Like I said - I clearly see an anomaly in 2 out of 3. Given one...

Like I said - I clearly see an anomaly in 2 out of 3. Given one component is always the one with the narrowest diameter loop on the diameter of the probe, and therefore the component most subject to high noise to signal ratio - 2 out of 3 with such a clear response, and they are clear, is a damn good response usually in practical terms. This anomaly is real. What causes it is a real feature of the geology. Whether it is massive sulphide or not remains to be seen, but it deserves testing.

And I'm glad you agree that 2/3 of the waffle you opened this thread with is irrelevant, regardless of audience, so why go to all that effort to post it in the first place? Other to maybe lend your post an air of authority most of the audience may not have the detailed experience to call as BS??