At least you're consistent. Consistently wrong. Yes- ZTEM data is excellent data- but it is just data. And it does not only simply need interpretation- it needs to be correlated with and balanced against many other geological, geophysical and biogeochemical modalities. This all has to be integrated properly- based not on just looking at pretty pictures like we laymen. It requires not only familiarity with the methodology and its relative strengths and weaknesses, but sophisticated geological experience, knowledge and judgement- further enhanced by intimate familiarity with this particular region. And so- actually you do need a "super-genius" to refine the targeting. Once again- geologists are not interchangable- and- believe it or not- some are more knowledgeable, experienced and, yes,- smarter than others. And, you may not be aware of this- but many are actually not very familiar with or competent in interpreting ZTEM data. Wilson has apparently already demonstrated this. So- if you think it is simply a matter of looking at a fancy picture and making an "X" with a crayola on a map and that just any geologist can stroll in and do it- well that is just sad.