THE OBVIOUS QUESTION THAT BEGS AN ANSWER IS WHY IS ANYONE SO QUICK TO DRAW NEGATIVE, AND APPARENTLY UNPROVEABLE CONCLUSIONS?
examples:
why would anyone conclude that the best hole SO FAR (#11) is a twin, when there is ZERO evidence to support this conclusion? actually all the evidence negates this conclusion. AND THIS CONCLUSION HAS SINCE BEEN RETRACTED - stating that it is impossible to determine where the new holes were drilled, so it is impossible to determine twinning. not to mention that the silver amounts are extremely higher than any previous assays reports from previous campaigns indicated.
why would anyone conclude that the property is not worth mining - especially thru open pit mining - WHEN ONLY 11 OF THE 30 DRILL HOLES HAVE HAD THEIR ASSAYS REPORTED? and the evidence given is apparently an intentional distortion - stating that 200 meters is too deep for pit mining - when most successful pit mining operations go much deeper....
AND THIS CONCLUSION HAS SINCE BEEN RETRACTED TOO - stating that it is possible that the property could be mineable. further studies have to be done.
why would anyone conclude that if a new 43-101 is generated, it will be "fake"? HOW THE HELL CAN ANYONE CONCLUDE A FUTURE REPORT IS A "FAKE", WHEN THE REPORT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN GENERATED YET? DON'T YOU HAVE TO READ THE REPORT BEFORE YOU CAN CONCLUDE IT IS A "FAKE"?
once again, i'll repeat:
THE OBVIOUS QUESTION THAT BEGS AN ANSWER IS WHY IS ANYONE SO QUICK TO DRAW NEGATIVE, AND APPARENTLY UNPROVEABLE CONCLUSIONS? (that eventually wind up being retracted)
AI
