For a good debunking have a look at "A Random Walk
Down Wall Street" by Burton Malkiel.
Of course, the efficient market hypothesis propounded in this book is as much a superstition as TA is. Real markets are always oscillating above and below equilibrium--without ever quite reaching it. If that weren't so, then people like George Soros and Warren Buffett would never be able to make the returns they do consistently (too much so for luck). Malkiel would just say they increase their risk, but can anyone be that lucky? To see the shifting relation between fundamentals and valuation, I'd suggest Soros' books.
Fundamentals do not give their values. Markets are always changing their mind about what they are worth, and sometimes disregard them altogether. Efficient market hypothesis does not take this into account.
That is not to say that TA gives you any insight into this. I've seen enough people, though, that are too "lucky" for me to dismiss TA altogether. I think it takes a talent for creative synthesis of lots of simultaneous factors, just following the rules will fail. Just like you couldn't reduce the style and performance of a great athlete or artists into a few simple rules.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
