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.
Mt bigsky, why breakup the teamwork between the SEC, MM's and crooked brokerages with a silly little law. They never had it so good. The enforcement of the SHO Reg is a joke and self policing is even more of a joke, IMO.
crashtestsuperstar, you are absolutely correct. See my post to jfburk #48434. IMO, that's their mission, plain and simple.
jfburk, IMO there is an intense hatred and desire to run GTEM out of business altogether, thus the continued shorting of a .29 stock. This will continue until GTEM breaks their backs with results so they get caught in their short positions and can't get out. But, it is amazing to watch.
No, nothing yet but then that's what "IMO" or "I think" is used for and we will know for sure when the new Corporate Governance link is posted to the Web Site. Seems like Rob would have been more assertative/positive to the Q/A in WilliamFL (Q/A #2) post don't you think? If he stays as the Pres of the Division, great. Again, Just IMO.
ADDED: Oops I used the words "I think" instead of "IMO" Sorry for the confusion.
crashtestsuperstar, I was referring to WilliamFL post #48238, Q/A # 2. When you talk about restructuring, the 1st area looked at is "Big Title" positions and their associated cost. While I hope Bob Jones stays with GTEM, and expect he will, I just meant that I think his "Title/Position" will be on the chopping block. He would take a lesser position/lesser salary as Tim Huff has done and contribute to the Sanswire Division in another capacity, probably more focused than now. They may combine the lead eng position (Doug Murch) with the Division head. Management wants a shakeup to get immediate results and cost saving and I think that is exactly what may occur. All IMO.
ADDED: When an event as big as the "Float" of Sans 2A takes place and Bob Jones is not mentioned and Doug Murch is, that's sometimes managements' way of introducing a new head guy, even though they played it down.
Logandean, thank you for the update ref your conversation with Rob. I agree that China will be one of the issues put on the back burner. In addition I think Bob Jones position will be eliminated but he may continue with GTEM - I hope so. Sounds like we can expect a small or equal 3rd Qtr revenue increase, hopefully better than 3rd Qtr last year. Thanks again for your report.
justfrank, the point is to try and disparage GTEM so people, not totally versed in the history of GTEM and what they plan to offer, will either sell or not buy. Pretty simple as to the reason someone would post old and/or outdated info, IMO.
web investigator, If you make accusations against someone you do need to produce facts to support your accusations or shut up. I didn't know that the SEC had made any criminal charges to date against Huff. So you are still blowing hot air about any wrong doings. You are slandering Huff without any proof or facts. Take a hike.
Are you able to prove criminal intent? Would appreciate the hard evidence you have in this matter, not your personal hatred or contempt for Huff. TIA
Why would Huff be nervous? And before you answer, remember the laws about libel and slander without proof/facts, not just your opinion. TIA
miguellara, click on the pic and enlarge (View Multimedia Gallery)
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061019/20061019005575.html?.v=1
vern, I see about 10 cables in the photo holding it down, 4 on each side and 2 on front and rear center. In your opinion how should tethered tests be conducted correctly (as relates to cables), and do you think the gas system is now installed since the airship obviously has gas in it to allow it to float? TIA
trunkmonk, couldn't agree with you more. What GTEM stated in their NR trumps any picture. I was just surprised that two days were used discussing whether a picture was real or unreal. You make an excellent point in that the SansIIA NR was really no milestone, thus no reason for any SP movement. I was more focused on the lack of credibility in the investment community as to the validity of anything GTEM puts out now and the debate on this board (about the picture being real or unreal) was possibly a mirror of investor sentiment.
testekleez, IMO, GTEM will go to the OTC:BB after the SEC issue is closed and you're right - who knows how long that will take. BTW, thanks very much for your posting the LII on the TA board. Appreciate all your efforts.
Sirius, I realize that they are bashers. The point is that many in the investment world must view us simarily and thus no sp movement. We won't see any movement until we become credible again and that will only come with dollars deposited in the bank with one of our divisions. I'm sure that the new management team knows that better than anyone else. However I would bet that even they are somewhat surprised that such a luke warm reaction was realized from the release of such good news on the SansIIA project. Also you mentioned an article released today - what is it and do you have a link? TIA
Anyone who lives in CA - is Palmdale considered to be in the Antelope Valley in California? TIA
I believe that for the last 2 days we all now have a better understanding as to why our SP isn't moving after the release of the SansIIA picture. Our credibility is so shot that no one even believes a picture that is released is real. That's what was meant by the statement "Don't underestimate the seriousness" of where we are in the NR a few days ago by the new chairman of Board. Never seen anything like this - if it wasn't so sad it would actually be funny.
Would it be feesible to have two or more steering systems working at different altitudes, ie conventional steering at low altitudes and VT at higher altitudes. Seems that they will need different methods of control at different altitudes. An airplane at high altitude has very bad handling charastics using conventional steering. So maybe there are several methods to be employed in the steering apparatus to operate at all different altitude levels. I also thought about small compressed air jets but have no knowledge of weight/lift and efficiencies.
I agree. When I flew fixed wing aircraft for the Army we used trim tabs to trim out the aircraft in flight for reducing stresses on the controls and made for much easier flight control, and as you mention less stress on the control surfaces as well as servos in the case of an airship. That would be my guess as relates to the control surfaces for the Sans II high altitude airship as well. Just a guess.
Could be a combination of both, ie low altitude using the conventional control surface and at the higher altitudes using the entire fin structure. Just don't see why the large surface would not be used at higher altitudes. Any aerodynamic scholars here?
Someone mentioned earlier today that the fin sections were missing their control surfaces, like ailerons on a planes wing that controls banks and turns. Looking at the picture today, I think the entire fins are the control surfaces and they will not have an aileron type mechanism. It appears that the servo motors may be inside the shell where the main part of the fin attaches to the body (see large square composite plates) and when a control order is given to the fin, the whole fin moves. When you think about it, when the ship in at altitude (65,000ft) it would need a fairly large control surface in thin air to have any impact on the airship positioning control. Also the lower fin may be stationary (fixed in position) as it contains the landing wheel and different stresses apply than the other 3 fins. The upper fin acts as a rudder, the other two act as ailerons. Thus all movements are covered. The bottom fin is not a control surface IMO. Just an idea from the pic.
mide, don't doubt that Bob Jones is still at the head of the division. In my experience in the corporate world, restructuring is an opportunity for cutting out deptartment heads and consolidating functions together, ie Doug now becomes the lead for the project and division head and the division head position is slashed, thus saving a salary of 1 man. Normally has nothing to do with how qualified the person is or isn't. Money is saved and the figure head (usually a management type) is cut. I personally hope that is not the case, but this is what may happen in restructuring. Just IMO
BDay43, we will probably never know what caused a 2 - 3 week delay of getting the ship out of the hangar. IMO, from all we have heard about Tim Huff he probably listened to lower management ad nauseam and may have been too dependent on their recommendation as to a go or no go. I think the new management may be more stern and in essence will say do what you tell me or you're history. That's what it will take to turn this company around IMO, so while this is all a guess as to the reason for the delays, it really makes no difference. Like you said just glad it's out of the hangar.
I have a feeling that Bob Jones may not survive the new management team. Sometimes people like Bob Jones come from a very protected environment (NASA) built layer upon layer in management depth. Urgency is never foremost in the minds of engineers as the end result is their focus and time is just a factor. While Bob Jones is undoubtedly an excellent engineer from all we know, he may not be an entrepreneur type, such as Burt Rutan, where some risks are just part of a days work. Safety in depth sometimes may have overwhelmed Bob Jones and delays upon delays may have occurred to be on the safe side. I find it interesting that only 1 week after the management changes that the Sans IIA is out of the hangar. Tells me that possibly the new management said enough is enough and float the ship one way or another.
I always felt that their failure to file for a patent regarding Intellectual properties meant that we really didn't have anything that would protect the project, other than a design patent. This move to file a patent is extremely important and positive as I agree that GTEM will have a solid base to fend off competitors should a patent be granted. To me this is the most important part of the NR.
Mt bigsky, IMO the next basher fest will center around how we poor bagholders are in for more dilution and it's just a matter of time until GTEM folds yada yada yada. OR, Chaterham is taking over the whole company and will secretly sell off even the Sans II project and make the company a shell yada yada yada. But in reality, who gives a s--- what these jerks say. Maybe a few more positive NR's and they will slink into the shadows and leave this company alone. Oh one can only hope.
Agree, and he mentions, in the NR, that he continues to bring new investors into a difficult situation so it might be a combination of Chaterham and others. But that's the "sacrifice" we are about to be treated to, IMO also.
Don't disagree there but it is probably wise in this kind of situation to adopt a "wait an see" position as a lot of different structures could emerge to make the whole company more efficient while not losing any of the potential. I myself don't anticipate any sell offs or dismantling of any divisions (business) at this time as none of the divisions are attractive enough financially for sale to any Company. That's not to say that in the near future, when/if these divisions become profitable, an IPO or selling off of one or more of these divisions could be in the cards. I think the sole purpose of this new management is to get these division profitable, then a restructuring/sell off/combining would make more sense. All IMO only, that's for sure!
The only proof enough is what happens in the next few weeks. At that time we will all know what restructuring really means. So, I like every other person on this board will have to wait for the outcome. No one knows what will happen until it is done by the new GTEM management. BTW, the statement "partially dismantling and reorganizing a company for the purpose of making it more efficient" also means that a division could be dismantled and absorbed into another division for better efficiency. While the division would be eliminated in name, the assets would be shifted to another division, but not discarded.
I for one do see a correlation on the AS approved this summer. I think it was a safety net proposition for all the reasons you noted. I suspect that the "sacrifice" mentioned in the NR may indicate a dilution is coming to raise additional capital to continue operations. That's what I see as the shareholders sacrifice that was mentioned. But this is just my GUESS.
Not necessarily. Restructuring can also mean how all the different divisions under the GTEM unbrella are organized and how they report to management efficiently without a lot of layered management inbetween, as well as financial allocations etc. Restructuring doesn't necessarily mean they are cutting out all the divisions that we invested in? Any proof that will occur? The best anyone can be certain of at this point is absolutely nothing until they tell us - so why state such a demise without any real information upon which to base your comments of divisions being eliminated?
Somehow I missed the part in the NR that you quote So the company gets dismantled on programs we all were led to believed in. Is that what he said, or is this your interpretation of what's to come? Any facts to back this up? TIA
justfrank, my guess is the latter - is it meant to soften bad here's your (our??) sacrifice. But the good news in the release is that it appears that the new management group doesn't plan to dump everything and just make it a shell, as so many on this board have professed. So all the BK talk may now be moot.
sinful, at least it is communications, something we haven't seen much of with the prior regime. When you think about it however, it's a little scary when it starts out with "Dear Fellow Shareholders" and mentions "sacrifice" in the same release. Somehow, those two phrases make me a little nervous, you know, like grab the ankles nervous! LOL
mathew633, Unfortunately it really doesn't matter what it means as we will have zero to say in such actions. Sooo, guess we will have to wait and see. If I were to venture a guess, I would GUESS dilution, but between tonight and tomorrow at noon, there will be a million thoughts, none of which will really matter, including mine. The only thing that will matter is will they make GTEM profitable. We the shareholders will just have to standby and watch.
Sounds to me like your word "think" should be replaced with the word "hope" then at least your posts would be more honest. In addition what you "think/hope" is just than that, but most on this board "think" that GTEM will succeed despite your incessant hounding. Yeah, I know you want to protect the newbies - get a life Seth or Seth wannabe.
Just out interest, how do you know that "Dumas, Klein and others are already back in Britain"? Just a guess or do you have proof? If so, please let us know how you got such proof. TIA
design333 or anyone, what did Justfrank do - I missed it I guess
Bill, you are absloutely right - Huff remains with GTEM and will make technical contributions toward the fulfillment of GTEM becoming successful in the global telecommunications marketplace. Until I hear to the contrary, that's the way I see it.
In your senario, where would this leave the shareholders? Just wondering.