Hey Mike- I am not sure how you can conclude manipulation from that observation. The holes not included by SGS may easily have been part of the "historical drill holes" for which SGS could not provide third party validation of the data.

You have assumed that the holes that they excluded were duds and that it is therefore manipulation. I have assumed that they are part of the company's own drill hole database from which they publically stated that a Timmins 1 surface footprint of 4120 sq. metres and a grade of 2.84g/ton prior to the engagement of SGS for the RE. I therefore assume that this is good news since new sister holes in those historical locations may easily increase the resource at Timmins 1.

I hope you are not disappointed that I will not respond to your calling me a clown in your post. I have too much respect for the other members of this board to turn this into anything personal.

Best to all,

Scott