Always willing to help you out adanac.... sometimes you get off track with your wild theories and guess (heck with a penny scam like pyct it is no wonder there are so many excuses being made for its failures) Sometimes we just won't be able to make perfect sense of it all until we fully admit that we don't really know - and to that point I stated "regardless of how much under .0001 the sell went off at." In your attempt to come up with an explanation for the Hundreds of Millions of shares sold at UNDER .0001 you stated "THE SHORTS SELL BACK TO THEMSELVES...at under .0001, so if the MMs (as you are claiming) are buying these shares as you are somehow claiming how much did they sell them for? YOU DON"T KNOW.
My whole point was that your goofy theory is has a major flaw which you can't see (yet). when reading your goofy theory you need to keep in mind the following facts (had you considered them then you likely would held back from posting such nonsense) : 1) You don't know what the selling price of the shares are at under .0001 - it could be .00005 or .000075...or it could be exactly the amount that insiders were given their shares at. 2) The BILLIONS of shares that were / are structured at UNDER .0001 that could be sold... how many BILLIONs is that eh? 3) You still don't understand how shorting causes an Failure To Deliver to get registered.... there are none with pyct 4) You stitched together 8 situations where you try to make it look like your theory has a real pattern...after the board looked at your evidence it looks rather desperate when you try to pick and choose days worth trades to try to match it up....only 8 eh.... maybe if you try using months you can match up a couple more...clearly there is no pattern as you were felt so strongly about. 5) You wisely run away from trying to defend your claim of shorting every time you are confronted with: Is the short your trying to paint one that : - is provable, traceable? OR - is it the type of short that can't be proven?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
