Something doesn't add up ?, page-130

Do you realise how conflicting these statements are ...

“Showing few photos of core samples that show presence of resource when you already have established resource presence - not material evidence for insider trading.”

“If however photos showed no resource or very little resources were resource was expected - that could be considered material evidence.”

The outcome doesn’t determine if it’s material or not, the outcome itself is material ! That’s what you don’t grasp.

You’re saying just because the cores were good, it isn’t material as it was expected, however had they been poor, it would have been material ?

Simply put:-

- The hole looked good, hence why it was up 10%

- If the hole was barren, it would have been down by similar amount

Hence the results are material