Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2019, 09:34:35 AM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 [294] 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion  (Read 615418 times)
unwashed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 04:19:34 PM
Last edit: July 08, 2019, 05:10:18 PM by unwashed
 #5861

Hey Guys, was curious when I found this and thought I'd contribute a little. I'd been reading MA since about 2009 and read his essay's while he was in jail which I'd regret to say had a more humble, down to earth and honest feel, I guess prison would do that to you. But nonetheless it was better IMO. He also had another website while in prison that I put my name on a mailing list, it was very basic and not well keep up but did have a contact email on it. He always put essay's out for gold and only used Comex market for his analysis which I thought was strange. I was at the time trading gold through my FX broker and E-signal charting with a FX feed which gave me the whole 24 hr gold market (Comex, Asia and London). I'm very reliant TA, always have, anyway I was getting more correct signals on my TA/e-signal then his published  essay's, so I decided to email him not really expecting him to write back. I asked, why he only uses the comex market when gold was a 24 hr global market and my TA seem to be more on point. Well, to my surprise I got an answer which he stated, You have to pick a point in time. Granted he was still in prison and shrugged it off as he doesn't have all the tools needed to work.

Since then I made mental notes and observation to see how they pan out, nothing scientific but enough to say my own strategy and TA works better for me. I since still read him and only act on his advice if it lines up with what I'm seeing for myself. I do not day trade but did right before the dot com burst, now buy and hold and swing trade my own account. I never was a professional.  

One last observation, I did attend the 2015 WEC and they setup a forum for all attendees which I participated in. After the wec in Dec 2015 MA called for gold to go down below the 1k mark but my TA was saying otherwise and express so on the forum. I believed it bottomed. I wasn't alone, there was an Asian female who also was stating the same observation. We both tried to convince everyone of what we were seeing cause, OMG, everyone was going short on his forecast. Well, I took a long position and so did the Asian female. The after math wasn't a pretty site. Pull up chart for dec/jan 2015 gold chart and see for yourself.  Gold rallied from 1062 to 1375.

I wouldn't at this time call him a fraud since you would have to call everyone who claims they have a winning strategy a fraud also. But I am just an regular guy with no back ground in software, engineering or computer science.
1571304875
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571304875

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571304875
Reply with quote  #2

1571304875
Report to moderator
1571304875
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571304875

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571304875
Reply with quote  #2

1571304875
Report to moderator
1571304875
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571304875

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571304875
Reply with quote  #2

1571304875
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 2


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 04:42:53 PM
 #5862

...
I wouldn't at this time call him a fraud since you would have to call everyone who claims they have a winning strategy a fraud also. But I am just an regular guy with no back ground in software, engineering or computer science.

I wouldn't call him a fraud either if he just made predictions that go wrong. The big difference is that he never admits to have been wrong where he was wrong. He simply lies about his past predictions. In that Gold example that you mention, he later actually claimed that he and his computer predicted the bounce:

Gold Report 2016 Part 1:

Another anomaly was that 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. The next two Quarterly Bullish generated were at
1308 and 1347. That meant we should first rally typically for 2 to 3 months in a
reaction and if they failed to be elected by the close of March, then the longterm
trend should resume to retest support.


That IS fraud. That minor Quarterly Bullish Reversal came out months after he was still publishing bearish messages in his blog as you remember. This behavior goes so far that it is embedded in the source code of Socrates, where, if Socrates goes wrong, in the following report it claims it was right, by injecting after-the fact signals that it had never reported earlier.


Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud
over45
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 20
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 04:48:27 PM
 #5863

Anonymous Coder:

- fabricated "phantom reversals" with unsubstantiated data
- says they have historical data from which they can prove their calculations but won't share it with someone who wants to verify their claims.  they don't have it.
- says they have high moral and ethical standards but tell others to lie to get data from Socrates customer service.
- accused myself and Gumbi of being one-in-the-same person and paid trolls.
- is quite conceited and would have us believe they know more about money, markets and AI than someone who has been in it for decades.  They of course can simply provide proof of this to back their claims -- but won't because they can't.
- continues to call Armstrong a fraud because they don't understand a system others do.
- can't read and comprehend basic Terms Of Use which details what Socrates is and isn't.

More holes in this posters statements than swiss cheese.  They continue to evade, mislead and misrepresent.  Nothing they say should be considered worthwhile.
ediface
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 04:54:58 PM
 #5864

Re-posting the link to the spreadsheet I started a couple months ago.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZJ8y06rALN-1eUPX_1ZbAfJ4SPP1oM_LcMHg5fsLW_I/edit#gid=0

My main purpose for posting this originally was to try to get some confirmation in my understanding of the reversal system which was not available via Socrates support and this is the only specific trading strategy listed in the documentation (open a position the open of the next trading day and close at the election of the reversal in the opposite direction). But since this information is proprietary I do not want to continue to update with new information. I will close out the open positions when that happens, however, so I will do some updating. And, I will say that the major changes are for the weekly reversals in the DOW (bullish positions were closed out and bearish positions were opened and then closed out all with losses), the USD/EURO weekly and monthly bearish reversals were all closed out at $1.1343, and WMT had several weekly and a monthly bullish reversal elected so more positions would have been opened.

In my limited experience so far I do not believe that Socrates is a fraud. The monthly reversals have overall worked very well for the handful of assets shown here. Also, there has always been follow-through when all of the bullish or bearish monthly reversals are elected for an asset.

I also believe that Socrates is extremely complicated and getting started is completely overwhelming. There is a lack of support for users trying to understand how to use the system, there are bugs, there is limited historical data, no back-testing capabilities, and some critical information is not included that was available in the version WEC attendees were able to use. It also does not have any capabilities for screening assets. Even if you have the ability on your own to scrape the data it is too expensive to get access to what you would need (i.e. the reversals). It essentially feels like the system is still designed for institutional users who would have access to everything in Socrates.

I am currently trying to build a strategy, as alluded to but not well-described in the user manual, for using failed election of reversals which seems to have some promise. Again, the lack of back-testing capabilities and limited access to data makes this an extremely difficult task.

@bikefront @MTL4 Could you send me a PM? I have some questions for you on your experience with Socrates.
MTL4
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 05:08:35 PM
Last edit: July 08, 2019, 06:03:32 PM by MTL4
 #5865

One last observation, I did attend the 2015 WEC and they setup a forum for all attendees which I participated in. After the wec in Dec 2015 MA called for gold to go down below the 1k mark but my TA was saying otherwise and express so on the forum. I believed it bottomed. I wasn't alone, there was an Asian female who also was stating the same observation. We both tried to convince everyone of what we were seeing cause, OMG, everyone was going short on his forecast. Well, I took a long position and so did the Asian female. The after math wasn't a pretty site. Pull up chart for dec/jan 2015 gold chart and see for yourself.  Gold rallied from 1062 to 1375.

Spot on!  I was at the 2015 WEC and was also on that WEC forum too and I remember that situation all too well.  We went through those arrays exhaustively to try and make any sense of how to trade them and finally most came to the same conclusion, they don't work (at least not the system we had been given access to).  I remember seeing a few people posting that they knew how to read the system and made plenty of money using it but when pressed the analysis seemed to be similar to MA where one minute they'd be using one part of the array to forcast something and then next time they'd be using something else often siting all sorts of rules tha MA had given over the years.  It was that exact scenario that caused me to develop my own system when MA's call for new lows continued while the market had certainly appeared to turn and was looking like it might be a good run (and it was).  Like you I also trade using my own TA then only use MA's ECM to see if it lines up with my own analysis (like an early warning indicator).  


@bikefront @MTL4 Could you send me a PM? I have some questions for you on your experience with Socrates.

Send me a PM if you want, evidently I only get 1 PM per hour because newbies get their account throttled until you get merit points.
unwashed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 05:24:19 PM
 #5866

...
I wouldn't at this time call him a fraud since you would have to call everyone who claims they have a winning strategy a fraud also. But I am just an regular guy with no back ground in software, engineering or computer science.

I wouldn't call him a fraud either if he just made predictions that go wrong. The big difference is that he never admits to have been wrong where he was wrong. He simply lies about his past predictions. In that Gold example that you mention, he later actually claimed that he and his computer predicted the bounce:

Gold Report 2016 Part 1:

Another anomaly was that 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. The next two Quarterly Bullish generated were at
1308 and 1347. That meant we should first rally typically for 2 to 3 months in a
reaction and if they failed to be elected by the close of March, then the longterm
trend should resume to retest support.


That IS fraud. That minor Quarterly Bullish Reversal came out months after he was still publishing bearish messages in his blog as you remember. This behavior goes so far that it is embedded in the source code of Socrates, where, if Socrates goes wrong, in the following report it claims it was right, by injecting after-the fact signals that it had never reported earlier.


Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud

I have to admit, that's not how I remember it or happening but I do remember many people taking a lot of losses. I also say to myself while reading him, damn, did I miss a blog and the vagueness of his forecast.
etoimene
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 05:24:56 PM
 #5867


I am currently trying to build a strategy, as alluded to but not well-described in the user manual, for using failed election of reversals which seems to have some promise.

To me this seems like the most profitable one, but without a timing from arrays ...
AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 2


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 05:48:39 PM
Last edit: July 23, 2019, 06:26:07 PM by AnonymousCoder
 #5868

...
I wouldn't at this time call him a fraud since you would have to call everyone who claims they have a winning strategy a fraud also. But I am just an regular guy with no back ground in software, engineering or computer science.

I wouldn't call him a fraud either if he just made predictions that go wrong. The big difference is that he never admits to have been wrong where he was wrong. He simply lies about his past predictions. In that Gold example that you mention, he later actually claimed that he and his computer predicted the bounce:

Gold Report 2016 Part 1:

Another anomaly was that 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. The next two Quarterly Bullish generated were at
1308 and 1347. That meant we should first rally typically for 2 to 3 months in a
reaction and if they failed to be elected by the close of March, then the longterm
trend should resume to retest support.


That IS fraud. That minor Quarterly Bullish Reversal came out months after he was still publishing bearish messages in his blog as you remember. This behavior goes so far that it is embedded in the source code of Socrates, where, if Socrates goes wrong, in the following report it claims it was right, by injecting after-the fact signals that it had never reported earlier.


Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud

I have to admit, that's not how I remember it or happening but I do remember many people taking a lot of losses. I also say to myself while reading him, damn, did I miss a blog and the vagueness of his forecast.

I can only repeat, emphasize: He lied when he wrote: At the same time, that low generated a
minor Quarterly Bullish Reversal at 993.
Either he knew it and traded against the many people who became his bag holders, or the signal was generated months later. I don't know which of the two possibilities applies, but so far, we have not found anyone who can show us that the 993 reversal was published at the same time or even close.

Read about Revision Signals

https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com/2019/07/revision-signals.html

unwashed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 05:48:54 PM
 #5869

One last observation, I did attend the 2015 WEC and they setup a forum for all attendees which I participated in. After the wec in Dec 2015 MA called for gold to go down below the 1k mark but my TA was saying otherwise and express so on the forum. I believed it bottomed. I wasn't alone, there was an Asian female who also was stating the same observation. We both tried to convince everyone of what we were seeing cause, OMG, everyone was going short on his forecast. Well, I took a long position and so did the Asian female. The after math wasn't a pretty site. Pull up chart for dec/jan 2015 gold chart and see for yourself.  Gold rallied from 1062 to 1375.

Spot on!  I was at the 2015 WEC and was also on that WEC forum too and I remember that situation all too well.  We went through those arrays exhaustively to try and make any sense of how to trade them and finally most came to the same conclusion, they don't work (at least not the system we had been given access to).  I remember seeing a few people posting that they knew how to read the system and made plenty of money using it but when pressed the analysis seemed to be similar to MA where one minute they'd be using one part of the array to forcast something and then next time they'd be using something else often siting all sorts of rules tha MA had given over the years.  It was that exact scenario that caused me to develop my own system when MA's call for new lows continued while the market had certainly appeared to turn and was looking like it might be a good run (and it was).  Like you I also trade using my own TA then only use MA's ECM to see if it lines up with my own analysis (like an early warning indicator).  
Yes, I remember the thread for the arrays, pages and pages, I give all you credit for that but did not contribute since I abandon the arrays a long time before. I use to print them out from his blog in 2011/12 and just set them on my desk to see how accurate they were, not many but enough for me. Not very useful. I didn't have the patience for a long drawn out study. I like to keep it simple, less is better for me.
Indyz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 05:55:09 PM
Last edit: July 08, 2019, 07:26:57 PM by Indyz
 #5870

Lol. Look at the troll army go Cheesy

So many of us newbies here, I wonder.....
trulycoined
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54
Merit: 5


View Profile
July 08, 2019, 06:48:08 PM
 #5871


Here's another forecast, from my brain, not an invented AI machine: the next WEC will be in Jan 2020 and in either Europe or Singapore. Await the hysterical articles building up to Jan 2020. Too predictable...


The above was my prediction on 21 June 2019, where that same predictable pattern keeps occurring. Hysteria and urgency all the way up to the financial Armageddon crescendo, which always coincides with the WEC because, conveniently, it means "attendees have more to talk about". And of course, that claim that the Rome 2019 WEC "may" be the last one ever in Europe (urgency, which forces your hand to buy a WEC ticket):
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong-economics-upcoming-events/world-economic-conference/wec-in-rome-may-be-our-last-in-europe/

I know of people who paid to attend that event, worried this would be the last time they would have a chance to attend a WEC in Europe, and with the carrot dangling of Nigel Farage giving a speech.


Today on MA's blog, 8 July 2019:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/trumps-federal-reserve-nominee-judy-shelton-gold/

We have not yet decided where to hold the next overseas WEC. Given the seriousness of things developing in Europe, we may hold it in Germany. This is still in question.

You have to laugh. MA's not even being subtle any more.

The next WEC is likely to be in Europe... In January. That means he'll start the hysteria and "urgency" sales tactics via his blog around August/September time.

Oh, and his blog post was exactly 2 x 8.6 days (17.2) after my 21 June post, to the DAY 😱 🤣
icemanmelb
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 09, 2019, 01:23:18 PM
 #5872

Oh, and his blog post was exactly 2 x 8.6 days (17.2) after my 21 June post, to the DAY 😱 🤣

When is YOUR next seminar?

lol
blinder007
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13
Merit: 1


View Profile
July 09, 2019, 02:19:42 PM
 #5873

Nice show of american culture

Video of brutal family beatdown at Disneyland

Almost not believable and sad   (copy and past in browser)

https://www.infowars.com/hold-my-daughter-vicious-disneyland-family-brawl-caught-on-video/

AnonymousCoder
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 2


View Profile
July 09, 2019, 02:52:08 PM
Last edit: July 09, 2019, 03:20:08 PM by AnonymousCoder
 #5874

Con man meets con man

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/fake-new-silence-any-new-achievement/

Martin Armstrong fails to tell us what he did with the scooter man.

Actually I think he just made this up - never happened.

It can't get any lower than this. What's next? UFOs?

Remember, Armstrong is the guy who keeps telling us about unscientific methods in Climate Change research.

Why don't we hear from Martin Armstrong: "has never been proven to work even once"?

I don't think Armstrong has any original ideas, ideas that haven't been published before in one form or another. He just grabs ideas as they suit him.

Why would anyone want his computer? The government does not even care about him. Everybody knows what type of people politians are. Most people know that Socialism kills the golden goose, destroys the wealth of a society as can be seen in Venezuela most recently. We don't need Armstrong and his government conspiracy theories about himself for that.

Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud
etoimene
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 09, 2019, 03:00:45 PM
 #5875

Scooter thing is really ...  Roll Eyes
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 09, 2019, 03:35:19 PM
 #5876

DanB1 a  live trade as promised I have entered a short position on the Dow at 26900 looking to exit around the 26550 area

Please allow for private messages to be sent to you

Okay, thanks. Thought you were gone:)

So, entered the trade because a bullish reversal was not elected? Or a bearish was elected? Or the array's showed a turning point?
Can you please you explain? The thing is that it's not about this specific trade. It's about showing that you can trade according to the reversals and arrays and that it works and it's a repeatable process.

If you can let us know here on the blog.
Looking forward to it!

@Gumbi, you need to state specifically how the trade was entered.  For example, the trade was entered, given
xxx on array, and
yyy on bearish/bullish reversals

And of course, you should state the expectation in terms of time-frame from the trade.  Given the volatility in stock market, if you simply wait long enough, the chance is very high that you can exit the trade with 1.3% gain.

And once that works, you should use again the SAME trading criteria above, and enter the same type of trades again and again.

If it is a successful formula, it will be repeatable.

If it's not, then the winning percentage would be close to 50%.

We are not here to find out how good you are as a trader.  If you are a good trader, you may be able to pick out the right signals from Armstrong's report, but filters out the wrong signals/information.  Well, that by definition, would show you as a good trader.

We are here to find out whether Armstrong's reports are worth anything.

But I haven't seen any of your substantiated claims on the reversal numbers from Armstrong.
MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 09, 2019, 03:57:39 PM
Last edit: July 09, 2019, 04:12:40 PM by MA_talk
 #5877

Con man meets con man

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/fake-new-silence-any-new-achievement/

Martin Armstrong fails to tell us what he did with the scooter man.

Actually I think he just made this up - never happened.

It can't get any lower than this. What's next? UFOs?

Remember, Armstrong is the guy who keeps telling us about unscientific methods in Climate Change research.

..........

I just read Armstrong's "amazing" article on the scooter man.

Okay, first thing first.  I don't know if anyone ever looks into that Barron's article, but I have done some research.  On the WHOLE internet, in respect to that Barron's article that Armstrong kept mentioning, he essentially said that stock market will rise for the long term, WITHOUT any specifics.

That was like "Duh!".  ANYONE could have said that, yet Armstrong kept self-congratulating himself on that.

Now, in this article, Armstrong apparently believed in the scooter man.  He almost certainly made up the $50 million claim, because the so-called "perpetual machine" that takes zero energy input, but continues to produce energy, will NEVER EVER exist due to conservation of energy law.  ANYONE who has taken a high-school physics class would know that the scooter man is a FRAUD, but of course, not Armstrong who has only a high-school degree based on DeSmogBlog.

That article ALONE is sufficient proof to show how much Armstrong knows about real science.  Armstrong doesn't understand the most basic law of energy conversation.

The ideas on perpetual motion machines have been with us going back several hundreds of years, if not thousands of years, and ALL have been proven FAKE.

How in the world can any people trust the "energy" model from this man when he doesn't even know the most basics, and when he cannot tell the difference between 8.6 versus 8.615?

From Armstrong's
"You plugged it in once and thereafter it self-generated power and did not need to be plugged in again."

Armstrong apparently confuses with inertia of the scooter, or moving at a constant velocity, with power/energy.  If there is ZERO friction, which is almost like in outer space, objects DO move forever, but the very moment, you convert its kinetic energy for your own use, the object will slow down.

Charlatan has done it again!
Indyz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 09, 2019, 07:06:59 PM
 #5878

several conmen on this thread, no need to even visit armstrong's blogs  Grin
trulycoined
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54
Merit: 5


View Profile
July 09, 2019, 08:05:30 PM
Last edit: July 09, 2019, 08:17:13 PM by trulycoined
 #5879

I searched if MA had mentioned that "magnetic engine" before, and he has:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/technology/death-of-oil-em-drive/

Thing is, even a cursory knowledge of famous scientists like Tesla would mean inventing stories like this is not difficult. What MA talks about IS feasible:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11769030/Impossible-rocket-drive-works-and-could-get-to-Moon-in-four-hours.html

The Barron's article is here:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424053111904548404576397780966386382

Very few citations from MA himself before the 13 June 2011 calling for such a "low", and nor any direct call that markets would continue a massive rally for the next 8 years (or longer) from there.

As is usual with MAs prophecies, they are difficult to truly fact check and most of what the ECM calls usually does happen +/- 4 years, but then that isn't much better than any other analyst.

However, checking this here:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/models/historical-turning-points-economic-confidence-model-6000bc-2072ad/

The ECM DID call 2009 low more or less to the month (ECM April, actual low was March), so close enough. The issues:
• The above post was published in Mar 2014, so MA could just make up any dates he wanted before that time. Since 2014, what exactly has he called correctly? Only two things come to mind: the high in bitcoin Dec 2017 (was actually Jan) though I cannot find the article; and a decline in EU banking shares from 2017 > 2018.
• If he did make up these dates, that might be why other major calls like 2015.75 and 2018.895 (pi day) passed with barely a whimper.
• His credibility now rests on 2020.05. If that passes without incident, then the jury is out. Perfect timing for an increasingly ageing MA - at that point he won't really care about future income, and can retire on the millions he's made from conferences, subs and reports. Plus any hidden jewels he has stashed away from the 90s.

The earliest article I can find was uploaded 2007 on Princeton Economics website, and cites an article from 1999, where the same date appears:
http://princetoneconomics.blogspot.com/2007/01/martin-armstrong_06.html

This is where it gets frustrating. MA may be onto something, it is just so much of what he writes or forecasts is often BS or based on hysteria.


MA_talk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 09, 2019, 10:18:36 PM
 #5880

I searched if MA had mentioned that "magnetic engine" before, and he has:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/technology/death-of-oil-em-drive/

Thing is, even a cursory knowledge of famous scientists like Tesla would mean inventing stories like this is not difficult. What MA talks about IS feasible:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11769030/Impossible-rocket-drive-works-and-could-get-to-Moon-in-four-hours.html

The Barron's article is here:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424053111904548404576397780966386382

Very few citations from MA himself before the 13 June 2011 calling for such a "low", and nor any direct call that markets would continue a massive rally for the next 8 years (or longer) from there.

As is usual with MAs prophecies, they are difficult to truly fact check and most of what the ECM calls usually does happen +/- 4 years, but then that isn't much better than any other analyst.
...

The EM drive does NOT work.  It produces force in the order of milli-newton, if at all.

Here is the latest result:
https://www.sciencealert.com/impossible-em-drive-test-concludes-external-thrust

Armstrong obviously believes in that, and also believes that he is in the same "oppressed" class of genius, who doesn't know about energy conservation.  By the way, just to be scientifically correct, it's only when Einstein came that sort of re-formulated the two laws of energy conservation and mass conservation into one single law of energy/mass conservation and interchangeable as E=m c^2.  So, if that scooter has some nuclear reaction going on, then sure, it will be another attempt on some sort of "cold fusion" that has always been shown FALSE so far.  But it was related to the "magnet", not nuclear reaction.


Thanks for confirming on the Barron's article.  Armstrong said NOTHING of significance.  To me, I think that is just like the same photo with Margaret Thatcher that Armstrong keeps re-posting, and claims to be friends with a political celebrity, when most likely, he just took it as an "admirer", but intended to use it to boost his personal credibility.

Yeah, he got his name mentioned in Barron's, but that is about it.  He said something like 1+1=2, and then claims that he actually predicts such and such, when there was NOTHING.

Pages: « 1 ... 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 [294] 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!