Dear List, Finally, ...
On 20. Juli 2006 17:54 wrote JW Merks: > Hello Readers, > > More talk and not test. I want to know what the KWBP methodology does with > the Bre-X data. Is that too much to ask? > > Kind regards, > > Jan W Merks Let us get some reality into the Bre-X example Mr. Merks insists on to blame geostats: I googled to get some information apart from the things Mr. Merks told us and on the first page http://geology.about.com/cs/mineralogy/a/aa042097.htm I found useful background: All drillings done after that in the first dataset showed neglectable amounts of gold. So if the first drillings done by the original owner showed much gold and the later drillings showed no gold, we might have one of two situations: Either we had extremly bad/good luck in the first drillings or somebody cheated and gave bogus measurments. Any significance test (e.g. Fisher-Exact-Test to keep things simple) would suggest fraud. And indeed fraud of that type was suggest by other evidence: see http://geology.about.com/cs/mineralogy/a/aa042097.htm > # First, contrary to company statements, Busang core samples had been > prepared for assay in the jungle, not in the testing lab. Videotape made by > a visitor to the field site showed the humble machines common in assay labs > —hammer mills, crushers, and sample splitters. Well-labeled sample bags > clearly had finely crushed ore in them. Security was lax enough that > samples could easily have been spiked with gold. The company did not observe the sampleing protocoll they claimed to use probably to deliver bogus values. And they did not do any background check and ignored counterevidence: > # Second, the local inhabitants had begun panning for gold in the Busang > River, but in two years they never found any. Yet Bre-X claimed that gold > was visible, a sign of unusually rich ore. And de Guzman's technical report, > confusingly, called the gold submicroscopic, which is typical of hard-rock > gold ore. Thus the observations are already a fraud as being manipulated at will. And this is a crime and against all scientific rules. However you cannot blame a statistical method to produce nonsense when applied to manipulated data. So the whole Bre-X thing is a big fraud, but not due to geostatistics but due to willfull manipulation of the samples. But the fraud did not stop. It followed the Merks fraud: He well knew that the grades are bogus (he calles it such on his web-site) and still insisted on blaming geostats for doing wrong interpolation on these grades. And this again is willfull manipulation of evidence -- now invented evidence against geostats -- and seemingly done for getting money as we found out earlier. I ask everybody to come to his own conclusion, and I ask Mr. Merks to revise his web-site accordingly as a question of scientific honesty. Best regards, Gerald v.d. Boogaart -- ------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. K. Gerald v.d. Boogaart Professor als Juniorprofessor fuer Statistik http://www.math-inf.uni-greifswald.de/statistik/ B�ro: Franz-Mehring-Str. 48, 1.Etage rechts e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 00+49 (0)3834/86-4621 fax: 00+49 (0)3834/86-4615 (Institut) paper-mail: Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universitaet Greifswald Institut f�r Mathematik und Informatik Jahnstr. 15a 17487 Greifswald Germany -------------------------------------------------- + + To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected] + To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@ jrc.it with no subject and "unsubscribe ai-geostats" in the message body. DO NOT SEND Subscribe/Unsubscribe requests to the list + As a general service to list users, please remember to post a summary of any useful responses to your questions. + Support to the forum can be found at http://www.ai-geostats.org/
