I find your post an interesting read and the responses - both of disciples and sceptics perhaps even more so.
But I feel your opening lines might be questionable in 2 respects:
"So one needs to look through the distorted speakings of the ones trying to calm the markets.. Martis always turns to the technicals..the technicals speak the truths of what shall ensue, of what has just become.."
Firstly, it appears to me HC has a surplus of traders to investors, particularly on the General threads, and even more so after the GFC hit so many so badly - and by definition most will probably be largely in cash now, with only temporary positions taken in the recent turmoil - so, to me, more posts appear to be rejoicing in pushing the "get out while you still can" panic message rather than investors "trying to calm the markets" as you suggest.
Which group will be vindicated will be revealed with time (and I admit I don't know) but as to your claim "the technicals speak the truths of what shall ensue" I believe this claim might have more credibility if the original position you appeared to take at least picked the right direction we were going to go in. And I note I'm not the first to say this.
I'll admit I'm less enamoured of TA than I am of FA but I respect your views and accept I may be wrong and more knowledge of the science may be required on my part. I'm also swayed by a number of posters I greatly respect who see more in it than I do. But I do at least like to see what's posted as it gives me some insight into what might be at play. For example at the moment where I believe the current global rout has been caused by a concerted predatory attack (on an unstable underlying system that fundamentally has not changed that much recently) it helps deliver some insight into what the shorters may be trying to achieve (breaking support line to force a TA panic?) as well as explain how far they may be able to push down before TA-watching fund managers finally react to start buying in and the resultant support overwhelms the play. In essence I suppose this is a fundamentalist's way of encompassing TA - ie. if everyone accepts the TA model's analysis and acts accordingly, by definition it will come true. In other words it would reflect the "fundamental" movements of the herd, lol.
A cynic might suggest a better test for TA models might be in a double-blind trial where no-one knows anything about the models in the first place, so the knowledge and subsequent reactions can't influence the outcome - but as that's not possible with existing models, I guess we can never remove this feedback loop from the results. That's not to suggest the TA models have no predictive basis of course as I said above - but I think it's a fair point.
Finally on your last point: "But what about QE3 martis? this would fuel a rise..but only to retest, what once was support...."
Sounds like your getting into FA in trying to predict what magnitude and lasting effect QE3 might have, which I found strange for someone who I assume is more concerned with the science of TA?
These are only the thoughts that came to mind when reading your post today. But as I said, overall, I enjoy reading what you have to say.
