"I don't like "Rumors" & "Even Geniuses can Be Fooled when Facts are Manipulated"

"I don't like "Rumors" & "Even Geniuses can Be Fooled when Facts are Manipulated"

"I don't like "Rumors"


Have I ever mentioned that I strongly dislike "Rumors" they are lies made up to help promote dealers, Gurus, and sites that want to make money off of members . I have been reading rumors for years and have come to the conclusion that they are malicious and contemptible, with no regard for who they harm. (I don't care for them period end of story!!!)

For the "Record," I truly dislike rumors and the people that produce them!

Three things I dislike about the dinar world: (1) Rumors.....(2) Gurus/Pumpers......(3) the phrase "Please no Bashing"

Let me define these terms:

Rumor
*  1. a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts.
* 2. gossip; hearsay: Don't listen to rumor.

Guru/Pumper
* 1. derogatory often a leader or chief theoretician of a movement, esp a spiritual or religious cult
* 2. facetious often a leading authority in a particular field: a cricketing guru

Please no Bashing
*If no one draws attention to something that is so ridiculous and far fetched that some Guru/Pumper is saying, how is anyone going to know that it's ridiculous, and they should question the motives behind the lies. Also to not go spend their house payment on dinar or some site scheme to get the members money because rumors are being spread all over dinar sites!!!

I have been considered bullish in my thoughts and opinions of Rumors and those that continue to promote and allege predictions on the RV weekly. I think the majority of members of sites are very good people, but I also think they get caught up in the "Dinar World" and forget this is an investment. More important this is the future of a country, and anyone that tells you that it's going to be instant gratification is lying to you.

We are talking about a Country, a Country with a enormous amount of "Natural Resources and Future Potential" there is no room for error, they will do this thing right. It very well could be 2 or more years away, but as I have said it's a waiting game, patience is a virtue!!!

I'm glad to talk with members, and will try to answer questions about the real news, not rumors. I do not read the rumor section and when people are talking about them I simply leave because "Rumors" are nothing more then a useless "opinion" and not worth my time.


Below I'm going to give some examples that anyone can get taken in by lies and end-up getting hurt.

Anyone can distort the Fact's to fool even other Geniuses

I found this to be interesting in the fact that it shows anyone that can manipulate numbers and facts can in fact make something look anyway they wish. The problem with the Guru's doing this in the Dinar World is that people are spending money they should not be on Dinar. They are believing what they think is unquestionable facts, when in reality it is someone's interpretation. If you read the story of Hendrik Schon you will see that his Colleagues and Peers ( All Geniuses) thought he was brilliant. They never questioned his work, he was considered one of the "youngest great minds ever." Schon had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics in 2001, the Braunschweig Prize in 2001 and the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002. Schon acknowledged that the data were incorrect in many of these papers. He claimed that the substitutions could have occurred by honest mistake. He admitted to having falsified some data and stated he did so to show more convincing evidence for behavior that he observed. Does this sound a lot like the Guru's?

Jan Hendrik Schön (born 1970 in Verden) is a German physicist who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs that were later discovered to be fraudulent. Before he was exposed, Schön had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics in 2001, the Braunschweig Prize in 2001 and the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002, which was later rescinded.

The Schön scandal provoked discussion in the scientific community about the degree of responsibility of coauthors and reviewers of scientific papers. The debate centered on whether peer review, traditionally designed to find errors and determine relevance and originality of papers, should also be required to detect deliberate fraud.

Rise to prominence

Schön's field of research was condensed matter physics and nanotechnology.[2] He received his Ph.D. from the University of Konstanz in 1997. In late 1997 he was hired by Bell Labs, located in New Jersey, USA. Here, he worked on electronics in which conventional semiconducting elements (such as silicon) were replaced by crystalline organic materials. Specific organic materials can conduct electrical currents, and in a so-called field-effect transistor (pioneered in 1947 in the same laboratory) the conductance can be switched on or off, a basic function in the field of electronics. Schön however claimed spectacular on/off behavior, far beyond anything achieved thus far with organic materials. His measurements in most cases confirmed various theoretical predictions, for example that the organic materials could be made to display superconductivity or used as laser. The findings were published in prominent scientific publications, including the journals Science and Nature, and gained worldwide attention. However, no research group anywhere in the world succeeded in reproducing the results claimed by Schön.

In 2001 he was listed as an author on an average of one newly published research paper every eight days. In that year he announced in Nature that he had produced a transistor on the molecular scale. Schön claimed to have used a thin layer of organic dye molecules to assemble an electric circuit that, when acted on by an electric current, behaved as a transistor. The implications of his work were significant. It would have been the beginning of a move away from silicon-based electronics and towards organic electronics. It would have allowed chips to continue shrinking past the point at which silicon breaks down, and therefore continue Moore's Law for much longer than is currently predicted. It also would have drastically reduced the cost of electronics.

A key element in Schön's claimed successful observation of various physical phenomena in organic materials was in the transistor setup. Specifically, a thin layer of aluminium oxide which Schön incorporated in the transistors using lab-facilities of the University of Konstanz in Germany. Although the equipment and materials used were commonly used by laboratories all over the world, no one succeeded in preparing aluminium oxide layers of similar quality as claimed by Schön.

Allegations and investigation

As recounted by Dan Agin in his book Junk Science, soon after Schön published his work on single-molecule semiconductors, others in the physics community alleged that his data contained anomalies. Professor Lydia Sohn, then of Princeton University, noticed that two experiments carried out at very different temperatures had identical noise.[2] When the editors of Nature pointed this out to Schön, he claimed to have accidentally submitted the same graph twice. Professor Paul McEuen of Cornell University then found the same noise in a paper describing a third experiment. More research by McEuen, Sohn and other physicists, uncovered a number of examples of duplicate data in Schön's work. This triggered a series of reactions that quickly led Lucent Technologies (which ran Bell Labs) to start a formal investigation.[4]

In May 2002 Bell Labs set up a committee to investigate with Professor Malcolm Beasley of Stanford University as chair.[5] The committee obtained information from all of Schön's coauthors, and interviewed the three principal ones (Zhenan Bao, Bertram Batlogg and Christian Kloc). It examined electronic drafts of the disputed papers which included processed numeric data. The committee requested copies of the raw data but found that Schön had kept no laboratory notebooks. His raw-data files had been erased from his computer. According to Schön the files were erased because his computer had limited hard drive space. In addition, all of his experimental samples had been discarded, or damaged beyond repair.[2][5]

On September 25, 2002, the committee publicly released its report.[5] The report contained details of 24 allegations of misconduct. They found evidence of Schön's scientific misconduct in at least 16 of them. They found that whole data sets had been reused in a number of different experiments. They also found that some of his graphs, which purportedly had been plotted from experimental data, had instead been produced using mathematical functions.[5]

The report found that all of the misdeeds had been performed by Schön alone. All of the coauthors (including Bertram Batlogg who was the head of the team) were exonerated of scientific misconduct. This sparked widespread debate in the scientific community on how the blame for misconduct should be shared among co-authors, particularly when they share significant part of the credit.

Aftermath and sanctions

Schön acknowledged that the data were incorrect in many of these papers. He claimed that the substitutions could have occurred by honest mistake. He admitted to having falsified some data and stated he did so to show more convincing evidence for behaviour that he observed.

Experimenters at Delft University of Technology and the Thomas J. Watson Research Center have since performed experiments similar to Schön's. They did not obtain similar results. Even before the allegations had become public, several research groups had tried to reproduce most of his spectacular results in the field of the physics of organic molecular materials without success.

Schön returned to Germany and took a job at an engineering firm. In June 2004 the University of Konstanz issued a press release stating that Schön's doctoral degree had been revoked due to "dishonourable conduct". Department of Physics spokesman Wolfgang Dieterich called the affair the "biggest fraud in physics in the last 50 years" and said that the "credibility of science had been brought into disrepute". Schön appealed the ruling, but on October 28, 2009 it was upheld by the University. In response, Schön sued the University, and appeared in court to testify on September 23, 2010. The court overturned the University's decision on September 27, 2010 meaning that Schön can keep his doctoral degree. In November 2010 the University moved to appeal the court's ruling.

In October 2004, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, the German Research Foundation) Joint Committee announced sanctions against him. The former DFG post-doctorate fellow was deprived of his active right to vote in DFG elections or serve on DFG committees for an eight-year period. During that period, Schön will also be unable to serve as a peer reviewer or apply for DFG funds.

View Withdrawn Journal Papers and More:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
http://yclept.ucdavis.edu/course/280/Schoen.Yin.pdf


I watched the documentary on this guy. His peers were amazed at his results, they stated they were intimidated by him as they had never seen anyone ever be as accurate in his predicted result and his actual result.
This is a completely true story and shows just how someone with a great personality and is a master manipulator can fool even the most brilliant people in the world.

Read the following article from "The Wall Street Journal" and see if any of it rings a bell.

"How Bernie Madoff Made Smart Folks Look Dumb"

What do George Carlin and Bernard Madoff have in common?

The late comedian immortalized oxymorons, those absurd word pairs like "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence." Mr. Madoff just put the silliest of all financial oxymorons into the spotlight: "sophisticated investor."

The accounts managed by Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC reported gains of roughly 1% a month like clockwork, with nary a loss, for two decades. Why did that freakishly smooth return not set off alarms among current and prospective investors?

Of all people, sophisticated investors like Mr. Madoff's clients should know that if something sounds too good to be true, then it's not. But they believed it anyway. Why?


Mr. Madoff emphasized secrecy, lending his investment accounts a mysterious allure and sense of exclusivity. The initial marketing often was in the hands of what one source described as "a macher" (the Yiddish term for a big shot). At the country club or another exclusive rendezvous, the macher would brag, "I've got my money invested with Madoff and he's doing really well." When his listener expressed interest, the macher would reply, "You can't get in unless you're invited...but I can probably get you in."

Robert Cialdini, a psychology professor at Arizona State University and author of "Influence: Science and Practice," calls this strategy "a triple-threat combination." The "murkiness" of a hedge fund, he says, makes investors feel that it is "the inherent domain of people who know more than we do." This uncertainty leads us to look for social proof: evidence that other people we trust have already decided to invest. And by playing up how exclusive his funds were, Mr. Madoff shifted investors' fears from the risk that they might lose money to the risk they might lose out on making money.

If you did get invited in, then you were anointed a member of this particular club of "sophisticated investors." Once someone you respect went out of his way to grant you access, says Prof. Cialdini, it would seem almost an "insult" to do any further investigation. Mr. Madoff also was known to throw investors out of his funds for asking too many questions, so no one wanted to rock the boat.

This members-only feeling blinded many buyers of Mr. Madoff's funds to the numerous red flags fluttering around his operation. When you are in an exclusive private club, you do not go rummaging around in the kitchen to make sure that the health code is being followed.

Here we have the biggest dirty secret of the "sophisticated investor": Due diligence often goes undone. For a brief window in 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission required hedge funds to file standardized disclosure forms. William Goetzmann, a finance professor at Yale School of Management, found that hedge funds disclosing legal or regulatory problems and conflicts of interest ended up with lower future performance. But the disclosure of these risks had no impact at all on how much money flowed into the hedge funds.

In other words, investors were getting useful information -- and paying no attention to it. Amaranth Advisors LLC, the commodity hedge fund that collapsed in 2006 with $6 billion in losses, did not even file the required SEC form at the beginning of that year, a clear signal that something might be wrong. Instead of standing pat or pulling money out, investors poured more money in.

Last year, the Greenwich Roundtable, a nonprofit that researches alternative investments, conducted a survey of consultants, pension plans, "family offices," funds of funds and other large investors who shop for hedge funds. It's hard to imagine a more sophisticated crowd.

Yet one out of five investors in the survey reported that they "always follow" not a formal checklist or analytical procedure, but rather "an informal process" of due diligence.

That's for sure. One out of four investors surveyed will write a check without having studied the financial statements of the fund. Nearly one in three will not always run a background check on fund managers; 6% may not even read the prospectus before ever committing money.

"Due diligence," says Stephen McMenamin of the Greenwich Roundtable, "is the art of asking good questions." It's also the art of not taking answers on faith.

If you invest with anyone who claims never to lose money, reports amazingly smooth returns, will not explain his strategy, refuses to disclose basic information or discuss potential risks, you're not sophisticated. You're an oxymoron.

Email: intelligentinvestor@wsj.com

Correction & Amplification
Amaranth Advisors LLC was exempt from a 2006 requirement to file disclosure forms with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This article incorrectly states that Amaranth was subject to this rule.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122912266389002855.html

This is a response to my thread on another site which is a very intelligent response, the member that wrote it is a very smart man that I have much respect for.

Rockhopper response:

Figures don't lie. But liars will figure.
I don't need money and could totally do without it. I wish more people viewed money and wealth as I do. Unfortunately, all those people I owe just seem to think they have to have it.