Concealment Summary
Concealment Summary

Concealment - Summary.

The parties to the January 12th, 1909 - $3,000,000 American Gold Eagle - engagement had the motive, the opportunity, and the means to conceal the loss of this shipment from the public; the best light on the matter, the maintenance of the status quo, a successful Russian loan, the optimal political situation under the circumstances - could be attained only by concealment, where acknowledgement of the loss would have had deleterious consequences for all concerned.

Captain Bayerle's Third Theory™ identifies and examines an actual transaction that took place, a very real gold engagement, that occurred on a specific date, and he names all of the parties to that transaction, all of whom are very real and still "living" entities, major international banks and financial institutions still thriving today. He substantiates the loss of this engagement through an exhaustive examination of the 1909 gold market and international trade.

At any time during his investigation, documentary evidence could have been produced by any one or more of the concerned parties (or, for that matter, discovered by anyone who has had access to Captain Bayerle's research, including this website - publication does permit critical examination) that verifies the receipt of, and/or can otherwise account for, this singular and unique $3 million January 12, 1909, gold eagle engagement. It is possible (although Captain Bayerle believes unlikely) that the documentary evidence he seeks was destroyed, lost, and/or misplaced by all of the concerned parties, and, therefore, the successor administrators and managers of these organizations may no longer have the documentation that either confirms the loss of this engagement, or can otherwise identify its destination and confirm its receipt.

But, is it mere coincidence that:

  • the rumored loss of gold aboard the Republic matches exactly the amount and unusual composition of the January 12, 1909, engagement - $3 million in American Gold Eagle coins, only one of two $3,000,000 gold coin transactions out of several hundred gold engagement transactions which took place during the period 1904 through 1914;
  • documents directly concerning only this transaction, and which are commonly indexed, are consistently and uniformly absent from the public record in the archives of four countries, when other comparable documents exist for transactions both before and after the January 12th, 1909, transaction;
  • the governments and commercial financial institutions who were parties to this specific transaction, all of whom are (with, of course, the notable exception of the Imperial Russian Government) still in business, are mute on the matter;
  • although required by law, apparently no formal inquiry was conducted concerning the loss of the Republic, the largest and most valuable ship in history lost to that time, and with, also, loss of life, OR, if such an inquiry was held, the records of that inquiry have never reached public access;
  • the January 12, 1909, engagement, if shipped aboard the Republic, would fall within the typical shipment delay between engagement and shipments of gold for the period;
  • the January 12, 1909, engagement was earmarked for the Imperial Russian Government, the Russian Bond closed on January 22, 1909, the very day of the Republic's departure, and the Russian Baltic Fleet, including the battleships Slava and Tsesarevich and three battle cruisers, with its home base on the outskirts of St. Petersburg, was at Gibraltar the very day the Republic was scheduled to have arrived;
  • during the eleven year period 1904 through 1914, only three transactions shipped from the United States to France are shown to be absent within the French import data, and only the aberrant January 12, 1909, engagement, out of the three "missing" transactions, cannot otherwise be explained;
  • the Republic does not appear on official nautical charts at her true location, and, unlike other wrecks, was undisturbed during wartime, and does not appear within US Navy anti-submarine warfare charts which have been released for public access;
  • ... and others.

When evaluating facts, the ultimate question is: What is the statistical probability of this series of "unrelated coincidences" occurring independently, but which can more easily be explained as related, dependent events? While each of these "coincidences," and others, may be susceptible to independent and unrelated rational explanation, possibly simply oversight, error, loss of records, loss of facts due to the passage of time, or other reason, and, of course, coincidence, isn't it more likely that these events are related when they can all be explained within the context of a single theory, Capt. Bayerle's Third Theory - the Tsar's gold?

Occam's Razor
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

Source: Principia Cybernetica Web

As research progresses, newly acquired information [click the icon wherever it appears in this website] has consistently reinforced the conclusions of this report, the Third Theory™'s treasure - that the REPUBLIC does indeed carry the Tsar's gold.