Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 58. (Read 647049 times)
@psp777, I'm not saying you're wrong or right, but I still have not found a strong indication of MA saying that in the private blog. Can you be more specific?
@psp777
yes I have access to the private blog. He called for a low in the Dow in 2018? Still looking at 2019 posts, haven't found it yet. Moving on to 2018 posts.
Update: still haven't found a clear indication claiming for a 2019 low in the 2019 and 2018 blog posts. I may have overlooked it, but he seems bullish and said a bear market is only confirmed with a monthly closing below 21600 for the dow.
yes I have access to the private blog. He called for a low in the Dow in 2018? Still looking at 2019 posts, haven't found it yet. Moving on to 2018 posts.
Update: still haven't found a clear indication claiming for a 2019 low in the 2019 and 2018 blog posts. I may have overlooked it, but he seems bullish and said a bear market is only confirmed with a monthly closing below 21600 for the dow.
Armstrong called for a retest of the December 2018 low multiple times in 2019. Every turning point that we should have dropped lower he called it an then called it a cycle inversion when it didn't work out. This was multiple times on the blog he did this. As a result, I canceled my subscription because this retest call kept me about 40% out of the market.
Armstrong only started to change his tune a couple of months ago or so saying we could rally into the ECM date then we could expect the opposite thereafter...when before he said we would sell off into the date. Again cycle inversion stuff.
He has said there wasn't enough energy in the market for a large sell off which contradicted his re-test calls. But now he is calling for a 20% drop?
I know everyone wants a guru to tell them when to buy and sell and to make riches, but it's not going to happen.
@AnonymousCoder
The reality is you shorted gold against a yearly support level at 1044.5 and reversals themselves are simply key areas of support and resistance within any market.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/system/
@s29
The forecast has not changed with the the price target being around the 30 000 area on the Dow. but I suggest you subscribe to the pro version if you actually want more specific trade information by Armstrong. It is extremely unfair to post information posted on his private blog when people are paying their hard earned money for the same information but essentially the S&P 500 and Nasdaq on the weekly level is now showing a major turning point the week of the 13th of January 2020 exactly in line with the ECM(2020.05) We should then see a move to the downside thereafter into at least 2021. Armstrong calls for a 20% or more correction.
If this happens AnonymousCoder and others will be silenced for good and believe me I will be shorting the hell out of this market the week of the 13th of Jan 2020 which should produce a high on a intraday or closing basis on the weekly level.
The reality is you shorted gold against a yearly support level at 1044.5 and reversals themselves are simply key areas of support and resistance within any market.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/system/
@s29
The forecast has not changed with the the price target being around the 30 000 area on the Dow. but I suggest you subscribe to the pro version if you actually want more specific trade information by Armstrong. It is extremely unfair to post information posted on his private blog when people are paying their hard earned money for the same information but essentially the S&P 500 and Nasdaq on the weekly level is now showing a major turning point the week of the 13th of January 2020 exactly in line with the ECM(2020.05) We should then see a move to the downside thereafter into at least 2021. Armstrong calls for a 20% or more correction.
If this happens AnonymousCoder and others will be silenced for good and believe me I will be shorting the hell out of this market the week of the 13th of Jan 2020 which should produce a high on a intraday or closing basis on the weekly level.
It seems to me that what is unfair is that people pay their hard earned money for the many wrong predictions Armstrong made.
Thanks anyways for the update; with such a big call we might can settle the debate finally here
When will S&P500 and Dow drop 20% according to MA?
When there is TIME for it. And time is of course... when it happens. Lol.
The forecast has not changed with the the price target being around the 30 000 area on the Dow. but I suggest you subscribe to the pro version if you actually want more specific trade information by Armstrong. It is extremely unfair to post information posted on his private blog when people are paying their hard earned money for the same information but essentially the S&P 500 and Nasdaq on the weekly level is now showing a major turning point the week of the 13th of January 2020 exactly in line with the ECM(2020.05) We should then see a move to the downside thereafter into at least 2021. Armstrong calls for a 20% or more correction.
In all fairness but if week 3-2020 would indeed prove to be a major turning point in all the US indices then that is a big call.
That doesn't change anything to his reversals and arrays nonsense. These have been debunked on this forum many times already, as Bikefront correctly mentioned a few posts back.
In case there is no turning point in the week of January 13th, I think we can close this blog. In that case so many of Armstrong's statements have been proven wrong...
@psp777
yes I have access to the private blog. He called for a low in the Dow in 2018? Still looking at 2019 posts, haven't found it yet. Moving on to 2018 posts.
Update: still haven't found a clear indication claiming for a 2019 low in the 2019 and 2018 blog posts. I may have overlooked it, but he seems bullish and said a bear market is only confirmed with a monthly closing below 21600 for the dow.
yes I have access to the private blog. He called for a low in the Dow in 2018? Still looking at 2019 posts, haven't found it yet. Moving on to 2018 posts.
Update: still haven't found a clear indication claiming for a 2019 low in the 2019 and 2018 blog posts. I may have overlooked it, but he seems bullish and said a bear market is only confirmed with a monthly closing below 21600 for the dow.
[/quote]
What was the post title or date (public or private) that he said this?
[/quote]
Well, i don't have access to the private blog anymore, but I do recall laughing to myself as every top call or retest call MA made went the other way. Calling it an "inversion" If you have access to the private blog, go back to last January and check all the Dow posts on the private blog.
Side note: Disciples of Armstrong forget that their is more to trading than just going long or short the DOW. There are different sectors that will do very well over the next couple of quarters. Energy for example...
The problem with him calling for a 20% correction - if that is what MA is calling for (I don't subscribe anymore) - is that it may never come. He called for a retest of the lows all 2019 and said we never were breaking out on a meaningful level.
Multiple posts about a retest that never came. Don't hold your breath.
Multiple posts about a retest that never came. Don't hold your breath.
What was the post title or date (public or private) that he said this?
The problem with him calling for a 20% correction - if that is what MA is calling for (I don't subscribe anymore) - is that it may never come. He called for a retest of the lows all 2019 and said we never were breaking out on a meaningful level.
Multiple posts about a retest that never came. Don't hold your breath.
Multiple posts about a retest that never came. Don't hold your breath.
@AnonymousCoder
The reality is you shorted gold against a yearly support level at 1044.5 and reversals themselves are simply key areas of support and resistance within any market.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/system/
@s29
The forecast has not changed with the the price target being around the 30 000 area on the Dow. but I suggest you subscribe to the pro version if you actually want more specific trade information by Armstrong. It is extremely unfair to post information posted on his private blog when people are paying their hard earned money for the same information but essentially the S&P 500 and Nasdaq on the weekly level is now showing a major turning point the week of the 13th of January 2020 exactly in line with the ECM(2020.05) We should then see a move to the downside thereafter into at least 2021. Armstrong calls for a 20% or more correction.
If this happens AnonymousCoder and others will be silenced for good and believe me I will be shorting the hell out of this market the week of the 13th of Jan 2020 which should produce a high on a intraday or closing basis on the weekly level.
The reality is you shorted gold against a yearly support level at 1044.5 and reversals themselves are simply key areas of support and resistance within any market.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/system/
@s29
The forecast has not changed with the the price target being around the 30 000 area on the Dow. but I suggest you subscribe to the pro version if you actually want more specific trade information by Armstrong. It is extremely unfair to post information posted on his private blog when people are paying their hard earned money for the same information but essentially the S&P 500 and Nasdaq on the weekly level is now showing a major turning point the week of the 13th of January 2020 exactly in line with the ECM(2020.05) We should then see a move to the downside thereafter into at least 2021. Armstrong calls for a 20% or more correction.
If this happens AnonymousCoder and others will be silenced for good and believe me I will be shorting the hell out of this market the week of the 13th of Jan 2020 which should produce a high on a intraday or closing basis on the weekly level.
When will S&P500 and Dow drop 20% according to MA? Is there a specific week (or month) in 2020?
Nice job Mr Bike.
Gumbi I thought you might post your account since your killing it with the reversals
But no, just more speel and bang on about 1 trade lol while there have been countless trades posted showing massive losses for MA on trades.
If there are so many losing trades how does his account win? A monthly reversal would be a huge loss in futures until you find out its a losing trade. Forex the same.
Anyway back to the EURCHF forecast which you don't want to talk about that was 2-3,000 points away 7 years later.
So lets follow the ecm, what happens if stocks keep going to March then drop, will Marty claim victory for the ECM lol.
I loved that post explaining that Marty can call it wrong and say socrates is correct thus always pushing the losing trade away from sockraty's. An old trick he must of read about while in the clink then brushed up on his marketing skills.
IT's AMAZING that after so long in the business that there is NOT 1 person who WILL publicaly stand up and say he is fab. I'm over in the Far East so next time I am in Pattaya I will check out the cheaper girly bars to see if he is hanging around there.
Gumbi I thought you might post your account since your killing it with the reversals
But no, just more speel and bang on about 1 trade lol while there have been countless trades posted showing massive losses for MA on trades.
If there are so many losing trades how does his account win? A monthly reversal would be a huge loss in futures until you find out its a losing trade. Forex the same.
Anyway back to the EURCHF forecast which you don't want to talk about that was 2-3,000 points away 7 years later.
So lets follow the ecm, what happens if stocks keep going to March then drop, will Marty claim victory for the ECM lol.
I loved that post explaining that Marty can call it wrong and say socrates is correct thus always pushing the losing trade away from sockraty's. An old trick he must of read about while in the clink then brushed up on his marketing skills.
IT's AMAZING that after so long in the business that there is NOT 1 person who WILL publicaly stand up and say he is fab. I'm over in the Far East so next time I am in Pattaya I will check out the cheaper girly bars to see if he is hanging around there.
@AnonymousCoder
The reality is you shorted gold against a yearly support level at 1044.5 and reversals themselves are simply key areas of support and resistance within any market.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/system/
...
The reality is you shorted gold against a yearly support level at 1044.5 and reversals themselves are simply key areas of support and resistance within any market.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/system/
...
You wrote in The final nail in the coffin? that an Elected Quarterly Reversal should be invalidated because of a Non-elected Yearly Reversal.
Where is the rule for that? Where is the Elected Reversal Invalidation Rule that explains that elected reversals become invalid ?... By the mere existence of other NON-ELECTED REVERSALS?
Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for a reason.
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.
@AnonymousCoder
The reality is you shorted gold against a yearly support level at 1044.5 and reversals themselves are simply key areas of support and resistance within any market.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/system/
@s29
The forecast has not changed with the the price target being around the 30 000 area on the Dow. but I suggest you subscribe to the pro version if you actually want more specific trade information by Armstrong. It is extremely unfair to post information posted on his private blog when people are paying their hard earned money for the same information but essentially the S&P 500 and Nasdaq on the weekly level is now showing a major turning point the week of the 13th of January 2020 exactly in line with the ECM(2020.05) We should then see a move to the downside thereafter into at least 2021. Armstrong calls for a 20% or more correction.
If this happens AnonymousCoder and others will be silenced for good and believe me I will be shorting the hell out of this market the week of the 13th of Jan 2020 which should produce a high on a intraday or closing basis on the weekly level.
The reality is you shorted gold against a yearly support level at 1044.5 and reversals themselves are simply key areas of support and resistance within any market.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/system/
@s29
The forecast has not changed with the the price target being around the 30 000 area on the Dow. but I suggest you subscribe to the pro version if you actually want more specific trade information by Armstrong. It is extremely unfair to post information posted on his private blog when people are paying their hard earned money for the same information but essentially the S&P 500 and Nasdaq on the weekly level is now showing a major turning point the week of the 13th of January 2020 exactly in line with the ECM(2020.05) We should then see a move to the downside thereafter into at least 2021. Armstrong calls for a 20% or more correction.
If this happens AnonymousCoder and others will be silenced for good and believe me I will be shorting the hell out of this market the week of the 13th of Jan 2020 which should produce a high on a intraday or closing basis on the weekly level.
He's active again 
:
Anyone can summerize?
:Quote
PRIVATE BLOG – DOW into the ECM
Posted Dec 27, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
PRIVATE BLOG – DOW into the ECM Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please [...]
Posted Dec 27, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
PRIVATE BLOG – DOW into the ECM Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please [...]
Anyone can summerize?
Stopped reading and following Marty long time ago, and dropped him completely after the Dec dump and fiasco of Marty telling his subscribers NOT to go long and wait for better opportunity in Jan/Feb, but I did a quick search the other day, it's hilarious and ridiculous does anyone even know what the forecast even is anymore? All you hardcore Marty followers, he got interviews just from few months ago talking about Dow at least 35000 into 2021, and now it's bear market for 2020 and on. LOL even his dollar view seem has changed? And not to mention how he sooo missed n look like a fool after gold's price action lately. Still haven't seen anything change, Marty still doing what he's best at covering both sides just to sell and profit on his BS. And thanks for this discussion it's beautiful, hope ppl wake up to this fraud before they get themselves ruined. I found Marty shortly after Brexit vote 2016 and did meet several frustrated ppl at the WEC 2016 and not long after, understanding perfectly why that was the case.
Yes, I also don't understand the rationale behind that at all. Why can't the Dow go to 30000 in January 2020 and then 35000 somewhere in 2021? What's so weird about that happening?
CHARLATAN TRAPPED
...
@AnonymousCoder
So you are saying here in public, that any number of non-elected reversals can negate any major elected reversal of clearly much higher significance!
A quarterly bearish reversal is not more significant than a yearly bearish reversal just because it has been elected. Do you think that a reversal is significant only if it is elected?
In fact testing yet failing to elect a YEARLY bearish reversal is MUCH MORE significant than electing a QUARTERLY bearish reversal. This just shows your lack of understanding of the reversal system.
The fact that gold came so close but still held a yearly bearish reversal at 1044.5 was more significant than electing a quarterly bearish reversal signalling gold was not as weak as it appeared.
Even the 2015 gold report indicated CRITICAL SUPPORT at 1044 and technical support at 1026. These levels were not even broken intraday. Only an absolute beginner would of shorted this market with that kind of information.
@AnonymousCoder
So you are saying here in public, that any number of non-elected reversals can negate any major elected reversal of clearly much higher significance!
A quarterly bearish reversal is not more significant than a yearly bearish reversal just because it has been elected. Do you think that a reversal is significant only if it is elected?
In fact testing yet failing to elect a YEARLY bearish reversal is MUCH MORE significant than electing a QUARTERLY bearish reversal. This just shows your lack of understanding of the reversal system.
The fact that gold came so close but still held a yearly bearish reversal at 1044.5 was more significant than electing a quarterly bearish reversal signalling gold was not as weak as it appeared.
Even the 2015 gold report indicated CRITICAL SUPPORT at 1044 and technical support at 1026. These levels were not even broken intraday. Only an absolute beginner would of shorted this market with that kind of information.
So since you are so certain about this could you please quote the Socrates documentation (with URL link) which contains the Elected Reversal Invalidation Rule which says that the election of a reversal can be negated by the non-election of another reversal.
If you can't do that, then you are implicitly confirming what I wrote in my previous post.
And to be precise, the fact that Martin Armstrong writes
"a Monthly Bearish Reversal which is more important than a daily or weekly" does NOT qualify because we need to see the Elected Reversal Invalidation part of it which is not mentioned anywhere in the documentation. So No Elected Reversal Invalidation Rule here.
Gumbi you are trapped now. You contradicted yourself left right and center for everyone to see. We can always get you trapped. Why? Because you are dishonest and devious. The Martin Armstrong Charlatan in chief.
There is no way out of this.
1) If the documentation contains the Elected Reversal Invalidation Rule then the reversals are useless as documented.
2) If the documentation does not contain the Elected Reversal Invalidation Rule then we know that Gumbi / Martin Armstrong will at any time make up new rules to make fraudulent system performance claims. In that case, reversals are useless as well, and further discussion is pointless.
So show us that you did not make this up. Where is the rule documented that a non-elected reversal can invalidate an elected reversal?
BTW:
What a load of Bullshit this is. If in fact there was such a rule, then the computer could so easily just avoid generating the invalid reversal because it knows the other qualifying non-elected reversal. Then we would not even need to talk about it.
UPDATE
Since no reference has been provided to any rule as requested above, we have ONCE AGAIN incontrovertible evidence that Martin Armstrong creates rules in hindsight to fraudulently misrepresent the performance of the reversal system.
Which is a crime.
Reference documentation on Socrates Reversals at this time 2019-12-28:
The Reversal System
The relevant case can be found here:
Quarterly Superposition Event in Gold 2015
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
@AnonymousCoder
"…a Monthly Bearish Reversal which is more important than a daily or weekly. Some support is likely to be found at that level. "
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/trading-a-panic/
Yearly bearish reversals are of course more important than quarterly bearish reversals and quarterly bearish reversals do not magically become more important than yearly bearish reversals just because they have been elected.
That should settle it.
"…a Monthly Bearish Reversal which is more important than a daily or weekly. Some support is likely to be found at that level. "
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/the-princeton-models-and-methodologies-a-users-guide/trading-a-panic/
Yearly bearish reversals are of course more important than quarterly bearish reversals and quarterly bearish reversals do not magically become more important than yearly bearish reversals just because they have been elected.
That should settle it.
@Gumbi,
Quoting from you,
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/
That's right, the dates of ECM cannot be changed. But when there are two different dates 10/1/2015, 10/7/2015 from Armstrong himself, he is PLAYING 8.6 = 8.615. It is basically whichever date that fits. ANYONE can make successful forecast when all the numbers in the universe are equal, NOT to mention that Armstrong does NOT understand high school physics on conservation of energy, showing a total LACK of undertstanding of basic science here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190710182411/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/fake-new-silence-any-new-achievement/
So the math for him is 0=1=2=3=4=5=6...., and the physics for him is that free energy can be created from a Japanese scooter. Not entirely sure how such man can create any viable energy model for financial markets.
So you think it's an error on the part of Armstrong? If Armstrong is of any integrity, he would have LABELED every single post on whether the forecast is coming from Armstrong or Socrates. This is just the standard trick of assigning profits to Socrates, and assigning losses to Armstrong, AFTER THE FACT. In this way, ALL coin flips can be heads for Socrates, and thus selling his system, when in fact, it's all from the same source.
Let's say Armstrong made this error. AND HE did NOT bother to correct his error??? What kind of man is that, when he could have caused 100+% losses in bitcoins for his readers, and he is not concerned any bit about that, without making more posts to correct himself?
Well, the only reason that he doesn't "correct himself" is that in no way, he will put his errors in the glaring spotlight to reduce the confidence from the unsuspecting public.
That is just one error that I documented. And there are so many numerous other errors. For Armstrong who thinks that his Socrates model is infallible, one single error is enough to disprove that claim, because his claim IS that Socrates works on all financial markets, and EVEN works on forecasting individual private businesses.
Let's face it. The LEVELS of bitcoins are generated from Socrates. Armstrong obviously is quoting those particular LEVELS from Socrates. And given his experiences with Socrates, if Armstrong can make such HUGE mistakes, then how about the rest of us? And if the levesls from Socrates aren't even good at the YEARLY levels, the chance for Socrates to work at quarterly, monthly, or daily levels are at best similar to flipping a coin and getting a head.
Quoting from you,
Quote
The dates of the ECM cannot be changed and have been documented well in advance. I also posted a trade where 2 major daily bearish reversals were elected on the 1st of October with a big gap to the next and it was successful.
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/
That's right, the dates of ECM cannot be changed. But when there are two different dates 10/1/2015, 10/7/2015 from Armstrong himself, he is PLAYING 8.6 = 8.615. It is basically whichever date that fits. ANYONE can make successful forecast when all the numbers in the universe are equal, NOT to mention that Armstrong does NOT understand high school physics on conservation of energy, showing a total LACK of undertstanding of basic science here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190710182411/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/fake-new-silence-any-new-achievement/
So the math for him is 0=1=2=3=4=5=6...., and the physics for him is that free energy can be created from a Japanese scooter. Not entirely sure how such man can create any viable energy model for financial markets.
Quote
For bitcoin we don't have the reversals just a single blog post how can we with any confidence going to conclude anything? Socrates doesn’t work like that where it's completely static and never changes we could of easily generated and elected a set of monthly reversals based on future price movement. That’s why that post doesn’t help because we don’t have all the information. It seems to be an error on the part of Armstrong but to conclude Socrates got it wrong simply cannot be determined.
So you think it's an error on the part of Armstrong? If Armstrong is of any integrity, he would have LABELED every single post on whether the forecast is coming from Armstrong or Socrates. This is just the standard trick of assigning profits to Socrates, and assigning losses to Armstrong, AFTER THE FACT. In this way, ALL coin flips can be heads for Socrates, and thus selling his system, when in fact, it's all from the same source.
Let's say Armstrong made this error. AND HE did NOT bother to correct his error??? What kind of man is that, when he could have caused 100+% losses in bitcoins for his readers, and he is not concerned any bit about that, without making more posts to correct himself?
Well, the only reason that he doesn't "correct himself" is that in no way, he will put his errors in the glaring spotlight to reduce the confidence from the unsuspecting public.
That is just one error that I documented. And there are so many numerous other errors. For Armstrong who thinks that his Socrates model is infallible, one single error is enough to disprove that claim, because his claim IS that Socrates works on all financial markets, and EVEN works on forecasting individual private businesses.
Let's face it. The LEVELS of bitcoins are generated from Socrates. Armstrong obviously is quoting those particular LEVELS from Socrates. And given his experiences with Socrates, if Armstrong can make such HUGE mistakes, then how about the rest of us? And if the levesls from Socrates aren't even good at the YEARLY levels, the chance for Socrates to work at quarterly, monthly, or daily levels are at best similar to flipping a coin and getting a head.
MA_talk
I understand exactly what you are saying and you make a good point but it just doesn’t seem to make sense to me there must be some mistake because there are instances where the dates given and the numbers cannot both be true.
For example
2015.75… 10/07/15 is 0.75 x 365 = 273.75 days into 2015 Which is the 30th sept/1st Oct.
2020.05…01/26/20 is 0.05 x 365 = 18.23 days into 2020 which is the 18th January
Understanding Arrays & Time -
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/understanding-cycles/understanding-the-arrays-time/
"Let us look at the ECM. The target 2015.75 = 273.75 days in this year. September 30 is actually 273 days into 2015. This target actually is a TIME STRADDLE with the .75 for it is past .5, but not yet fully the next day October 1. So to be accurate, the target is September 30/October 1. This falls in the middle of the week, but on the Monthly Arrays, some will show September while others will show October. As we get closer, they may change to agree. This is why we split TIME in all levels."
I have never seen Armstrong change his forecasts and play with the 8.6 numbers, if you can show me another blog post or comment where he changes the dates and gives credit to one of these dates which clearly does not add up mentioning 10/07/15 or any others I would be shocked to say the least.
Regarding bitcoin it is impossible to conclude Socrates failed on this forecast and did not work when Socrates updates itself every day/week/month generating new reversals based on future price movement. Reversal points are constantly being generated each time a market produces a new isolated high or low, either on an intraday or closing basis. I am not saying Socrates is infallible I'm sure it has made mistakes and this most certainly could be one of them but they seem to be very few and far between.
I also do not believe Armstrong has ever said Socrates is infallible.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/basic-concepts/have-i-ever-been-wrong/
@Gumbi,
Quoting from you,
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/
That's right, the dates of ECM cannot be changed. But when there are two different dates 10/1/2015, 10/7/2015 from Armstrong himself, he is PLAYING 8.6 = 8.615. It is basically whichever date that fits. ANYONE can make successful forecast when all the numbers in the universe are equal, NOT to mention that Armstrong does NOT understand high school physics on conservation of energy, showing a total LACK of undertstanding of basic science here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190710182411/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/fake-new-silence-any-new-achievement/
So the math for him is 0=1=2=3=4=5=6...., and the physics for him is that free energy can be created from a Japanese scooter. Not entirely sure how such man can create any viable energy model for financial markets.
So you think it's an error on the part of Armstrong? If Armstrong is of any integrity, he would have LABELED every single post on whether the forecast is coming from Armstrong or Socrates. This is just the standard trick of assigning profits to Socrates, and assigning losses to Armstrong, AFTER THE FACT. In this way, ALL coin flips can be heads for Socrates, and thus selling his system, when in fact, it's all from the same source.
Let's say Armstrong made this error. AND HE did NOT bother to correct his error??? What kind of man is that, when he could have caused 100+% losses in bitcoins for his readers, and he is not concerned any bit about that, without making more posts to correct himself?
Well, the only reason that he doesn't "correct himself" is that in no way, he will put his errors in the glaring spotlight to reduce the confidence from the unsuspecting public.
That is just one error that I documented. And there are so many numerous other errors. For Armstrong who thinks that his Socrates model is infallible, one single error is enough to disprove that claim, because his claim IS that Socrates works on all financial markets, and EVEN works on forecasting individual private businesses.
Let's face it. The LEVELS of bitcoins are generated from Socrates. Armstrong obviously is quoting those particular LEVELS from Socrates. And given his experiences with Socrates, if Armstrong can make such HUGE mistakes, then how about the rest of us? And if the levesls from Socrates aren't even good at the YEARLY levels, the chance for Socrates to work at quarterly, monthly, or daily levels are at best similar to flipping a coin and getting a head.
Quoting from you,
Quote
The dates of the ECM cannot be changed and have been documented well in advance. I also posted a trade where 2 major daily bearish reversals were elected on the 1st of October with a big gap to the next and it was successful.
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/
That's right, the dates of ECM cannot be changed. But when there are two different dates 10/1/2015, 10/7/2015 from Armstrong himself, he is PLAYING 8.6 = 8.615. It is basically whichever date that fits. ANYONE can make successful forecast when all the numbers in the universe are equal, NOT to mention that Armstrong does NOT understand high school physics on conservation of energy, showing a total LACK of undertstanding of basic science here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190710182411/https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/fake-new-silence-any-new-achievement/
So the math for him is 0=1=2=3=4=5=6...., and the physics for him is that free energy can be created from a Japanese scooter. Not entirely sure how such man can create any viable energy model for financial markets.
Quote
For bitcoin we don't have the reversals just a single blog post how can we with any confidence going to conclude anything? Socrates doesn’t work like that where it's completely static and never changes we could of easily generated and elected a set of monthly reversals based on future price movement. That’s why that post doesn’t help because we don’t have all the information. It seems to be an error on the part of Armstrong but to conclude Socrates got it wrong simply cannot be determined.
So you think it's an error on the part of Armstrong? If Armstrong is of any integrity, he would have LABELED every single post on whether the forecast is coming from Armstrong or Socrates. This is just the standard trick of assigning profits to Socrates, and assigning losses to Armstrong, AFTER THE FACT. In this way, ALL coin flips can be heads for Socrates, and thus selling his system, when in fact, it's all from the same source.
Let's say Armstrong made this error. AND HE did NOT bother to correct his error??? What kind of man is that, when he could have caused 100+% losses in bitcoins for his readers, and he is not concerned any bit about that, without making more posts to correct himself?
Well, the only reason that he doesn't "correct himself" is that in no way, he will put his errors in the glaring spotlight to reduce the confidence from the unsuspecting public.
That is just one error that I documented. And there are so many numerous other errors. For Armstrong who thinks that his Socrates model is infallible, one single error is enough to disprove that claim, because his claim IS that Socrates works on all financial markets, and EVEN works on forecasting individual private businesses.
Let's face it. The LEVELS of bitcoins are generated from Socrates. Armstrong obviously is quoting those particular LEVELS from Socrates. And given his experiences with Socrates, if Armstrong can make such HUGE mistakes, then how about the rest of us? And if the levesls from Socrates aren't even good at the YEARLY levels, the chance for Socrates to work at quarterly, monthly, or daily levels are at best similar to flipping a coin and getting a head.
@nstrdms
The ECM is the global economic cycle declining into 2020.05(18 Jan) I am referring to the US share market crashing into Jan 2021 if we rally into this ECM turning point in Jan 2020
The ECM is the global economic cycle declining into 2020.05(18 Jan) I am referring to the US share market crashing into Jan 2021 if we rally into this ECM turning point in Jan 2020
That is NOT what Armstrong implied in some of his private blog posts.
Read the private blog titled "US Share Market - Breakout or Something Else?"
"The mere fact that we exceeded the 2018 high in 2019 raised the possibility of a cycle inversion increasing the risk of a correction next year." He then said it could be a "temporary high with a correction thereafter."
And in another blog post, he said "World leaders will continue to blame Trump's trade war for the economic decline into 2020. However, the ECM has been pointing down for the business cycle into January 2020 all along."
And in another blog post, he said "Socrates has been warning about that the world economy is taking a nose-dive into January 2020."
The contradictory nature of Socrates parallels the Socratic Problem.
"In historical scholarship, the Socratic problem (or Socratic question)[1] concerns attempts at reconstructing a historical and philosophical image of Socrates based on the variable, and sometimes contradictory, nature of the existing sources on his life. Scholars rely upon the extant sources, such as those of contemporaries like Aristophanes or disciples of Socrates like Plato and Xenophon, for knowing anything about Socrates. However, these sources contain contradictory details of his life, words, and beliefs when taken together. This complicates the attempts at reconstructing the beliefs and philosophical views held by the historical Socrates. It is apparent to scholarship that this problem is now deemed a task seeming impossible to clarify and thus perhaps now classified as unsolvable."
that is exactly what I am saying we should get a correction next year after making a temporary high, the weekly array on the S&P500 also targets the week of the 13th as a major turning point... Armstrong said on his private blog titled US Share Market - Breakout or Something Else? "there remains a risk that the market will rally into the ECM turning point in January"
@AnonymousCoder
So you are saying here in public, that any number of non-elected reversals can negate any major elected reversal of clearly much higher significance!
A quarterly bearish reversal is not more significant than a yearly bearish reversal just because it has been elected. Do you think that a reversal is significant only if it is elected?
In fact testing yet failing to elect a YEARLY bearish reversal is MUCH MORE significant than electing a QUARTERLY bearish reversal. This just shows your lack of understanding of the reversal system.
The fact that gold came so close but still held a yearly bearish reversal at 1044.5 was more significant than electing a quarterly bearish reversal signalling gold was not as weak as it appeared.
Even the 2015 gold report indicated CRITICAL SUPPORT at 1044 and technical support at 1026. These levels were not even broken intraday. Only an absolute beginner would of shorted this market with that kind of information.
Jump to: