Classic deflection—drop a bunch of half-baked claims, then toss in, “You won’t debate the facts, you’ll just personally attack me.” That’s not a defense. That’s an escape hatch for someone who knows their narrative can’t survive pressure.
Let’s talk about those “facts”:
“They promised 1 metric ton last year!”
No, they said it was the goal and they were ahead of internal scheduling. Actual production milestones have been shared incrementally—and verified by third-party documentation like the March 10th PR. You're inventing “promises” so you can call them broken.
“The Kings/MtheMovement deal made $0!”
That was pre-commercialization. Still pending. You can’t rake in millions before product exits the lab and enters the market on the CEO’s terms. The deal clearly served as a pre-positioning JV for Spydasilk—not a cash grab. You know this, but admitting it doesn’t fit the doom narrative you're married to. So instead, you twist timelines and pretend patience is a con. It's not. It's a strategy.
“R&D was over in 2015!”
False. The 2015 messaging was about completing core research on the first platform, not halting all future innovation. Scaling, hybrid development, and manufacturing optimization aren't R&D—they’re part of tech-to-market transition. That's how real science works outside your soundbites.
So yes, people push back on you—not because you’re too factual, but because you twist every KBLB truth into your takes to seem informed, then run for cover when challenged.
Narrative does not equal facts.
And shouting louder does not equal being right.
Bullish
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
