Barkerville Gold Mns Ltd BGMZF

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Explanation of previous post

[GoldExecute]

Going deeper, you are completely wrong.  I challenge you sir to a data duel!  I will state for the record, I am only comparing data as provided in P/R from BGM!  

Lets look at CM-7.  This hole was originally released in the May 26, 2011 P/R

https://www.barkervillegold.com/s/News_Releases.asp?ReportID=459267

Now look at press release February 24, 2014

https://www.barkervillegold.com/s/News_Releases.asp?ReportID=626725

IT says in the text right on the press release in 2/24/14;  No siginificant gold!   

In 2011, it had four intercepts with the fire assay.  WHAT does this mean, it means that they didn't have any gold that showed up when they assayed this complete hole (including portions that did before) using metalic screen.  Thisa also means that they will have to model in zero gold at this location.  Unless BGM is not (which would be illegal) suppling the information for the metallic screen, there is an issue.  If you are Snowden or Apex and you were involved in putting together all the recently submitted cut core, Reject samples, etc., which assay are you going to use in your Model.  

FWIW, the Metallic screen does not need to report more or anything.... it only reports what it finds.  Perhaps the way I worded my statement.. When I said ".... of the core including what had been assayed in the Fire Assay."  What I ment by that was they used the reject material (Coarse crushed) left over from the first time they preped that interval.  I understand that from reading the most recent P/R, they may have had to use some of the left over core (from the original 1/2 that was kept) to make a sample, but even still you should have gold.  

How do you explain hole CM-7?   

I noticed that on hole CM-1, i had only used what was stated in the press release in the text portion of the news release to input data.  I see that in the table there was another intercept that would add 2.9 G M to the 2014.  

Goingdeep, if you don't get that there are some serious issues between the MS and FA, so be it!  I know what the data is showing me from the information provided by BGM.  

If you think I am not providing the data correctly, please show me what is wrong.  I think CM-7 tells a story... as do quite a FEW OTHER HOLES...