"In most cases geophysical anomalies [and especially I.P]can be explained easily with a few drill holes [alteration, structure or sulphide] it would have taken 1 hole to understand that this massive anomaly was a function of the inversion code used to produce the section."

Hello T24 tesero,

So, do we know if this was the case? Did they do that one/few hole(s) yet to verify this massive anomaly was a function of the inverstion code used to produce the section? The reason I ask is that I beleive the News release mentions something along the lines of, they cannot yet determine the source of the massive anomaly. Now, unlike some others, I read source of the anomaly as meaning cause of the anomaly in the data. If they did do the drill hole you mentioned, should they not be able to specifically state that the source/cause of the anomaly was indeed an inversion artifact, instead of stating that they cannot find the source? Please help me understand this a little better. For some reason (maybe desperate hope), I am still thinking they must not have done this hole you mention above to verify one way or another, or they would not be able to make the above statement honestly.

Do you think that maybe the hole was not done to verify one way or another because it is obvious from what they/you can see in the data without using the hole that it is nothing more than an inversion artifact? They knew that already, so did not follow Quantec's drill plan, and did not want to immediately dismiss the legend of the anomaly? Did they not follow the sugested drill plan as they were desperate to find gold somewhere else on the property before releasing knowledge that the anomaly is an inversion artifact? What about the significant drop in the share price before any news releases? IF they knew this from Quantec's analysis and council prior to drilling, what does that mean to shareholders? It looks like some were able to exit at a very opportune time/share price, while others were/are waiting for the news about what the drills found in the anomalies? If everything you are saying is true, and it was obvious to Quantec prior to the drill holes being done to verify, I have significant concerns that there may be some foul play involved here by people/parties with knowledge such as what you have shared . IMO

Please help me understand, why if it only takes one hole to prove one way or another, they did not say in their news realease that the source of the anomaly is now known to be an inversion artifact? Do they know without the drill hole data, or did they drill the hole and verify as you suggest, but held back what they found regarding what the anomaly is, and only releasing the data relative to gold content?

Very confused, looking for some answers and your opinions.

Thank you