Socrates basic service only launched in 2016 and the first private blog post was on the 1st of March 2016. before the release of the basic service it was like trading in the dark relying on PUBLIC blog posts every so often.
So there was no alternative prediction available throughout the 2015? Doesn't that make it even worse then, lol?
So everyone relied on his public post (I linked in the blog to some of them) which were bearish, or apparently vast majority interpreted them as bearish at the time.
I merely pointed out to just few comments which interpreted Armstrong's writing as bearish with regards to gold. If you need more, well there are 300+ pages here, have fun reading. As far as I recall, only comments that were bullish on gold specifically stressed that they made the bullish call CONTRARY to Armstrong's calls, meaning even those who were bullish also interpreted Armstrong as bearish at that time.
I analyzed the quote from the post in my
blog. You and other readers are free to refute the analysis.
The low in December 2015 was around 1045 so are you saying that Armstrong is wrong just because we did not test support just under 1000?.
Yes, of course, because he was saying that gold would go under $1000. It still hasn't to this very day.
"The volatility is still insane. Gold should make a new low this year. However, since we DID NOT get the sell signal in gold at year-end, this is the bounce, so do not expect it to be a breakout just yet."
[/i]
Armstrong said not a breakout just yet implying he was bullish long term and he was right gold did crash and made a low around 1124 in late 2016 but wrong about a new low being formed
Yes, exactly. But that's why I emphasized his word "should" - "Gold should make a new low this year." - it didn't.
Again, he appeared to be very confident about that.
on the 1st of March 2016 on the private blog Armstrong said "Gold elects Monthly Bullish at $1207 on its way to $1309 March now must simply close above 1347 sustain any hope of continuing this rally now it appears a future quarterly closing below 1130 will warn of a break below 1000."
On march 30th 2016 Armstrong wrote on his private blog all our long term models still imply that the lift-off is not coming until 2017.
On April the 29th 2016 Armstrong said the most important monthly bullish stands at 1330 and 1360." we closed at the end of July 2016 at the 1357 level.
I do not have access to his private blogs, thus I can't confirm it.
But even if you are right, he was bearish BEFORE those private posts were published. Also note that he was bearish PUBLICLY AFTER those posts you referred to. Again. Read those posts at my blog post.
Also, here is relevant observation from someone who apparently has access to private posts:
https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com/2019/07/quarterly-superposition-event-in-gold.htmlTherefore nothing can be concluded because your conclusions are based off of incomplete information…
Huh? You refuted nothing. You even said there were no private posts in 2015. Thus complete information was available
(and as I said even long time 5+years readers had interpreted him as bearish), or if it was hidden then what good was it at the time? How can you be sure of his track record if he keeps that information private, lol? People opened positions based on Martin Armstrong's public blog. And they made incorrect calls. MA is very well aware of that as some comments suggest. But ok... anyway... point was that he was bearish, not which trades others had executed.
how can you use posts from the bitcointalk.org Armstrong forum as proof of anything?
Not a proof per se, but I used them as an alternative interpretations of Martin Armstrong's posts. Vast majority of those posts also interpreted Martin Armstrong as being a big fat gold bear.
Only certain trades were actually possible for example when Armstrong said "a future quarterly closing below 1130 will warn of a break below 1000" and when he said "Gold elects Monthly Bullish at $1207 on its way to $1309" this is tradable information because it is black and white, if this then that.
This does not negate the assertion that he was bearish at the time as I posited. Other readers opened shorts based on Martin Armstrong's posts. I have not found out a single comment in this thread that opened long gold position based on MA's blog posts. Thus my conclusion is that he was bearish publicly.
You have failed to add the private blog posts provided by Armstrong which started on March the 1st 2016 on Ask-Socrates.com. Why has it been excluded?
As I said, I do not have access to those. Even if I had I could not use it as source because other readers would not be able to open it unless they subscribe.
Armstrong was constantly updating us on his private blog regarding the metals and instead you are using posts from bitcointalk.org that go into May 2019?
Private blogs started May 2016 as you said. Note that there are comments that I referred to which were made before private blogging even started. Also some of the comments from e.g. 2019 are actually recalling about what happened in 2015/2016.
In other words, you have refuted absolutely nothing.
Try to source relevant information, and quote relevant sections, then show us the rebuttal.
Also note that I left the possibility that Martin Armstrong somehow made the correct calls:
If Martin Armstrong by some means actually made correct calls with regards to gold, and is aware that his readers completely "misinterpret" his blogs, why does he keep posting them?
With that said, I invite you to stop writing nonsense, and instead quote his clear public statements that refute the assertions that I had presented in
the blog.
