SSC’s Misunderstanding of Speculation, Facts, and Lies Exposed
SSC continues to confuse speculation, lies, and truth in a way that exposes his agenda and weakens his credibility. Let’s set the record straight.
🔍 1️⃣ Understanding Speculation vs. Lies
Speculation is not a lie. It’s a reasoned projection of possible future events based on logic, experience, and available information. Every public company does it during earnings calls when they issue forward-looking guidance. Are CEOs "lying" when they provide revenue projections? No. It’s standard practice.
By SSC's logic, any speculation about a future event is a lie. If that were true, every stock analyst, CEO, and financial forecaster would be a liar. But in reality, speculation is a key driver of the market. It fuels investment decisions.
If SSC wants "certainty," he should wait for history books, not participate in markets where forward-looking thinking drives the future.
---
🔍 2️⃣ SSC’s Mischaracterization of My Points
SSC attempts to discredit me by misrepresenting my statements as "lies." Let’s address each of his talking points directly:
✅ "News by Christmas 2024 that destroys ERHC shorts"
Speculation? Yes. But baseless? No.
ERHC has a history of strategic silence. This is not a guess; it’s observable.
Companies often time major announcements near the end of the year for maximum impact on financial calendars.
Logical Reasoning: If ERHC intends to take action on shorts, they would likely choose a moment of maximum market impact.
SSC’s Weakness: SSC has no alternative hypothesis. If he thinks it’s not Christmas, then when does he believe major announcements will be made?
✅ "Block 4 drilling results will be released by March 2025"
Industry-Standard Timelines:
Offshore deepwater drilling has a timeline, and anyone familiar with oil & gas exploration knows that 3-6 month windows are standard.
Projecting a March 2025 result is not "wild speculation." It’s a reasonable extrapolation from past drill schedules.
SSC's Hypocrisy: SSC offers no counter-date. If SSC claims my March 2025 timeline is wrong, then what is his date? He won’t offer one, which proves his position is not constructive.
✅ "ERHC has received hundreds of millions of dollars"
PPP Loan Proof:
ERHC qualified for a PPP loan. You don’t get a PPP loan without proving payroll requirements.
The payroll alone implies substantial revenue, and since ERHC operates globally, it's logical to conclude that significant cash flow supports its payroll.
SSC conveniently ignores this because acknowledging the PPP loan would validate my point.
Where is SSC's proof to the contrary?
✅ "ERHC has a done deal dollars/share buyout"
Speculation? Yes. But plausible? Absolutely.
Deals in the oil & gas sector are frequently confidential and subject to NDAs.
Why do companies impose confidentiality agreements? Because buyouts are negotiated behind closed doors.
What about gag orders? SSC claims gag orders don't exist. Then explain why ERHC fought to avoid disclosure to the SEC.
SSC Demands Evidence Where Evidence is Legally Prohibited. If SSC wants Ntephe to violate an NDA, then SSC is suggesting ERHC break the law.
✅ "$8/share short squeeze"
Short Squeeze Mechanics 101:
Short squeezes don’t follow “value” logic. Look at GameStop (GME) and AMC — they surged to irrational heights because of forced short-covering under time constraints (T+3).
ERHC has massive naked short exposure. If they’re forced to cover, $8/share isn’t far-fetched.
SSC knows this but pretends “squeezes” only happen in meme stocks. History says otherwise.
SSC's Flawed Logic: If SSC thinks $8/share is impossible, let him explain GameStop's surge to $483/share.
---
🔍 3️⃣ SSC’s Contradictions and Deception
SSC claims I "lie" by speculating. But let's expose his contradictions:
Contradiction #1:
SSC claims ERHC hasn’t received "hundreds of millions," but the PPP loan requires proof of revenue.
So which is it, SSC? Did ERHC provide proof of revenue to qualify for PPP, or did they somehow scam the U.S. Treasury?
Contradiction #2:
SSC demands proof for everything, yet he provides no evidence for his own claims.
He says ERHC won't have a buyout. Where's your proof, SSC?
If SSC can demand proof of every speculation, then I can demand proof of his claim that shorts don't exist.
Contradiction #3:
He says ERHC can just “release information” despite gag orders. But anyone in finance knows that companies can't violate court-ordered gag orders or NDAs.
If SSC worked at any legitimate company, he would know that NDAs are a standard part of every buyout process.
---
🔍 4️⃣ Why SSC is Panicking
Here’s why SSC is pushing this hard:
Short Seller Tactic #1: Discredit the Source
SSC calls me delusional and "known liar." This is a classic tactic — discredit the messenger, avoid the message.
Short Seller Tactic #2: Demand Proof While Offering None
SSC demands that I "prove" speculation is valid. But speculation does not require proof.
If SSC wants to disprove speculation, he needs to offer counter-evidence, not sarcasm.
Short Seller Tactic #3: Downplay Short Squeeze Potential
He mocks $8/share. But GameStop and AMC did the same thing.
If SSC was around during GameStop, he’d be screaming, “This stock is overvalued at $10!” … and it still ran to $483.
SSC is scared of the squeeze, and that’s why he has to mock it.
---
🔍 5️⃣ Final Points
Here’s the truth:
Speculation is not a lie. It’s market logic.
SSC demands "proof" while offering no proof himself.
The PPP loan proves ERHC had to demonstrate revenue.
GameStop's squeeze shows $8/share is mathematically possible.
NDAs and gag orders are real. ERHC isn't the first company to be under one.
If SSC believes everything must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, he should stay away from the stock market, where speculation drives every single investment.
If SSC can't explain GameStop’s $483 surge, he certainly can’t argue that ERHC can't hit $8/share.
This is why shorts are panicking. They know that when ERHC reveals its next move, they have no way out. T+3 comes for them all.
Krombacher
AI
