The fact that there may actually be 170,000 tons of gold held in Hawaii wouldn't necessarily devalue gold and therefore would not necessarily taint the credibility of pro-gold opinions. Gold prices aren't derived solely based on the amount of above ground gold. .
Well it probably would make a difference as 170,000 tonnes is supposed to be the amount of gold ever mined in all of history.
^ Means nothing necessarily. Even without the 170K tons alleged to exist, we have far more above ground gold mined in the past 1,000 years than in all the previous centuries combined yet the value of gold has remained about the same during these periods. So above ground tons does not necessarily equal less value. That's a point that Karen Hudes was making. .
Guys...if you re-check what Hudes says...She says there's "No" gold in Hawaii...only a gold certificate. Check the video from about 08 minutes 20 seconds but particularly at 08 minutes 26 seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5h1i-7qt88
Story keeps changing.... In other videos she has said the 'gold is on deposit' in Hawaii - no mention of certificates. She's also said there is as much gold in the Vatican - or maybe she means there's another certificate in the Vatican ? Certificate to what ? Who is the certificate issuer ???
Exactly trew. I re-listened to what Hudes said, here's the extract from the video. 08 minutes 23 seconds to - 09 minutes :05 seconds. Hudes says: Na...na...no...it's not gold that's there! What's there is a certificate! And the real gold is where we know where it is but we don't have to tell everybody! Greg Hunter asks: Where are the gold bars, where is the gold? Hudes replies: The gold itself is safe and I'm not going to tell you but we know where it is and in the meantime the certificates are on deposit in all of the banks that are too big to fail that are really one bank and we've got you know we've got the ah signature of the official, some of those officials were placed there by Ferdinand |Marcos and they are portraying him. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5h1i-7qt88[/youtube] :lol:
She could be telling the truth, but of course I'm sure there are things she can't made known to the public now. Afterall, an ex-World bank attorney falling from a tall building is not a piece news people will take in without seriously asking questions. What she said and how she comes across, I find it quite rationale and logical, and definitely, no different from your Alex Jones, etc. What we choose to believe or not, or whether we truly know or not is up to us. BTW, if US really have 170,000 tons of gold, it is like, seriously, USA is the greatest thief of all. Stealing the Yamashita's gold and hiding them all these while... or have they sold them to china already? Maybe they are just being hidden by Rothchilds.... ha ha
That's what I mean. Even if you strip away the crazy talk, the facts are just preposterous. "What she said and how she comes across, I find it quite rationale and logical..." Really? You think her idea that the world debt is all a conspiracy of some ill-defined plutocracy - but including JFK, Ferdinand Marcos, and General Dempsey - that they are all sitting on the entire world's supply of above-ground gold, that it is all in the Bank of Hawaii (oh, wait, no it isn't - just some certificate, from an unknown issuer who, in her mind, presumably holds the entire world's supply of gold) - and she's the only one who knows all this - is rational and logical? Really??
People are more likely to believe things, even if unlikely, if they match their own views it's called confirmation bias
I don't know. I am not smart enough to know whether what she has said is correct or truthful because she has some facts that we don't. Neither can anyone say that what she said is false unless she is proven to be so. We just have to take it with a pinch of salt. Don't think anyone of us can make the conclusion to say that she is either crazy or a liar unless we have hard evidence. However, we can choose to believe whatever we want to believe. For the record, I am not saying I believe what she said 100%, I just saying I am giving her the benefit of the doubt. Time will reveal whether she is right or she is not. Let time be the judge. In the meantime, I will just continue to do my research, listen to different views and do what I believe is the best for me.
I have no hard evidence that Elvis isn't really alive on the moon having landed there in a B52, but I'm pretty certain that the National Enquirer got that wrong when they said he was. I have no direct evidence, seen with my own eyes, that the entire world's supply of above-ground gold isn't in the Bank of Hawaii or the Vatican, or wherever she thinks it is at any one moment - oh, wait, no maybe it was a certificate - but I'm pretty certain she's got it wrong. Your measured approach is sensible - there's a lot of misinformation, speculation, and conspiracy theorising going on - but saying she comes across as 'rational and logical' just isn't, to me. Any more than someone saying Elvis is on the moon.
PS. She's right, the dollar might crash. But it's the rest of the flight-of-ideas she has that makes no empirical sense.
^ To presume as you appear to JBS, that the entire supply of above ground gold is what Hudes is referring to is frankly, absurd. Who made you the grand decider of how much above ground gold exists? Autumnleaf takes the truthful, logical, and sensible view because unlike you, he doesn't pretend to know one way or the other. Autumnleaf is like the person who questions the official JFK story while you are like the person who claims that the official story must be true because you assume that the official story has to be true. After all, what would she gain to make a statement that might sound to some as implausible or conspiratorial or kookie? She would have everything to loose if anything. Also, if she weren't being truthful about the 170,000 tons in certificates in Hawaii, what makes you believe anything she says is truthful. What can you really verify? Official records can be created out of thin air or they can be destroyed without a trace...what's you basis for believing anything? Becuase it sounds good to you???
Not me, champ. The World Gold Council and Thomson Reuters estimate the world's above ground stock of gold is 171,300 tons of gold. You might question my authority on these issues, but I'd bet they are more correct than you, with your assumption that the total amount of gold is = (the tons we know about) + (170,500 more tons that only Karen Hudes knows about). No. A logical approach tests a theory with discernible facts. The argument she puts forward is like Bertrand Russell's teapot: just because something can't be disproved doesn't make it true, or even reasonably possible to be true, or even just rational. I don't believe anything she says is 'truthful', in that it is correct because of the reasons she gives. She might be right about the US dollar, but even a broken clock is right about the time twice a day - just because she says one thing I agree with doesn't mean I have accept the rest of the diatribe. I also don't really think she's lying: she certainly appears to believe what she says. That's why I think she's mad rather than a liar. I am in no position to guess at what underpins her delusion. She does seem to have one axe to grind with the 'establishment' as she sees it, and that seem to be everyone who has ever held a position of authority or power. So, reading some of her blogs, that is the World Bank, the Bank of International Settlements, a couple of Filipino presidents (randomly), some US presidents living and dead, senior members of the US military, the UK Parliament, the US Congress, and a couple of other organisations such as the United Bank of Scotland (which ceased to exist as a banking entity shortly after the second world war). Meanwhile, her account of how these all fit together rambles along randomly but never touches on any verifiable fact. All the 'evidence' she produces is her own testimony. So, you say my position on this is unprovable because I can't personally verify the facts upon which I base it. But I can reference it. She can't, her position is entirely based on her own story and you believe it. Oh, and as for having 'everything to loose [sic]', how do you know how much she has to lose? She's already lost her job and her mainstream credibility. Anyway, carry on, for it makes not a jot of difference to me. There are crazier people out there with followings, no reason why you shouldn't follow her. Edited for typos
The certificates are controlled by people who follow the economics of Ferdinand Marcos? Now I've heard it all. I wonder what her former employers think of her. Was if the World Bank? Do World Bank officials watch her videos and say "Wow I'm glad we got rid of that nutcase"
I'll watch Greg Hunter depending on the guest he's interviewing. If I see that he's interviewing Hudes or PCR I won't bother to waste my time listening to them. Mind you she's not the only economist he's interviewed that believes the US has hiddengold reserves. A remember listening to a guy with a queer name Brex Weir? who said the same thing.
