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:
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 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 | |
| |
