again the 90% was a very small number of people 90% is a small...

again the 90% was a very small number of people 90% is a small percentage?
Do you think before you type this stuff?

in a program run by a employee of etm
A clearly Greenlandic university student is not an employee of this company

Do you even think before you type this stuff


the uranium you are saying that with about 440 holes some over 400 m deep mostly sited by independent geologists ,
Do you even proofread what you type? I don't think many people would understand what you're saying but at a guess the simple explanation is what has already been offered in that 440 holes is not a lot over many square kilometres and you have the option of drilling wherever you like which could quite easily be not where the uranium is found. How about you wake up to the reality that we all know and you try to hide?


this is backed by several hundred surface channel samples and 709 ton of bulk samples ,
That conveniently avoided the radioactive anomaly perhaps?


plus a full pilot plant testing again no uranium.
You mean the charity donated effort you received with the sample that you cherry picked for them?
Nobody's going to fall for that
Try supplying some evidence or at least expressing something logical when entering into these arguments otherwise you just look like you are trying to mislead investors here. Especially when we can see so many examples of such shine above
Do you let us know when you find any evidence to support anything you say as clearly you can see there's ample evidence to support everybody elses understanding. So stop hiding it if you have nothing to hide