ted butler uses some graphs to make the case for silver manipulation:

These graphs should raise the question as to why are so few US banks short such large amounts of silver and gold? It wasn’t always this way. Less than a year ago, in the July 2008 Bank Participation Report, the big US banks held a short position in silver less than a quarter of the size of their current short position. In gold, their current gross short position is 16 times greater than what it was then. In fact, the big US banks were actually net long gold in July 2008. In other words, the big US banks went from being net long gold in July 2008 to their largest short position in history.

I know that the CFTC will say that this is all due to JPMorgan taking over Bear Stearns. But what the heck was Bear Stearns doing with the big short positions in the first place? More importantly, the takeover doesn’t excuse the additional shorting put on since the merger was completed. Given the record of US banks in overall financial matters, that a small number of them are so heavily short silver and gold, is very troubling. If there are reasonable explanations for the data coming from the CFTC, they should be forthcoming.

The manipulation in silver and gold continues. It will continue as long as the concentrated short position exists. Since neither the banks involved, nor the CFTC appear willing to deal with this willingly, we must pressure them. Broad new regulatory reforms are being proposed, including a systemic risk council. The concentrated short positions in silver and gold held by one or two US banks are the definition of systemic risk. Please convey this to your elected representatives and the regulators.

http://news.silverseek.com/TedButler...