UJ's Hamster Died. We're All That's Left...
https://ujrefugees.net/
You think analysing chump tells people fifteen minutes before he drops a random tweet about totally imaginary talks?
What I think is that these dips and the subsequent quick rise under Trump have proven to be fairly reliable. I think I've done it 3 times now. Easy money.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:08 pmYou think analysing chump tells people fifteen minutes before he drops a random tweet about totally imaginary talks?
Is your cognitive dissonance preventing you from reading the article?
So you're saying that people can predict lying trump tweets FIFTEEN MINUTES before they happen? Try to thinkCHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:17 pmWhat I think is that these dips and the subsequent quick rise under Trump have proven to be fairly reliable. I think I've done it 3 times now. Easy money.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:08 pmYou think analysing chump tells people fifteen minutes before he drops a random tweet about totally imaginary talks?
Is your cognitive dissonance preventing you from reading the article?
Does that mean insider trading didn't happen? Of course not and there probably was some. I'm simply saying no one needed inside info to benefit here.
At 06:49 ET, traders placed 734 bets on WTI crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex).
there are a milion trades made each day on WTI contracts. every day. and you are pointing to 734?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:43 pmAt 06:49 ET, traders placed 734 bets on WTI crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex).
Forget how to read nazi dimwit? Tweet was at 7.04
I am pointing to a massive obvious spike FIFTEEN MINUTES before the trump tweet.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:36 pmthere are a milion trades made each day on WTI contracts. every day. and you are pointing to 734?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:43 pmAt 06:49 ET, traders placed 734 bets on WTI crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex).
Forget how to read nazi dimwit? Tweet was at 7.04
Let's see. 1 million vs 734. That would be .0007 or .07% of the days trading. Wow, what a massive tremendous super duper spike. OMG. What you need to be looking for is the reason why there weren't even more trades going. How are they ever going to get a million trades with only 734 going on?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:46 pmI am pointing to a massive obvious spike FIFTEEN MINUTES before the trump tweet.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:36 pmthere are a milion trades made each day on WTI contracts. every day. and you are pointing to 734?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:43 pmAt 06:49 ET, traders placed 734 bets on WTI crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex).
Forget how to read nazi dimwit? Tweet was at 7.04
Can you comprehend what I just said? Seriously, try to knuckle down and answer this very simple question - what did I just say?
Ok, your apparent inability to comprehend what I said means we can't really discuss this. Simple question, what did I say. If you can't answer this I'm not going to bother.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:56 pmLet's see. 1 million vs 734. That would be .0007 or .07% of the days trading. Wow, what a massive tremendous super duper spike. OMG. What you need to be looking for is the reason why there weren't even more trades going. How are they ever going to get a million trades with only 734 going on?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:46 pmI am pointing to a massive obvious spike FIFTEEN MINUTES before the trump tweet.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:36 pmthere are a milion trades made each day on WTI contracts. every day. and you are pointing to 734?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:43 pmAt 06:49 ET, traders placed 734 bets on WTI crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex).
Forget how to read nazi dimwit? Tweet was at 7.04
Can you comprehend what I just said? Seriously, try to knuckle down and answer this very simple question - what did I just say?
JFC. No, what I'm saying is that these harsh dips in the market followed by a nice rise have been fairly consistent and predictable under Trump. It's happened several times over the past year or so.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:41 pmSo you're saying that people can predict lying trump tweets FIFTEEN MINUTES before they happen? Try to thinkCHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:17 pmWhat I think is that these dips and the subsequent quick rise under Trump have proven to be fairly reliable. I think I've done it 3 times now. Easy money.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:08 pmYou think analysing chump tells people fifteen minutes before he drops a random tweet about totally imaginary talks?
Is your cognitive dissonance preventing you from reading the article?
Does that mean insider trading didn't happen? Of course not and there probably was some. I'm simply saying no one needed inside info to benefit here.
Reading comprehension isn’t their forte, deflection, whining, creating worthless comparisons they have down patAnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:08 pmYou think analysing chump tells people fifteen minutes before he drops a random tweet about totally imaginary talks?
Is your cognitive dissonance preventing you from reading the article?
you insinuated that traders buying 734 contracts at some point during the day, in your example that happened to be 15 minutes before a tweet, represents a "massive obvious spke". When in fact 734 contracts represents 0.007% of the trading on a typical day. It just so happens that 734 contracts would actually represent typical trading seen during a 1 minute time frame on a typical 1 million contract trading day. Now try to read all of that and see if you can understand it. 1 minute / (24 hours x 60 min/hr) = 0.007% of the day. Or another way to look at it would be 1,000,000 contracts /(24 hrs x 60 min/hr) = 694 contracts. Just try to calm down for a second and think through that.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 11:21 pmOk, your apparent inability to comprehend what I said means we can't really discuss this. Simple question, what did I say. If you can't answer this I'm not going to bother.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:56 pmLet's see. 1 million vs 734. That would be .0007 or .07% of the days trading. Wow, what a massive tremendous super duper spike. OMG. What you need to be looking for is the reason why there weren't even more trades going. How are they ever going to get a million trades with only 734 going on?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:46 pmI am pointing to a massive obvious spike FIFTEEN MINUTES before the trump tweet.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:36 pmthere are a milion trades made each day on WTI contracts. every day. and you are pointing to 734?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:43 pmAt 06:49 ET, traders placed 734 bets on WTI crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex).
Forget how to read nazi dimwit? Tweet was at 7.04
Can you comprehend what I just said? Seriously, try to knuckle down and answer this very simple question - what did I just say?
I rest my caseAnimal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 12:58 pmyou insinuated that traders buying 734 contracts at some point during the day, in your example that happened to be 15 minutes before a tweet, represents a "massive obvious spke". When in fact 734 contracts represents 0.007% of the trading on a typical day. It just so happens that 734 contracts would actually represent typical trading seen during a 1 minute time frame on a typical 1 million contract trading day. Now try to read all of that and see if you can understand it. 1 minute / (24 hours x 60 min/hr) = 0.007% of the day. Or another way to look at it would be 1,000,000 contracts /(24 hrs x 60 min/hr) = 694 contracts. Just try to calm down for a second and think through that.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 11:21 pmOk, your apparent inability to comprehend what I said means we can't really discuss this. Simple question, what did I say. If you can't answer this I'm not going to bother.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:56 pmLet's see. 1 million vs 734. That would be .0007 or .07% of the days trading. Wow, what a massive tremendous super duper spike. OMG. What you need to be looking for is the reason why there weren't even more trades going. How are they ever going to get a million trades with only 734 going on?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:46 pmI am pointing to a massive obvious spike FIFTEEN MINUTES before the trump tweet.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:36 pmthere are a milion trades made each day on WTI contracts. every day. and you are pointing to 734?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:43 pm
At 06:49 ET, traders placed 734 bets on WTI crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex).
Forget how to read nazi dimwit? Tweet was at 7.04
Can you comprehend what I just said? Seriously, try to knuckle down and answer this very simple question - what did I just say?
Keep reading dimwit, it's not a particularly long article and if you'd got a little further through it you'd see there's a helpful chart showing the absolutely undeniable spike just before the chump tweet. Can you acknowledge seeing the chart? Can you admit what the chart shows?Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 12:58 pmyou insinuated that traders buying 734 contracts at some point during the day, in your example that happened to be 15 minutes before a tweet, represents a "massive obvious spke". When in fact 734 contracts represents 0.007% of the trading on a typical day. It just so happens that 734 contracts would actually represent typical trading seen during a 1 minute time frame on a typical 1 million contract trading day. Now try to read all of that and see if you can understand it. 1 minute / (24 hours x 60 min/hr) = 0.007% of the day. Or another way to look at it would be 1,000,000 contracts /(24 hrs x 60 min/hr) = 694 contracts. Just try to calm down for a second and think through that.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 11:21 pmOk, your apparent inability to comprehend what I said means we can't really discuss this. Simple question, what did I say. If you can't answer this I'm not going to bother.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:56 pmLet's see. 1 million vs 734. That would be .0007 or .07% of the days trading. Wow, what a massive tremendous super duper spike. OMG. What you need to be looking for is the reason why there weren't even more trades going. How are they ever going to get a million trades with only 734 going on?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:46 pmI am pointing to a massive obvious spike FIFTEEN MINUTES before the trump tweet.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:36 pmthere are a milion trades made each day on WTI contracts. every day. and you are pointing to 734?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 9:43 pm
At 06:49 ET, traders placed 734 bets on WTI crude oil contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange (Nymex).
Forget how to read nazi dimwit? Tweet was at 7.04
Can you comprehend what I just said? Seriously, try to knuckle down and answer this very simple question - what did I just say?
i see the chart. i see exactly where you are concocting this hair brained scheme you think took place. But the numbers that I presented that you completely ignore tell the actual facts on the matter. Just because someone cherry picked a snapshot that you think tells a huge story about an astronomical spike, what they actually showed you was a snippet of a day of trading that is not unusual except for the fact that it is an extremely volatile time to be trading crude oil futures. Just use the brain you study momentary chart illusions and think about what it takes to trade a futures contract. There has to be a buyer and seller on both sides of the transaction. So if there was a sudden huge monsterous gigantic spike in people selling contracts, then their ingenious scheme would only work if there were also people willing to buy those same contracts at that exact same time. Now, if Trump called them 15 minutes before his tweet and told them to rush to their computers to sell massive gigantic amounts of oil contracts, who was it on the phone with the same number of people telling them to rush to their computers and buy them?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 11:32 pmKeep reading dimwit, it's not a particularly long article and if you'd got a little further through it you'd see there's a helpful chart showing the absolutely undeniable spike just before the chump tweet. Can you acknowledge seeing the chart? Can you admit what the chart shows?Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 12:58 pmyou insinuated that traders buying 734 contracts at some point during the day, in your example that happened to be 15 minutes before a tweet, represents a "massive obvious spke". When in fact 734 contracts represents 0.007% of the trading on a typical day. It just so happens that 734 contracts would actually represent typical trading seen during a 1 minute time frame on a typical 1 million contract trading day. Now try to read all of that and see if you can understand it. 1 minute / (24 hours x 60 min/hr) = 0.007% of the day. Or another way to look at it would be 1,000,000 contracts /(24 hrs x 60 min/hr) = 694 contracts. Just try to calm down for a second and think through that.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 11:21 pmOk, your apparent inability to comprehend what I said means we can't really discuss this. Simple question, what did I say. If you can't answer this I'm not going to bother.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:56 pmLet's see. 1 million vs 734. That would be .0007 or .07% of the days trading. Wow, what a massive tremendous super duper spike. OMG. What you need to be looking for is the reason why there weren't even more trades going. How are they ever going to get a million trades with only 734 going on?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:46 pmI am pointing to a massive obvious spike FIFTEEN MINUTES before the trump tweet.
Can you comprehend what I just said? Seriously, try to knuckle down and answer this very simple question - what did I just say?
You are attempting to pretend the large spikes you can literally see on the chart aren't there?Animal wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 12:45 pmi see the chart. i see exactly where you are concocting this hair brained scheme you think took place. But the numbers that I presented that you completely ignore tell the actual facts on the matter. Just because someone cherry picked a snapshot that you think tells a huge story about an astronomical spike, what they actually showed you was a snippet of a day of trading that is not unusual except for the fact that it is an extremely volatile time to be trading crude oil futures. Just use the brain you study momentary chart illusions and think about what it takes to trade a futures contract. There has to be a buyer and seller on both sides of the transaction. So if there was a sudden huge monsterous gigantic spike in people selling contracts, then their ingenious scheme would only work if there were also people willing to buy those same contracts at that exact same time. Now, if Trump called them 15 minutes before his tweet and told them to rush to their computers to sell massive gigantic amounts of oil contracts, who was it on the phone with the same number of people telling them to rush to their computers and buy them?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 11:32 pmKeep reading dimwit, it's not a particularly long article and if you'd got a little further through it you'd see there's a helpful chart showing the absolutely undeniable spike just before the chump tweet. Can you acknowledge seeing the chart? Can you admit what the chart shows?Animal wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2026 12:58 pmyou insinuated that traders buying 734 contracts at some point during the day, in your example that happened to be 15 minutes before a tweet, represents a "massive obvious spke". When in fact 734 contracts represents 0.007% of the trading on a typical day. It just so happens that 734 contracts would actually represent typical trading seen during a 1 minute time frame on a typical 1 million contract trading day. Now try to read all of that and see if you can understand it. 1 minute / (24 hours x 60 min/hr) = 0.007% of the day. Or another way to look at it would be 1,000,000 contracts /(24 hrs x 60 min/hr) = 694 contracts. Just try to calm down for a second and think through that.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 11:21 pmOk, your apparent inability to comprehend what I said means we can't really discuss this. Simple question, what did I say. If you can't answer this I'm not going to bother.Animal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:56 pmLet's see. 1 million vs 734. That would be .0007 or .07% of the days trading. Wow, what a massive tremendous super duper spike. OMG. What you need to be looking for is the reason why there weren't even more trades going. How are they ever going to get a million trades with only 734 going on?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 10:46 pm
I am pointing to a massive obvious spike FIFTEEN MINUTES before the trump tweet.
Can you comprehend what I just said? Seriously, try to knuckle down and answer this very simple question - what did I just say?
i am attempting to open your mind to the possibility that you have stumbled upon an extremely miniscule piece of data from a much much larger data set and given only a snippet to view because it lends itself to the conspiracy theory that you want to believe. I'm sure an ant looks huge under an electron microscope. but that doesn't prove that ants are huge. it only proves that you are a moron.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 3:16 pm You are attempting to pretend the large spikes you can literally see on the chart aren't there?
No, you are attempting to pretend you cannot see what the data clearly shows. There is no argument you can make that changes the fact that the data shows that large spike in trading in the 15 minutes before chump tweeted a major market disruption. It is literally there in a picture for you. Can you comprehend the even larger spike just after the tweet or does that not exist either?Animal wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 4:09 pmi am attempting to open your mind to the possibility that you have stumbled upon an extremely miniscule piece of data from a much much larger data set and given only a snippet to view because it lends itself to the conspiracy theory that you want to believe. I'm sure an ant looks huge under an electron microscope. but that doesn't prove that ants are huge. it only proves that you are a moron.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 3:16 pm You are attempting to pretend the large spikes you can literally see on the chart aren't there?
Cherry-Picking Data / Selective TimeframesAnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 8:51 pmNo, you are attempting to pretend you cannot see what the data clearly shows. There is no argument you can make that changes the fact that the data shows that large spike in trading in the 15 minutes before chump tweeted a major market disruption. It is literally there in a picture for you. Can you comprehend the even larger spike just after the tweet or does that not exist either?Animal wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 4:09 pmi am attempting to open your mind to the possibility that you have stumbled upon an extremely miniscule piece of data from a much much larger data set and given only a snippet to view because it lends itself to the conspiracy theory that you want to believe. I'm sure an ant looks huge under an electron microscope. but that doesn't prove that ants are huge. it only proves that you are a moron.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 3:16 pm You are attempting to pretend the large spikes you can literally see on the chart aren't there?
They show Brent and wti crude over the relevant timeframe. If you want to pretend not to see the giant spikes do feel free to show whatever timeframe you like you delusional dimwit.Animal wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 9:23 pmCherry-Picking Data / Selective TimeframesAnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 8:51 pmNo, you are attempting to pretend you cannot see what the data clearly shows. There is no argument you can make that changes the fact that the data shows that large spike in trading in the 15 minutes before chump tweeted a major market disruption. It is literally there in a picture for you. Can you comprehend the even larger spike just after the tweet or does that not exist either?Animal wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 4:09 pmi am attempting to open your mind to the possibility that you have stumbled upon an extremely miniscule piece of data from a much much larger data set and given only a snippet to view because it lends itself to the conspiracy theory that you want to believe. I'm sure an ant looks huge under an electron microscope. but that doesn't prove that ants are huge. it only proves that you are a moron.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 3:16 pm You are attempting to pretend the large spikes you can literally see on the chart aren't there?
Then there’s cherry-picking: Showing a subset of data that supports a certain narrative, while leaving out other necessary contextual data. Consider this line graph of quarterly revenue:
Is this the complete relevant period? Have any relevant periods been omitted?
Ask yourself, AH. Why didn't they show an entire day of trading oil contracts? Why did they isolate the graph down to such a short time frame and then give no context to what a normal day would look like? the answer is that they are attempting to manipulate weak minds, like yours. I have even given you the answer to the test and you have been so completely manipulated that you can't see it.