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.
Well WMFT, some of what you say may be true, but you have to admit that the conspiracy theories and innuendos have come from both sides of the fence.
I can take a punch or two, but I have never written, nor read anyone else that has written that they personally know another alias poster, then make such a derogative remark.
Readers will have to decide for themselves whether that's going a little over the line. I think it is.
"As for diddy, I know to much about him as a person. He is not a good person, period."
I predicted that exact response from you WMFT, I just didn't think you'd be so fast! LOL
Ontheedge, you have gone too far and are totally out of line!
I have made it perfectly clear in the many posts where my concerns lie. I have explicitly explained it to you in the following post:
(Excerpt, but read the whole link, especially the bottom)
"Get one thing straight Edge, I do not know Poteet at all and do NOT slander or bash his character. I've stated that before.
What I question is his documented involvement with a public company, Loch Harris which I was heavily invested in. I question his actions, as well as the actions of all the officers, directors and insiders of the company."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9443066
You have tried to play a game of intimidation by embedding in you posts to me that you know my name, work name, work address, business type... etc. I have been deluged with hang- up phone calls at my place of business that curiously occur right after I post a message. Are these tactics indicative of the honest investor that you portray yourself to be?
I have intentionally explained myself to you in the above post yet you continue with the libelous statements against me:
(Excerpts)
"...confront the person he slanders..."
"... went to Tucson and sat down with the very men that diddy bashes..."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9443066
{i}"You know nothing of the CDEX men you butcher on this board."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9725526
"if you only want the stock price to increase and forget all the lies that diddy has posted
the lies that diddy has posted about the science"
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9435471
I have asked you to show me where I have lied about the science. I have asked you where I have attacked Poteet's character? Once again, show me these posts Ontheedge.
I have explained where my investment interest had lied and why i want to know the truth about certain events. I have announced that a group is investigating possible civil action against senior management of Loch Harris. I made it clear that it would not involve CDEX or any of its officers, diectors or staff (including MP and WP).
I was surprised that after the years that certain posters had pointed the finger at the alleged culprits, after the capnmike "open letter series", after it was evident that many posters had valuable information that would be useful, not a single one of these people responded to my post in private.
You keep asking me about a Sept, 2004 post and others have told you to just post it if you think it's important. You've certainly done that in the past. You claim it shows who I am and apparently is the smoking gun. Why haven't you posted it edge?
Now I want you to explain this:
(excerpt)
"As for diddy, I know to much about him as a person. He is not a good person, period."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9767802
That is a libeous public attack on my character and I expect you to explain (for the record) how you know me personally?
LOL! lmorovan? eom
OT/ Who's in jail Scared???? eom
"I think IMO we are getting ready for some News..."
My guess: "CDEX accepts order from Baxa for ___ Valimed units..."
Fill in the blank. (Not you butterfly, there's not enough space) LOL
That would be news worthy- the first sales of "production units".
Ontheedge, I read you post to Crow and it brings up the question that I've wanted to ask you. You posted:
"Do you really know for a STRAIGHT out fact, how ELF works?"
Crow, no would be the correct answer! LOL
Edge, re this topic, you claim that you've "expressed thoughts that you believe to be facts", is that the same thing as an opinion or do you actually straight out know how ELF works?????????????????
What material is fluoresced by x-rays to identify landmines?
That appears to be the main ingredient to explain how ELF works, or as you put it (if those are your words- which I doubt), "it is truly the unique aspect" of how ELF works.
WMFT, where've ya been? Re your statement:
"Diddy: You don't produce "prototypes" in volume and you certainly don't build assembly lines around them and you don't state that FINAL engineering has been completed if it is simply a prototype."
Please Moonie, let's not beat this one to death again! LOL I agree 100% with the first part of your staement- "you don't build prototypes in volume." I disagree 100% with the second part- "you don't state that final enginering is completed if it is simply a prototype".
Why not? That's exactly what CDEX stated IMO.
"The production prototypes have completed final engineering and are the basis from which the assembly line will produce production units in volume."
The CDEX statement clearly distinguishes between a "production prototype" and a "production unit". It clearly states that the "production prototype" has completed final engineering, and it clearly states that the production prototypes are the basis from which "production units" will be produced in volume.
I seriously don't understand how it can be misinterpreted.
So, what have we now learned that they did with those prototypes? CDEX put them in hospitals for a year of alpha/beta testing.
And what have we learned that CDEX is going to do with the prototypes after a year of beta use in hospitals? CDEX plans to make changes to the "production prototype" to produce a production unit! Once final engineering of the "production unit" is complete it will (hopefully) be produced in volume.
That's how I originally interpreted the statement and it appears to me that that's exactly how it has gone down.
Ontheedge,
May I ask you another question about your thoughts?
Really.
Paige,
"......seems to me that the Manufacturing news release and the Patent approval go hand in hand...we shall see....!"
Patent app. 10/268678 which has been approved claims an x-ray fluorescence detection method.
Valimed uses UV fluorescence.
I don't see a connection to the manufacturing of Valimed units.
Ahhh yes Nasfan, we had a heated debate over the interpretation of "production prototype". He thought that CDEX was gearing up the assembly line for "volume production". I thought differently.
A prototype is a prototype, add any adjective you want.
Easy Paige, no one is pointing a finger at you!
Well and evenly stated scared. EOM
Scared, I can't remember if you use to post on the super secret (so they thought) private board?
Ontheedge,
You posted the following:
"What I did say was that from all the patents I have read, that it appears to me that CDEX has a unique discovery that I have not found in any other patent."
Ontheedge, what do you mean when you say "any other patent?
Which CDEX patent application is protecting this "unique discovery"?
Is it patent application No. 10/268,678?
TIA
Ontheedge,
"The truly unique aspect of CDEX's work is the discovery (not found by any other research group until CDEX revealed it) that certain co-existing materials that are detectable by x-ray fluorescence are present in all explosives manufactured by all countries in existing landmines.
Then you say this:
"I am expressing my thoughts of what I have read. If and when you have the time to read any and all patents you can regarding " detectable by x-ray fluorescence ", and take 33 pages of specific notes, you may or may not come to the same conclusion I have.
You are trying to twist words into my mouth again."
I'm twisting your words? No sir, you made a statement of fact, plain and simple. I THINK ANY REASONABLE READER WOULD NOT INTERPRET YOUR AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENT AS AN "EXPRESSION OF THOUGHTS".
You claimed that CDEx discovered it and it is the truly unique aspect of CDEX's work.
You claimed that CDEx revealed it, not you.
NOW you claim that it's only YOUR THOUGHTS and you came to your conclusion based on what you did not find in any other patent. That's some interesting deductive reasoning! Can you explain how that works?
Bottome line: You made claims that the discovery was the truly unique aspect of CDEx's work and that CDEx revealed it (the discovery).
THERE IS NO TWISTING NOR MISINTERPRETATION.
You've changed your story once again!!
But I understand, it would practically take a genius to create a story that encompasses all the aggravating circumstances and loose ends that makes up this saga.
Although I think TheCiscoKidd does a pretty good job, don't you?
Ontheedge,
"I do not believe that I stated that I read what I wrote concerning my thoughts on CDEX's tech in a patent.
What I did say was that from all the patents I have read, that it appears to me that CDEX has a unique discovery that I have not found in any other patent.
Having read all the papers on the web page concerning CDEX(s) tech, as well as many other public documents, including patents, I draw my own conclusion that certain co-existing materials can be detected by xray and are present in all explosives manufactured today.
This appears to be a statement of fact without "IMO", "I believe" or any other phrases which would lead investors to believe that it is only your opinion:
"The truly unique aspect of CDEX's work is the discovery (not found by any other research group until CDEX revealed it) that certain co-existing materials that are detectable by x-ray fluorescence are present in all explosives manufactured by all countries in existing landmines.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9632773
When and where did CDEx reveal this information? You've stated above that it was not in a patent.
Did ELF work utilizing this same principle?
TIA
Thank you for answering my question:
"Valimed does not differentiate between sterility and non-sterility"
One more point for clarification, you wrote:
"...once bacteria begin to grow in the medication, or when alterations in its compounded structure occur, Valimed does measure the resultant altered composite signature as a change from the original."
This is two separate statements, if I may be allowed to separate them and address the first statement:
"...once bacteria begin to grow in the medication Valimed does measure the resultant altered composite signature as a change from the original."
And? Does it reject the med? For example, if the presence of bacteria adds something to the spectral fingerprint, but the bacteria does not effect the medication or strength and that part of the fingerprint which identifies the medication and strength remains unchanged, how will Valimed interpret this?
Will the test be a pass or fail?
Ontheedge, you published statement can affect trading in a public company. THIS IS NOT PUBLIC INFORMATION!
"The truly unique aspect of CDEX's work is the discovery (not found by any other research group until CDEX revealed it) that certain co-existing materials that are detectable by x-ray fluorescence are present in all explosives manufactured by all countries in existing landmines."
If this was only discovered recently while CDEX was in existence, then how was Loch Harris using XRF to detect landmines at two meters????????
After some prodding, you further develop this AMAZING story of yours:
"As I said to you earlier, I have read the patent applications diddy.
In fact, I have read 45 to 50 patent applications along the lines of the CDEX application.
What I noticed is that no other patent application I have read shares the same view that I gave my thoughts on.
We are talking about the same patent application aren't we Edge? Patent application number 10/268678? First, the application cites ZERO references. You've read 45-50 patent applications along the lines of the CDEX application? Gee wiz bang Edgy, you've reseached more prior art than the examiner cites!
You further claim to have noticed that no other patent application that you read shares the same view that you gave your thoughts on? LMAO!!!
And there's where the famous Onthedge spinning begins! LOL
"shares the same view that you gave your thoughts on"
WHERE DID YOUR THOUGHTS COME FROM EDGSTER, YOUR IMAGINATION?
In which CDEx patent application does it claim the discovery of:
"certain co-existing materials that are detectable by x-ray fluorescence are present in all explosives manufactured by all countries in existing landmines."
In which CDEx patent application is it even mentioned?
Ontheedge please answer post 8390. TIA eom
Extremely simple question here Ontheedge, what is the number of the patent application which discloses the information you posted?
Namely:
"The truly unique aspect of CDEX's work is the discovery (not found by any other research group until CDEX revealed it) that certain co-existing materials that are detectable by x-ray fluorescence are present in all explosives manufactured by all countries in existing landmines."
How many of the CDEx patents are directed at XRF and not UVF?
LOL!!! BINGO!!!!
Ontheedge, you have posted that you talk directly to CDEx whenever you need answers. Did someone at CDEx give you the following information which you publish yesterday?
"The truly aspect of CDEX's work is the discovery (not found by any other research group until CDEX revealed it) that certain co-existing materials that are detectable by x-ray fluorescence are present in all explosives manufactured by all countries in existing landmines."
This story doesn't make sense. How could Loch have advertisied the exact same technology (ELF = EM-1) if it hadn't been discovered until the inception of CDEx?
Another Ontheedge Story:
You have also posted that Poteet sent an Objection Letter to the SEC in 1999.
Why did Poteet continue to be associated with Loch Harris well into through the september 2000 Washington DC demo 2000 while Loch continued to disseminate the very same misinformation that back in 1999?
YOU ARE PUBLISHING THESES STORIES ONTHEEDGE, please acknowledge whether you made an error in your statement or verify to investors that you are posting FACTS.
Thank You.
P.S. I will email CDEx directly on this matter.
Crow,
"They can dissolve the corporation, yes. But then the CDEX BOD can file new letters of Corporation, and come back to where they are..."
I don't believe that's true. I think the incorporators are default trustees until such time as they assign the officers and BODs in the state filings.
In most cases the incorporators will assign themselves the controlling positions, but if the intent is to "pass the hot potato" (TM- Stock_distributor) they do not.
Rottenapple,
"I wonder if WP knew Loch Harris was claiming x-ray fluorescence could detect land mines?"
Today, someone posting under the alias "Ontheedge" appears to be inferring that CDEx has the ability to detect land mines using x-ray fluorescenec.
"The truly unique aspect of CDEX's work is the discovery (not found by any other research group until CDEX revealed it) that certain co-existing materials that are detectable by x-ray fluorescence are present in all explosives manufactured by all countries in existing landmines."
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9632773
Obviously it is not a well thought out story. Who at CDEx made the discovery and why did Loch make the ELF claims much earlier?
It reminds me of Edge's story that Poteet submitted a Objection Letter to the SEC in 1999 which fails to explain why Poteet continued to work for Loch during the Croatia scandal and Washington DC demo.
It's tough to come up with a good story that covers all the aggravating circumstances.
"There has been public claims of the ability of x-ray fluorescence for the detection of land mines. In this case the disclosed information has not held up to scientific scrutiny and appears to be principally intended to promote stock sales of a particular company."
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1608/MR1608.appp.pdf
Hmmmmmmm... I wonder which company that could be? LOL
I wonder if there's any company out there still claiming to have a marketable land mine detector using x-ray fluorescence?
Ontheedge, are you claiming CDEx has such a device?
Are you holding to your story that CDEx was the first research group to discover co-existing x-ray fluorescent materials in ALL EXPLOSIVES and LAND MINES?
Very Interesting.
"Funny how so much stuff that came from Sandia (incl. Ralph James' work) datng back to the mid 90s has been claimed as Blair's and Poteet's *later* inventions."
You need to read capmike's post concerning the Sandia stuff. He found the missing link between Poteet, Cauthen (SSI) and Sandia and has straightened everything out. LOL!
He now claims to be "even more comfortable" than ever with his investment.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9023448
"Would the below Judge be the same one that dismissed Blair?"
Irreleveant who the Judge was Ontheedge!
"Upon consideration of the Joint Motion to Demiss against Respondent Henry M. Blair ("Respondent") made by Plaintiff Security and Exchange Commisssion and Respondent..."
Get it? It was just like the Loch Harris Settlement Agreement with Judge Keel.
Respondent, Henry Blair and Plaintiff, the SEC BOTH agreed that all claims should be dismissed.
So, why did the SEC let Henry Blair walk after everyone blamed him for all of the Loch Harris woes?
Do ya think that they might have seen thru the smoke screen? LOL
Xenophon,
"I think a re-examination in view of that unexamined art is in order."
Maybe Xeno, but I don't believe the claims make any mention of the target material. I don't believe that they make any claim whatsoever to a process by which they detect a NEWLY DISCOVERED X-RAY FLUORESCENT MATERIAL IN ALL EXPLOSIVES.
That CDEx was the first "research group to discover" a co-existing X-ray fluorecent material in ALL explosives is just another Edgy story until he can proof it with solid evidence.
Solid evidence is something that is not in his bag of tricks when it comes to his convoluted, constantly morphing stories.
"I did a word search on patent application 10/268678 and did not find the word "revolutionary" in the document---perhaps you are looking at a version edited by your buddy, Henry Blair."
Of course they didn't use the word "revolutionary" in the patent application! How ridiculous would that be!! Silly point. LOL
"The truly unique aspect of CDEX's work is the discovery (not found by any other research group until CDEX revealed it) that certain co-existing materials that are detectable by x-ray fluorescence are present in all explosives manufactured by all countries in existing landmines."
Edge, the next time you ask someone for help listen carefully to what they tell you so you can post it accurately.
First, your statement is claiming that what makes the technology so great is the discovery of something in the explosive and not the detection equipment itself. Is that really what you meant to say?
Secondly, I'm not sure what someone was trying to tell you in the above statement. Was this person telling you that Loch Harris discovered nothing? That nothing had been discovered during the Loch Harris era? It was all a hoax until CDEx discovered it?
Also does the co-existing material (METAL) exists in "ALL EXPLOSIVES" or ONLY in "existing land mines"? That was not made clear in the above statement.
ALL manufacturers know that certain metals (other than the case) are used in landmines. I believe that it was once posted that the co-existing material was an impurity from the manufacturing process. Is that true? Or is it a taggant that manufacturers intentionally put in explosives? Or the charge initiator?
Run off and get some answers.
TIA
"Could you please provide the P&D scam that the SEC filed on IPIX."
Irrelevant Edge, "you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows."
Did the SEC file on Loch Harris for their well known pump-n-dump scam?
Did the SEC question how 100 million Loch Harris shares authorized in Janurary 2000 got distributed?
Did the SEC dismiss all claims against Henry Blair after everyone pointed the finger at him?
"Milchip I believe that Diddy already knows...he has been following those doc exchanges closer than I have..."
That is correct, I already posted some time ago that the patent examiner commented that the independent claims would be allowable if the phrase "at large distances" was changed to "at least about one meter" as suggested by the examiner.
Let's wait and see what happens next!
"Are you truly being truthful when you say that Dr. Wade Poteet is retiring?"
LOL! Your grasping at straws Edge.
I never said or imply that. I asked whether MP & WP received their retirement bonuses (from CDEx).
A past SEC filing described some pretty nice bonuses for the four principles when they left CDEx, although I don't recall the filing identifying those individuals by name.
Who are those four people?
Are MP and WP two of those individuals and did they receive the prescribed bonuses when they "retired their services as employees of CDEx"?
Now do you understand the question?
.82 centavos per share divide by 45.3 = .0181 Loch equiv.
Now consider dilution: .0181 x .75 = 0.0136
This should not phase the True Longs. The name of the game is to hold, hold, hold.
Good news right around the corner.
Valimed will be going into "volume production" soon.
It's a good buying opportunity!
The MM's aren't letting any shares loose.
The MM's are shaking the tree.
Those nasty Canadian shorters are back in the game.
1-2 more fortnights.
"My sources say there's good news around the corner!"
We'll know everything by next filing.
No one has trace explosive detection technology like us.
"When revenues start coming in from Valimed we can jump start our PSSS product line?
Doesn't Strickland sell propane and propane accessories?
I see CDEX is manufacturing some more product to sell!
I wonder if MP and WP got their retirement bonuses?
Lmorovan, do you recall what the package deal was for the four principles (still not named in the filing) when they stepped down?
Time to kick back and enjoy the show with DaBoyz.
You're welcome INET. And remember, you owe Himanez big time
for introducing you to paragraphs! LOL
Because without them, no one would be reading your posts.
Crow,
Only the punches that have been well anticipate for a long time.
Damnn INET, you're long winded! Oh and one point, the beta units are NOT being tested in the field. There're in the hospital.
Puff,
"Did Henry Blair have the idea for this system or was it Wade Poteet? I can't determine who or which came first, HB or WP or both. Was the origional plan abandoned because of possible health risks or it just wouldn't work?"
That is irrelevant. What Poteet and Cauthen reported in their tests results, what Blair reported, what any of them were quoted as saying in press releases, it is all irrelevant.
What is relevant is the action of Loch Harris management.
Unlike a criminal case, we don't have to establish that there was a conspiracy or that there was intent. We only have to establish that a wrongful act was committed and who are the responsible parties.
In view of the information that has become available, we don't believe that this will be difficult to do.