Why does HC persecute me for shining a light on the facts? I start off with good will, detailing history as the facts stand looking without the bias of holder's self-interest, to present another way of looking at the situation in an insightful and hopefully entertaining fashion. If I get something wrong it is quickly corrected by others with relish, as my contrarian interpretation is always robustly refuted by others, with the end product being a thread that can consider the situation and history from a much deeper perspective of geological, valuation and corporate communication reality...
It's a tough, ruthless game we all love playing, but the fact is odds are stacked against retail due to information asymmetry. I believe retail who come to HC and read good dissenting posts will appreciate the game even more armed with a deeper understanding of 'some' of the stocks I post on, even if it treads on the toes of those controlling the narrative (management and thread bulls). The facts can be uncomfortable when it contradicts management communication... I politely suggest people make their own reputation by their own actions, not because somebody pointed out those actions.
I really don't understand what I posted was wrong, please be specific so I know where the line is? I was very clear the entire board are well credentialled and respected, that exploration success or failure is not the responsibility of the board, they can only find what's there, it's far better to fail quickly and stop wasting the market's money than keep flogging a dead horse, that project vendors and promotors are paid to have a crack by a market that wants projects to have a crack at etc, etc...
I have referenced a few scientific papers, including by one of the Board, that detail the presence and importance of copper mineralisation in the economic potential of the Dante Reefs (previously known as the Jameson reefs), the regional continuity of such mineralisation given the well understood geology mechanism, many historical drill holes with copper mineralisation now repeated by infill drilling, The presence and importance of Cu mineralisation to the Dante magnetitite reefs was well known to multiple explorers who drilled them historically and researchers who studied them later...
Fact is, none of these critical drill holes or significant intersections of Cu that revealed the situation were reported in the project vend acquisition release. Fact is the Reefs were only and always described as "PGE_Au" reefs and not referenced directly to historical Cu drill intersections in data or words.
Fact is, Dante Reefs were continued to be described as "PGE-Au" targets up until drilling
Fact is, the company raised capital at 3.5c before drilling started on the "PGE+Au" reefs
Fact is, the CEO made a video of being shocked to be told Cu mineralisation was in the drill chips and flying out to site to check for himself and excitedly showing off Cu sulphides in Rc chips as a new discovery
Fact is, when the lab assays came back with high Cu grades (worth approx 50% of the precious and base metal dollar value) the company claimed to have made a new discovery
Maybe I should separate facts into different posts from the entertaining banter, so people have to read more of my posts instead of one? (I can hear the collective groan already...)
GLTAH
Expand
