Taz I haven't heard such a bundle of ramping nonsense on HC for...

Taz I haven't heard such a bundle of ramping nonsense on HC for a long time.

But I’m sure if Gus, other directors or substantial share holders sold any of their shares, we would've had an ASX announcement confirming change in holding!

They would not have to put out the announcement the same day. IIRC they have a few days to issue the notice

specifically at deals we could never even comprehend is the biggest question mark?

deals we could never even comprehend? We are talking about Gus and Saxon not Jesus Christ!

I’m confident it was a either a short term investor who has been waiting for an announcement whom was looking for a short term gain and didn’t have the patients due to the opportunity cost of making money elsewhere, or due to a shareholder personal circumstance requiring cash flow!

You have absolutely no factual basis for that. Even worse you then go on to use this rampant guess as the only basis for your next statement "Thus, IMO the selling off was not based on a potential CR" If it's your opinion fair enough you're entitled to it but what characteristics of the sale imply your scenario is more likely than a substantial holder?

Lets say hypothetically if a CR announcement is released soon, don’t you think there would be an obvious Insider Trader Enquiry due to the significant amount of shares sold by either 1 or 2 shareholders today?

Seriously, how long have you been in the market? How many pumps or dumps do we see before a price sensitive announcement comes out? I'd guess there's at least one a day in the whole market. How many insider trading prosecutions do we see? Lucky to get a couple a year. If someone knew something it's hardly a disincentive.

I’m sure that a shareholder’s speculation of a CR would not be accepted as a plausible explanation during an enquiry.

Wrong. In the absence of conclusive evidence (i.e. witness statement, phone or email records) that they had received inside info the court is obliged to accept that explanation. Our justice system does not require the accused to prove their innocence.

As mentioned in my earlier post a close source of mine has confirmed that Gus Simpson has arrived in Indonesia. IMO he is obviously here to finalise all of QPN outstanding matters, specifically finalising drilling dates.

"IMO"... Just so everyone's clear on that I'll repeat what you said... "In my opinion". Again you offer no reasoning or argument to suggest why your stated scenario is any more likely than any other. You simply state your opinion and carry on as though it's an assertion of fact.

We should also note Gus Simpson has recently raised a total of $12.5M for PEN

The scenario's are hardly comparable. PEN is a very advanced project with a solid JORC resource with millions already spent on development and significant derisking. Ranau is effectively virgin ground with almost zero derisking. As much as we might like that patch of dirt Insto's aren't so easy to convince without hard evidence AND concrete derisking signed off by independant 3rd parties.

IMO I am very confident that a CR will not be offered to general shareholders, but will be offered to institutions and/or significant existing shareholders which is backed by the above PEN announcement. So if this approach is adopted by QPN, does anyone expect a dilution in the SP? IMO a definite NO.

What a complete load of drivel! 1st you are suggesting that a CR to insto's only is better for shareholders than if they are offered participation? Have you read stock market 101? 2nd any CR that is not at a discount to current SP is an extreme rarity and in this macro environment probably near impossible (and in most cases I've seen they've actually been fraudulent). Think about it, you're offered a shareholding at current SP. You immediately know the company needs cash and is in a weakened position, are you going to say yes straight away? Of course not, you'll want a discount. You've got something they want, lots of companies have what you want. You've got the edge. It's quite simple to validate this argument, how many CR's happen at a discount, how many at even money and how many at a premium? Look around, the market will tell you how likely it is for a junior explorer.

So if this approach is adopted by QPN, does anyone expect a dilution in the SP? IMO a definite NO.

3rd, on which planet can you have a cap raising (i.e. issue more shares) without dilution? The only way to come even close to this is by proportional rights issue and then you arguably avoid dilution by taking up your full rights. Still costs you money to maintain your shareholding though which is why I say arguably.

You can cover your ass by liberally sprinkling the phrase "IMO" (I counted 7) but at least try an substantiate those opinions you put forward with reasoned arguments that have basis in fact, not just a scenario you've selectively pulled out of the conjecture bucket.