Definitions and footnotes are fine, show me then where in the Micon report where it gives us an inferred tonnage?

I will show you both of their tables and they are both all about INDICATED tonnages.

You for some reason only see the (2) footnote. Either we have indicated resources or we don't. You think there is a typo on 4 fronts now? Why no further mention of the same footnote on all occasions then?There has been mention on any occasions in 4 different public documents now that it is INDICATED tonnages. Micon says it, ISM has said it in tow summary and follow up NR's and now a Sedar filing calls it Indicated. I will include footnote 2 for reference.

If they were inferred, then why not simply call them inferred (in 4 different public documents)

I guess ISM would have to clarify where the mistake lies if there is one. We have either indicated or inferred resource tonnage.

2. The quantity and grade of reported Inferred Resources in this estimation are conceptual in nature and there has been insufficient exploration to define these Inferred Resources as an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource. It is uncertain if further exploration will result in the upgrading of the Inferred Resources into an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource category.