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 : Naxos Resources (NAXOF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (6952)	12/11/1997 2:09:00 AM
From: GlobalMarine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Hi Larry: <<Behre Dolbear delivered a report to Naxos on October 24, 1997 which states that "Behre Dolbear is of the opinion that the samples it collected at the Franklin lake project have been reasonably secured against tampering by anyone associated with Naxos from the time the samples were collected until their delivery to Ledoux. To Behre Dolbear's knowledge, all samples have been maintained in good condition and have not been tampered with by anyone or handled in any unauthorized way between the time of their collection and their delivery to Ledoux.">> I was worried about the first sentence above, because it kind of made me wonder whether someone NOT associated with Naxos could have tampered with the samples. But when I read the rest of it, I felt totally comfortable with the wording. By way of example, when accounting firms do audits, the wording is very similar in nature. Check out audit report letters that accompany the year-end financial statements of public companies in their annual reports and you'll see that such letters express an opinion, not a statement of fact, that the financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. This is because it is not possible to be totally 100% certain, so they must issue a statement of opinion, not fact. As another example, ask yourself if any burglar could have broken into your home. You come home every night and there seems to be no forced entry and there seems to be nothing missing. There's probably a 99.999% chance that no burglar has broken in, but there's still that 0.001% chance. So you can't make an absolute statement of fact that no burglar has broken into to your home, only a strongly supported statement of opinion to that effect. As regards the few assays released thus far, IMO, most of the time these past months have probably been spent by Ledoux evaluating the recovery process and its end products and we are therefore just now starting to see the first numbers come out. Perhaps gold assay news will come out more quickly and frequently now. Regards, Rand

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (6952)	12/11/1997 2:12:00 AM
From: Bear Down	Respond to of 20681

I agree on the weaselly part. My only remaining question is if it is the Johnson methodology that is really on trial here, why not just take samples, split them and use Johnson/Lett on one and standard FA on the other, release all results and let us see for ourselves the difference. This way COC wouldn't even matter. If the difference was as much as Naxos says it is no one could scream "SALTING" If however standard FA returned similar numbers as Johnson/Lett we would all know Naxos has a "busang" type deposit. Why tell me "the process" is so great and then not compare results on identical samples to traditional methods. This would not take long to do and would end any doubt as to the actual benefits of Johnson/Lett. Then Ledoux could immediatly certify results because COC would be irrelevant, as long as they split the sample themselves, and assayed both ways and came up with different results. It would then be undisputable as to whether the "process" was the difference