Thanks for your positive input on those thoughts Kemo. The key to me is recognizing which "assumptions" are most likely going to be based more on solid statistical association of likelihood (i.e. association between veins above and anomaly below) and ones that may not be so. Another statistical association that I find working in our favor is the fact that there hasn't been any other metals of significance in the surface or veins above. If such lesser metals are "absent" above then it is a solid "winners bet" that it is very highly unlikely to be present in the anomaly below, for if it was present in the anomaly below (and responsible for causing the high Quantec readings) then it should also be present in the veins above, which it is not. Nature does not work in a discontinuous/haphazard manner when it comes to geology.

With that said I am not a geologist, so take it FWIW. But a little rationale and a little basic reasoning can go a long ways. But as just stated in a recent post, other geologists seem to agree so I am in good company.

My2Cents