AnonymousCoder - the guy who shorted gold above a yearly bearish reversal (support level) …
Where does Armstrong or Socrates indicate that a yearly bearish reversal is invalidated if a quarterly bearish reversal is elected with the basic understanding that a reversal is ultimately just a key level of support/resistance? #trapped
According to Armstrong "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. "
AnonymousCoder then writes.
"When he writes At the same time, he is not telling the truth."
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Ma_talk
Individual markets have their own timing frequencies and the ECM is a global unified frequency what you are suggesting that the Dow must make a low exactly in line with the ECM in order for it to work is absurd. You clearly have no idea what you are even talking about.
The close for spy at the end of August 31st 2015 was 197.67
The close for spy at the end of September 30th 2015 was 191.63
The close for spy at the end of December 2015 was 203.87...
regarding the scooter, Nowhere does Armstrong say that energy can be created. Nowhere does Armstrong say it is free energy.
Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 57. (Read 647251 times)
For people still living in the cult, Something else worth considering before subscribing to Socrates ...
MA constantly says that the plebe (useful idiot) doesn't connect the dot as his system does, meaning no market move alone, everything is correlated.
Which is a cleaver observation.
BUT using Socrates you will never find any correlation, all markets are "analyzed" separately from each other .... not dot connection, no correlation
Socrates is everything except Artificial Intelligence !
MA constantly says that the plebe (useful idiot) doesn't connect the dot as his system does, meaning no market move alone, everything is correlated.
Which is a cleaver observation.
BUT using Socrates you will never find any correlation, all markets are "analyzed" separately from each other .... not dot connection, no correlation
Socrates is everything except Artificial Intelligence !
Absolutely correct observation. Socrates cannot even see the SAME market in the next higher time frame. In other words, while in the same report there may be a mix of yearly, monthly, weekly and daily data, there is not even a conclusion derived from these separate components cross-referencing them.
How do we know that? Because
1) it is never mentioned and
2) we have the ultimate proof here (click link below):
In a nutshell: There is a secret rule that a quarterly reversal even after being ELECTED can become INVALID because a yearly reversal is NOT elected. If that is the case, then the system should look at the higher time frame first before creating a reversal in the lower time frame that is obviously in conflict with it.
So Socrates is an extremely primitive system. But wait - are we not told that it is using Quantum Mechanics?
We have to dig a little deeper here. He uses an old confidence trick where he manufactures a fan email that suggests this Quantum Mechanics claim so Martin Armstrong does not actually have to do it, giving him perfect cover, perfect deniability. He can always say he did not claim this while at the same time scoring credits from phantom followers, creating the illusion of being trusted by his readers.
Martin Armstrong is a charlatan. 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
For people still living in the cult, Something else worth considering before subscribing to Socrates ...
MA constantly says that the plebe (useful idiot) doesn't connect the dot as his system does, meaning no market move alone, everything is correlated.
Which is a cleaver observation.
BUT using Socrates you will never find any correlation, all markets are "analyzed" separately from each other .... not dot connection, no correlation
Socrates is everything except Artificial Intelligence !
MA constantly says that the plebe (useful idiot) doesn't connect the dot as his system does, meaning no market move alone, everything is correlated.
Which is a cleaver observation.
BUT using Socrates you will never find any correlation, all markets are "analyzed" separately from each other .... not dot connection, no correlation
Socrates is everything except Artificial Intelligence !
But the close on Monday (Dec 31 2018) was 2506.9.
MA said the "Monthly Bearish Reversals lie at 268230 and 259460"
Gumbi, 2506.9 < 2682 monthly bearish, and 2506.9 < 2594 monthly bearish.
MA said the "Monthly Bearish Reversals lie at 268230 and 259460"
Gumbi, 2506.9 < 2682 monthly bearish, and 2506.9 < 2594 monthly bearish.
Just a reminder that documents without any doubt how bad the Socrates Reversal System is:
Year end 2018 Monthly Bearish Reversal Election Disaster - Dec close vs Jan close
| 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 |
Is anybody reading this blog STILL buying this Socrates junk with the aim of profiting from it ?
.Martin Armstrong is a charlatan. 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.
@Gumbi, the link on 2015 monthly closing works. Apparently, you cannot even click. Apparently August is the same as September, and 8 is the same as 9 for you.
@nstrdms, Gumbi is someone who doesn't know anything, not even basic math of comparing 2 numbers. What you stated is correct. Just ignore Gumbi. We are all with you here.
@all others, let's just ignore all of Gumbi's posts. He doesn't even understand power is energy per unit time. It's stupid as it gets. No point of talking to somebody who doesn't know English.
Actually, as AnonymousCoder said before, the only thing that Gumbi is valuable for this forum to expose himself and Armstrong for more flaws to be seen.
@nstrdms, Gumbi is someone who doesn't know anything, not even basic math of comparing 2 numbers. What you stated is correct. Just ignore Gumbi. We are all with you here.
@all others, let's just ignore all of Gumbi's posts. He doesn't even understand power is energy per unit time. It's stupid as it gets. No point of talking to somebody who doesn't know English.
Actually, as AnonymousCoder said before, the only thing that Gumbi is valuable for this forum to expose himself and Armstrong for more flaws to be seen.
But the close on Monday (Dec 31 2018) was 2506.9.
MA said the "Monthly Bearish Reversals lie at 268230 and 259460"
Gumbi, 2506.9 < 2682 monthly bearish, and 2506.9 < 2594 monthly bearish.
MA said the "Monthly Bearish Reversals lie at 268230 and 259460"
Gumbi, 2506.9 < 2682 monthly bearish, and 2506.9 < 2594 monthly bearish.
The close and low for 2018.12.31 was 2506.9 and 2482.8
MA said "The Monthly Bearish Reversals lie at 268230 and 259460. Electing the first will imply a further marginal decline into early 2019 whereas which need a closing below both to imply a test of the 240400-24525 level."
Doesn't a closing below the bearish reversal elect it? The close on 2018.12.31 was 2506.9, below 2682.30 and 2594.60.
MA himself said a closing below BOTH is needed to test the 2404 level, and that clearly did not happen.
MA also said "We would at the least least need a closing above the Daily Bullish Reversals to raise any hope of a further rally into mid January. Failing to accomplish that by Monday, warns of a retest of the lows."
His prediction FAILED. He said on 2018.12.28 that the close on 2018.12.31 needs to be above 2574 or else it will decline. The close was BELOW the daily BULLISH reversal and it STILL RALLIED!
MA said "The Monthly Bearish Reversals lie at 268230 and 259460. Electing the first will imply a further marginal decline into early 2019 whereas which need a closing below both to imply a test of the 240400-24525 level."
Doesn't a closing below the bearish reversal elect it? The close on 2018.12.31 was 2506.9, below 2682.30 and 2594.60.
MA himself said a closing below BOTH is needed to test the 2404 level, and that clearly did not happen.
MA also said "We would at the least least need a closing above the Daily Bullish Reversals to raise any hope of a further rally into mid January. Failing to accomplish that by Monday, warns of a retest of the lows."
His prediction FAILED. He said on 2018.12.28 that the close on 2018.12.31 needs to be above 2574 or else it will decline. The close was BELOW the daily BULLISH reversal and it STILL RALLIED!
@nstrdms
I just quoted exactly what he said please read it again
28th Dec 2018" Electing the first will imply a further marginal decline into early 2019 whereas which need a closing below both to imply a test of the 240400-24525 level."
On the 3rd of Jan 2019 the S&P 500 made an intraday low at 2444. it clearly found support around the 24525 level, remember this is the S&P500 absolute precision is rare with there being 500 variables.
"We would at the least need a closing above the Daily Bullish Reversals to raise any hope of a further rally into mid-January. Failing to accomplish that by Monday, warns of a retest of the lows."
THAT IS not a forecast and can only be confirmed by the reversal system. It was a warning signal, it can only be confirmed by electing bearish reversals. If you had quoted a bearish reversal being elected I would 100% agree with you here.
Gumbi, you just lied without even bothering doing any sanity check.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPY/history?period1=1419753600&period2=1577520000&interval=1mo&filter=history&frequency=1mo
Aug and Dec had lower monthly closing. But you stated:
Honestly, the entire year of 2015 is kind of flat, except the market pulled back by about 10% in the month of AUGUST. For Armstrong and you, I'm sure that was accurate down to the very day, and accurate down to the very month of September 30/October 1st. August is September. 8 is 9, 1 equals to 2, and 2 equals to 3, and 3.1416x1000 will round to 3144. Everything the same, and Socrates made another big score, HA, HA.
Oh, and the scooter self-generates power too, HA HA.
By the way, those PDF files are genuine from the prison days of Armstrong. I saved all those pdf files somewhere. They are NOT from third parties. They are from Armstrong himself. And one of the PDF even talks about God particle, as if he is a particle physicist, when he cannot even understand law of energy conservation.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPY/history?period1=1419753600&period2=1577520000&interval=1mo&filter=history&frequency=1mo
Aug and Dec had lower monthly closing. But you stated:
Quote
we did crash going into this ECM date 2015.75 and the month of September ended up being the lowest closing.
Honestly, the entire year of 2015 is kind of flat, except the market pulled back by about 10% in the month of AUGUST. For Armstrong and you, I'm sure that was accurate down to the very day, and accurate down to the very month of September 30/October 1st. August is September. 8 is 9, 1 equals to 2, and 2 equals to 3, and 3.1416x1000 will round to 3144. Everything the same, and Socrates made another big score, HA, HA.
Oh, and the scooter self-generates power too, HA HA.
By the way, those PDF files are genuine from the prison days of Armstrong. I saved all those pdf files somewhere. They are NOT from third parties. They are from Armstrong himself. And one of the PDF even talks about God particle, as if he is a particle physicist, when he cannot even understand law of energy conservation.
well unless you can prove it by posting those PDF's I can never take your word for it can that would be foolish.
I mean the lowest monthly closing was September 2015 for the year, your link does not work., also remember the ECM is not a stock market model. this is a complete misunderstanding to think that the Dow must make a low to the very day of the ECM.
Armstrong on the ECM
"the ECM is by no means a stock market model. It is a global unified frequency and we can correlate the world and begin to see that is the individual markets that align with that model BY THEIR OWN frequencies, that become the greatest receiver of capital concentration. "
"The ECM was derived from a list of PANICS and that is what its overall function is – nothing more. It highlights the turns within the economy and what peaks or bottoms with its turning points captures the capital concentration. Capital MUST concentrate into a single sector in order to create the bull market. If capital does not concentrate, then it is like Communism. There is just a flat line."
"because 3.1416 x 1000 is rounded to 3144 for him. That is just hilarious math."
Can you quote where Armstrong rounded it to 3144? Maybe there is a reasonable explanation. From doing many calculations myself this is not the case. Taking 2015.75 adding pi in terms of months and years 3.141 yields a pi target 2019.89.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/future-forecasts/ecm/november-21st-2018-pi-target/
Can you show a pi target that calculates it using the rounded 3144 number?
"The total number of days within an 8.6-year business cycle was 3141. In reality, the 8.6-year cycle was equal to p (Pi) * 1000."
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/
"What I am about to illustrate is that the proof of this 8.615 cyclical frequency that when measured in years equals Pi (3.14) times 1,000 in days"
http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/will-the-dow-reach-30000-by-2015-0809.pdf
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/its-pi-day/
We even have ECM decimal going back 6 places as seen here,
1998.554298 and adding pi in terms of years and months 3.141. this produces 2001.695. take 365 and multiply .695 yields 253.675 days into the year 2001. that amounts to September 11th, 2001.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong-economics-upcoming-events/world-economic-conference/the-coming-pi-target-will-it-bring-world-war-iii/
"This is the first time I will reveal something that I discovered and kept secret for the last 13 years. The total number of days within an 8.6-year business cycle was 3141. In reality, the 8.6-year cycle was equal to p (Pi) * 1000."
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/
Regarding the scooter obviously if it needs to first be plugged in it cannot be completely free energy as you are saying so it is possible the machine can output many times more than the input.
Gumbi, you just lied without even bothering doing any sanity check.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPY/history?period1=1419753600&period2=1577520000&interval=1mo&filter=history&frequency=1mo
Aug and Dec had lower monthly closing. But you stated:
Honestly, the entire year of 2015 is kind of flat, except the market pulled back by about 10% in the month of AUGUST. For Armstrong and you, I'm sure that was accurate down to the very day, and accurate down to the very month of September 30/October 1st. August is September. 8 is 9, 1 equals to 2, and 2 equals to 3, and 3.1416x1000 will round to 3144. Everything the same, and Socrates made another big score, HA, HA.
Oh, and the scooter self-generates power too, HA HA.
By the way, those PDF files are genuine from the prison days of Armstrong. I saved all those pdf files somewhere. They are NOT from third parties. They are from Armstrong himself. And one of the PDF even talks about God particle, as if he is a particle physicist, when he cannot even understand law of energy conservation.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPY/history?period1=1419753600&period2=1577520000&interval=1mo&filter=history&frequency=1mo
Aug and Dec had lower monthly closing. But you stated:
Quote
we did crash going into this ECM date 2015.75 and the month of September ended up being the lowest closing.
Honestly, the entire year of 2015 is kind of flat, except the market pulled back by about 10% in the month of AUGUST. For Armstrong and you, I'm sure that was accurate down to the very day, and accurate down to the very month of September 30/October 1st. August is September. 8 is 9, 1 equals to 2, and 2 equals to 3, and 3.1416x1000 will round to 3144. Everything the same, and Socrates made another big score, HA, HA.
Oh, and the scooter self-generates power too, HA HA.
By the way, those PDF files are genuine from the prison days of Armstrong. I saved all those pdf files somewhere. They are NOT from third parties. They are from Armstrong himself. And one of the PDF even talks about God particle, as if he is a particle physicist, when he cannot even understand law of energy conservation.
@trulycoined
IT would be more believable and credible if the links were coming from Armstrong economics itself. How can you quote evidence that is not coming directly from Armstrong writings why would I listen to someone's interpretation of Armstrong's work... I have looked under 2008 writings on the Armstrong economic website but I cannot find this PDF. Please provide the PDF link for this "what now" post you say was posted in 2008.
In fact I see evidence to the contrary with a 2008 writing posted by Armstrong titled
Armstrong Economics: The Coming Great Depression (Martin Armstrong, 12/04/08)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/coming-great-depression-120408.pdf
this is the date ECM date within the PDF 2009.3 (April 19th, 2009)
2009.3 CANNOT be calculated as March 19, 2009. it can only be calculated as 0.3 x 365 = 109.5 days into the year so that is April 19 2009.
If you could also show a SINGLE CASE where Armstrong is caught directly using March 19, 2009 within the commentary whether its a public blog post/writing or a private blog post where he directly speaks about this so called ECM date that would ultimately settle it because I know for a fact there is no direct quote you have of Armstrong giving any credit to these false ECM dates...
Regarding 2015.75
What do you mean it never happened? Can you explain because we did crash going into this ECM date 2015.75 and the month of September ended up being the lowest closing. If I understand you correctly this is like saying the US market must make a high on the 17th of January 2020 or the ECM did not work…
Posted Oct 14, 2014 by Martin Armstrong
" In theory, if the market were to invert all the way into a low for 2015.75 next year, then we would be looking at a full blown cycle inversion with stocks moving up with the drop in the ECM. This would be a tremendous rally, but it would come at the cost of a real serious collapse in the confidence of government. This may be what we are facing. Instead of a Phase Transition that doubles the Dow Jones from the 2009 low of 6,440 (12,000), which we have already achieved, we are looking at a rally into 2017-2018 with the Dow reaching the 25,000-28,000 level. "
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/so-when-will-we-know/
IT would be more believable and credible if the links were coming from Armstrong economics itself. How can you quote evidence that is not coming directly from Armstrong writings why would I listen to someone's interpretation of Armstrong's work... I have looked under 2008 writings on the Armstrong economic website but I cannot find this PDF. Please provide the PDF link for this "what now" post you say was posted in 2008.
In fact I see evidence to the contrary with a 2008 writing posted by Armstrong titled
Armstrong Economics: The Coming Great Depression (Martin Armstrong, 12/04/08)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/coming-great-depression-120408.pdf
this is the date ECM date within the PDF 2009.3 (April 19th, 2009)
2009.3 CANNOT be calculated as March 19, 2009. it can only be calculated as 0.3 x 365 = 109.5 days into the year so that is April 19 2009.
If you could also show a SINGLE CASE where Armstrong is caught directly using March 19, 2009 within the commentary whether its a public blog post/writing or a private blog post where he directly speaks about this so called ECM date that would ultimately settle it because I know for a fact there is no direct quote you have of Armstrong giving any credit to these false ECM dates...
Regarding 2015.75
What do you mean it never happened? Can you explain because we did crash going into this ECM date 2015.75 and the month of September ended up being the lowest closing. If I understand you correctly this is like saying the US market must make a high on the 17th of January 2020 or the ECM did not work…
Posted Oct 14, 2014 by Martin Armstrong
" In theory, if the market were to invert all the way into a low for 2015.75 next year, then we would be looking at a full blown cycle inversion with stocks moving up with the drop in the ECM. This would be a tremendous rally, but it would come at the cost of a real serious collapse in the confidence of government. This may be what we are facing. Instead of a Phase Transition that doubles the Dow Jones from the 2009 low of 6,440 (12,000), which we have already achieved, we are looking at a rally into 2017-2018 with the Dow reaching the 25,000-28,000 level. "
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/so-when-will-we-know/
... In this article:
https://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/is-martin-armstrongs-debt-crisis-upon-us-6299991
MA is quoted as saying:
“The fact that we have the stock markets crashing into the 2015.75 turning point rather than making a major high is indicative of the future we should expect to unfold”
I have found the original blog post where MA claimed the above. It was published 29 Sep 2015:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/future-forecasts/stock-markets-crashing-into-the-2015-75/
Thankfully for all of us, the "future" that MA's Socrates machine "forecast" would unfold on 2015.75...
Never happened.
I await a blog post from MA soon - addressing the 2015.75 failure - and quoting the most recent Terminator film, where the boyish-looking LGBT-1000 shrieks:
[Someone] may have changed the future, but they didn't change our FATE! Then cue an awkwardly worded reference to his IBM Sequoia supercomputer fabrication and how Socrates became self-aware while running on DOS, but not before giving another date for what was supposed to happen on 2015.75.
@Gumbi,
You have some amazing lying talent just like Armstrong (or maybe it's blindness)...
You have some amazing lying talent just like Armstrong (or maybe it's blindness)...
Quote a single comment by Armstrong giving any credit to this date or any other incorrect date shown proving Armstrong plays with the 8.6 number. You DON’T have A SINGLE QUOTE by Armstrong acknowledging this date(10/7/2015) You can see that some of the dates are correct and some are incorrect. The number 20175.75 and date 10/1/2015 cannot both be true which can be calculated as I already demonstrated. How does 2075.75 ever equal 10/7/2015
It can only equal 10/1/2015 being 273.75 days into the year. How do you reconcile this? Therefore a mistake must have been made this is the most obvious and logical conclusion. It cannot be otherwise. This was posted in 1995 these kinds of errors happen all the time just look at all martin's typos. 2.15 is just a quarter cycle of the ECM(8.6) the dates cannot be both 10/1/2015 and 10/7/2015.
Armstrong's entire public and private writings dating back as early as 1995 has never mentioned the date 10/7/2015 other than this SINGLE blog post which is the only thing you have in support of your theory and apparently that is enough for you...
@Gumbi
Regarding the failed Socrates "forecast" of 2015.75, I relink one of my older posts from earlier this year:
... His more recent post-2015 stuff is where it begins to look a bit dodgy.... In terms of older articles, first this:
https://www.quora.com/What-do-economists-think-of-Martin-Armstrong-and-the-documentary-The-Forecaster
Where a well articulated answer that even included scans of reports at the time (2008) correctly called a bottom in the markets - even though it was published AFTER that event and then forecast 2011 would see new lows. That was via his machine/Socrates, not MA's personal opinion. So clearly then, the machine is flawed:
If he was 100% legit, why doesn't he address this or even LOG all predictions/dates in a public file or on his website so they can be scrutinised or he can "defend" them when they don't occur?
... Major calls between 2008-2015, via MA's "model":
▪ Called the DOW to be at 30,000 by 2015. Never happened.
▪ Forecast US property would peak then crash from 2015 onwards. Never happened.
▪ Called another significant date on "pi day" in Nov 2018. Nothing happened.
▪ Never spotted the "sale of a lifetime" in the stock market Mar 2009. Why not?
▪ Forecast May 2019 would see a major economic storm erupt. Pending UPDATED Dec 2019 >>Never happened.
▪ Forecast Jan 2020 would see a global economic crisis emerge. Pending.
Article in De Welt 3 May 2015.
https://www.welt.de/finanzen/article140453591/US-Finanzprophet-Armstrong-sagt-Ende-des-Euro-voraus.html
MA explains:
"Be sure to keep your fingers off government bonds. They are hopelessly overrated. Here it will come to the big crash. My model predicts October 1st."
That never happened. Thus, this argument that the significance of 2015.75 was just that, is clearly MA and his cultish following backtracking. In his own words, his model predicted a "big crash" on that day. It never happened. instead it was explained as a "reversal".
Days later in that same paper (7 may 2015), MA makes ANOTHER prediction:
https://www.welt.de/finanzen/geldanlage/article140550440/Es-wird-zu-einem-grossen-Crash-kommen.html
When asked "What does your model say?" (about the future):
"The big crash is coming. 2017 or 2018"
Erm... That never happened either.
So that is now two occasions where the machine was wrong and also in the space of four days, MA has given three alternative dates to the "big crash" and even worse, has been (without realising?) inconsistent in when the crash is coming. His machine allegedly predicts major events "to the day", so why so ambiguous about this alleged crash?
"2017 or 2018"
I could predict that yet I make no claims to working out the inner workings of the universe nor having an AI supercomputer I've been developing since the 1970s.
... In another article that same vintage year (2015) for MA:
https://www.lavanguardia.com/lacontra/20150625/54432509475/la-contra-martin-armstrong.html
"In October of this year will begin a debt crisis of governments (historically, none has survived) that will reach the high point in 2017"
The high point never occured since global gov debt has continued rising - currently $244trn.
Machine was wrong again.
... In this article:
https://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/is-martin-armstrongs-debt-crisis-upon-us-6299991
MA is quoted as saying:
“The fact that we have the stock markets crashing into the 2015.75 turning point rather than making a major high is indicative of the future we should expect to unfold”
The DOW actually spiked into October, fell by the same amount in Dec that same year and the rest is history. This "crash" and "major high" never happened.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-economists-think-of-Martin-Armstrong-and-the-documentary-The-Forecaster
Where a well articulated answer that even included scans of reports at the time (2008) correctly called a bottom in the markets - even though it was published AFTER that event and then forecast 2011 would see new lows. That was via his machine/Socrates, not MA's personal opinion. So clearly then, the machine is flawed:
If he was 100% legit, why doesn't he address this or even LOG all predictions/dates in a public file or on his website so they can be scrutinised or he can "defend" them when they don't occur?
... Major calls between 2008-2015, via MA's "model":
▪ Called the DOW to be at 30,000 by 2015. Never happened.
▪ Forecast US property would peak then crash from 2015 onwards. Never happened.
▪ Called another significant date on "pi day" in Nov 2018. Nothing happened.
▪ Never spotted the "sale of a lifetime" in the stock market Mar 2009. Why not?
▪ Forecast May 2019 would see a major economic storm erupt. Pending UPDATED Dec 2019 >>Never happened.
▪ Forecast Jan 2020 would see a global economic crisis emerge. Pending.
Article in De Welt 3 May 2015.
https://www.welt.de/finanzen/article140453591/US-Finanzprophet-Armstrong-sagt-Ende-des-Euro-voraus.html
MA explains:
"Be sure to keep your fingers off government bonds. They are hopelessly overrated. Here it will come to the big crash. My model predicts October 1st."
That never happened. Thus, this argument that the significance of 2015.75 was just that, is clearly MA and his cultish following backtracking. In his own words, his model predicted a "big crash" on that day. It never happened. instead it was explained as a "reversal".
Days later in that same paper (7 may 2015), MA makes ANOTHER prediction:
https://www.welt.de/finanzen/geldanlage/article140550440/Es-wird-zu-einem-grossen-Crash-kommen.html
When asked "What does your model say?" (about the future):
"The big crash is coming. 2017 or 2018"
Erm... That never happened either.
So that is now two occasions where the machine was wrong and also in the space of four days, MA has given three alternative dates to the "big crash" and even worse, has been (without realising?) inconsistent in when the crash is coming. His machine allegedly predicts major events "to the day", so why so ambiguous about this alleged crash?
"2017 or 2018"
I could predict that yet I make no claims to working out the inner workings of the universe nor having an AI supercomputer I've been developing since the 1970s.
... In another article that same vintage year (2015) for MA:
https://www.lavanguardia.com/lacontra/20150625/54432509475/la-contra-martin-armstrong.html
"In October of this year will begin a debt crisis of governments (historically, none has survived) that will reach the high point in 2017"
The high point never occured since global gov debt has continued rising - currently $244trn.
Machine was wrong again.
... In this article:
https://www.tradingfloor.com/posts/is-martin-armstrongs-debt-crisis-upon-us-6299991
MA is quoted as saying:
“The fact that we have the stock markets crashing into the 2015.75 turning point rather than making a major high is indicative of the future we should expect to unfold”
The DOW actually spiked into October, fell by the same amount in Dec that same year and the rest is history. This "crash" and "major high" never happened.
@Gumbi,
This single post is the one that is publically available, which WAS acknowledged by Armstrong himself when he re-published on his OWN website, and two OTHER public websites that were listed, confirming the authenticity of the content of this post.
Remember that 8.6 is not 8.6, but 8.6153846615, which was published by Armstrong himself here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141015175106/http:/armstrongeconomics.com/
But then ALL the dates cannot be accurate down to the day, because after several cycles, those fractions add up. Oh, Armstrong can't do the most basic math, because 3.1416 x 1000 is rounded to 3144 for him. That is just hilarious math.
Quote from you and Armstrong,
Apparently, neither of you understands the definition of power, which is energy per unit time. He stated self-generated power, and that would mean that device self-generated energy. That would be free energy from nowhere. HA, HA! Perpetual motion machines have been tried for hundreds of years, ever since there was science. But Armstrong apparently is not even aware of that.
This single post is the one that is publically available, which WAS acknowledged by Armstrong himself when he re-published on his OWN website, and two OTHER public websites that were listed, confirming the authenticity of the content of this post.
Remember that 8.6 is not 8.6, but 8.6153846615, which was published by Armstrong himself here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141015175106/http:/armstrongeconomics.com/
But then ALL the dates cannot be accurate down to the day, because after several cycles, those fractions add up. Oh, Armstrong can't do the most basic math, because 3.1416 x 1000 is rounded to 3144 for him. That is just hilarious math.
Quote from you and Armstrong,
Quote
"You plugged it in once and thereafter it self-generated power and did not need to be plugged in again"
Apparently, neither of you understands the definition of power, which is energy per unit time. He stated self-generated power, and that would mean that device self-generated energy. That would be free energy from nowhere. HA, HA! Perpetual motion machines have been tried for hundreds of years, ever since there was science. But Armstrong apparently is not even aware of that.
The close and low for 2018.12.31 was 2506.9 and 2482.8
MA said "The Monthly Bearish Reversals lie at 268230 and 259460. Electing the first will imply a further marginal decline into early 2019 whereas which need a closing below both to imply a test of the 240400-24525 level."
Doesn't a closing below the bearish reversal elect it? The close on 2018.12.31 was 2506.9, below 2682.30 and 2594.60.
MA himself said a closing below BOTH is needed to test the 2404 level, and that clearly did not happen.
MA also said "We would at the least least need a closing above the Daily Bullish Reversals to raise any hope of a further rally into mid January. Failing to accomplish that by Monday, warns of a retest of the lows."
His prediction FAILED. He said on 2018.12.28 that the close on 2018.12.31 needs to be above 2574 or else it will decline. The close was BELOW the daily BULLISH reversal and it STILL RALLIED!
MA said "The Monthly Bearish Reversals lie at 268230 and 259460. Electing the first will imply a further marginal decline into early 2019 whereas which need a closing below both to imply a test of the 240400-24525 level."
Doesn't a closing below the bearish reversal elect it? The close on 2018.12.31 was 2506.9, below 2682.30 and 2594.60.
MA himself said a closing below BOTH is needed to test the 2404 level, and that clearly did not happen.
MA also said "We would at the least least need a closing above the Daily Bullish Reversals to raise any hope of a further rally into mid January. Failing to accomplish that by Monday, warns of a retest of the lows."
His prediction FAILED. He said on 2018.12.28 that the close on 2018.12.31 needs to be above 2574 or else it will decline. The close was BELOW the daily BULLISH reversal and it STILL RALLIED!
I found a post in Armstrong's private blog that proved to be wrong.
The Bounce for Year-End in Share Market
FRIDAY, 28 DECEMBER 2018
He gave price targets for (Monthly) Bearish and (Daily) Bullish reversals for S&P500 and ALL failed. His price targets all called for a further decline, but he was wrong and S&P500 rallied after the Dec 2018 closing.
The Bounce for Year-End in Share Market
FRIDAY, 28 DECEMBER 2018
He gave price targets for (Monthly) Bearish and (Daily) Bullish reversals for S&P500 and ALL failed. His price targets all called for a further decline, but he was wrong and S&P500 rallied after the Dec 2018 closing.
nstrdms I suggest you take a second look… "The monthly bearish reversal lie at 268230 and 259460. electing the fist will imply a further marginal decline into early 2019 whereas which need a closing below both to imply a test of the 240400-24525 level"
the S&P 500 on the 3rd of Jan made an intraday low at 2444.
I found a post in Armstrong's private blog that proved to be wrong.
The Bounce for Year-End in Share Market
FRIDAY, 28 DECEMBER 2018
He gave price targets for (Monthly) Bearish and (Daily) Bullish reversals for S&P500 and ALL failed. His price targets all called for a further decline, but he was wrong and S&P500 rallied after the Dec 2018 closing.
The Bounce for Year-End in Share Market
FRIDAY, 28 DECEMBER 2018
He gave price targets for (Monthly) Bearish and (Daily) Bullish reversals for S&P500 and ALL failed. His price targets all called for a further decline, but he was wrong and S&P500 rallied after the Dec 2018 closing.
@Gumbi,
You have some amazing lying talent just like Armstrong (or maybe it's blindness). If anybody clicks on these 2 links, which were archived by archive.org from Armstrong's current public blog, anybody can see that Armstrong later changed ECM date to 10/1/2015 from his original date of 10/7/2015.
Armstrong himself said the date is 10/7/2015 here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190210014758/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/
And Armstrong himself said the date is 10/1/2015 here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170514145217/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/did-world-war-iii-start-on-the-precise-day-of-the-ecm/
Armstrong did explain the Sep 30/Oct 1st, because of the fractional parts of the date. And that is exactly the most glaring display of Armstrong's belief in his accuracy of the ECM date, down to the very (fractional) day, when in fact, he is not using his "8.6" number correctly, because he actually thinks that there are 10 fractional digits to his 8.6 number here at the title of his blog:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141015175106/http:/armstrongeconomics.com/
That is truly the hilarious. Expressing his 8.6 in 10 fractional digits means scientifically the number has an accuracy within 0.00000001%. Oh, I forgot. Armstrong doesn't understand what it means by "significant digits" from first class of college physics, because he does NOT even have a bachelor degree. In fact, he doesn't even understand that energy cannot be created from his high school physics class.
https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com/p/armstrongs-ignorance.html
I should forgive him on such stupid thinking, because I myself tried to create perpetual motion machine using permanent magnet when I was 7 years old. But I grew out of it very fast, while Armstrong after spending decades of adulthood, still was NOT able to grasp this most fundamental concept. Recalling "his (most likely made-up) encounter" with Japanese with a perpetual free-energy creating scooter, AFTER 20+ years of adulthood, he still CANNOT realize that energy cannot be created, but only transformed.
It's definitely difficult to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who doesn't even read his own past posts, and act like a lying child when caught, and has zero capacity of admitting any wrong-doing.
You have some amazing lying talent just like Armstrong (or maybe it's blindness). If anybody clicks on these 2 links, which were archived by archive.org from Armstrong's current public blog, anybody can see that Armstrong later changed ECM date to 10/1/2015 from his original date of 10/7/2015.
Armstrong himself said the date is 10/7/2015 here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190210014758/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/
And Armstrong himself said the date is 10/1/2015 here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170514145217/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/did-world-war-iii-start-on-the-precise-day-of-the-ecm/
Armstrong did explain the Sep 30/Oct 1st, because of the fractional parts of the date. And that is exactly the most glaring display of Armstrong's belief in his accuracy of the ECM date, down to the very (fractional) day, when in fact, he is not using his "8.6" number correctly, because he actually thinks that there are 10 fractional digits to his 8.6 number here at the title of his blog:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141015175106/http:/armstrongeconomics.com/
That is truly the hilarious. Expressing his 8.6 in 10 fractional digits means scientifically the number has an accuracy within 0.00000001%. Oh, I forgot. Armstrong doesn't understand what it means by "significant digits" from first class of college physics, because he does NOT even have a bachelor degree. In fact, he doesn't even understand that energy cannot be created from his high school physics class.
https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com/p/armstrongs-ignorance.html
I should forgive him on such stupid thinking, because I myself tried to create perpetual motion machine using permanent magnet when I was 7 years old. But I grew out of it very fast, while Armstrong after spending decades of adulthood, still was NOT able to grasp this most fundamental concept. Recalling "his (most likely made-up) encounter" with Japanese with a perpetual free-energy creating scooter, AFTER 20+ years of adulthood, he still CANNOT realize that energy cannot be created, but only transformed.
It's definitely difficult to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who doesn't even read his own past posts, and act like a lying child when caught, and has zero capacity of admitting any wrong-doing.
Quote a single comment by Armstrong giving any credit to this date or any other incorrect date shown proving Armstrong plays with the 8.6 number. You DON’T have A SINGLE QUOTE by Armstrong acknowledging this date(10/7/2015) You can see that some of the dates are correct and some are incorrect. The number 20175.75 and date 10/1/2015 cannot both be true which can be calculated as I already demonstrated. How does 2075.75 ever equal 10/7/2015
It can only equal 10/1/2015 being 273.75 days into the year. How do you reconcile this? Therefore a mistake must have been made this is the most obvious and logical conclusion. It cannot be otherwise. This was posted in 1995 these kinds of errors happen all the time just look at all martin's typos. 2.15 is just a quarter cycle of the ECM(8.6) the dates cannot be both 10/1/2015 and 10/7/2015.
Armstrong's entire public and private writings dating back as early as 1995 has never mentioned the date 10/7/2015 other than this SINGLE blog post which is the only thing you have in support of your theory and apparently that is enough for you.
"You plugged it in once and thereafter it self-generated power and did not need to be plugged in again"
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/fake-new-silence-any-new-achievement/
We have no idea what is possible, science does not have all the answers and many things thought impossible will become possible in the future, You have no idea how it even works who says it is free energy? the scooter self-generating power doesn’t automatically mean it is perpetual free-energy, you are talking as if you know exactly, that is jumping to conclusions. it clearly has to be plugged In first… You are saying that self-generating power is impossible as if you know all the secrets of the universe. I wonder how confident anyone can be making such a statement when man knows so little.
yes calling the exact week of the high with a precise price target with a 20% + correction thereafter into 2021 is the same as a flip of a coin...
How many times Armstrong has called for a temporary peak in 2019 and failed? I have lost counts. Let's assume that Armstrong does get the call for 2020 correct, and so what's the accuracy percentage of 1 / (1+N)? For all I know, it's less than 50%, since N from 2019 alone is much greater than 1. This is in accordance to what bikefront said that none of Armstrong's methodology works (reversals, arrays, etc.).
Since his accuracy is less than 50%, flipping a coin may be a better way of divining the market direction. No human emotion involved, and no money cheated from subscriptions, and will probably be more accurate.
@Gumbi,
You have some amazing lying talent just like Armstrong (or maybe it's blindness). If anybody clicks on these 2 links, which were archived by archive.org from Armstrong's current public blog, anybody can see that Armstrong later changed ECM date to 10/1/2015 from his original date of 10/7/2015.
Armstrong himself said the date is 10/7/2015 here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190210014758/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/
And Armstrong himself said the date is 10/1/2015 here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170514145217/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/did-world-war-iii-start-on-the-precise-day-of-the-ecm/
Armstrong did explain the Sep 30/Oct 1st, because of the fractional parts of the date. And that is exactly the most glaring display of Armstrong's belief in his accuracy of the ECM date, down to the very (fractional) day, when in fact, he is not using his "8.6" number correctly, because he actually thinks that there are 10 fractional digits to his 8.6 number here at the title of his blog:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141015175106/http:/armstrongeconomics.com/
That is truly the hilarious. Expressing his 8.6 in 10 fractional digits means scientifically the number has an accuracy within 0.00000001%. Oh, I forgot. Armstrong doesn't understand what it means by "significant digits" from first class of college physics, because he does NOT even have a bachelor degree. In fact, he doesn't even understand that energy cannot be created from his high school physics class.
https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com/p/armstrongs-ignorance.html
I should forgive him on such stupid thinking, because I myself tried to create perpetual motion machine using permanent magnet when I was 7 years old. But I grew out of it very fast, while Armstrong after spending decades of adulthood, still was NOT able to grasp this most fundamental concept. Recalling "his (most likely made-up) encounter" with Japanese with a perpetual free-energy creating scooter, AFTER 20+ years of adulthood, he still CANNOT realize that energy cannot be created, but only transformed.
It's definitely difficult to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who doesn't even read his own past posts, and act like a lying child when caught, and has zero capacity of admitting any wrong-doing.
You have some amazing lying talent just like Armstrong (or maybe it's blindness). If anybody clicks on these 2 links, which were archived by archive.org from Armstrong's current public blog, anybody can see that Armstrong later changed ECM date to 10/1/2015 from his original date of 10/7/2015.
Armstrong himself said the date is 10/7/2015 here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190210014758/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/
And Armstrong himself said the date is 10/1/2015 here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170514145217/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/did-world-war-iii-start-on-the-precise-day-of-the-ecm/
Armstrong did explain the Sep 30/Oct 1st, because of the fractional parts of the date. And that is exactly the most glaring display of Armstrong's belief in his accuracy of the ECM date, down to the very (fractional) day, when in fact, he is not using his "8.6" number correctly, because he actually thinks that there are 10 fractional digits to his 8.6 number here at the title of his blog:
http://web.archive.org/web/20141015175106/http:/armstrongeconomics.com/
That is truly the hilarious. Expressing his 8.6 in 10 fractional digits means scientifically the number has an accuracy within 0.00000001%. Oh, I forgot. Armstrong doesn't understand what it means by "significant digits" from first class of college physics, because he does NOT even have a bachelor degree. In fact, he doesn't even understand that energy cannot be created from his high school physics class.
https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com/p/armstrongs-ignorance.html
I should forgive him on such stupid thinking, because I myself tried to create perpetual motion machine using permanent magnet when I was 7 years old. But I grew out of it very fast, while Armstrong after spending decades of adulthood, still was NOT able to grasp this most fundamental concept. Recalling "his (most likely made-up) encounter" with Japanese with a perpetual free-energy creating scooter, AFTER 20+ years of adulthood, he still CANNOT realize that energy cannot be created, but only transformed.
It's definitely difficult to have an intelligent conversation with somebody who doesn't even read his own past posts, and act like a lying child when caught, and has zero capacity of admitting any wrong-doing.
Jump to: