Ever Seen a Fraudclosure Auction?

reply to post by schuyler

Hawkeye is one of these "quote" respond, "quote" respond "quote" respond guys.

Actually I responded to you several times without doing that but you keep repeating non-sense so I decided to break down your argument which you now conveniently refuse to read...

I'm not. I can't wade through that junk especially since it makes no sense whatsoever

Thank you for admitting you don't even read most of my explanations. Perhaps this is the key to your ignorance of the subject; refusal to give anything that disagrees with your paradigm an objective hearing and research.

that he continually calls people names, calls them ignorant, and generally does whatever he can to anger you. I find this method of argument dispicable at best and it certainly violates the laws of logic. I couldn't be around a guy like this physically. He could easily drive someone to violence. He seems incapable of debating without high emotion and sneering, and this makes him ineffective.

Perhaps you should clean your own doorstep first before accusing me. It is the naysayers here who began name calling like moron and hag etc. So perhaps I responded a bit harshly but I did not return the name calling to anyone specifically. Saying one is ignorant or foolish is not name calling, it is an accurate observation of the knowledge of several on this thread.. I find it humorous you accuse me of high emotion right after refusing to wade through my break down of your argument and calling it junk without reading it. Don't want to be confused by the facts?

Hawkeye insists there's no real money here. He says the Promissory Note IS the money and that is spontaneously created by the Note itself. Am I not correct here so far? He also says the bank makes "millions" off of my $100,000 loan. Surely that is hyperbole. They "make" about $40,000 if they are lucky. He also says I have been hoodwinked into 30 years of "slavery" over a fraudulent deal.

As soon as the bank deposits the note for 100,000 they increase their assets by 1,000,000 under fractional reserve laws (talk about money from nothing) So do you still believe the banks can't create money on the spot? This is why they pull out all the stops to get people to take out loans, refinance etc. this is how the majority of money is created in this country and around the world. (it is the lifeblood of the system. if banks stopped making loans there would be no more money and the FRNS circulating would be too few and instant major depression. So they would print more FRNS causing inflation. This recession is happening because fewer people are getting loans now as banks inflated themselves out of the market)

So anyway there is 1 mil right there, they then sell the note at least four times using derivatives, there's another couple mill but they usually do this many more times then that. However lets keep it conservative and say they just made the 1 mill then the sold the note for 8o grand gee what a sweet deal for the bank they make a mil right out of the gate plus another 80 grand on selling the note and then they charge you over 30 years and you pay them another 200 grand at least when you figure the interest in. So if you got the house after just signing the promissory note still think it was free? The least they could do is give you the house for enriching them to the tune of a million plus using your credit, but no the greedy bastards proceed to enslave you for 30 years. on top of it all for the privilege of using your credit to enrich themselves

let me simplify it for you under fractional reserve. If I could do the same thing then if I have $100 in my pocket I can give you a loan for $900. So where does the $900 come from? Nowhere and that is exactly what the banks do and why it is called money from nothing. This is where the 75 trillion dollar debt comes from . We and our property we THINK we own, is collateral on the debt and for the bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES from 1933 which is well documented. The Mafia wishes they had a scam this good!

Should I get a free house out of this deal? If there is really no loan and if I really am not obligated to pay it back, then I just got a $110,000 house for a down payment of $10,000. Talk about fraud. THAT would be fraud. Why should I get a free house out of this deal? Bear in mind that our seller is happy and content.

Of course this is a false characterization of what's going on. I have explained it several times now. To simplify it; If I claim to loan you money but instead of giving it to you I claim I will give it the seller. But later you find out that never happened and that I really had no money to loan and I instead used your credit card to transfer funds to the seller but got you to pay payments to me for the next 30 years thinking I loaned you money then I would be committing fraud. For all practical purposes that is exactly what the banks do. I know you believe otherwise which is why I say people need to do their homework because if you are honest with yourself you have never looked in to how this really works and are just repeating a belief with no real knowledge of how it actually works. I know I used to believe the same way like everyone else until I did my homework.

I see one area where I think Hawkeye gets his idea. It's just that he runs with it in the wrong direction. It's the BORROWER who is doing the sleight of hand here, not the bank. Upon closing the borrower is the one who gets full title to the property, just like Hawkeye says. Check.

No you do not get full title you get an aliened title through the fraud of the bank who now owns the property because you gave it away to them after already paying for the property in full using legal tender of the UNITED STATES.

Then it is the BORROWER who immediately puts up the property that is now his as collateral for the loan he has not yet paid. That's the miracle part of the transaction. If you went to the bank and said, "Give me $100,000." they would demand you put up some collateral. here the thing you are buying is itself the collateral. (same thing with a car loan.)

What loan? Prove there is a loan! You can't and and neither can the bank. Show me the paper trail of the money that was on account that the bank drew from, that they loaned to you? If they wrote a check then it has an account number. So ask the bank to show the records of that account number during the time of the transaction so we can see where the money came from that was deposited into that account? Of course you have never done this but I and several others have. Which is why I say you speak in ignorance. They will not do it and the reason why is that account did not exist until you signed a promissory note and they deposited it into that account, if they show the account they will expose their fraud. So they play games and say the paper work is lost etc.

LOL at the borrower using slight of hand here! Where in the hell did you come up with that non-sense? How many borrowers do you know that read the mortgage contract and papers before they sign it? Most of them still haven't read it after the fact and just took some bank or escrow agents word for it on how it supposedly worked. By the way most agents don't understand how it works either. I have heard them tell people you don't need to understand that or don't worry about it and people sign it anyway.

If it actually worked like most believe it does it would be real simple for the bank to prove it, and this would have been put to bed long ago. But no bank to date can prove they loaned money and the law states they cannot use their own assets to back a loan and so they use YOUR ASSET which is your credit in signing a promissory note, which is legal tender of the UNITED STATES according to law, some of which I already posted. Which is why people by the thousands and growing are now taking on these banks and many have won.

Let's take the bank out of the equation for a moment. Let's say I borrowed this money from my mother-in-law. Exact same loan. Exact same interest rate. Exact same Deed of Trust. Exact same Promissory Note. Exact same recording at the County. The only difference here physically is that my mother-in-law's name is in the place of where the bank's name would go. No difference. Now go ask my mother-in-law if she thinks this money was spontaneously created. Heavens, no, it was not. Her bank account is now $100,000 less rich than it was before.

No, the difference is your mother in law had the money sitting in an account somewhere and she can easily prove it. And she does not have a fraud system of statutory policy that would allow her to play the shell game with a promissory note, and increase her assets times 9 based on the note. That ought to tell you something when the banks refuse to show proof of where the money came from like your mother in law could do in a heart beat.

But she has a pretty cool asset now because if I pay as promised, she stands to make about $40,000 on this deal.

It is not an asset and no bank would consider it an asset in giving her credit, it is a liability until it is paid. But the note is legal tender and the banks know this. If someone owed you money would you consider that an asset? No of course not is it not an asset until it is paid back with interest.

The one overriding question I have that has not been answered is this: Why am I entitled to a free house?

As I explained above the house was not free you enriched the bank using your credit by at least a million eighty the least they could do is give you the house. However to take it a step further all our labor, property, and wealth, is pledged as collateral on the national debt this is how the government goes into debt we are the collateral and this elaborate scheme to use credit as money instead of sound money so the Federal reserve and all the banks (who by the way are all agents of the federal reserve) could create as much as they want at will. This is coming to a head hence the meltdown. According to the constitution our property cannot be taken without just compensation. So our ability to write promissory notes as legal tender to discharge debts was given to us in law when they took our money. But they were not obligated to inform us, as it is all in the law for us to read. However in our ignorance greedy elites and politicians saw the opportunity to take even further advantage of us and so now generations have grown up believing what you state is how things are supposed to work not understanding the reality of what's going on.

"Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, stated,

“Under the new law, the money is issued to the banks in return for Government obligations, bills of exchange, drafts, notes, trade acceptances, and bankers acceptances. The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the nation.” (which lawfully belongs to these private citizens.)

The National Debt is defined is defined as “mortgages on the wealth and income of the people of a country.” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1959.)
Their wealth, their income…"

Section 16 of the current Federal Reserve Act, codified at 12 USC 411, declares that “Federal Reserve Notes” are “obligations of the United States”.

So, we see the “full faith and credit” of the United States: which is the substance of the American citizenry: their real property, wealth, assets and productivity that belongs to them, is thereby hypothecated and re-hypothecated by the United States to its obligations as well as to the Federal Reserve for the issuance and backing of Federal Reserve Notes as legal tender “for all taxes, customs, and other public dues”.

Under the 14th amendment and numerous Supreme Court precedents, as well as in equity, PRIVATE property cannot be taken or pledged for public use without just compensation, or due process of law. The United States cannot pledge or risk the property and wealth of its private citizens, for any government purpose without legally providing them remedy to recover what is due them on their risk.

The provisions for this are found in the same act of “Public Policy” HJR-192, public law 73-10 that suspended the gold standard for our currency, abrogated the right to demand payment in gold, and made Federal Reserve Notes for the first time legal tender, “backed by the substance or “credit of the nation”.

Firstly the bank never leant you anything of theirs - they create new money for the loan, this causes inflation which devalues everyone elses money - so they are effectively stealing the value from everyone elses money when they provide the previous owner with the money. The bank is required to own 1 dollar for evey 9 or so they lend out - but they don't lend that 1 dollar out - all the money is created. At this point. The house was paid for in full before you even signed the loan papers.
After this the only thing of value that is provided by either party in the transaction is your signiture on the promissory note - that signiture is a promise to pay the loan.

The promissory note starts out referring to you as the borrower. It talks about the borrower’s promise to pay. Following those words, it says,“In return for a loan that I have received.”
then “I promise to pay,” followed by the amount.
did you catch that? this is the real magic - it says "In return for a loan that I have received"
When you went to sign all the documents for your mortgage, had you already received a “loan”? THIS IS THE TRAP
The note that you signed says at the very top, “In return for a loan that I have received.” What this is telling you is that you received a loan sometime before the date that you signed the note - you never recieved that loan, it never touched your hands because it was taken from everyone elses moneys value and given straight to the owner of the other house.

The banks accept these promissory note documents as negotiable instruments and treat them like a cashier’s check or a cash deposit. That promissory note becomes a cash deposit to the bankers who deposit it into their account. It becomes cash to the bankers, you paid off your house with cash as far as the bank is concerned,by signing that promissory note. They can now use this note to lend 10 times more money out - it is cash value.

I know what youre thinking - how can this work, you have not given them any money but really your signiture is the money, let's assume me and you want to trade something and both of us have no money I give you a promise to pay, you want something from me and give me a promise to pay which equals my promise plus a bit more - this is how the whole system works when we take a loan the money is created through a promise to pay, and the value of that money that is given to you is taken from everyone else through inflation - in the same way you gave the bank a promise to pay with your signiture - that was your payment, because it is the same as money.

Understanding the debt based system is where it all begins.

This is simply smoke and mirrors. It's what good lawyers do, I guess, You're taking a fairly straightforward transaction, adding a bunch of words to it, and acting as if nothing ever existed.

HOW can I get a $110,000 house for $10,000? Your suggesting because the bank didn't "really" loan me money (which is entirely speculative and unproven) that I get a $110,000 house for free. Yet I have paid only the down payment for it. That is patently ridiculous. I believe I SHOULD pay for that house, either in full at the time of purchase, or over time with interest. That's a privilege to be able to do that. You can't do it everywhere where credit is unavailable. I'm not a "slave" because I pay the equivalent of rent for 15 years and wind up owning a substantial asset free & clear. That's absurd.

In my opinion, people who are advocating this are guilty of fraud. I don't doubt that you could get a feeble judge to grant a motion once in awhile, but I predict your entire scam will fail on the whole. You are living in a dream world.

Originally posted by schuyler
This is simply smoke and mirrors. It's what good lawyers do, I guess, You're taking a fairly straightforward transaction, adding a bunch of words to it, and acting as if nothing ever existed.

HOW can I get a $110,000 house for $10,000? Huh?

Nothing the bank "loaned" ever existed as pointed out above it was created.
Why pay $10,000?
You can get a house for free just by claiming it, you can claim land and a house if owned by the crown by simply writing notice of understanding - which outlines your understanding of the law and a claim of right - which states what you are claiming. Giving the crown/government a certain timeframe to respond to it shows that you have lawfully given them a chance to deny your request and correct your understanding. Nothing is illegal if you believe you are following the law - this is called a lawful excuse. You can show your understanding of the law with a notice of understanding.
Ofcorse they will come after you - but then you can use lawful excuse to show the court you legally claimed this property and gave them a legal document with a timeframe to respond, you can show that your understanding of the law allowed you to do this therefore you have not acted illegaly because you have lawful excuse..

Why are there not court cases showing this?
Because any case where this happens there was no verdict the case will simply be dismissed - and is therefore not a public record.

"Claim of right" Defense successful for protesters who done millions of dollars damage to US spy base in NZ

Originally posted by schuyler
In my opinion, people who are advocating this are guilty of fraud. I don't doubt that you could get a feeble judge to grant a motion once in awhile, but I predict your entire scam will fail on the whole. You are living in a dream world.

edit on 3/11/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

No people who are not doing this are guilty of ignorance of not understanding what our money is. If you actually take the time to watch the video down the bottom I posted you will see how the monetry system works - this is not conspiracy theory it is fact.

Question: Ever wonder why every country in the world is in debt - who do they owe the money to?

Answer: The money never existed, money is created when a loan is taken out - the value of that money is taken off the existing money in the system. Your signiture on a loan is the value because it allows them to create the money.

Please watch the video, and you can thank me afterwards for showing you the biggest scam in the history of man kind. I understand why you feel the way you do - I once did to until I looked at what people were trying to show me. Now I feel that the system is commiting the fraud through deception - not us. One more thing to convince you to watch the video if you are not already - the US debt is $14 Trillion but only $853.2 billion in notes and 2.585 trillion in coins is in ciculation - how can it be repaid?

Originally posted by schuyler
This is simply smoke and mirrors. It's what good lawyers do, I guess, You're taking a fairly straightforward transaction, adding a bunch of words to it, and acting as if nothing ever existed.

HOW can I get a $110,000 house for $10,000? Your suggesting because the bank didn't "really" loan me money (which is entirely speculative and unproven) that I get a $110,000 house for free. Yet I have paid only the down payment for it. That is patently ridiculous. I believe I SHOULD pay for that house, either in full at the time of purchase, or over time with interest. That's a privilege to be able to do that. You can't do it everywhere where credit is unavailable. I'm not a "slave" because I pay the equivalent of rent for 15 years and wind up owning a substantial asset free & clear. That's absurd.

In my opinion, people who are advocating this are guilty of fraud. I don't doubt that you could get a feeble judge to grant a motion once in awhile, but I predict your entire scam will fail on the whole. You are living in a dream world.

edit on 3/11/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

Great response with lots of facts and cites of law....

Dude I posted a site with dozens of cases where it has been proven this is not the simple straight forward transaction like grandma had the money in an account and loaned it to you. Wake up read byteshertz and my posts, watch the videos and learn. Otherwise I want to make you a loan as I am a private banker...

Originally posted by hawkiye
Great response with lots of facts and cites of law....

Dude I posted a site with dozens of cases where it has been proven this is not the simple straight forward transaction like grandma had the money in an account and loaned it to you. Wake up read byteshertz and my posts, watch the videos and learn. Otherwise I want to make you a loan as I am a private banker...

And a great way to avoid the essential question here. I am not a lawyer. Are you? How is it that I can get a free house? THAT'S what you are telling me I can do. The bank didn't really loan me any money. They can't prove they did, therefore I don't have to pay them. Isn't that the basics of your argument?

Yet here I am in a free house that is ALL MINE without paying a dime. Not only do I not have the money to buy it, I haven't even got the job to earn the money to buy it.

Please explain to me how I get a free house out of this deal.

And I decline your offer of a loan as I own my house free & clear and have no debt. Thanks anyway.

reply to post by schuyler

And a great way to avoid the essential question here. I am not a lawyer. Are you? How is it that I can get a free house? THAT'S what you are telling me I can do.

.

No thats not what i am telling you that's what you keep telling yourself despite my explaining it to you several times. You loaned the bank your credit to which they made millions. Shouldn't you be compensated for that like anyone who loans money to another? After all that is all that money is in our system; credit. The bank deceived you into thinking they loaned you money, when it is in fact you who loaned them money. Your credit is yours not the banks, they used it to make millions and charged you for the privilege by lying to you.

You have admitted you won't "wade through that junk" if you really want to understand this I suggest you read the recent posts and watch the recent videos posted instead of just ignoring it all and insisting you would be getting a free house over and over. Look at the many cases I posted links to etc.

Otherwise there is no point in continuing to respond to you since you just repeat your incorrect belief of what happens. You even made an analogy that proves the banks don't loan money in the Grandma loaning you the money analogy, grandma can easily prove she had money in an account she loaned you. If the banks were doing the same thing how much easier would it be for them to prove it? But they do not because they cannot because they never did it. That is why people are winning their cases. They stole your credit and claimed it was a loan originating from them when it originated from you.

How do the banks make "millions" off my measly $100,000 "credit"? If this were true, banks could never ever fail.

Originally posted by schuyler
How do the banks make "millions" off my measly $100,000 "credit"? If this were true, banks could never ever fail.

Do you not understand fractional reserve? 100,000 means 1,000,000 to the banks. I have explained it at least 3 times in the posts you refuse to wade through. Do some reading. Or watch one of those videos. The banks are failing because when you create money from nothing you inflate the currency devaluing its purchasing power to the point of failure. Hence the 2008 crash which is just a prelude to the mother of all crashes.

I believe this poppycock theory about as much as I believe Billy Meier actually went back in time to see the dinosaurs. It's a great conspiracy theory, really, and given this site, well, why not? But it has as much chance of being true as Scientology has of reflecting reality.

The story seems to boil down to this. The fact that I sign a Promissory Note to a bank for a loan of $100,000 somehow generates that money automatically and allows the bank to "make millions" (literally) on the fact that I signed a note, regardless that I have not paid a dime on it, have not earned the money to pay it back yet, and, staistically, may not pay it back at all. By using words like "derivitives" and "ratios" I am supposed to believe that this piece of paper turns into ten, twenty, thirty, even more times money that the note represents by the fraudulent manipulation of the banks themselves. How this is done is a murky and hidden affair, never explained in lay terms.

But it gets even better. Because the bank can't prove to someone's satisfaction who has a vested interest in not paying this money back I'm now supposed to believe that I do not have to pay this money back and I've got myself a free house, or at least one for only the down payment. The reason for this is because I "should be compensated" for the fact that the bank made millions off my $100K note, something that has not been proven at all. That's not part of the Promissory Note. It's not part of the Deed of Trust. Nowhere is there even a hint of compensation deserved, and certainly not in the exact amount of this fake loan the bank gave me. It's just that hawkeye has decided on his own accord that this is fair and just compensation.

This whole idea that the note created the money is absurd. And if it were left at that it would widely be seen as such, but as you've seen here, it takes forever and a day just to get them to tell you what in Heaven's name they are talking about. Then they throw in the heart strings, the "You're throwing my grandkid out of the house" and the "Bankers are horrible creatures" cards. This emotional villification is a sick person's toy, but weave it altogether with some shrieking, a lot of emotion and tears, and this just perpetuates the fraud.

I don't let the bankers off the hook entirely because they have been too eager to close sales and make commissions, especially when they knew they could sell those mortgages elsewhere and move the risk away from them. But they also caved to political pressure every time Jesse Jackson blamed the big bad banks for discrimination because they would not loan to "poor people" who would never be able to pay back the loans anyway. But hey. The Race Card does wonders in America. Accuse someone of racism and they will bend over backwards to prove it's not so, including making shoddy loans to high credit risk people.

Then you have people like my son-in-law, who runs scams of his own. Here's how it works. A few years he bought a house for about $195K. Nice house in a nice neighborhood, but it wasn't enough because he wanted to live on the lake. But the lake house cost over $900K. Hmm. What to do? Ah ha! Mortgage the first house for all it was worth, about $300K in a growing spiraling market, then rent it out, so here he had "created" $250K or so by taking a loan on the equity of his house, plus the original loan. Use THAT money as a down payment on the $900K+ lake house, thus incurring house payments in the $4000+ range. But we're not done. The housing market kept going up and the lake house was now worth $1.2 million. So he refinanced for $1 million, took THAT cash back out and bought a pick-up, a boat, granite countertops, the whole nine yards with house payments in the $5-6,000 range. So then what happens?

a) The septic system fails, and b) The housing market tanks. So now he's faced with a lake house that needs serious repairs that is worth in the $500K range, and his original house now worth less than he paid for it. Both his houses are severely underwater. And the thing is, had he just stayed put in the old house he would have had it paid off by now with plenty of money to buy a boat he rarely uses. He would have been debt free, but his avarice caused him to make some seriously stupid decisions that have affected his entire life for decades to come.

So there's plenty of greed to go around. People who actually follow through on this "I don't owe anything" shuld have their houses thrown away, and those who help them ought to do hard time.

reply to post by schuyler

The story seems to boil down to this. The fact that I sign a Promissory Note to a bank for a loan of $100,000 somehow generates that money automatically and allows the bank to "make millions" (literally) on the fact that I signed a note, regardless that I have not paid a dime on it, have not earned the money to pay it back yet,

You can believe what you want. Fractional reserve is a well known fact that is the very foundation of the banking system not even the banksters will dispute that. You have no evidence to the contrary.

You have part of it right yes it magically morphs into 9 times its face value that s called FRACTIONAL RESERVE. They can loan 9 times what the actually have in assets. So how do you loan that which doesn't exist? Think about it man! Even if you don't believe the note funds the transaction the note is considered an asset and as soon as they record an asset they now can loan 9 times its face value. So where does the money come from then that they are able to loan (9 times the face value) when it did not exist just prior to them recording the asset?

Update: In fact lets take the note out of the equation and say you deposited 100,000 FRNS in an account. They can now loan 900,000 so where does the other 900,000 come from? It didn't exist a couple minutes before you made the deposit? Now think about the thousands of loans they do daily across the country and you can begin to see how the inflate the bubble into the stratosphere.

So there's plenty of greed to go around. People who actually follow through on this "I don't owe anything" shuld have their houses thrown away, and those who help them ought to do hard time.

And thus we see how people can be scammed and brainwashed and so adamant about thier illusions despite a ton of evidence and cases proving the contrary, that they will even wish violence and imprisonment on those who threaten to expose thier illusions and crash thier false paradigms. Many of them in thier illusions are going to war or sending their kids to war for the banksters. They are also the officers of government, their henchmen as it were, enforcing tyranny, slavery, theft, and extortion on thier fellow man. As I said ignorance is bliss, however wilful ignorance to the point of wishing harm on others for exposing the truth is just plain stupidity.

You sir are the epitome of what is wrong with America today.You are part of the problem not the solution. May your karma not be so harsh on you in your ignorance...

reply to post by schuyler

I believe that their scam has compromised the property rights of many of the houses in the US.
I don't really see where what they've done to the title to these houses as being much different than me going out and renting a car and neglecting to insure the thing, and then driving it into a river!!
The company is gonna want the car back, and well, since it's damaged, they are gonna want compensation for the damage.
walk into a few gift stores or antique shops and you will more than likely begin to see signs that say:
you break it, you've bought it....
they are quite common, and they've been around long enough for me to believe that is a perfectly legal policy....
so well, the banks broke it!! their race to riches caused them to be extremely careless recording the transfer of the note, and thus the property is attached to that note!! now, they have no idea who legally owns the note, and whoever does, well, if they don't get paid, a they can come back and foreclose on the house....
they don't know who the heck owns it, the owner probably doesn't either but that is beside the point, so how do they know that my payment is reaching the correct place?? when I do pay it off, the owner of that note is gonna have to sign it to release the claim on the house...is the one who signs it, really gonna be the owner???

there has been lawmakers in congress and on state level voicing this concern, also, so it isn't just that I got it wrong!!
I'm not saying I deserve to have the house, as far as I am concerned, the US taxpayers done chipped in enough to pay for every mortgage in the country, so , well, I think that the gov't should be the one deserving the house, on behalf of the taxpayer...
But, what I am saying is that the banks negligence is grounds for breech of contract!! I should be able to walk away, not owe them a dime, and not get any hit on my credit !!!!
they've broke it, they can now own it!!! maybe it will give them a bigger incentive to fix the mess they've created and do something to clean up the titles!!!

If you would be so kind, please go here: forums.clarkhoward.com...

and explain your theory to these guys. Thanks.

Originally posted by schuyler
If you would be so kind, please go here: forums.clarkhoward.com...

and explain your theory to these guys. Thanks.

And why would I want to do that? Also it's not a theory it is a proven fact verifiable to anyone who wants to put in the time to do some research! Most though prefer to live in thier illusion of how things work rather then seek the truth no matter where it leads