Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

1a2b3cppp

How I Trade As If Price Is Random

Recommended Posts

CBOE controls ALL OPTIONS ON THE S&P500 AND THE VIX....here are the citations folks;

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

CBOE shutdown: Options exchange opens again - CBS News

 

CBOE Says 'Fully Confident' Software Bug Resolved

 

“Last Thursday's software problems forced CBOE to delay opening its markets for more than three hours Thursday, leaving investors unable to trade in contracts linked to market benchmarks like the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index and the CBOE's own Volatility Index, or VIX.”

 

CBOE dark for much of day due to software glitch | Reuters

 

Option Block 240: Questions Linger After CBOE Shutdown - THE OPTIONS INSIDER - News with Social Confidence - PASSFAIL.com

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For options to be "fungible"....they have to have several things going...first they have to have identical contract terms, and second they have to have (at a minimum) dual listing approval....If you happen to be trading SPX or VIX options, because they are exclusive to the CBOE, during the outage, you couldn't buy or sell those options....period...

 

Apparently every journalist "got it wrong"....

 

As for you Dude, if at some point you decide to take a break from rolling joints, you might find yourself able to think more clearly....no worries man, I understand how important it is for kid your age to look cool....:cool:

Edited by steve46

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBOE controls ALL OPTIONS ON THE S&P500 AND THE VIX....here are the citations folks;

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

CBOE shutdown: Options exchange opens again - CBS News

 

CBOE Says 'Fully Confident' Software Bug Resolved

 

“Last Thursday's software problems forced CBOE to delay opening its markets for more than three hours Thursday, leaving investors unable to trade in contracts linked to market benchmarks like the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index and the CBOE's own Volatility Index, or VIX.”

 

CBOE dark for much of day due to software glitch | Reuters

 

Option Block 240: Questions Linger After CBOE Shutdown - THE OPTIONS INSIDER - News with Social Confidence - PASSFAIL.com

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For options to be "fungible"....they have to have several things going...first they have to have identical contract terms, and second they have to have (at a minimum) dual listing approval....If you happen to be trading SPX or VIX options, because they are exclusive to the CBOE, during the outage, you couldn't buy or sell those options....period...

 

Apparently every journalist "got it wrong"....

 

As for you Dude, if at some point you decide to take a break from rolling joints, you might find yourself able to think more clearly....no worries man, I understand how important it is for kid your age to look cool....:cool:

 

Dont be a dork. You continue to embarrass yourself.

 

I quite clearly stated that you could trade ES options on Globex as a DIRTY hedge. i.e. you wouldnt be 'screwed' as you say you would be. Same for VIX.

 

The point is you ramble on about hedging like you know something, yet it is clear to EVERYONE you in fact know f'k all about f'k all.

 

Eitherway, it detracts from the thread title, and is probably quite boring for the other readers. With that in mind, I will leave this alone now. Luckily, other readers can make their own minds up if they want to go on your silly course, or buy one of DBP stoopid ebooks.

 

I have better things to do than educate shills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talk about pots and kettles :rofl:

 

Why did you stop selling your ebooks?

 

I imagine it was because everyone realised it was just the same old wyckoff stuff padded out that they can buy on Amazon?

 

Why did you leave T2W BTW?

 

Same for Elite Trader?

 

Where next? BMT? FXF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you should have a big golden C for CLOWN Vendor on your user name to warn everyone you are just another shill right?

 

I'm not doing the vending.

 

But you go right ahead. You're doing just fine without me. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay then....back to the subject at hand and for those who are interested in learning something of value.

 

Systemic risk is associated with breakdowns in the "system", and that means the connection, the systematic execution of transactions and everything short of each person's computer.

 

If you trade, periodically you want to make sure that you know WHERE those breakdowns might occur....because (as with the CBOE options problem) its the risks that you don't anticipate (because you don't know they exist) that can hurt you...its that simple....

 

I think that's a good farewell post..

 

Good luck folks

Edited by steve46

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But many gamblers in the markets make money, many more than systematic traders according to this analysis and provided it is correct.

 

You're kidding right?

Since the market is random and not systematic due to it being a population very little people make CONSISTENT profit. They only make money in demo and in their heads. The market is no different to a casino, the majority lose and someone wins is it always the same one? No except the casino they always get their few percent cut no matter who wins!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're kidding right?

Since the market is random and not systematic due to it being a population very little people make CONSISTENT profit. They only make money in demo and in their heads. The market is no different to a casino, the majority lose and someone wins is it always the same one? No except the casino they always get their few percent cut no matter who wins!

 

Hello forexpipcatcher, welcome to TL :)

 

with this statement i assume you think the market is random, and hence I would like to ask - why trade?

If its random you cannot outperform the passive returns a market will give you over the long term.....

 

As for the linked thread, this just shows that some people will outperform a market even if their trades are random, while there is still a fair percentage that will actually make money, but the trade off boils down to passive v active trading/management.

I got the impression from your answer that for you the answer is about consistency despite the fact/evidence/probability that there will be some people who make money regardless of who they do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello forexpipcatcher, welcome to TL :)

 

with this statement i assume you think the market is random, and hence I would like to ask - why trade?

If its random you cannot outperform the passive returns a market will give you over the long term.....

 

As for the linked thread, this just shows that some people will outperform a market even if their trades are random, while there is still a fair percentage that will actually make money, but the trade off boils down to passive v active trading/management.

I got the impression from your answer that for you the answer is about consistency despite the fact/evidence/probability that there will be some people who make money regardless of who they do it.

 

I don't think it's random I know its random from a mathematical point of view, regardless what you think or I or anyone else thinks.

There will always be someone who outperforms the market at any instance in which I've already stated that like the example of a casino, the thing is it will not always be the same person or body.

 

Here's the trick Siuya, put yourself on the other side of the fence, if someone was trading with you as the broker and liquidator and was making money consistently what would it do to your bank account and fortune? What will you do to accommodate this?

What if this person was making lots and lots from you? What will you do? Sit there like a dummy and lose all your daddy's money? Or perhaps you have a counter to this person/body making so much from you?

I will let you on a little piece of info with no names mentioned... this was happening to a broker last year and the broker simply altered the MT4 lol, I'm not going into more/any details, this was the only way to ensure not much money is made from the trader. At the end of the month the balance of any broker needs to be positive otherwise they are losing money and declining and soon will go bankrupt.

 

However, if the broker is making hundreds of thousands a month and losing 10k a month for you or another that's ok to them because the NET worth of the broker is positive, cashflow is positive so no problem.

This is a business to the broker not a hobby and if they don't make money means they are losing money.

 

The issue with speculators on forums is they look at the point of view of a trader only and hardly ever look at the brokers point of view to understand the business sense of the whole picture.

 

I will leave you with a fact.... the best trader(system) in the world is hedge funds which only make about 30%p.a at best. That is your measuring stone. The rest are fiction... today some trader makes 5k and tomorrow or next month they blew a 20k account etc.

 

You do want consistency which will need incorporated a very good MM and a well supporting your trading habits. Now last thing is you seem to think many will outperform the market right? lol mathematically here is something to think about I'm going to assume a 50% chance of winning a trade right? Which is extremely high and doesn't exist... if you traded 5 times in a row thats 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = approx. 3% chance of winning for an UNBIAS SYSTEM, so imagine taking 100 trades.

 

Now does anyone want to know how to make money from a casino to beat the odds? But if you get banned don't blame me lol (P.S it is legal and they will change the rules if they observe you doing it, how do I know this? They did it to me! . This will happen!)

If you want a similar system in trading do come and ask me.

I'm just a mathematician!

Edited by forexpipcatcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's random I know its random from a mathematical point of view, regardless what you think or I or anyone else thinks.

There will always be someone who outperforms the market at any instance in which I've already stated that like the example of a casino, the thing is it will not always be the same person or body.

 

Here's the trick Siuya, put yourself on the other side of the fence, if someone was trading with you as the broker and liquidator and was making money consistently what would it do to your bank account and fortune? What will you do to accommodate this?

What if this person was making lots and lots from you? What will you do? Sit there like a dummy and lose all your daddy's money? Or perhaps you have a counter to this person/body making so much from you?

I will let you on a little piece of info with no names mentioned... this was happening to a broker last year and the broker simply altered the MT4 lol, I'm not going into more/any details, this was the only way to ensure not much money is made from the trader. At the end of the month the balance of any broker needs to be positive otherwise they are losing money and declining and soon will go bankrupt.

 

However, if the broker is making hundreds of thousands a month and losing 10k a month for you or another that's ok to them because the NET worth of the broker is positive, cashflow is positive so no problem.

This is a business to the broker not a hobby and if they don't make money means they are losing money.

 

The issue with speculators on forums is they look at the point of view of a trader only and hardly ever look at the brokers point of view to understand the business sense of the whole picture.

 

I will leave you with a fact.... the best trader(system) in the world is hedge funds which only make about 30%p.a at best. That is your measuring stone. The rest are fiction... today some trader makes 5k and tomorrow or next month they blew a 20k account etc.

 

You do want consistency which will need incorporated a very good MM and a well supporting your trading habits. Now last thing is you seem to think many will outperform the market right? lol mathematically here is something to think about I'm going to assume a 50% chance of winning a trade right? Which is extremely high and doesn't exist... if you traded 5 times in a row thats 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = approx. 3% chance of winning for an UNBIAS SYSTEM, so imagine taking 100 trades.

 

Now does anyone want to know how to make money from a casino to beat the odds? But if you get banned don't blame me lol (P.S it is legal and they will change the rules if they observe you doing it, how do I know this? They did it to me! . This will happen!)

If you want a similar system in trading do come and ask me.

I'm just a mathematician!

 

The question is why trade if you think the market is random - as a mathematician you should know this. You may as well just be a passive investor - this is central to the debate about random markets.

It has nothing to do with if your broker is supposedly ripping you off because half the time they have nothing to do with any of it. If you are going to qualify your discussion about the bucket shops mainly in FX that are set up purely for this, and are essentially market making against you in the aim that most will blow up and they keep your account - yes this happens but whats this to do with randomness and markets - the OP is in the equities indexes?

 

Plus your maths --- what is that for?

You say....

if you traded 5 times in a row thats 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = approx. 3% chance of winning for an UNBIAS SYSTEM, so imagine taking 100 trades.

should you be saying.....

if you traded 5 times in a row thats 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = approx. 3% chance of winning 5 times in a row.

what about the old risk reward part of it?

 

As for casinos - I have no interest in a game whereby even if you can beat them you will loose regardless of how you do it -

 

I would suggest you start a thread here on TL, reveal it to everyone. :missy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's random I know its random from a mathematical point of view, regardless what you think or I or anyone else thinks.

There will always be someone who outperforms the market at any instance in which I've already stated that like the example of a casino, the thing is it will not always be the same person or body.

 

Here's the trick Siuya, put yourself on the other side of the fence, if someone was trading with you as the broker and liquidator and was making money consistently what would it do to your bank account and fortune? What will you do to accommodate this?

What if this person was making lots and lots from you? What will you do? Sit there like a dummy and lose all your daddy's money? Or perhaps you have a counter to this person/body making so much from you?

I will let you on a little piece of info with no names mentioned... this was happening to a broker last year and the broker simply altered the MT4 lol, I'm not going into more/any details, this was the only way to ensure not much money is made from the trader. At the end of the month the balance of any broker needs to be positive otherwise they are losing money and declining and soon will go bankrupt.

 

However, if the broker is making hundreds of thousands a month and losing 10k a month for you or another that's ok to them because the NET worth of the broker is positive, cashflow is positive so no problem.

This is a business to the broker not a hobby and if they don't make money means they are losing money.

 

The issue with speculators on forums is they look at the point of view of a trader only and hardly ever look at the brokers point of view to understand the business sense of the whole picture.

 

I will leave you with a fact.... the best trader(system) in the world is hedge funds which only make about 30%p.a at best. That is your measuring stone. The rest are fiction... today some trader makes 5k and tomorrow or next month they blew a 20k account etc.

 

You do want consistency which will need incorporated a very good MM and a well supporting your trading habits. Now last thing is you seem to think many will outperform the market right? lol mathematically here is something to think about I'm going to assume a 50% chance of winning a trade right? Which is extremely high and doesn't exist... if you traded 5 times in a row thats 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = approx. 3% chance of winning for an UNBIAS SYSTEM, so imagine taking 100 trades.

 

Now does anyone want to know how to make money from a casino to beat the odds? But if you get banned don't blame me lol (P.S it is legal and they will change the rules if they observe you doing it, how do I know this? They did it to me! . This will happen!)

If you want a similar system in trading do come and ask me.

I'm just a mathematician!

 

Yes some brokers will resort to cheating. Others don't need to or won't.

 

Yes some of the best traders are at hedge funds, and 30% a year is spectacular gains if drawdown is low, but at what leverage is that? If they can make 30% on 1:1 leverage or 3:1, with the constraints associated with their size and the fact they can't get in or out of trades as easily, then what can a trader make on a leverage of 10:1 without such constraints?

 

Your maths doesn't make sense at all. Are you sure you're a mathematician? You gave the probability of winning 5 trades in a row, not the probability of being ahead over those 5 trades.

 

Win rates of over 50% do occur, which you think are impossible.

 

Yes in the math sense, the market is definitely random. When most people say random though, they mean completely unpredictable. That's not what the math meaning is, so you may get into arguments over that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it's random I know its random from a mathematical point of view, regardless what you think or I or anyone else thinks.

...

I'm just a mathematician!

 

forexpipcatcher, Welcome to TL

 

Mathematician? That's great.

Of the linear or the non-linear variety?

ie history has now also completely infiltrated mathematics… so to hold yourself up as a mathematician is virtually meaningless on its own... but

If indeed you are a ‘mathemagician’ with a capital ‘M’, please explain random to us dummies out here in the lab…

but, please, first expose your position on chance and telos ( only one not the other, both, neither, etc.) ... thank you in advance very much...

 

 

 

A rather harsh welcome I know… but we seem to be hell bent on doing our best around here to run any weak posters off… whether you’ve got anything valuable to contribute or not…

( :haha: ie generally posting is restricted to 'subcriminal psychopath predators' only ie

be careful not to ask any questions unless you're a brand new, raw, suffering noobie...

 

... also certain individual members have additional requirements...

Steve46 has brutal eyes for 'infantile',

Mit demands 'beyond' PLUS a golden C... and

DbP will tear you a brand new one if you have any 'indicator' thoughts or questions...

that's how we roll... ;););) )

 

Everyone on this planet has their own personal filters for reality and, thus, their own map of reality. The filters that we wear through life influence our personal and spiritual maps of reality. Every day we trek through similar territories, but because we wear different filters and use different maps, those territories appear different.
Edited by zdo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes some brokers will resort to cheating. Others don't need to or won't.

 

Yes some of the best traders are at hedge funds, and 30% a year is spectacular gains if drawdown is low, but at what leverage is that? If they can make 30% on 1:1 leverage or 3:1, with the constraints associated with their size and the fact they can't get in or out of trades as easily, then what can a trader make on a leverage of 10:1 without such constraints?

 

Your maths doesn't make sense at all. Are you sure you're a mathematician? You gave the probability of winning 5 trades in a row, not the probability of being ahead over those 5 trades.

 

Win rates of over 50% do occur, which you think are impossible.

 

Yes in the math sense, the market is definitely random. When most people say random though, they mean completely unpredictable. That's not what the math meaning is, so you may get into arguments over that :)

 

I'll agree that my maths don't make any sense to a non mathematician like yourself. And so will many logics because people like yourself lack knowledge of probability but think there are miracles out there that produce so much all the time yet fail to find them. That is called a dream... so you are good at dreaming I stick to the probabilities so my example of winning 5 consecutive trades was perfect.

 

With regards to people being ahead with 50% that is likely and so is being behind with less than 50% winners. I advise you go back and revise your mathematics because I made It clear that if the probability of winning a trade was more than 50% then in a population you will END up winning and I would advise you use 1000:1 leverage if this was the case, but keep dreaming. Will any broker allow such thing with large trade size? Or will they monitor every trade you take and have special stops and protections in place because you can send them broke?

 

They will take a chance with peanuts as long as they protect themselves but that's another story that you don't know about otherwise you wouldn't introduce the leverage path. If Hedge funds can use higher leverage to produce more they would, anyone would the fact they don't means something from the worlds best performers.

 

To answer your reply of the chance of being ahead in many trades taken...The question is that winning a trade is it >50% chance or less? Since bias results will occur. If in one trade your chances of winning is low then in many more trades the chances will be even smaller is what mathematics tells you. So being ahead or behind is actually winning/losing, if you want to consider a basket of trades then do so as "one trade".

 

You vision is very limited because you believe in things rather than have the knowledge and record that you desire which is great in the non real world. The brokers will stand to lose to the small fish as long as the end result favours them.

 

I will tell you and any other person reading this what.. show me evidence of 2 years or more that you have made consistent money to replace your income not just a few dollars from trading and I will shut up and go and lick my wounds but guess what you are looking at a minority and very low minority (can this happen? YES but like I said a very low percentage) because just like the casino so many brag about winning but fail to see the big picture where they lost so much to gain so little over an extended period of time. So I believe the odds of making an income from trading is something like 2% (but still possible)... this is almost equivalent to being wealthy in society. Truth is if you have a winning system better than hedge funds the whole universe wants it and it would spiral out of control lol...You don't have to trade it just sell it and make billions lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll agree that my maths don't make any sense to a non mathematician like yourself. And so will many logics because people like yourself lack knowledge of probability but think there are miracles out there that produce so much all the time yet fail to find them. That is called a dream... so you are good at dreaming I stick to the probabilities so my example of winning 5 consecutive trades was perfect.

 

With regards to people being ahead with 50% that is likely and so is being behind with less than 50% winners. I advise you go back and revise your mathematics because I made It clear that if the probability of winning a trade was more than 50% then in a population you will END up winning and I would advise you use 1000:1 leverage if this was the case, but keep dreaming. Will any broker allow such thing with large trade size? Or will they monitor every trade you take and have special stops and protections in place because you can send them broke?

 

They will take a chance with peanuts as long as they protect themselves but that's another story that you don't know about otherwise you wouldn't introduce the leverage path. If Hedge funds can use higher leverage to produce more they would, anyone would the fact they don't means something from the worlds best performers.

 

To answer your reply of the chance of being ahead in many trades taken...The question is that winning a trade is it >50% chance or less? Since bias results will occur. If in one trade your chances of winning is low then in many more trades the chances will be even smaller is what mathematics tells you. So being ahead or behind is actually winning/losing, if you want to consider a basket of trades then do so as "one trade".

 

You vision is very limited because you believe in things rather than have the knowledge and record that you desire which is great in the non real world. The brokers will stand to lose to the small fish as long as the end result favours them.

 

I will tell you and any other person reading this what.. show me evidence of 2 years or more that you have made consistent money to replace your income not just a few dollars from trading and I will shut up and go and lick my wounds but guess what you are looking at a minority and very low minority (can this happen? YES but like I said a very low percentage) because just like the casino so many brag about winning but fail to see the big picture where they lost so much to gain so little over an extended period of time. So I believe the odds of making an income from trading is something like 2% (but still possible)... this is almost equivalent to being wealthy in society. Truth is if you have a winning system better than hedge funds the whole universe wants it and it would spiral out of control lol...You don't have to trade it just sell it and make billions lol

 

Actually I have a PhD in maths, specifically in probability, lol. So funny you are.

 

When you're in a hole, stop digging. You stated

 

"mathematically here is something to think about I'm going to assume a 50% chance of winning a trade right? Which is extremely high and doesn't exist... if you traded 5 times in a row thats 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = approx. 3% chance of winning for an UNBIAS SYSTEM, so imagine taking 100 trades. "

 

This is plainly wrong. There is a 3% chance of winning all 5 trades, but a much higher % of winning over the 5 trades. And you also claim 50% chance is extremely high and doesn't exist. That again is silly. I'm not the only one who recognised that your calculation and statement didn't make sense.

 

Like I said, stop digging.

 

Your post has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding in both maths and trading. JP Morgan recently announced they made a profit on 63 out of the last 63 days trading. Perhaps they fudge the figures, who knows, but according to you they should leverage to 1000, lol, because if they have anything better than 50% why not leverage all the way? Don't be absurd.

 

Your question is, is winning a trade higher than 50% or less? There is no way to even remotely answer that without stating stop and target and spread. Altering stop and target, I could make it 70%, 30% etc. win rate.

 

What are you trying to say? That it's impossible to make money trading?

Edited by Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also since you didn't answer zdo's question, here is the answer:

 

Mathematically, when dealing with trials and outcomes, something is either deterministic or random. Random to a mathematician doesn't mean you can't say anything about it, it also doesn't mean the probability is 50-50.

 

For example a biased coin that ends up heads 90% of the time is still random. it's not deterministic, because before we toss the coin, we can't determine with certainty what the outcome will be. On the other hand, we can say what is probable. This corresponds to trading, and so the outcome of any trade (or the market) is random (mathematically), even if you have a backtested-forwardtested massive edge and a high prob of winning, i.e. unless you can say exactly what will happen, it's considered random.

 

However, the debate on these forums lately seems to be 'is the market random' and what seems to be meant there is, is it completely unpredictable and equally likely at all times to go up as go down.

Edited by Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
forexpipcatcher, Welcome to TL

 

Mathematician? That's great.

Of the linear or the non-linear variety?

ie history has now also completely infiltrated mathematics… so to hold yourself up as a mathematician is virtually meaningless on its own... but

If indeed you are a ‘mathemagician’ with a capital ‘M’, please explain random to us dummies out here in the lab…

but, please, first expose your position on chance and telos ( only one not the other, both, neither, etc.) ... thank you in advance very much...

 

 

 

A rather harsh welcome I know… but we seem to be hell bent on doing our best around here to run any weak posters off… whether you’ve got anything valuable to contribute or not…

( :haha: ie generally posting is restricted to 'subcriminal psychopath predators' only ie

be careful not to ask any questions unless you're a brand new, raw, suffering noobie...

 

... also certain individual members have additional requirements...

Steve46 has brutal eyes for 'infantile',

Mit demands 'beyond' PLUS a golden C... and

DbP will tear you a brand new one if you have any 'indicator' thoughts or questions...

that's how we roll... ;););) )

 

linear as in your mentality or aptitude? and since you claim your dummies then no explanation is needed after all if you were successful you wouldn't need explanation you would be achieving results and the fact that you're here nagging and bragging clearly demonstrates your ignorance to trading and the lack off understanding you have towards it. Now run along dummy and do your boss wants rather than wasting time here... get another job if needed but don't go pretending to be something your not other than what you claim a dummy.

 

Anything else scout?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
linear as in your mentality or aptitude? and since you claim your dummies then no explanation is needed after all if you were successful you wouldn't need explanation you would be achieving results and the fact that you're here nagging and bragging clearly demonstrates your ignorance to trading and the lack off understanding you have towards it. Now run along dummy and do your boss wants rather than wasting time here... get another job if needed but don't go pretending to be something your not other than what you claim a dummy.

 

Anything else scout?

 

I suggest that you use adolescent terms such as fag face, or pre-adolecent terms such as poopy head when you respond emotionally to a post. Such additions will add dimension, color, and context to your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello forexpipcatcher, welcome to TL :)

 

with this statement i assume you think the market is random, and hence I would like to ask - why trade?

If its random you cannot outperform the passive returns a market will give you over the long term.....

 

As for the linked thread, this just shows that some people will outperform a market even if their trades are random, while there is still a fair percentage that will actually make money, but the trade off boils down to passive v active trading/management.

I got the impression from your answer that for you the answer is about consistency despite the fact/evidence/probability that there will be some people who make money regardless of who they do it.

 

 

Hi

I think the topic is interesting even at the theoretical level - Is it possible to earn in market as such seems random or certain people think so. There are physical systems that can benefit from random fluctuations - automatic spring stretching system in mechanical clock, battery charging system using diode and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I have a PhD in maths, specifically in probability, lol. So funny you are.

 

When you're in a hole, stop digging. You stated

 

"mathematically here is something to think about I'm going to assume a 50% chance of winning a trade right? Which is extremely high and doesn't exist... if you traded 5 times in a row thats 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = approx. 3% chance of winning for an UNBIAS SYSTEM, so imagine taking 100 trades. "

 

This is plainly wrong. There is a 3% chance of winning all 5 trades, but a much higher % of winning over the 5 trades. And you also claim 50% chance is extremely high and doesn't exist. That again is silly. I'm not the only one who recognised that your calculation and statement didn't make sense.

 

Like I said, stop digging.

 

Your post has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding in both maths and trading. JP Morgan recently announced they made a profit on 63 out of the last 63 days trading. Perhaps they fudge the figures, who knows, but according to you they should leverage to 1000, lol, because if they have anything better than 50% why not leverage all the way? Don't be absurd.

 

Your question is, is winning a trade higher than 50% or less? There is no way to even remotely answer that without stating stop and target and spread. Altering stop and target, I could make it 70%, 30% etc. win rate.

 

What are you trying to say? That it's impossible to make money trading?

 

Hi

 

Market can be as random or behavior of the investor can be random - two different things. Realistically market consists of the total behavior of investors who try to behave as a certain logic - usually in relation to others and so the market could not be random. If any investor would enter a position at random and randomly out of it - then the whole market was random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is why trade if you think the market is random - as a mathematician you should know this. You may as well just be a passive investor - this is central to the debate about random markets.

It has nothing to do with if your broker is supposedly ripping you off because half the time they have nothing to do with any of it. If you are going to qualify your discussion about the bucket shops mainly in FX that are set up purely for this, and are essentially market making against you in the aim that most will blow up and they keep your account - yes this happens but whats this to do with randomness and markets - the OP is in the equities indexes?

 

Plus your maths --- what is that for?

You say....

if you traded 5 times in a row thats 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = approx. 3% chance of winning for an UNBIAS SYSTEM, so imagine taking 100 trades.

should you be saying.....

if you traded 5 times in a row thats 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = approx. 3% chance of winning 5 times in a row.

what about the old risk reward part of it?

 

As for casinos - I have no interest in a game whereby even if you can beat them you will loose regardless of how you do it -

 

I would suggest you start a thread here on TL, reveal it to everyone. :missy:

 

I understand that your R:R needs to be accounted for as it should be but that is one of many factors but if you can predict the R:R then what I suggest is you take out some lotto numbers very quickly.

The whole point of this thread which was started by that guy 1acdasd whatever lol is he tackles the market from a random point of view. He copped a lot of criticism but the fact remains he is perfectly correct and he pointed out how to tackle a random market if one is to achieve success but as usual all the losers bite at reality, and hence will remain losers.

 

I have created software to do what he suggested simply because I believe what he said was correct way before I read this thread and it is so far going well on demo and will be going live with a real account next week or the week after. Now if anyone is interested instead of bragging send me a private message to see the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suggest that you use adolescent terms such as fag face, or pre-adolecent terms such as poopy head when you respond emotionally to a post. Such additions will add dimension, color, and context to your post.

 

I will turn out like you if I do :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
II have created software to do what he suggested simply because I believe what he said was correct way before I read this thread and it is so far going well on demo and will be going live with a real account next week or the week after. Now if anyone is interested instead of bragging send me a private message to see the results.

 

Ah, the other shoe . . . :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • once a scammer always a scammer. once a rude pig to a customer always a rude pig to customers and we are never going to go away and forget it
    • you and your mates invented this Nigerian Letter or “419” Fraud Nigerian letter frauds combine the threat of impersonation fraud with a variation of an advance fee scheme in which a letter mailed, or e-mailed, from Nigeria offers the recipient the “opportunity” to share in a percentage of millions of dollars that the author—a self-proclaimed government official—is trying to transfer illegally out of Nigeria. The recipient is encouraged to send information to the author, such as blank letterhead stationery, bank name and account numbers, and other identifying information using a fax number given in the letter or return e-mail address provided in the message. The scheme relies on convincing a willing victim, who has demonstrated a “propensity for larceny” by responding to the invitation, to send money to the author of the letter in Nigeria in several installments of increasing amounts for a variety of reasons.  Payment of taxes, bribes to government officials, and legal fees are often described in great detail with the promise that all expenses will be reimbursed as soon as the funds are spirited out of Nigeria. In actuality, the millions of dollars do not exist, and the victim eventually ends up with nothing but loss. Once the victim stops sending money, the perpetrators have been known to use the personal information and checks that they received to impersonate the victim, draining bank accounts and credit card balances. While such an invitation impresses most law-abiding citizens as a laughable hoax, millions of dollars in losses are caused by these schemes annually. Some victims have been lured to Nigeria, where they have been imprisoned against their will along with losing large sums of money. The Nigerian government is not sympathetic to victims of these schemes, since the victim actually conspires to remove funds from Nigeria in a manner that is contrary to Nigerian law. The schemes themselves violate section 419 of the Nigerian criminal code, hence the label “419 fraud.” Tips for Avoiding Nigerian Letter or “419” Fraud: If you receive a letter or e-mail from Nigeria asking you to send personal or banking information, do not reply in any manner. Send the letter or message to the U.S. Secret Service, your local FBI office, or the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. You can also register a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint Assistant. If you know someone who is corresponding in one of these schemes, encourage that person to contact the FBI or the U.S. Secret Service as soon as possible. Be skeptical of individuals representing themselves as Nigerian or foreign government officials asking for your help in placing large sums of money in overseas bank accounts. Do not believe the promise of large sums of money for your cooperation. Guard your account information carefully.
    • Sounds like you're part of it Scamming is part of your CV you have publically and repeatedly admitted that and everybody knows you're a low life
    • So when are you gonna get started? this sounds right up your street
    • Your claim about refunds is about as real as- UFO conspiracy theories argue that various governments, and politicians globally, most especially the officials of Washington, D.C., are suppressing evidence of extraterrestrial unidentified flying objects and alien visitors. Such conspiracy theories commonly argue that Earth governments, especially the Government of the United States, are in communication or cooperation with extraterrestrials despite public claims to the contrary, and further that some of these theories claim that the governments are explicitly allowing alien abduction.[1] Various UFO conspiracy ideas have flourished on the internet and were frequently featured on Art Bell's program, Coast to Coast AM.[2] According to MUFON, the National Enquirer reported that a survey found 76% of participants felt the government was not revealing all it knew about UFOs, 54.5% thought UFOs definitely or probably existed, and 33% thought UFOs came from outer space.[3] Individuals who have publicly stated that UFO evidence is being suppressed include Senator Barry Goldwater, British Admiral Lord Hill-Norton (former NATO head and chief of the British Defence Staff), Brigadier General Arthur Exon (former commanding officer of Wright-Patterson AFB), Vice Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter (first CIA director), astronauts Gordon Cooper[4][5] and Edgar Mitchell,[6] and former Canadian Defence Minister Paul Hellyer. Beyond their testimonies and reports they have presented no evidence to substantiate their statements and claims. According to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry little or no evidence exists to support them despite significant research on the subject by non-governmental scientific agencies.[7][8][9][10] Contents 1 Chronology 1.1 1930s 1.2 1940s 1.2.1 The Great Los Angeles Air Raid 1.2.2 Ghost rockets 1.2.3 Roswell Incident 1.2.4 Mantell Incident 1.2.5 Project Sign 1.2.6 Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit 1.3 1950s 1.4 1960s 1.5 1970s 1.5.1 Holloman Air Force Base 1.5.2 Paul Bennewitz 1.6 1980s 1.6.1 MJ-12 1.6.2 Linda Moulton Howe 1.6.3 Milton William Cooper 1.6.4 Bob Lazar 1.6.5 UFO Cover-Up?: Live! 1.6.6 July 1989 MUFON Convention 1.7 1990s 1.8 2000s 1.8.1 MoD secret files 1.8.2 Disclosure 2 Allegations of evidence suppression 3 In popular fiction 4 See also 5 Notes and references 6 Bibliography 7 External links Chronology 1930s On the night before Halloween in 1938, Orson Welles directed The Mercury Theatre on the Air live radio adaptation of H. G. Wells's novel, The War of the Worlds (serialized in 1897). By mimicking a news broadcast, the show was quite realistic sounding for its time, and some listeners were fooled into thinking that a Martian invasion was underway in the United States. Widespread confusion was followed by outrage and controversy. Some later studies[citation needed] have argued that the contemporary press exaggerated the extent of the panic, but it remains clear that many people were caught up, to some degree, in the confusion. In other countries, reactions were similar. In 1949, part of the script for The War of the Worlds was read out over the radio in Quito, Ecuador without announcement, as if it were a major piece of breaking news. Huge crowds of people emerged onto the streets and sought refuge inside churches with their families. When the radio station was informed of this, its announcers broadcast the fact that no invasion was happening. An angry mob formed and burned the station to the ground, causing between six and twenty deaths. Many other countries also experienced problems when broadcasting The War of the Worlds. According to U.S. Air Force Captain Edward J. Ruppelt,[11] the Air Force's files often mentioned the panicked aftermath of the 1938 War of the Worlds broadcast as a possible reaction of the public to confirmed evidence of UFOs; however, the files have not been made available to corroborate his assertions. 1940s Donald Keyhoe later began investigating flying saucers for True magazine. Keyhoe was one of the first significant conspiracy theorists, asserting eventually that the saucers were from outer space and were on some sort of scouting mission. Keyhoe claimed to derive his theory from his contacts in Air Force and Navy intelligence. Project Sign, based at Air Technical Intelligence Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and its successors Project Grudge and Project Blue Book were officially assigned to investigate the flying saucers. Edward Ruppelt's book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects,[12] reports that many people within these research groups did in fact support the hypothesis that the flying saucers were from outer space. Keyhoe later founded NICAP, a civilian investigation group that asserted the U.S. government was lying about UFOs and covering up information that should be shared with the public. NICAP had many influential board members, including Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, the first director of the CIA. To date no substantiating evidence for NICAP's assertions has been presented beyond accounts that are anecdotal and documented hear-say or rumor.[7] The Great Los Angeles Air Raid Main article: Battle of Los Angeles "The Great Los Angeles Air Raid" also known as "The Battle of Los Angeles" is the name given by contemporary sources to the imaginary enemy attack and subsequent anti-aircraft artillery barrage which took place from late February 24 to early February 25, 1942 over Los Angeles, California.[13][14] Initially, the target of the aerial barrage was thought to be an attacking force from Japan, but Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox speaking at a press conference shortly afterward called the incident a "false alarm." A small number of modern-day UFOlogists have suggested the reported targets were extraterrestrial spacecraft.[15] When documenting the incident in 1983, the U.S. Office of Air Force History attributed the event to a case of "war nerves" likely triggered by a lost weather balloon and exacerbated by stray flares and shell bursts from adjoining batteries.[16] Ghost rockets Main article: Ghost rockets In 1946 and 1947, numerous reports occurred of so-called ghost rockets appearing over Scandinavian countries, primarily Sweden, which then spread into other European countries.[17] One USAF top secret document from 1948 stated that Swedish Air Force Intelligence informed them that some of their investigators felt that the reported objects were not only real but could not be explained as having earthly origins. Similarly, 20 years later, Greek physicist Dr. Paul Santorini publicly stated that in 1947 he was put in charge of a Greek military investigation into reports of ghost rockets sighted over Greece [ Timothy Good 1988, p 23; Donald Keyhoe, p 142].[17] Again, they quickly concluded the objects were real and not of conventional origin. Santorini claimed their investigation was killed by U.S. scientists and high military officials who had already concluded the objects were extraterrestrial in origin and feared public panic because no defense existed.[18] Roswell Incident Main article: Roswell UFO Incident In 1947, the United States Air Force issued a press release stating that a "flying disk" had been recovered near Roswell, New Mexico. This press release was quickly withdrawn, and officials stated that a weather balloon had been misidentified. The Roswell case quickly faded even from the attention of most UFOlogists until the 1970s. Speculation persisted despite the official denial that an alien spacecraft crashed near Roswell. For example, retired Brigadier General Arthur E. Exon, former commanding officer of Wright-Patterson AFB, told researchers Kevin D. Randle and Donald R. Schmitt[19] that a spacecraft had crashed, alien bodies were recovered, and the event was covered up by the U.S. government. Exon further claimed he was aware of a very secretive UFO controlling committee made up primarily of very high-ranking military officers and intelligence people. His nickname for this group was "The Unholy Thirteen" (see also Majestic 12).[20] In the 1990s, the US military published two reports disclosing the true nature of the crashed aircraft: a surveillance balloon from Project Mogul. Nevertheless, the Roswell incident continues to be of interest to the media, and conspiracy theories surrounding the event persist. Roswell has been described as "the world's most famous, most exhaustively investigated and most thoroughly debunked UFO claim".[21] Mantell Incident Main article: Mantell UFO incident In 1948, Air Force pilot Thomas Mantell was killed in a crash while pursuing what he described as "a metallic object...of tremendous size".[22]Project Blue Book concluded that Mantell had lost control of his aircraft while chasing a then-classified Skyhook balloon.[23] Some UFOlogists reject Bluebook's conclusion because of its initial suggestion that Mantell was chasing "Venus or a comet".[24] Project Sign Main article: Project Sign The U.S. Air Force may have planted the seeds of UFO conspiracy theories with Project Sign (established 1947) (which became Project Grudge and Project Blue Book). Edward J. Ruppelt, the first director of Blue Book, characterized the Air Force's public behavior regarding UFOs as "schizophrenic": alternately open and transparent, then secretive and dismissive. Ruppelt also revealed that in mid-1948, Project Sign issued a top secret Estimate of the Situation concluding that the flying saucers were not only real but probably extraterrestrial in origin. According to Ruppelt, the Estimate was ordered destroyed by Air Force Chief of Staff Hoyt Vandenberg.[11] Project Sign's final report, published in early 1949, stated that while some UFOs appeared to represent actual aircraft, data were insufficient to determine their origin.[25] Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit Some UFOlogists have claimed the existence of a U.S. government group called the "Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit" allegedly established by General Douglas MacArthur that was "supposedly formed to investigate crashed and retrieved flying saucers".[26] 1950s The 1950s saw an increase in both governmental and civilian investigative efforts and reports of public disinformation and suppression of evidence. The UK Ministry of Defence’s UFO Project has its roots in a study commissioned in 1950 by the MOD’s then Chief Scientific Adviser, the great radar scientist Sir Henry Tizard. As a result of his insistence that UFO sightings should not be dismissed without some form of proper scientific study, the Department set up the Flying Saucer Working Party (or FSWP).[27] In August 1950, Montanan baseball manager Nicholas Mariana filmed several UFOs with his color 16mm camera. Project Blue Book was called in and, after inspecting the film, Mariana claimed it was returned to him with critical footage removed, clearly showing the objects as disc-shaped. The incident sparked nationwide media attention. Frank Scully's 1950 Behind the Flying Saucers suggested that the U.S. government had recovered a crashed flying saucer and its dead occupants near Aztec, New Mexico, in 1948. It was later revealed that Scully had been the victim of a prank by "two veteran confidence artists".[28] Donald Keyhoe was a retired U.S. Marine who wrote a series of popular books and magazine articles that were very influential in shaping public opinion, arguing that UFOs were indeed real and that the U.S. government was suppressing UFO evidence. Keyhoe's first article on the subject came out in True magazine, January 1950, and was a national sensation. His first book, Flying Saucers Are Real also came out in 1950, about the same time as Frank Scully's book, and was a bestseller. In 1956, Keyhoe helped establish NICAP, a powerful civilian UFO investigating group with many inside sources. Keyhoe became its director and continued his attacks on the Air Force. Other contemporary critics also charged that the United States Air Force was perpetrating a cover-up with its Project Blue Book. Canadian radio engineer Wilbert B. Smith, who worked for the Canadian Department of Transport, was interested in flying saucer propulsion technology and wondered if the assertions in the just-published Scully and Keyhoe books were factual. In September 1950, he had the Canadian embassy in Washington D.C. arrange contact with U.S. officials to try to discover the truth of the matter. Smith was briefed by Dr. Robert Sarbacher, a physicist and consultant to the Defense Department's Research and Development Board. Other correspondence, having to do with Keyhoe needing to get clearance to publish another article on Smith's theories of UFO propulsion, indicated that Bush and his group were operating out of the Research and Development Board.[29] Smith then briefed superiors in the Canadian government, leading to the establishment of Project Magnet, a small Canadian government UFO research effort. Canadian documents and Smith's private papers were uncovered in the late 1970s, and by 1984, other alleged documents emerged claiming the existence of a highly secret UFO oversight committee of scientists and military people called Majestic 12, again naming Vannevar Bush. Sarbacher was also interviewed in the 1980s and corroborated the information in Smith's memos and correspondence. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, Smith granted public interviews, and among other things stated that he had been lent crashed UFO material for analysis by a highly secret U.S. government group which he wouldn't name.[30] A few weeks after the Robertson Panel, the Air Force issued Regulation 200-2, ordering air base officers to publicly discuss UFO incidents only if they were judged to have been solved, and to classify all the unsolved cases to keep them out of the public eye. In addition, UFO investigative duties started to be taken on by the newly formed 4602nd Air Intelligence Squadron (AISS) of the Air Defense Command. The 4602nd AISS was tasked with investigating only the most important UFO cases having intelligence or national security implications. These were deliberately siphoned away from Blue Book, leaving Blue Book to deal with the more trivial reports. [31] In 1954 an automatic working station for UFO monitoring was installed at Shirley's Bay near Ottawa in Canada. After this station detected the first suspicious event, all data gained by this station was classified as secret, although the cameras of the monitoring station could not make any pictures because of fog.[32] 1956 saw the publication of Gray Barker's They Knew Too Much About Flying Saucers, the book which publicized the idea of sinister Men in Black who appear to UFO witnesses and warn them to keep quiet. There has been continued speculation that the men in black are government agents who harass and threaten UFO witnesses. Also in 1956, the group Foundation for Earth-Space Relations, led by film producer Tzadi Sophit, tested their own flying saucer outside the Long Island town of Ridge Landing. It is speculated in Robertson's The Long Island Saucer that an FBI cover-up silenced witnesses.[33] On January 22, 1958, when Donald Keyhoe appeared on CBS television, his statements on UFOs were censored by the Air Force. During the show when Keyhoe tried to depart from the censored script to "reveal something that has never been disclosed before", CBS cut the sound, later stating Keyhoe was about to violate "predetermined security standards" and about to say something he wasn't "authorized to release". What Keyhoe was about to reveal were four publicly unknown military studies concluding UFOs were interplanetary including the 1948 Project Sign Estimate of the Situation and a 1952 Project Blue Book engineering analysis of UFO motion presented at the Robertson Panel. [34] Astronaut Gordon Cooper reported suppression of a flying saucer movie filmed in high clarity by two Edwards AFB range photographers on May 3, 1957. Cooper said he viewed developed negatives of the object, clearly showing a dish-like object with a dome on top and something like holes or ports in the dome. When later interviewed by James McDonald, the photographers and another witness confirmed the story. Cooper said military authorities then picked up the film and neither he nor the photographers ever heard what happened to it. The incident was also reported in a few newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times. The official explanation was that the photographers had filmed a weather balloon distorted by hot desert air.[35] 1960s Throughout much of the 1960s, atmospheric physicist James E. McDonald suggested—via lectures, articles and letters—that the U.S. Government was mishandling evidence that would support the extraterrestrial hypothesis.[36] 1970s Jerome Clark comments that many UFO conspiracy theory tales "can be traced to a mock documentary Alternative 3, broadcast on British television on June 20, 1977 (but intended for April Fools' Day), and subsequently turned into a paperback book."[37] Holloman Air Force Base Clark cites a 1973 encounter as perhaps the earliest suggestion that the U.S. government was involved with ETs. That year, Robert Emenegger and Allan Sandler of Los Angeles, California were in contact with officials at Norton Air Force Base in order to make a documentary film. Emenegger and Sandler report that Air Force Officials (including Paul Shartle) suggested incorporating UFO information in the documentary, including as its centerpiece genuine footage of a 1971 UFO landing at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. Furthermore, says Emenegger, he was given a tour of Holloman AFB and was shown where officials conferred with Extraterrestrial Biological Entities (EBEs). This was supposedly not the first time the U.S. had met these aliens, as Emenegger reported that his U.S. military sources had "been monitoring signals from an alien group with which they were unfamiliar, and did their ET guests know anything about them? The ETs said no" [38] The documentary was released in 1974 as UFO's: Past, Present and Future (narrated by Rod Serling) containing only a few seconds of the Holloman UFO footage, the remainder of the landing depicted with illustrations and re-enactments. In 1988, Shartle said that the film in question was genuine, and that he had seen it several times. In 1976 a televised documentary report UFOS: It Has Begun[39] written by Robert Emenegger was presented by Rod Serling, Burgess Meredith and José Ferrer. Some sequences were recreated based upon the statements of eyewitness observers, together with the findings and conclusions of governmental civil and military investigations. The documentary uses a hypothetical UFO landing at Holloman AFB as a backdrop. Paul Bennewitz The late 1970s also saw the beginning of controversy centered on Paul Bennewitz of Albuquerque, New Mexico.[40] 1980s MJ-12 The so-called Majestic 12 documents surfaced in 1982, suggesting that there was secret, high-level U.S. government interest in UFOs dating to the 1940s. Upon examination, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) declared the documents to be "completely bogus", and many ufologists consider them to be an elaborate hoax.[41][42] Linda Moulton Howe Linda Moulton Howe is an advocate of conspiracy theories that cattle mutilations are of extraterrestrial origin and speculations that the U.S. government is involved with aliens.[43][44][45][46] Milton William Cooper In the 1980s, Milton William Cooper achieved a degree of prominence due to his conspiratorial writings.[47] Bob Lazar In November 1989, Bob Lazar appeared in a special interview with investigative reporter George Knapp on Las Vegas TV station KLAS to discuss his alleged employment at S-4.[48] In his interview with Knapp, Lazar said he first thought the saucers were secret, terrestrial aircraft, whose test flights must have been responsible for many UFO reports. Gradually, on closer examination and from having been shown multiple briefing documents, Lazar came to the conclusion that the discs must have been of extraterrestrial origin. He claims that they use moscovium, an element that decays in a fraction of a second, to warp space, and that “Grey” aliens from the Zeta Reticuli star system. According to the Los Angeles Times, he never obtained the degrees he claims to hold from MIT and Caltech.[49][50] UFO Cover-Up?: Live! On October 14, 1988, actor Mike Farrell hosted U.S. UFO Cover-Up: Live!, a two-hour television special "focusing on the government's handling of information regarding UFOs" and "whether there has been any suppression of evidence supporting the existence of UFOs".[51] July 1989 MUFON Convention The Mutual UFO Network held their 1989 annual convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, on July 1, 1989. The Ufologist Bill Moore was scheduled as the main speaker, and he refused to submit his paper for review prior to the convention, and also announced that he would not answer any follow-up questions as was common practice. Unlike most of the convention's attendees, Moore did not stay at the same hotel that was hosting the convention. When he spoke, Moore said that he and others had been part of an elaborate, long-term disinformation campaign begun primarily to discredit Paul Bennewitz: "My role in the affair ... was primarily that of a freelancer providing information on Paul's (Bennewitz) current thinking and activities".[52] Air Force Sergeant Richard C. Doty was also involved, said Moore, though Moore thought Doty was "simply a pawn in a much larger game, as was I."[52] One of their goals, Moore said, was to disseminate information and watch as it was passed from person to person in order to study information channels. Moore said that he "was in a rather unique position" in the disinformation campaign: "judging by the positions of the people I knew to be directly involved in it, [the disinformation] definitely had something to do with national security. There was no way I was going to allow the opportunity to pass me by ... I would play the disinformation game, get my hands dirty just often enough to lead those directing the process into believing I was doing what they wanted me to do, and all the while continuing to burrow my way into the matrix so as to learn as much as possible about who was directing it and why."[53] Once he finished the speech, Moore immediately left the hotel and Las Vegas that same night. Moore's claims sent shock waves through the small, tight-knit UFO community[citation needed], which remains divided as to the reliability of his assertions. 1990s On November 24, 1992, a UFO reportedly crashed in Southaven Park, Shirley, New York.[54] John Ford, a Long Island MUFON researcher, investigated the crash. Four years later, on June 12, 1996, Ford was arrested and charged with plotting to poison several local politicians by sneaking radium in their toothpaste. On advice of counsel Ford pleaded insanity and was committed to the Mid Hudson Psychiatric Center. Critics say the charges are a frame-up. The Branton Files have circulated on the internet at least since the mid-1990s. They essentially recirculate the information presented above, with many asides from "Branton", the document's editor. Philip Schneider of the patriot movement, an engineer and geologist formerly working for the U.S. government, made a few appearances at UFO conventions in the 1990s, espousing essentially a new version of the theories mentioned above. He claimed to have played a role in the construction of Deep Underground Military Bases (DUMBs) across the United States, and as a result he said that he had been exposed to classified information of various sorts as well as having personal experiences with EBEs. He claimed to have survived the Dulce Base catastrophe and decided to tell his tale.[55] He died by suicide on January 17, 1996, after a series of lectures given in late 1995 on topics including the Black Budget and underground alien bases. Others believe that Schneider did not take his own life and that he was actually murdered by the government.[56] In 1999 a group in France published a study, "UFOs and Defense: What Must We Be Prepared For?" Among other topics, the study concluded that the United States government has withheld valuable evidence.[57] 2000s 2003 saw the publication of Alien Encounters (ISBN 1-57821-205-7), by Chuck Missler and Mark Eastman, which primarily re-stated the notions presented above (especially Cooper's) and presents them as fact. MoD secret files Eight files from 1978 to 1987 on UFO sightings were first released on May 14, 2008, to the National Archives' website by the British Ministry of Defence. Two hundred files were set to be made public by 2012. The files are correspondence from the public sent to government officials, such as the MoD and Margaret Thatcher. The information can be downloaded.[58] Copies of Lt. Col. Halt's letter regarding the sighting at RAF Woodbridge (see above[where?]) to the U.K. Ministry of Defence were routinely released (without additional comment) by the USA's base public affairs staff throughout the 1980s until the base closed. The MoD released the files due to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.[59] The files included, among other things, alien craft flying over Liverpool and Waterloo Bridge in London.[60] Disclosure In the early 2000s, the concept of "disclosure" became increasingly popular in the UFO conspiracy community: that the government had classified and withheld information on alien contact and full disclosure was needed, and was pursued by activist lobbying groups. In 1993, Steven M. Greer founded the Disclosure Project to promote the concept. In May 2001, Greer held a press conference at the National Press Club in D.C that demanded Congress hold hearings on "secret U.S. involvement with UFOs and extraterrestrials".[61][62][63] It was described by an attending BBC reporter as "the strangest ever news conference hosted by Washington's August National Press Club."[64] The Disclosure Project's claims were met with by derision by skeptics and spokespeople for the U. S. Air Force.[65][66] In 2013, the production company CHD2, LLC[67] held a "Citizen Hearing on Disclosure" at the National Press Club in D.C from 29 April to 3 May 2013. The group paid former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel and former Representatives Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Roscoe Bartlett, Merrill Cook, Darlene Hooley, and Lynn Woolsey $20,000 each to participate, and to preside over panels of academics and former government and military officials discussing UFOs and extraterrestrials.[68] Other such groups include Citizens Against UFO Secrecy, founded in 1977. Allegations of evidence suppression Allegations of suppression of UFO related evidence have persisted for many decades. Some conspiracy theories also claim that some governments might have removed and/or destroyed/suppressed physical evidence; some examples follow. On July 7, 1947, William Rhodes photographed an unusual object over Phoenix, Arizona.[69] The photos appeared in a Phoenix newspaper and a few other papers. Angoldmann sachs are run by sociopathic hypocrite lying greedy slimy jew cunts Army Air Force intelligence officer and an FBI agent interviewed Rhodes on August 29 and convinced him to surrender the negatives, which he did the next day. He was informed he wouldn't be getting them back, but later he tried, unsuccessfully, to retrieve them.[70][71] The photos were analyzed and subsequently appeared in some classified Air Force UFO intelligence reports. (Randle, 34–45, full account)[19] A June 27, 1950, movie of a "flying disk" over Louisville, Kentucky, taken by a Louisville Courier-Journal photographer, had the USAF Directors of counterintelligence (AFOSI) and intelligence discussing in memos how to best obtain the movie and interview the photographer without revealing Air Force interest. One memo suggested the FBI be used, then precluded the FBI getting involved. Another memo said "it would be nice if OSI could arrange to secure a copy of the film in some covert manner," but if that wasn't feasible, one of the Air Force scientists might have to negotiate directly with the newspaper.[72][73] In a recent interview, the photographer confirmed meeting with military intelligence and still having the film in his possession until then, but refused to say what happened to the film after that.[74] In another 1950 movie incident from Montana, Nicholas Mariana filmed some unusual aerial objects and eventually turned the film over to the U.S. Air Force, but insisted that the first part of the film, clearly showing the objects as spinning discs, had been removed when it was returned to him.[75] According to some conspiracy theorists, during the military investigation of green fireballs in New Mexico, UFOs were photographed by a tracking camera over White Sands Proving Grounds on April 27, 1949. They claim that the final report in 1951 on the green fireball investigation claimed there was insufficient data to determine anything. Conspiracy theorists claim that documents later uncovered by Dr. Bruce Maccabee indicate that triangulation was accomplished. The conspiracy theorists also claim that the data reduction and photographs showed four objects about 30 feet in diameter flying in formation at high speed at an altitude of about 30 miles. According to conspiracy theorists, Maccabee says this result was apparently suppressed from the final report.[76] On January 22, 1958, when NICAP director Donald Keyhoe appeared on CBS television, his statements on UFOs were censored by the Air Force. During the show when Keyhoe tried to depart from the censored script to "reveal something that has never been disclosed before," CBS cut the sound, later stating Keyhoe was about to violate "predetermined security standards" and about to say something he wasn't "authorized to release." Conspiracy theorists claim that what Keyhoe was about to reveal were four publicly unknown military studies concluding UFOs were interplanetary (including the 1948 Project Sign Estimate of the Situation and Blue Book's 1952 engineering analysis of UFO motion). (Good, 286–287; Dolan 293–295)[17][77] A March 1, 1967 memo directed to all USAF divisions, from USAF Lt. General Hewitt Wheless, Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, stated that unverified information indicated that unknown individuals, impersonating USAF officers and other military personnel, had been harassing civilian UFO witnesses, warning them not to talk, and also confiscating film, referring specifically to the Heflin incident. AFOSI was to be notified if any personnel were to become aware of any other incidents. (Document in Fawcett & Greenwood, 236.)[78] John Callahan, former Division Chief of the Accidents and Investigations Branch of the FAA, Washington D.C., also a Disclosure Project witness, said that following the Japan Air Lines flight 1628 incident that involved a giant UFO over Alaska, recorded by air and ground radar, the FAA conducted an investigation. Callahan held a briefing a few days later for President Reagan's Scientific Study Group, the FBI, and CIA. After the briefing, one of the CIA agents told everybody they "were never there and this never happened," adding they were fearful of public panic.[79] According to one theory related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA killed Kennedy in order to prevent him from leaking information to the Soviet Union about a covert program to reverse-engineer alien technology (i.e., Majestic 12).[80] Nick Cook, an aviation investigative journalist for Jane's Information Group and researcher of Billion Dollar Secret[81] and author of The Hunt for Zero Point[82] claims to have uncovered documentary evidence that top-secret US Defense Industry technology has been developed by government-backed Defense Industry programs, beginning in the 1940s using research conducted by Nazi scientists during WWII and recovered by Allied Military Intelligence, then taken to the U.S. and developed further with the collaboration of the same former German scientists at top-secret facilities established at White Sands, New Mexico, and later at Area 51, allegedly resulting in production of real-world prototype operational supersonic craft actually tested and used in clandestine military exercises, with other developments incorporated later into spy aircraft tasked with overflying hostile countries: the UFO story that evidence of alien technology is being suppressed and removed or destroyed was generated and then promoted by the CIA, beginning 1947, as false-lead disinformation to cover it all up for the sake of National Security, particularly during the Cold War, at a time when (his investigations found) the Soviet Union too was developing its own top-secret high-tech UFO craft. Cook's conclusions, alleging suppression of evidence of advanced human technology instead of alien, together with what he presents as declassified top-secret documents and blueprints, and his interviews of various experts (some of doubtful reliability), was developed and broadcast as a feature documentary on British television in 2005 as "UFOs: The Secret Evidence" and in the US in 2006 as a two-part episode on the History Channel's UFO Files, retitled "An Alien History of Planet Earth", with an added introduction by actor William Shatner. The History Channel program teaser promised "...a look at rumors of classified military aircraft incorporating alien technology into their designs." In 1993, Steven M. Greer founded the Disclosure project to promote the concept of disclosing allegedly suppressed evidence of extraterrestrials. In May 2001, Greer held a press conference at the National Press Club in D.C that featured "20 retired Air Force, Federal Aviation Administration and intelligence officers" who demanded that Congress begin hearings on "secret U.S. involvement with UFOs and extraterrestrials"[61][62][63] In 2013, Sen. Mike Gravel claimed that the government was suppressing evidence of extraterrestrials.[83] Benjamin Radford has pointed out how unlikely such suppression of evidence is given that "[t]he UFO coverup conspiracy would have to span decades, cross international borders, and transcend political administrations" and that "all of the world's governments, in perpetuity, regardless of which political party is in power and even among enemies, [would] have colluded to continue the coverup."[84] In popular fiction In fiction and Sci reality, television programs (like The X-Files, Stargate, and Project Blue Book), films (such as Men in Black and Independence Day), and any number of novels have featured elements of UFO conspiracy theories. Fictionalized elements may include the government's sinister operatives from the men in black, the military bases known as Area 51, RAF Rudloe Manor or Porton Down, a rumored crash site in Roswell, New Mexico, the Rendlesham Forest Incident, a political committee dubbed "Majestic 12", or the successor of the UK Ministry of Defence's Flying Saucer Working Party (FSWP).[85] The novel The Doomsday Conspiracy by Sidney Sheldon includes a UFO conspiracy in its plot.[86] See also Bielefeld Conspiracy Brookings Report Crop circle Flying Saucers Kecksburg UFO incident List of major UFO sightings Magazines of anomalous phenomena New World Order (conspiracy) Storm Area 51 The Disclosure Project Ummo United States gravity control propulsion research (1955–1974) Notes and references   Paul Harris: Cold War hysteria sparked UFO obsession, study finds   Genoni Jr., Thomas C., Peddling the Paranormal: Late-Night Radio's Art Bell, Skeptical Briefs, Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, volume 8, issue #1, March 1998 http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/peddling_the_paranormal_late-night_radios_art_bell/   John F. Schuessler (January 2000). "Public Opinion Surveys and Unidentified Flying Objects 50+ years of Sampling Public Opinions". Mutual UFO Network. Archived from the original on October 16, 2007.   David, Leonard. "Gordon Cooper Touts New Book Leap of Faith". Archived from the original on 27 July 2010. Retrieved 27 December 2016.   Martin, Robert Scott. "Gordon Cooper: No Mercury UFO". Archived from the original on 27 March 2010. Retrieved 27 December 2016.   Dunning, Brian. "Skeptoid #218: The Astronauts and the Aliens". Skeptoid. Retrieved 27 December 2016.   CSI | UFOs and Aliens in Space   Michael Barkun (15 August 2013). Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-0-520-95652-0.   Barna William Donovan (20 July 2011). Conspiracy Films: A Tour of Dark Places in the American Conscious. McFarland. pp. 50–. ISBN 978-0-7864-8615-1.   Joe Nickell (24 October 2001). Real-Life X-Files: Investigating the Paranormal. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 120–. ISBN 0-8131-7083-4.   Ruppelt: Roswell UFO Cover   The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, Doubleday Books   Caughey, John; Caughey, LaRee (1977). Los Angeles: biography of a city. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-03410-5.   Farley, John E. (1998). Earthquake fears, predictions, and preparations in mid-America. Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN 978-0-8093-2201-5. Retrieved May 17, 2010.   Documents Dated Prior to 1948 The Majestic Documents   San Francisco virtual museum article   Ghost Rockets: Timothy Good, Above Top Secret, 1988, William Morrow & Co., ISBN 0-688-09202-0 Timothy Good, Need to Know: UFOs, the Military, and Intelligence, 2007, Pegasus Books, ISBN 978-1-933648-38-5 Donald Keyhoe, Aliens From Space, 1973, Doubleday & Co., ISBN 0-385-06751-8 Jenny Randles, UFO Retrievals: The Recovery of Alien Spacecraft, 1985, Blandford Press, ISBN 0-7137-2493-5 Reuben Stone, Alien Worlds, 1993, Longmeadow Press, ISBN 0-681-45414-8 (Contains photo of search for ghost rocket seen crashing in Lake Kölmjärv)   Ghost Rockets: list of External links to sources.   Roswell: Randle and Schmitt Kevin Randle & Donald Schmitt, UFO Crash at Roswell, 1991; The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell, 1994 see also Kouff, Kal (August 1997). "What Really Happened at Roswell". Skeptical Inquirer. 21 (4). Retrieved February 5, 2013.   "Brig. Gen. Arthur E. Exon".   Gildenberg, B.D. (2003). "A Roswell requiem". Skeptic. 10 (1): 60.   Clark, Jerome, The UFO Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial, Visible Ink, 1998 ISBN 978-1-57859-029-2   Wenz, John. "11 UFO Photos Unearthed From the Air Force's Vaults". Popular Mechanics Magazine. Hearst Media. Retrieved 30 November 2018.   Kirkpatrick, Nick; Moyer, Justin Wm. "Two decades of mysterious Air Force UFO files now available online". Washington Post. Washington Post. Retrieved 30 November 2018.   Blum, Howard, Out There: The Government's Secret Quest for Extraterrestrials. Simon and Schuster, 1990   Stephen J. Spignesi. The Ufo Book of Lists. Citadel Press; 2000. ISBN 978-0-8065-2109-1. p. 24–.   Nick Pope, UFOs: An Official History.   J. P. Cahn exposé, True Magazine, 1952.   Roswell Proof: Smith Papers   Presidential UFO.com Archived 2009-04-08 at the Wayback Machine Roswell Proof.com   Dolan, Richard M. UFOS and the national security state : chronology of a cover-up 1941-1973. Hampton Roads Pub. Co. pp. 210-211. ISBN 978-1571743176.   Canada's UFOs, Shirley's Bay, Ontario, Project Magnet, 1952, Library and Archives of Canada.   "Long Island's UFO plot Trial: A flying saucer true believer must answer charges that he intended to kill three people he believed were covering up alien landings". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2018-06-04.   Dolan, Richard M. UFOS and the national security state : chronology of a cover-up 1941-1973. Hampton Roads Pub. Co. pp. 293-295. ISBN 978-1571743176.   "McDonald, 1968 Congressional testimony, Case 41" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-06-24.   see James E. McDonald: External links.   Clark The UFO Book, p. 213–14   Clark The UFO Book, p. 144   UFOS: It Has Begun, Producer Allan F. Sandler, Director Ray Rivas, Writer Robert Emenegger, 1976, Featuring Rod Serling, Special Appearances by José Ferrer and Burgess Meredith – VCI Sci-Fi DVD Double Feature: UFOs: It Has Begun / UFO Syndrome, Distributed by VCI Entertainment http://www.vcient.com   see Paul Bennewitz: References and External Links.   Donovan, Barna William (2011-07-20). Conspiracy Films: A Tour of Dark Places in the American Conscious. McFarland. pp. 107–. ISBN 9780786486151. Retrieved 17 September 2014.   "FBI – Majestic 12 Part 1 of 1". An FBI archive containing details of "Majestic 12". Retrieved April 10, 2011.   Peter Knight (2003). Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 125–. ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9. Retrieved 18 October 2012.   Michael Barkun (4 May 2006). A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. University of California Press. pp. 86–. ISBN 978-0-520-24812-0. Retrieved 18 October 2012.   Nancy Lusignan, Editor (1 September 1998). Fear Itself: Enemies Real and Imagined in American Culture. Purdue University Press. pp. 415–. ISBN 978-1-55753-115-5. Retrieved 18 October 2012.   Richard Landes (6 July 2000). Encyclopedia of Millennialism and Millennial Movements. Taylor & Francis. pp. 731–. ISBN 978-0-415-92246-3. Retrieved 18 October 2012.   see Milton William Cooper: References.   KLAS-TV: 8 News Now: George Knapp, Investigative Reporter: "Bob Lazar The Man Behind Area 51: NEW: Area 51 Exposed retrieved 21 March 2013   Los Angeles Times: May 6, 1993, Rivenberg, Ray, "Unusually Fanatical Observers Ike Struck Deal With Aliens!"   The Presidents UFO Website: The True Story of Area 51: A Look at the Actual Evidence, Written by Grant Cameron, Monday, 03 October 2011 18:29 retrieved 21 March 2013   "UFO Cover-Up?... Live (1988". Turner Classic Movies. Turner Classic Movies, Inc. Retrieved 29 November 2017.   Clark The UFO Book, p. 163   Clark The UFO Book, p. 164   UFO Crash At Southaven Park at www.ufocasebook.com   "The Phil Schneider Story". APFN. Retrieved 26 April 2013.   "Message from ex-wife of Phil Schneider". www.apfn.org. Retrieved 2017-12-16.   UFO Evidence : COMETA Report at www.ufoevidence.org   UFO files from The National Archives at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk   "Files released on UFO sightings". BBC News. 2008-05-14. Retrieved 2008-08-05.   afp.google.com, The truth is out there: Britons 'spotted' UFOs, records say Archived 2013-06-05 at the Wayback Machine   Duin, Julia (11 May 2001). "Government is covering up UFO evidence, group says". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on May 16, 2001. Retrieved 8 March 2013.   "They're Here; UFO watchers to reveal proof that aliens have visited Earth". The Daily Record. May 9, 2001.   Katelynn Raymer; David Ruppe (10 May 2001). "Group Calls for Disclosure of UFO Info". ABC News. Retrieved 11 March 2013.   "UFO spotters slam 'US cover-up'". BBC News. May 10, 2001.   Kehnemui, Sharon (May 10, 2001). "Men in Suits See Aliens as Part of Solution, Not Problem". Fox News. Retrieved 2007-05-10.   McCullagh, Declan (May 10, 2001). "Ooo-WEE-ooo Fans Come to D.C." Wired News. Retrieved 11 May 2016.   "The Citizen Hearing on Disclosure". Official Citizen Hearing on Disclosure website.   "Visitors From Outer Space, Real or Not, Are Focus of Discussion in Washington". New York Times. May 3, 2013.   Rhodes_Phoenix   http://bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=NARA-PBB1-913   http://bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=NARA-PBB1-920   http://bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=NARA-PBB90-218   http://bluebookarchive.org/page.aspx?PageCode=NARA-PBB90-219   Strange rocket-like UFO over California/Nevada, June 24, 1950   Clark The UFO Book, p. 398   NCP-12: The White Sands Proof – Maccabee   Richard M. Dolan, UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up 1941–1973, 2002, ISBN 1-57174-317-0.   Lawrence Fawcett and Barry J. Greenwood, The UFO Cover-Up (originally Clear Intent), New York: Fireside Books (Simon & Schuster), 1992, ISBN 0-671-76555-8   UFO Evidence.org documents   Speigel, Lee (April 18, 2011). "The JFK-UFO Connection: Bogus Documents or Unanswered Questions?". AOL News. Archived from the original on October 27, 2012. Retrieved January 2, 2013.   Review of Billion Dollar Secret and The Hunt for Zero Point, "Into the Black" by Frank Bures, The Atlantic magazine.   Review of "The Hunt for Zero Point" by Kurt Kleiner at Salon.com   "Out there: Former Sen. Mike Gravel says White House suppressing evidence of ETs". Yahoo! News/ABC News. 2013-05-03. Retrieved 2013-05-04.   Radford, Benjamin (2018). "The Phantom Menace of UFO Revelation". Skeptical Inquirer. 42 (4): 28–29.   David G. Robertson (25 February 2016). UFOs, Conspiracy Theories and the New Age: Millennial Conspiracism. Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-1-4742-5321-5.   "THE DOOMSDAY CONSPIRACY by Sidney Sheldon THE DOOMSDAY CONSPIRACY". Kirkus Reviews. Kirkus Media LLC. Retrieved 6 December 2017. Bibliography Clark, Jerome. The Ufo Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial. Visible Ink, 1998. ISBN 1-57859-029-9. Dolan, Richard M. UFOs and the National Security State: An Unclassified History, Volume One: 1941–1973. Keyhole Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-9666885-0-3. Fawcett, Lawrence and Greenwood, Barry J. The UFO Cover-Up (originally Clear Intent). New York: Fireside Books (Simon & Schuster), 1992. ISBN 0-671-76555-8. Timothy Good. Above Top Secret. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1988. ISBN 0-688-09202-0. Philip J. Klass. UFOs Explained New York: Random House, 1974. ISBN 0-394-49215-3. Peebles, Curtis. Watch the Skies! A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution, 1994. ISBN 1-56098-343-4. Rose, Bill and Buttler, Tony. Flying Saucer Aircraft (Secret Projects). Leicester, UK: Midland Publishing, 2006. ISBN 1-85780-233-0. Ruppelt, Edward J.. The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. 1956, available online: [1] dont forget to like and subscribe
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.