Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
That too caught my attention. I would have thought that it would have been TAO's application. Does this mean we own the design to the ship or only these revisions to it?
If only it were true. I can remember at least four demonstrations:
1. There was the S1 on the cinderblock fiasco.
2. There was the Sky Dragon flying condom in San Diego
3. There was the brunch and demonstration for the special invited guests of the military in Palmdale.
4. And the lovely webcam event from Stugart.
But this time it will be different, trust me.
They have to be doing something for all those penny options they're getting.
Well, it's something.
Yes, it would be something.
At this point I'll settle for just some official news on what the *%@# they've been doing. Results would be a bonus.
As it is we have to rely on gtellers to report on what they see on their family walks by the airport.
It could be contractual
Thanks Terp, So this was his money that he invested in a private placement?
Then I assume it's compensation?
Why is it that those shares do not show up in the volume? Was it because it was purchased directly from the company from issued shares not outsatnding?
It was not their own money, it looks like it was compensation. It the form of stock
I suggest you relax and re-read my post
WW,
Would like to here your opinion on this Japan disaster.
Is it feasible that TAO use one of its ships over there to assist. Someone posted a link that UAVs are requested. If feasible why in earth are they not. If they are trying to, why would we not hear or read about it. This is very frustrating to me, considering how long TAO has had UAVs.
Is there a penny stock right now that has history on it's side?
Oh I know, I should do my own DD.
So you have said, on and on and on.
If they are not at least trying do do this, why on earth not??!!
But of course we don't know. God for bid they give their loyal shareholders an operational update. Frustrating to say the least.
How woefully pathetic actually, considering how long this product has been around. How old is the Lotte, 15 years or more? Skydragon, 8 years.
"you got it man"
It really is as simple as that. Kroplin and Sanwrie has been putzing around for many years with this product or some variation of it. If it is so viable, should it be this hard?
yeah, that must be us naturally.
Boy is this board great!
And he's not disturbed with the lack of news, waiting & non-movement like I am.
It's called risk, thus the 12%.
Bunk? Really? Which part?
I can think of many people who would go borrow money on your terms. Restricted assets and no personal guarantee? Can I get a loan too?
Bunk? Please tell me who does this and I'll bring them many clients and maybe I can get a referral fee and split it with you.
He walks away with assets. Corp. and its debt remain with us.
And I would think the asset would be the right to the balloon for whatever that's worth. What else is there?
That is a standard provision. Not a statement of what the assets are worth.
However, what hard assets does the company have other than intangibles?
THANKS,
I did not see that in the link posted below.
Where does it say who lent the money?
Mide,
your combining credits and debits. That number would be getting smaller if liabilities stayed the same and losses continued.
What it shows is a reduction in assets of 1,900,000 in 9 months.
Just more evidence that there are no fundementals here other than hope.
They certainly have a unique way of showing us their "cutting edge" status.
Boy is this board great.
Just getting as much info from you as I can.
Clark's history is important. i am not questioning your reasons to believe he will be successful here.
Mide,
At one time I remember that you had a timeline for this to move. I believe you wrote that Dec. '09 would be the date.
I was wondering if you have a new one or are you just going to ride it out for how long it takes.
Interesting that Sanswire is being given credit for the technology of the payload here. I guess if there were no payloads there would still be ships.
I would be a lot more happy if they could just prove that the airship can do what they want it to do, whether it is carrying some equipment or not.
Truth of the matter is that the payload is an integral part of Sanswire because whosever payload it is, is keeping the company out of bankruptcy court.
Are you telling us that Sanwire continues to have a relationship with Lockheed and Raytheon? Or do you mean that a while back we once did? Please correct me but I don't remember reading anything about these companies involvement with Sanswire in a long time. If your statement is not false then I would think that this would be significant would it not?
I don't remember reading anything if they have had significant tests at 15,000'. Do you know if they have?
I don't think that the payload is an integral part of the design of the ship.
Does Sanwire have engineers on payroll? I didn't think so. I thought the only thing that Sanwire brought into this were connections to the DOD. I thought we have only seen TAO's ships tested by TAO's people. If someone could shed some light on this I would appreciate it.
A positively worded PR is a fundamental?
What fundamentals are you referring to? Have you looked at the financials?
Are these tangible fundamentals?
Isn't there something in the corporate structure to prevent an unsolicited buyout?
At what altitude has the segmented design achieved and came back?
Mide, it is something to talk about. And for me, a level of legitimacy if tests are being performed at a serious place, other than the campus at the University of Stugart. Not that it's not a serious place, but you know what I mean.
As for you opinion on the source...we all know people of different personalities. If someone I respect tells me information I take it more seriously than from someone I do not. So I thought the question was not unfair.