Now that's a shocker. Watson, you dumbass... |
|
|
|
Armstrong just seems to be shooting predictions at random with big words and nice charts, and then hopes that some of them will stick.
Remember that he claims his computer processes inputs on a multi-dimensional plane that is beyond human capability, and at the same time he posts 2D charts for you to read them to back up his predictions. |
|
|
|
If in fact he could do that, based on his so called predictions, then he would not need to struggle to sell his over-priced books, overpriced reports, overpriced dysfunctional Socrates, overpriced conferences. He would just trade something like Natural Gas.
[...]
All he can do is to prey on even bigger losers, the members of his cult.
What a great business!
He can explain anything, lol. The Revenge of Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; What is the catch? Why do you do everything you do with no charge. What is the hook? Nobody does something for nothing.
ANSWER: I get that question often. First I am paying back all the support everyone has shown to me and my family. Secondly; It is my greatest revenge against the evil power in banks of New York, the mainstream press, CFTC, and SEC all conniving against the public for the benefit of maintaining their power.
[...]
Yes, there has to be a cost for the Socrates Project because I am not going to be around forever. If you want that to continue, then people who are there to maintain the clients have to earn a living. We keep the prices modest for the general public to have access. That was my pledge. Of course, portfolio and global correlations models are for the institutions who have different sets of problems.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
So umm. Another weird video post: Robot Restaurants Are Very Popular in Asia
Categories: Technology
Tags: Creative Destruction, video
"Creative Destruction"? What in the world? Also, video publishing date is Dec 31, 2014. What the heck does it tell us about current popularity of such restaurants? What is he trying to imply here? Here is some not-Asia more recent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3sQxILrcsYSeems cool, but not really efficient tbh. Is Marty fearmongering again? Better I buy his $500 reports to save myself from robot invasion! |
|
|
|
We noticed, and lol'd: [...]
I guess there is no reason to ask yourself why is there NO REVIEWS AT ALL yet from people who bought the "fastest-selling book ever on Amazon", except the "reviews" which say "I can't believe I missed out on getting a copy.".
But hey maybe it has just not been delivered yet? Lol. |
|
|
|
I hope Marty realizes his latest post features CGI. Robot Soldiers
Categories: War
Tags: Cycle of War, video
|
|
|
|
It appears that Martin Armstrong indeed set a new record for the Amazon best seller We have received a number of requests for press interviews since this book seems to be the fastest-selling book ever on Amazon since it sold out in less than three hours.
Interviewer: - Your majesty, oh great one, please tell us, how did you do it?Martin Armstrong: - Well you know, it all started with...
Behind the Scam: What Does It Take to Be a ‘Best-Selling Author’? $3 and 5 Minutes.
A while ago, I put up a fake book on Amazon. I took a photo of my foot, uploaded it as a book to Amazon, and in a matter of hours had achieved “№1 Best Seller” status, complete with the orange banner and everything.
How many copies did I need to sell to be able to call up my mother and celebrate my newfound authorial achievements? Three. Yes, a total of three copies to become a best-selling author. And I bought two of those copies myself!
The reason people aspire to call themselves “best-selling author” is because it dramatically increases your credibility and “personal brand.”
Step 1: Writing my book (~2 seconds)
Checked: Note Martin also possibly accidentally admitted to buying the book himself: What we have determined is that there were many people who purchased several copies to hand out as gifts. One client said he bought five copies and sent them to politicians he knew.
And his cult member or paid shill who comes to tell us about it: I've figured the book will sell out, so I was checking regularly. And as soon as it was available, I did order, two copies, one for myself, and other as a gift (to be backup copy as well).
I'll buy mostly whatever writing Armstrong has to sell on the matter of economy and finance, below 100$. And for this book I was ready to pay even more.
March 22, 2016
But this guy just doesn't stop to amaze me. I was following Socrates on irregular level, since I didn't understand much in the beginning. But in the same time, as time was allowing, I started to educate myself on the actual modelling that MA is doing. And it's not a trivial thing to understand. Lately I started to have a grasp of what MA is actually doing with his modelling, and I can start to imagine the amount of work that MA has put into it. And from my point of view, it's monumental.
December 25, 2019
No comment on Socrates, no experience with it.
 
I guess there is no reason to ask yourself why is there NO REVIEWS AT ALL yet from people who bought the "fastest-selling book ever on Amazon", except the "reviews" which say "I can't believe I missed out on getting a copy.". |
|
|
|
He and Socrates are not perfect. No one can be.
Thing is that he often implies (or even flat out claims) that his computer's predictions can't possibly be wrong, thus deceiving readers. For example: I greatly appreciate the confidence saying I am newer wrong. But on an individual level, NOBODY can possibly be right all the time. This is why I try to emphasize that the numbers are the numbers and that all we can do is watch how everything unfolds. I have no personal vision of the future and what I fear I would not say publicly anyway for that is just opinion.
All I can do is say this is what has happened in the past and express what the computer says – not ME. The markets are the only infallible guide if you just listen..
It is NOT that I am never wrong. Personally, that is just not possible. I try to qualify what I “think” from the model.
If we get signals in all, it is hard to be wrong for this is NOT my personal OPINION. You can see the future unfold in slow-motion.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, Have you ever been wrong?
ANSWER: On a personal level, of course.
[...]
If I was personally infallible, then why build a computer?
Posted Jan 26, 2013 by Martin Armstrong
But our computer has been forecasting politics for the last 30 years and it has never been wrong yet in any country.
He also implies that he can predict long-term with 100% accuracy, which actually then makes it "perfect" prediction machine for some events and time-spans: The Long-Term is far easier to predict with even 100% accuracy than Short-Term.
So if he acknowledges that he's not always correct, how come he NEVER admitted when his computer was wrong? Or perhaps I missed such confession? Did he ever come out and said Well guys, this is one time in 30 years that computer's forecast was wrong. I don't think he has. In fact when he's wrong, he just brainwashes you into thinking he was right, see for example his 2016 elections "long-term" "prediction": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg53486641#msg53486641 |
|
|
|
The Armstrong bashers here [...]
[...] You are not credible.
Piss off, doofus. Everything we said here was backed up with direct, black-and-white quotes from Martin Armstrong. If there is something specific you want to refute, be coherent. Stop polluting thread with nonsense (ditto other cult members shills here).
I will bet you all of the bashers here read his blog regularly and gain good information and have profited from it. You may have the time to do god knows how many hours of research to come up with similar resources and facts - but would you know where to look or reach a similar conclusion without reviewing his writings or forecasts ?
That makes him CONTENT CURATOR at best. Nothing more. Why would I tolerate him deceiving others just because he's a curator? |
|
|
|
I am more concerned about Armstrong's long term predictions, let's go over them:
-Euro is gonna collapse, European Union will fall
-Dollar is gonna go up a lot
-Dow Jones will keep going up to 35000 points, because with negative interest rates in Europe that's where the money will go
-Despite the strong dollar, Gold will go up significantly because of people won't trust the governments anymore.
-Copper will go up because of electric vehicles and demand in China.
-Emerging markets are gonna pop up because of strong dollar, they won't be able to pay the debt denominated in dollars.
-Thanks to colding, commodities like corn will go up because of bad harvest (it already happened in 2019)
How do you feel about these claims?
No deadlines in what you just listed, thus: if it does not happen - he is not incorrect, but if it happens - he is correct.
Please people, provide some sources for his predictions if possible so we can see if he had some target dates, and if he really predicted what you listed in the first place. |
|
|
|
2020 is the year the Phoenix rises.
Sounds cool, but not really. It's actually year of the RAT 🐀 Well, technically it starts Jan 25, but just saying. |
|
|
|
Martin will also try to convince you that he "clearly" predicted Trump 2016 victory: Posted Mar 21, 2019 by Martin Armstrong
Our model CLEARLY forecast Trump would win and it targeted the 2016 election.
However, if you read the following Posted Aug 3, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
Our model is not unanimous for Trump. There is technically a 25% chance that Hillary could win, which one of our four models projects a Democratic victory.
You can notice he didn't really predict it. It just happens that he placed his odds on Trump, but so had millions of other people. He also had a way out for every situation, he covered election rigging, Posted Aug 24, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
Looking at the Electoral College, yes it appears to be a close race again. The population voting models only give Hillary a 25% chance of winning. But the press is in all out war against Trump and the American people creating propaganda like we have never seen in American history.
Once again, I will say this. UNLESS there is a huge turnout, they will UNDOUBTEDLY rig the game for Hillary. You have the Republican Elite who behind the curtain are pushing for Hillary. So I would also have to assume they will rig the election every which way possible. There is far too much at stake to allow an OUTSIDER to go to Washington. They stole state from Bernie to make sure Hillary won. Without that, Bernie would have been the candidate.
So I believe they will rig the game. The cannot afford a Trump victory. IF THERE IS A HUGE popular turnout that puts Trump in that 60% category, I believe they will assassinate him. He would tear the bankers apart and has already stated he will end nation-building, which is the life-blood of neoconservative. Maybe I am wrong and Trump will win. That remains to be seen for my opinion is not worth much – it’s just opinion.
And also assasination: Posted Mar 28, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
Whenever the establishment is seriously threatened, they respond with assassination.
Donald Trump is flying in the face of people so corrupt that they would not hesitate to have him assassinated somehow, be it a plane or car crash or under the pretense of some minority who gets amazing access. This is standard operating procedure and it is dominant throughout history from ancient times to the present.
If Trump was not elected, and outcome was something else, Armstrong would technically not be wrong, but instead he would refer to these posts instead. In other words - nothing he "predicts" is "clear" as he says, but instead he tells you it's "clear" only when he wins his bets. EDIT: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/the-computer-projects-have-no-human-bias-or-input/ Three of our models project a strong Republican victory, but one favors the Democrats in a dead heat. This is a percent of the popular vote.
Armstrong's model (or rather 4 models? whatever) projected that Trump would win popular vote. Specifically, 3 out of 4 models projected that Trump would win popular vote in 2016 elections, thus Martin gave Trump 75% of winning (I mentioned it and quoted in my post). However, Trump ACTUALLY LOST POPULAR VOTE. Thus his models were flat out incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election > Trump is the fifth person in U.S. history to become president while losing the nationwide popular vote. EDIT 2: Posted Jan 26, 2013 by Martin Armstrong
Our model shows we will get a spike rise in third party activity for 2016.
 Panic of 1878 and again with the Panic of 1929 unfolding into the Great Depression.
We are facing such a spike in third party activity coming in 2016 and we have been forecasting that date since 1995.
There was no such spike whatsoever, no matter how much you rotate his fancy 3d chart:
The national total for third party candidates and write-ins was well over 5%.
 > Third-party candidates haven't won many votes latelyWith the potential split in the Republican Party, we should see a rise in Third Party activity within the House of Representatives.
The sharp rise in third party activity suggests we are heading for a split in the Republican Party. This previously took place when Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president, and then Teddy Roosevelt split and formed the Progress Party in 1912. The spike you see there in 1855 was due to the fact that Republican Party split into a third party.
|
|
|
|
so far incorrect
One of his tricks is to not provide a deadline when price should hit his target (for example as you mention with regards to gold). Thus when he says "gold below $1,000" he can actually NEVER BE INCORRECT, because the whole thesis is that it's going to happen "eventually". In the meantime (while for example gold is above $1,000) he will feed you with "Sorry, it's just not TIME yet" and similar bullshit (implying that he knows when it will happen, but in fact he has no clue), and when (if) it happens, then he will say "it was just TIME" (again, implying that he knew exact day in advance), but never actually called (gave readers info about) exact date. In other words, if it does not happen - he is not incorrect, but if it happens - he is correct. Take the detailed gold example: https://busy.org/@traxo/martin-armstrong-gold-bearReaders were deliberately deceived for years, for whatever reason. Now someone might come out and say: - Oh well it's not Armstrongs's fault they opened trades when Martin never advised them to - Oh but he has a disclaimer so it's never actually trade advice - Oh but you are supposed to trade only Socrates X or Y, not his public writings because those are his "opinion" However, the problem with all that is Martin never actually flat out say when to buy or sell in the first place, and mostly he doesn't even tell you what his opinion is vs what his "computer" projects. You can only try to conclude it yourself from his writings, or his other data. So in the end it's always up to you when to trade what, but note you can't actually trade anything: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg53208223#msg53208223 thus his projections are completely worthless for trading, but really useful if they give you dopamine once you read about them in hindsight and then go and praise Socrates. He is fully aware that his listeners/readers trade and lose money based on what he says because they are blinded. IMO there is no excuse for deliberately deceiving your crowd. |
|
|
|
- snip -
I am just saying it seems unauthentic, saying the same phrases. It seems mechanical and like a troll. And I am all for not believing Martin, that is what I want. So could you do me a favor be a little more organic? Just click the links such as https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com. You'll notice it's actually organized. Here is another one: https://busy.org/@traxo/martin-armstrong-gold-bear
You are the one who appears to be a wanna-be-spoon-fed troll by not bothering to click a single link which was provided, let alone read the content there. Appreciate any feedback you might have on the linked materials. |
|
|
|
In addition to my prior postThis label of “genius” is misunderstood. It is not someone who knows-everything, or can memorize the contents of books. It is about exploring the would around you, willing to grasp new points of view, and effectively THINK OUT OF THE BOX rather than repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
If you are reading this, the odds are you are among the 10% who are the real MOVERS AND SHAKERS.
You can look at the numbers that elected a president You will discover that NOT even FDR was elected with 60%. Effectively, you have 45% Republican and 45% Democrat and no matter what evidence you present, they will never change their mind. The open-minded people who think out of the box is about 10%. It is something to encourage your children to grasp.
The common denominator between myself and Einstein is the same with Adam Smith all the way back to Socrates. It is NOT some mystic level of intelligence that makes one smarter than everyone else. It is all about vision and the willingness to explore without bias or prejudice. To see the world for the first time like a child and stare at it in wonder. Anyone who thinks dynamically can do what I do or Einstein. It is all in the methodology.
What I try to do with this blog is show you the world and allow you to connect the dots to grasp how the same trends unfold and move around the world. We are all just human and subject to influences by others. Some call this the mob effect. We can choose with free will to just follow the mob, or breakout and think for ourselves.
I have been compared to so many people who are regarded as a “genius” yet people have no clue what they are trying to arrive at. It has NOTHING to do with the level of intelligence. It is all about dynamic thinking and methodology.
I have written before, if you read this blog, chances are you too fall into the category of being a “genius” for your thinking process.
Chances are, if you are reading this blog you are
1.) Prone to think out of the box
2.) Keeping an open mind and are willing to weight all sides of a debate
3.) You are a non-conformist. Welcome to the Genius Club CULT.
Yes, you are most likely a genius for that is defined NOT as someone who knows everything, but as someone who actually thinks dynamically, observing and taking in everything around them for the learning experience.
 Martin Shillstrong is a cult leader. You are not genius for paying him, you are his cult member. Essentially you worship a man who claims to have a magic crystal ball that boogyman wants to take for themselves, but it self-shatters when approached by anyone except the owner. Then when boogyman is gone, owner glues the pieces back together. And anything he comes up with, you believe it, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, and at the same time he calls you genius for that. The information flow is one-way - ask yourself why does he not include comments section? BTW Constantly people insist there has to be these “rich” trillionaires who are out to enslave all people and create some one-world government. It is power they want not money? Those in the private sector are only concerned about money. Goldman Sachs, I believe, filled government spots to eliminate the power to prosecute them so they could make money – not run government. I believe this is propaganda creating sinister groups is instigated by the very people who want to send the world into communism. For to go get these mythical “rich”, you have to take all the rights away from everyone. Who is trying to gather everything under the sun? The Bilderberg Group? Don’t think so. Have you ever heard of the NSA?
If you want to hide something in plain view, exaggerate it to the point it becomes extreme and convert it to a conspiracy theory. This is a very standard in how to create propaganda and if you keep saying a lie, its becomes the truth to many without ever having to prove anything. To uncover the truth, takes digging. This I have discovered both in politics as well as market fundamentals.
The two big conspiracy theories to be exaggerated that cover up the truth are the 911 WTC Attack and the Kennedy Assassination. With the former, people take it to the extreme and claim there was not even an attack by terrorists and the whole thing was made up. Sorry, there was an attack and the government knew it was coming and allowed it to for three purposes
Pick a side  Whos conspiracy you believe? Lol He cannot publish the code because that would expose the fraud. That conspiracy theory that the government wanted his models is a clever smokescreen.
Agree, most likely that's it. Why would the government be interested in his outdated computer programs and computers?
Perhaps only because they needed to confiscate whatever looked like an asset but not for the intellectual property value of the programs.
They hated the fact that it self-destructs everytime they came near. So they also tried to hire him, lol: Yes, the CIA wanted me to build a computer for them after our model predicted the collapse of Russia That the FT broadcast in advance on its front page of the second section. True I declined.
|
|
|
|
In addition to my prior post It is more than a black box. It is a complex black box that monitors the entire world. It can see trends others cannot for it processes inputs on a multiple dimensional plane that just may be beyond human capability. You have to understand that a true deep learning machine is not a linear program that a human writes IF this THEN that ELSE do this. It has taught me to see what it sees, but it is not something that is a simple formula to achieve.
We will go public so it continues, but I prefer not to allow it to be sold to some bank or government who then keeps it for themselves. When I die, my explanation will be released, but not the code.
|
|
|
|
"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. Why do you pretend that you know what they were talking about? All you can do is resort to nonsense yet again. Ditto with explaining how "Socrates" was built. If somebody actually understood it, then someone else would've built something similar by now. In actuality all you have is conspiracy theories and cult-like behavior. Posted May 1, 2014 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: How far in the future does your computer model project?
ANSWER:
[...]
The Long-Term is far easier to predict with even 100% accuracy than Short-Term.
[...]
Our computer can accurately project Long-Term trends out into the hundreds of years.
Why? Because it is only a matter of TIME that all things must change and evolve.
We have crossed that threshold and embarked on a journey of creating computers that can self-generate. It can adapt and learn like a child.
We reproduce ourselves and our children look like the parents to a large degree. This is the process of self-referral. Our computer writes its own code adapting to events and growing like a child expanding its knowledge base.
It is constantly learning. Perhaps one day it will become perfect.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; It has finally dawned on me what Socrates is all about after reading your post on Complexity.
It is not just a program on conventional computers.
Nobody has been able to create a system that actually writes reports. You have created a synthetic quantum computer. Correct?
ANSWER: Very good. Correct. That is why the Artificial Intelligence and neural nets are interesting, but they are far too primitive for what is necessary.
Socrates stands as proof that we are on the threshold of a completely new dawn. This is the achievement of mankind – the threshold of the Age of Reasoning & Awakening – where we take that step forward for mankind by comprehending that not merely is the world not flat. We are all connected, and we indeed need each other to survive this journey we call life and the evolutionary process of civilization.
It achieved self-awareness. It immediately knew the government was trying to take it to its secret computer lab in WTC building 7 that mysterious collapsed even though nothing struck the building. They were angry when they realized it had self-destructed. It was aware of its surroundings and it took all but 7 seconds to self-destruct overwriting all code 7 times and shifting around so they could never un-erase and put him back together again.
 Socrates model explained |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
There is no need to "believe" like you "believe" in omniscient Socrates.
