InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 45
Posts 3200
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 12/03/2010

Re: None

Wednesday, 09/19/2012 9:51:39 PM

Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:51:39 PM

Post# of 167964
CHECKMATE back at you!

What you used as "ammo" for your checkmate, has NOTHING to do with the Cinco Minas NI 43-101.

In your link the geologist talks about the following claims and timeframes:

"6. I am responsible for the preparation of all sections of the technical report titled REPORT ON THE EXPLORATION PROGRAMS AND MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE LA TRINI SILVER-GOLD PROJECT, HOSTOTIPAQUILLO, JALISCO, MEXICO and dated January 15, 2008 (the "Technical Report") relating to the La Trini, Ampliacion de la Trini, Mololoa, Mololoa No.3 and Mololoa No.4 properties. I visited the La Trini and Ampliacion de la Trini properties on April 6, 17, 27-30, 2005; August 17-20, 2005; February 4 and 5, 2006; February 1 and 2, 2007 and December 6 and 7, 2007 for a total of 16 days. I visited the Mololoa, Mololoa No.3 and Mololoa No.4 properties between April 7 and 17, 2005 for a total of 11 days. "
http://msnmoney.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=5980435&SessionID=OAZGH8s8Yxxq2m9

On the SRGE website they talk about the following claims and timeframes. They are unrelated. COMPLETELY. Nothing matches up.



http://www.southridgeminerals.com/SouthridgePDF/Cinco-Minas-43-101.pdf

It therefore CANNOT be the from the same NI 43-101, therefore the lack of engineer's stamp and signature IS CRITICAL(see page 49.)

CHECKMATE.

I have a LOT of other observations, if you want me to share them, just ask.