Oh Henry, Chewbaca, if you would just stop fighting for a moment, I'd like to discuss some of the more mundane issues. Forgive me if this has already been discussed, I don't have the time to go through all the posts to date. I have looked back at this year's press releases and have the following thoughts and questions:
1. Press release 98-5 (3/12/98) states certified results from TWO laboratories (Ledoux and RMG) on holes 4 and 5.
2. The recent release states that Alfred Knight/RMG can't confirm Ledoux's findings from the DRILL PROGRAM.
Thus, my questions:
a) Do the results from holes 4 and 5 stand?
b) Are these holes not involved in the drill program?
c) Who is Alfred Knight? I don't believe I'd seen this name on the thread until last week.
In addition, as has been pointed out in prior posts, Ledoux CORRECTLY assayed the blanks. It has therefore been suggested (or intimated) that perhaps there was some tampering/salting of the samples that yielded the good results. But, these were the same samples retested by Knight et al. They couldn't have been de-salted, right?
So, the logical progression I see here is: Ledoux previously assayed samples (holes#4 and 5) correctly, as confirmed by another laboratory (RMG); they correctly assayed the blanks as having no gold (.008, I think was their report); they've now reported numbers on the drill program that are not confirmed by Knight and RMG. So please tell me why the thought that the latter labs could be incorrect is a foolish one.
Thank you.
Scott |
