Please respond if you disagree with the specific points below and try to be specific.
The latest is Processor #3 is declared the flagship processor without ever being tested. It is declared by John Bordynuik to be a technological marvel before commercial production. I know we are nearing financing time, but does he never learn any lessons? The obfuscation almost appears intentional when you put it in the context of JBI history:
1) Let's start with the tape reading in 2009. They announced two days of tape reading in Q2 of 2009 for around $47,000. We were told and this was played up and "extrapolated" to mean investors could expect $23,000 per day in tape reading. Oddly it never, ever happened. I only bring this one up to show the pattern started very early. This was not a prediction of the future gone wrong. This was intentional obfuscation.
2) John Bordynuik claimed in present tense to be producing 125 barrels a day and clearing $68 per barrel. Specifically his statement: "We are still at about 125 barrels a day and at the west, WTI the — I think it’s about $71 a barrel right now today. We clear $68 with delivery charges in and the clear is about $2.2 million per site...." No future tense there, that was intentional obfuscation. Complete interview here: http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/2009/12/jbi-inc-otc-bb-jbii-ceo-interview/
3) Now I will just briefly mention the obfuscation around announcing commercial operations repeatedly, 45 sites in Fla, site in Ohio, commercial P20 ship etc. We now know that Al Souza is suing JBI for complete lack of performance on the contract. All Bordynuik wanted as the PR and the ability for awareness consultants to tout the PR to sell stock.
4)There can be no argument around the company intentionally hiding negative P20 fuel margins behind cardboard recycling in the latter part of 2011 and in Q1-Q3 of 2012. What legitimate business reason is there for this obfuscation? We were told cardboard recycling was not significant, but we now know it did materially inflate revenue and made negative margins look positive. This was no future looking statement but an intentional act to hide the real performance of P20 fuel production and sales.
5)The company declared as late as November 2012 that Q1 would be cash flow positive when they knew they were running negative gross margins. And again they knew they were hiding that fact from investors. How many people would have possibly believed the CFP forecast if they knew the true state of fuel margins? They specifically knew P1 was crippled and half R&D to the point it's status is still up in the air as of the last CC. P2 can only run only in 140,000 lb or 15000 gallons of fuel increments without needing to be cleaned out, and P3 was way behind and completely untested. Think about the massive volume of fuel and plastic that would need to be processed (well over 1,500,000 gallons of fuel in even the craziest most optimistic scenario) to be CFP. Based on what we know now about the state of the company, would any reasonable person believe CFP was possible in the very next quarter? And be so confident as to declare it publicly as an executive of a publicly traded company? When was that last PIPE again?
6) And the SAIC audit just happens to fit into the 15,000 gallon run limit for P2 that the company finally admitted in the last CC. Even if the SAIC demanded cleanouts before and after, do we think it is coincidence that just the cover sheet was leaked and this limitation never discussed by the company in any communication? Like the tape drive incident, investors were given just enough information to come to the most optimistic but very wrong conclusion.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
