"Wess" offers well-reasoned rebuttal to JBI nay sayers

iHub poster "Wess" responds to nay sayer posters who doubt the validity of JBI's technology or its growth potential.

"Wess" comments:

In reading these posts I see two general attacks:

The first is meant to discredit by assailing the profitability of the various units of JBII.

The second is to discredit the information that has been issued by JBII as not verified, and therefore not credible.

In answer to the first:
Most start up companies are not profitable for many years, if at all. JBII was not only profitable, but within months of incorporation acquired two other companies (also profitable), and started a third.

The relevance (or lack thereof) of the limited profitability of these companies is smoke and mirrors on behalf of the posters in an attempt to distract and discredit. JBII purchased them to enhance the overall company through what they produce, can produce, and are positioned to accomplish, as mentioned in the 8Ks, press releases, and postings.

They have been a part of JBII for only a few months but have been synergistically integrated.

The fact that their revenues did not equate to massive EPS is meaningless in light of the facts that:

A) They were not bought for the revenue
B) The revenue, taken separately, and prior to integration, are not being evaluated in light of their integration into the new company.
C) P2O is expected to launch soon
D) The Tape reading has been, and continues to be expanded.
E) Pak-it is expected to increase revenue significantly through the re-tooling, roll-out to retail consumer, and advertising blitz, in addition to expanding the market from the US to include Canada, Central and South America, and Europe (starting with the distributor in England)

The negative posters try to mislead by asserting two different points at the same time, implying that they are one and the same:

JBII is not valid because the revenues generated from the separate entities in the past do not warrant, and JBII is not valid because the claims they make are not founded, in their estimation, and therefore discussion of the forward projections are considered meaningless.

As I have indicated, the first is irrelevant due the fact that the acquisitions were strategic to facilitate the the growth of the company,including the restructuring of those entities to increase profitability, and are meaningless due to the forward looking expectations (some of which are expected soon due to prior press). This is the probable reason for the attacks, otherwise, why not wait a few days for the CC, why the sudden spate of attacks so soon before the event?

In answer to the second:
Much press has been issued regarding verifications and future events. This has been summarily attacked primarily because it was issued by JBII, signed off by John B, or disclosed by John himself. The fact that specifics were not issued, even though noted that it would not be, is used a reasoning for its being invalid.

To this there are three answers:

First, to claim that the press, and releases from JB are invalid and unproven is in essence to call John a liar. I can hear the immediate outcry in defense, "I never said he was a liar." Too true, the words were never spoken, but the logical string derived of the assertions is tantamount to the same thing. JB has public ally stated that the P2O process has been tested, and validated. The critics say, "who did the testing?" "Where is publication of the result, certified by the lab?" "If it is not documented, how can it be known that it is valid?" Those assertions are to call into question the direct affirmations made by JB, thereby implicating him a liar and unreliable.

John's honesty and integrity has been proven many times over. MIT acknowledges him, NASA sole sources him, the Canadian legislature validates him, I even found validation from the NY State legislature for JBII. I, personally, deal in investigations of fraud, and vetted JB to my satisfaction. Moreover, not one of his critics, since the beginning of the posts here and elsewhere, has ever demonstrated a single fact discrediting him.

Second, what has John to gain from lying? He stands to lose everything where he to do so; assets, company, reputation and possibly freedom. John is extremely intelligent - documented by association with MIT, his patents, his accomplishments - is it reasonable to presume that he would therefore be stupid enough to lie about material facts that he knows will be required for the implementation of the P2O process, especially when he has mad it publicly known that the implementation is immanent, and when others have signed on, such as Heidel and Sousa? As a scam it would be the most incompetent, illogical attempt in the history of mankind. If it were a scam, JB would have been well served to trade his shares when the price was up, take the money and run. Oh,but wait, his shares were mostly exchanged to treasury, and he has not sold any to date. So, what, he makes false accusations, setting in motion the implementation of the P2O process, goes on record to state that the first will be operational before the AGM meeting, probably in March, and then waits for it all to fall apart?

Third, the verification of everything stipulated by JBII is immanent as indicated in the 8K. within am matter of weeks fro some items, possibly a little longer for other, all is expected to be verified by demonstration of fact. P2O expected in first quarter, before AGM, PAK-IT roll out and media blitz end of February, beginning of March, Lab certification allowed to be released, per the lab, joint ventures expected; all these are immanent in time and shall validate when accomplished, but rather than wait several weeks, the nay sayers are attempting to discredit JBII ahead of the fact. They cannot wait a few weeks to determine validity? If the stated goals were not to be accomplished they might have vindication. Instead of waiting for that vindication they are viscously increasing attacks. Why?

Therefore you have two options:

The first is to accept what JBII states to be true as coming from a reliable source, and accept the credibility.

The second is to assume that what has been asserted is unfounded, and therfore by logical inference, conclude that JB is a liar and fraud. This route is tantamount to slander, and has no basis or support, as previous demonstrated.

There are no other options: Either The assertions made by JBII and John are true or they are not. If you hold them to be true, than all other arguments fall by the wayside as specious. If you hold that they are not, then you indicate your belief that JB is a liar, a fraud, and stupid to boot, all this without any verification, just causal reasoning based upon faulty premise. Without any substance to merit questioning of Johns integrity, with evidence demonstrating both the futility and improbability of fraud or prevarication, I cannot conceive of holding to this premise.

The combining the two is a logical contradiction: JBII is not valid because the separate units, in the past before acquisition, do not merit value for JBII, and the fact that JBII purchased for strategic reasons, to grow the company and create profitability in not valid because it has not been seen (in 4 months), and the only word for it comes from the company. This is illogical as it dismisses value due to past events, and dismisses future events refuting the prior argument because they ARE forward looking, and demonstrated in the immediacy of now, discounting any and all evidence as irrelevant and unfounded.

John's character is unblemished. Reason dictates he is not lying, so therefore the assertions must be accepted as true. If you do not accept the value of JBII, at most you should wait until the stated events. soon forthcoming, prove or disprove themselves.

I, for one, am confident they shall validate all.