Talk:United States Bullion Depository/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Inspection by DAR?

I vaguely recall that many years ago, a group of little old ladies, possibly from the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) was permitted annually to enter the vault under supervision to "check" on the gold. This went on for a number of years, but sometime during WWII, the practice was ended, and never begun again. Anybody able to corroborate? <smiley> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.188.30.211 (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

By act of Parliament the British Crown Jewels cannot leave British soil, so they can never have been held at Fort Knox. They were instead buried at a secret location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.198.211.89 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What transfer?

The transfer needed 500 rail cars and was sent by registered mail, protected by the Postal Inspection Service.

This paragraph, due (most likely) to an edit, is now badly lacking context. Transfer of the gold initially? Transfer of the Magna Carta? What? It needs citation in any case. Any guesses? drseudo (t) 05:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)



The transfer was the gold bars to Fort Knox. They needed a way to transfer all the bars safely as during that time crime was pretty high as people like Bonnie and Clyde were still on the lose. One of the shipments got delayed though due to the flood. 67.52.248.218 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Present map image at the end

Either one works for me (I didn't add it initially). Comments solicited between the two last versions SBHarris 07:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Gold and coin holdings Section

I think the neutrality and, and factually of the 'Gold and coin holdings' section needs to be checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.17.24 (talkcontribs)

It might help if you'd mention the things which struck you as non-neutral and maybe unfactual. What don't you like? SBHarris 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

guards ammo

i have heard (from my math teacher) that the guards only have 3 bullets, and that if someone is there, they will just fire all 3 in the air and wait for the army to come. anyone else hear anything like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.101.39 (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Does your math teacher have any sources for that? Regardless, that sounds pretty absurd. --V2Blast 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Plagiarism?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/fort-knox-depository.htm

Compare the article's section on the blast doors to the above URL

Article: "No single individual is entrusted with the combination to the vault. Various members of the Depository staff must dial separate combinations known only by them."

URL: "The vault door weighs more than 20 tons. No one person is entrusted with the combination. Various members of the Depository staff must dial separate combinations known only to them."

I don't know precisely what the standard this community employs for judging plagiarism but a proper citation to the URL or the shared upstream source seems in order.

BradDixon 13:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if the direction of information was from that site to Wikipedia, then that's platant plagiarism to me, just changing a couple of words. --SLi (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory merge

Fort Knox has a conspiracy theory section that should be merged into the conspiracy theory paragraph in this article.--Dcooper 14:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if the entire Fort Knox article is merged. Otherwise, the conspiracy theory bears mentioning in both articles. -Eep² 03:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • all of the conspiracy theory entries relate more to the gold vault than the Army installation. I say they belong here with possibly a link from the FK page to the section here. --rogerd 03:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
So long as the Fort Knox article mentions conspiracy theories about the depository (linking to the exact section on this article), I'm OK with a merge. However, there must at least be a reference to this on the Fort Knox page to make people aware of it; otherwise most people will miss it (since most people know about Fort Knox as a gold depository and not as an Army installation, per se). -Eep² 05:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
There already is a link to here at the top of the Fort Knox article.--Dcooper 12:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking of:


===Conspiracy theories===

There have been several conspiracy theories advanced by various parties related to the gold depository located at the fort. ''See [[United States Bullion Depository#Conspiracy theories|Conspiracy theories of the Fort Knox gold depository]]''.


Will that work? --rogerd 13:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Dcooper 13:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Me too. -Eep² 21:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The merge is complete --rogerd 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, it is? All you did was remove the conspiracy stuff from Fort Knox and the "merge" notice from United States Bullion Depository. Try again; that's not what a merge is... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 05:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The proposal was to remove the content from the Fort Knox article and point to the Conspiracy theories section in the USBD article where the same content was duplicated. That's what the consensus was and that's what I did. Look again. --rogerd 13:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess I misunderstood the proposal then since what you did isn't a merge but a remove-and-link. The conspiracy theory section from Fort Knox#Conspiracy theories needs to actually be merged with United States Bullion Depository#In popular culture (most likely under a new section, "Conspiracy theories") conspiracy theory section of this article since they both have different content. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 20:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cubed or not?

> For a comparison, all the gold ever mined in the world would form a cube 19.6 meters on a side. [citation needed] <

I read a different figure: a solid ball of 27 metes in diameter, which goes to 10305 in volume, while a 19,6 meter sided cube is only 7530. Which is right? 82.131.210.162 12:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Penny market?

It is not explicitly mentioned in the article, but the 4570 metric tonnes of gold reportedly held in the depository is worth a mere 105,1 thousands million US dollars. That looks like pocket change, since US military spending per year is close to 400 billion USD and a big company like TD Ameritrade handles 297bn collected from customers. Bill Gates has PERSONAL fortunes worth more than half of entire Fort Knox booty. What all that fuss about Fort Knox then? This is not explained in the article. 82.131.210.162 12:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not a gold bug, obviously. To them, only the gold reserves are real money. The only "real" wealth the U.S. government has is those gold reserves, by their thinking; so it's vital to know that the shiny stuff is really there. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Your magnitudes are off. In the US, 1 thousand million = 1 billion, so the gold reserves are still much larger than any other numbers you were using. 74.177.6.3 (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Audit Update?

"In 2007, KPMG will carry out an independent audit[citation needed]." 2007 is past, any update? Sarolite (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening...

"In early 1933, as part of the New Deal, the U.S. Congress enacted a package of laws which removed gold from circulation as money, and which made private ownership of gold in the U.S. ... illegal."

I'm certain that congress inacted no such law outlawing private ownership of gold. However Executive Order 6102 (which is not a law, per se) did attempt to. Maybe I'm just nitpicky but an Executive Order is not enacted by congress and is not a law.69.246.140.125 (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is what was referenced? http://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/Money/LegHistory/48Stat1.pdf It was indeed a law passed by Congress and was concurrent with the E.O. you mention. This added a subsection (n) to the Federal Reserve Act to allow the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to take gold coins out of circulation from individuals. This subsection was deleted in 1982. BK DC (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

General Accounting Office = Government Accountability Office

The article refers to audits by the General Accounting Office. Should the reference be to the Government Accountability Office instead? I suppose the name is correct for the period the audits took place, but the agency's name has changed. BK DC (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Flying over

Is it true, as I have heard, that airlines are not even allowed to fly over Fort Knox? The scenes of Fort Knox in Goldfinger were entirely shot on a movie set by the way . They wouldn't let the film-makers anywhere near the real Fort Knox.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 19:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What I did expect to find here

Some information about how the Gold in the Fort Knox Bullion Depository is connected to the U.S. currency (or rather some link to another article with this information).

I think that in former times the value of the gold was supposed to be equal to the US$ in circulation. This was changed at some time, as far as I vaguely recall.

In other words, I believe that the article should not only explain what is stored at Fort Knox, and how it's stored, but also why it's stored there (and how this changed over the years). The current article text deals (IMHO) more with the "mechanical" aspects of "Fort Knox", while the economical/finacial meaning of the Fort Knox Bullion Depository seems to be lacking. --Klaws 12:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. I came here looking what is done with the gold and found no information at all. Is it transferred in and out? Is it transferred withing the vaults from account to account? Who has accounts there? --Tysto (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Nobody has an account there. All the gold belongs to the U.S. Government. The gold is generally not transferred, though it is removed from the vaults for the regular GAO accounting checks, weighed to confirm it's all there, and then returned to the vaults. The gold *used* to be equal to the amount of US dollars in circulation, but that ended almost a hundred years ago when we went to a combined gold and silver standard; after dropping that in the 70s, the gold is now merely a reserve of precious metal that the government could use as emergency funding if necessary, though dipping into it is pretty much a doomsday-only scenario. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

History Channel documentary

Awhile back, the History Channel did a special on the Gold Depository at Fort Knox. It clears up a number of misconceptions and explains the source of some of the rumors and conspiracy theories.

The producers and writers of the special spent a lot of time combing through photo and film archives. They came up with a remarkable amount of information as to what went into building the Depository and its security systems ca. 1937, when it was put in service. They also interviewed a couple of men who worked in the vault as part of an audit that was done in the late 1970s and early 1980s and actually handled the bullion. They further interviewed a former Senator from Kentucky who was part of the Congressional delegation that inspected the Depository in 1974 to put rumors that the place was empty to rest - the only time U.S. citizens who do not work there have been permitted into the vault, and the only time the Treasury has allowed cameras into the building.

The structure is heavily reinforced concrete, with the rebar running in three dimensions, obviously intended to resist blast. (How well it would resist modern shaped charges and bunker-busters might make for interesting speculation.)

As noted elsewhere the vault door is very heavy, and made of seven layers of steel plus "other materials" selected for resistance to explosives, acid and acetylene torches. The History Channel did not say that it was Mosler who designed the vault door and locking system, although it is tacitly conceded by Mosler that they were the contractor for that part of the vault.

There are electronic alarm and detection systems in place, though the U.S. Mint understandably does not discuss precisely what systems are in place. It is known that ADT supplied the system originally installed in 1936, and that there are security cameras in place presumably sending images to a remote location. What additional systems may be in place the Mint does not discuss. It may be presumed there is a constant upgrading process and that the electronic surveillance systems are either state of the art; or more probably, in advance of the state of the art.

As originally constructed, there are four shooting positions - pillboxes, for practical purposes - at the four corners of the building and accessible only from within the Depository building. It has been suggested that there are remote-controlled "pop-up" machine guns like those shown in the movie Aliens in these firing positions, but an examination of their construction shows that's nonsense. The firing slits are meant to allow a man with a shoulder weapon, possibly a Thompson submachine gun (that being the state of the art when the pillboxes were built), to cover the full 360 degrees of a circle in the event of an attack on the Depository.

Since then, two small structures have been added to the Depository roof. They appear to be of 1960s or early 1970s in design. What they contain is unknown, as the window glass is heavily tinted. One may speculate that they either hold or protect some sort of antiaircraft missile launcher. Such a launcher (if present) is most likely man-portable, because mounting any worthwhile missile system that would fit under the 'new' roof shacks would require cutting holes in the roof to fit the necessary magazine and machinery. The Depository was built to resist aerial bombing, artillery bombardment, or an armored assault. At the time of its construction the concept of a helicopter assault was unknown. It may be presumed that those responsible for defense of the gold have now sealed that chink in the Depository's armor with whatever is concealed on the roof.

When the Depository was built, there was only one fence around it, a wrought-iron affair about 8 feet tall with spikes on top. There were also trees along the approach road and in the area beyond the fence. At some point between 1937 and today all these trees were removed and two additional chain link fences have been added. It is said that these are electrified, but as usual the Mint isn't telling. What is known is that removal of the trees now provides the building with a beaten fire zone about half a mile across, well within the effective range of any machine guns currently in service or projected for future service.

Some conspiracy theorists suggest that the new fences contain belts of mines. This is possible but improbable in my opinion. Mines have a finite service life; they become unstable over time and will detonate without warning. Also, deer do pass through the area and they are heavy enough to activate any mine intended for antipersonnel work. I should imagine that someone would notice and call the local TV station if there was a crater seen from the highway that runs beside the Depository with a dead deer next to it.

It is known that when the Bank of France was built in Paris in the 19th Century, a system for flooding the bank vaults was installed as a last-ditch defense against theft of the gold reserves held there. It has long been rumored that a similar system was installed at the Depository. Photos taken during construction of the building show there to be one level below ground, which most assumed to house the bullion vault. However, the film from the 1974 Congressional inspection, and information told by the former workers, indicates that much of the gold is housed in small "cells" running around the inner and outer perimeters of the main floor. It is said that there is an indoor firing range, equipment rooms and guard barracks in the lower level. While there may be more strongrooms holding gold in the lower level, if what was revealed in 1974 is correct flooding the lower level would not protect the gold. The thought does occur to me that the rumors have been fostered by the movie Goldfinger, in which a two-level vault was shown. Were that the case a flooding system would make sense, but with what the 1974 film reveals it does not.

It is true that at various times things other than bullion have been stored at Fort Knox. During World War II and on into the Cold War, a substantial supply of processed morphine and opium was kept there as a hedge against the United States being cut off from the sources of supply of raw opium. The invention of synthetic painkillers renders that exercise academic. It is known that the Crown Jewels of Hungary were sent there for safekeeping during World War II, and remained for more than 40 years before finally being returned to Hungary. Likewise, for a period of about three years the originals of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were stored there during the war.

The aforementioned documentary on Fort Knox claims that the British Crown Jewels were sent there during World War II as well. However, an episode of the History Channel series Underground discussing the city of Edinburgh claims the Crown Jewels were actually hidden in Edinburgh Castle, in the privy pit of what could be described as the Royal Fuehrerbunker when the castle was built. There is a mystery to be solved here.

As far as the gold itself, when the audit I mentioned earlier was done there was more than 5,000 tons of gold in the Depository. The gold is in bar form, about 7 inches by 3 1/2 inches by 1 1/2 inches per bar. Each bar weighs about 40 pounds. The bars are not easy to handle and it's very easy to crush your hand and break every bone in it if you are not extremely careful, according to the vault workers. Its very mass is one of its best protections against theft.

Bear in mind that when the bars were moved to Fort Knox in 1937, they moved by rail, with 506 railcar-trips required to do the job. However, let us assume we have found a way to get inside the vault and remove the gold from the strongrooms without destroying the building. What would it take to transport the gold reserves away?

Let's do the math. 50 bars @ 40 lbs/bar = 2000 lbs, one ton (short ton, that is; what Americans use for calculating weight ashore).

A standard semi-trailer has a maximum cargo weight of 80,000 lbs, or 40 tons. Each could hold 2000 bars, probably as two tiers on the floor of the trailer (and heaven help you if they shift on a curve).

Assuming a mere 5,000 tons of gold is in the Depository, it would require 125 tractor-trailer rigs or rig-trips to remove all the gold.

Try it by air and it gets even better. A Sikorsky Skycrane can lift about 18,000 pounds, or 9 tons. A standard 20 foot cargo container weight 2 tons, which cuts the available usable cargo weight to 7 tons. That works out to 715 chopper-trips to remove all the gold using the heaviest-lift helicopter available.

this leads me to conclude it would require the resources of either a major omnicorp or a rich foreign government to remove the gold from Fort Knox by force.

And, one assumes, the Army might have something to say about a bunch of people mucking about over at the gold vault. It was not placed on an Army post by accident, much less at the Armor Center where there is a division's-worth of Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and attack chopppers handy. Before you can go after the Depository, you have to figure out what to do about them. Somehow I don't think that gold is going anywhere any time soon.

There is a whole lot of rumor and not much of fact available concerning the Gold Depository at Fort Knox. I do know that were I the President, I would do as Harry Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt did and sign a Presidential Order allowing me to inspect the place. It's not open to tourists, never has been, and it would be a once in a lifetime opportunity to see more wealth in one place than even Bill Gates can boast.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.188.140 (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Private ownership of gold made illegal

In early 1933, as part of the New Deal, the U.S. Congress enacted a package of laws which removed gold from circulation as money, and which made private ownership of gold in the U.S. (except for coins in collections or jewelry such as wedding rings) illegal.

That's interesting; what was the name of the laws that made the ownership illegal, and are they still in force? A citation would be good for that part. → Synook 讲讲 12:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll find some information in this very interesting video documentation: The Money Masters - duration: 3h35--77.4.71.62 (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In need of citations

Citations are seemingly missing from quite a few sections of this page. CorrosiveSubstance (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Bill Still

Bill Still claims in his documentary film The Moneymasters that the gold in Fort Knox was shipped to Europe. He cites as part of his evidence the fact that a full audit of the gold has not been performed for many years. Maybe someone else could coroborate or refute this.

Note from reader: After recently watching this documentary, what I took from it is that no thorough audit of the gold reserve had been performed, but that the gold was not necessarily shipped to Europe. The suggestion that the gold is actually still guarded by the American taxpayer, but owned by foreign interests is a possibility.

Money Masters makes all kinds of ridiculous claims like that the US Civil War was fought because the Rothschilds were mad at the US. Apparently, according to money masters, Abraham Lincoln was pro slavery so, obviously, the war was fought for bankster reasons. They quote Lincoln as saying that he has no desire to dismantle the institution of slavery but fail to mention the political nuances Lincoln faced as he took office; he was trying to prevent the South from seceeding from the Union and causing a civil war. To Money Masters, this is proof of a vast conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.148.23 (talk) 05:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You paraphrase the arguments and do them an injustice. These ideas are not hard to believe and seem well based in reason and evidence. Facts should speak for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.158.127 (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pointless comparisons

There's a pedagogic habit of facilitating understanding of a difficult concept by comparison with something well-known. E.g., "Blue whales are as long as 10 story buildings".

There's a pointless "gee-whiz" kind of comparison made by poor teachers, where two things are compared that are both difficult concepts to apprehend. This is done, for example in "Ripley's Believe it or Not". E.g., "If all the currency printed in the United States was stacked, it would reach to the moon." or "If all the currency printed in the United States were laid end-to-end, it would go around the world eight times."

It's not just that the comparisons aren't lucid: They're endless.

There's no special point in describing the size of all the gold in the world, any more than there's a point to describing the weight of all the hummingbirds on earth, or the size of them, or the amount of food they eat, or the number of times their hearts beat in a lifetime, etc. Every article could have tiresome comparisons from someone who matched specs from two things, then got out a calculator.

Finally, the article isn't about gold, per se, it's about a depository. The commentary about size probably doesn't belong in the gold article, but it certainly doesn't belong here. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your concern is exemplary, and once the article becomes overburdened with a host of fantastical comparisons you will have my full support in paring them down. But this is a verifiable referenced addition, which is by definition not original research. Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia, and just the sort of place readers will come for such information. μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not just a geez whiz calc for the depository, for visualization of the gold it contains as a 20 foot cube give some idea of how much volume of gold the vaults must contain. It's really not very much unless spread out ridiculously. If all this were cast into a 2 story little building, it wouldn't even need fortification beyond a few people to make sure that people weren't whittling off bits at night. Nobody could possibly move a thing like that to steal it. As for the volume of gold ever mined, I don't think it really has a place in this article (though it's interesting in the article on gold, but I think it's useful to note that the USBD holds about 3% of all gold ever produced. If you don't mind, I'll go an fix it to THAT extent. SBHarris 02:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I heard the statistic on the radio and came here looking for it specifically. I found the statement fascinating and very illuminative.
The problem I have with replacing the actual numbers with the calculation is that the original numbers are from the source and the 3% number is an inexact editorial calculation - and takes even more space to say than the original edit. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't if you replace all the stuff about the volume and weight of all the gold ever mined, with the 3%. Which I think is certainly within the province of WP:CALC. Anyhow the rest of it, is in the article on gold, where it is more appropriate. What do we care how much gold there is, in this article on a vault that holds only 3% of it? It's the 3% number we want, no? SBHarris 03:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

But it's not 3%. With the same number of significant figures as the 34.7 it is 2.88 percent - which raises the question of where, exactly, did the 2.88% come from? The original number is more accurate, reflects the source, and takes less space to express. The desire to keep the full amount of refined/harvested gold in the world secret from the reader is an artificial one - the information is brief and will not hurt, burden or confuse the reader. Even if the desire to hide that amount from the reader were based on a rational premise, it still wouldn't outweigh the three desires to be concise and accurate and to reflect the source.

As an aside, WP:CALC deals with things such as allowing us to say that there are 535 members of the US federal legislature based on the fact that there are 100 Senators and 435 Congressman. It wouldn't justify the obscure remark that there are 4.35 times as many Congressman as Senators in the article on US Senate because we wanted to avoid saying that there are 435 Congressman in an article on the senate. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll be glad to change the 34.7 to 38. I tried 2.8% but it looks way too much like 28%, and besides, who cares if it's 2.8 vs. 3%. Do you really think we know these figures well enough to justify one over the other? We very well how much gold is in the USBD, but the amount of gold refined in human history MIGHT be known to 1 significant figure (25% of it has been lost), but I doubt it.

If you going to balk at an original division to compare one quantity to aother, you're going to have to give the total tonnes of gold refined in history (along with +/-, which I don't see in the original article), and let the reader do their own division, which they'll surely want to do after seeing the two numbers. That's silly. The WP table function contains all kinds of ratio-and-proportion spreadsheet stuff to generate figures that all violate THAT reading of CALC. Example: here somebody used the population of US states, and their number of electors, to calculate population per elector: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pop_per_elector.png. Wikipedia is full of this. It wouldn't be half as interesting without it. (BTW, just looked the original figure which gives 165,000 metric tonnes for gold ever mined. Divided by the amount in USBD, it comes out 4176/165,000 = 2.53 % = 2.5 to 2 sig figures, and the original figure for world total production is given to three sig figures. Is two good enough for the rato?). SBHarris 07:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What matters is what the sources say, not our opinion of their accuracy. (And your example of the population per elector is a poor analogy, since it is done to show a trend rather than, say, to hide the original figures from the reader) But the prior calculation of 1/34.7 of the converted approximate volumes was inaccurate, the forty percent figure calculated directly from weight is much better. The 165,600 vs 4176 tonnes amts both have four significant figures, but I think the "about 2.5%" is fine compared to 2.522%. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, looks like we're down to agreement, then. I can live with it, as it is. Anybody else still with an issue? SBHarris 22:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of conspiracy theory section

Another editor deleted this entire section (in good faith) as absurd and non-encyclopedic. The problem is that while the theory may be absurd, it nonetheless is widespread, and the existence of said theory, and of attention to it by members of Congress, is well-documented in the article. Exclusion of mention of the theory's existence would be inappropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes I did, and I did it again. You have given no proof that this theory is widespread or that members of congress have given attention to it. And the one cite you give is from an anti-Semitic nutjob. Vidor (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm looking at Google books and the sources aren't what I thought they'd be. They're there... but it's just a handful of books, I thought it would be in way more. Still, I was impressed that in a 1-hour documentary on this topic, the History Channel devoted a full segment to the theory and the congressional visit. I agree that if better sources can't be found, it should be removed. The current sources are a conspiracy guy and a 1981 government report... --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
      • And the report, mind you, is not in any way a cite supporting the thesis of the paragraph. The only cite is some random website written by an anti-Semite. Vidor (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Totally Wrong. The theory is mentioned during this hearing entitled "Investigating the Gold: H.R. 1495, the Gold Reserve Transparency Act and the Oversight of United States Gold Holdings," which was held on Thursday, June 23 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo4b8ZPlzrw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.189.130 (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Peter Beter and his publications are not reliable sources for Wikipedia. Nor is goldensextant.com. This stuff is all self-published. Beter may have a Wikipedia article, but his background does not qualify him as an authority on Fort Knox or UFOs. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 12:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A Google News archive search for "Fort Knox" + "Peter Beter" turned up zero hits. A similar search for "fort knox" + congress + audit turns up three hits[1][2][3] behind paywalls indicating some sort of audit was done in 1974 (the search also turned up 25+ other, unrelated hits). These articles are short and their headlines don't imply any sort of excitement or sensationalism. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 12:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't object to the removal now that I've looked more closely at the sources. You would have thought the spectacle of 13 congressman heading to Fort Knox to see if there was actually any gold there would have attracted more coverage! --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at the date. I suspect the press mostly ignored it as another embarassing junket; but coverage from that era is feeble online. Anybody looked at the Readers Guide for that era? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Nevertheless, there are multiple major publications such as the New York Times with all their content from that time available on line and crawed by Google. If this was a big deal in 1974, you'd have seen more coverage, starting with the NY Times, which gave only a passing mention to some sort of audit or inspection. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 20:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's not a common misconception, how come people like me keep coming to this article and wonder why there's no section explaining that the rumors are false. If I had not come here and read the lengthy discussion by one poster above, I would still be wondering if the gold was there. And if it's not a common misconception, why did the history channel do such a long discussion about it? Ywaz (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a "conspiracy theory"? Ask Fort Knox themselves. They will tell you the last time they were audited. And if they won't allow an audit now, you are left to fill in the blanks as to why... Even if the assertion is untrue, it is a widespread theorem of a quite unprecedented scandal which deserves mention in its own right. Suppression of the thought smacks of "I don't want to consider an enormous horrible truth - la la la la, can't hear you".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.158.127 (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There does appear to be significant verifiable evidence that the Bush regime looted all 3 major facilities and that they are all virtually empty, so the removal despite being in good faith should not have been done without serious discussion. The Bush regime ended the audits pf all major holding facilities which is a policy/practice/whatever that the Obama regime has continued.
There must be a significant reason for refusing to allow audits to determine what's left, legitimate reasons for which the only possible supposition is that the vaults are basically empty. The section which covered serious coverage backed by reasonable sources and references should be reinstated. Damotclese (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
[citation needed] --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is, there ARE no reasonable sources or references to such theories, only conspiracy theories, to include one that claims flying saucers are stored there. Why would audits not be held on a regular basis on a sealed vault? It's sealed and audits are expensive, as an assay is performed on handled gold.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
If you don't want to include the conspiracy theory because of lack of good sources, what about including information that can put people's mind to rest about them? Yes, the vault is sealed, but there must be an official procedure to add and remove inventory from the vault? What is that procedure? What safeguards are in place to ensure nothing is removed that shouldn't be? IE, Is it possible for high ranking officials to secretly have the gold removed to pay debts, manipulate the gold market, etc? If not then why not? The "Fort Knox is empty" theory showed up on "Decoded" on the History Channel this week. I came here looking for the likelihood of that being true.

155.39.88.241 (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the whole world is aware that the history channel now runs programs on aliens, UFOs, and big foot -that doesn't make them true. There is still no proof that the gold is missing from Ft. Knox. Eric M. Thorson, Inspector General, Department of the Treasury said in the above youtube video, the gold has not been all assayed for some time and they don't feel the need to as long as the vaults have remained sealed. This of course, assumes that no tampering was done to the seals. The only reason to open these vaults (my words, not his) would be to quell the doubts of conspiracy theorists. He estimated 6 months with 1,200 workers(which he doubted would ever fit in the small passageways)to complete the task. Some of the Congressmen questioned whether spending millions of taxpayer money was worth squashing conspiracy theories.

M015094 (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Bank has no Gold Bullion

No gold at the Fed! The physical gold bullion reserves of the Federal Reserve Bank have already been transferred to the Fort Knox Bullion Depository. In exchange, the Fed received gold certificates (non-redeemable, non-negotiable, non-usable so really just a bookkeeping device). This was publicly revealed on June 4, 2011 by Federal Reserve lawyer Scott Alvarez speaking with committee chairman Dr. Ron Paul. Ron Paul serves as chairman of the House Financial Subcomittee on Domestic Monetary Policy.

I will change that part about the Fed having greater bullion reserves than Ft. Knox.76.167.167.53 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Lynxx

Gold and coin holdings

I removed all the citation needed flags on the article as more than three becomes cluttered. placed a tag at the beginning of the article to help clarify. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 19:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the gold?

The article states: "Gold holdings peaked during World War II at 20,205 metric tons (649.6 million oz. troy). Today, holdings are 4,578 metric tons (147.2 million oz. troy)..."

What happened to the gold? Did it get sold on the open market to pay off debt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The US was on the gold standard at that time. So, any debt would incur the transfer of gold to satisfy the debt (oversimplified).Wzrd1 (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Size of equivalent gold cube

There has been some question about this. The calculation supplied by the last complainer used the volumes of the impure bars (some are 90%) and also messed up using areas instead of volumes.

Here's the simple calculation of dimentions of a 1.00000 fine (100%, 24 kt) cube of gold equivalent to present holdings. They are reported as 4578 metric tons (1 metric ton = 1000 kg). This is then 4.578 x 10^3 tons = 4.578 x 10^9 grams. Divide by the density of gold (19.3 g/cm^3) to get volume in cm^3: 2.37 x 10^8 cm^3. Take the cube root to get size of a cube of this volume: 6.19 x 10^2 cm. This is 6.19 m or 20.3 ft to 3 sig digits (all I have for the density of gold). This is very close to what has been in the article for some time. I'll just go ahead and make the slight correction. SBHarris 18:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody allowed inside grounds

I seem to recall Milton Freedman conducting an interview from inside there for his TV series Free to Choose. If so, this would conflict with the statement that nobody has ever been allowed inside except for the one time congressional visit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.248.199 (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:United States Bullion Depository/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I rated it as a 'Start' because its references aren't properly formatted and it could probably use an infobox. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

times

strictly speaking, a quantity two or ten times another quantity is an exponential increase. could those who put in mentions of "ten times" and other such uses of times please check the math and make sure that we are really talking about a figure which is truly ten times X or is instead simply a tenfold increase over X? officially, ten times is X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X, whereas tenfold is X*10. the difference between figures can be gigantic: nine times ten is 90, but the scientific exponential usage if X equals 10 would put a "nine times" figure at 3.4 trillion. it is important that the the author makes dead sure that the number conveved is the amount intended.Cramyourspam (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It has always been my understanding that word "times" is meant as a verbal synonym for the multiplication symbol. Do you have a source for this definition? I have not been able to locate one. CorrosiveSubstance (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, that is my own experience. I taught math for a number of years in both high school and elementary school and never have heard of "times" being used for exponentiation, but always for multiplication. It may be colloquial, but is used even by college professors. But perhaps in other countries, usage is different. After, the Brits insist on making math plural:-) Wschart (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Audit History?

I visited this page as a result of viewing "The Money Masters" on YouTube, specifically intererested in whether the depository had been officially audited and if so, when. I seem to recall a TV documentary (1990's?) that showed at least one room filled with gold bars, which was some evidence that removal was an empty theory, though it is not an audit. Please, can someone add a section on "auditing" including at least requirements, legal reference, and auditing history or external link to it (if there is any)? 98.234.68.23 (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)AlphaKid42

Yeah cause everything on youtube is true. Matter of fact, you ain't allowed to post any videos on you tube if they aren't verified true. I read that on youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.184.213 (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


Greetings, AK42, there have been a number of popularized television shows on such places at The History Channel and The Discovery Channel that have covered gold retention in the various major vaults however they utilize stock footage that has been carefully screened and provided by the U. S. Treasury or the non-governmental Federal Reserve Bank. There have been no actual audits of weights, densities, and physical measurements since the Bush regime.
Curiously, Freedom of Information Act requests on details on why audits have been suspended and for specific dates on when audits have been held over the past 20 years are denied on the grounds of "national security" which further stokes the conspiracy beliefs yet also lends credibility to the likelihood that our treasury has been looted to the point of obvious treason. Damotclese (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
[citation needed] --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of this? I came to this page after watching history channel and the possibility of no gold. Ron Paul has held congressional hearings on it and has a proposed bill to force a public audit which CNN has reported on. What more would it take to make it on wikipedia vs. 30 pages on Lady gaga? 04:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.14.125 (talk)