Replies to post #130271 on World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[Madmonks]

Management might have a very good reason for this flight delay. I say again -- MANAGEMENT MIGHT HAVE A VERY GOOD REASON FOR THIS FLIGHT DELAY. But I don't like it when these dates are changed at the eleventh hour. Do what you say, say what you do. It's called credibility.

Don't get me wrong, bank -- I've been a proponent of Clark and Estrella. I told Warp that he went too far when he called for Estrella to be replaced.

But when they come out with a letter to shareholders expressing their dismay with the stock price, I don't understand it. I mean, they seemed surprised. Maybe you haven't been around long enough, but everyone who endured Huff's antics understands that future plans and projections are just that -- future plans and projections. And that's why I said that they don't get it -- they're out of touch with the history of this company and the mentality of its shareholders. They don't understand that long-term investors aren't going to drive up the stock price just because they think it should be higher. We've been burned way to many times to fall for that again. Everyone wants evidence this time around. And that means a substantial contract (a real one -- not some made up $300 million Russian contract like Huff offered us). And I should add that this shareholder letter came prior to the company acquiring GTC which obviously added some value.

After all the ups and downs over the years, I'm not only a realist, but I'm also extremely patient. I have no illusions about my investment anymore. But I do think others have been misled about the prospects and timetables regarding the technical development of our airships and as well as a higher projected stock price. I think that's why Warp went on his rant recently -- and he has inside information which I don't.

This latest news from the company I think realistically puts the prospect of receiving any contract well into next year. After all, it'll take them time to analyze the flight data and make some more modifications to the design. And I'm fine with that just as long as they ultimately get a contract. But to say that they can take forever getting a product to market is not acceptable. Competitors continue to move forward with their technology. We need to stay ahead of the curve.

Madmonks

[rwehapi2003]

"post traumatic stress disorder impatience"

LOL - that's a great analogy. I was a little disappointed by the test delay, but it's only because I got so used to the improved execution of the company and a management team that has pretty much delivered on what they said they were going to do. I think this was one of the few PR's where they mentioned a hard set of dates and then had to change the timeframe. But it's only by a few months, at most, according to their new estimates and it is for a good reason - IMHO.

If you are trying to land business with a new, and innovative solution designed to support multiple devices from different customers and someone comes to you with a request to accomodate some additional "stuff" - would you not want to take the time to do so if all other parties agreed that the delay was in the best interest of the project? What if it were FEMA? Would that make the delay acceptable then?

I am not discounting the possibility that the technology could be flawed. Afterall, there is no contract to purchase a fleet of Argus, and the purpose of the Yuma test is to provide further evidence that the Eastcor folks know how to engineer a commercial grade UAV solution. Remember too, that the Yuma tests are to set the precedent for an experimental license from the FAA so we still have a ways to go.

It's always possible that the Eastcor folks bit off more than they could chew and they are scrambling to save face and buy more time. If they are evasive at the SHM and we have another delay for Yuma, then the naysayers might be closer to the right prediction that this continues to be nothing more than a scam company who fails to execute.

The test video, to me, showed visual proof of the Argus lofted higher than 10's of feet above the earth. It can ascend and descend. Was it tethered? Was it it free flight? Was the motor operational? I could not tell. Was it possible that the Argus was being towed? Notice the vehicle moving to the right at the begiinning of the video as the Argus was being pulled from the hangar. Plus the upward pitch of the nose for most of the time could indicate that it was being pullled against the wind like a kite. I would not be the least bit suprised if it were tethered since it's been stated that previous testing required the UAV to be secured to the ground due to imposed regulatory restrictions. Yuma was going to provide the arena for untethered testing.

The PR stated it has been tested to 2500'....the Argus MTS specs talk about a solution for 3000' so maybe there is a connection.

Some other design changes can be seen comparing the older pix of the Argus where the head segment connection material covered more area than the link between the head and body in the video. Plus there is now some sort of box mounted under the second segment.

This certainly makes for interesting discussion.

[Bearslayer]

Bankinonit,

Your waisting your time. The naysayers will never agree with you. Your right. If someone huge just came to the table and has a system they want to provide to the company for testing, it has to be outfitted. This can't be done in a day. Obviously there is now more than one entity that is interested in our products. That has never been more obvious. Many are blinded by the past. Thats to bad. Hopefully through all of their ranting they will still hang in there to see what happens. If not, well thats ok too.
I am look forward to next 10q and quite frankly I believe the second half of the year should be fun.


JMO.

[WildWest]

Bank,can you share any info on where you heard that the Army made a last minute change order to the YUMA test to include other payloads?