Capital Raise Discussion, page-17

Since the CT purchase deal for 2 TKF9000 machines was announced I have posted several times on HC that I believed CT was the subsidiary of Sikorsky and of LM. I asked the co for confirmation but my email was not even given the courtesy of a reply. However I still believe that to be the case. I gather that the test pieces made for CT did not perform properly in some way, hence the deferral, but there has been no informative update since then, but I suspect it may come back in due course.

The lack of follow on explanations for the progress of this "company making deal" is very disappointing - and very unprofessional - to say the least. I believe we need - and deserve - a detailed explanation of what happened - and why - and what is being done to advance it. And we need it now, before any CRs, so that we understand better how willingly the company communicates its progress - positive and negative - to its holders.

This is to say nothing about all of the other projects that the co has placed before its holders as evidence of its potential, none of which appear to have actually come to fruition in customer machine purchases. I understand that they have had to change their selling strategy and business model to mach the market reality for 3D printing uptake, but I believe we still need to have the status of all of those dangled carrots fully presented for inspection by holders, again so we understand what kind of company we are dealing with. Does the tech deliver real products that do what they promise, or not. Are they competent in marketing and selling them, or not. Are they honest about their capabilities and shortcomings, or not.