Lets examine what John Bourque's agenda for the Hurting in the Dark Shareholders might be based on facts obtained from history, and hearsays of recent.
Guts are not needed to state facts since the information presented has already been declared and validated.
Hearsays are information declared without any avenue to be validated, and depend on trust and faith without verification possible.
The question asked by the shareholders from 2011 to the present was not to obtain a vision into the future to see if Bourque Industries will be successful, as that is well known to be unattainably, but to ask if John Bourque has the ability to bring Kryron into sales and obtain revenue for Bourque Industries.
It became clear in the 2011 to 2012 timeframe, during the downward collapse of BORK, that this question took on a different bearing as the shareholders now identified as the Hurting in the Dark Shareholders started to wonder not about John Bourque ability, but of John Bourque disposition towards Bourque Industries moving towards success.
Quite simply, the "words" of Bourque Industries ran counter to the actions of John Bourque.
The official word from Bourque Industries was that Kryron has been developed and tested, ready to enter applications that will deliver sales and revenue.
But sales never were completed despite a valiant and profession effort by Sean S. Floyd (Director of Sales, Senior Vice President to the CEO, Interim CEO) to match the properties of Kryron alloys to applications and generate sales.
But what appeared by design was that John Bourque deliver a message to the market that Bourque Industries is unable to advance the company into sales, supported by a manufacturing capabilities.
Simply put, all proposed sales activity by Sean Floyd were disruptive by John Bourque in a manner described as "to sabotage."
In this present time this board has received a message directly from John Bourque to be delivered here as hearsay: "John Bourque protected the shareholders, believe it or not."
Will history repeat itself and have John Bourque prevent sales into another declaration of successful testing of Kryron so noted in the latest financials, seems possible since there is ample evidence of the past where an identical set of circumstances played out that way.
My take to explain the Sean Floyd sales rejection by John Bourque has two possibilities:
(1.) Kryron known by John Bourque was always a hoax and used only to monetrize BORK.
(2.) The Kryron Process was real but not developed enough to enter manufacturing to support sales greater than a sample size that were delivered to customers using techniques to invalidate Kryron as a marketable alloy.
Having the current Kryron alloys being tested many times by many different people has no trust of delivery if all samples have been created in secret by John Bourque, which brings up the same old same concerns of the Hurting in the Dark Shareholders that John Bourque, not Bourque Industries, has access to the complete Kryron Process, be it real.
Doug
AI
