Which exactly proof are you talking about? I briefly looked at the paper (I&#x27;ve seen it before, but it&#x27;s been quite a while...), but it seems that they pretty much use a previously known approach, and the only proof in it is simply &quot;replicated for convenience of the reader&quot;. Also, this would certainly be neither the first nor the last paper that ignores transaction costs, and their omission does not really invalidate the argument (even if you cannot profitably trade on an anomaly, why is it there in the first place?), so I don&#x27;t think you can accuse them of bullshit just based on that.<p>Non-stationarity is a problem though. Still, you need a bit more to call complete bullshit on this imo -- e.g. say something like &quot;after switching to a different bootstrap method that works in presence of stochastic volatility the result suddenly disappears&quot;. Perhaps that is what you do in your paper :) I should take a look.<p>All that being said, not many people believe in technical indicators working in equities these days, or anywhere really (FX was a bit of a holdout -- not sure if it still is?), so perhaps science has kinda sorted itself out in this case :) I&#x27;ve seen far worse cases of snooping and non-replicability though, and some are still going strong.