RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:CEO , Paul McKensie...illumination1 wrote:
You obviously seem to have selective memory Craigbad--I am so sorry to say this.
How many times did i post about the space observatory example? Did you just
simply ignore/not read those posts or are you just kind of playing dumb here?
I had shown by hypothetical and conservative figures that when licensing at
10% the company can get 50 million on two telescopes--your figures are just
absolutely out to lunch--I am so sorry to say that. And if you keep denying the other
figure given of a potential 1.6 billion from the other publication what can we say other
than your posts being an absolute nuissance and misinformed. So nice try!
Call me a skeptic, but I don't buy into the huge numbers thrown out by a company who spends $100s of thousands on stock promotion. I bet if you ask some of these people who touted these blue sky numbers they probably sold off most if not all of their holdings during the heavily promoted run up, but are still holding a "core" position. Business is hard and I don't really see a world where some institution is going to just write the a cheque for $25 million for the privilege of using their design on
one telescope. So far we have some heavily processed grey scale pctures of the moon from a poc telescope hooked up to a computer. So unless people are going to walk around with a macbook hooked up to their eyeglasses and binoculars, I'd like to see a poc that doesn't need processing (go figure, if that was possible wouldn't it have been the best starting point?) I'd love to see them succeed but this is a valuation call based on what I see proven so far, but thats what makes a market. I still think we'll be well into the cents by summer, theres been a mad rush to get those warrants and options exercised by those close to the company and they probably know best. Give them a few years to see how they progress, I'm just trading this on overvaluation and will likely be gone by summer.