Yet again, pathetic conspiracy theories and sad excuses.
I got a few good laughs out of this drivel:
First of all, someone is supposedly paying big bucks to get someone to trash Cyclone. This is a compound laugh getter … the first laugh coming from the idea that you would need to hire someone to trash Cyclone when their behavior and business practices have invited many people to do it for free as a public service.
And this leads to the question: "Just who benefits from destroying their company to the point that they would shell out money to get the job done?" Are we supposed to believe it is the top secret cabal of International Internal Engine Manufacturers? Let's see if we have this straight --- there's probably a few hundred engine manufacturers out there but they are so afraid of an outfit that has never subjected an engine to an impartial series of tests that they will engage in a smear campaign. Once again, you can only laugh at this sort of trash conspiracy campaign, it's roughly equivalent to the "100 miles per gallon carburetor" stories. Unfortunately, there's all kinds of paranoid and technologically illiterate people who buy into that kind of nonsense; this tells us who Cyclone believes are their supporters, and in what contempt they hold them.
Now, as for all their efforts being directed towards "Commercialization", this is another laugh getter as well as being a perfect example as to why people trash Cyclone for free. Just how many years ago did they announce a "family of market ready engines"? Now, tell me where I'm wrong; aren't the terms "market" and "commercial" more or less synonymous? If you have a product that's "market ready", doesn't that state that it is a commercially viable product? Trying to pretend they aren't the same is cause for more hilarity. The whole proposition simply begs another question "Was the statement that the engines were "market ready" a lie?" If it was a lie, and if you haven't taken responsibility for spreading the lie, what proof do you offer that the current "commercialization" effort isn't also a lie? Again, you are forced to laugh at the shallowness of the argument in the face of the company's history.
And this brings me to the issue of expensive press releases, which also comes into play in this latest missive. News outlets don't require payment in order to print the news, they spend money on reporters and other assets to find the news. Spending money to get the word out is called "advertising". If no one is willing to cover your story, then it's a fair bet that the consensus is that there is nothing significantly newsworthy involved. Let's view this from the press's point of view; they would have to find it laughable to report on Cyclone's unsubstantiated statements given that none of their previous coverage was later supported by facts.
Anyhow, this whole thing is part and parcel of the ongoing Cyclone saga. They announced the development of a "market ready" engine that was potentially a market "disruptive" technology, but never demonstrated it living up to the hype. They sign up a highly reputable board of technical advisers, which they instantly ignore in favor of the underdeveloped ideas of someone with no educational or practical credentials in the field. When all their promises fail to materialize they take a multiple path approach of:
Making new promises and predictions without explaining their previous failures.
Blaming mysterious outside sources.
And, most importantly, they never, ever, not in a dozen years, take responsibility for all the misinformation and deception. They expect every "press release" should cause people to instantly forget all the previous promises and accept the new ones uncritically. They never admit that ego, incompetence and self-gain got in the way of protecting investor interests.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
