I strongly suggest that you read my previous post carefully and...

I strongly suggest that you read my previous post carefully and the links I found for you for your own benefit so that you are better able to understand the nuances of the various sciences involved here and the difference between petrology (petrography) and crystallography. You pointed me to a rare mineral sulphide of gold and silver and tried to use a scientific paper dealing in the crystallography of that sulphide to convince me that science is an evolving beast. I've got no argument with you there but your example made no sense in the context of my comments about getting petrography done on the rock to identify the minerals involved.

I wrote that lengthy post (explanation) and found those links largely for your benefit, not as some downramp of a stock that I still hold. Please read it carefully and all the links, and look at the photos and then come back with some argument based on the science, not one that involves speculations about the fiddling of results, because that's not what I've been discussing.

Frankly I would love it if BBX could come out with some similar pictures (to those I posted for uytenbogaardtite) and an identification of some rare Au-Pd/Pt sulphide or alloy to explain the existence of the metals. That would make my day.

There is nothing at all wrong with announcing the recovery of the metals in those buttons and their estimates of the sample grades (apart from the question of how representative they are which I've discussed at length) but they need to do a lot more to fill in the gaps. A petrographic report is one thing that should be done immediately on the sulphides that are visible in the rock and the results should be presented to shareholders as soon as possible IMO. If the report for some reason is inconclusive go the next step and look at the sulphides with an electron microscope. We can't have this now we see them, now we don't, dance with shareholders go on forever. Esh