Myself and TBG have posted previously on the reaso

Myself and TBG have posted previously on the reasons why we question the authenticity of this document. I can add to it here. "Audit" is. Not the right word. Something like "analysis" is. Furthermore, the single most important piece of information is the ROI (Return on Investment). It is not there. The EBITDA number is completely without justification and none of the assumptions (pricing?) Are stated. Then why would JBI issue that PR' tacitly saying it is true but not being accountable for it. All I can say is this fits a Pattern. Most of the information released has not been true. This is the basis of the SEC case and the scenario is the same. Information comes out for a purpose (financing). After the purpose is served, it is modified. In this case it is asserted to be true, but is a vague and unverifiable statement, due to the dearthof backup. Believe it if you want. The purpose of such a report is to deternine if a capital investment is worthwhile. It is highly confidential and if true, immensely valuable to JBIs competition. Likely confidential to SAIC as well. Worst case it is a doctored document that is a version of the truth, but not all. I suggest let history be your light in the darkness.