Replies to post #29476 on Centaurus Diamond Tech. Inc. (fka CTDT)

[wymont]

Thank you very much Nomad

[wymont]

Thank you very much Nomad

[mitcheroo]

Thanks Nomad, great report!

Yeah, LT = exSEAL?... doesn't ring true to me either, but I've only known one SEAL well. And some highly-trained high-capability soldiers can be uniquely quirky.

Not surprised by the non-existence of the disruptive tech, termed by LT as the "new product". In July Snaper told me there was no new product as such, but a "new application of a product" (which may or may not be directly related to Magnatech).

[pepsuro]

Why would you create a public company if u wanted to remain off the radar? Why would you create a blog hyping all sorts of nonsense if u wanted to remain off the radar? Something is not right here. Stinking more and more everyday.

[chemist72]

Thanx for the report "straight from the horse's mouth".

Unfortunately, you have confirmed some of my worst fears concerning this stock. Still watching and waiting for one last P&D though. If it comes, it could be wild indeed!! - imo

[JDWarrior]

Thanks for the report Naval Nomad. I agree, great upside potential with very little downside risk. GO CTDT

[QServus]

The number one thing keeping them from growing and taking off is
financing:

I find it very hard to believe that such a business model as this would have a hard time finding $3M financing....

[PennyMann]

Thanks for the info Naval Nomad. Here are my thoughts:

Have investors in the past claimed to have met with Snaper? Some posters here on this board claim to have met with Snaper?

CTDT's process will allow for mass production of industrial diamonds once the processes measurement of forces is complete. No disruptive technologies exist as once discussed for months on the board. No biproduct discussion?

Snaper has been flying from Las Vegas to Rhode Island to conduct testing for the diamond production process on leased equipment. Now their funds are low and he hasn't flown to RI for three months. This is the best way to get the primary objective, making diamonds, accomplished?

I'd like to understand how the leasing of equipment is occurring now. Can CTDT use this leased equipment and pay on a minute/hour basis? Or was there a one time fee paid for usage with a time expiration to renew? I see $120k in R&D expense in the last 10-K http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=9399531. I don't see any info about the equipment lease as a specific expense nor mention in the notes to the financials.

No concern with finding customers. Wow. No problem, industrial diamonds are scarce so customers will come to CTDT.

The lack of funding is the main challenge CTDT faces, per Snaper. After 2 years the $600k from an equity investor is running out (if not gone) and CTDT can't obtain financing or the CEO doesn't want debt. Many on the board have stated their own ability to get $3 million in financing in different business models and capacities. Where did this $3 million figure come from? Why does CTDT need $3 million specifically? Why not just keep leasing equipment because it seems to have been the best way the past 2 years without $3 million, though the $600k might have helped. Don't need to customer search. per Snaper, so no marketing is needed.

The CEO, Snaper, feels his technology research might be stolen. He is operating under the radar to hide his work. Seems being the CEO and the chief scientific officer are conflicting roles. What roles do the board of directors members play for scientific advancement and security?

CTDT shares were originally purchased by a private Canadian company for $3,000 overall. The financials show this http://www.otcmarkets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=9399531. Upon CTDT formation Snaper now holds the shares 43.85 million shares. 1.2 million in warrants were issued for $600k for CTDT's funding the past 2 years since CTDT creation. CTDT's accumulated deficit was $467k on 3/31/13.

LT was brought from the private Canadian company who bought shares to be a consultant. That's new to me. The financials show $60k in consulting fees in FY13. Is this LT's cut? Not a bad salary for a blog, asked to be removed by the COO, and some filing preparation. Why was LT asked to be a consultant in the beginning? Was he forced upon CTDT by the private Canadian company? The financials showed Officer salaries of $67,498. I'd surmise LT and Prentice should have aided Snaper better than what we've been hearing. $132k was paid for professional fees. Lawyers and the Accountant? Why is LT so detrimental for the filings occurring with $132k being spent for professionals? How can CTDT grow with these expenses? CTDT doesn't have to list as QB at this point IMO. I'd rather see funds spent on the equipment lease and Snaper's trips for testing to aid CTDT's growth.

I'm glad Snaper is receptive to investors and meeting with us- he is the CEO and the usual face of a company. I'd think the $252k spent in officer salaries, professional fees and consultants could have accomplished this by others other than the chief scientific officer. Sure, the current shareholders aren't the main source of CTDT funds but what about our importance when the related parties of CTDT want to sell their shares, without restrictions? Snaper's shares are restricted so the OTC market would see those sales slowly if sold. I haven't seen final share breakouts but we know Snaper is 43.85 million of 73 million outstanding. That's 43.85 million plus 1.2 million warrants less 73 million outstanding. LT confirmed related parties owned unrestricted shares. Who knows if those related party shares were sold during the April pps rise. Our float could be around 28 million shares.

I'd agree with you Naval that this isn't a scam. However, what about lack of cohesion, lack of direction and a concern CTDT will be bankrupt by the next 10-K? Even if $3 million was obtained I'm concerned the wrong equipment might be purchased, the staff of officers, professionals, and consultants are at odds with a unified company direction, and operating expenses would be disproportionate to what is needed to complete R&D and instead spent on internal politics of what direction CTDT should go in.