Replies to post #44596 on QS Energy Inc (QSEP)

[mr_sano]

“
Trust in One's own DD and don't listen to any other BS.”

Qsep’s foundation is based on “BS” aka Bogus Science”! Tao, the self proclaimed tornado wall expert will continue his efficacy fluffery as long as the public accepts his whacky theories. Reading any previous disclosures reveal that his work and results are “not ready for prime time”! As long as shareholder continues to swallow the behemoth excuses made every year for NOT selling these magic pipes...then all is good in Qsepland!

Anyone looking at recent disclosures can determine that this company has squandered huge amount of money and now needs more and more but provides no info as to why its previous products never had a moniker of success or why Fuel injection devices are no longer even mentioned in the public disclosures yet garner a majority of the 187k licensing maintenance fee due every year!! This is real DD not the constant regurgitating of some newly concocted company narrative. They have lied for years and nothing apparently has changed! The Kmi failed contract is a perfect example! The company spins it as a success but not a single dollar was transferred!

[PumpersExposed]

QS is in active talks with multiple North American companies. Including the US. Clearly been stated many times.

Yes it's been stated MANY times... which is what is so funny.. Because they never follow through, and year after year keep announcing these 'active talks'.

With a continual bid of 900,000 share on the buy

Fake bid. No-one with any investing sense would
A) place a bid of a size value of $90k when they could simply call up the company and negotiate a good 20 points plus warrants for the same funds
and
B) risk having a bunch of small fry hit the bid with 1-5000 lot sales and cost the buyer double in fees.

FAKE

You don't place that large a bid like that, or any bid really, unless you are willing and desire to get filled.

Or are just trying to manipulate a penny stock and have the power to pull it before the transaction books.

10k and 10Q have said in black and white over and over again.

No they don't.. which is why Beggar had to bow down to the SEC and stop using 'proven'. The only thing they consistently have is the disclaimer the viability is not proven.