Let's consider that they are all lying to Tom Delonge

a reply to: mirageman

well if you ever want to visit me in the USA, I'll put you up like royalty
and pay for everything except your air travel.

does that count for a beer?

but TY. I didn't have the references at my fingertips.

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

I think following the money trail paints at least part of the picture of what is really going on here.

I've placed most of this in my own thread Bigelow, UFOs, MUFON and ‘DeLonge’ Road to AATIP across a couple of posts but here are the details again for everyone to ponder.


Basically DeLonge talks UFOs and aliens and things on chat shows. But the hard finances of how his company operates are far removed from anything like that.

Here is the TTS & AAS offer document in detail : Link

PRELIMINARY OFFERING CIRCULAR DATED AUGUST 15, 2017

To The Stars Academy of Arts and Science Inc.

We are required to pay a minimum royalty guarantee of $100,000 each calendar year. Under a Licensing Agreement, we are required to pay royalty payments to Tom DeLonge, Mr. Handsome, LLC, and Good In Bed Music, ASCAP (see “Intellectual Property”, “Liquidity and Capital Resources”, and “Interest of Management and Others in Certain Transactions”). If total royalty payments in any given calendar year are less than $100,000, we have agreed to pay any shortfall such that the annual minimum royalty paid under the Licensing Agreement will be $100,000. This means that we will have to pay this amount even when we have limited revenues, and this could materially reduce our earnings in any year. Failure to pay the minimum royalty guarantee could lead to termination of the Licensing Agreement, and termination of the Licensing Agreement could result in legal and financial harm to the company.

So $100k is guaranteed to end up in DeLonge's pockets no matter what happens to this project.

Besides Tom's nice earner there are more outgoings listed. Approximately $600,000 to repay a loan from Our Two Dogs, Inc.



This seems to be a hotdog stand with 12 employees and annual turnover of $400k a year. I have no idea how it can loan £600k to TTS & AAS.
It seems like a tax write off to me.

Guess who owns 'our Two Dogs'? You didn't have to blink once, never mind 182 times, to work that out did you? Yes it's Tom. A financial conjuring trick it seems. 6% interest as well. Wonder if I could do the same by moving cash to my trouser pocket from my wallet?

Then we have the confirmation that this is Tom's Entertainment Business with no revenue streams or customers for anything outside of that realm. So risks are very high indeed.



In fact even a fully subscribed project can only raise $50m. Which wouldn't even 'buy' you a modern jet fighter off the shelf.

In the extremely unlikely situation that it does reach full subscription here is how the money would be spent.



So the plan would be to spend a huge chunk of monies raised on salaries (despite the low head count), warehousing, office space, records, books and comic books and marketing.

Approximately $16.1 million towards acquisitions or strategic partnerships in the Aerospace and Science Divisions.

I am not sure what $16.1m gets you in the Aerospace and Science fields these days. But I'd suggest that established companies have a lot more cash and much deeper resources to develop aerospace projects.

If the stock flotation only raises $30m then only $9m will be allocated for the above, reducing to $1.5m if only $5m is raised.

Finally

If the offering size were to be less than $5 million and above the $1 million minimum, TTS AAS would adjust its use of proceeds by reducing planned growth of employee headcount, reducing operational costs, and slowing down projects or not making investment in projects. The company is also required under the loan to Our Two Dogs, Inc. to repay 10% of the net proceeds from funds raised in this offering, up to $400,000 in this scenario.

So if the project doesn't raise $5m then any money invested goes to paying his 'existing' team (who 3 months into their first year have so far produced a website and a promo video that we know of). $100k goes to Tom and $400k minimum to his Two Dogs company.

TTS is run by people that Bigelow trusts and has had history with (i say that without hard proof). Justice, Nolan, Mellen, Puthoff, Davis, elizondo, etc. Why else would these guys leave their current positions and be front and center to a private sector public interest R&D program centered around UFO/UAP. These guys are all over social media spreading the word about TTS.....

Wrong!

The only full time employees of TTSA are Tom and Kari DeLonge, and Lisa Clifford. Jim Semivan and Hal Puthoff are listed as contractors. Luiz Elizondo and others are not listed. I assume they are casual labour resources and will be paid like gig workers. Whatever their role is they are NOT employed by DeLonge.



Currently the TTSA cash counter says they've raised $2,504,842.

So in the profound words of Bon Jovi they're "...half way there. Woh Ohh!, livin' on a prayer!

...continued below>>>

Anyone subscribing is probably just handing cash to DeLonge.

The reason being is that the absolute maximum it will raise is some $50m if fully subscribed. Which is best case scenario for the company. However that is nowhere near enough capital to start up an 'aerospace' venture. Never mind recruiting the brightest minds, building design and manufacturing facilities and sourcing raw materials.

So what the company would need to do (even assuming this highly unlikely scenario) is raise more capital without any real visible means of making any profits in the short to medium term.

The offer documents even highlight this scenario,

Future dilution

Another important way of looking at dilution is the dilution that happens due to future actions by the company. The investor’s stake in a company could be diluted due to the company issuing additional shares. In other words, when the company issues more shares, the percentage of the company that you own will go down, even though the value of the company may go up. You will own a smaller piece of a larger company. This increase in number of shares outstanding could result from a stock offering (such as an initial public offering, another crowdfunding round, a venture capital round, angel investment), employees exercising stock options, or by conversion of certain instruments (e.g. convertible bonds, preferred shares or warrants) into stock.

If the company decides to issue more shares, an investor could experience value dilution, with each share being worth less than before, and control dilution, with the total percentage an investor owns being less than before. There may also be earnings dilution, with a reduction in the amount earned per share (though this typically occurs only if the company offers dividends, and most early stage companies are unlikely to offer dividends, preferring to invest any earnings into the company).

The type of dilution that hurts early-stage investors most occurs when the company sells more shares in a “down round,” meaning at a lower valuation than in earlier offerings. An example of how this might occur is as follows (numbers are for illustrative purposes only):


· In June 2014 Jane invests $20,000 for shares that represent 2% of a company valued at $1 million.


· In December the company is doing very well and sells $5 million in shares to venture capitalists on a valuation (before the new investment) of $10 million. Jane now owns only 1.3% of the company but her stake is worth $200,000.


· In June 2015 the company has run into serious problems and in order to stay afloat it raises $100,000 at a valuation of only $200,000 (the “down round”). Jane now owns only 0.89% of the company and her stake is worth only $2,667.....

If you are making an investment expecting to own a certain percentage of the company or expecting each share to hold a certain amount of value, it’s important to realize how the value of those shares can decrease by actions taken by the company. Dilution can make drastic changes to the value of each share, ownership percentage, voting control, and earnings per share.

See : Link

Plus there is nowhere to sell your investments. The shares are not listed and cannot currently be liquidated. The only way you might get anything out of this is playing a very long game and hoping that, against all odds, this TTS and AAS company can start turning in huge profits some day. With hardly even $2.5m raised at present then it doesn't take a financial genius to work out what the more likely scenario is.

In fact the document tells us.

If the offering size were to be less than $5 million and above the $1 million minimum, TTS AAS would adjust its use of proceeds by reducing planned growth of employee headcount, reducing operational costs, and slowing down projects or not making investment in projects. The company is also required under the loan to Our Two Dogs, Inc. to repay 10% of the net proceeds from funds raised in this offering, up to $400,000 in this scenario.

Now if you don't understand any of this don't invest any money. If you do, then I dare say you won't invest any money.

a reply to: mirageman

good link.

keep in mind that technology has matured and is several generations old now.

they can create these plasma blooms multiple different ways.

they've even had several breakthroughs in regards to the applications of these plasma blooms.

plasma blooms aren't one trick ponies. they're even interactive.

turns out they're very (extremely) versatile. and because of that, much of what they use them for is classified even though they are in wider use than most are aware of.

I'm not saying all ufos are plasma blooms, and plasma blooms don't explain all that's out there but they are responsible for a sizable chunk of many ufo reports.


but plasma doesn't just run out of its uses with plasma blooms. plasma in its self can be used in many different applications.

I'd go into detail. but I also know that certain folks get angry when you do and I don't want to incur their wrath.. besides once you learn how something intriguing works it no long becomes intriguing or interesting anymore. and I'm moving on to other areas of interest. you guys can have the foo fighter, wth is that glowing mysterious light flitting around the sky phenomena all to yourselves im going to stick to gardening topics.

in the end I guess I'm just a loon who drank too much of the science and technology koolaid.

so.....anybody want to talk about tropical flowers. heliconia is always a stunning flower and a perfect conversation starter. for instance
heliconia rostrata vs heliconia psittacorum which is better suited for landscaping in hot humid climate zones. on one hand rostrata is showy with its pendulus flower racemes but psitticorum is much more practical as a landscaping cultivar. of course if your away from a humid environment youll probably be wanting to select heliconia schiedeana although its blooms are less desireable. what say you ATS members. is the rostrata superior or the psitticorum?

a reply to: BASSPLYR

www.gardenia.net...

Gardenias are my flower of choice. I helped my grandma grow them in
northern minnesota.. that and her "pansies".

Very much not tropical flowers though.

Maybe sometime, in private, or public, you can educate me on "plasma blooms"
it's not the sort of plasma that I'm up on.. and you do have interesting theories..
and a bright mind.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

If I ever get to your part of the USA Kev, I'm sure we could have a beer or two and a good laugh. However we remain separated by expensive air fares, and a big ocean.

But let's not derail this thread any more. It's unfair on our good friend paper183

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

gardenias are in my opinion one of the most delectably fragrant flowers around. can be tricky if soil drainage isn't adequate. if you can grow big handsome gardenia bushes you definitely have a green thumb or a lot of luck with having just the right type of soil at hand.

you too have great theories and a bright mind. always enjoyable to converse with you.

now I'll drop out of this thread and refrain from posting until of course someone posts something I can't help myself from responding to.

originally posted by: Stephen001
a reply to: Lathroper

Humm... you don't think the CIA use UFOs as a cover for secret aircraft, think you will find this is the case. Unless you think that was/is a conspiracy to make you believe UFOs/Aliens aren't here!

The CIA has no time to try to fool anyone with human aircraft. The aircraft that they may have control over are standard aircraft because there are no radical aircraft made that emulates any of the aerodynamic characteristics nor appearance of real, non-human aircraft. Savvy skywatchers will not see anything radical that will confuse them into thinking that what they're witnessing is not made by humans. Limitations keep human aircraft from looking different.

Secret aircraft, yes in that regular aircraft are used for specific purposes so that if you see any of their aircraft you are going to see regular, human constructed planes, no circular shapes, no spherical shapes. Nothing unusual about them and the only difference between the same models is that the CIA's planes are equipped mostly internally for their particular mission.

The CIA, nor anyone else, has any connections to real, mysterious UFOs.

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Erno86

Foo fighters are an artifact of the new radars that came out at that time.

so no laughing to the bank.

Well...that's news to me --- Care to post a link on the subject?

Since I've seen a foo fighter myself...I'm very enthralled with space alien propulsion technology.