CEO responds to skeptic's "concerns"

I do not know why FBO.gov does not show all our NASA work. It appears they only show the one PO they went to procurement with every year (sole-source procurement) – not all the orders from various NASA departments. I can tell you I received a PO immediately following the procurement in July 2009 and then received subsequent PO ’s and tape data migration orders from other NASA departments and they did not show up on fbo.gov.

As I have stated before, the bashers/shorts/hedgefunds go to considerable lengths to try and damage our relationship with our clients. In other words, it appears if a public company is producing income to justify its statements (regulators cease trade if statements can’t be backed up) then they attempt to “make the company a scam” by contacting their clients or institutions with false claims to destroy its revenue stream. An example of this in our company was the lengths the bashers went to on our company last October. I claimed we read MIT’s tapes and there was a page on MIT’s website about my work. It was not a promotional page nor did it mention the company. After the bashers finally realized it was true and I did do work for CSAIL they then contacted the institutions’ board to the point that that CSAIL was pressured to remove the web page. You can actually watch their action on atomicbobs (nearly in real time) when they managed to complain so much the page was removed and bragged about its removal. Immediately thereafter the same bashers claimed I had no prior history doing tapes for MIT and pointed to a dead link for “proof”. This is a very organized effort of IMO, people who do not think right. In any event, we can back up our claims so they are not going to be successful with the regulators as they have been in the past (we CAN back up our claims because we are not a scam like most OTC companies). I appreciate our investors support and we are focused on executing our business plan. It’s unfortunate we are not able to disclose as much as we have in the past but it appears the only people to be using that information are the bashers and those who wish to scare people away to buy shares cheaper.

One last thing about the catalyst. We were advised by our IP lawyers not to patent the catalyst. I’ve had many conference calls about it. This is not to say there may not be a creative way in the future to protect it through a vague patent but unlikely… (this is a quote from them some time ago - a very large firm in Toronto ):

“ regarding the catalyst. Looks to me like something that you would want to keep as a trade secret if that is possible. Reason being that if you patent it you will have to disclose it to the world, you will gain control over it but since you cannot tell if anyone else is using it what good would that control be? You just need to investigate whether or not keeping it as a trade secret is commercially and contractually feasible given that you want to allow others to use the catalyst.”

We are having the catalyst made the same Pepsi and Coke make their formulas:

http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=suffolk_ip

There are many web sites describing how Pepsi protects their formula including separate area, only two people know it and make it, etc…

BTW, I have never paid myself 800,000 or anything like that for the ovens or hardware. I did spend a lot of my own money to develop the technology and it was all sold to JBII “at cost” (no labor) and that was audited.

One last thing…

Oil and Gas is a big customer and we read tapes for many Universities which is also tape income.


Regards,

John Bordynuik, CEO

JBI