I don't fault an Ihub poster for not knowing the difference between dumps and tailings. But when I see a report issued by someone like Lowenthal who is supposed to have a mining background, and seems to interchangeably use the terms, it ain't right.
Assigning some rather impressive assay value to the tailings and dumps (together!) but without any real information to back it up, is fraudulent. To adequately evaluate tailings, they would need to be drilled extensively, and hundreds of assays would need to be completed to determine variability in the pile.
Same for the dump - grabbing a couple nice-looking chunks from the waste dumps is very easy. I have done it myself hundreds of times - it has a purpose, and the purpose is to determine if gold/silver, etc. are present or not present. A few samples do not determine the overall grade of the dumps and in the wrong hands, those results can be used for fraudulent promotion (i.e. ASPA). The only way to adequately sample dumps would be to collect bulk samples evenly, and in an unbiased manner across the dumps, or drill the dumps (not an easy task!).
As for the old-time miners not being good at milling and recovering gold - BS. Dunphy already provided actual data from a 100 years ago, specifically for the Oatman mines. They used technology similar to what would be used today and 96% recovery sounds remarkably good to me.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
