Actually Jon - he hasn't said anything yet with the exception of an analogy about gasoline and volume.toastie
I must admit that volume is not relevant to me (probably because I've never been able to make head nor tail of it ) but aren't you comparing apples to pears here?
You have shown volume to price whereas malas seems to be talking about volume to time. It's no surprise that volume was highest at your a and c because that's where the price sat most of the time.
If his observations have validity then I guess he would be looking for high volume on the first of the three long down bars that took price from a to b.
Now - of course I showed volume to price - how else to show most volume occured at choppy areas and thin volume is what caused the larger moves.
Lack of liquidity can cause large moves and lots of volume can cause a market to churn. Of course, this is not as attractive as "volume is the gas that powers the markets".
I just showed a couple of cases where it is clear that volume does not equal price moves. Citibank has tons of insitutional volume but moves nowhere.
Perhaps the OP will flesh out his argument, or perhaps he will continue with fluff and not get down to the nitty gritty, in which case, he's shurely another 'Expert' :whistling