@nstrdms
Regarding the Dow We elected two monthly bearish reversals and tested the third monthly bearish reversal at 21600 all within the same month but never elected it, it's that simple what you are saying is that the market must retest the third monthly bearish at 21600 again for the second time which makes zero sense. The election of a reversal implies we can test the next one in this case it was 21600 which we already had done so within the month of December. Based on this understanding the reversal system has functioned exactly as one would expect.
You are deflecting. The failed reversals were for S&P500, not the Dow. And the point still stands, there's always some other factor to negate a trade. I listed 29 such examples. No just don't know what the 3rd monthly bearish reversal was for the S&P500. an example of a trade based on the reversals would be to enter after the election lets say of a monthly bullish reversal with a big gap to the next you could enter and and close your position once the next monthly bullish is reached or exit the trade if the nearest monthly bearish is elected. that is your risk/reward ratio and this idea that it has to be right every time is also part of the problem. |
|
|
|
|
@nstrdms
Regarding the Dow We elected two monthly bearish reversals and tested the third monthly bearish reversal at 21600 all within the same month but never elected it, it's that simple what you are saying is that the market must retest the third monthly bearish at 21600 again for the second time which makes zero sense. The election of a reversal implies we can test the next one in this case it was 21600 which we already had done so within the month of December. Based on this understanding the reversal system has functioned exactly as one would expect.
|
|
|
|
Look at the month of January, being the week of the 13th , max target is just above 30k on the Dow Yes we do consider the 2019 weekly closings the market should exceed them in January.
I can send you more specific trade/confirmation signals if you need by PM but essentially the week of the 13th of Jan is showing up as a massive turning point in many markets so everything appears to point to a high which should be above any current levels we have seen this month.
Yeah, please can you do that, in my profile. I cannot, you need to allow messages from newbies first. under profile settings |
|
|
|
So dow is at 28645 right now, so a high meaning what exactly? At what level should we look at, weekly, monthly or yearly? So if the price of dow closes around the same level as it is today, on the end week of the ECM, would that mean that it didnt elect the high so the requirement of shorting it would not be necessary, and the ECM would still be correct? Problem is at what level do we define a highest weekly closing, I mean this is the first weekly closing in that year, 2020, do we also consider the year 2019 weekly closings? @trulycoinednonymousCoder
"The forecast is that it will either go up or it will go down"
That is a complete misunderstanding by AnonymousCoder as I said in a previous post quite clearly.
"There can be no excuse that is impossible. If we see a high in line with the ECM the market has to go down or the ECM will be proven to be completely false."
He also cannot answer to the monthly bearish in his disaster reversal post specifically the Dow not including the 21600 monthly bearish reversal.
Oh ok, I see. Sorry about that. So how can I right now see and identify a high on that week if it occurs to evaluate what you say is correct. On that week of 2020.05, guess it is the 13'th January from that week to the end, from that ECM date, 0.05 x 365. Yes exactly the week of the 13th, so the close of the 17th Jan will most likely produce the highest weekly closing with a drop thereafter. Look at the month of January, being the week of the 13th , max target is just above 30k on the Dow Yes we do consider the 2019 weekly closings the market should exceed them in January. I can send you more specific trade/confirmation signals if you need by PM but essentially the week of the 13th of Jan is showing up as a massive turning point in many markets so everything appears to point to a high which should be above any current levels we have seen this month. |
|
|
|
@trulycoinednonymousCoder
"The forecast is that it will either go up or it will go down"
That is a complete misunderstanding by AnonymousCoder as I said in a previous post quite clearly.
"There can be no excuse that is impossible. If we see a high in line with the ECM the market has to go down or the ECM will be proven to be completely false."
He also cannot answer to the monthly bearish in his disaster reversal post specifically the Dow not including the 21600 monthly bearish reversal.
Oh ok, I see. Sorry about that. So how can I right now see and identify a high on that week if it occurs to evaluate what you say is correct. On that week of 2020.05, guess it is the 13'th January from that week to the end, from that ECM date, 0.05 x 365. Yes exactly the week of the 13th, so the close of the 17th Jan will most likely produce the highest weekly closing with a drop thereafter. |
|
|
|
@trulycoined The market made an INTRADAY low of 15371 in August. I specifically said the lowest closing on a MONTHLY CLOSING BASIS. August monthly closing: 16528 September monthly closing: 16284.7 Regarding the "it's just time" PDF Armstrong has explained the ECM(8.6 wave) breaks down into as 3 altering individual alternating waves with a time duration of 2.15 and 1.075 year periods for 1 leg. We refer to these as "long" and "short" legs Which equals 4.3 years being a half cycle(2.15 + 1.075 + 1.075 = 4.3) It has never been explained any other way. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/models/7219-2/ The date just before 2009.3 is 2008.225 which is 0.225 x 365 = 82.125 into the year makes the 23rd of March the next wave is a 1.075 year period, 2008.225 + 1.075 = 2009.3. 0.3 x 365 = 109.5 days into the year comes to the 19 April 2009. That is how the ECM is calculated there is no other way the math is perfect. Armstrong posted a writing in 2008 with the correct date they cannot both be true and a mistake has clearly been made how is this so inconceivable to not think an error has been made ? If it is just a quarter cycle of the ECM(2.15) broken in half being 1.075. 2009.3 cannot equal the 19th March 2009. http://s3.amazonaws.com/armstrongeconomics-wp/2012/03/we-are-alone-121808.pdfAnonymousCoder "The forecast is that it will either go up or it will go down"That is a complete misunderstanding by AnonymousCoder as I said in a previous post quite clearly. "There can be no excuse that is impossible. If we see a high in line with the ECM the market has to go down or the ECM will be proven to be completely false."He also cannot answer to the monthly bearish in his disaster reversal post specifically the Dow not including the 21600 monthly bearish reversal. |
|
|
|
@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.
So what if it doesn't happen, what is the excuse then? The model forecast a major turning point, what do you define as a turning point? What if in later months it rises above that point? How can we infer that this statement is wrong. It all seems wish-washy with no clear target or concise statement. What do you exactly mean. Others are welcome to write. There can be no excuse that is impossible. If we see a high in line with the ECM the market has to go down or the ECM will be proven to be completely false. The opposite took place with the US market moving down as we approached the 2015.75 ECM target indicating a cycle inversion into 2020. A turning point meaning a high/low on an intraday or closing basis, in this case for the week of the 13th. The market will need to rise above the turning point after the week of the 13th of Jan intraday and also close higher on a weekly closing basis in order to infer the statement is wrong. There are only two possibilities since the week of the 13th Jan is showing up as a major turning point, a high on an intraday or weekly closing basis the week of the 13th means a drop into 2021, a low means we get another cycle inversion. |
|
|
|
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.
Yes we elected 2 monthly bearish reversals I do not know what the third monthly bearish reversal was but we may have tested it in December for the S&P500 and if so this means we can still move up. This is exactly what happened on the Dow where we elected 2 monthly bearish reversals at 23344 and 23997 but also tested the third monthly bearish within the same month being December 2018 at 21600 but failing to elect it. The market found support at the 21700 area just above the third monthly bearish reversal at 21600 so you could of bought against it because January was also coming up as a directional change. This is a very key aspect of the reversal system that you can now see coder and others are blissfully unaware of and this completely nullifies his year end reversal disaster post. They have no idea how the reversal system even functions let alone the reversals that were in play. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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!
@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=1moAug and Dec had lower monthly closing. But you stated: 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.pdfhttps://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. |
|
|
|
@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/ |
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
@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. 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... |
|
|
|
@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. |
|
|
|
@Gumbi, Quoting from you, 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. 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/ |
|
|
|
@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
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. |
|
|
|
@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 @MA_talk Welcome back "I explained that the cycle was discovered from a study of the number of financial panics between 1683 and 1907 that was a total time period of 224 years. There were 26 panics within that 224 year period that produced 8.615384615." "this business cycle can be calculated on quarter-cycle intervals of 2.15 years into the final peak for this major wave formation of December 24th, 2032." https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/1999-2/the-business-cycle-and-the-future/10/07/015 is simply the ECM in 2.15 year intervals, it’s a quarter cycle of the ECM 8.6/4 = 2.15 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. Dow elected 2 daily bearish reversals at the close today, next level of support lies at 26062 on the monthly level,
I have entered a short position at 26545 and exit will be around the 26062 zone.
... I have just exited my trade at 26102 just above the monthly bearish Btw AnonymousCoder for this trade I sold 18 contracts on the Dow because the reversal system is never wrong  Welcome to the exciting world of single observation statistics! Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog no I have not played this correctly. The market should test the next daily bearish at 25833. Today is also a turning point so we should see a low at least on a intraday or closing basis.If a reversal is penetrated intraday this often implies a move to the next in this case the weekly bearish has become the next area of support on the Dow. The reversal system is simply the best MAP possible when trading. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
