RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Near as I can findI did that for you already @kozmoT....I did calculate it without that single high grade sample. And your response was a request for me to go back to 109 drill samples instead of using 258-1....(the drilling and trenching combined)
and you didn't like the number because it was too high...
so the you said, eliminate the top 3...
then you said, eliminate the top 10...
you make whatever assumption you want - you've been bashing PHD since your first post, and it has got really really tiring listening to you and your "friends"....but I will continue to post real DD based on the numbers the company has provided in their press releases.
there be gold in them there stockpile - sorry you and your friends don't like the fact that PHD found gold - and not just gold - but high grades - both from trenching and drilling...
as I said, the "chance" of hitting one high grade was extremely low...the "chance" of hitting multiple high grades is even lower.
however, because they did, the "probability" of it being representative goes up with each additional high assay received..
and that, is basic Algebra....
so KozmoT....stop being so afraid to post "real" numbers - and I know for a certainty that you won't post any "real" math to back up your claims...for fear of a lawsuit...you will always generalize, and bash, and mislead and question, and even dare....
My numbers are based on the company provided assays...sorry they are too high for your liking
]
KozmoT wrote: Why don't you redo your calcs without that ONE SINGLE highest nugget effect assay and get back to us?
I guarantee you will not do this ... for the obvious reason.