I don't disagree with anything you wrote.A few months back...

I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

A few months back WiffaSniffa suggested I look at his post history to find posts in which he provided detailed information on chemical processes. I went and dug through the past 3-4 years of his posts, and found Jack Schitt.

WiffaSniffa and Silvgolholic recently both claimed that "there is no [chemical] process". Do either of them work for Impact? No? Then how the hell would they know if there's a process or not? On the other hand, all anyone needs to do to become informed on the matter is a little research to find that Impact have successfully produced HPA with no less than 2 processes (a sulphate process and low temperature leach), they've chosen to go with the low temperature leach option, and that the next step is to upscale production and demonstrate it with a pilot plant. It's not hard to find this info.

Now we've got someone claiming the "onus" is on investors/believers to prove to non-holders why Impact is worth investing in. Oh, please! Go read through Impacts announcements and watch some of their more recent interviews. Impact are the ones trying to bring this project to fruition, and are the ones trying to secure funding to make it happen. The onus isn't on investors, it's on Impact...

Oh, what's this???

Ann: Breakthrough alternative HPA metallurgy route at Lake Hope - Release Date: 27/02/24
Ann: Key milestone of 99.99% (4N) HPA achieved at the Lake Hope - Release Date: 19/02/24

Well, would you look at that...

It's because of these types why I've supported your posts and said that they should be ignored. These types aren't worth wasting our time on.