SUMMARY - "PIG" :
The Contrarian's View is published 11 times per year on a mostly-irregular schedule, and the views expressed are those of the author and editor, Nick Chase. Because nobody can predict the future, results of past suggestions or recommendations are no guarantee of future results. Material in this publication may be freely quoted provided proper attribution is given to its source. Subscription rate: Free on the Internet through the World-Wide Web service at Assumption College. Using your favorite Web-browsing program, Open URL http://www.assumption.edu. Mailed paper subscriptions, one year for $39 to The Contrarian's View, 132 Moreland Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01609. There is a limit of 50 paid subscribers at one time; please check for availability before sending any money. Sorry, Visa and Mastercard are not available. Overseas subscription rate, U.S. $54. Unsolicited material sent to us by UPS or by courier other than the postal service is refused and returned to sender! Phone: (508) 757-2881
I expected the entire talk to take about a half hour. At the end of 40 minutes, I was winding up the first part - proving the "suicide" note was forged - at which point people urged me to stop, due to the lateness of the hour. This experience has shown me that (1) it would take about five hours to tell the Foster story completely with enough detail and documentation to be believable, (2) never give a speech without writing it out and timing it first, (3) the average attention span of the typical listener is about 10 minutes, (4) If you should ever make this mistake, do it with people you will never see again, not with your friends.... otherwise you will never live it down. My greatest frustration?.... that I was unable to finish the story.
When I first decided to make my March 22 presentation, I did not know that the TV show "Unsolved Mysteries" would be presenting a segment on the death of Vince Foster the very same time, Friday evening. Now my wife and I very seldom watch television, because we would rather be doing something with our lives rather than just be passive observers. Maybe, when a major snowstorm threatens, we will pull the small black-and-white TV out of the closet and hook it up to find out what's going on, but we probably do not view the tube more than four or five times in a year.
I long ago gave up on TV news, as those people are really in the entertainment business, in my opinion. Anything likely to offend a major advertiser, or to upset a major source of information (who would then pull back, leaving the news provider at a competitive disadvantage) is likely to go unreported. Also, my wife and I have both done radio work, including news reporting, for many years, I as a volunteer and she as both volunteer and paid professional. We know the tricks that can be played to slant a news story, and it irritates us to see those tricks done on TV, so we just stay away.
As an example: The advertisers of pain killers long ago figured out that if the ad message were delivered by an actor in a white lab coat, looking for all the world like a scientist or physician, that the ad would be incredibly more effective because the public generally respects authority figures. The same technique is used in TV news: a reporter in a light-colored trench coat appears with the White House as a backdrop, quoting "informed sources". The setting lends an "official" and authoritative air to the message, which may really be no more than the reporter's own opinion or, more likely, the official government line.
TV can be superb when it gives you access to the "raw data", the event as it happens; otherwise you are viewing somebody's filtered version of the events, generally tailored to what is presumed to be the attention span of the average viewer, about 30 seconds. I know how difficult it can be to report the news accurately and without bias; so I rely on more comprehensive stories in print and on the Internet to find out what's going on.
Anyway, here was this TV story on Foster coincidentally appearing at the same time I was giving my own talk. Fortunately, a few years ago my wife and I had bought a VCR out of self-defense, because people kept lending us snippets of things on tape that they wanted us to watch, so I was able to record the segment and view it later. (We bought a VCR will full-bandwidth stereo sound, so we could archive some of the many classical music concerts we record for radio broadcast.)
After a brief synopsis of Foster's death, the "Unsolved Mysteries" segment entirely focused its attention on the so-called "suicide" note. A short clip was shown of the October 25, 1995 Strategic Investment press conference at which graphologists Reginald Alton, Ronald Rice and Vincent Scalice delivered their opinions that the note is a forgery. Narrator Robert Stack then said "Unsolved Mysteries" had assembled the experts in Boston, where they explained their reasoning on enlarged and color-highlighted versions of the handwriting samples.
Ronald Rice was identified as "a handwriting expert who has worked for the state of Massachusetts"; Reginald Alton as "of Oxford University in England" without further reference to Alton's world-class credentials; and Vincent Scalice as a "retired homicide examiner", "certified document examiner" and "forensic handwriting examiner". Also present was Anthony Iantosca, identified as a "forensic handwriting examiner" (who was not at the October 25, 1995 press conference).
Rice stated that he had spent more than 40 hours examining the documents, and he elaborated on differences between forged and genuine letters, particularly the "B" in the phrase "The FBI lied" from the note, the same example I used in my talk. Rice said the forger had written the B in four strokes (Alton had said "at least three" at the press conference), while Foster wrote his capital Bs with a single stroke.
Alton pointed out the difficulty the forger had emulating Foster's elegant style of handwriting; but perhaps the most convincing evidence was from Iantosca, who pointed out the "hesitation dots" in the note, where the forger's pen had started and stopped. The inordinate number of these dots indicates the note was painstakingly copied, according to Iantosca, who illustrated his point with the four dots in the capital letter "N" from the phrase "No one".
Scalice pointed out the differences in "th" letter combinations in the note and genuine handwriting samples, and clearly stated that Foster's handwriting would not change under stress, except maybe to be "sloppier".
Then the program turned to Marcel Matley, identified as a "handwriting examiner" with no further credentials given, who offered his opinion that the "suicide" note is genuine. Matley believes that the "deteriorated copy" of the note.... that is, it's been copied over too many times.... and the "stress" Foster was presumably under account for the differences in handwriting. He then went on to show how Foster used different styles of letters in the genuine samples, such as both cursive and block letter "s", for example, and how the same multiple styles appear in the note; and from this he concluded that the same person wrote both the note and the samples known to be genuine.
One problem with Matley's statements is that it is impossible to determine to what extent the copy of the "suicide" note used by the experts has deteriorated from the original.... because the government has yet to release any official copy of the original, much less a high-resolution one. I just don't see how Matley can point out examples of "deterioration" in copies of the note without having seen the original note.
Matley is exactly right in pointing out the multiple letter styles used by Foster; I can vouch for these, as I have picked off images of the documents from the Internet, printed them out and examined them, and I am familiar with them. But for me, these variations are an argument in favor of the forgery; for if the letters in the note were painstakingly copied as the other experts suggest, one would expect the forger to also copy the letter variations in an effort to lend an air of authenticity to the forged note. Matley did not refute any of the major points made by the other experts, notably the number of strokes making up the letters, and the "hesitation dots", in the note.
I suspect Matley was put on the show so its producers would not be accused of being biased on a highly-charged political issue, and so they wouldn't wind up on the Clintons' sh*t list. At any rate, it shouldn't take too long for those intrepid Internet sleuths who follow every twist and turn of the Foster story to ferret out Matley's credentials and to find out how much he was paid to appear on the program.
Stack concluded the segment with "Given the explosive political nature of the case, it is quite possible that we will never know the entire story behind the death of Vince Foster". That's for sure.
The only obvious bias I spotted in the segment, other than the Matley subterfuge, was the identification of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper as "conservative". One can only surmise that if reporter Chris Ruddy (who briefly appeared) worked instead for the Boston Globe, New York Times or Washington Post, would the newspaper be identified as "liberal"? At any rate, the show's producers apparently haven't yet gotten the message that "conservative" is no longer a dirty word among the American electorate.
But these minor flaws pale in comparison to the real service the show has performed. Just the fact that Vince Foster's death would be billed as an "unsolved mystery" when (excluding Starr's investigation) the government officially closed the case as a suicide more than a year ago, is a real breakthrough. Also, the viewing public probably got their first real look at sentences from the note, and side-by-side comparisons of words and phrases from the note and the genuine Foster handwriting samples.... and the differences in appearance were distinct. The show also raised the possibility that Foster could have been murdered and of a "Clinton coverup". We've come a long way.
One thing yet missing, though, is that the public still has not been able to view the full note and the genuine documents in their entirety, side by side, for comparison. This would be hard to do on a low-resolution TV screen, but it can easily be done on paper. Is newsprint so precious a commodity that no major news publication can afford to reproduce the note and a genuine document side by side, so the American people can see for themselves the obvious nature of the forgery? The appearance of the writing in the note is "stiff", exactly as if it had indeed been copied a letter at a time; it lacks the fluidity and flair of Foster's handwriting which is apparent even in the notes Foster wrote for himself.
This side-by-side comparison is just what I did for my March 22 talk, and there were plenty of copies left over, so I have enclosed one with this month's issue of The Contrarian's View. It will also be scanned and put up on the Internet, so people can view it, print it out, and see for themselves.
First, take a look at the side of my handout which has "Vincent W. Foster, Washington D.C." on the upper right. The "suicide" note is on the left, and the right side shows part of a genuine Foster document, a letter he wrote the month before he died, identified as "K1" among the genuine documents. Even after these documents (already copies of the originals) have been scanned, put on the Internet, picked off by me, printed out and copied again a couple more times, you can still easily see the difference in appearance between the stiff-looking forgery and the flowing original.
Well, you might argue, we are comparing a scrawled note with a formal letter, which Foster probably would have written more carefully. True. So turn the handout over.
On the other side, the note is again on the left, and a sample of Foster's handwritten notes to himself ("K5") is on the right (ignore the enlarged letters on the bottom right for the moment). Sure, Foster's handwriting is messier, but it still doesn't look the same as on the note.
Now look at the enlarged letters on the bottom right. From the note I have enlarged the phrase "The FBI lied". Look at the B, and compare it with the adjoining enlarged Bs from "K3", the scrap of paper found in Foster's wallet that apparently was about setting up blind trusts for the Clintons' assets. As the experts have pointed out, you can see that Foster wrote his Bs with one bold stroke; the forger took three (Alton) or four (Rice) strokes in trying to duplicate the letter.
So where are we with the status of the "suicide" note? We have Larry Lockhart, who originally authenticated the note for the U.S. Park Police, reversing his opinion. We have a "qualified opinion" from the FBI, because it didn't have enough material to work with. We have three top-rated graphologists hired by Strategic Investment, along with a fourth, all appearing on the "Unsolved Mysteries" TV show, who have clearly pointed out the inconsistencies that betray the note as a forgery. Then we have Marcel Matley, who ignored his own evidence which supports the forgery theory to declare the note is genuine. Who is out of step here?
The experts have confirmed what you can clearly see with your own eyes: The "suicide" note is a fake. Vincent Foster did not write it.
Why is this so important? Because somebody in the White House (or somebody contracted by the White House) manufactured this fake to deliberately draw attention away from the circumstances surrounding (or responsible for) Vince Foster's death. When the White House falsifies evidence in the death of Vince Foster, then why should we believe any of the other statements emanating from there on Foster's death, or indeed on any matter?
Returning again to my March 22 talk, there is perhaps one more thing I should have done that I didn't, and that was to first check out in advance how much the people I was addressing already knew. I had thought the blackout of meaningful information by the major news sources had been complete; what I actually found is that people had picked up parts of the story, but not a complete picture. For example, two people out of the half-dozen queried had heard the note was a forgery; one had heard of Foster's secret plane trips to Switzerland; almost all were aware that the forensic evidence favors the theory that Foster's body had been dumped in the park.
As one friend, who grew up in "rough" neighborhoods, put it: As soon as the note turned up in the previously-empty briefcase, he knew it was a fake; and when Foster's body was found laid out like it was ready for the coffin, he knew it was a hit job. Another person told me that most people long ago concluded that the Clintons are liars, so they don't need to obsess on the details.... they just move on with their lives.
Does the skepticism of my friends carry any predictive value for Bill Clinton's chances for re-election? Probably not.... my friends in 1972, all highly intelligent people, of course, felt that Richard Nixon was right at the center of the Watergate cover-up, yet Nixon won re-election in a landslide. It would seem that most people are willing to tolerate more dishonesty in their elected leaders than I.
People have asked me what I think happened to Vince Foster. Let me answer by saying that in unpredictable situations I think the truth is frequently blurted or acted out, before people have time to collect their wits and coordinate their lies. I think Foster's death definitely came as a surprise to the Clintons and to the White House staff, given the heavy-duty damage control that took place afterward. In this context, take a look at the report that Helen Dickey, Chelsea Clinton's former nanny, phoned Little Rock to say that Vince Foster had shot himself in the White House parking lot, a call made at 5:47 PM Washington time on July 20, 1993, according to reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. The story of Foster's "suicide" started to spread around Little Rock before the White House damage control could spring into action.... now the "official" story is that Dickey placed her call after 10 PM.
So I think that Foster's body was found in the White House parking lot late in the afternoon of July 20, and was moved by intelligence types to Fort Marcy Park and staged to look like a suicide there to deflect attention (and investigation) away from the White House. Of course, the videotape from the parking-lot surveillance camera would prove me right or wrong, but it is missing. The surveillance videotape of people entering and leaving the room in the White House where the parking-lot camera is located was blank.
Now whether Foster commited suicide or was murdered, I don't think there is yet enough evidence either way to say. But everything I have read about Vince Foster has convinced me that he was an honorable person in his professional life, and I think he either found himself part of something dishonest where he saw no graceful way out (suicide), or he learned too much about something sinister and couldn't be relied on to keep his mouth shut (murder).
I do think that Foster had some sort of intelligence ties, but I don't yet buy the "Swiss bank account" theory. I think it's entirely possible that his clandestine maneuvers were tied to a genuine national-security need in "legitimate" intelligence operations.
If Vince Foster died an honorable death, in service to his country, then what a terrible disservice would have been done him if his "suicide" were manufactured to make it look like he was unstable and had family problems. It is my hope that when the truth is known (if it ever is really known), that Vince Foster's name will be cleared and his honor restored.
I am still patiently awaiting the crash by sitting in money-market funds, puts, and Rydex Ursa. The indicators never tell us exactly when the bear will arrive (although more than six months away is unlikely), but a crash remains a virtual certainty. Hang in there.
A. "Phoenix" -real portfolio, begun on October 1, 1995.
Original cost: $ 8,090.45
Present value: $ 8,939.14
Increase: $ 848.69 [10.49%]
Yield: $ 311.53 [3.87%]
The performance of this portfolio and its predecessors ("Hedger's Delight", "Present and Future Income", "Crapshooter's Folly") from January 1987 to the present is +25.79%, for a compound annual rate of return of 2.46%.
B. "Professors' Investment Group (PIG)" - investment club portfolio.
SUMMARY - "PIG" :
Portfolio cost: $ 5,020.00
Present value: $ 5,541.05
Increase (decrease): $ 521.05 [10.38%]
COMMENT on "PIG": There is no change from the last issue, other than to the cash balance. I am still under orders to buy 50 shares of Pharmacopoeia (PCOP/otc) under $25 (now $24.75), and Alexion (ALXN/otc) around 8-1/2 (now $8.75).
C. Fidelity IRA - real portfolio, includes commissions:
SUMMARY - IRA:
Original (1983-86) cost: $ 8,326.19
Present value: $19,354.41
Increase: $11,028.22 [132.45%]
Current yield: $ 886.83 [4.49%]
The performance of this portfolio (including its predecessors) from January 1, 1987 to the present is +76.48%, for a compound annual rate of return of 6.34%.
F. CREF Pension plan; I switch between indexed stock/bond/money funds:
Date Sold Bought
13Mar92 stock @ 56.65 MM @ 13.41
29Apr92 MM @ 13.48 bond @ 31.19
19Jun92 bond @ 32.14 MM @ 13.55
29Jun92 MM @ 13.57 stock @ 56.74
24Jul92 stock @ 56.76 MM @ 13.61
29Oct92 MM @ 13.72 stock @ 58.61
23Dec92 stock @ 61.48 MM @ 13.78
16Jan95 MM @ 14.83 equity-index @ 26.44
20Jan95 eq-index @ 26.19 MM @ 14.84
Values, 28Feb96: stock, 96.40; MM, 15.86
Gain, 1988: 18.91%; 1989: 14.48%; 1990: 8.28%; 1991: 27.93%; 1992: 10.20%; 1993: 3.08%; 1994: 4.07%
Gain, January 1 through September 30, 1995: 3.34%
Total gain since January 1, 1988 (7.75 years): 127.93%
Compound annual rate of return: 11.21% (My long-term target: in excess of 15%)
Gain shown excludes the impact of additional monthly cash contributions.
Buying CREF stock on January 1, 1988 and holding it gained 179.14%, for a compound annual rate of return of 14.17%.
COMMENT on "Timer's Trend" : Though "Timer's Trend" turned bullish again on March 18, I have not gotten terribly excited about it. The raw data behind the signal show it is incredibly weak.... for all practical purposes, the market trend is dead neutral, and whipsaws of the signal are highly likely.
{, } = "Timer's Trend" (4% and 10% exponential) SELL ({) or BUY (}) signal
=============================TIMER'S TREND===========================
Mon 13 Nov 95 . I #. {| 4872.90 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 14 Nov 95 . I# . | 4871.81 | + *
Wed 15 Nov 95 . I .# | 4922.75 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Thu 16 Nov 95 . | . # }| 4969.36 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Fri 17 Nov 95 . | . # | 4989.95 | .+ *
Mon 20 Nov 95 . | #. | 4983.09 | .+ *
Tue 21 Nov 95 . | .# | 5023.55 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 22 Nov 95 . | .# | 5041.61 | . + *
Fri 24 Nov 95 . | . # | 5048.84 | . + *
Mon 27 Nov 95 . | . # | 5070.88 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 28 Nov 95 . | . # | 5078.10 | . + *
Wed 29 Nov 95 . | . # | 5105.56 | . + *
Thu 30 Nov 95 . | . # | 5074.49 | . + *
Fri 1 Dec 95 . | .# | 5087.13 | . + *
Mon 4 Dec 95 . | . # | 5139.52 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 5 Dec 95 . | . # | 5177.45 | . + *
Wed 6 Dec 95 . | . # | 5199.13 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Thu 7 Dec 95 . | #. | 5159.39 | . + *
Fri 8 Dec 95 . | .# | 5156.86 | . + *
Mon 11 Dec 95 . | #. | 5184.32 | .+ *
Tue 12 Dec 95 . | # | 5174.92 | .+ *
Wed 13 Dec 95 . | .# | 5216.47 | .+ *
Thu 14 Dec 95 . | #. | 5182.15 | .+ *
Fri 15 Dec 95 . | # | 5176.73 | + *
Mon 18 Dec 95 # I . | 5075.21* |+.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tue 19 Dec 95 . I .# | 5109.89 | + *
Wed 20 Dec 95 . | .# | 5059.32 |~+~~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thu 21 Dec 95 . | . # | 5096.53 | + *
Fri 22 Dec 95 . | . # | 5097.97 | .+ *
Tue 26 Dec 95 . | . # | 5110.26 | . + *
Wed 27 Dec 95 . | .# | 5105.92 | . + *
Thu 28 Dec 95 . | .# | 5095.80 | . + *
Fri 29 Dec 95 . | . # | 5117.12 | . + *
Tue 2 Jan 96 . | . # | 5177.45 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 3 Jan 96 . | . # | 5194.07 | . + *
Thu 4 Jan 96 . | # | 5173.84 | . + *
Fri 5 Jan 96 . | # | 5181.43 | . + *
Mon 8 Jan 96 . | . # | 5197.68 | . + *
Tue 9 Jan 96 . | #. | 5130.13 | . + *
Wed 10 Jan 96 . #I . | 5032.94 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thu 11 Jan 96 . | .# | 5065.10 | + *
Fri 12 Jan 96 . I #. | 5061.12 | + *
Mon 15 Jan 96 . I #. | 5043.78 |+. *
Tue 16 Jan 96 . | . # | 5088.22 | + *
Wed 17 Jan 96 . | # | 5066.90 | .+ *
Thu 18 Jan 96 . | .# | 5124.35 | .+ *
Fri 19 Jan 96 . | . # | 5184.68 | .+ *
Fri 19 Jan 96 . | . # | 5184.68 |~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Mon 22 Jan 96 . | . # | 5219.36 | . + *
Tue 23 Jan 96 . | .# | 5192.27 | . + *
Wed 24 Jan 96 . | . # | 5242.84 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Thu 25 Jan 96 . | # | 5216.83 | . + *
Fri 26 Jan 96 . | . # | 5271.75 | . + *
Mon 29 Jan 96 . | . # | 5304.98 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 30 Jan 96 . | . # | 5381.21 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 31 Jan 96 . | . # | 5395.30 | . + *
Thu 1 Feb 96 . | . # | 5405.06 | . + *
Fri 2 Feb 96 . | .# | 5373.99 | . + *
Mon 5 Feb 96 . | . # | 5407.59 | . + *
Tue 6 Feb 96 . | . # | 5459.61 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 7 Feb 96 . | . # | 5492.12 | . + *
Thu 8 Feb 96 . | . # | 5539.45 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Fri 9 Feb 96 . | .# | 5541.62 | . + *
Mon 12 Feb 96 . | . # | 5600.15 |~.~~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 13 Feb 96 . | .# | 5601.23 | . + *
Wed 14 Feb 96 . | .# | 5579.55 | . + *
Thu 15 Feb 96 . | .# | 5551.37 | . + *
Fri 16 Feb 96 . | # | 5503.32 |~.*+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tue 20 Feb 96 . & . | 5458.53 *~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wed 21 Feb 96 . | . # | 5515.97 | .+ *
Thu 22 Feb 96 . | . # | 5608.46 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Fri 23 Feb 96 . | .# | 5630.49 | . + *
Mon 26 Feb 96 . |# . | 5565.10 | . + *
Tue 27 Feb 96 . I# . | 5549.21 | . + *
Wed 28 Feb 96 . I .# | 5506.21 |~*+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thu 29 Feb 96 . I #. | 5485.62 |~+~*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fri 1 Mar 96 . I .# | 5536.56 | + *
Mon 4 Mar 96 . | . # | 5600.15 | .+ *
Tue 5 Mar 96 . | . # | 5642.42 |~.~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Wed 6 Mar 96 . | .# | 5629.77 | . + *
Thu 7 Mar 96 . | .# | 5641.69 | . + *
Fri 8 Mar 96 # . I . {| 5470.45 |~+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mon 11 Mar 96 . I #. ]| 5581.00 | + *
Tue 12 Mar 96 . I# . [| 5583.89 |+. *
Wed 13 Mar 96 . I .# ]| 5568.72 |+. *
Thu 14 Mar 96 . I .# | 5586.06 |+. *
Fri 15 Mar 96 . I #. | 5584.97 | + *
Mon 18 Mar 96 . | . # }| 5683.60 |~.+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
Tue 19 Mar 96 . | .# | 5669.51 | . + *
Wed 20 Mar 96 . | .# | 5655.42 | . + *
Thu 21 Mar 96 . | # | 5626.88 | . + *
Fri 22 Mar 96 . | .# | 5636.64 | . + *
Mon 25 Mar 96 . | .# | 5643.86 | .+ *
Tue 26 Mar 96 . | .# | 5670.60 | .+ *
Wed 27 Mar 96 . | .# | 5626.88 | .+ *
Thu 28 Mar 96 . | # | 5630.85 | .+ *
=====================================================================
[, ] = 4% exponential change unconfirmed by 10% exponential (not a signal).
@ = market overbought or oversold. I or & (on baseline) = 10% exponential SELL.