Replies to post #40625 on SiNtx Technologies Inc (SINT)

[boston745]

Madg, I am not guaranteeing an acquisition by Zimmer one day. Yes I think it makes strategic sense for it to, but then i dont know Zimmer's strategy for diversification. With how Eli Lilly traded Amylin, ive amended my analysis to indicate that i expect Zimmer to use Sintx for its strategic benefit the way Eli did with Amylin. That could even include Sintx merging with NP Aerospace first, a concern i have expressed. NP could take Sintx private, or there could be a reverse merger so NP can go public. Any scenario like that would only delay Si3n4's development for medical purposes as NP does not have the capital necessary to invest in R&D and clinical trials. Hopefully this concern is just me overthinking things. There is something going on with NP Aerospace on the level of a NDA as you guys will not even discuss the company in relation to Sintx. It'll be interesting to see how things play out. I anticipate at least NP using Sintx as an armor supplier for the US market as that what NP does. It has several partner facilities that help it fulfill its contracts.

In regards to masks, let me ask you madg, does Sintx not still have a product that it could still commercialize one day? Is the IP not free and unencumbered to partner with a different company? If the answer is Yes, then what i said is the most accurate analysis. What happened with O2 appears to have been a setback. I think those that deem it a failure are over exaggerating to the negative...on purpose. If say Zimmer oneday sells Si3n4 masks, then my use of (?) next to setback comes into play. Usually Sintx uses small companies like O2 to develop IP but thats as far as that IP goes with those small companies. You guys claiming failure seem to gloss over the fact that the collaboration included development. That part was a success and helped spawn other products they can sell with other companies. This again is a success. The commercialization part with O2 represents a failure. Thus overall, it represents a setback.
They have yet to commercialize a product with one of their small company development partners. Thus what happened with O2 is a continuation of that trend, from that perspective. Stop overly emotionalizing the issue, thats a misinformation technique.

Your story about the Uber Tesla has one problem, Autopilot cant do what you said it did. That requires city navigation which is a FSD feature not Autopilot. This aside, that doesnt change the fact that Tesla used level 5 FSD/Uber like network/robotaxi to scam people and drive up the stockprice and increase its sales. Tesla is now being forced to refund, with interest, customers in the UK because it failed to deliver on its promise. Its a fake it until you make it scam. Fake it until you make it does not mean the company does not have a real product, it only means that the scam overstates what the companies tech can do including in a faster time than it implies. FSD may never reach the level that Musk claimed it well, "soon" or "near future", without which the Uber like network & robotaxis can never come to fruition. FSD is only a driver assist suite, its nowhere near ready to actually be Full Self Driving. Even the name is misleading.

it was arguably a referendum on “fake it till you make it” practices, such as intentionally overstating, and thereby misrepresenting, a fledgling company’s current capabilities, success, or profitability, while banking on the notion that its aspirations will eventually follow the desired trajectory and become a reality.

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/01/30/theranos-the-limits-of-the-fake-it-till-you-make-it-strategy/\


Previously i posted this information but the link didnt work. What this information shows, is that President Bush had every intention of violating the 1972 Anti-Ballistic treaty had he not left the treaty after 911 gave him the legal grounds to leave it. This showcases that the US very much had motive to orchestrate 911 false flag event.

U.S. Plans to Test Space-Based Laser To Intercept Missiles
By Vernon Loeb July 18, 2001

A top Pentagon official said today that the Bush administration plans to test a space-based laser interceptor as early as 2005 as part of its ambitious new missile defense agenda.

Robert Snyder, executive director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, told reporters at a missile defense conference here that $110 million has been included in the fiscal 2002 defense budget to study technologies, including the space-based laser, aimed at hitting missiles in their "boost" phase three to five minutes after launch.

While deployment of space-based missile defenses would be a clear violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, it is not clear whether an initial test of the technology would violate the pact. According to interpretations ive read, anything outside the lab setting is a violation of the treaty.

Bush administration officials, in any event, told Congress last week that their missile defense plans, which call for possible "emergency" deployment of ground-, air- and sea-based defenses by 2004, could violate the ABM Treaty within months.

So you can see that Bush planned to violate the treaty, if it still stood, because as i understand it, the treaty prevented even testing. Fortunately for him and those that support the agenda, 911 happened, Bush was able to declare US intention of leaving the treaty (Dec 13th, 2001) and use that 110m earmarked for the second half of 2002 after the treaty officially ended (June 13th, 2002). It just so happens SpaceX began operations June 2002 coinciding with the official ending of the treaty.

If deployed, space-based lasers would be mounted on satellites. Snyder said the test envisioned for 2005 or 2006 most likely would involve launching a prototype laser into space and then firing it back at a target in the earth's atmosphere.

"It's not clear we know how we're going to do that," Snyder said, speaking at the conference sponsored by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command.

In the first Bush administration, a space-based missile defense initiative known as "Brilliant Pebbles" was considered but abandoned. It envisaged between 3,600 and 4,000 satellites armed with space-based interceptors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/07/18/us-plans-to-test-space-based-laser-to-intercept-missiles/bc260e2c-e060-4e9e-9e7c-dec68e104433/

"While Starlink is designed for consumer and commercial use, Starshield is designed for government use, with an initial focus on three areas," the page adds. Those areas are Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads (the ability to put a wide variety of instruments on the Starshield satellite bus).

Starshield will offer a higher level of security than Starlink, featuring "additional high-assurance cryptographic capability to host classified payloads and process data securely, meeting the most demanding government requirements," according to SpaceX's Starshield page.

https://www.space.com/spacex-starshield-satellite-internet-military-starlink

SpaceX, L3Harris win missile-warning satellite contracts from US military
https://www.space.com/spacex-l3harris-missile-warning-satellite-contracts

[madg]

To be a stakeholder they would need to have an interest in clearance, which obviously they do not. Donating a product to one of the hundreds of research projects they get asked to donate to and extrapolating that to mean they are connected? No we have different opinions on that