InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 103
Posts 9634
Boards Moderated 3
Alias Born 11/06/2009

Re: BlueRayn post# 134954

Tuesday, 08/04/2015 12:31:06 PM

Tuesday, August 04, 2015 12:31:06 PM

Post# of 163725

Unless, you think those were simply smokescreen's.



My contention all along was that that amendment was a ruse ...
The way it was constructed itself was absurd, they were going to get the SP to .01 by ... ?

They didn't cut ties with Matty, he left. Either way, what's the difference? Scammers scaming scammers? Compete ineptitude? With all the history brought out here on Covey's background ...

I think it's a mix. Look how fast, right out of the gate those Form 4's came through, Pritt, Matty ... They dumped while the hype was in full swing and as always, the 'company' went right along with it. Grandiose proclamations of what kind of revs. they had and near future expectations ... Then the slow eking of real info started coming through, in filings, in cyber sleuth postings, etc.

It was a cash grab from the get go then a carrot dangling strategy to help IR and the other toxic financers to unload as much as they could and then ultimately, silence.

Wouldn't categorize it as standard stinky pink playbook, they had a better, 'real' product, a sort of semi-intentional SEC filer aspect to lend some legitimacy, the requisite obfuscation and intentional confusion aspect to keep the masses intrigued and attentive, even hopeful.

There are outright scams and more clever schemes, this seems to trend towards the later.