|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Another installment in the ongoing Cowan-Stewart discussions...
This one is from Brad Cowan.
Enjoy!
Andre
_____________________________________________________
There is an old saying among lawyers that you do not ask a question to a
witness unless you
already know what the answer will be. To prove that my PTV was
original, I
specificlly chose
Brad Stewart to present my question to. I knew Stewart was hostile to my
position, being Baumring's
#1 pal. In this exchange of letters (these posts) I believe Stewart has
failed to show evidence Baumring used PTVs
as I teach them. The closest Stewart has come is saying he personally
drew
circles on a chart and measured their radius
with a ruler. It's pretty ridiculous to equate that with what I'm doing
with PTVs. To claim Baumring knew
of the PTV Stewart provided some vague quotes about the Pythagorean
theorem, multidimensionality, etc.
I can take those exact definitions, as Stewart quoted them, and devise
literally dozens of methods of
market analysis that have nothing to do with PTVs. In fact I already
have.
For example, taking Stewart's
quotes I can use a radius vector to expand strictly down the time axis,
or
up the price axis. And since time
is multidimensional, it follows the definition followed given by
Stewart.
Or, I can expand a roto vector
around a point on the square of nine to radiate out for both price and
time. I've done all these and many more.
All these techniques are different, yet Stewart would say they fit into
that same category he presented below, and hence,
was understood by Baumring. Sorry, I don't think so. I am an engineer.
At
the time I met Baumring I had just spent 6 years
in University studying engineering/physics on both the undergraduate and
graduate levels. Vectors had been drilled into
my head ad nauseam. I knew MUCH MUCH more about vectors than did
Baumring
and had already been using them for my market
analysis. As previously posted, I've proven this by sending copies from
my
engineering texts to Ruff/Pich in the areas Stewart claims I learned
from
his mentor, and have included all these references in the book printed
now.
Furthermore, when I presented my books to former Baumring students I
often
walked them through the techniques on the telephone. When we got to the
technique of calculating the PTV the reaction was without exception
"Wow,
I've never done this before". None of them had ever calculated a PTV
before my books. If, as Stewart claims, Baumring taught the technique
you
would have expected at least one of them to say "Oh yea, I've done this
before". They never did. So, the point is, there is a BIG difference
between the vague references Stewart quoted from Baumring (taken from
basic
engineering texts) and my applications and discoveries.
About Stewart's copyright statement... I have a copyright attorney, who
is
familiar with my work and also is a trader, look at my books before they
are distributed. If there was any problem I would know. It is curious
that Stewart is interested in copyrights since those notebooks he is
selling for $4000 are nothing but copies of books, some of which were
still
covered by copyright laws when Baurming copied them (some probably still
are). Since Baumring wrote nothing in them, not even an introduction, he
has no copyright claim to them. If he did, Ruff would not be selling
them,
too.
Stewart says his notes of the seminars are about 500 pages. I guess he
is
trying to claim that there was so much info presented that he was
furiously
writing it all down. Stewart sent me his notes (at his request) and
what
he does not mention is that only about 50 pages are from the seminars
the
rest are his personal notes. Just for grins I scanned through his notes
and
did not see any planetary work in the seminar notes. I saw a few
references
to planets and this "metaphysical mumbo jumbo" that Baumring loved in
Stewarts notes to himself, but this was not in the seminars. The only
thing
I found in my notes about planets was a recommended reading list with
classic astrology texts. My astro work is not the classic astrology. It
is
ludicrous for Stewart to claim that my planetary work was presented at
the
seminars.
There is a lot more I can say but you're probably as bored as I am by
now.
Brad Cowan www.cycle-trader.com
|