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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (33828)	8/30/1998 10:27:00 AM
From: Paunch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Richard, I don't know , however I do know that IPM has a good chance of getting the needed funds, My thinking would be if I was the one putting up the money I would want to see some new assays that I had charge of the coc to know for sure what was there, so the assays are a possibility but I have no proof. I have sent an e-mail to my source at IPM and so far have received no answer. When I get an answer I will post what ever part I am allowed to post. It would not make sense for IPM to inform Jackson or any other of the slanderers unless the insider informing them was working with them to try to destroy the DD's by putting out false information, I don't see any other reason that would make any sense. I do hope that one day even if everything is lost we can at lease find out the real reason for all of the problems the DD's are having. Maybe if the stock market continues to fall to say about 3000 the price of gold will rise enough to bring the needed money back to the mines, and I have heard predictions of the market going down to as low as 1800. Paunch

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (33828)	8/30/1998 10:49:00 AM
From: Tim Hall	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

Richard, <<Guys that profess that they don't have any financial interest seem to have more knowledge about what's happening than shareholders. These threads are proving to be useless for information useful to shareholders and only serves people with their own agendas, it stinks. >> Some of us have many years in the mining business. We have associates and friends in the business. The second in command at Hecla and the Cheif exploration geologists for Homestake, Phelps Dodge and Amax are classmates of mine. In order for their to be placer platinum in Arizona, there would have to have been hardrock platinum there at one time. Except for GPGI's claims about Oro Grande, there have never been any mines produce platinum in Arizona. (The exception being very tiny amounts recovered from copper refining.) I have spent many hours researching the Oro Grande and I can't confirm any prior platinum production. My associates still laugh at the DD's. Another associate of mine, a classmate and a neighbor, is the Senior Mining Engineer for the New Mexico Bureau of Mines, another associate is the Mining Supervisor for the BLM. They get calls daily from investors trying to do DD on Desert Dirts or trying to track down what happened to their investments. The bottom line is, there are too many unanswered questions for any mining professionals to take any of these DD's seriously. We can see right through some of the BS, like Hewlett's that is used to promote these "investements". It might interest you to know that even though Hewlett is touted as being a well respected mining professional, he has been involved in promoting desert dirts for years. I don't doubt that he has made lots of money but he has yet to produce even one ounce. He has his own claims in CA which he claims to have huge rserves, I have seen some of his calculations. These claims have been used to solicit investors who are now looking for their money. I can fax you this if you are interested. Tim

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (33828)	8/30/1998 7:49:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Richard, As a result of my comments about assays and methods 6 people have asked me for details, which I gave. Of these 6 three indicated that they would get some dirt/had some dirt that they would assay. To this point none has given me and results though I asked for them. Some of these data requests were this summer and some last fall. The time needed for the assays was quoted to me as 6-8 weeks and I recall making comments that yoy had better get some assays prior to claims lapsing or money spending being considered. Would those people who mailed me for data please reply to Richard or the thread with data or comments about your assays? Bill