Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : DCH Technologies (DCH) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (1446)	5/15/1999 7:55:00 AM
From: Thomas Barnes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

Sid I have not been able to figure out what roll a hydrogen gas sensor would play in a corrosion meter. I guess your investigative efforts have answered this question. If the company doesn't exist then there is no such thing. Good work,keep digging. It could be there is a company (in someone's mind)...... It just hasn't been formed yet. Perhaps it's a startup company waiting to be awarded a contract to manufacture another DOE patient. Perhaps this is a spin off organization of DCH Tech that is still on the drawing board. Tom B.

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (1446)	5/15/1999 10:04:00 AM
From: Scoobah	Respond to of 2513

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OF 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarter ended: March 31, 1999 Commission file number: 33-23617 MATERIAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. ---------------------------- (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 95-4622822 ------------------------------- -------------------- (State or other jurisdiction of (IRS Employer incorporation or organization) identification No.) 11661 San Vicente Boulevard Suite 707 Los Angeles, California 90049 --------------------------------------- (address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) 90064 (310) 208-5589 --------------------------------------- (Registrant's telephone number including area code)

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (1446)	5/15/1999 11:33:00 AM
From: wpckr	Respond to of 2513

Sid-you know, I would be a bit more circumspect about my negative references about this company and Antaeus or any other topic about DCHT. I spent 25 years + in business for myself, fully incorporated, and never had to file a report with the SEC. Personally held corporations do not have to file such reports. By the way, in that time our sales rose from $200K/year to $12million/year. I do not know where else you may have looked for info regarding Antaeus, and I do not care. I just believe you better have in depth solid evidence of fraud before you start throwing that allegation around. If I were DCHT, and or Antaeus my attorneys would be logging everything you say or write. When and if they prove that they are in truth for real, they should set the wheels in motion to incorporate your assets into theirs, via the courts, with tax free punitives.

To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (1446)	5/15/1999 3:53:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 2513

Sid, Re: "MTEY files forms with the SEC, and it was pretty obvious from its filings that Antaeus Corp. was just an idea that it was thinking about doing, not something that actually existed in any meaningful sense" DCHT had to know(seems likely anyway) we(anyone looking) would discover this 10-K. Crappy scam that is! Given that DCHT did not claim Antaeus had any business what-so-ever there is no lie here. The "meaningful sense" phrase above is your own notion and not clearly defined. It is plain that this Non-destructive monitoring application has never been done before. "For a company that evidently had total 1998 sales of $200,000 or so, a contract that would multiply business four or five times is highly significant." Hence, perhaps it behooved DCHT to report this potential application. So what? As for the MTEY info on Antaeus... "It is clear from the future tense of the language used ("…final stages of planning…", "…new company to be formed…", "plan is in its early stages…") and the fact that there isn't even a name mentioned for this proposed new joint venture, that at least as of December 31, 1998, the date covered by the 10-K, Antaeus Corp. did not exist. Did it exist on February 17, the date of DCHT's press release, when DCHT announced business with Antaeus estimated at $1,000,000 per year? It looks like the answer is NO. Why? Because even though the date covered by MTEY's 10-K is 12/31/98, companies are required to report significant developments that occur after that date but prior to filing the 10-K, in a section called "Subsequent Events". Forming Antaeus, and having it financed to the tune where it could expect to spend a million per year with just one supplier, would be HIGHLY significant to MTEY" It seems clear that by Feb. 17, the date of DCHT's press release, Antaeus was named. If Antaeus is not funded, the significance of this venture to MTEY would be zero on the balance sheet- as may be apparent. To you it "looks like" Antaeus didn't exist on Feb. 17th...to me you haven't a clue here about that- save that two sources point to it's likely existence. Antaeus, in an early stage of development with a business plan that employs DCHT sensors, sure could use a DCHT sensor or two- and DCHT claims them as a customer- it makes sense. Evaluating this application would appear to be a rather labor un-intensive and possibly inexpensive process(just speculation, fair is fair here). If MTEY(which by the 10-K has participated in the spending of millions of dollars of research money received on multiple occasions from Government to develop it's testing methods) ever receives a contract from the government for this application, I would think they would then have access to a pipeline of funds to purchase the required DCHT sensors. NO? Government is slow yet it's clear based on prior funding that the folks forming Antaeus may have some valuable technologies and credibility as far as the funding agency is concerned(as a Libertarian with little faith in Government I must say this may be of of dubious value, granted. Then again, the MTEY descriptions of their technologies are lengthy in the 10-K and while over my head, seem real enough to me). I don't know what "meaningful existence" means to you, but I don't see anything here that indicates with any meaningful degree of certainty that anyone has lied about anything as you conclude. "Do companies intentionally lie on one press release and then get honest on all the others? " You certainly haven't even begun to prove that Antaeus doesn't/didn't exist IMHO. "if it existed and was capable of buying millions of dollars of sensors, (Anteaus)would be many times the size of MTEY itself." Given the nature of government funded research and potential post development deployment contracts, why would it have to have the funds in hand now to exist in a meaningful way? Again, I see no reasonable proof of any lie here. "it probably takes many, many years for a test to determine how well a bridge monitoring system is detecting the formation of rust, the probability that Antaeus would be capable of giving DCHT millions of dollars of orders within the next year or two has to be zero. " Probably this, probably that, "it looks like" to you. I don't particularly like the DCHT phrase concerning potential revenues from this applicaton "going into the millenium"...yet I'm not at all sure it can be clearly interpreted to mean "within the next year or two"...and even if it did clearly mean that there are no promises made and there is nothing to back up your notions concerning the time it might take to prove this application- however reasonable that conjecture "probably" may seem to me. The probability that Antaeus may provide DCHT revenues- even in the next year or two- does not "...(have) to be zero"--this is just an unfounded leap of conjecture on your part. It seems obvious readying this application could be a drawn out process as I'm sure you agree, yet we don't really know that, and in any event I just can't see the lie you speak of. I have to agree with trader, you've made some pretty strong unqualified statements which may in fact be false as the dickens. Given that Companies have prosecuted thread bashers, I'm not sure I'd sleep well if I'd said "Do companies intentionally lie on one press release and then get honest on all the others? I guess it can happen, but as one who has been investing in small cap stocks for more than 30 years, I have never seen it" based on the information you have. The clear implication of this could amount to REALLY sticking your neck out IMHO.