Replies to post #86088 on Liberty Star Uranium and Metals Corp (LBSR)

[gold56]

Go check pps of NAK before drilling. There balance sheet showed ZERO. So by your way of thinking there was no gold, copper or Moly since it wasn't on a balance sheet, is that correct?

Or you could check the drilling results for LBSR in the caldera back in the Fall of 2007 and see that they hit very high levels of silver and base metals. Drilling was not within the perimeter of any of the now known anomalies, but was close to one of them.

[MidasMulligan]

Nope, not legitimate questions. Straw men posed in the form of questions? Yes.

1. "Why doesn't Briscoe buy back shares?"

Because the company has better uses for what capital it currently has.

2. "Why don't they list their claim assets in monetary terms?"

Because they haven't been drilled yet and thus have no monetary value.

That's what makes a horse race.

And for those who prattle, "The market says, the market says", that is the shabbiest argument you could offer. The efficient market hypothesis is bunk because, if the market was always right, no one would make any money.

[WillyburgD]

Sometimes you have to wonder why seemingly sophisticated investors ask such rhetorical questions. Of course this stock, like just about every other OTC play, is about speculation, not a strong balance sheet, an undervalued P/E ratio, etc. And I think it has been made clear that certain of these investors think investing in any pinks is a bad idea b/c so many of them are scams.

But I wonder if that is the case.

Because, when posting that the Company's Phase I funding requirement went from $25M to $50M (red flag! red flag!), left omitted was the fact that the $25M was just for Big Chunk and that the Jobenomics report expressly included the Tombstone properties in the portion cited. Elsewhere in that report, it clearly states it is $25M for just Big Chunk alone, which aligns with the SRK Report on that property. Alas, there are plenty of reasons to be cautious (e.g., further dilution before resources, if any, are proved), but this is not one of them.

So we are left to ponder whether these individuals are not very careful readers or if there is an attempt to distort the picture.

GLTA.