Iron Mike,
I completely understand your point of view about September 12th, in fact I think it is by far the most likely explanation about what she meant to say that date and in its presentation. I said a recorded message should be treated as a PR statement. I had a couple post removed this series of posts and I think it was becasue they indirectly had accusations made against management, so I’m not sure my entire sentiment still stands if you read back now, but some additional color would be helpful here
My premise is that everything on record that I read fits a story that I have about what has transpired except for Sept 12, although you also have to read a different meaning into PR and other statements after hindsight to see that. They are very craftily worded. That sept 12th is an anomaly which I have said many times before. I have also gone a step too far and have posts removed. So I wanted to go back and read again.
What I am saying here is that it is remotely plausible that she meant [to say] something .different….
So please stay tuned to [where to] see those trial results in just a few weeks. [how to], [when to]?
Flipper gave me this idea when he added dates in brackets to prior PRs. I believe she has a door, despite it being remotely plausible, to walk through that say something completely different. Because this was prerecorded that is even less solid ground to be on, but ground nonetheless.
I ultimately from my current read of materials and events believe that you do have to read the finer details of the PRs and statements to find carefully chosen words. That they always leave a door for an easy misinterpretation. That on September 12, they had little time to react for face value statements to be true because they hadn’t even locked [or at least posted us that they had] until October 5 2020. I believe there is a scenario and admit it is reaching to believe that allows this September 12 statement to be an unintended misinterpretation. I do not think it is solid ground. It was however corrected 3 weeks later and no harm done to shareholders as the details provided on Oct 5 were forward looking and corrected that timeline.
So I have been asking myself why? Why take that risk? Why do that?
They had completed a near miracle keeping the lights on and progress moving up to then and again thereafter. Even if you buy the theory that “it is all negative and they are stringing you out scammers” , why create that blunder and risk to your dangling at the edge thriller story that keeps some on pins and needles? Why do that?
To believe that piece to the story that I laid out in the last post is a big stretch. There must be a plausible explanation for why those words were said and how they were said on Sept 12, 2020. At face value they contridict a story and timeline that is otherwise quit plausible. I have some ideas to that answer and they are all good but my eyes are biased. So I am interested in other POV, as always.
