establishes one’s place in society.

The Soviet experiment has long since been discarded into the dustbin of history, but the postmodern West has continued the scientific-technical revolution, which has “progressed” far beyond anything the old Soviet sociologists could ever imagine in their wildest dreams of creating the “programmed society”. (And unrepentant neo-Marxists like Habermas are still around playing their part to see that this revolution comes to fruition.)
Both social engineering and the technology that aids it have come a long way since the supposed end of totalitarianism, heralded by collapse of the Soviet Union. Yet Western elites, technocrats, and oligarchs now enjoy far more reach and social control than the old Soviet commissars ever possessed, though they at times they tactfully hide their iron fists behind velvet gloves. Instead of using direct terror, which is all too obvious (though it is selectively employed when needed), the social engineers, using a clever concoction of chemically-laced food and water, mass media entertainment, contrived social controversies, and technological gadgets, have found a successful means of keeping modern man in his place. And modern man believes himself to be liberated, more free than ever before.
Indeed, if the technocrats have their say, in the not-too-distant future man will be compelled to live in planned “smart” cities carefully managed by super-computers. The cities’ inhabitants will have their food and water intake regulated, work at jobs assigned by their A.I. overseer, and have their movement and behavior strictly controlled.
Barrett, in observing this unfolding situation, lamented:

What happens to the individual’s existence in the programmed society? To be is to be an item within the program of management.

A vision of despair and dehumanization is all that remains. Nicholas Berdyaev noted much the same thing about the scientific-technical society which “demands that man shall fulfill one or another of his functions,” and yet “does not want to reckon with man himself,” knowing “only his functions.”
All the remains for man is to become a carefully controlled and managed plaything for the technocrats and their A.I. computers, while that which made him human and in any way noble is carefully striped away. He is at once dissociated, rootless, and atomized, and yet, at the same time assimilated into the technocracy’s Borg hive collective of technological dependency via a toxic cocktail of synthetic terror from managed Muslim terrorist outfits, trendy and contrived social “justice” causes, and frivolous, all-encompassing consumerism.
Of course, Berdyaev, the great champion of personality and human freedom, would have none of this:

Man cannot be the image either of nature or of the machine. Man is the image and likeness of God.

A dueling vision of man is to be fought out here. The architects and managers of the scientific technocratic revolution offer us man as a dehumanized, disposable drone, a poor reflection of his own machines (and it is such a vision that allows technocrats like Zbigniew Brzezinski to speak with such ease about how “infinitely easy” it would be to mass murder millions of people to maintain elite control over the globe). On the other hand is the vision of man as a spiritual being, ever aspiring, when he allows himself, to higher manifestations of personality and genuine freedom of the spirit.

St. Sergius of Radonezh, by Sergei Efoshkin.

Berdyaev’s fellow Russian philosopher, Vladimir Solovyov, spoke this same powerful truth in more fullness:

We know that a human being, besides his animal material nature, possesses moreover an ideal nature which binds him with absolute truth or with God. Besides the material or empirical content of his life, each human comprises in himself the image of God, i.e., a special form of the absolute content. Theoretically and in the abstract this Divine image is known to us in mind and through reason, but in love it is known in the concrete and in life.

Here we encounter the fundamental truth that modern man must realize and recover if he wishes to overcome his technocratic enslavement and dehumanization. But it is the Divine image in man, and his resulting personality, that is the target of assault by the would-be world controllers. It is why the image of man is reduced to the purely material and recast in the image of the beast. In realizing and recovering his true spiritual nature and personality, and embodying both the Divine image and Divine and true human love (and not the insipid humanitarianism that is but a simulacra), that modern man will find the foundation to resist and challenge those who would exploit and annihilate him.

Fact or Fiction: Analyzing Another Deflategate Article

Posted on May 21, 2015

by Warren Sharp
I wanted to take an opportunity to simultaneously comment on an article written last week which tried to cast doubt on the Deflategate research, while also playing a game of “fact or fiction” because there is a lot of incorrect information floating around regarding my analysis.
First, the key articles in this series (from most recent to oldest):

• The Wells Report Delivered an Innocuous Bombshell that Few Noticed
• The Wells Report May Have Uncovered the Tip of the Iceberg
• The New England Patriots Became Nearly Fumble-Proof in 2007
• The New England Patriots Prevention of Fumbles is Nearly Impossible

The Two Primary Conclusions from my analysis were:
Point #1 -  Something occurred between 2006 and 2007 which allowed the Patriots to fumble the ball at an extremely low rate moving forward when compared to the rate their team fumbled from 2000-06 (Bill Belichick started coaching the team in 2000).
Point #2 -  Whatever occurred caused the Patriots to shift from a team who fumbled the football the league average (in 2000-2006) to a team who was so superior when compared any other team the odds it was a mere coincidence are extremely unlikely.
With that said, let’s move on to the “fact or fiction” where we’ll address prior comments made on the article as well as those raised by a new article from Bleacher Report, written by Mike Tanier.

Fact or Fiction:  The best way to debunk my analysis is to use a period other than the one I chose, which illuminates and demonstrates the controversy.

This is obviously fiction.  The data clearly shows “something” happened in 2007 which vaulted the Patriots from an average team at preventing fumbles to one who is insanely great.  Any analysis which looks only at the last couple of years is intentionally trying to limit the results for, as I will explain below, suspicious reasons.
This is exactly what the Bleacher Report article attempts to do.  The author, for the entirety of his analysis, uses a 3 year period from 2012-14.  This clearly prevents him from disproving either of my Two Primary Conclusions.  He is not comparing the early Brady/Belichick years (2000-2006) with more recent ones (2007+), so he can’t disprove Point #1, nor can he show that the Patriots are not superior to the rest of the league since 2007, because his sample is only 3 years.  So he can’t disprove Point #2.
Its quite strange, because when introducing my article, he notes:  “[Warren Sharp's analysis] found that the Patriots have been avoiding fumbles at a mathematically improbable rate since 2007.”  He then said his goal was to “neither to implicate nor exonerate Brady” but “it was important for me to find out whether or not there’s any real evidence.”  So instead of seeing if “there’s any real evidence” of this “mathematically improbable” fumble rate since 2007, he decided to look only at 2012-14?
There are two key graphics to look at which I created back in January (the first has been updated with red notations per the Wells Report).  The first is the summary graphic showing where the Patriots ranked in the early period and where they ranked following 2006.  It’s obvious that “something” happened to cause this shift.
But the next graphic is the key graphic which casts doubt on the objectivity of the Bleacher Report article.

This graphic depicts the huge noticeable shift of the Patriots fumble rate starting in the 2007 season, and is another of my early graphics.  It’s really unmistakeable, how they are league average thru 2006.  Then they shift to completely unlike the league average starting promptly in 2007.
While the key is the change which occurred in 2007, with regard to the Bleacher Report period, I want to turn your attention to 2013.  This happens to be the middle year of the 3 year period grabbed from the Bleacher Report article.  As you can see, the Patriots fumble rate was actually WORSE than league average in this season.  Why?
It’s entirely because of one, single week 12 game vs Denver.  This Sunday night game was played in insane low temps and bitter wind chills.  As I’ll discuss below, inclement weather, and in particular, cold (or brutal cold) significantly increases fumbles.  In this game, the Patriots fumbled 6 times.  Denver had 5 in the game as well (to show you how bad the weather was at causing fumbles).  That’s how cold it was.  It was 22 degrees pre-wind chill, 6 degrees with the wind of 22 MPH on average.  Those 6 fumbles were a huge percentage of the Patriots total fumbles on the season.
Note that the only game which saw more than 11 fumbles (which New England and Denver combined for in that 2013 game) the last 25 years was a game in December, outdoors in Milwaukee County Stadium, when Green Bay and Detroit combined for 12 fumbles.  That game was played in temps of 26, with a wind chill of 5 degrees via 14 MPH winds.  Five degrees is almost identical to the 6 degree  wind chill temp for the 2013 game in New England which saw the Patriots fumble 6 times.
Clearly, the 3 year sample size is suspicious when sandwiched around the only season where the Patriots were below league average in fumble rate (entirely due to that one, 6-fumble game).  However, of my selection of a huge 8 year period from 2007-14, the author said it was “customizing a data set to make [the] change look significant”.  I believe the opposite to be the case.
Possibly lost within the Bleacher Report article is the statement:  “The Patriots’ fumble rates are low, though not extremely or historically low, over the last three years. Factor in the 2010 and 2011 seasons, and the rates get even lower.”  This is obvious.  And guess what?  Factor in 2007-2009 and the rates don’t just “get even lower”, they begin to become improbable to have occurred by chance.  The frustrating part of these counter-arguments is the data is there and easily accessible.  The authors of the counter-arguments realize if they were to take a 2007-14 period, and then compare it to 2000-06 it would show exactly what I’ve found in my Two Primary Conclusions.
The bottom line with this point is in order to discredit or disprove my Two Primary Conclusions, you have to look at the same time frame and, based on the stats, conclude something different from what I conclude.  Looking only at 2012-14 is not going to disprove my argument based on the stats which shows starting in 2007, something happened, and moved the Patriots from average to other-worldly at fumble prevention.
I will jump ahead briefly to a graphic from Benjamin Morris of FiveThirtyEight who used a different time period.  His was from 2010-14, and even in that time period, using binomial and Poisson models, he found that the odds of the Patriots fumble rate during that period occurring by chance was over 1 in 10,000. The next closest team was 1 in ~800 and most teams saw completely normal fumble rates, which occur naturally.

Fact or Fiction: Dome teams should be eliminated from the study.

The great part of this one is, after actually looking at the data, you’ll see why it makes total sense to remove them, but even if you include them, it doesn’t make much difference – the Patriots still are at the far end of the spectrum.
I spent inordinate time examining climate affects on fumble rates.  I went into great detail on the subject as part of  “Argument #3″ of this article I wrote in February.  Please read it before continuing.  If you simply look at the weather analysis, pulled from one done by Sporting Charts, it is quite apparent that temperature has a measurable effect on fumble rate.  Keep in mind, you can’t look at “teams” only, you have to look at game sites and the stats for both teams playing in that particular site.  Dome teams infrequently play in cold weather.  It’s just a fact.
Look at the Falcons, for example.  I looked at the coldest 6 weeks of the season, from mid November thru the end of the regular season.  And since 2007, the Falcons have played in a TOTAL of 4 games outdoors in the Northeast!  In 8 years!  Meanwhile, the Patriots have played 40 games outdoors in that same sample.  Knowing cold weather is more likely to cause fumbles, why would we group the Falcons in with the Patriots, when they play 10 times fewer games in the conditions most likely to cause fumbles?
The graphics to the right make it pretty easy to comprehend why its wrong to consider these teams “apples to apples” and compare them side by side.  Its pretty obvious that studying those dome teams differently should be done.  And that’s exactly what I did.
But, even if you include dome teams, the Patriots are still surprisingly way different than the rest of the NFL.  But don’t take my word for it:
Respected websites with long standing records for being committed to understanding data and football have agreed with my findings, as I’ll mention below.  Both included dome teams, and their conclusions were the same.

Fact or Fiction: This entire fumble analysis has been debunked before and is not accurate.

Absolute fiction.  First, not one analysis (Bleacher Report included) refuted either of my Two Primary Conclusions, as indicated at the very top.  Every article that’s been critical of the big picture fumble rate has tried to discredit it by using one of the following tactics:

• Looking at smaller, different time periods
• Looking at smaller data sets, like position by position rates, and failing to sum everything back at the end
• Critiquing early, less refined studies I did which initially looked at player fumble rates when playing on different teams, for instance.

None of the critical analysis was able to refute the Two Primary Conclusions.  Over the last couple of months, there have been a few well-researched opinions posted from actual “go to sources” in the football data field which further supported my own research:
Brian Burke of Advanced Football Analytics studied my results after thinking that they were “so extraordinary they seemed unlikely to be true” but after he ran his own numbers, his conclusions as to the Patriots incredible ball security (aka lack of fumbling) was incredible, and their numbers are “better than the next best team by 20 plays per fumble.”  And he included dome teams.
Benjamin Morris of FiveThirtyEight also studied my results and then ran his own.  He concluded my study should be taken “more seriously” because “that author correctly identified that the Patriots fumble rate has been absurdly small. I did my own calculations using binomial and Poisson models and found the same.”  He also included dome teams.
His results suggest the odds the Patriots could fumble as infrequently as they did was over 1 in 10,000, whereas the next best team in the NFL was 1 in 800, and most teams were below 1 in 5, meaning most teams had fumble rates which were normal.  Morris went on to conclude:

“the existence of the Patriots’ extremely low fumble rate, as a Bayesian matter, makes it much more likely that the Patriots were intentionally cheating… and more likely that the Patriots have materially benefited from their cheating.”

Fact or Fiction:  Studying QB sack rates show the Patriots had no edge in fumble rate, they just don’t get sacked often.

This is what the Bleacher Report article attempts to use as a secondary argument, but if the author expanded the study to the same time period I used, the results support the fact that the 2000-06 period is very different than the 2007-14 period.  The author says that because the r-squared is 0.144, sack rates and fumbles are very correlated.  I think that conclusion is debatable, but to bypass argument, lets agree and say sack rates and fumbles are quite correlated league wide.  And I’d expect for the same QB on the same team, that correlation is even higher.  In other words, over a sample of several seasons, we shouldn’t see a huge change for a single QB on a single team when compared to a sample from several years prior.  Tom Brady’s fumble rate per sack should be fairly consistent on a year-to-year basis on the Patriots.  While sacks vary, his personal fumbles per sack should not vary much, and should be driven by the total times he was sacked.
But that’s not what happened for Tom Brady and the Patriots.  And I’m going to keep this brief because digging in the weeds of individual players isn’t  needed to prove either of my Two Primary Conclusions, but I’ll say:

• from 2007-14, Brady was sacked 182 times and fumbled 36 times.
• from 2001-06, Brady was sacked 182 times and fumbled 59 times.
• His fumble rate of 1 fumble every 5.1 sacks in the later period was 64% better than his rate of 1 fumble every 3.1 sacks in the earlier period.
• from 2007-14, Brady did not have ANY season in which he fumbled at a rate worse than 1 fumble every 3.5 sacks.
• from 2001-06, in 4 of the 6 seasons, Brady fumbled worse than 1 fumble every 3.5 sacks.

In fact, 2006, the year before we see the huge improvement in the Patriots overall fumble rate, Brady had 12 fumbles on 26 sacks, a rate of 1 fumble every 2.2 sacks, which was the worst season for ball security he ever had.  It’s pretty clear that the period thru 2006 for Brady was far different than what it was since 2007 in terms of his own fumble rate.
As an aside, the Bleacher Report article criticized my use of “plays per fumble”, rather than using “fumbles per play”.  It makes absolutely no difference when comparing to the rest of the NFL.  For instance, using “plays per fumble” the Patriots fumbled once approx every 73 plays from 2007-14, which is 74% more than once every 42 plays, their avg from 2000-06.  Or, like the author did, you can convert to fumbles per 100 plays, and say the Patriots improved from 2.38 fumbles per 100 plays (in 00-06) to 1.37 fumbles per 100 plays (in 07-14).  The rate of improvement is still 74%.
Leaving that fact as it stands, it is also interesting that while criticizing my use of “plays per fumble”, he chooses to conduct his analysis on sacks using “sacks per fumble”.  I would have anticipated that he use “fumbles per X sacks” given his seemingly hardline approach to using “per play” stats, but the fact is, it’s irrelevant how you do it as long as you compare the teams similarly.

Fact or Fiction:  My analysis looks only at fumbles lost.

Fiction.  It looks at all fumbles, regardless of whether a team recovers its own fumble or its opponent recovers it.

The Bottom Line

With or without dome teams, with or without fumbles/play or plays/fumble, something changed in 2007 to propel the Patriots toward the best fumble rate in the NFL, one which became “extraordinary” and “absurdly small”.  Those are words from other professionals who studied the data (independently) after I conducted my analysis and presented my findings, which was in January of 2015.
The Wells report shed light on Jim McNally, who referred to himself as “the deflator” and who started working as the “Officials Locker Room attendant” in 2007.  That year is the year after Tom Brady helped get the rule changed, and as you’ve read above, 2007 coincides with the massive change in fumble rates for the Patriots.
The report concluded the Patriots personnel participated in violations of the Playing Rules and were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules, and Tom Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls.
Many of the highly suspicious text messages exchanged between McNally and Jastremski occurred throughout the 2014 season, not just immediately prior to and after the Colts game.  While the Patriots report attempted to explain that McNally was just an innocent, portly gentleman with a sense of humor who was trying to lose weight, the truth might never be fully known now that Patriots owner Robert Kraft accepted the punishment without appealing.
Clearly, the data concurs with the notion that there was suspicious activity occurring as a result of McNally’s involvement, and it would be fascinating to see text messages dating back to the spring and summer of 2007, which is the start of the period in question.  But we will never see them, so its pointless to hypothesize further.  From day one, I said the data shows something was abnormal in New England with regard to their fumble rate, which would be a correlated by-product of deflated footballs.  I’ve also said there is no way to prove anything with the data.  But the Wells Report gave us indications that systemic ball deflation could have been the source. To this day, I still have not seen any stats which disprove either of the Two Primary Conclusions from my analysis.
[I wanted to add that I like and respect Mike Tanier's football knowledge that he has shared for years on Football Outsiders.  He has a great football mind, and I've agreed with a lot of his opinions over the years.  I just happen to disagree with his response to my research and conclusions on this particular topic.]

MISSING AUDITS OF THE FED’S GOLD?                                                                                 ~ hehe no hidden /breakaway civ finance go~in ON here folks ,move along ! we R fucking B'ing HARVESTED People ! Lock fucking stock & Barreled fucked ? move along people Huh :O

Posted on June 6, 2015 by Joseph P. Farrell • http://gizadeathstar.com/2015/06/missing-audits-of-the-feds-gold/

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 was 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 great deal 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 been inventoried and audited. Furthermore, these audits found no exceptions of any consequence. I also want to assure you that the physical security 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 to confirm, 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 publicly available, are:

• * 1974 audit (released by the GAO 2/10/1975)
• * 1977 audit (released by the GAO 5/5/1978)
• * 1981 audit (and 1980 summary, released by the GAO 10/1981)
• * 1985 audit (released by the OIG 4/25/1986)
• * 1986 audit (released by the OIG 4/24/1987)

"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 adjacent private vault at 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza – read this post by BullionStar gold researcher Ronan Manly for 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, a quote 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 assay samples are not taken to verify the purity of the gold.'

"A quote from the 1985 report:

'Although the quality of the gold in the custody of the Federal Reserve Bank 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. Jansen continues 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 assay samples 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 the Bank [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 the continuing 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. An overview 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 melts, “the 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 assay report included in the audit 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 the continuing audits 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 the continuing 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 scarce audit 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 wished to 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 to account 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 be accounted for by various estimates;
3. secret tunnel between the US central bank and a major US prime bank, and hence their involvement in "something."

For those who have been paying 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 deliberate errors 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 secret finance.
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.