"Agree to disagree" is the admission of a failed argument and an indicator of one deeply in confirmation bias. Presented with evidence that there's no such thing as a hidden naked short, anecdotal personal "evidence" (heavy emphasis on the quotes) from the 90's (ie - prior to regulation) aside, retreating to a "perception" that one cannot be convinced away from is typical.
Tell me this: If it were even possible (it isn't) to "hide" a naked short position from the markets, why would anyone ever cover that position? If that were possible, why in the world would this crafty individual/brokerage/hedge fund be muddling around in the OTC where you'd have to "hide" a mountain of shares for any meaningful return instead of picking out a couple stocks trading in the $100's or even $1000's, where the returns would be greater on less "hidden" shares?
All that crap about "hidden naked shorty" is simply a diversionary tactic pushed by the con artists who are selling their stock and taking their profit, creating an invisible scapegoat to feed the naive who were convinced they were going to get rich by the latest MOASS. "Invisible naked shorty" isn't real. The con artists talking about him have your money.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
