MY COMMENTS IN BOLD: trum u wrote: "Just because you claim that it has to be shorting does not make it shorting at all. Your silly theory about an MMs shorting it at .0001 and then selling the same shares at UNDER .0001 is pretty nonsensical once you consider:"
1- you have zero evidence of who is doing the selling - you make unfounded claims that it has to be the MMs but you offer zero proof...in fact you can't even correctly match up all of the UNDER .0001 selling with .0001 buys/sells (you are only showing one side anyway) SORRY THAT YOU "CANNOT SEE THE PATTERN". LET'S WORK BACKWARDS
I'M SAYING THE "TRADER" THAT IS DOING THE "BUYING AT UNDER .0001"(SECOND TRANSACTION) IS AN MMs/BROKER (THEY ARE THE ONLY WHO CAN "TRADE UNDER .0001). THERE IS A "MATCHING" (SEE MY EXPLANATION OF "MATCHING") 'FIRST TRADE' THAT WENT THROUGH 'EARLIER' AT .0001. IT COULD BE A FEW HOURS EARLIER OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS. I WILL ASK YOU "WHY WOULD EVEN A "FLIPPER" (LET ALONE 'LONG') BUY A NUMBER OF SHARES AT .0001; THEN SOMETIME LATER (HOURS OR DAYS) "SOMEONE ELSE (POSSIBLY)" SELLS EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF SHARES AT UNDER .0001 (TO AN MM) .
"SELLER" EVIDENCE ALL IN B&W (at least some will see it)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
