Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 56. (Read 647251 times)

So what you're telling me is that the reversal system is:

* not reliable,
* cannot be used for short term trading (daily, weekly, and possibly monthly),
* and, most importantly, provides zero confidence for a trader to act on since there can always something to negate the signal.

I have found 29 rules or factors that can be used to negate a trade based on Armstrong's methodology. Good luck juggling all of this while taking a trade.



1% rule
reversal system
single reversals
double reversals
triple reversals
reversal points
superposition principle
spikes
slingshots
knee jerk reactions
time unit events
timing arrays
energy models
elected reversals
unelected reversals
five downtrend rule
reversal gaps
immediate reversals
major reversals
minor reversals
panic cycle
panic cycle model
phase transition
plateau move
quadruple reversal
reactions
turning point
waterfall effect
volatility model

 I cannot, you need to allow messages from newbies first. under profile settings

Yeah, please can you do that, in my profile.

Look at the month of January, being the week of the 13th , max target is just above 30k on the Dow  Yes we do consider the 2019 weekly closings the market should exceed them in January.

I can send you more specific trade/confirmation signals if you need by PM but essentially the week of the 13th of Jan is showing up as a massive turning point in many markets so everything appears to point to a high which should be above any current levels we have seen this month.

So dow is at 28645 right now, so a high meaning what exactly? At what level should we look at, weekly, monthly or yearly? So if the price of dow closes around the same level as it is today, on the end week of the ECM, would that mean that it didnt elect the high so the requirement of shorting it would not be necessary, and the ECM would still be correct?

Problem is at what level do we define a highest weekly closing, I mean this is the first weekly closing in that year, 2020, do we also consider the year 2019 weekly closings?  

This is getting ridiculous. Armstrong's statement above ...

"If we see a high in line with the ECM the market has to go down..."

This ridiculous statement is self-fulfilling in itself. He must think that his followers are complete idiots.

In hindsight, that high can only be a high in line with the ECM if the market goes down after it. Otherwise it is not a high in line with he ECM. After such a high, the market always goes down otherwise it cannot be seen as a high in hindsight.

If in fact the market does go higher after that ECM date, then the high is later and the high is not in line with the ECM so Martin Armstrong can claim that his forecast was true nevertheless because the high was not in line with the ECM.

So here we go again, it is the ambiguity built into the system that lets Martin Armstrong fraudulently misrepresent the performance of his forecasting by playing these games.

The forecast is that it will either go up or it will go down. Here is the commercial (Socrates $$$ per month subscription paid for version) prime example:

A Self-fulfilling Financial Forecast

In other words: Pure bullshit. Sadly there are in fact people who buy 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

Yes exactly the week of the 13th, so the close of the 17th Jan will most likely produce the highest weekly closing with a drop thereafter.

Oh ok, I see. Sorry about that. So how can I right now see and identify a high on that week if it occurs to evaluate what you say is correct. On that week of 2020.05, guess it is the 13'th January from that week to the end, from that ECM date, 0.05 x 365.

As you can see I am very open to this ECM model, because of what happened in the last 21. November, Pi date with Goldman Sachs, was just mindblowing, the same affair happened in the 2007 target, which Martin pointed out. Seems that even minute affairs follow ECM cycles. And the 1998.55 +3.141 target was also quite crazy.
I just want to know whether the reversals really are true. Or those instances especially with 2015.75, was just pure luck. I don't know. Green on this.

Sheer utter nonsense. Gumbi is spamming this forum. This case has been settled with 200% evidence on November 28, 2019. Martin Armstrong committed a crime (fraudulent misrepresentation of the performance of the reversal system).

Furthermore, here in this blog he reinforced this crime by inventing a new rule for the reversal system that aims to prove his point but would otherwise make it inoperable, again fraudulently misrepresenting the performance of it.

See



As previously said, Gumbi's posts get replied to in a way that will remind him of the context in which we showed him that he is a charlatan.

Let him be reminded again that we have a model case where this behavior is documented in much detail. It actually saves time and effort to repeat this as opposed to wasting the time trying to argue this same type of thing without end.

Whatever smokescreen Gumbi and cohorts are coming up with now, they get this reply. I know Gumbi just wants this message to go away but I am not going to do him the favor. I am just not taking his baits for more nonsense any more.

The pattern is the same again and again: Pick one of the ambiguous conflicting Socrates signals in hindsight to argue the case. For us, there is no need to formulate a custom response to that. We use this model case as a standard response reply to show what these charlatans are doing.

I have an obligation to spread the message for the honest people, and as painful as it is for me, I am going to persevere until the Armstrong promoters shut up. So they are warned. The honest people have all the facts on their side.



Here we go. You are providing the proof of my assertion yourself!

Hindsight, Fraud. This hindsight message is fraudulent misrepresentation of performance, pure fraud!
Now here you are saying, and I know you are speaking for Martin Armstrong, that


Martin Armstrong had this information, this bullish signal, the fact that his model went long - at the end of the year - but at the same time failed to tell his clients?

In fact he sent the opposite signal to his clients at the time!

If he knew this at the time when he claimed the system went long, and let's assume for the sake of argument that what you say is true then he could have been trading against his clients because he published this signal only three months later.

You are not worth the respect of a single honest being on earth! You are a fraud!


And yes, I have all the reports. How could I otherwise quote them? I have everything!

More importantly, all other people who lost, they have everything as well.



Here is a detailed time line of the events:


Quarterly Superposition Event in Gold 2015


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

@trulycoined

The market made an INTRADAY low of 15371 in August. I specifically said the lowest closing on a MONTHLY CLOSING BASIS. 

August monthly closing: 16528
September monthly closing: 16284.7

Regarding the "it's just time" PDF

Armstrong has explained the ECM(8.6 wave) breaks down into as 3 altering individual alternating waves with a time duration of 2.15 and 1.075 year periods for 1 leg. We refer to these as "long" and "short" legs  Which equals 4.3 years being a half cycle(2.15 + 1.075 + 1.075 = 4.3)  It has never been explained any other way.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/models/7219-2/
 
The date just before 2009.3 is 2008.225 which is 0.225 x 365 = 82.125 into the year makes the 23rd of March the next wave is a  1.075 year period, 2008.225 + 1.075 = 2009.3.  0.3 x 365 = 109.5 days into the year comes to the 19 April 2009.
That is how the ECM is calculated there is no other way the math is perfect.

Armstrong posted a writing in 2008 with the correct date they cannot both be true and a mistake has clearly been made  how is this so inconceivable to not think an error has been made ? If it is just a quarter cycle of the ECM(2.15) broken in half being 1.075. 2009.3 cannot equal the 19th March 2009.
 http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/we-are-alone-121808.pdf


AnonymousCoder
"The forecast is that it will either go up or it will go down"

That is a complete misunderstanding by AnonymousCoder as I said in a previous post quite clearly.

"There can be no excuse that is impossible. If we see a high in line with the ECM the market has to go down or the ECM will be proven to be completely false."


He also cannot answer to the monthly bearish in his disaster reversal post specifically the Dow not including the 21600 monthly bearish reversal.

Ok, that actually makes sense.

The forecast is that it will either go up or it will go down. Here is the commercial (Socrates $$$ per month subscription paid for version) prime example:

A Self-fulfilling Financial Forecast

In other words: Pure bullshit. Sadly there are in fact people who buy 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

Ok, thanks will wait then :I

Why do you pretend that you know what they were talking about? All you can do is resort to nonsense yet again. Ditto with explaining how "Socrates" was built.  
If somebody actually understood it, then someone else would've built something similar by now.  
In actuality all you have is conspiracy theories and cult-like behavior.







Socrates model explained

You (or a pseudonym) said this exact same thing when I first made that post. And now you have been caught out again:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/its-just-time-martin-armstrong.pdf

Above is the actual PDF cited in that Quora post, hosted on the official armstrongeconomics.com website! It took me the best part of 10 seconds to find it.



Oh dear @Gumbi - caught out again. In that same PDF, MA writes:
The next quarter wave is typically broken into half again creating two 1.075 year waves. We can see that in the current wave, the mid-wave turning points were 1008.225 [SIC] (March 23, 2008) and 2009.3 (March 19th, 2009).

I have now shown TWO CASES where MA is caught directly using March 19, 2009, where in the other example, he has used a different date. Now what? Are you going to finally agree with someone on these boards?

Even more hilarious, MA has got his dates confused! In the above PDF, MA explains 2009.3 is 19 March 2009, then in the blog post from 1999 (so a SECOND DIRECT QUOTE), MA gives the date of 2009.3 as:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/

23 April 2009


Hoist with his own petard - again.


The lowest closing of 2015 was August 24 (15871), meaning MA's forecast was wrong for 2015.75:
https://www.thebalance.com/dow-jones-closing-history-top-highs-and-lows-since-1929-3306174

You do know it is very easy to fact check?



Using your above quote, MA was wrong about the low 2015.75, therefore his conclusion of a rally into 2017-18 was wrong based on his "theory". It still does not vindicate his (Socrates?) prediction of 2015.75, not least where the PDF you linked to, which includes a very similar chart to the one I posted in my previous comment, has MA explain:

The stock market always bottoms in advance of the economic low.


If 2015.75 was supposed to be an economic low - the beginning of "big bang" - then why did the stock market not bottom in advance of the low, which "always" happens, and why is he constantly contradicting himself in his own writings? How can he possibly claim his model is "accurate to the day", where he has quoted two very different dates for the same fractional date (2009.3) and where even YOU worked it out incorrectly as April 19 2009! That is three different dates.

Now use his ECM to rewind hundreds or even thousands of years and, as one of the better and easier criticisms of his model on these boards, it would be impossible to forecast anything "to the day", because the model itself is too ambiguous, the dates are misinterpreted even by MA himself, and owing to the margin of error some dates could be out by years depending on how far back in time you go.

The more the ECM is dissected, the more it falls to pieces, as interesting theory as it is.

Nature will not allow itself to be worked out like some maths book. Like how a dog will never understand what a laptop is nor be able to design one, so too are humans bound by similar limitations when it comes to working out the universe, from the machinations of the stock market to the future of civilisation.

There can be no excuse that is impossible. If we see a high in line with the ECM the market has to go down or the ECM will be proven to be completely false. The opposite took place with the US market moving down as we approached the 2015.75 ECM target indicating a cycle inversion into 2020.


A turning point meaning a high/low on an intraday or closing basis, in this case for the week of the 13th. The market will need to rise above the turning point after the week of the 13th of Jan intraday and also close higher on a weekly closing basis in order to infer the statement is wrong.

There are only two possibilities since the week of the 13th Jan is showing up as a major turning point, a high on an intraday or weekly closing basis the week of the 13th means a drop into 2021, a low means we get another cycle inversion.

So what if it doesn't happen, what is the excuse then?  The model forecast a major turning point, what do you define as a turning point? What if in later months it rises above that point? How can we infer that this statement is wrong. It all seems wish-washy with no clear target or concise statement. What do you exactly mean. Others are welcome to write.

However, to give credit to the ECM model, the fact that 2001.695 date was on point, and that Goldman Sachs was getting sued on Pi dates, freaking twice, was hair raising. So I began to see what other theories, researchers, serious ones, in the field of mathematics, come to similar conclusions as Martin.

There is the classical innovation wave cycle of around 54-50 years, from the Kondratiev wave cycle. Which may have inspired Martin to look broadly over the decades. Then there is recent research involved with socio-dynamical theory, explaining the fall and rise of empires. Peter Turchin, a mathematician, explains dynamically, with his equations (there are real differential equations involved) that there are 50-year cycles (close to Martins 8.6 x 6 year) in civil revolts, and debt repayment cycles. And that the next one should line up in early 2020/21  

He also suggests that there are 300-year levels in power, and population rises and falls. Which is very close to 309.6 years (8.6 x 36) Martin suggests 2032, completion of the 309-year cycle. If the powers that be comply and conform a decade before, the change in 2032 is not as dramatic and a slow change in transfer of power. Which makes sense liking the allegory, of removing a lid of a pot of boiling water, before it explodes.

Peter Turchin has a working model and tested it in pass data, where this data was not actually trained with the model but tested on. He also is very hopeful that his model does not work in 2021 because if true there will be major bloodshed on the streets, because of economic turmoil. I see no reason why he should fudge his research, and this field in physics/mathematics is valid. I think we behave as heard of animals in times of panic, and very predictable because we postpone issues until it culminates in a disaster. This enduring time has a limit, that is extractable with the data we have, and roughly corresponds to the 50 year level of debt repayments.  

Just joined bitcoin talk, to actually see what the hell is the fuss about Martin. So I have been following you. You seem to contradict yourself. And maybe it is because we don't fully understand or you are not explaining clearly why a yearly reversal election, cancels a monthly reversal election?

And to the rest of people lurking here. Is there anyone besides Gumbi, that actually trades with reversal system and are hundred percent confident that it works?


Thanks

Yes we elected 2 monthly bearish reversals I do not know what the third monthly bearish reversal was but we may have tested it in December for the S&P500 and if so this means we can still move up. This is exactly what happened on the Dow where we elected 2 monthly bearish reversals at 23344 and 23997 but also tested the third monthly bearish within the same month being December 2018 at 21600 but failing to elect it.  The market found support at the 21700 area just above the third monthly bearish reversal at 21600 so you could of bought against it because January was also coming up as a directional change.

This is a very key aspect of the reversal system that you can now see coder and others are blissfully unaware of and this completely nullifies his year end reversal disaster post. They have no idea how the reversal system even functions let alone the reversals that were in play.