"This manipulation episode will dramatically unwind, just as it dramatically began, when silver short sellers capitulate, as they must."

Oh, they must, must they? I don't see this guy offering any proof. Has he looked inside JPM's book? HSBC? I don't think so. How does he know they don't have offsetting long positions in other markets? As far as I can tell, this is just another guy trying to sound like he knows something. Will. Must. Yup. No uncertainty there.

I don't see any reason to believe him over Costata <http://fofoa.blogspot.com> who has an equally compelling narrative told from the opposing viewpoint. Is it the lack of conviction that makes Costata's argument less convincing? The fact that he couches it in uncertainty because he knows he doesn't know, and that he has to construct a chain of inferences based on limited information that by definition may be subject to error? Frankly, I find that kind of argument more compelling. At least it admits the possibility of error.

Personally I don't care who ultimately "wins" the debate. I'm more interested in the methodology brought to bear. I find it fascinating from a psychological perspective how easily people are swayed by bold assertions where no real evidence is offered, just so long as it agrees with their preconception of how things work.

But hey... that's just me.

ebear