Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
>> Dr. Thomas Hartwick, an early technical advisor to ClearSign, asked me to post this comment for him:
>>Now I know what a celeb feels like when slimed by a tabloid!
The facts are the facts. I have provided concrete evidence, see: http://sdrv.ms/Wk8dhO
>>Apparently, Mr. Berry seems to believe that if my integrity and character are impugned, then investors will believe that ClearSign Combustion Company technology is flawed.
No. The question is, given the SSTP case, is Hartwick willing to rent his name out for a fee? You yourself, Ben, provided evidence when you claimed that Hartwick advised over 700 companies. Either you are lying, are incorrect, or this creates a serious problem for Hartwick’s story.
In your article, Mr. Padnos, you said that Hartwick has advised over 700 companies ‒ and when you look at it that way, it sounds impressive. But just 3 years ago, in an SSTP press release, Hartwick was said to have advised 500 companies over the previous 50 years. http://reut.rs/Y3l9o9
When you step back and calculate the amount of time available to each company, it appears that somebody is not being straight with somebody else.
What would be the ratio of money received to scientific contribution delivered? Let’s do the math. According to SSTP and Padnos, Hartwick advised 500 companies until three years ago and 700 companies to date. That comes to 200 new companies over the last 3 years, or 66.6 companies per year. If this is all true, then Hartwick can dedicate, on average, a total of 5.5 days to each company. (This presumes that Hartwick never takes a day off, gets sick, or travels.) How much scientific effort is actually involved with cutting edge science? … “world changing” science, like solving the world’s energy problems by applying a secret catalyst to a thousand-year-old technology or re-inventing fire by applying an electric field like William Brande did 200 years ago? Given the time constraints, is it possible for Hartwick to make a meaningful contribution to the majority of these companies, is he only lending his name for a fee, or is someone lying?
>>I cannot speak for ClearSign management, but as an early participant in their technology I can say that ClearSign technology is based on experimental fact. I can also state that my effort to establish the science basis largely explains experimental data.
Yes. It has a scientific basis – but it’s not new. It’s old . That was the point of my first report: http://bit.ly/UFnuVu The experimental facts date back to the Kaehni’s – 60 years back. http://bit.ly/UUvW9W
Presenting an old but obscure technology as if it had a “secret sauce” was precisely what Rivera did and what he was found guilty of. Rivera ran a technology scam, Hartwick’s name was used to help promote that technology, not only according to press releases but according to your (Padnos) own citations of Hartwick.
> I summarized the basic science status before I left ClearSign in a report dated 3/7/2012.
This is interesting. Is Dr. Hartwick saying that he is not with Clearsign anymore? That he left Clearsign as of 3/7/2012? Or did you mean to say that he left “Clearsign a report dated 3/7/2012” …? Which is it? (He is still listed as the top-listed advisor in the April prospectus.)
>>>My advice to serious investors is to not rely on specious allegations ….
I have provided facts. You have provided adjectives.
Clearsign’s ECC technology has no credible inventor.
Answer the critical question: Who invented Clearsign’s ECC technology? See http://bit.ly/TAskCc
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
My research on Qihoo was and is correct. It has not only held up it was recently confirmed just last week.
Interestingly, I exposed Qihoo’s fake Microsoft security patch last August. The SAIC has only now concluded its investigation, and my reporting was validated. The fact that Qihoo’s stock price stayed up is in no way "proof" that this Chinese Government agency’s (SAIC) report is incorrect. Facts are facts – Madoff’s investors piling on, or Qihoo’s, don’t change them.
The Chinese Government’s recent Feb 2013 response is here: http://bit.ly/12EopOC (run it through the Google translator) “…In August 2012, 360 security guards to its users, has released a product called KB360018 "high-risk vulnerability patches. The foreign authority website System Explorer is confirmed in the post-test, the patch is posing as Microsoft's IE patch. …”
These are stories coming out last week. I wrote my article last August. It has held up. My research was and is correct.
My work on Qihoo’s ARPU was also validated … by Qihoo in their later conference call. They adjusted their numbers downward – divisible by 3! -- to a more reasonable level after my article …. Without an explanation and without anybody really caring. As long as the stock price goes up … very few investors ask questions.
If there were a number “5” on one side of the playground and “4” on the other, a rope in the middle, and if the object were to pull the rope toward the correct answer to the equation: “2 + 2 =What” The kid should always pull on that side of the rope that leads to 4. If he’s outnumbered and the tug-a-war goes the other way, he loses one game … but at least he keeps his clarity. That’s worth something, and on average he can expect to win more than he loses.
My report on the underlying reality of Qihoo was and is correct: http://bit.ly/PFhMUl
Here's Qihoo's recent contradiction, Q1 2012 CC: “ … the ARPU for the month was about 440 …” Q2 2012 CC: “"Web game gross ARPU for this quarter was approximately RMB400."
Question: Does 440/month even come close to 400/quarter? A third grader could figure this out. Where do you stand on this?
I am again short QIHU -- going into this audit season. CLIR however is my focus.
I focus on “fractured fairytales” – and have a basic faith in human judgment that most lies/errors will eventually be exposed. How long that takes is beyond my ability: estimating how far irrationality will carry a matter is not a rational exercise. The facts however never go away and this unrelenting and unavoidable contact by all interested parties will effect its slow conversion. This is a faith however that is sometimes difficult to keep. I'll admit that.
If you think my analysis is wrong, point out the errors. “I’ve had a great return on my money” is not a refutation – just ask Madoff’s victims … or SPU’s ... http://bit.ly/YHgQBI
But if you really think the “price is proof” then CLIR’s drop in price has refuted your position. But it doesn’t always work that way. The facts are the facts. Whether a crowd masses this way or that way is irrelevant. The basic risk of being a short seller is that human gullibility is a tangible fact. Frauds and human errors can last hundreds of years … thousands – flat earth, etc.
>>Furthermore, Matt, it would be nice for you to disclose who is compensating you, as well as how much, for your so-called "research."
I am a private investor and have no other compensation than my own funds in my own investments. I am also a participant in the SEC Whistleblower program. Other than that I have not and do not receive compensation from outside sources for my research on Clearsign or MDB Capital Group.
>>I've done my homework and have been able to identify the guys you're working with.
Being me, I know you’re lying. I work alone. I am a private investor. Of course your other readers will have room for doubt – but not me. You can play this game with your intended audience … that’s a limitation inherent in the fact of human subjectivity. But I know you are just making this up.
Now, here’s the next move that you can’t make: you have said you have done your homework and you can identify the “guys.” At this point, you need to publish your evidence and name names. Who am I working with? You can’t do that because you’re lying. I know you’re lying because … well … I’m me. I work alone. All of the research I have presented is my own, all court clerk fees, etc, paid for with my own funds, and compensated only by my own short (and with some slight hope that the SEC Whistleblower program will pay off a few years down the road).
You wrote an adjective-dependent rebuttal of my original report. I refuted your rebuttal thoroughly. My original report stands and the additional material I have presented here raises new questions. You have failed to respond.
You have also failed to answer the critical question: Who invented Clearsign’s ECC technology? http://bit.ly/TAskCc
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
“By their fruits …” It was a tough decision when I began. Normally, I wouldn’t deal too much with who is who … but in this case the company has no products, not even an independently tested technology and so everything hinges on the “original inventor(s).” Given severe cash burn, the science team is the only real asset and so it is not only permitted but critical that the science team be examined for credibility.
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
Thanks Ted. Yeah …. in the best of all possible worlds, the side that benefits from increased transparency should win … of course it doesn’t always work out that way, but it’s the only side I want to bet on.
China Edu Alliance: “Unfortunately they were using scotch tape and it wasn't sticking.”
Hilarious.
“I was a bit disappointed to see that no one from MDB decided to post comments on seeking alpha as they did with my recent article discussing UNXL.”
I was surprised at their mass presence in the comment section of your SA article …. But then Padnos posted what he said was Martlett/MDB’s year-end letter: “We are also helping [MDB clients] develop response plans in case their critics come out with spurious attacks.”
Perhaps that was part of their organized response? …. But then why not here? … hmm.
As underwriters of CLIR's IPO, and in light of the false statements in the S-1, how much room does MDB have for a due diligence defense? http://sdrv.ms/WEl0uM ... hmmm....
They took your article as they would a root canal. For anyone who hasn’t read it: http://bit.ly/WHNGCb
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
It's very simple. Who invented Clearsign's ECC technology?
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
[My comments were either deleted or there was a technical glitch. Here is a shorter post]
Clearsign is based on experimental fact -- 60 years old. http://bit.ly/UFnuVu
I present facts, and they speak for themselves. John Rivera was convicted in federal court of running a technology scam: http://sdrv.ms/Wk8dhO
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
Clearsign is based on experimental fact -- 60 years old. http://bit.ly/UFnuVu
I present facts, and they speak for themselves. John Rivera was convicted in federal court of running a technology scam: http://sdrv.ms/Wk8dhO
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
Clearsign is based on experimental fact -- 60 years old. http://seekingalpha.co...
I present facts, and they speak for themselves. John Rivera was convicted in federal court of running a technology scam: http://sdrv.ms/Wk8dhO
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
Who invented Clearsign's ECC technology?
It's this simple.
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
>>Now I know what a celeb feels like when slimed by a tabloid!
The facts are the facts. I have provided concrete evidence, see: http://sdrv.ms/Wk8dhO
>>Apparently, Mr. Berry seems to believe that if my integrity and character are impugned, then investors will believe that ClearSign Combustion Company technology is flawed.
No. The question is, given the SSTP case, is Hartwick willing to rent his name out for a fee? You yourself, Ben, provided evidence when you claimed that Hartwick advised over 700 companies. Either you are lying, are incorrect, or this creates a serious problem for Hartwick’s story.
In your article, Mr. Padnos, you said that Hartwick has advised over 700 companies ‒ and when you look at it that way, it sounds impressive. But just 3 years ago, in an SSTP press release, Hartwick was said to have advised 500 companies over the previous 50 years. http://reut.rs/Y3l9o9
When you step back and calculate the amount of time available to each company, it appears that somebody is not being straight with somebody else.
What would be the ratio of money received to scientific contribution delivered? Let’s do the math. According to SSTP and Padnos, Hartwick advised 500 companies until three years ago and 700 companies to date. That comes to 200 new companies over the last 3 years, or 66.6 companies per year. If this is all true, then Hartwick can dedicate, on average, a total of 5.5 days to each company. (This presumes that Hartwick never takes a day off, gets sick, or travels.) How much scientific effort is actually involved with cutting edge science? … “world changing” science, like solving the world’s energy problems by applying a secret catalyst to a thousand-year-old technology or re-inventing fire by applying an electric field like William Brande did 200 years ago? Given the time constraints, is it possible for Hartwick to make a meaningful contribution to the majority of these companies, is he only lending his name for a fee, or is someone lying?
See http://sdrv.ms/YuDn7O
>>I cannot speak for ClearSign management, but as an early participant in their technology I can say that ClearSign technology is based on experimental fact. I can also state that my effort to establish the science basis largely explains experimental data.
Yes. It has a scientific basis – but it’s not new. It’s old . That was the point of my first report: http://bit.ly/UFnuVu The experimental facts date back to the Kaehni’s – 60 years back. http://bit.ly/UUvW9W
Presenting an old but obscure technology as if it had a “secret sauce” was precisely what Rivera did and what he was found guilty of. Rivera ran a technology scam, Hartwick’s name was used to help promote that technology, not only according to press releases but according to your (Padnos) own citations of Hartwick.
> I summarized the basic science status before I left ClearSign in a report dated 3/7/2012.
This is interesting. Is Dr. Hartwick saying that he is not with Clearsign anymore? That he left Clearsign as of 3/7/2012? Or did you mean to say that he left “Clearsign a report dated 3/7/2012” …? Which is it? (He is still listed as the top-listed advisor in the April prospectus.)
>>>My advice to serious investors is to not rely on specious allegations ….
I have provided facts. You have provided adjectives.
Clearsign’s ECC technology has no credible inventor.
Answer the critical question: Who invented Clearsign’s ECC technology? See http://bit.ly/TAskCc
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
Interestingly, I exposed Qihoo’s fake Microsoft security patch last August. The SAIC has only now concluded its investigation, and my reporting was validated. The fact that Qihoo’s stock price stayed up is in no way "proof" that this Chinese Government agency’s (SAIC) report is incorrect. Facts are facts – Madoff’s investors piling on, or Qihoo’s, don’t change them.
My article from last August: http://bit.ly/12ic26b
The Chinese Government’s recent Feb 2013 response is here: http://bit.ly/12EopOC (run it through the Google translator) “…In August 2012, 360 security guards to its users, has released a product called KB360018 "high-risk vulnerability patches. The foreign authority website System Explorer is confirmed in the post-test, the patch is posing as Microsoft's IE patch. …”
SA article last week confirming the event: http://bit.ly/12EoyS2
Other articles: http://bit.ly/12ibM7d
“How Qihoo is committing Fraud” -- http://bit.ly/XQxfRz
http://bit.ly/12ibM7j
These are stories coming out last week. I wrote my article last August. It has held up. My research was and is correct.
My work on Qihoo’s ARPU was also validated … by Qihoo in their later conference call. They adjusted their numbers downward – divisible by 3! -- to a more reasonable level after my article …. Without an explanation and without anybody really caring. As long as the stock price goes up … very few investors ask questions.
http://bit.ly/PFhMUl
If there were a number “5” on one side of the playground and “4” on the other, a rope in the middle, and if the object were to pull the rope toward the correct answer to the equation: “2 + 2 =What” The kid should always pull on that side of the rope that leads to 4. If he’s outnumbered and the tug-a-war goes the other way, he loses one game … but at least he keeps his clarity. That’s worth something, and on average he can expect to win more than he loses.
My report on the underlying reality of Qihoo was and is correct: http://bit.ly/PFhMUl
Here's Qihoo's recent contradiction,
Q1 2012 CC: “ … the ARPU for the month was about 440 …”
Q2 2012 CC: “"Web game gross ARPU for this quarter was approximately RMB400."
Question: Does 440/month even come close to 400/quarter? A third grader could figure this out. Where do you stand on this?
I am again short QIHU -- going into this audit season. CLIR however is my focus.
I focus on “fractured fairytales” – and have a basic faith in human judgment that most lies/errors will eventually be exposed. How long that takes is beyond my ability: estimating how far irrationality will carry a matter is not a rational exercise. The facts however never go away and this unrelenting and unavoidable contact by all interested parties will effect its slow conversion. This is a faith however that is sometimes difficult to keep. I'll admit that.
If you think my analysis is wrong, point out the errors. “I’ve had a great return on my money” is not a refutation – just ask Madoff’s victims … or SPU’s ... http://bit.ly/YHgQBI
But if you really think the “price is proof” then CLIR’s drop in price has refuted your position. But it doesn’t always work that way. The facts are the facts. Whether a crowd masses this way or that way is irrelevant. The basic risk of being a short seller is that human gullibility is a tangible fact. Frauds and human errors can last hundreds of years … thousands – flat earth, etc.
>>Furthermore, Matt, it would be nice for you to disclose who is compensating you, as well as how much, for your so-called "research."
I am a private investor and have no other compensation than my own funds in my own investments. I am also a participant in the SEC Whistleblower program. Other than that I have not and do not receive compensation from outside sources for my research on Clearsign or MDB Capital Group.
>>I've done my homework and have been able to identify the guys you're working with.
Being me, I know you’re lying. I work alone. I am a private investor. Of course your other readers will have room for doubt – but not me. You can play this game with your intended audience … that’s a limitation inherent in the fact of human subjectivity. But I know you are just making this up.
Now, here’s the next move that you can’t make: you have said you have done your homework and you can identify the “guys.” At this point, you need to publish your evidence and name names. Who am I working with? You can’t do that because you’re lying. I know you’re lying because … well … I’m me. I work alone. All of the research I have presented is my own, all court clerk fees, etc, paid for with my own funds, and compensated only by my own short (and with some slight hope that the SEC Whistleblower program will pay off a few years down the road).
You wrote an adjective-dependent rebuttal of my original report. I refuted your rebuttal thoroughly. My original report stands and the additional material I have presented here raises new questions. You have failed to respond.
You have also failed to answer the critical question: Who invented Clearsign’s ECC technology? http://bit.ly/TAskCc
You cannot answer this question.
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
It's simple: Who invented Clearsign's ECC technology?
The Future Is CLIR: Why The Shorts Are Wrong About ClearSign Combustion [View article]
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
ECC technology does not have a credible inventor.
http://sdrv.ms/U90Qb4
http://sdrv.ms/VOBqfZ
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
China Edu Alliance: “Unfortunately they were using scotch tape and it wasn't sticking.”
Hilarious.
“I was a bit disappointed to see that no one from MDB decided to post comments on seeking alpha as they did with my recent article discussing UNXL.”
I was surprised at their mass presence in the comment section of your SA article …. But then Padnos posted what he said was Martlett/MDB’s year-end letter: “We are also helping [MDB clients] develop response plans in case their critics come out with spurious attacks.”
Perhaps that was part of their organized response? …. But then why not here? … hmm.
As underwriters of CLIR's IPO, and in light of the false statements in the S-1, how much room does MDB have for a due diligence defense? http://sdrv.ms/WEl0uM ... hmmm....
They took your article as they would a root canal. For anyone who hasn’t read it: http://bit.ly/WHNGCb
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
Matt
3 foot crowbar . com : http://bit.ly/VM9TyS
Clearsign's Lies, Omissions, And One 'Bad Actor' [View article]
Why Is Uni-Pixel Falling? [View article]
Here is my response to your "rebuttal": http://bit.ly/VM9TyS