Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 39. (Read 647170 times)

In the following

Armstrong Interview Paris, France


Martin Armstrong makes the ultimate claim in the first sentence of the video:

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

The following predictions made by Martin Armstrong are major in a sense that they are aligned with the fundamental cycles of his models. They are clear enough to be verifiable. Their due dates are in the past, so checking the facts is easy.


China new Financial Capitol of the World by 2015.75
On October 15, 2010 Armstrong incorrectly predicted that China would become the new Financial Capitol of the World by 2015. See Show Me the Money on page 6

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

This thread is no longer readable or worth visiting because a few delusional posters keep posting huge posts full of accusations and falsehoods in an attempt to smear Martin Armstrong and people who follow him.  

They expect people to read through the mountains of diatribe and take time out of their busy day to dispute convoluted arguments which they falsely put forward as facts.  Why would anyone bother doing this?  

This all stems from their inability to understand how to read the Terms of Use of Armstrong's Socrates service.   Heading the list is Anonymous Coder who has accused me of being Martin Armstrong in disguise.  Folks -- when someone does that -- they have lost all touch with reality.  And it shows.

Socrates generates signals labeled "Reversal" in hindsight.

In the scope of these critical writings, we call trading signals generated in hindsight "Revision Signals", because Martin Armstrong uses these special signals exclusively to create a revision of the truth, by re-writing the history of a situation that has already occurred. We also use the term here to avoid confusion with the term "Reversal", the term that Martin Armstrong uses for Revision Signals nevertheless. To make it clear from the start, these signals are a fraud.

What a reversal normally is, is defined in Martin Armstrong's documentation. Please see the links at the end of this page.

In short, it is a price value, that if the market crosses it, acts as a buy or sell signal. Sets of four Reversal values are generated at market highs and lows for future use. Therefore, these Reversals are planned, and we are using the term "planned Reversal" at times to make this distinction between them and Revision Signals.

Socrates generates Revision Signals in various scenarios, e.g. where a planned Reversal was elected and has already failed, meaning the market price after its election has moved in the opposite direction, and would have already created a trading loss if traded.

Unfortunately, these Revision Signals are also labeled "Reversal" in the Socrates reports, and Socrates uses (counts) them in the reports to enhance the track record of the system. As if they had been generated as planned Reversals which is not true.

A rather critical problem with Revision Signals is that the time that passes after planned Reversal failure until a Revision Signal is generated varies. This has the effect that a Revision Signal may lose whatever utility it may have had to exit a losing trade, losing due to Reversal failure, because it is too late.

Since Revision Signals are created in multiple different scenarios, these scenarios are documented in detail on separate pages.

However, an important feature of a Revision Signal is that it is a fraud because it tricks the user or the person analyzing the system into believing that the system predicted a price movement where in fact the signal is generated after the price movement had already occurred. This fraud is facilitated by the practice of using the same term "Reversal" for entirely different things, creating confusion.

This confusion has lead to situations where Martin Armstrong's affiliates encouraged users to upgrade their Socrates subscription to the most expensive "Pro" level to view more detail about the reversals, and / or learn more about the system using forecast arrays, rather than admitting that the signals were generated in hindsight.


How to Use the Reversal System


It is clear from the following statement in the instructions linked to above that Reversals must be created in advance:

"If you are actively trading a particular market, we suggest that you write down the Reversals ... from our reports in a vertical format."

Examples of Revision Signals:

Quarterly Superposition Event in Gold 2015

Weekly Superposition Event in the DOW October 2018


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

While Martin Armstrong's deliberate manipulation of past events has been documented here before, the following variant deserves the space for an individual article. He is increasingly using his Socrates private blog to evade scrutiny, and it was only a matter of time until someone discovered that he manipulates the history of his posts:



Is it a surprise to anyone at all that he disabled cut and paste of the text in the blog pages? Judge it for yourselves why he is doing this!

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

The Martin Armstrong Reversal System at times generates special Reversals that are called "Superposition Events". We prefer to explain these by example because their generation is confusing and complicated.


In physics, the superposition principle states that if there are two or more stimuli at a given point in time, the response will be the result of adding all the responses.


We want to emphasize: "at a given point in time".

Martin Armstrong has been selling Gold Reports for several years. These reports cover an entire year and are usually published in two parts, with updated Reversal values. He also sells Year End Reports. For the 2015 Gold report, recording the statistics of the reversals was amazing. Why did it work so well then? Because it was a year's worth of steady declines. Then the market turned. The system failed to predict the turn and Martin Armstrong also missed the bounce, still writing bearish messages in the public blog while the price was already rising. From the trading perspective, this was devastating. After the fact, months later Martin Armstrong fraudulently misrepresents the performance of the system, being right all along because it had generated a long term Quarterly Bullish Reversal with a shorter time Quarterly Bearish Reversal, a "Superposition Event". This is a real Martin Armstrong model case.

Here is the time line:

Gold Report 2015 Update page 14 and below:

When we look at gold in dollars, we can see that the recent collapse into the week of July 20 that fell to 1072 shook the markets but supported the Uptrend Line from 2006. A closing for 2015 below 1184 will keep gold in a bearish position for 2016, warning that the final low may not come until the second Benchmark Cycle convergence. The monthly level oscillators are also still in a bearish position.


Year End Report 2015:

When we look at gold going into year-2015, we see absolute critical support at
1044. A year-end closing g beneath this level will signal new lows and they can
be quite dramatic. From a technical perspective, the two key targets will be
1026 and 601. Important resistance during 2016 will begin at 1179 with key
resistance forming at 1310. Therefore, even a year-end closing for 2015 below
1179 will keep gold in a bearish position.
Additionally, we have a Quarterly Bearish Reversal at 1112. Therefore, a yearend
closing below this level should also warn of a drop becomes possible at
least to test the 875 to 904 former high of 1980. A monthly closing beneath 904
would also point to a drop way down to the 680 area.


Gold elected the Quarterly Bearish Reversal, which is a sell signal.

Martin Armstrong is still bearish until the end of January when gold turned up. His hope is that gold after the bounce will make a fresh low on the 2nd benchmark target fulfilling his prediction in the report:

Gold: The Bounce


Posted Jan 29, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
Naturally, the gold promoters are out in full force. The problem with their theories has always been that they are dead wrong. The REAL BULL MARKET will see the metals rise with equities. Right now, the promoters are focused on the stock market and yell, "Buy gold!" because a depression is here. We need to see a weekly closing above the 1143 level to raise any hope of a temporary low. Without that, we have a turning point in February that can be a high moving into the next benchmark target. A closing for January below the 1103 level will warn that there is inherent weakness still lingering within this market. Next month, watch the 1097 level for that is key support. Break that, and we are looking into a low into the second benchmark.

Still he does not mention the Quarterly Bullish Reversal, the Superposition Event.

But later, amazing things happened:

Gold Report 2016 Part 1 Targeting the Reaction High and Final Low
Publish date: March 1, 2016

Another anomaly was that at the end of 2015, we elected the Quarterly Bearish
Reversal at 1112 closing at 1060.20. At the same time, that low generated a
minor Quarterly Bullish Reversal at 993. So we generated a long-term sell signal,
but a short-term buy signal. The next two Quarterly Bullish generated were at
1308 and 1347. That meant we should first rally typically for 2 to 3 months in a
reaction and if they failed to be elected by the close of March, then the longterm
trend should resume to retest support.

When he writes At the same time, he is not telling the truth.

Private Blog:

Gold Elects Monthly Bullish at $1207 On its Way to $1309

Tuesday, March 1, 2016
...
Our Quarter level of the model generated a Bullish Reversal at the end of the year reversing its short positions and going long. This also signaled that gold would rally from the $1060 area and should test the next Bullish Reversal at the $1347 level.
...


So here we have it the second time. Martin Armstrong claims that his model reversed its Gold trade at the end of the year from short to long, months before publishing this event!

Nobody ever heard about that 993 Bullish Reversal, and about the model's reversal of its positions at the time when this information was needed. Please note that this Bullish Reversal is generated well below market price (to make it appear that it is elected at the same time when it is generated). The number 993 is likely just made up. It is NOT a reversal in a sense that is generated prior for you to examine. And it is not included in the reports which comes in installments with videos, covering a year (not ending at end of year but going well into that period where we should have received that signal). That reversal was not available in any of the materials. So what are these superposition events then? They come after the fact! They are fraudulent. The system discovers that it is wrong and voila, it has an automatic excuse. Months later? Very strange! They either come out when the system discovers that the price has crossed the threshold that marks the failure of the elected reversal. Or they are generated in time but are suppressed to provide a front running opportunity for Martin Armstrong.


By now it should be clear that Martin Armstrong's use of the term "Superposition" is extremely misleading because he uses the term for an effect that is clearly time-delayed - from the perspective of the objective observer.

The signal that he sends three months later was not available at the time when he claims it was generated. So he conceals system failure, fraudulently misrepresenting the performance of the system because he creates the appearance of the system being right in hindsight.

For other types of Revision Signals, see:

Revision Signals


For a wider view of Martin Armstrong's incorrect Gold calls including this one by another observer, see:

Martin Armstrong - Gold Bear?


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.

See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

The following model case is extracted from Martin Armstrong's subscription only Private Blog, Posted Dec 7, 2019.

It documents how a financial forecast is constructed to be always true but worthless.

Here is how: We are in December 2019.

 1) If the DOW goes higher than 28,174 then it may reach 30,000 (7.1% rise).
 2) If the DOW goes higher as in 1), and if after January it declines, then the DOW made a high in January.
 3) If the DOW made a high in January as in 2) then it could decline in the 1st quarter 2021.

Obviously, the above three statements are always true. In particular, 3) is true because the definition of a date-constrained high is that before and after it, the price must be lower. The original post:

"if it exceeds the November high, then it can rally into the ECM and test the 30,000 level. We must be concerned that a high in conjunction with that model could point to a sharp correction into the 1st quarter 2012."

Notice "could".

The ECM target date for the high is 18 January (the date constraint for the high).

Martin Armstrong is quite aware of this self-fulfilling feature because he implies with great confidence that the ECM is always correct (cannot be proven false):




It is like selling 1=1 as a forecast.



Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.

See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Re-published with permission of stalemateNZ

I heard about Martin Armstrong's economic model a while ago and was skeptical, however I did not have the background or time to really look into it. However, I came across his article about predicting earthquakes at:

Climate Change - Earthquakes Caused by Complex Cycles


I am professionally a scientific researcher with a PhD in geology. My area of expertise is in tectonics and structural geology. So when I saw Martin Armstrong claiming to use his model to predict earthquakes I couldn't help but see if what he was saying was true. Below is my review on his article, I respond point-by-point to his claims:

Martin Armstrong:

I cannot confirm or deny that the cause of the 32-year cycle is the slowing of the Earth's rotation because there are other correlations that need to be addressed. I did confirm that my own research agreed that there is a 31.4-year cycle of intensity in earthquakes.

Response:

So this Bendick & Bilham (2017) paper claims that there is a cycle of 32.4 - 2 years and conclude ?Global seismic synchronization has no utility for the precise prediction (in a strict sense) of specific damaging earthquakes, but these results do imply that the probability of events is time dependent. Thus, earthquakes with a certain renewal interval are more likely to occur when similar renewal interval earthquakes have recently occurred, or at times corresponding to maxima in Earth's rotational deceleration or acceleration.?

Because the cycle is so weak, it hasn't been successfully used to predict earthquakes. Also, they do not mention the sun's activity in this paper at all, and that it is the earths rotational speed changing that is causing this cycle.

Bendick & Bilham (2017) was cited in the paper I attached (Hough 2018 ), and they conclude:

The simple tests presented in this report confirm what seismologists have long taken for granted, that there is no evidence that large earthquake rates are modulated significantly by the position of the Earth relative to either the Moon or the Sun. If there is any modulation of large earthquake occurrence, it is either well below the level that can be detected with the present catalog or gives rise to effects that are far more complex than a global clustering through either the calendar year or the lunar month. A low level of modulation would be of no practical use for earthquake prediction. The tests illustrate once again how apparent clustering and anticlustering arise commonly in random catalogs, potentially fueling enduring earthquake myths.

Martin Armstrong:

As far back as 1967, a study was published with the Earth and Planetary Science Letters which found solar activity plays a significant role in triggering earthquakes.

Response:

The study Martin Armstrong mentions also says ?the precise mechanism by which this is accomplished is less clear?. The paper does claim it as a prediction tool, but 50 years has gone by and still it hasn't been used to predict earthquakes. Also, plate tectonics wasn't generally accepted until the 1970s, which was a paradigm shift in geology, and has provided the driving mechanism for earthquakes. He says ?as far back?, as if this is well supported science, but in reality he has only managed to find one study from 1967 that suits his interpretation. I looked, there are no papers saying the sun is causing earthquakes (I admit I did not do an exhaustive literature review). However, Martin Armstrong's view is not well established, and therefore he needs to provide very good evidence before he passes it off as fact.

Martin Armstrong:

Later, in 1998 a scientist from the Beijing Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Science, found a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes. Then in 2007, Yin ZhiQiang, Ma LiHua, and Han YanBen conducted a study which produced results showing that the lengths and amplitudes of the periods have changed with time, and large variations have taken place during some periods. (Source: Chinese Science Bulletin).

Review:

First, he doesn't provide the study where they found a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes.

Second, the study (ZhiQiang et al. 2007) only talks about measuring past solar activity by analyzing tree rings. They do not make any link or conclusion about how the sun causes earthquakes/volcanoes. In addition, the way Martin Armstrong has written that paragraph is very misleading, as it implies a connection between the first (uncited) study with that of the second ZhiQiang et al. (2007) study, when even the authors made no such connection.

Martin Armstrong:

?Another recent research study carried by The Space and Science Research Center in Florida, US, showed a strong correlation between solar activity and the largest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions within the continental United States and other regions around the world. The study looked at the data of volcanic activity between (1650 ? 2009) and seismic (earthquakes) activity between (1700 ? 2009) and then the recorded data was compared with the sunspots record (solar activity).

The results of this study exposed a very strong correlation between solar activity and the largest seismic and volcanic events, within the continental US as well as globally. The correlation for volcanic activity was greater than 80% (discuss in a separate post) and for the largest earthquakes was came out with a 100% correlation with the top 7 most powerful quakes versus solar activity lows.?

Review:

No studies cited? Cannot comment without access to the studies. I would also urge anyone not to blindly accept Martin Armstrong's claims as facts without seeing the studies.

Martin Armstrong:

NASA also published a study showing that there can be lesser quakes in the 5.1 range that are shallow ground movements reflecting the strain accumulated on deeper faults, which remain locked and may be capable of producing future earthquakes in the 7.0+ magnitude range in Los Angeles.

When we ran our weather models on a correlation with California earthquakes, it revealed a cycle of drought followed by flooding, which then undermines the structure and precedes earthquakes.

NASA published a study showing that indeed the drought in California was causing the land to actually sink. They reported that groundwater levels have fallen 100 feet already.

Review:

What is he talking about here? I don't understand at all. His first sentence seems to accurately summarize the NASA study. Which says when many small quakes occur at shallow levels in an area the stress then transfers to deeper faults, stress builds up, and a large deep quake happens.

His second sentence then talks about how in California there is a cycle of drought then flooding. Ok, so I have to take his word that his model does that, as he has no more info. Also, it isn't exactly ground breaking to say that floods follow droughts. He then claims that the flooding/drought cycle ?then undermines the structure and precedes earthquakes?. This sentence doesn't make sense. I assume he is saying that the weather events are causing the earthquakes. However, he provides absolutely zero evidence to support this claim.

Third sentence, the study actually says the land subsided because of ?extensive groundwater pumping?, which has been occurring for years. Sure, it is related to the long droughts because people need to pump to get water, which is indirectly related to the sun driving weather. However, it isn't a natural cycle. It also isn't related to electrical disturbances in the atmosphere caused by the sun. The land sinking is because humans are removing water from the ground, and the earth then subsides. Finally, there is no mention in that study that this is triggering earthquakes. A link that Martin Armstrong is claiming, and he is providing these studies as if they support his interpretation, which they do not at all.

In three sentences, Martin Armstrong talks about three separate things, 1) study about earthquake types, 2) his weather model, and 3) land subsidence, and then he casually links them all together without providing any evidence. Then he concludes that his weather model is predicting earthquakes. What is the point of this paragraph other than to confuse the reader?

Martin Armstrong:

In 2008 researchers, NASA announced that their scientists stand on the verge of a major breakthrough in their efforts to forecast earthquakes. They reported that they have found a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending quakes on the ground below. They observed this correlation days before the recent 8.0 devastating earthquake in China which struct on May 12th, 2008 (2008.361) known as the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. While there were a lot of quakes 309.6 years prior in 1698, there were not 8.0 quakes. There was an 8.0 quake known as the 1679 Sanhe-Pinggu earthquake, which was about 56Km from Beijing. If we look at the 224-year frequency, we again come close to the 1786 Kangding-Luding earthquake, which was a 7.7 quake. The 51.6-year frequency also produced two quakes in 1955 that were 7.1 1955 Kangding earthquake and a 6.8 quake known as the 1955 Yuzha earthquake.

Review:

Martin Armstrong writes, ?While there were a lot of quakes 309.6 years prior in 1698, there were not 8.0 quakes?. Is he having a laugh here? His claim that no 8.0 magnitude earthquakes had occurred is complete nonsense, he cannot know that this is true at at all, earthquakes were not being monitored back then (and also he doesn't provide any data). The USA had not even been founded in 1698, the first World-Wide Standardized Seismograph Network was only established in the 1960s. This was 260 years later!

What does he mean about the 224-yr frequency predicting the 1786 earthquake? Is it meant to be 224 yrs from the 1679 earthquake? But that is only 107 years? Where is the 51.6 frequency coming from? His model? Does he show that anywhere? Is he looking at all earthquakes or just cherry picking ones that fit his cycle? He provides no evidence, and does not explain what he is talking about. It appears as if Martin Armstrong is attempting to overload the reader with a bunch of unexplained numbers to confuse them into thinking he is backing his claims with data. I am skeptical, and would like to see a graph of all major earthquakes and his cycle together. Why does he expect me to blindly believe him, if he could easily provide that proof?

Also, this was a BBC article, not a published study. Martin Armstrong doesn't even link to the original BBC article, but to another third-party website that links to it. In that article the NASA scientist said:

?I do believe that we will be able to establish a clear correlation between certain earthquakes and certain pre-earthquake signals, in an unbiased way.?[?] He added: ?I am cautiously optimistic that we have good scientific data, and we are designing a series of experiments to verify our data.?

That was in 2008, there is still no published studies to date that provides a clear correlation. Martin Armstrong using an article that quotes a scientist who believes that they will be able to do something in the future is not evidence! Currently, these interpretations are not supported by the data. Additionally, Martin Armstrong made it sound like they had provided proof that electrical disturbances in the atmosphere were linked to earthquakes, when they still have not published this conclusion. Also, NASA made no mention about the sun's role in this, they specifically say ?when rocks are compressed - as when tectonic plates shift - they act like batteries, producing electric currents.? So if they are right, they are saying that the earthquakes are causing the electrical disturbances in the atmosphere, it has nothing to do with the sun.

In the same BBC article:

?Dr Mike Blanpied, a geophysicist at the US Geological Survey (USGS), who is unconnected with the work told BBC News: ?At this point, the connection between the laboratory phenomena and processes at work in the Earth has not been demonstrated and is the subject of research.?

Martin Armstrong's interpretation is not broadly accepted. Therefore he either needs to provide exceptional data to support his claims, or at least be honest about it and inform the reader that this is a highly controversial interpretation.

Martin Armstrong:

Therefore, we may also have a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending quakes on the ground below has been found. This finding is in agreement with similar studies carried out by other space research institutes. Satellites have picked up disturbances 100 - 600 km above areas that have later been hit by earthquakes. Apparently, fluctuations in the density of electrons and other electrically-charged particles in the ionosphere have been observed, which may also provide a market for earthquakes.

Review:

First sentence ?has been found?. He provides no link to any such finding. And this ?finding is in agreement with similar studies?? which studies exactly? Density of electrons in the ionosphere have been observed? By whom? ?which may also provide a market for earthquakes? what is a market for earthquakes? May also, does also? Any evidence at all for this ?may also? claim? As discussed below, the studies he uses actually do not claim that the sun has any role in the electrical disturbances.

Martin Armstrong:

In Taiwan, similar research has agreed with this theory. The researcher Jann-Yeng Liu also reported the link between earthquake and disturbances in the ionosphere. His work examined over 100 earthquakes with magnitude 5.0 and larger in and around Taiwan over several decades. His analysis showed that nearly every earthquake down to a depth of about 35 Km was preceded by distinct electrical disturbances in the ionosphere. So again, is this the cause or a mere correlation?

Review:

Taiwan is a big place, would appreciate it if he provided the research so I didn't have to look for it. So found the paper I think he is talking about titled Pre-earthquake ionospheric anomalies registered by continuous GPS TEC measurements (Liu et al. 2004). The authors conclude:

?the vertical electric fields generated during the earthquake preparation periods have been proposed to explain the seismo-ionospheric anomalies (see papers listed in Hayakawa and Fujinawa, 1994; Hayakawa,1999; Pilipenko et al., 2001; Tanaka et al., 1999; Pulinets etal., 2000; Hayakawa and Molchanov, 2002; Pulinets et al.,2002). Although, the mechanisms are not fully understood, it is reasonable to assume that the anomalies appear first near the Earth?s surface and then extend to higher altitudes.?

They are claiming the earthquake generates the electrical disturbances, not the sun. There is no mention of the sun, or predictable cycles at all in the paper.

A more recent paper: Ionospheric disturbances around the time of the Ms7.0 Lushan earthquake (Yiyan et al. 2013).

In their conclusion they say:

Two mechanisms for seismo-ionospheric effects were proposed: Ionospheric oscillation caused by lithospheric outgassing along and in the vicinity of the earthquake-generating fault[16]; E - B drift generated by penetration of ionosphere by earthquake-related extra electric field on the Earth's surface[10], [45]. By using a quasi-electrostatic model for atmosphere-thermosphere-ionosphere coupling, Kim and Hegai[46], Pulinets et al[47] and Sorokin et al[48] showed that a strong vertical electric field on the Earth surface could penetrate into the ionosphere and modify its dynamics and electron density distribution prior to earthquake occurrences.

At the present, no substantial breakthrough has been made in earthquake forecast, especially in short-term forecast. Identifying different precursor signals and studying their statistical features are still major aspects in the research of earthquake forecast. As far as the time scale of seismo-ionospheric precursors is concerned the ionospheric precursors provide a possibility for realizing short-term forecast.

They propose that the disturbance in the atmosphere is caused by the earthquake releasing energy, there is no mention of solar activity, or predictable cycles.

Martin Armstrong:

The theory put forth by Minoru Freund of the NASA Ames Research Center argued that when rocks are compressed-as when tectonic plates, they act like batteries, producing electric currents. This line of reasoning would imply that the electric disturbances are the result and not the cause since compressing rocks releases electrical charges that then travel upwards into the ionosphere. However, perhaps fluctuations in the cosmic-solar radiations are charging the ionosphere first, which then transfer to the planet disrupting the geomagnetic field generating the current.

Review:

Again, would appreciate the link to this theory. At least Martin Armstrong is providing the alternative interpretation here. So, just like the study above (Yiyan et al 2013), they say that the earthquakes cause the ionosphere disturbance, there are several papers that mention that. None that I found mention that the electrical disturbances are causing the earthquake.

Martin Armstrong goes on to say ?However, perhaps fluctuations in the cosmic-solar radiations are charging the ionosphere first, which then transfer to the planet disrupting the geomagnetic field generating the current.? Ok, nice theory, although he has provided no research that shows that, and the research he does provide actually says that this isn't happening.

Martin Armstrong:

The global warming people have totally ignored the sun and its interactions with our planet and the climate. It is a known fact that during solar minimum, which we are now headed in to, is when we get the peak energy in cosmic radiation. During these maximum energy periods, the cosmic radiation can penetrate the greatest depths within the planet. The correlation with the sun also exists whereby the greatest earthquakes swarm during the period of solar minimum.

Review:

So because scientists ignore the sun for global warming, then they must be ignoring it for earthquakes as well. Great example of a false equivalence.

He makes the claim that ?the cosmic radiation can penetrate the greatest depths within the planet.? Zero evidence provided.

He also claims: ?The correlation with the sun also exists whereby the greatest earthquakes swarm during the period of solar minimum.? Again, he hasn't provided any evidence that shows this, other than one paper from 1967, which still today hasn't been used to predict earthquakes?

Martin Armstrong:

Nevertheless, the relationship between the lowest-highest solar cycles and earthquakes produces the highest level of correlation. Therefore, the data simply establish an extremely strong correlation between major earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude or more (on Richter scale) and strong solar minimum (grand minimums).

Review:

Which studies show this? What data? If it's so simple, why not provide it? I agree that an ?Extremely strong correlation? is very strong, but I would prefer to see the data myself and not have to take Martin Armstrong's word for it.

Also, he is claiming that when the sun's activity is at its minimum you will get more earthquakes? so less energy from the sun = more energy in the earth's crust? Why?

Martin Armstrong:

We are in what is being called Solar Cycle 24. This is the 24th solar cycle since 1755 when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. It is the current solar cycle which began in December 2008 with a smoothed minimum of 2.2 (SIDC formula). There was only minimal activity until early 2010. It reached its maximum in April 2014 with smoothed sunspot number only 116.4, the lowest in over a century. The 8.0 2008 Sichuan earthquake took place right on schedule.

Review:

Again, have to just take his word for it all.

He wrote this article on Dec 5, 2017, so why didn't he mention these two earthquakes that are in the top 10 biggest earthquakes in recorded history?

Sendai, Japan, 11 March 2011 (9.0)

Bio-bio, Chile, 27 February 2010 (8.8 )

They are much bigger than the Sichuan one, and happened 3-4 years before the sun's minimum activity! Martin Armstrong has copied the solar cycle stuff directly from this page The Sun in 2017, without any reference, just some casual plagiarism. So the 24th solar cycle began in Dec 2008, with minimum activity, it reached its peak in April 2014. So according to Martin Armstrong there are more quakes during minimum activity, resulting in the Sichuan quake. What about the April 2014 Iquique earthquake in Chile of magnitude 8.2? This happened in the solar maximum? Completely the opposite to what Martin Armstrong is predicting. It is easy to cherry pick individual events, and this clearly proves nothing for or against, even in my case. Therefore, he must show all major earthquakes against the sun's activity to see the correlation with his cycles, and statistically calculate the probability of his model, because I have just shown his model is not 100% accurate. He hasn't provided and of this evidence, so of course I am skeptical about his claims.

If he is really predicting earthquakes ?right on schedule?, lets test out his model, why isn't he telling us to the month/day when the next major earthquake is going to happen?

Martin Armstrong:

A simple correlation with the energy output of the sun reveals that all major earthquakes occurred during strong solar minimums. Consequently, there were 7 major earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude moving into the turning point in 2008-2010. Kiril Islands (Russia) twice- 8.1 (November 2006 & January 2007), Peru-8.0 (August 2007), Sumatra-8.5 (September 2007), Sichuan earthquake-8.0 (May 2008 ), Samoa-8.1 (September 2009), Maule (Chile)-8.8 (February 2010).

Review:

Too simple to provide? I just showed above that a major magnitude 8.2 earthquake (bigger than his Sichuan example) occurred (down to the month!) during the 2014 solar maximum. Demonstrating that his claim that, ?all major earthquakes occurred during strong solar minimums?is just wrong. Ok, now at the end he mentions the Feb 2010 Chili earthquake?. Not really sure how it fits his theory though? I also do not understand his last sentence; he is listing a bunch of earthquakes as if they prove his model. What is a two year turning point? What were earthquakes doing outside of this turning point? Again, Martin Armstrong provides no evidence, no complete catalogue of earthquakes, and expects the reader to blindly accept his claims.

Martin Armstrong:

However, since this effect is a mere external forcing of the eruptive energetic threshold of a volcano, a direct link between eruptions and Sun's cycles must be excluded. Sun's activity cannot awaken a dormant volcano, but it could trigger the onset of an eruption in a volcano that is independently undergoing pre-eruptive conditions.

Review:

So now he just jumps, from earthquakes to volcanoes, as if they are the same thing. Also, he has been trying to push this idea about how solar activity plays a significant role in triggering earthquakes, and now at the end he is saying ?a direct link between eruptions and Sun?s cycles must be excluded. So what is he saying? Ok, so he then jumps back and forth, and then lands somewhere in the middle with ?but it could trigger the onset of an eruption in a volcano that is independently undergoing pre-eruptive conditions?. Ok nice conclusion, that is different to what he started out saying about earthquakes, and is now all about volcanoes which he didn't mention at all before in his sparse literature review at the beginning. He has provided zero evidence for this claim.

He then finished the article with his false equivalence fallacy about global warming. Martin Armstrong has not predicted anything, it appears he has only cherry picked historical events to fit his cycle. Regarding solar activity and earthquakes, he has made many claims in this article and provided next to no evidence. The scant research he has linked even concludes the opposite to what he is claiming. He has not demonstrated that there is a correlation with the suns activity and earthquakes (I am not saying that there isn't a correlation, but none of his citations referred to the sun at all). Also, he has not attempted to explain the mechanism for low sun activity and increased earthquake/volcano activity. He is very loose with his research to put it kindly.

Below are two papers that provide evidence to show that solar activity is not affecting earthquakes, I have quoted from the conclusions from each paper as well. This is not an extensive review, but considering Martin Armstrong could only provide one paper from 1967 that supported his interpretation I guess the burden of proof is more on Martin Armstrong's side. Also, these papers are slightly more up to date than Martin Armstrong's literature review. I pasted below from the conclusion of each paper. Also note that they are testing the correlation with various statistical tests, such as the chi-squared test (?2). Which is a basic test, of which Martin Armstrong has never provided any such tests (or data for that matter).

Paper 1: Love, J.J. and Thomas, J.N., 2013. Insignificant solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(6), pp.1165-1170.

?From retrospective analysis of historical data, we cannot confidently resolve a statistically significant relationship between solar-terrestrial variables and earthquake occurrence. Therefore, we cannot confidently reject the null hypothesis of no solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes. This does not mean, of course, that there is no such role?we just cannot detect its presence in historical data. What it does mean is that we have no testable correlation that can be used to objectively predict future earthquake?

Paper 2: Hough, S.E., 2018. Do large (magnitude? 8 ) global earthquakes occur on preferred days of the calendar year or lunar cycle?. Seismological Research Letters, 89(2A), pp.577-581.

The simple tests presented in this report confirm what seismologists have long taken for granted, that there is no evidence that large earthquake rates are modulated significantly by the position of the Earth relative to either the Moon or the Sun. If there is any modulation of large earthquake occurrence, it is either well below the level that can be detected with the present catalog or gives rise to effects that are far more complex than a global clustering through either the calendar year or the lunar month. A low level of modulation would be of no practical use for earthquake prediction. The tests illustrate once again how apparent clustering and anticlustering arise commonly in random catalogs, potentially fueling enduring earthquake myths.

Summary:

Martin Armstrong's article "Climate Change - Earthquakes Caused by Complex Cycles" makes controversial claims, provides no supporting evidence, and misrepresents the conclusions of research he does cite. He presents his claims as scientific but does not adhere to any scientific methodologies. He indirectly claims that his Economic Confidence Model can predict earthquakes. However, he has provided no supporting evidence, cherry picked data, and miss-quoted research in order to make it appear that he has the ability to predict earthquakes. This review has demonstrated that he cannot predict earthquakes, and urges readers to be skeptical of any economic predictions Martin Armstrong claims using the same model. As Martin Armstrong is selling his predictions, it is concluded that Armstrong is running a scam.


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Martin Armstrong made a few sports "Predictions".

However there is no evidence whatsoever that he predicted anything because all statements he made are in hindsight. We would need to see that the time stamps of his posts are before the sports events but that is never the case.

Villanova Wins on Pi

Superbowl LII - Can a Model Ever Be Created?

Cycles & Sports

American Pharoah - First Triple Crown Winner Since 1978 on a 8.6 Frequency

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Hahaha, dude I agreed with you, see below but it seems you can't get your facts straight. Obviously you're not American and I'm surprised that the Maga Cult extents to Au. What's more interesting is why you are defending MA with no steak in it? Even if these guys do have an ax to grind they at least having a personal interest in it and support their agrument. You on the other hand appear to be a blind follower (sheep), someone who needs a leader to worship. Further proof is you worship trump just as much as MA. It must suck for you to not have critical thinking.

I'm a republican, so they're republicans and then they're maga cult.

Many of Martin Armstrong's blog posts start with manufactured fan email questions like the following in Understanding Cycles



Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Multiple software developers performed extensive back testing of the Armstrong Reversal System.

Statistically, on average, the system produces losses.

It is possible however to produce gains during specific limited periods of time. Still we consider it futile to discuss the performance of the system in great detail for multiple reasons.

First, Martin Armstrong uses the ambiguity of the trading rules around it to fraudulently misrepresent the performance of it in such a way that it appears in hindsight that it never failed, and he typically blames and abuses his clients in such cases.

Second, Martin Armstrong does not provide the historical data of the system for examination. We do have a large cache of that data.

Third he changes the rules of the system in hindsight to mark an obvious failure a success.

However, it is instructive to document a snapshot of the following large scale Monthly Bearish Reversals failure across multiple markets.

The Reversals were elected on Dec 31 2018 and the Profit/Loss for a short trade with a close date of Jan 31 2019, the one month unit of time for a Monthly Reversal is recorded for a selection of markets covered by Socrates:

Symbol	Reversal	Close	Next Close	P/L%
BAC	2511	2464	2847	15.5% loss
COMP	680595	663527	728174	9.7% loss
$DJI	2399720	2332746	2499967	7.2% loss
FCHI	499506	473069	499272	5.5% loss
GS	18151	16705	19801	18.5% loss
RUT	149877	134856	149942	11.2% loss
$SPX	268235	250685	270410	7.9% loss
TCMP	149185	143229	155406	8.5% loss
XOI	122281	115910	128401	10.8% loss
/CL	5070	4541	5379	18.5% loss
/HO	16940	16794	18774	11.8% loss

Notes:

The $DJI reversal election has been disputed by a Martin Armstrong agent on the grounds of a non-election of another reversal:
Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

This is both hilarious and sad to watch at the same time. People wasting their time on complete nonsens.. because they are mad at someone for their own trading failures because they didnt understand how to use the system first. Get over it! Relearn. This isn't going to get you anywhere. Talk about sickly obsession over MA. To the point that you start fantasizing and seing him everywhere..
This forum thread could be used in psychology classes at university for many studies haha..

In one of his alarmist posts Will the Elite Wake Up in Time & Confront The Left Climate Fear Campaigns?, Martin Armstrong praises his computer as usual for being able to sort out the correlations.

In one of his recent reports that carry a very high price tag, he made use of such a correlation as demonstrated here: The Martin Armstrong Gold / Silver Ratio Fallacy which indicates that such correlation may not hold for the future for long, only in hindsight.

And his results show that there is no value in correlating markets in the way that he does it.

And there is no evidence ANYWHERE in his writings that he used correlation between markets successfully to provide better forecasting.

For those who are interested in correlations between markets, this has been studied for years, see Stock correlation network.

Correlation queries have been available as various online computer services like here at

aistockcharts.com and here.

Correlation studies are standard part of broker services today.

Until this day, Martin Armstrong's so called correlation models have been unavailable. At best, single studies have been manual executions not reaching the level of complexity as seen elsewhere.

Socrates still presents a flat earth model where each market is analyzed in isolation, merely based on its own time series, not correlated with anything.

Martin Armstrong planned in 2013 to build the Global Correlation Model.

Here in 2014, it becomes obvious that this, while still not available, aims to be no more than expressing technical analysis of markets in terms of various currencies.



Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

On historical facts Martin Armstrong often changes the fact or some facts to fit his narrative.

Example:

In his blog in Charlemagne, Vikings & Global Warming and in The First Clean Air Act was 535AD, in the graph he places "Sea People Invasions" midway 1000 bc and 500 bc.

Big bullshit.

See See Sea Peoples and other sources where the invasions are placed 1250-1150 bc. Error of about 750 years.


Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

Martin Armstrong let his Ensemble Model
predict the result of the popular vote of the US Presidential Election 2016, see his blog article
The Computer Has No Human Bias or Input.

His forecast which predicted Republican popular vote victory failed. The Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton won the popular vote as we can see at 2016 United States presidential election.

We just quote Armstrong and repeat:
Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

The Armstrong Reversal System at times generates special Reversals that are called "Superposition Events". We prefer to explain these by example because their generation is confusing and complicated.

In physics, the superposition principle states that if there are two or more stimuli at a given point in time, the response will be the result of adding all the responses..

We want to emphasize: "at a given point in time" which means at the same time, simultaneously.

Martin Armstrong uses this term incorrectly for Revision Signals which borrow from the future, or are created in hindsight, meaning they are not created at the same time.

Here we watch in real time how the system injects such a signal, in the DOW on Thursday, October 11, 2018.

In this case, a daily bearish is elected on Thursday 2018-10-11, a weekly bearish is elected on Friday 2018-10-12. Then on Monday that Revision Signal comes out of the blue because the system discovers that it has been wrong.

In the private blog:
Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.

See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

In a video available as part of the Metals Report subscription, Martin Armstrong made a clear statement regarding the significance of the Gold / Silver Ratio with respect to a potential Gold Rally, using Reversals and Forecast arrays as follows.

To cut a long story short: It is all bullshit, some other wizardry to keep the fools entertained and keep them buying his products. Martin Armstrong said that the Gold/Silver ratio needs to fall below 70 to get a change in trend. The ratio actually dipped below 70 without a precious metal rally after that time, but interestingly, while the Gold price rallied, the ratio then rose steadily up to now between 85 and 90, at the time when we have a significant precious metals rally. To make it clear: This is the opposite effect, and we are trying to derive conclusions from this?


Transcript from Video, made on 2016-07-01:
Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

Read this blog starting here to find out more about computerized fraud.


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.

WHATEVERBABY2  - send me a private message please - would like to get your thoughts on gold/silver & miners...