Another excellent quote, and its a true quote. The deductive reasoning, by eliminating what doesn,t apply to constructing that statement, paints a very clear picture of what the anomalies are comprised of in relation to mineralization.

Logic and all scientific data rules out the anomalies as being barren. The signature from the known workings appears that 3-4% sulfides are responsible. Compare the signature from the known, which is less of a signature, to that of the anomalies, clearly suggests that the anomalies have a higher percentage of sulfides. The anomalies are mineralization, it is impossible to drill them and have no mineralization show up in the drill results as we are seeing, it defies all science and historical tangible data.

To encounter veinlets in a system at/near surface of pure sulfides, is totally indicative of how rich the system is that deposited these above yet. Its this type of mineralization that allowed for the ~1 ounce gold average of development material while cutting a cross cut ventilation shaft without following any veins. This type of mineralization had to be extremely rich to average out to 1 ounce per ton, with high grade pockets of many ounces per ton. This is mineralized ROCK and not the quartz veins as one would think, and Lori clearly states that they were NOT following any veins when they made this cross cut. In the area they made this cross cut, the Quantec signature is LESS than that of the anomalies and also, because of depth and the ability for electrical impulses to carry,it is possible that the anomaly signatures may be even more impressive if they were closer to the surface. One clue of of how rich the area may be that I speak about above is an ~11 ounce per ton gold sample taken from the C-1 area.

Also, where are all these reports that McElhanney, Quantec and other professional geos were working on that we were told about in news releases and such, back as far as ~3 years? Perhaps the authors of those reports will not allow their truth to come out because it may contradict what we have been seeing publicly conveyed? Perhaps this is why an unqualified person like Robert Krause was the only one that could be found to write such a dismal report? I feel that the professionals would not release a report that they didn,t feel comfortable with and that also could damage their credibility as a business. The industry knows whats going on here, we just haven,t seen them step forward publicly yet, because of what this may jeopardize, that is my feeling.

Those shareholders talking with their geos know what I am saying. The total disconnect.....