Here we go, page-37

The last fortnight has been a little frustrating to say the least. There is no choice but to be philosophical after watching my holding reduce to a third of what I paid! I'm sure I'm not alone here......just think of The Good Doctor!

The recent announcements pose a number of questions for me:
- why was a different sampling method used - i.e. handheld v truck mounted auger? Repeatability must be based on removing all possible variables and the contractor taking the samples should have known this.
- are the shallow samples or the deeper samples more statistically reliable in indicating what lies below? Established research was sited in the announcement noting that results are "significantly influenced" by sampling depth - but doesn't spell out which are considered more statistically reliable as an indicator of any gold deposit. Interesting to note that the slide illustrating this in the announcement was actually used in the Technical Presentation (showing the calcrete profile (0-2m)) given back in November! The influence of depth on calcrete sampling was therefore known BEFORE the December sampling took place.
- at what depth was the 180ppb sample taken at Challenger?
- what sampling method was used - handheld or truck mounted auger?
All of the above would be good to know and may help us sleep at night.

As the investigation into the sample variance continues, part of which will be to go back out in the field and take further samples of the target area, there is no mention to confirm whether the sampling method to be employed will go back to that originally used back in October to give us the original exceptional results.

Let's say, for arguments sake, that samples are re-taken using the original handheld auger method, and that those samples confirm the exceptional results taken back in October - one can dream! Will the share price bounce back and go where we were all hoping it would.......or, will the December sample set taken at greater depth create too much doubt and erode too much confidence for there to be any upside?

To me, the argument over whether the 3 exceptional samples taken in October are contaminated just doesn't fly. It has to be more than just coincidental that these 3 specific samples gave exceptional results - particularly given the gravity and magnetic anomalies indicated at the very same locations. The chances that just these 3 samples - the only ones to show significant results - were contaminated, AND that they just happened to be contiguous AND that they coincide this closely with the gravity and magnetic anomalies is just statistically improbable - in the least, fanciful! There is nothing random about this.

I may be dreaming, but I still think there is something worthwhile there and I'm holding....patiently. Meanwhile the gold price continues to rise.......we just have to find some.
I'd love to hear the thoughts of other holders on this......as I may be somewhat delusional at this point!
GLTAH