Member Info for DrAnomoly

Is this really the best you’ve got, Red? “Vanish!! Haha!!” — it’s less debate, more playground shriek.

Dragging up Each and twisting his post into “orders” is desperate stuff. You know it, I know it, and anyone reading knows it.

And spare me the egg-on-face routine — the only egg here is the one you keep scrambling every time you try to rewrite history. Testing has been done, NDA-covered, and confirmed. Your “got it wrong” line is just you projecting again, which at this point is your entire act.

Funny thing is, you keep hammering the same phrases — “93% down”, “third-party feeds”, “got it wrong” — like a broken toy that only knows three lines. Tiresome, predictable, and entirely your brand.

Red, before you start lecturing anyone about “ownership,” you might try practising it yourself. You’ve spent months spinning tales, misquoting people, and then vanishing when called out — only to come back waving the same tattered arguments like they’re fresh.

And now the comedy act: accusing others of fabricating when you’re the one inventing phantom “15 FTU orders” that nobody ever said. It’s like watching a man set fire to his own trousers, then complain the room smells of smoke.

So yes, own that. Because until you do, your rants aren’t debate — they’re just a crash course in hypocrisy, with you as the tutor and the punchline rolled into one.

Red, nobody said “15 FTUs ordered” — it was 15 leads, and even Each never claimed otherwise. You’re misquoting ghosts now. Client mixes were tested at Bridgend, whether replicated or shipped makes no odds. Stop fabricating.

15Lives — good point, and you’re right to highlight the nuance. BP did have a small free float on the LSE from the 1950s, even while the government held the controlling stake. So technically, yes, an individual could buy shares pre-privatisation.

The catch is in the access. That free float was tiny, and in practice those shares were largely in the hands of institutions, City money, and a narrow set of wealthy individuals with the brokers to facilitate it. Ordinary retail punters — let alone a “middle class” grammar-school kid in the ’60s — weren’t realistically building positions in BP. The real broad-based opportunity only came with the government’s privatisation tranches in 1977, 1979 and 1987, when large blocks were deliberately opened up to the public.

So you’re correct, shares did exist, but the idea of a schoolboy investor casually nipping into BP off the back of a debating society tip is fantasy. That’s why the “50 years in BP” boast still collapses under its own weight.

Twat, that frantic rummage through LSE history to “prove” BP was trading before privatisation is pitiful. Yes, British Petroleum had listings dating back to the ’50s — but as a state-controlled entity. The government still owned the controlling stake and ordinary punters couldn’t rock up and buy them like Shell or ICI. The first meaningful public tranche wasn’t until Thatcher’s privatisation drive in 1979 and 1987. So no, you weren’t nipping out from grammar school debating society to load up on BP stock.

You claimed 50 years, impossible. Then it became 40. Then it morphed into guardians, trusts, and schoolboy epics. Every retelling just makes the lie wobblier. For a man who boasts of a debating pedigree, you can’t even keep your own argument straight. Liar.

And the funniest part? You still failed the easiest Google search in history. If you can’t find a comic-book villain, nobody’s taking your “investment history” seriously.

Twat, let’s deal with your “50 years in BP” fairy tale properly.

1. BP wasn’t available to you. British Petroleum was a state-owned corporation until the Thatcher government started privatisation in 1979–1987. The first retail tranche floated in 1979, with a bigger sale in 1987. Unless your grammar school had a hotline to the Treasury, you couldn’t buy BP shares in the 1960s or early ’70s. They simply weren’t for sale to the public.

2. Minors couldn’t hold stock directly. You claim you were a schoolboy when your “guardian” bought them. Problem: the Companies Act and broker rules didn’t allow under-18s to hold LSE-listed shares in their own name. Shares for minors had to be held in trust or by a nominee until age of majority. That’s fine, but it kills your “I held them” brag. At best, your parents held them. You inherited a story, not a portfolio.

3. The timeline doesn’t stack. You say: grammar school → shell takeover windfall → BP purchase → house deposit in the 1980s. Yet you also claim you’d already “held BP for over 50 years.” That arithmetic is fantasy. From first privatisation in 1979 to now is 45 years. Not 50+. And you didn’t have access pre-privatisation. So even your downgraded “40 years” is generous.

4. The flex keeps changing. First it was “I’ve held BP for over 50 years.” Then “a little over 40.” Then “gifted/trust/guardian.” Then “grammar school shell deal windfall.” Every retelling is a patch job to cover the last hole. That’s not memory, that’s fabrication.

And just for comedy: you lecture on “how to Google” after failing the easiest search in the world — for a comic-book villain. If you can’t manage that, nobody is buying your epic tale of being a grammar-school stock market prodigy.

So the facts are simple:

• You could not have bought BP in the 1960s/70s.

• You could not have held shares directly as a schoolboy.

• Even post-privatisation, your numbers don’t add up.

You lied, you got caught, and you’ve been busy rewriting ever since. That isn’t pedigree. It’s theatre. And not very good theatre at that.

Twat, you can drown the board in paragraphs about Deepwater Horizon, Halliburton, Obama, or centring rings, but none of it erases the fact you lied. You said 50 years in BP. Impossible. Then it became 40. Then it morphed into trusts, grammar school, and house deposits. That’s not memory, that’s fabrication.

Every extra page you type just makes the lie bigger and sadder. Doesn’t matter if you source it from Wikipedia, Google, or the inside of your fridge door — the lie was yours. And you’ve been caught. Again. Liar.

Twat, you’ve now given us three versions in 72 hours:

1. “I’ve held BP for over 50 years.”

2. Actually, it was “held via gift/trust/guardian” (when the 50-year claim exploded).

3. Now it’s “a little over 40 years ago… grammar school… shell TO windfall… bank manager… bought BP… house deposit in the 80s.”

That isn’t clarification. It’s version control failure.

Two problems you can’t spin:

• The number. “Over half a century” isn’t a vibe, it’s a claim. You used it to posture as Mr 50-Years-In-The-Markets. When challenged, you quietly amputated a decade. That’s not nuance, that’s a walk-back.

• The timeline. You didn’t just misremember; you built a whole superiority pitch on an impossible headline. Now it’s trusts, guardians and grammar school epics. Pick a story and try not to change it mid-paragraph.

And since you love “facts,” here’s one you don’t get to outrun: you failed the Google test on a comic-book villain. If you can’t even search properly, nobody is obliged to treat your “I’ve held BP since forever” fables as anything but noise.

You lie, you get caught, then you lie about the lie. Classic bad-faith narcissist pattern. I’m not feeding it. Back to PHE. You can keep workshopping your autobiography in the mirror.

Twat, every time you try to dig yourself out, you tunnel straight into another hole. First you said you’d “held BP for over 50 years.” Now, when faced with the small problem that BP wasn’t even privatised until the 1980s, you’re suddenly talking about trusts, gifts, guardians and stock transfers. That’s not a clarification, it’s a rewrite. If you’d actually meant “my dad bought them for me as a kid,” you’d have said that at the time instead of boasting about your half-century of investing genius.

And your BP history lesson? Nice Wikipedia rehash, but it doesn’t change the fact that your original claim was impossible. You’re trying to turn a clumsy lie into a grand anecdote. It’s pathetic.

So let’s be clear: your story has shifted from “I bought BP shares 50 years ago” to “well, someone maybe bought them for me, possibly in trust, or gifted, or…” That’s not investment pedigree, that’s desperate backpedalling. And it confirms exactly what I’ve been saying all along: you lie, you get caught, then you lie about the lie.

That’s it — I’m done feeding Twat. The man’s been caught lying so often it’s practically his signature move, from “facts” plucked out of thin air to his favourite fairy tale: claiming he’s held BP shares for over 50 years. Trouble is, BP wasn’t even privatised until the 1980s. That’s the financial equivalent of boasting you bought Bitcoin in the 1950s or Tesla back in the days of horse and cart. Pure delusion. When challenged, he doesn’t debate, he shrieks — classic behaviour of a bad-faith narcissist. And if someone can’t even pass the Google 101 exam without face-planting, why would anyone give a second’s weight to his “analysis”? Parasites feed on attention, and he’s had all he’s getting from me.

Red, you’ve outdone yourself here. You claim a “50% rise” in HUI like it’s the second coming, when the stock’s been bouncing between fractions of a penny — that’s volatility, not value. Anyone who’s actually traded AIM for more than five minutes knows that.

And on the Paul Emmitt interview — maybe try listening to the words instead of mangling them into your own fairy tale. He said:

> “we’ve then utilised the compositions that are required by our client, such as National Hydrogen… we’ve made the composition up in Bridgend, so we’ve purchased different materials to make up the mix … and we’ve tested that through on a number of occasions with very, very consistent results and results better than we’d really expected.”

So yes, client-specific trials have been run. Whether the waste was shipped or replicated is irrelevant — the test was done, results achieved. Your “first customer in six weeks” line is a clumsy misread.

And finally, your “15 FTUs ordered” nonsense — nobody said it, nobody wrote it stop fabricating.

For someone who laughs at others, you seem remarkably keen to parade your own inability to follow plain English.

Well his claim about HUI being up 50% in the last five days, kind of puts things into the ‘made up’ camp I think. I guess when he sold out he made 1 sqillion percent that time too.

Red, great headline, now listen again as you are looking pretty stupid right now.

Twat, here’s the problem: you lie so much you can’t even keep your own timeline straight.

You did write — and I’ll quote it again slowly for you — “I’ve been investing for 50 years… held BP for over half a century.” That was LSE, May 2023. Not a paraphrase, not a misquote — your own words, time-stamped in black and white.

Now you’re thrashing about claiming you “remembered it” but didn’t actually say it. Wrong. The forum history proves it. You can spin hip replacements, golf scores and gym memberships all day, but the BP brag came out of your keyboard. You can’t Google your way out of that one, sunshine.

And that’s the pattern, isn’t it? You invent accusations (“paid ramper”), repeat them like gospel, then deny your own posts when they come back to bite you. One minute you’re sneering at people for “Googling”, the next you’re crying because you couldn’t even find a fictional comic-book villain. One minute you’re thumping the table about “no test data”, the next you admit the company has run customer feedstock but just didn’t release it.

Every time you’re caught, you retreat into the same tired routine: “liar, deflection, fraud.” Projection, plain and simple.

Here’s the truth: you lied about your BP history, you lied about not being able to Google, you lied about there being no test results. And now you’re lying about why the board has gone dead quiet — it’s not because PHE has no news, it’s because you’ve bored everyone into silence.

So next time you try the moral high ground, remember — your own words are already buried in the archive, and every lie you tell just makes it easier to prove what you are: a fantasist who can’t even remember his own script.

Ok, I’m just going to call you out then. Fraud!

Where/when:

• Forum: LSE.co.uk → Emmerson (EML) Share Chat → thread “Stampede”

• Handle: testpack3

• Timestamp shown: 5 May 2023, 15:03 (post immediately after “My 15p prediction is based on dealing in shares for over 50 years…”) 

Best bit, that means you claimed to hold BP shares for over 50 years, so that would be pre 1973. So maybe you could remind everyone when privatisation of BP happened, you lied. You are a fraud, you are the liar and that what everyone needs to really know. Found out, fraud!

Twat, your posting history is basically a case study in how not to take yourself seriously. Let’s walk through the greatest hits.

• “I’ve been investing for 50 years… held BP for over half a century.” (LSE, May 2023).

Half a century of “wisdom” and yet your posts read like they were dashed off by a sulky teenager in detention. Either you’ve been lying about your track record, or you’ve wasted 50 years picking up nothing but Dunning–Kruger and a persecution complex.

• The volleyball fantasy. A man your age claiming he’s out in 36-degree Rio heat spiking balls on the beach. What was the prize — a free angiogram at the net? Was there a coronary trolley parked courtside? Nobody believes it. You can’t even win a Google search but somehow you’re Brazil’s answer to Karch Kiraly.

• The Google catastrophe. You called Dr. Anomaly “fake.” Yet the only fraud exposed was you — the sole man on the planet who couldn’t type “Phineas Quayle” correctly. Instead of showing any grace, you doubled down. That’s your trademark: wrong, corrected, and still braying as though you’ve scored a point.

• Your RNS logic. First you thunder: “The company cannot ‘pick and choose’ what to release… any internal news must be RNS’d.” Then in the same breath: “What is to stop PHE reporting customer test results, without naming the customer?” Which is it? You tie yourself in such knots you could be rented out as a balloon animal at kids’ parties.

• The AGM contradictions. One moment you sneer, “naïve to believe anything a CEO says at a promo event.” Next moment, you’re waving SP Angel’s modelling around like it’s the Ten Commandments. You can’t even keep your own rules straight for 24 hours.

So let’s net it out. You claim to be a seasoned investor, but write like an angry old man / petulant teenager / wannabe know-it-all (delete as applicable). You brag about beach volleyball when most of your peers are worried about hip replacements. You failed a Google search that even a pensioner with a Nokia brick could nail. And you manage to contradict yourself so often you make Hans Christian Andersen look like a journalist.

That’s not analysis, it’s not debate — it’s just noise. You’ve smothered this board with your shrieking pedantry and killed off sensible conversation. The rest of us still talk facts; you keep tripping over your own fiction.

Fifty years in the markets, and your legacy is this: angry-old-man fantasy athlete, failed Googler, and clown prince of pedantry. That’s what you’ve built. Congratulations

Pipeline, Red? You make it sound like PHE’s got tumbleweed rolling through the yard. There’s the Avioxx SAF work, the TrimTabs/Engsolve CNT pilot, and customer feedstock trials already feeding into the FTU. And yes, Ireland is still in motion — planning is one step, not the whole story.

If you can’t see that as a developing pipeline, that’s on you. Pretending the only option is another raise is just lazy doom-mongering. FOAK projects always look like uphill climbs until they don’t — then the same voices turn around and claim they ‘always knew’. You’ll forgive me if I don’t take investment wisdom from someone who thinks copy-pasting ‘0.002p’ counts as analysis.

Red, you keep asking the same question as if repeating it will suddenly make you sound insightful. It doesn’t — it just makes you look like a bloke shouting into his own echo chamber.

Yes, I know how project finance works. Shock horror: you need a project. Which is exactly why PHE have an FOAK FTU running and a pipeline of MoUs and JVs. That’s the groundwork, whether you like it or not.

Short-term cash? Same as every other AIM tech outfit — bridge finance, staged raises, partnerships. It’s not witchcraft, it’s how development companies operate. Pretending this is some unique mystery is either bad faith or just ignorance dressed up as cleverness.

If you don’t like the model, fair enough — but don’t act like you’ve uncovered the Rosetta Stone when all you’ve done is ask the same question for the tenth time.

I’ve been accused of ramping more times than a skateboard park, yet I’ve never once made a price prediction or told anyone how to invest. All I do is stick to PHE and the facts in front of us.

Those who can actually think for themselves get it. The rest? They just recycle the same tired negativity, like parrots that have been taught one phrase and now won’t shut up. You’d almost think they’d welcome something solid to rail against, but no — they’d rather keep flogging the same dead horse. Trouble is, they’ve flogged it so hard the glue factory’s gone bust and even the flies have lost interest.

Red, you’re like a stuck record — every post you circle back to ‘funding’ like it’s the only word you’ve learned this year. The company’s already said project finance will follow projects. That’s how development-stage tech works.

But let’s be honest, you don’t actually want an answer — you just want to wave the word ‘funding’ around like it’s your trump card. Spoiler: repeating it doesn’t make you clever, it just makes you predictable.