Here we go, page-13

I was hoping for some clarity, but I'm even more confused than before.

We can speculate about contamination of the October samples, depth of the sample, etc but the only way to fully confirm the anomalies is to go back to the three anomalous sample sites, and systematically take samples down the auger hole to determine which horizon hosts the gold. Then do it again for good measure.

Can anyone offer an explanation for the coincidence that the gold anomaly is strongly correlated to a magnetic feature (see original announcement on 26th Oct 2015, page 4)? This correlation would suggest that the gold anomaly reflects a true underlying geological feature, and is not a case of sample bias. For me that's the last shred of evidence I can use to try to convince myself this is a true anomaly.