InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 1
Posts 643
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/12/2007

Re: Chili Palmer post# 32017

Friday, 02/22/2008 2:46:53 AM

Friday, February 22, 2008 2:46:53 AM

Post# of 49483
Assuming your Q is directed to GF, why would he need to speak to PVD? His goal as he sees it seems to be to refute Mr. Van Dyke's claims. From the PR's he certainly knows what those are. You have to admit the guy is good at what he does. He is not however giving us info he has found to support Van Dyke's claims.

He says nothing checked out at all but his own findings contradict that. He confirmed 3 of the 4 schools that PVD said he attended. He never came back with the results of the county supervisor query that was pending so we might assume that that too checked out. If Lance is indeed PVD's partner and is in Australia then can it not be concluded that IAHL has an office there since that is where Lance resides?

The findings as to the patent are not too damming either. It is obvious that if they do not have one that there has been much activity in getting one and that they could have one or more if the fees are paid at the very least.

Also, it should be taken into account that these days research using the internet is a snap compared to the leg work this would require without it. Taking Mr. PVD'S age into consideration you can assume that much of his career took place in the days prior to AL Gore's invention of the internet and thus is not so easy to ascertain.

Without the kind of record keeping that modern computers afford us it would be next to impossible to learn details going back 30 or more years into the past by just that method alone. Still, you can get answers but at considerably more time and expense.