Penny Pirate, you just did it again. You ignored every factual point, every rule, every disclosure requirement, and every contradiction in the filings… and retreated back into the same fantasy script you always use when the paperwork collapses.
Let’s go line by line through your deflection.
1. “The Actual Problem is Naked Shorting”
No. Naked shorting does not create:
• a missing creditor on a 7.623M debt cancellation
• a 23.5M intangible with no valuation
• a buyback missing 58K
• a billion new shares during a buyback
• mineral revenue with no ore inventory
• PP&E with no equipment schedule
• a 12.6M gain on sale with no buyer, no note, no carrying value
• rGO vendors that do not exist in any registry
• a 458M share gap between Q3 and the transfer agent
Naked shorting is your religion.
It is not an accounting system.
2. “OTCID Requirements have been adhered to”
OTCID requires GAAP.
GAAP requires disclosures.
AABB provided none of the required disclosures.
Stop pretending a tier label replaces accounting.
3. “Pending deals, in-house testing, build-out, phases, equipment deliveries…”
None of this appears in the filings.
You’re listing things you heard, not things the company proved.
Financials require evidence, not storytime.
4. “AABB is a start-up, hence OTCID”
AABB has been publicly traded for more than a decade.
Start-up?
You’re rewriting history to justify missing disclosures.
5. “You ignore naked shorting that has been exposed”
Exposed by who?
Twitter spaces?
Anonymous accounts?
YouTube pumpers?
Investors walking around with cameras in the dark?
Show one regulatory action. One filing. One document.
There are none.
6. “We can see confirmed mines on the official Mexican mining site”
A claim repeated a hundred times does not become proof.
If the mines are “confirmed,” why does AABB provide:
• zero NI 43-101
• zero technical reports
• zero verified grades
• zero tonnage
• zero mine plan
• zero production data
• zero operational footprint
Mexican registry entries do not prove production.
They prove someone registered a parcel.
7. “Confirmed stockpile by investors that toured the facility”
Investors with no geological training taking selfies next to dirt piles are not auditors.
If AABB had real stockpiles:
• they would appear in inventory
• they would appear in footnotes
• they would be valued
• they would be tied to revenue
They aren’t.
8. “Two processing sites”
Name the depreciation.
Name the commissioning dates.
Name the equipment lists.
Name the ore throughput.
You can’t.
Because the filings don’t show any.
9. “GAAP requirements were mentioned for future Q’s”
They’re required now.
Not someday.
Not after “phases.”
Not after “catalysts.”
Not after “up-listing dreams.”
You’re basically saying:
“They’ll follow the rules eventually.”
That’s not how financial reporting works.
10. “Not a scam because there are plenty of irons in the fire”
Irons in the fire is not a legal defense.
It’s an excuse for missing disclosures.
Companies are judged by what they file, not what they promise, hint at, or imply.
Final point:
You keep responding to facts with feelings.
You respond to missing disclosures with “but catalysts!”
You respond to broken math with “but naked shorts!”
You respond to contradictions with “but up-listing!”
That isn’t analysis.
It’s coping.
If you want to contribute meaningfully, answer one single question:
Which ASC-required disclosure did AABB actually provide? Name one.
Until then, you’re not debating.
You’re cheerleading.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
