Milsy1,

In response to your message below concerning the image on page 8 of the Wasserman report, I posted a response to your post also referencing the response you received by another contributer to this forum, JohnDefur.

The explanations I provided in my previous post on the matter, in response to the questions you asked with regards to thate particular image, are, in my view, correct.

I will answer your questions directly again and elaborate a little further just to be sure.

1) I beleive that image is from the 2003 airborne survey, which was has been widely circulated and discussed. I know of no other airborne survey of NOT's properties that has been made public., but the date of the survey is a minor point and if I am incorrect on this, I concede the point.

2) As I posted in my previous post, "The squiggley lines simply represent the relative strength of the E/M signature (how much of an E/M anomaly there is) at those particular locations on the grid. The higher the E/M anomaly, the more squiggely the lines, and the more conductivity that is being registered - its a simple as that."

If you look closely, you will see that squiggly lines actually in increase in squiggliness at the locations of the circles and cross the 200m grid lines to the left - you see a small bump to the right, and then a large swing to the left, and then another small bump to the right. These areas are the anomalous areas - the areas that are strongly different - which is why they are target areas. The single dashed line that meets the grid lines at roughly opposite angles is just a line that was drawn to trace the structure of the trend of the anomalous area.

You clearly did not ask anything about the circles in your questions, and it seems in your question that you already know what they are - target areas.

So just, to recap, in answering the salient part of your question - what do the squiggly lines mean - they simply represent EM anomalies by the degree of their squiggliness relative to the immediate and surrounding areas.

I do not really think that your questions required a complicated response, nor do I feel that the matter is complicated. In fact, its pretty straightforward, which is why I offered my responses to your questions.

Regards,

B.

Milsy1 wrote:

John, on page 8 of the Wasserman report, (link below) it denotes high priority geophysical targets to be drilled.

My question(s) to you:

1) Do you suspect that these airborne images used are from the last airborne surveys (2004 I think?)

2) Where each high priority target is located, the curvey lines (for lack of a better word) seem to dip to touch the 200 metre spacing lines. I beleive that these sqiggely lines have something to do with the electromagnetics but what specifically does it mean?

http://www.norontresources.com/inves...

Thanks in advance for my continued education John,

Milsy1