My presence here is justified by the ownership of 50 million shares.

What would an ERHC shorter mention about his extreme and time very consuming interest in ERHC?

After all: the, via simple deduction, easily identified shorters must have an incentive to discuss ERHC on a daily basis. Occam's razor therefore dictates that there is a financial reason.

This cannot be disregarded, because it is important to understand, since shorting ERHC influences the share price.

My presence here is justified by the ownership of 50 million shares.

The already identified shorters must have an incentive to discuss ERHC on a daily basis. Occam's razor dictates that.

Shorters also refuse to acknowlegde that:

1. ERHC is still not bankrupt
2. ERHC actually seems to have proven income
3. ERHC fought a years long legal battle over just 1 EEZ block
4. ERHC has a contract with TOTAL
5. ERHC objected to a revocation process put in motion by the Commission

Why?

No, no, you"re wrong:

The already identified shorters must have an incentive to discuss ERHC (while claiming no financial interest) on a daily basis, and for many years. Occam's razor dictates that.

You"re wrong:

The already identified shorters must have an incentive to discuss ERHC (while claiming no financial interest) on a daily basis. Occam's razor dictates that.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164741435

No rocket sciene. Shorters will keep trying to undo their risky bet.

Whether there are shorts or not is irrelevant to a certain point indeed.

I asked for an example where this happend, you did not provide an example company yet.

Maybe Krombacher is Nigirian after all, with his 'short' narrative...? He is the one that came up the with 'short' story, not ERHC management. So if Krombacher can prove he is not Nigerian, then your narrative is incorrect. And you can check very easily if he is American. Actually, I know him for almost 20 years by now, pre ERHC that is. So... "Hasta la Vista" to this 'NIgeria' narrative.

Why exactly do 'longs' need to be convinced of this "Hasta la Vista" narrative in the first place? If I believed in this narrative, I would have been gone a few years ago, but I don't believe in this narrative. I think that is pretty clear, right? But I'm still here, as are some others, on a daily basis. Think about that, there must be an explanation.

Occam's razor asked you to explain why ERHC objected to the litigation trajectory put in motion by the Commission, severely delaying the revocation process... ERHC would have been revoked already if they did not objected. That other company is already revoked...

Oh, then my question should be easy to answer, right?

Let us hear the explanation.

We longs don't care.

Some day you will understand why...

All the shorters are dodging... Constantly.

The everything overruling point is:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164726973

This needs to be addressed, but that still did not happen.

It's compelling evidence...

It isn't hard to succesfully use occam's razor to compellingly show that there are people that took a large bet on the demise of ERHC, and are trying for ages to turn around the tide, by disregarding the obvious ERHC positives here... because those positives don't fit the narrative they need.

Let's highlight one of them here: now for Christ's sake, why would ERHC fight against a revocation trajectory by the Commission if it is in fact their ULTIMATE goal... this objection severely slows down this whole revocation trajectory! What is Occam's razor telling us here... ?

Even IF there are no shorters, there is still compelling evidence that there are investors that took a large bet on the demise of ERHC.

Why would anybody care if Krombacher thinks there were ERHC short sellers at work? Any potential investor will make up his own mind when doing DD on ERHC. Do they urgently need daily 'help' on this topic? lol, no.

But it seems (understatement) that there are people, who took a bet on the demise of ERHC, that don't like the 'Shorters-narrative' being brought up as an option.

Now why would that be...?

Occam's razor brings us some compelling explanations.

ERHC normally would have been revoked already. OMG.

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=528ce4db-8d5c-4bd0-a106-e8ae32ef7211&coa=coa14&DT=Brief&MediaID=1e7a9141-7fe1-44e4-bb39-243400946754

That is what the 'longs' did. Occam's razor defines the goofy story here very well: Years of litigation and then suddenly coming up with a narrative of 'no contract'? Lol. Now WHY would there be no contract anymore while TOTAL has been showing more than interest in the EEZ and JDZ...

Occam's razor is sharp, very sharp. It's a BS detector too.

One should assume that by now it is known that ERHC does not talk, so I would not put to much value on a 'talking' market... right? Even Award Winning KOSMOS lawyer Daniel Charest had to ask and ask and ask for more information. he didn't get the information. But 'the market' nevertheless knows...?


https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=164726973

This can't be addressed enough.

Therefore it isn't hard to succesfully use occam's razor to compellingly show that there are people that took a large bet on the demise of ERHC, and are trying for ages to turn around the tide, by disregarding the obvious ERHC positives here... because they don't fit the narrative they need.

Let's highlight one of them here: now for Christ's sake, why would ERHC fight against a revocation trajectory by the Commission if it is in fact their ULTIMATE goal... this objection severely slows down this whole revocation trajectory! What is Occam's razor telling us here... ?

Shorters and everybody else who took a bet on the demise of ERHC also refuse to acknowlegde that:

1. ERHC is still not bankrupt
2. ERHC actually seems to have proven income
3. ERHC fought a years long legal battle over just 1 EEZ block
4. ERHC has a contract with TOTAL
5. ERHC objected to a revocation process put in motion by the Commission

Ok, let's turn this line of thinking around: let's say you are right in that there is no deal with TOTAL...

show me any link, newsarticle, whisper, or anything else that was/is available for potential ERHC investors to base this "conclusion" on... since you can evidently deduct from 'silence' that there is in fact 'news' that there is no contract suddenly... despite years of very expensive, High Stakes litigation over just one EEZ block. That makes sense, huh?

Occam's razor tells me this is a BS narrative. We already found out several times ourselves that there are developments behind the scene, that are not being communicated, for reasons discussed here.

My bet is that it now will sink in soon with the identified 'Einsteins' who took a bet on the demise of ERHC, and saw their plan went souer.

Years of investing in BS narratives on top of that will add to the total failure.

TOTAL failure that is... :)

Contact Wikipedia asap. Try to adjust the document and see if your alterations stay online...

There is ultra compelling evidence that shorters exist: see post 347262

Hahaha.

Still not bankrupt, has income, has entered into 'high stakes litigation' for several years over just 1 block, had funds to do so, has Super Major interest's in EEZ and JDZ blocks... etc.

Nah... no positives.

Indeed, you are right on the money here:

I think the ones that came up with the "going private in order to be able to hurt the 'outside investor' out of his ERHC value" narrative did not think this true.

It's indeed common sense. Top thinking but so obvious. Otherwise it indeed makes no sense to go private on purpose!!

This is a checkmate conclusion. Congrats.

And then to think that those that took a bet on the demise of ERHC have tried for several years to 'sell' this idea to others... a painful waste of time.

My presence here is justified by the ownership of 50 million shares.

The already identified shorters must have an incentive to discuss ERHC on a daily basis. Occam's razor dictates that.

Shorters also refuse to acknowlegde that:

1. ERHC is still not bankrupt
2. ERHC actually seems to have proven income
3. ERHC fought a years long legal battle over just 1 EEZ block
4. ERHC has a contract with TOTAL
5. ERHC objected to a revocation process put in motion by the Commission

Find me an example that is applicable here.

By the way, only shorters will welcome such a scenario...

Others won't care...

Is the assumption that Krombacher is a Nigerian pump & dumper?

Just wonder why ERHC itself isn't pumping before dumping this stock... on the contrary.

It's pretty simple, ERHC is still alive, and was kicking during the litigation trajectory and the revocation trajectory versus the commission: because the block ownerships make it worthwhile evidently.

Do you realize that ERHC could have effectively exploited these developments for years... and make money.

They did not, and Occam's razor tells us why: the agreement with TOTAL over block 4, and maybe all other blocks too.

This is the most simple explanation for both the negative and positive statements one can make about ERHC.

We would not have seen litigation if it wasn't worthwhile the effort in time and money. This applies to ERHC, but also to it's investors.

Occam's razor tells us that they did not. That is the daily proof we see here.

Again, Occam's razor dictates there is a simple explanation for what we see. The most obvious reason is the right one: financial interests by Longs, but also by investors who claim not to be longs.

Occam's razor theory is the very reason why I don't discuss KOSMOS on the KOSMOS board, just to give an example.

This isn't rocket science.

My presence here is justified by the ownership of 50 million shares.

The already identified shorters must have an incentive to discuss ERHC on a daily basis. Occam's razor dictates that.

Shorters also refuse to acknowlegde that:

1. ERHC is still not bankrupt
2. ERHC actually seems to have proven income
3. ERHC fought a years long legal battle over just 1 EEZ block
4. ERHC has a contract with TOTAL
5. ERHC objected to a revocation process put in motion by the Commission

Longs added while being stuck... that can be proven. Now use Occam's Razor on this 'narrative' please.

If the identified investors, who took a large bet on the demise of ERHC, actually did NOT take a bet on the demise of ERHC, then Occam's Razor theory would be completely nullified.

Common sense dictates that there is an explanation for what we see here in relation to:

I refer to the KISS principle here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

Everybody... I repeat everybody here has identified the shorters. This is not rocket science.

Occam's Razor dictates that shorters exist, even if this is denied by ERHC shorters, for understandable reasons. Occam's Razor is not in need of confirmation, it's a concept of sheer common sense.

The everything overruling observation is:

Stick to Occam's Razor, when claiming:

Do not ignore Occam's Razor when claiming a narrative.

Their objection to the revocation procedure by the commission severely DELAYED this whole process. Did they do this to be able to say: "We did put up a fight against this procedure" to make it more believable that they had the shareholders best interest in mind?

Occam's Razor is very clear here: BS.

TOTAL would not mind this conduct? I beg to differ. And also: find me an example of what exactly will happen when and how shares are nullified by a company going private? Or is ERHE the first one you know of?

Years of "high stakes litigation" and in the end going for privatization. Better that they did it the other way around, start with privatization...

Occam's Razor is shouting to us: to many illogical assumptions.

I think that SEO's main goal is: to get money out of ERHC in the first place. NOT: how can I screw current shareholders from my American Company...

People that took a large bet on the demise of ERHC hate to see the share price going up. They will do anything to portray a negative picture of ERHC, because they can't simply move on.

But nothing will work, like it hasn't over the last years.

Only longs and shorters in EHRE care.

Longs in ERHE are known, and the sorters are identified, a long time ago like I said.

Occam's Razor...

Here is a must read report on short and distort campaigns on Seeking Alpha and the lengths short sellers will go to:

https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/11442671-gerald-klein/3096735-anatomy-of-a-short-attack

"Just as important, investors need to understand how short sellers operate these days so they can navigate the sea of misinformation."

People that took a large bet on the demise of ERHC hate to see the share price going up. They will do anything to portray a negative picture of ERHC, because they can't simply move on.

But nothing will work, like it hasn't over the last years.

Longs bought, you don't add if you think you are stuck in ERHC.

Common sense dictates low on arguments.



Shorters are seeing that nothing works to get people to sell.

"In fact, I would say that next year, we're going to enter a situation in global oil markets where we have never ever been before in the 160 years of history of oil, since it was discovered back in Oil Creek, Pennsylvania 1850 by Colonel Drake."


http://blog.gorozen.com/blog/leigh-goehring-on-the-many-factors-sending-oil-prices-higher?utm_campaign=Weekly%20Blog%20Notification&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=136200549&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_sPg-5cp3uF-E1MoGZhMsWZuON2bwgdV9cJvBalW6I0BBLx1903M4iEG9iOinXgMdcp_4SPIOhrmN3AaYYLL0E017vKA&utm_content=136200549&utm_source=hs_email

Wow.

The whole BS 'stuck' narrative has been debunked long ago. Longs were buying when you claimed they were stuck... lol.

For the third time, dude, like I said....

Occam's Razor tells us precisely who exactly were betting on the demise of ERHC, and now try to save their behind...

In layman's terms: we identified the persons who took a bet on the demise of ERHC, years ago.

This concept isn't hard to understand.

Like I said today:

It did not work well over the last years, and it will never work.

ERHC doesn't need new investors, Longs also don't need new investors.