Again, this is natural (biological/chemical/physical) not artificial like the markets.
I expect that's exactly what Charles means by "anecdotal evidence with heavy selection bias" or whatever he said.
That's a straw man argument, and it's not applicable here.
Nobody said that.
Those things measure what they measure and display them.
Fib levels don't "measure" anything. They calculate something artificially, according to the so-called "golden ratio". Hopeless.
All the indepedent US university studies I've been shown on Fib levels have failed to find any more significance for them than for random lines, TWB, so I strongly disagree with you. This is well known. Just a myth of "retail traders", I'm afraid, and reinforced by people selling EA's/books/courses/info. Nothing real there at all.