Dark art / bad science, page-36

Now the market is done for the day, I'll have to come back to this thread and give the points to Captain Balloonhead and just hope his cranial cavity is elastic enough to not explode with any additional pumping.

The chart I referred to in the announcement is titled: Figure 3: 3-component (X, Y, Z) late-time DHTEM response of high-conductance (>10,000S)  conductivity anomaly at approximately 650m depth in MRDD016.

However, the chart should have been titled Z, X and then Y and also made note of the modelled response and the actual response in the plots.  So I scrolled straight to the third chart, being Z in the title (for the reasons discussed), decided that's not an anomaly and the modelled data is not real and no fit either.  And then I disregarded the other plots without consideration for being subordinate X and Y.  However the chart I plotted in the OP (after a bit of a session late last night) is in fact the Y component not Z as I describe, despite being shown third in the announcement.

The actual Z component does show the anomaly as the news states, and possibly even a touch broader and further away than modelled, and the suggestion of a massive sulphide target is reasonable.

So I'll close out the thread on that, blame the erroneous labelling in the announcement and go and check on a pie I am baking.  However, those secondary issues of lack of support for the anomaly, previously described as waffle, are still relevant in any holistic consideration for a punt.

GLTA