Hi again everyone. Apologies for being MIA for most of the past month but real life has a funny way of taking up a lot of time. I’d like to thank everyone for continuing to fight the good fight. Debate is a good thing, and I’m not concerned if someone is for or against the future of ZERO as long as they are authentically deliberating as opposed to shouting with their ears covered. I will note, though that my prolonged absence let me see a few trends which seem to be significant, and perhaps warrant more attention. At its core there are really only three arguments being made by those who are pessimistic on STWA long-term, each of which has a pretty compelling response.
1) The first set of arguments can be grouped under “AOT is a scam.” These arguments conclude that everything about the company is a lie and that there is nothing credible. The evidence given for this is that they had failed products in the past, Cecil got a pay raise, and the company paid for DOE testing . Such arguments beg the question: If AOT is junk and STWA is a scam, how deep does the rabbit hole go? History works against these arguments pretty significantly. If it’s really a P&D, why didn’t Cecil et. Al dump their shares at $1.70+ before the SA article? Or more recently when ZERO tested $1.50? Certainly people would be more than happy to make a $1.20 profit per share on their converted warrants. So it should be clear that’s not simply a P&D. Further, if the technology is just fake, then how do we explain the RMOTC testing results? When those who are short make arguments that “the tech isn’t as good as advertised,” rather than “AOT is made up” they are tacitly conceding that it can’t simply be a pump and dump.
2) But what about the junk company arguments? These arguments grant that perhaps Cecil is a good guy, but the tech is all a lie. And even if it’s NOT a total lie, this is only lab testing, not real world testing. Pushing this further, some post they simply “don’t believe” that AOT would work for 11+ hours (or as Pumper claimed, even a few mm away from the source). I’m 100% in agreement with Sano that more testing is a good thing, and it would probably enhance the faith that skeptics in the industry have of the technology. The problem for this argument, though, is all field testing has confirmed or exceeded the lab results. Thus I offer the Pepsi Challenge. Where is your evidence that your *doubt* is well grounded? All of the lab and field testing show it is on a shaky foundation. If one were to make the argument that the tests are invalid (as has been made many times), I again ask – are you claiming that the folks up at RMOTC fabricated the data? THAT is the question that needs to be answered. If the answer is “Yes,” well, we have bigger problems than just debating about a penny stock. Plus, I’d wonder about the end game. Why would someone like Cecil buy off the DOE so he could make an extra $100,000, and what would be in it for the DOE? The “Yes” answer raises far more questions than it answers. If the answer is “No,” well, that means that the best evidence we have of the technology indicates that there is a measurable difference in the viscosity of oil when AOT is turned on. AOT isn’t like Tinker Bell. It works regardless of whether you believe in it.
3) DILUTION! DEFAULT! SEC INVESTIGATIONS! ELEKTRA! AOT is Teflon. The objections just won’t stick because they're artificially constructed. About every week those who doubt the future viability of the stock dig up something new and run with that until we as a community distill our responses into a theoretically tight sound-bite which can’t really be refuted. Given this, the ‘red herring’ approach seems to be the modus operendi. The common objection is “Penny stock = more dilution,” occasionally “STWA is in default with Temple,” and the peppering of “STWA was a bad company, therefore, they continue to be a bad company.” My sense is that when it is necessary for people to take a “throw everything against the wall and see what sticks” approach, they tend to be on weak footing. Obviously there are pitfalls and challenges to overcome for STWA to find commercial success, but the strength of the science, the fortitude of the executives, and the lack of real substantive objections makes ZERO a stock to hold.
