F(X)=alphaT(X)+betaEMH(X)+GammaBF(X)+epsilon

So value of the asset is influenced by the three approaches. As some investors use each of them for their decisions, it could be sound even if BF and EMH cannot be true at the same time, as they are used at the same time by different investors.

You cannot connect all the three. Since all of them are based different assumptions and conceptual frameworks.

May I suggest you to utilize also probability tools?Bayes and Markowitz e.g.?

I propose you another conceptual hint:: we may study the investment behavior via technical analysis, but, at the end of the game, the actual behavior is only a "probable" one!

Sankaran Muniandy

Why not? In valuation it is quite common to mix valuation methods. Why not here? Basically investors use different methods, why not acknowledge this as a fact and use-it as the base assumption?

Thanks all for your interesting answers.

I want to be documented that my empirical results which confirm the abnormal returns (of technical analysis tools - moving averages) agree with behavioral finance (any kind of behavioral issues).How can I achieve these with references from literature (journals)?

Which kind of behavioral analysis can I use?

Have a look at the Adaptive Markets Hypothesis (Lo 2004) and how it is tested in different markets. Its an alternative to the EMH, where modern financial economics can coexist alongside behavioral models in an intellectually consistent manner.

For example Todea (2009) investigates in his paper "Adaptive Markets Hypothesis: evidence from Asia-Pacific financial markets" the profitability of the moving average strategy on 6 Asian capital markets considering the episodic character of linear and/or nonlinear dependencies. The methodology applied there should be of help to you. 

I hope this is of help to you!