RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:PATSCAN TESTING SITESHi Scarlet-Spider Thank you for the very detailed email. I always appreciate the time that you take to transpose your perspectives and feelings and enjoy I reading them. I also agree with the vast majority of what you are saying. From my perspective I see several elements to such discussions and these are not exhaustive but generally are: The Stock and its ability to assist retail turn a profit to investors both in long and shorting. The sentiment and belief in what the company management doing to assist the scopes of meaningful news that will assist in maintaining the positive sentiments of the longs. The actual technology proposition The Market for that technology that exists in the minds of investors The Market that exists in the minds of the company management The actions that the company is taking to address that market they believe to be the cash cow The competitive environment On the topic of Evolv , there are several points of discussion that can emanate from looking at them, as they are one of several companies trying to address stand off detection and one of several in the space who are using similar radar techniques to others. The focusing on the actual product and a detection technology technique used in that product are completely different subjects. I believe that not to identify that key point, cause blindsides. Take engine technology. The Mercedes 3.0 Diesel is made by Magna and it is used in a whole host of GM vehicles. Take OLED technology, Samsung supply about ten different vendors with their panels. What they build around those engines or screens defines the nuances of the product but underlying tech is the same. The point you raised on Evolv was in relation to a product they are promoting a walkthrough called Edge in order to address what they deem to believe is will address the subway and stadium environment. As these places already use turnstiles, as do the likes of all of the theme parks they are clearly honing in on an existing concept of operations. The subway type of scenario I believe to be pretty smart because these places fall under TSA mandates and that removes a whole pile of paperwork and other heartaches. If there is an assumption that the technologies used in that Edge product isnt as compelling as Patriot, I believe that it may be prudent to research the background of the founders of that company. Their prior company Reveal Imaging was acquired by SAIC / LEIDOS for a few hundred million. The assumption that these guys don't see or understand the Tier 1 space as Patriot management sees is also a possible oversight by virtue of the fact that SAIC were so big a Tier 1 that the SEC demanded that SAIC be divided, hence the creation of LEIDOS. Stating that their weapons identification system is primitive I would suggest that this is possibly kin to judging a book by its cover. The Patriot One web site, has several videos the first being an avatar-based video that shows a depiction of PATSCAN technology at turnstiles. That is the Evolv Edge concept of operations. Then there is the non-avatar video depicting a nightclub type scenario one that shows a table lamp glowing red or green the fact that there is a computer burning a billion bits a second determining the threat is immaterial, the most primitive and simple interface and alarm to say threat or no threat is all that matters. If you are stating that the Evolv system lacks intelligence because of that simple interface of red or green then you could certainly be forgiven for that, but I would employ a deeper interrogation of their website which takes a deep dive on what they call MOSAIC, which is their take on the Patriot CMR. I am also of the opinion that it isnt prudent for any of us to assume that something is better than the other until it can be physically determined like for like which isnt possible at this time. This deeper question what truly qualifies better? To the layman I believe that would qualify by material fact of if apparatus can be seen to operate live and is also presented live at tradeshows where it can be touched, indicates that they maybe further ahead than another company who is unable to do that. However I would argue vigorously that just because a company on the face is seemingly unable to do a live demonstration, maybe it is simply not wanting to do that because they want to remain mysterious for marketing reasons or very real matters revolving to state security contracts which they serve? To assume a particular vendors product doesn't work or exist is equally shooting in the dark and there is certainly lots of that going on within these forums. The biggest remaining barrier to threat detection is what many scholars call CHAOS theory, which in regard to this technology sector points to something called the Butterfly Effect that most people may have heard of. The butterfly effect is that something in one area that seemingly benign correlates a change in environment that has a knock on effect that can cause a catastrophic outcome to a particular situation elsewhere. In relation to this on this area of technology, effectively if you have a fluid and random environment (Hotel Lobby) where you are having to deal with multiple random elements (People, Luggage electronic apparatus that emit frequencies similar to the detection device) and those elements have several variables (Heavy, thin, male, female, those healthy, those with medical implants and electronic implants, those with external medical, prosthetic limbs, colostomy bags) (The contents of the bags and suitcases that can contain everything from bar of soap to bondage gear) add in a few walkie-talkies with collision frequencies that hit the device at a hundred times the power and bounce off all of those elements that then cause tens of thousands of secondary harmonics that multiply up and down the radio spectrum and hit the receiver that detects above and beyond the capability of the receiver to decipher qualifies as model for Chaos Theory. If it could be solved or showed any promise of being solved then SAIC or Battelle would have bought out formula the IP for billions and the inventors would have multiple Nobel laureates for Physics, Medicine and Chemistry and Peace. I say this because such technology would render ICBM systems or any missile system useless by virtue of knowing where an when a projectile will be at a given place in time even if it is sucked into a hurricane, thrown into a tornado and a cow trapped in the tornado cone blows the engine out. So when it comes to statements from any company to do with any statements on discovery I am intrigued and I listen. When I read that a company is doing: novel, unique and revolutionary I think of Einstein, DaVinci, Tesla, Berners Lee, and Curie. Which then sends me on a ten-minute research and I find prior art and similar technique. That means its evolutionary, but that doesn't discount its evolutionary advantage that makes it a disruptive technology that highlights the initial revolutionary concepts. Heres what I like about evolutionary from a business perspective its simple and its compelling. Evolution means its had most of the hard work done already. It means that there is an opportunity to improve and make more efficient. It means that by the fact that others are there that there is an actual market or that there is a gap in a market. I then say: Tell me about the gap in the market, tell me why the other guys are trumped by you even better present the actual evidence to support this or the theory around your thinking. Tell me your go to market plan, tell me your strengths and weaknesses and how you will bolster or diminish them respectively over time. Tell me who will buy this and how you have come to the conclusion that they will and tell me what stands in the way of that all coming together because there is always a fly in the ointment. Did they spot the fly and did it lay eggs? That's just me Scarlet Spider. Maybe I over think things a little. As this is a forum for Patriot what I do believe and know to some extent is that Patriot is bigger than the sum of its parts. I believe on a very good track. The document they released on the 28th December tell me as a guy in within this industry and business guy that they have hit a few pain barriers admission of such and further actions that indicate they are rapidly getting things shaped up. If they had not have hit those barriers and if they don't hit a few more of them on the way then there will be something very wrong indeed. It is after all a technology start-up. From where I sit, and see in a broad brushstrokes PATSCAN is proposed to be a significant cost effective platform that has a ubiquitous concept of operations both covert and overt. That is a serious compelling business case. Their funding model allows them a great deal of options too and that itself is the one thing that segregates them from competition. That is truly unique and that is the compelling mixture of significant plus points. Carl