So it's unanimous so far. This is a weak presentation.

From reading the PR, it does not look as though anyone was there apart from Sanswire and Tao. They "hosted a tour". I also hosted a tour of my humble abode this morning. Nobody came, but I hosted a tour. I also demonstrated the bathroom facilities, but nobody was there.

Note the mandatory CEO quote: "The success of this demonstration lies mainly in our partner's participation and confidence that our UAV program is closer today than ever before toward meeting the demands of today's customers." So apparently the referenced success was due to nothing other than Tao's (i.e. "our partner's") performance, not some receptive third party audience. Again, nothing about anyone else being there, which would surely have been promoted in the PR, at least in generic terms, had anyone else actually attended...from reading the pr.

Yes, only a fool would have doubts about this little thoroughbred.

Excellent point, Destan.

I guess everyone will be pouring their found cash right back into this in-credible money pump.

Isn't that what Sanswire apologists have always said? LM scamming taxpayers by spending a fortune on projects that don't go anywhere? That's what has been repeated over and over here by supporters of Sanswire.

It's a smorgasbord; all flavors in a variety of entrees available from one table! Magnifique! No?

yep, that's the way they say the Feds operate. Start low and work up, as they've done here, and then squeeze baby squeeze. Kind of like tooth paste I guess.

Gotta love it. If not them, then who would ever do it?

What a schmorgasbord of scamalicious airships!

The thing is, by not acknowledging the existence of Sanswire, the MOU statement by Sanswire, or the use of the L3 logo by Sanswire, L3 maintains plausible deniability that they ever had anything whatever to do with Sanswire or even knew it existed.

It is useful because if they turn out to be penny stock scam with a lot of pesky lawsuits following them around, L3 will be free and clear of any involvement. Very important. On the other hand, in the unlikely event that they can actually make some decent money off Sanswire some day, that door is open also. Kind of CYA for whomever they were dealing with.

Does L3 actually know about the MOU, logo etc? Possibly, but nobody can prove it, can they?

all imo

L3 is silent because should the day ever come when one of these gas bags falls out of the sky and onto their doorstep, they will be happy to take Sanswire for all they can get. They are being totally non-commital, not confirming and not being hostile. Silence may be consent, but consent to what? Simply that if Sanswire ever shows up, they'll talk, and also to free advertising by being silent about their logo being posted on the Sanswire web site. Big deal.

Of course the active imaginations of the typical Sanswire shareholder sees far, far more than what is actually there.

That final comment of yours is not worth addressing except to call it to the attention of the moderator.

Nerd,
The conversation I'm having isn't really about what would happen if it could be made to work. I'm not really concerned with that because nothing this company ever tries to do ever works out. For whatever reasons, that is not how they have operated.

I'm saying that L3 does not need to give away the store to simply confirm that they have this MOU with Sanswire. They have not confirmed it even though Sanswire has promoted it. So they would not be giving away a secret to simply confirm nothing more than what Sanswire has already said.

It's very telling that they have not. It means the MOU doesn't mean anything to them and they probably don't want it to either. It's just a matter of reading between the lines.

Now you seem to be rationalizing that they don't say anything because it would give away the store. I'm saying to you it would not be giving away the store and it would give them standing if they wished to have any, but they don't want any standing. That's the point.

Nerd,

"...does Macys tell Gimbles? Why would you publicly tell your competition what your up to until you have a completed system?"

Sansire has already told Gimbles so there's nothing to lose is there?

It goes to the point. It appears they don't need or wish to confirm since doing so would logically imply some level of commitment over and above no commitment whatsoever, by either party, which is probably exactly the way they want it.

If all that were true there would be more information about the nature of the agreement and the contents of the MOU from both Sanswire and L3.

Plus if that much effort and that many hours were put into it at this point, L3 would be wise to establish their initiation date publicly for loss recovery if it becomes necessary in the future.

Nope, I'm quite satisfied that I am far closer to the truth on this than you are.

For L3 it doesn't matter if Sanswire succeeds or fails, if they are smart or stupid; it's all the same to them because they have no skin in it and they haven't endorsed anything, imo.

L3 probably told Sanswire 'Sure, send one over someday and we'll figure out how much of your money we can take adding the gizmos you'll need.'

No liability for L3 in letting S-T send one over. They'll just offer a proposal to do work when the time comes. Should be plenty of private investors ready to write that check(not).

In the mean time if Sanswire wants to say they have an "MOU", let 'em, why not? Sure, use the logo on your website, if nothing else it's free advertising.

If it all comes to nothing (as it alway has for this company in the past), it's no skin off L3's behind. They'll do just fine, thank you.

all imo.

That's rich. We've seen them bandy about names like NASA, USAF, Raytheon, Elysra, that financial company in India, the retail cards in Texas etc. etc. Who could actually remember them all? The outcome of EVERY ONE was zippo.

This one's different, right? I doubt it.

hey, you left out one part:

...give it a chance, lose your money, then criticize.

Fair enough nerd. It sounds like you concur that it wasn't very impressive but you're holding out hope that things will come along in the future as testing develops.

One of those half full or half empty deals. I am definitely running on half empty going forward.

Jet, now that you have shepherded those who don't understand the intent or the letter of the law around to the point where they can see, if they choose to, the fallacy of the positions they have taken, would it not be fair to say that the intent of these requirements would clearly necessitate the reporting of ownership of shares, whether they were actually in their possession or virtually in their possession pending some increase in authorized shares?

It seems like common sense if one simply understands and accepts that the notion of transparency regarding disposition of shares is the paramount goal in the intent of these SEC regulations.

Would it also be a primary issue germane to the authorizing of a share increase to make clear that some portion of those yet to be authorized shares are already owned, and would therefore be subject to immediate sale upon authorization?

I think so.

A personal review of the STS-111 video:

1. The translucent tail sections (and the net buoyancy of the device overall) are heavier than air. This can be observed in the last ten seconds of the video. The motor cuts off at about 15 or 20 feet up. After that the propeller coasts down to a stop and then feathers in the air. At the same time the device heads downward under its own gravity and momentum until it flops onto the ground. The buoyant head section strains up against the dead weight of the tail and pitches to level with the ground. The pitching of the head would appear to be done through an internal device that is sliding fore and aft inside the head to change the center of buoyancy (COB) and pitch, like any blimp does.

2. In flight the motor does not appear to be fully gimbaled, but does appear to have a single axis swivel sweeping side to side on a plane parallel to the head's "horizontal" axes. This in combination with the tilt induced by the COB adjustment inside the head can produce vectors summing to a kind of gimbaled affect, but optimal only when the head's "horizontal" axes are parallel to the ground plane. If the motor gets to one side or the other of that position (as it inevitably must) then the maneuverability severely degenerates, as can clearly be seen between the 40 and 50 second marks in the video. The device rolls and flounders aimlessly, and heads toward terra firma. The motor gets sideways and the thing is virtually out of control, rolling instead of turning. This lethargic floundering appears when the motor gets sideways in turns, hence the fades to next shots. The higher altitude turn that looks almost ok is likely into the breeze where it simply weathervaned around the motor vector on the head.

3. Generally the device is happiest when headed downward. The best shot is when it is using its downward momentum to swoop out of a descent, starts to turn or do something, and then cuts to the next shot. Note there are virtually no shots of sustained ascent, since it is no doubt much too arduous a journey to use in this promotional video.

4. The dead weight of the tail section can also be observed on take off as it flops downward from the axis of travel until enough speed is gained, and enough vertical angle is achieved, to allow the air movement to push it into alignment with the rest of the device.

5. In comparing this to the earlier, simple plastic wrap model of the skyworm demonstrator, it is clear that this device does not represent advancement, but rather is a clear indicator of the inherent difficulties in developing the prototype, spiral or otherwise, into anything useful. I'll give them credit for one thing; at least they didn't hype this release like it's sliced bread or something, and just let it speak for itself.

Interesting that before the latest, there were all those excuses about whether they even had shares, what type they were, and so on.

The saga of Sanswire seems analogous to that of a tidewater glacier. A seemingly never ending flow of biased attitudes, innuendo, and preconceptions locked into a frozen mass of ice that is inexorably moving out from over the solid ground for as long as it can defy the forces of gravity until, inevitably, the ice calves off and crashes into the ocean. There the frozen icebergs float about aimlessly until they ultimately melt away, leaving the frozen logic within them as wet as wet can be.

However, there is always the next mass of fresh ice ready to go through the same arduous process of sticking its neck out to the point of over extension until it too goes crashing into the ocean.

Even some glaciers have been known to eventually melt away though. Perhaps then a truth will be revealed.

Allow me to step into this and totally disagree with virtually every thing you said. Nothing could be further from the truth than what you have stated, in my opinion.

The individual filing requirements of the SEC for publicly traded companies have nothing to do with the individuals and everything to do with the public having the information the public needs to make informed decisions about investing in publicly traded companies. The "individuals" remember, are officers of the company, and those who own more than 10% of shares. The 10% part is to make it difficult for the officers to hide share transactions with unconnected parties so as to avoid the reporting requirements. The SEC gets no revenue from these requirements; they are purely for the public investing community's benefit. Why is this important? Why would a company prefer not to do this; and why must there be laws requiring it? Simple, because there are scams out there who go undetected when the share trading activities of these "individuals" are not reported. That's it. It's that simple. It’s old as the hills.

..and it's common sense.

Tax returns are irrelevant to the SEC. That is a matter for the IRS based on their revenue requirements. The SEC is about protecting the public. The IRS is about taxing it. The IRS does not rely on the SEC to provide them with information. The SEC requires companies provide information to the public, through their filings, for the public's consumption. Some companies don't want to do that, especially in the information age, because then their scam won't work.

Of course in the real world extenuating circumstances can inhibit an otherwise compliant "individual" from filing and deferments are granted. But to say it is an "individual" matter that is private like a tax return is not true.

The day they became a public company is the day they needed to start filing.

You basically made my point again. The pink exchange is irrelevant to their need to file.

The SEC requires it, by law. End of discussion.

The SEC requires the filings for publicly traded companies. It doesn't matter what exchange they are on. If publicly traded, then the reporting is required.

If a company does not file, the SEC will revoke their registration.

Some exchanges want their publicly traded companies to be current, not tardy, with their SEC filings. Some don't give two hoots in the wind. The ones who do kick the company off before the SEC gets around to taking action on the lack of filings. They must think that a lack of filings is bad business or something.

I have observed what appears to be a time honored tactic on message boards to muddy the waters regarding reporting requirements when some lame shell like this one gets behind and it somehow behooves them to say, it's ok, the exchange doesn't, or didn't, require it, perhaps hoping it will make the company look good. Then why did Sanswire bother with any filings when they were on the pinks? It didn't have anything to do with the SEC did it? Certainly the pink sheets didn't care.

In case anyone has forgotten, this company has a history of playing hide the salami with officer's shares.

So cut the baloney.

..and as we all seem to agree, the shares are "better than nothing".

What Jet was responding to was a hyperbolic statement that in accepting those "better than nothing" shares, this somehow implied faith in the future long term value of those shares, when they are apparently 'better than nothing' from an otherwise deadbeat account. As such, they would be sold as fast as humanly possible to avoid the severe liability they represent to anyone's equity position.

Extremely well done. Your case is well stated and complete. There is nothing further required for the willing to know precisely what you mean and how one may exercise the authority that belongs to a shareholder, for what little that is worth.

Do carry on however, as it is a pleasure to read clear and concise thinking.

They have everything to prove, make them scratch and claw for every ounce of credibility they may wish to own by making payments in like quantities of profit paid in sacks of pure gold, times ten thousand. It's far more than they'll ever deserve anyway.

For the record, the very first lines of text on that report state the following:

"From 2002 to 2007, Sanswire Corp. (formerly known as GlobeTel Communications Corp.) ("Sanswire" or the “Company”) was involved in the following business sectors: stored value card services; wholesale telecommunications services; voice over IP; wireless broadband; and high altitude airships. These business units operated through various subsidiaries. The Company has discontinued operations in all but the high altitude airship sector through the Company’s consolidated joint venture, Sanswire-TAO (for more information see notes 2 and 6 below)."

So much for their being a new company. IT IS THE SAME COMPANY! If that's living in the past, tell it to Sanswire, for they are living in the past through their own statements made in their own filings!

If that were true, then would one expect to see financial reporting that was completely divorced from Globetel's? That hasn't been the case so far as I recall, so is really just wishful thinking imo.

Since there are new charges he has to deal, or plea bargain with, then could they offer a deal where the right combination of "hypothetical" charges would cause other current charges to be dropped or reduced for a net gain? It all depends on what their ultimate goals are, no? 'looks like they're in the drivers seat.

This definatetly looks to me like an alternate plan B for the SEC in response to being stymied in getting copies of the CDR's from Sanswire.

It does appear that they prefer to cut out the cancer that former officers represent rather than kill the patient, so to speak. So, in that sense I suppose it's good for shareholders.

Of course shareholders are still left with a half dead patient that never amounted to much even on the best of its days.

lol...by George I think you've got it!

Absurdity begets more absurdity.

No two ways about it.

Bottom line on the patent issue is there is no patent proven to be owned by the company, nor does the company state they own one beyond having applied for one. My memory is jogged, did not somebody's post show the application to be about some older form of the segmented idea that is similar in that it's segmented but that's about it? I think so.

...but everyone sure can talk about patents like they mean big business, including of course the company itself in a PR regarding the application.

As known now, no filing (the late one), no test info as promised at the end of August (what a surprise), no granted patent, no sales, no revenues,...see other posts for the complete list of what nots. What is? Shares. Lots and lots of shares, oh yes, and conventions...and many, many more shares to come, if past is prelude.

Love those conventions. Don't they have to sell shares to get the money to register for those conventions? Man, those babies really pay off don't they?

No useful information on that site. Also, the PR says "applied for".

I "applied for" a no interest loan for a million dollars with no deadline or payback. It hasn't come through yet.

All in all, a lot of fluff.

thanks for the holiday sentiment.

I have not read the PR recently but I remember dismissing it at the time simply because it did not state what the patent is and how it will give the company any kind of an advantage in any market, as I recall.

It read as non-specific fluff to me, which was very telling since it would have been something to really crow about if it was really worth anything. If the PR were really saying something important it would read more like some of the stuff in those non-Sanswire related matters that you and the others are posting and discussing today.

When a company has a meaningful patent, they are only too happy to let it be read and understood by customers and competition alike, all around the world.

The SEC has never gone after false and misleading PR's from this company. It's a dry hole and therefore a waste of time. The language in those things makes everything in them deniable and essentially meaningless, except of course to those who want to believe something in what they think they say. However, scores and scores of PR's have never failed to disappoint over the years, and of course they're SEC proof.

It wasn't the PR's that got Globetel into trouble with the SEC was it, it was their filings, no? Speaking of filings....

...and this relates to Sanswire in what way? Since no one is able to establish that Sanswire owns one of these precious money pumping patent machines, or SansTao either for that matter, then while all the patent talk is absolutely fascinating, is it relevant to Sanswire and/or Sanswire Tao?

Thanks for any verifiable information that you are able to provide.

...and please do not refer to PR's. They are not verifiable and often are not what one may wish, or think, they were.

I know it's never popular to appear pedestrian when the crowd is running with an assumption, but does anyone have anything like verifiable evidence that they hold any kind of patent of any kind of value that is germain to the success of this endeavor, whatsoever?

Please don't refer to a PR. You know why.

...and when they've ever tried actually backing out of the driveway, if that was what they were really trying to do, they have immediately steered their 'cash for clunkees' car off the driveway and onto the lawn, gotten stuck, created a mess of ruts spinning wheels, abandoned the car, and ruined the neighborhood. That's about the time the SEC shows up and calls a tow truck.

You're absolutely right they have a long, long way to go.

They knew the importance of this perception back in Palmdale so they PR'd all of the manufacturing capability they would someday have. Of course, they never completed item one and were evicted from the hanger, which was probably too small to manufacture anything in significant quantities anyway.

Similar scenario for wimax trimax or whatever.

In my opinion, it is all about sapping cash from the public without breaking the law, one way or the other, and there are a million ways.

There were those who swore that if former CEO Tim Huff was holding his shares then his credibility was beyond reproach. After all, he was a church going family man and it was his money too, according to posters.

He was actually unloading his shares in secret, and plead guilty to a charge related to that. Live and learn.

You're saying these bankers are not stupid so they must have an inside straight, but what you're assuming is that it's in the form of some special knowledge about an airship.

I'll grant you they are not stupid and naturally I'm not accusing them of anything, merely suggesting that sound judgement says to watch them and let them take their own risks. Do not assume that because one thinks they are betting on an airship, that it's a green light to take the "same risk" oneself. In my opinion, it is not.

Maybe now that all the dumbies who used to pull together the info for the filings have gotten into trouble or left, there isn't anybody around who knows how, or still has the guts, to fill out the forms and send them over to the accountant.

Might have nothing at all to do with Weinberg.

Nerd, I think we can all agree that the CEO is one tough and patriotic son of a gun war hero. I also think one can justifiably judge him in the present by the company he presently keeps. He is keeping company with the likes of Sanswire, a highly questionable operation with nary a dollar of profit to it's shakey little history.

The onus is entirely upon him to prove the good graces of this company, and until that proof exists he is doing little more than hanging around an entirely unknown entity as far as associating with Sanswire is concerned.

All the many things great about Captain Christian are just that, great about him, but nothing great about him is great about Sanswire. As he said himself in his VFW speech, he has to walk the talk vis a vis Sanswire.

If Globetel/Sanswire were a company that somehow made money by employing war heroes, I might invest, but never on the basis of its past and current business failures, and now with a war hero at the helm of its latest incarnation as a supposed airship marketing agency, but not a single sale to its credit. If and when they do PR a sale, I'll be very suspicious of the "customer". Again, based on past performances. By the way, Captain Christian may be well and truly oblivious to any and all wrong doing, if and when it might exist either now or in the future.

This is not a court of law, this is the street, and in my opinion one should go with one's most conservative judgements to avoid getting into financial trouble.

What is wrong with making them prove they can fly before betting one's hard earned money that they can, before they do?

To my view we may be observing a very old, painfully familiar pattern of this company's incapacity (or perhaps disinterest) in meeting up with even the slightest, minimum expectation of anything that might be remotely interpreted as being better than nothing or even better than less than nothing in terms of moving the company toward providing (as opposed to over promoting) some acceptable level of business performance or corporate governance.

N'er a ray o' sunshine on a cloudy day here in globetel/sanswire country, where if even but for a brief episode the sun does appear to shine, see how quickly those golden hues fade away to the cold bleakness of an iron gray sky welded to a steely, barren landscape.

Love that jump to OTCBB. Things went better for Steven Tyler.

"Another customer with fake revenues? Are you kidding me?"
--fool me once.

"Are we now losing faith in the SEC and their ability to root out wrongdoing where it actually exists?"
--Absolutely. Look at Madoff. That turd was sitting right under their noses and they didn't smell a thing. It's been said they can walk into a crime scene and count the bodies, but they never prevent the bloodshed.

"I can't believe all who believe this company is a scam won't jump on one of these."
--If you think it's a scam, why would you trust them to truthfully represent that which will lose you your bet?

"I figured as much... all bark and no bite."
--I'm not obligated to bet, bark, bite, or BS. I used to say 'trust them until they prove to be a scam'. Now I say 'do not trust them until they prove not to be'. Simple. Take it or leave it.