Hi Crazy,

I am very interested in the two sides being presented by yourself and Digi.

Crazy H: "It says these were the highest gold values found in the drill hole. It doesn't say highest gold values obtained in the very few sections we tested."

Maybe I need to change my name to Crazy, but.... they use the word obtained. To me, that leaves the debate inconclusive one way or another. I personally find this very frustrating. Why can they not state whether they have sampled/assayed the entire drill core and these are the best results? It would appear that she continues to speak to sampling methods, which indicates samples are taken to represent the core. not the entire core was tested. I think what Digi, or at least I would like to know is, were there samples taken, and subsequently assayed below levels deep enough to speak to the anomaly, or not?

Were there any samples/results reported from a depth that would speak to gold content in the anomaly, or absence thereof? I ask because I do not know.

Also, the part you did not bold in the following quote from the NR:

"...the Company has not yet been able to determine the causative sources ...."

How come, if they did test samples from within the anomaly, they can not speak to what caused the anomalous readings?

So, I guess what I want to know is, what is the deepest level that gold values have been reported at (specific to the holes that might test the anomalies), and if there is not significant gold below those levels, does that make sense from a geological perspective? I thought gold was very dense, how might there be higher consentrations close to the surface and nothing below? Does it float? Is there some geological process that might explain this phenomenon? Would love some clarity in this regard. Something smells fishy here.