Everything the video states as fact, chased to a source. The video’s central claim, that ninety nine indicators is a professional minimum and the hundredth is a safety measure, is an argument made to expose a habit rather than a figure taken from anywhere, and it is listed at the bottom under Claims with no source rather than dressed up as one.
Every indicator the video lists is a real, published tool with a named author and a definition. Where the video says what one of them measures, that is what its author defined it to measure.
| Tool | Author | First published | What it measures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relative Strength Index | J. Welles Wilder Jr. | New Concepts in Technical Trading Systems, Trend Research, 1978 | The ratio of average up closes to average down closes over a lookback, scaled 0 to 100 |
| Average True Range | J. Welles Wilder Jr. | Same volume, 1978 | Average of the true range, which is the greatest of high minus low, high minus previous close, and previous close minus low |
| Average Directional Index and Directional Movement | J. Welles Wilder Jr. | Same volume, 1978 | Trend strength, without direction |
| Parabolic SAR | J. Welles Wilder Jr. | Same volume, 1978 | A trailing stop and reverse level |
| Moving Average Convergence Divergence | Gerald Appel | 1970s | The distance between a fast and a slow exponential moving average, against a signal line |
| Stochastic Oscillator | George C. Lane | 1950s | Where the close sits inside the high to low range of a lookback |
| Williams %R | Larry Williams | not separately dated | Where the close sits below the highest high of a lookback, scaled 0 to −100 |
| Commodity Channel Index | Donald Lambert | Commodities magazine, October 1980 | How far price sits from its own statistical mean, in mean deviations |
| Bollinger Bands | John Bollinger | Early 1980s | A moving average with bands set a number of standard deviations away, so the width adapts to volatility |
Sources: Wilder’s 1978 volume is catalogued at the Internet Archive and in Google Books; Gerald Appel’s authorship of MACD is recorded by the CMT Association; John Bollinger’s development of the bands in the early 1980s, and the use of standard deviation to make the bands adaptive, is recorded at Bollinger Bands and John Bollinger; the October 1980 Commodities publication of the Commodity Channel Index and George Lane’s 1950s Stochastic are recorded at CSI’s indicator reference.
The video says stochastic and Williams percent range can point to similar conditions. They are the same calculation with the reference end of the range swapped and the result scaled by −100, so plotted together one is the other inverted:
%K = (Close − Lowest Low) / (Highest High − Lowest Low) × 100
%R = (Highest High − Close) / (Highest High − Lowest Low) × −100
StockCharts states the relationship directly: the Fast Stochastic Oscillator and Williams %R “produce the exact same lines, but with different scaling”, %R correcting for the inversion by multiplying by −100.
Source: Williams %R, StockCharts ChartSchool.
Both are computed only from the closing price series: RSI from the average of up closes against down closes, MACD from the difference between two exponential moving averages of the close. Neither reads any input the other cannot see, which is the basis for the video’s point that several momentum tools can repeat one message. Both definitions are in the author sources above.
The video’s claim that several indicators may be “repeating the same message with different costumes” follows from the definitions rather than from any study: RSI, stochastic, MACD, CCI and rate of change are each a function of the same OHLC series, so none of them can introduce information the price series does not already contain. That is a statement about what the formulas take as input, and the inputs are given in the author sources above.
The video says these two may not be totally different life forms. Both are moving averages of the same closes over lookbacks differing by one bar, so their outputs differ only by the weight given to a single additional observation. This follows from the definition of a moving average rather than from a source.
The video’s comparison to aviation and hospitals is accurate.
Aircraft. Transport category aeroplanes are certificated against 14 CFR § 25.1309, which requires that systems be designed so that no single failure prevents continued safe flight and landing, and the FAA’s Advisory Circular AC 25.1309-1B sets out the accepted means of showing it. Fly-by-wire transport aircraft commonly carry triple redundancy across computing, electrical power, hydraulic power and communication.
Sources: 14 CFR § 25.1309, eCFR, AC 25.1309-1B, FAA.
Hospitals. Backup generation is not optional. NFPA 99, the Health Care Facilities Code, and NFPA 110, the Standard for Emergency and Standby Power Systems, together require a hospital’s Essential Electrical System to be supplied by emergency power, with hospitals typically classified Level 1, Type 10, meaning acceptable power to critical loads within ten seconds of a utility failure.
Sources: NFPA 99 and NFPA 110 hospital generator requirements, NFPA 110 requirements for healthcare facilities.
The video’s own point is that this comparison is where the analogy breaks: a backup generator is an independent source of power, whereas a second momentum oscillator is another reading of the same price series.
These are the video’s argument, not findings, and none of them is presented here as fact.
The material claim the video makes in its own voice, and the only one it asks the viewer to act on, is that indicators are useful when they answer different questions, and become misleading when several of them answer the same question and the repetition is mistaken for independent evidence. That follows from the definitions above rather than from a study, and the video says so.