as for do I believe the recovery overall excuse me for being sceptical, that goes back to the poorly representative sample, Post #: 42653175
Of which I believe you stated to the request to supply such reference.....
when I get some time over the weekend will find the references and put them here again Post #: 42567758
But yet again have failed to do so as equally as proving the other items you also referred to being: 1Photos you speak of of GGG at the tailings dump 2Newspaper report with GGG at the tailings dump 3Claim in the paper that samples have been taken from the tailings dump 4Claims of 2-10% fluorine you stated you have (attempted subject change from the above requests) 5Any of the four references apparently offered in 42557262the fact that kvanefjeld is refractory I gave four references 6Any reference to confirm your statement that the fact kvanefjeld does not make the top 5 in terms of size in post 42557262 7Any reference to confirm your statement in 42491123 like your imaginary 94% recovery. That Kvanefjeld is not nonrefactory as the company advisePost #: 42566621
You seem to not be sticking to your word here GBB and apparently falling further behind. What do you have to say about why you havent supplied evidence as promised? Is it because there is none? As its becoming ever more evident there is none or simply youre absent your word in promising so?
