Regardless, your query has been addressed earlier above the place you picked it, that's for those who read it from the beginning since there are ATHs of the same year before and after the one I referred to, which was why I used "before the subsequent ones" as seen in my quote below.
It doesn't matter how many times you proofread them, if the idea is faulty it is what it is.
The ATH was already broken, even if you mentioned it so why would the previous ATH still matter in this whole thing, if you take it as an example of how the price reacts after it then simply go one further ATH back and see that is doesn't resemble this cycle at all, so what's the point fixating on it when it's no longer the ATH, there is no resemblance to the previous situation where we had two consecutive ATH broken, sooo ...they are just random lines that currently don't mean a thing as you can see from the price!
Your words:
So if it goes up or down from those lines the price might go up or down and in case it doesn't cross the lines the price will keep between those levels, right, unless it will go above or below one! Now you see the problem with your "prediction?
For the first part, it was irrelevant whether the ATH was broken or not since I defined it well that it was when the ATH was still that of the 23rd of June, which was also the peak of the month, and I made it known that it wasn't the year's ATH because I don't have business with the ATH after June in my upper barrier consideration. It's the scope of my analysis, what else could a writer do in this regard? Anyone could define their writeup as they like, it's the reader that should try to understand, not try to force the writer to write it in their own way.
And for the second part, haven't you heard about fake and false breakouts? That's what happened, and it's even evident by the market not having a single daily close above June's ATH, they are just fake. The phenomenon is simple and common in the market, I wonder why it's a big deal for you. While the reason is that more selling interests are at that level ($31450) than the will of the buyers. Therefore, it doesn't matter if a market breaks a level, what matters is whether or not it sustains it. Did it sustain it? No.
Lastly, I don't see any problem with my prediction, Bitcoin has a long-term bullish trend but was channelling with no particular short-term trend when I made this post. The buyers and sellers will continue to play their games in their minor ways within the larger scope of the overall bullish trend. However, a successful breach of $31450 by the buyers will activate the continuation of the overall bullish trend, while a breach of $29400 activates a continued bearish correction that might lead to a major bearish reversal if it persists.