bigram

DFV's price target was $40. You read the report but you must not have understood it because you are claiming things that the report clearly debunks.

Read Section 3.4 "Short Selling and Covering Short Positions". It describes the short covering that took place. Look at the chart of short interest on page 27. It shows the short interest dropping precipitously, meaning the majority of short positions were closed.

It is honestly baffling how many GME conspiracists are apparently illiterate and unable to understand that "X didn't have as much of an effect as Y" doesn't mean "X did not happen". Especially when it is surrounded by multiple paragraphs explicitly talking about the X that was happening.

Absurd. You could falsify the opposing position by providing data that shows significant short interest. Of course you will have trouble with this because all of the data confirms the opposing position.

On the other hand, your position cannot be falsified because you dismiss all of the available data as manipulated without proof.

In the section "Short Selling and Covering Short Positions" is a chart on page 27 that shows the short interest for GME. It shows the short interest dropping precipitously, meaning that the majority of positions were closed.

Shorting more than 100% is absolutely possible and the reason it is possible and normal is explained in the SEC report.

Market makers are allowed to be temporarily naked short because it's required for them to do the job they're supposed to do - provide liquidity. A market maker can sell short if they don't have any stock because they will almost certainly be buying it soon after. There's no evidence that any market makers are abusing this privilege with GameStop.

> The assumption hasn't been disproved so far

This assumption is disproved every day by publicly available short interest data. If you operate on the assumption that all official data is false you can make all the wild claims you want, but you're not being serious and your theory is unfalsifiable.

The SEC report confirms that shorts closed their positions and short interest dropped significantly over a year ago, and it has remained low since. You can't have a short squeeze without significant short interest.

It's not clear to me what you think the error is. That the majority of the price action was caused by retail and not short sellers covering their position doesn't negate the fact that shorts were forced to cover their positions and did so. The language and charts in the SEC report show as much.