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.
Mods, do you thing it is possible to get the LTAS Corp web site included in the intro?
http://www.ltascorp.com/
It belongs to WSGI now. Thank you.
The red clay is what led me to GA and not FL
I just got a chance to put the new photos up on my good monitor. I can make a few deductions/spectulations. There were multiple demos/training sessions. You can see from the two different trucks. The more passenger looking Ford is the same Ford in the pictures from the December demo. I would speculate that KH, GE (or someone) drove the BIB from Jacksonville, FL to the Army facility. This would put the location in the south east. There is a patch that is poorly scrubbed so I do not want to spectulate on what it may be. I tend to agree that the soil, trees and location tend to add up to Ft. Benning
They did use ISR in the previous release. They took out high altitude and added environmental missions. I think it is more current description of the company and not quite as fluff. We have not gone that high yet.
Thanks. I would then assume that all IP is with LTAS. WSGI's IP portfolio is growing.
I remember our discussion about these products.
More detail
http://www.usaspending.gov/search?form_fields=%7B%22recipient_name%22%3A%22lighter+than+air%22%2C%22fyear%22%3A%5B%222010%22%2C%222011%22%2C%222012%22%2C%222013%22%5D%7D
It does not look like any 2012 awards.
Hover over the "(More)" under Transaction #2. It looks like 4 aerostats to white sands, one launcher, two emergency deflation devices and 2500ft of tether line.
all of that for only $51,725?
The 2010 cash was for product/services in ISR and security. 2011 was for "Miscellaneous Vessels" delivered to white sands. Maybe an aerostat?
I may have missed something...
I did not read the entire purchase agreement. What is included with LTAS? Aerial and Southern? all of it? I originaly thought we bought a tech/DOD specific division (but with spot on board it did not add up).
AP did not change its info:
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail/EntityName/domp-p07000101716-adf49b14-9f2e-4031-9435-2b64794c346f/aerial%20pr/Page1
I agree, but
IMO, TS is a former insider that has no more reporting duties. That is why the company had to put a bleed out clause in the agreement. I dont know how much he is earning in his new position, but I doubt his finantual situation has changed much since the company. IMO, he will put every share on the market less a "gamble" for him... maybe 1,000,000 shares at best (including all he earned over his time).
I think this is new in the 10K:
A lawsuit was filed by Thomas Seifert, a former officer and director of the Company, on April 9, 2012 in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County for $548,000 and 7.0 million shares of common stock for alleged unpaid compensation. We reached a settlement with the plaintiff resolving this lawsuit, without admitting or denying the allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, we were required to issue him 6.0 million shares of common stock, which shares are subject to a fourteen-month leak-out, and pay him $50,000 over a twelve-month period.
(Another stock dumper to hold the price down)
Dohan
We reached a settlement with the parties resolving this matter, without any party admitting or denying the allegations. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, each party fully releases the other from all claims
and in the notes:
Brio: We have also entered into a settlement agreement to pay $57,661 in legal fees as required by the Court order, the unpaid balance of $9,610 is included in accounts payable.
Tsunami:
40,000 left on payments
Siefert:
The Company has recorded an accrual of $50,000 in accounts payable and $100,000 in accrued liabilities
Dohan:
The Company has recorded an accrual of $11,000 in accounts payable.
(Seems inconsistent)
Actually a similar federal version was filed by Rand Paul last year. He plans on reintroducing the bill this year.
There are expanded exceptions since I read the bill last:
If the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable
42 suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is
43 needed to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to
44 property, to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the
45 destruction of evidence, or to achieve purposes including, but
46 not limited to, facilitating the search for a missing person.
With all of the exceptions I think law enforcement will be fine staying within the current and future FAA regs. Teathered would appear to be the best of both worlds.
I do know how to contact you. I will do so later today or tomorrow. Congrats on the alloys.
Here is the official company registration. Notice it is already updated:
http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail/EntityName/domp-p09000057234-3965f37f-0d5f-4949-8f3e-bc3e18d684f3/lighter%20than%20air/Page1
Personally, I do not believe that the definition of drone in FL SB 2013-92 (or the federal equivelent) includes LTA of any kind. So far there are no legislative notes related to the definition to indicate the drafters' "intent." It was taken from the military definition without much discussion. Does the military consider unmanned LTA as drones?
A drink sounds great as long as none of the other locals are involved. Not sure I want to connect my online persona with my actual person yet.
8k already!
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/919742/000114420413018875/v339967_8k.htm
Felicia Hess, the President of LTAS, has entered into an employment agreement with LTAS and WSGI to continue in her role as President of LTAS. The Agreement also includes restrictions on the sale of the Company’s securities issued as the purchase price by the Shareholder for a one-year period following the Closing.
The Shareholder has the right pursuant to the Agreement to nominate one member of the Company’s Board of Directors, and as a result, the size of the Company’s Board of Directors has been increased and Felicia Hess has been appointed as a Class I director as of March 28, 2013. Since Ms. Hess would not be an “independent” director pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission, it is not expected that she will be appointed to any committees.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS
(a) Financial statements of LTAS. The required financial statements of LTAS will be filed with an amendment to this Form 8-K no later than 75 days after the Closing.
(b) Pro forma financial information. The required pro forma financial information relating to LTAS will be filed with an amendment to this Form 8-K no later than 75 days after the Closing.
(d) Exhibits.
I am going to post a quick anecdote. Please do not ask for verification or links. It is not going to happen. While I was away I met a man who is the father of a UAS pilot. It was an interesting conversation and he had no clue who I was or why I was interested (scary because he shared way too much information). The conversation put the bigger UAS picture in much better focus for me. I see where the Argus has many advantages over fixed wing aircraft for station keeping, swarm communication, war fighter communication, etc. Flying retrofitted C-130, AWACS, etc. just seems so immature compared to where we can go/should be. My apologies if my example offends anyone, but it is like wiring a GPS unit to two stroke motor and placing it on a rickshaw. Don't worry the payload will sit comfortably in the ratan seat (/end sarcasm). The government has been raiding old parts bins trying to mate modern electronics onto nam era hardware. We need designs with UAS in mind from the beginning. Just from the quick conversation I believe 1 Argus can replace two fixed wing aircraft/drones and reduce the logistical manpower by 75%.
Only one more committee to go before it hits the floor. In terms of legislative process, this is moving fast.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/0092
I've got nothing. It has been a slow few days on the board. It was all speculation obviously. I was being silly with the hippies. Although I do not know of much of a Chinese ex-pat community in ocala.
You know. For a minute I thought you had something there. But then I realized that the hippies that would have launched the kites already left the first week of March. See:
http://flrainbow.org/Ocala/
Then I thought that it really would be strange if the kites were really following the plane. As indy said, you cant trust much from an eye witness between 2:00 and 3:00 am
You do not seem to trust me on this board. Not sure why.
Maybe it is a reach. I read the article and used deductive analysis.
"Eyewitnesses said the aircraft looked like a bunch of helicopters flying in formation with a large plane."
Both relevant branches nearby say no ops. Private aircraft are popular in that area (it is one place travolta has part of his private plane stash), but are generally tracked by the FAA. Maybe the reporter did little to no background research. If it is private, it is a very strange formation. The article does not define a "bunch" of helecopters.
If I was to come up with a wild conspiracy theory I would guess that it was a live test of drone swarm communications and formations (possibly autonomous), etc. AWACS above to take over signal if need be and analyze results. Just saying... that sounds crazy right? Over an old military bombing range? Strange place to fly with little to no population under you right?
So far I have not seen a replacement for Assitant Director of Defense for R&E. My best guess is the deputy assitant has been acting in his place.
He has connections at Wright Patterson as well as serving as "Executive Director of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protection Task Force"
http://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/mission/bio/shaffer.html
Passed Judicial committee. Now on to two appropriations committees.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/0092
I think house version is just 1 committee to go to get to floor as well.
This is just south of g'ville
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/UFOs-puzzle-Ocala-residents/-/1637132/19294910/-/j9j961/-/index.html
smaller drones in formation with a larger object/plane. Interesting.
The definition was copied. Proposed federal legislation:
"112th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3287
To protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 12, 2012
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term `drone' means any powered, aerial vehicle that--
(A) does not carry a human operator;
(B) uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
(C) can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
(D) can be expendable or recoverable; and
(E) can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload; and
(2) the term `law enforcement party' means a person or entity authorized by law, or funded by the Government of the United States, to investigate or prosecute offenses against the United States.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.
Except as provided in section 4, a person or entity acting under the authority, or funded in whole or in part by, the Government of the United States shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant that satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
SEC. 4. EXCEPTIONS.
This Act does not prohibit any of the following:
(1) PATROL OF BORDERS- The use of a drone to patrol national borders to prevent or deter illegal entry of any persons or illegal substances.
(2) EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES- The use of a drone by a law enforcement party when exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this paragraph, exigent circumstances exist when the law enforcement party possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift action to prevent imminent danger to life is necessary.
(3) HIGH RISK- The use of a drone to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization, when the Secretary of Homeland Security determines credible intelligence indicates there is such a risk.
SEC. 5. REMEDIES FOR VIOLATION.
Any aggrieved party may in a civil action obtain all appropriate relief to prevent or remedy a violation of this Act.
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON USE OF EVIDENCE.
No evidence obtained or collected in violation of this Act may be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in the United States.
END"
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=sponsored_legislation
I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. Personally, I am not a libertarian, democrat, or republican. I am an American.
I brought up the whole Rand Paul issue because he has previously proposed legislation limiting domestic use of drones (which my home state cut and paste into their own version flying through committees now). I have posted on the proposed legislation in the past. Would you say that the Argus "uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift?" I would not. This loophole will allow federal agents (and my state police forces, FL EPA, county code enforcers, etc.) unlimited persistent surveillance over our skies (as long as they use LTA).
IMO, a laser that powerful will be too heavy. However, a mil spec ISR package is likely to have a laser target designator incorporated. I also see the potential use of ground or satalite based lasers as refuling devices for the Argus.
If I may:
I was not thinking the discussion is political. It is constitutional. These issues do have consequences for WSGI and its products domestically. There is loophole in most proposed domestic legislation that will allow for increased use of WSGI's products over others in the UAS market (ISR not kill missions).
I along with the pres, senate, congress, judges (both federal and state at all levels), governors, army, navy, marines, coast guard, reserves, state representatives, local representatives, attorneys, police force, and all federal officers under dia and dhs are sworn to protect and uphold the supreme law of the land: the constitution.
Please if anyone can correct or update my list please do. I am interested to see if this goes anywhere.
as a follow up to the Alitalia flight:
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/gadgets-electronics/stories/did-military-drone-spook-commercial-pilot
"While both the FBI and the NYPD are looking into the matter, neither organization believes a military drone sighting is particularly likely. Instead, they identify a large model aircraft as the probable culprit —something along the lines of the Parrot AR Drone 2.0."
I could have told them that. Why dont they ever listen to me?
Hog: you are not wrong.
I have studied the legal history of US war powers including, but not limited to, revolutionary war, traditional warefare, anti-piracy actions, letters of mark and reprisal, covert actions, espionage, rendition, extrodinary rendition, extra-judicial killings, drone strikes, electronic warefare, and yes, all relevant international laws, treaties, conventions, bilateral agreements, customs and norms, etc. I think you get the idea.
I am going to coin a new term (I think): "Dromestic" short for domestic drone use. It occasionally keeps me up at night.
It has not been said in a while. Thanks to the mods for letting us debate this topic. IMO, this could have an impact one way or another on WSGI's bottom line.
We need to remember that we are not just talking about a hellfire from a predator. We need to think about how we deal with the next gen tech: LMAMS, lethal bugs, etc. Do we want the entire war machine on our soil?
Hog: you hit on the key point. There is no consensus definition internationally or domestically. Terrorists v. freedom fighters? Is it an act (modus operandi) or a belief?
Not sure if that is the case. Part of the issue is that we currently have no clue what the official (or even unofficial) policy is for the use of drones abroad or here. The executive branch usurped this power from the legislative. The legislature, through proper publicly enacted laws, should be telling the executive when it is proper to use drones in the US and not requesting an explanation from the executive.
As an update: I am not sure why people see libertarians as a fringe or extreme group. Everything I heard yesterday was based on the supreme law of the land (U.S. const). The libertarians believe in the whole thing, not just the few provisions that benefit certain groups at certain times.
In a situation like that, I beleive we should use the solution that leads to the least amount of collateral damage. This is a term that I do not think was used at all yesterday. Hostages? Maybe. It all depends on the operation, suroundings, etc. Timothy Mcveigh on the drive over to plant the van? I dont think I have too much of a problem with that.
Right now Rand Paul is giving a one man filibuster against the nomination of John Brennan to director of CIA over the domestic drone program.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/286533-paul-launches-talking-filibuster-against-brennans-nomination
They are recording you too. Articles like this have been posted before. If you want to know what is actually being put on domestic drones, you can click on the link in this acticle that says: CNET uncovered an unredacted copy.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/05/Homeland-Security-Drones-Designed-To-Identify-Civilians-Carrying-Guns
Sorry for the tough read if your eyes are not adjusted. To help, it is about 40% of the way down.
There is a section of property law that deals with the airspace above your home. An aerostat at 1,000 ft (even 500ft) above your home is much different than a bug/multi hovering over your property at your BBQ. IJO might be able to point you in the direction of FAA regs that may help.
Thank you. I think I will disagree with your theory just for fun. IMO, a Parrot AR drone 2.0 with the right mods could reach that height (and help lead to the flyaway). As for 3 ft, I would say it is a very long flight from Italy (rome flight 608). The 2.0 is 2ft without the guards (I think). As for my age, I was not offended just proding. I only have one masters right now. I mis-read your bio. On a side note, a few years back I was thinking PRGS. I filled out a pre-ap and everything. I just checked the webpage and I am impressed with the changes. As for the ABC: you have my attention. Maybe GE will hire me to offer in-house analysis to customers (this is a joke but my interest in ABC is not).
And breaking news:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/hugo-chavez-passionate-but-polarizing-venezuelan-president-dead-at-58/2013/03/05/42525790-afdd-11e0-90e1-c12867691ae6_print.html
update, I thought my article mentioned 3ft and thus your 3 ft remark. Here is an article mentioning the size.
The unmanned aircraft, described by the FBI as black and no more than three feet wide with four propellers, came within 200 feet of the Boeing jetliner.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/us/new-york-drone-report/index.html
I was holding off. Not that big of a deal. Then they started asking the public for help:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/05/fbi-investigating-report-of-possible-drone-spotted-near-jfk/
Obey!
It was probaby just a lost signal flyaway
If I may butt in. IMO, it was not just that post but, rather, it is a topic that has been brewing on this board as it relates to overall privacy issues. IJO put a name to it and probably had his typing hand slapped with a ruler.
BTW, IJO, it has been used for years by some in the civil arena. It is getting more popular with all of the cellphone cameras now.