Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d:oug who wrote (68253)	4/25/2001 6:19:20 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 116759

Sort of way off topic. I doubt the desert dirts really. Not because there is not lots of gold down that way but because historically there has been just as much promotion of hard to correlate material. I stick with what is narrowly within my experience and limited knowledge base. Admittedly it does not go way out on a limb scientifically. There is a hard nut to crack here. One could say that if strange gold and proprietary assay processes did exist that it would take some doing to prove that without giving away the process. I will admit people could make equal fun of my allegations of treasure gold or Spanish galleons that is equally hard to prove and probably harder to hold on to. But my story is a low tech kind of "lie" whereas the "dirt" has some tech to say maybe, and lots of tradition to say I doubt it. I theorized disseminated gold clusters 25 years ago based upon known disseminated atomic gold in pyrite and the fact that the melting temperature of gold and silica is the same. But in the end the clusters were too small, too hard to prove and too tough to shake loose from the silica for me, if they ever were there. If I can't assay it it ain't there for me. In the end we both have our agendas and the right to say as we please, about our gold, our dreams, and each other too. There are limits of course. Bullets, computer memory and people's patience are all factors. Co-operation benefits men more than strife often. Do we co-operate on paper, rock or scissors is the question, and who gets to say? My story is rife with doubt. I will admit it could attract scorn. But it makes another kind of sense. It was a feasible story and it was held forth by a group longly and loudly for many years. This invokes the human nature test. A lie that was repeated for 30 years by the same 3 people with no break in the story and with no other ulterior motive that could be discerned (i.e it cost, not gained them money to tell it) at least ought to be checked out. It's emitted risk over collected gain and the base current is the excitement and prospects. Many, many lost gold stories from Jason's fleece of Colchis to Solomon's Mines of Ethiopia to the Superstition Mountains of Jim Bowie were later proved to be fact. Broad hint follows --> In one instance I had the idea after reading Earle Stanley Gardner's book that in fact the tales of the Lost Dutchman Mine made perfect sense geologically and it would have made more sense to look geologically/geophysically for the source, as was first done by dip needle and pan, rather than just retracing an old map. I guess I am prejudiced, as 80% of all the modern metal tracing geophysical techniques were developed in Canada, many of them are used in finding gold, and few of these were ever used by US geologists until the early 80's. That perhaps may help to explain why the overwhelming majority of mines in Nevada and Colorado in recent years were started by Canadians. They were frequently found by Phil Halof's Induced Polarization technique which will find finely disseminated metal sulphides that do not conduct as a mass. You understand why people tell the tale of lost mines. It is expensive to prospect gold, let alone mine it and the finder needs to raise capital. I don't think half were as lost as the miner says he was. I learned that there were several ways to prospect. One could prospect the presence of gold, the geology, or the trail of those who were successful at finding it, however they found it. EC<:-}