Armstrong's Sports Predictions

Martin Armstrong made a few sports "Predictions".

However there is no evidence whatsoever that he predicted anything because all statements he made are in hindsight. We would need to see that the time stamps of his posts are before the sports events but that is never the case.

Villanova Wins on Pi
Superbowl LII – Can a Model Ever Be Created?
Cycles & Sports
American Pharoah – First Triple Crown Winner Since 1978 on a 8.6 Frequency

Review of "Climate Change – Earthquakes Caused by Complex Cycles"

Re-published with permission of stalemateNZ

I heard about Armstrong's economic model a while ago and was skeptical, however I did not have the background or time to really look into it. However, I came across his article about predicting earthquakes at:

Climate Change – Earthquakes Caused by Complex Cycles

I am professionally a scientific researcher with a PhD in geology. My area of expertise is in tectonics and structural geology. So when I saw Armstrong claiming to use his model to predict earthquakes I couldn't help but see if what he was saying was true. Below is my review on his article, I respond point-by-point to his claims:

Armstrong:

I cannot confirm or deny that the cause of the 32-year cycle is the slowing of the Earth’s rotation because there are other correlations that need to be addressed. I did confirm that my own research agreed that there is a 31.4-year cycle of intensity in earthquakes.

Response:

So this Bendick & Bilham (2017) paper claims that there is a cycle of 32.4 ± 2 years and conclude “Global seismic synchronization has no utility for the precise prediction (in a strict sense) of specific damaging earthquakes, but these results do imply that the probability of events is time dependent. Thus, earthquakes with a certain renewal interval are more likely to occur when similar renewal interval earthquakes have recently occurred, or at times corresponding to maxima in Earth's rotational deceleration or acceleration.”

Because the cycle is so weak, it hasn’t been successfully used to predict earthquakes. Also, they do not mention the sun’s activity in this paper at all, and that it is the earths rotational speed changing that is causing this cycle.

Bendick & Bilham (2017) was cited in the paper I attached (Hough 2018), and they conclude:

The simple tests presented in this report confirm what seismologists have long taken for granted, that there is no evidence that large earthquake rates are modulated significantly by the position of the Earth relative to either the Moon or the Sun. If there is any modulation of large earthquake occurrence, it is either well below the level that can be detected with the present catalog or gives rise to effects that are far more complex than a global clustering through either the calendar year or the lunar month. A low level of modulation would be of no practical use for earthquake prediction. The tests illustrate once again how apparent clustering and anticlustering arise commonly in random catalogs, potentially fueling enduring earthquake myths.

Armstrong:

As far back as 1967, a study was published with the Earth and Planetary Science Letters which found solar activity plays a significant role in triggering earthquakes.

Response:

The study Armstrong mentions also says “the precise mechanism by which this is accomplished is less clear”. The paper does claim it as a prediction tool, but 50 years has gone by and still it hasn’t been used to predict earthquakes. Also, plate tectonics wasn’t generally accepted until the 1970s, which was a paradigm shift in geology, and has provided the driving mechanism for earthquakes. He says “as far back”, as if this is well supported science, but in reality he has only managed to find one study from 1967 that suits his interpretation. I looked, there are no papers saying the sun is causing earthquakes (I admit I did not do an exhaustive literature review). However, Armstrong’s view is not well established, and therefore he needs to provide very good evidence before he passes it off as fact.

Armstrong:

Later, in 1998 a scientist from the Beijing Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Science, found a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes. Then in 2007, Yin ZhiQiang, Ma LiHua, and Han YanBen conducted a study which produced results showing that the lengths and amplitudes of the periods have changed with time, and large variations have taken place during some periods. (Source: Chinese Science Bulletin).

Review:

First, he doesn’t provide the study where they found a correlation between low solar activity and earthquakes.

Second, the study (ZhiQiang et al. 2007) only talks about measuring past solar activity by analyzing tree rings. They do not make any link or conclusion about how the sun causes earthquakes/volcanoes. In addition, the way Armstrong has written that paragraph is very misleading, as it implies a connection between the first (uncited) study with that of the second ZhiQiang et al. (2007) study, when even the authors made no such connection.

Armstrong:

“Another recent research study carried by The Space and Science Research Center in Florida, US, showed a strong correlation between solar activity and the largest earthquakes and volcanic eruptions within the continental United States and other regions around the world. The study looked at the data of volcanic activity between (1650 – 2009) and seismic (earthquakes) activity between (1700 – 2009) and then the recorded data was compared with the sunspots record (solar activity).

The results of this study exposed a very strong correlation between solar activity and the largest seismic and volcanic events, within the continental US as well as globally. The correlation for volcanic activity was greater than 80% (discuss in a separate post) and for the largest earthquakes was came out with a 100% correlation with the top 7 most powerful quakes versus solar activity lows.”

Review:

No studies cited? Cannot comment without access to the studies. I would also urge anyone not to blindly accept Armstrong's claims as facts without seeing the studies.

Armstrong:

NASA also published a study showing that there can be lesser quakes in the 5.1 range that are shallow ground movements reflecting the strain accumulated on deeper faults, which remain locked and may be capable of producing future earthquakes in the 7.0+ magnitude range in Los Angeles.

When we ran our weather models on a correlation with California earthquakes, it revealed a cycle of drought followed by flooding, which then undermines the structure and precedes earthquakes.

NASA published a study showing that indeed the drought in California was causing the land to actually sink. They reported that groundwater levels have fallen 100 feet already.

Review:

What is he talking about here? I don’t understand at all. His first sentence seems to accurately summarize the NASA study. Which says when many small quakes occur at shallow levels in an area the stress then transfers to deeper faults, stress builds up, and a large deep quake happens.

His second sentence then talks about how in California there is a cycle of drought then flooding. Ok, so I have to take his word that his model does that, as he has no more info. Also, it isn’t exactly ground breaking to say that floods follow droughts. He then claims that the flooding/drought cycle “then undermines the structure and precedes earthquakes”. This sentence doesn’t make sense. I assume he is saying that the weather events are causing the earthquakes. However, he provides absolutely zero evidence to support this claim.

Third sentence, the study actually says the land subsided because of “extensive groundwater pumping”, which has been occurring for years. Sure, it is related to the long droughts because people need to pump to get water, which is indirectly related to the sun driving weather. However, it isn’t a natural cycle. It also isn’t related to electrical disturbances in the atmosphere caused by the sun. The land sinking is because humans are removing water from the ground, and the earth then subsides. Finally, there is no mention in that study that this is triggering earthquakes. A link that Armstrong is claiming, and he is providing these studies as if they support his interpretation, which they do not at all.

In three sentences, Armstrong talks about three separate things, 1) study about earthquake types, 2) his weather model, and 3) land subsidence, and then he casually links them all together without providing any evidence. Then he concludes that his weather model is predicting earthquakes. What is the point of this paragraph other than to confuse the reader?

Armstrong:

In 2008 researchers, NASA announced that their scientists stand on the verge of a major breakthrough in their efforts to forecast earthquakes. They reported that they have found a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending quakes on the ground below. They observed this correlation days before the recent 8.0 devastating earthquake in China which struct on May 12th, 2008 (2008.361) known as the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. While there were a lot of quakes 309.6 years prior in 1698, there were not 8.0 quakes. There was an 8.0 quake known as the 1679 Sanhe-Pinggu earthquake, which was about 56Km from Beijing. If we look at the 224-year frequency, we again come close to the 1786 Kangding-Luding earthquake, which was a 7.7 quake. The 51.6-year frequency also produced two quakes in 1955 that were 7.1 1955 Kangding earthquake and a 6.8 quake known as the 1955 Yuzha earthquake.

Review:

Armstrong writes, “While there were a lot of quakes 309.6 years prior in 1698, there were not 8.0 quakes”. Is he having a laugh here? His claim that no 8.0 magnitude earthquakes had occurred is complete nonsense, he cannot know that this is true at at all, earthquakes were not being monitored back then (and also he doesn’t provide any data). The USA had not even been founded in 1698, the first World-Wide Standardized Seismograph Network was only established in the 1960s. This was 260 years later!

What does he mean about the 224-yr frequency predicting the 1786 earthquake? Is it meant to be 224 yrs from the 1679 earthquake? But that is only 107 years? Where is the 51.6 frequency coming from? His model? Does he show that anywhere? Is he looking at all earthquakes or just cherry picking ones that fit his cycle? He provides no evidence, and does not explain what he is talking about. It appears as if Armstrong is attempting to overload the reader with a bunch of unexplained numbers to confuse them into thinking he is backing his claims with data. I am skeptical, and would like to see a graph of all major earthquakes and his cycle together. Why does he expect me to blindly believe him, if he could easily provide that proof?

Also, this was a BBC article, not a published study. Armstrong doesn’t even link to the original BBC article, but to another third-party website that links to it. In that article the NASA scientist said:

I do believe that we will be able to establish a clear correlation between certain earthquakes and certain pre-earthquake signals, in an unbiased way.”[…] “He added: “I am cautiously optimistic that we have good scientific data, and we are designing a series of experiments to verify our data.”

That was in 2008, there is still no published studies to date that provides a clear correlation. Armstrong using an article that quotes a scientist who believes that they will be able to do something in the future is not evidence! Currently, these interpretations are not supported by the data. Additionally, Armstrong made it sound like they had provided proof that electrical disturbances in the atmosphere were linked to earthquakes, when they still have not published this conclusion. Also, NASA made no mention about the sun’s role in this, they specifically say “when rocks are compressed – as when tectonic plates shift – they act like batteries, producing electric currents.” So if they are right, they are saying that the earthquakes are causing the electrical disturbances in the atmosphere, it has nothing to do with the sun.

In the same BBC article:

“Dr Mike Blanpied, a geophysicist at the US Geological Survey (USGS), who is unconnected with the work told BBC News: “At this point, the connection between the laboratory phenomena and processes at work in the Earth has not been demonstrated and is the subject of research.”

Armstrong’s interpretation is not broadly accepted. Therefore he either needs to provide exceptional data to support his claims, or at least be honest about it and inform the reader that this is a highly controversial interpretation.

Armstrong:

Therefore, we may also have a close link between electrical disturbances on the edge of our atmosphere and impending quakes on the ground below has been found. This finding is in agreement with similar studies carried out by other space research institutes. Satellites have picked up disturbances 100 – 600 km above areas that have later been hit by earthquakes. Apparently, fluctuations in the density of electrons and other electrically-charged particles in the ionosphere have been observed, which may also provide a market for earthquakes.

Review:

First sentence “has been found”. He provides no link to any such finding. And this “finding is in agreement with similar studies”… which studies exactly? Density of electrons in the ionosphere have been observed? By whom? “which may also provide a market for earthquakes” what is a market for earthquakes? May also, does also? Any evidence at all for this “may also” claim? As discussed below, the studies he uses actually do not claim that the sun has any role in the electrical disturbances.

Armstrong:

In Taiwan, similar research has agreed with this theory. The researcher Jann-Yeng Liu also reported the link between earthquake and disturbances in the ionosphere. His work examined over 100 earthquakes with magnitude 5.0 and larger in and around Taiwan over several decades. His analysis showed that nearly every earthquake down to a depth of about 35 Km was preceded by distinct electrical disturbances in the ionosphere. So again, is this the cause or a mere correlation?

Review:

Taiwan is a big place, would appreciate it if he provided the research so I didn’t have to look for it. So found the paper I think he is talking about titled Pre-earthquake ionospheric anomalies registered by continuous GPS TEC measurements (Liu et al. 2004). The authors conclude:

“the vertical electric fields generated during the earthquake preparation periods have been proposed to explain the seismo-ionospheric anomalies (see papers listed in Hayakawa and Fujinawa, 1994; Hayakawa,1999; Pilipenko et al., 2001; Tanaka et al., 1999; Pulinets etal., 2000; Hayakawa and Molchanov, 2002; Pulinets et al.,2002). Although, the mechanisms are not fully understood, it is reasonable to assume that the anomalies appear first near the Earth’s surface and then extend to higher altitudes.”

They are claiming the earthquake generates the electrical disturbances, not the sun. There is no mention of the sun, or predictable cycles at all in the paper.

A more recent paper: Ionospheric disturbances around the time of the Ms7.0 Lushan earthquake (Yiyan et al. 2013).

In their conclusion they say:

Two mechanisms for seismo-ionospheric effects were proposed: Ionospheric oscillation caused by lithospheric outgassing along and in the vicinity of the earthquake-generating fault[16]; E × B drift generated by penetration of ionosphere by earthquake-related extra electric field on the Earth’s surface[10], [45]. By using a quasi-electrostatic model for atmosphere-thermosphere-ionosphere coupling, Kim and Hegai[46], Pulinets et al[47] and Sorokin et al[48] showed that a strong vertical electric field on the Earth surface could penetrate into the ionosphere and modify its dynamics and electron density distribution prior to earthquake occurrences.

At the present, no substantial breakthrough has been made in earthquake forecast, especially in short-term forecast. Identifying different precursor signals and studying their statistical features are still major aspects in the research of earthquake forecast. As far as the time scale of seismo-ionospheric precursors is concerned the ionospheric precursors provide a possibility for realizing short-term forecast.

They propose that the disturbance in the atmosphere is caused by the earthquake releasing energy, there is no mention of solar activity, or predictable cycles.

Armstrong:

The theory put forth by Minoru Freund of the NASA Ames Research Center argued that when rocks are compressed-as when tectonic plates, they act like batteries, producing electric currents. This line of reasoning would imply that the electric disturbances are the result and not the cause since compressing rocks releases electrical charges that then travel upwards into the ionosphere. However, perhaps fluctuations in the cosmic-solar radiations are charging the ionosphere first, which then transfer to the planet disrupting the geomagnetic field generating the current.

Review:

Again, would appreciate the link to this theory. At least Armstrong is providing the alternative interpretation here. So, just like the study above (Yiyan et al 2013), they say that the earthquakes cause the ionosphere disturbance, there are several papers that mention that. None that I found mention that the electrical disturbances are causing the earthquake.

Armstrong goes on to say “However, perhaps fluctuations in the cosmic-solar radiations are charging the ionosphere first, which then transfer to the planet disrupting the geomagnetic field generating the current.” Ok, nice theory, although he has provided no research that shows that, and the research he does provide actually says that this isn’t happening.

Armstrong:

The global warming people have totally ignored the sun and its interactions with our planet and the climate. It is a known fact that during solar minimum, which we are now headed in to, is when we get the peak energy in cosmic radiation. During these maximum energy periods, the cosmic radiation can penetrate the greatest depths within the planet. The correlation with the sun also exists whereby the greatest earthquakes swarm during the period of solar minimum.

Review:

So because scientists ignore the sun for global warming, then they must be ignoring it for earthquakes as well. Great example of a false equivalence.

He makes the claim that “the cosmic radiation can penetrate the greatest depths within the planet.” Zero evidence provided.

He also claims: “The correlation with the sun also exists whereby the greatest earthquakes swarm during the period of solar minimum.” Again, he hasn’t provided any evidence that shows this, other than one paper from 1967, which still today hasn’t been used to predict earthquakes…

Armstrong:

Nevertheless, the relationship between the lowest-highest solar cycles and earthquakes produces the highest level of correlation. Therefore, the data simply establish an extremely strong correlation between major earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude or more (on Richter scale) and strong solar minimum (grand minimums).

Review:

Which studies show this? What data? If it’s so simple, why not provide it? I agree that an “Extremely strong correlation” is very strong, but I would prefer to see the data myself and not have to take Armstrong’s word for it.

Also, he is claiming that when the sun’s activity is at its minimum you will get more earthquakes… so less energy from the sun = more energy in the earth’s crust? Why?

Armstrong:

We are in what is being called Solar Cycle 24. This is the 24th solar cycle since 1755 when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. It is the current solar cycle which began in December 2008 with a smoothed minimum of 2.2 (SIDC formula). There was only minimal activity until early 2010. It reached its maximum in April 2014 with smoothed sunspot number only 116.4, the lowest in over a century. The 8.0 2008 Sichuan earthquake took place right on schedule.

Review:

Again, have to just take his word for it all.

He wrote this article on Dec 5, 2017, so why didn’t he mention these two earthquakes that are in the top 10 biggest earthquakes in recorded history?

Sendai, Japan, 11 March 2011 (9.0)

Bio-bio, Chile, 27 February 2010 (8.8)

They are much bigger than the Sichuan one, and happened 3-4 years before the sun’s minimum activity! Armstrong has copied the solar cycle stuff directly from this page The Sun in 2017 , without any reference, just some casual plagiarism. So the 24th solar cycle began in Dec 2008, with minimum activity, it reached its peak in April 2014. So according to Armstrong there are more quakes during minimum activity, resulting in the Sichuan quake. What about the April 2014 Iquique earthquake in Chile of magnitude 8.2? This happened in the solar maximum? Completely the opposite to what Armstrong is predicting. It is easy to cherry pick individual events, and this clearly proves nothing for or against, even in my case. Therefore, he must show all major earthquakes against the sun’s activity to see the correlation with his cycles, and statistically calculate the probability of his model, because I have just shown his model is not 100% accurate. He hasn’t provided and of this evidence, so of course I am skeptical about his claims.

If he is really predicting earthquakes “right on schedule”, lets test out his model, why isn’t he telling us to the month/day when the next major earthquake is going to happen?

Armstrong:

A simple correlation with the energy output of the sun reveals that all major earthquakes occurred during strong solar minimums. Consequently, there were 7 major earthquakes of 8.0 magnitude moving into the turning point in 2008-2010. Kiril Islands (Russia) twice- 8.1 (November 2006 & January 2007), Peru-8.0 (August 2007), Sumatra-8.5 (September 2007), Sichuan earthquake-8.0 (May 2008), Samoa-8.1 (September 2009), Maule (Chile)-8.8 (February 2010).

Review:

Too simple to provide? I just showed above that a major magnitude 8.2 earthquake (bigger than his Sichuan example) occurred (down to the month!) during the 2014 solar maximum. Demonstrating that his claim that, “all major earthquakes occurred during strong solar minimums” is just wrong. Ok, now at the end he mentions the Feb 2010 Chili earthquake…. Not really sure how it fits his theory though… I also do not understand his last sentence; he is listing a bunch of earthquakes as if they prove his model. What is a two year turning point? What were earthquakes doing outside of this turning point? Again, Armstrong provides no evidence, no complete catalogue of earthquakes, and expects the reader to blindly accept his claims.

Armstrong:

However, since this effect is a mere external forcing of the eruptive energetic threshold of a volcano, a direct link between eruptions and Sun‘s cycles must be excluded. Sun‘s activity cannot awaken a dormant volcano, but it could trigger the onset of an eruption in a volcano that is independently undergoing pre-eruptive conditions.”

Review:

So now he just jumps, from earthquakes to volcanoes, as if they are the same thing. Also, he has been trying to push this idea about how solar activity plays a significant role in triggering earthquakes, and now at the end he is saying “a direct link between eruptions and Sun‘s cycles must be excluded.” So what is he saying? Ok, so he then jumps back and forth, and then lands somewhere in the middle with “but it could trigger the onset of an eruption in a volcano that is independently undergoing pre-eruptive conditions”. Ok nice conclusion, that is different to what he started out saying about earthquakes, and is now all about volcanoes which he didn’t mention at all before in his sparse literature review at the beginning. He has provided zero evidence for this claim.

He then finished the article with his false equivalence fallacy about global warming. Armstrong has not predicted anything, it appears he has only cherry picked historical events to fit his cycle. Regarding solar activity and earthquakes, he has made many claims in this article and provided next to no evidence. The scant research he has linked even concludes the opposite to what he is claiming. He has not demonstrated that there is a correlation with the suns activity and earthquakes (I am not saying that there isn’t a correlation, but none of his citations referred to the sun at all). Also, he has not attempted to explain the mechanism for low sun activity and increased earthquake/volcano activity. He is very loose with his research to put it kindly.

Below are two papers that provide evidence to show that solar activity is not affecting earthquakes, I have quoted from the conclusions from each paper as well. This is not an extensive review, but considering Armstrong could only provide one paper from 1967 that supported his interpretation I guess the burden of proof is more on Armstrong’s side. Also, these papers are slightly more up to date than Armstrong’s literature review. I pasted below from the conclusion of each paper. Also note that they are testing the correlation with various statistical tests, such as the chi-squared test (χ2). Which is a basic test, of which Armstrong has never provided any such tests (or data for that matter).

Paper 1: Love, J.J. and Thomas, J.N., 2013. Insignificant solar‐terrestrial triggering of earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters, 40(6), pp.1165-1170.

“From retrospective analysis of historical data, we cannot confidently resolve a statistically significant relationship between solar-terrestrial variables and earthquake occurrence. Therefore, we cannot confidently reject the null hypothesis of no solar-terrestrial triggering of earthquakes. This does not mean, of course, that there is no such role—we just cannot detect its presence in historical data. What it does mean is that we have no testable correlation that can be used to objectively predict future earthquake”

Paper 2: Hough, S.E., 2018. Do large (magnitude≥ 8) global earthquakes occur on preferred days of the calendar year or lunar cycle?. Seismological Research Letters, 89(2A), pp.577-581.

“The simple tests presented in this report confirm what seismologists have long taken for granted, that there is no evidence that large earthquake rates are modulated significantly by the position of the Earth relative to either the Moon or the Sun. If there is any modulation of large earthquake occurrence, it is either well below the level that can be detected with the present catalog or gives rise to effects that are far more complex than a global clustering through either the calendar year or the lunar month. A low level of modulation would be of no practical use for earthquake prediction. The tests illustrate once again how apparent clustering and anticlustering arise commonly in random catalogs, potentially fueling enduring earthquake myths.”

Summary:

Armstrong's article "Climate Change – Earthquakes Caused by Complex Cycles" makes controversial claims, provides no supporting evidence, and misrepresents the conclusions of research he does cite. He presents his claims as scientific but does not adhere to any scientific methodologies. He indirectly claims that his Economic Confidence Model can predict earthquakes. However, he has provided no supporting evidence, cherry picked data, and mis-quoted research in order to make it appear that he has the ability to predict earthquakes. This review has demonstrated that he cannot predict earthquakes, and urges readers to be skeptical of any economic predictions Armstrong claims using the same model. As Armstrong is selling his predictions, it is concluded that Armstrong is running a scam.

 

---

...

Years later, in 2025, that quack Armstrong is still at it, using the The Fake Fan Email Confidence Trick to praise himself for having a model that predicted everything as usual:

Ring of Fire Is Becoming Active on Schedule

QUESTION: Marty, your model on volcanoes had correctly forecast this surge in activity in the Ring of Fire for 2025. Do you view this as part of the warning that we are headed into global cooling, rather than warming? Why does the media refuse to highlight all the correct events your computer has been able to forecast when nobody else comes close?

He can't forecast this, and he never did. Nevertheless, he shows his ambiguous forecast arrays and picks some patterns on them in hindsight as a proof of his prediction. Please note that, according to his own definition, a high in one row can be interpreted as indicating a low or a high in the underlying data.

And as usual, he cannot quote one of his blog articles where he predicted this, hence the need for that email trick.

Read more:

Socrates Forecast Array Nonsense

 

A Self-fulfilling Financial Forecast

The Socrates Self-fulfilling Financial Forecast is a fundamental part of Martin Armstrong's smoke and mirrors machine. I will describe it below with two cases. These cases show how this trick is used to keep subscribers hooked, those subscribers who are struggling to make sense of Socrates.

The following model case is extracted from the Martin Armstrong subscription only Private Blog, Posted Dec 7, 2019.

It documents how a financial forecast is constructed to be always true but worthless nevertheless.

Here is how: We are in December 2019.

1. If the DOW goes higher than 28,174 then it may reach 30,000 (7.1% rise).
2. If the DOW goes higher as in 1), and if after January it declines, then the DOW made a high in January.
3. If the DOW made a high in January as in 2) then it could decline in the 1st quarter 2021.

Obviously, the above three statements are always true. In particular, 3) is true because the definition of a date-constrained high is that before and after it, the price must be lower.

The original post:

if it exceeds the November high, then it can rally into the ECM and test the 30,000 level. We must be concerned that a high in conjunction with that model could point to a sharp correction into the 1st quarter 2012.

Notice "could".

The ECM target date for the high is 18 January (the date constraint for the high).

Martin Armstrong is quite aware of this self-fulfilling feature because he implies with great confidence that the ECM is always correct (cannot be proven false):

In Re: Martin Armstrong Discussion December 29, 2019, 03:49:29 PM the scam guru Martin Armstrong writes using his fake account:

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.

It is like selling 1=1 as a forecast.

---

Here is another case more than two years later, in an echo chamber discussion Private blog confusion. Posted Feb 14 2022.

It is a conversation mainly between long-time shills @AdvancedOwl3516, @Dry-Consequence9612 and @Polzivateli. The staged conversation addresses questions that most likely would have been received by Socrates subscriber support. It ends with "perfect" resolution i.e.all questions answered, (Socrates never wrong) and up-selling (additional market Tesla):

Private blog confusion. The private blog has been a bit erratic this weekend. So far we have been told high on ECM turning point. Low on ECM turning point. Down into 2023, Capital inflows/outflows phew ! Is the Private blog hedged ? perhaps Laterlus can decipher what it is really saying,for us. He can normally shed more light as to what marty is trying to say.

The textbook shill advice (self-fulfilling forecast):

It's always if else.

If March is the high of the market, then there will be a decline in the first quarter of 2023. In general, this is not a super bullish for the subsequent period.

Conversely, if March is the low of the market, then it means steady growth further.

And the sycophantic conclusion:

So glad I joined this blog. I was getting so disillusioned with Socrates, until I discovered the correct way to use the information from the posts on this forum

That is how Martin Armstrong wants it to be. Did I forget to say that he is a charlatan?

See also:

Socrates Forecast Array Nonsense

Martin Armstrong The Hyper Shill

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekly Superposition Event in the DOW October 2018

The Armstrong Reversal System at times generates special Reversals that are called "Superposition Events". I prefer to explain these by example because their generation is confusing and complicated.

In physics, the superposition principle states that if there are two or more stimuli at a given point in time, the response will be the result of adding all the responses.

I want to emphasize: "at a given point in time" which means at the same time, simultaneously.

Martin Armstrong uses this term incorrectly for Revision Signals which borrow from the future, or are created in hindsight, meaning they are not created at the same time.

Here we watch in real time how the system injects such a signal, in the DOW on Monday, October 15, 2018.

In this case, a daily bearish is elected on Thursday 2018-10-11, a weekly bearish is elected on Friday 2018-10-12. Then on Monday (after the event) that Revision Signal comes out of the blue because the system discovers that it has been wrong.

In the private blog:

US Share Market Afternoon Update
By: Marty Armstrong
Thursday, October 11, 2018

The Dow is trading at 25360 after we got the mid-day rally. A close today below 25454 will keep the market weak. A closing BELOW 25294 today should signal a further decline and the next low may unfold on Monday. If we get this sell signal, then we should move to the next Weekly Bearish which lies at the 24965 level and if that is elected tomorrow, then we should test the Monthly Bearish in the 23 zone next week.

We are setting the stage for a real interesting outcome here right on time for the WEC

The DOW closed below 25294 at 25052.83, so we got the sell signal.

The Markets for the Week of 10/15/2018
By: Marty Armstrong
Monday, October 15, 2018
...
We encountered a Superposition situation on the Weekly Level in the Dow electing two long-term term Weekly Bullish Reversals against a Short-term Weekly Bearish.

What this means that you go short on Thursday and Friday, make a loss, and the following Monday Martin comes out saying that the system was right again. These two long-term Weekly Bullish Reversals were NOT available on Friday. They come the next week.

If you look at the chart, even on its own terms it is not correct because the bullish movement is shorter term than the bearish movement.

In pure technical terms, after studying the internal structure of the Reversal System, one can see that what happens is pure ambiguity as follows:

The Reversal System is run separately for each aggregation period: Daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly. In addition to that, in each aggregation period, it is split up once again in a bearish instance and a bullish instance. All these instances do not know about each other - they are in fact trampling on each other. Sometimes, and this happens quite frequently, they elect reversals in opposite directions. The computer does not resolve this situation but it reports it some time later. Such conflicts are reported even between different aggregation periods, making the situation one level more ambiguous and confusing. Such as the creation of monthly bullish Reversals around the time of the creation of weekly bearish Reversals.

A more insidious aspect is that Armstrong has manual control over which reversals are reported and which are suppressed. This gives him a front running opportunity. See: Martin Armstrong's Socrates: The Insider Market Manipulation Machine

 

For a general description of such signals, see: Revision Signals

 

See also:

Monthly Reversal Failures December 2018

Socrates Long Term Past Performance Review

Quarterly Superposition Event in Gold 2015 

Socrates Subscriber Testimonials

 

The Global Correlation Model

In one of his alarmist posts Will the Elite Wake Up in Time & Confront The Left Climate Fear Campaigns?, forecaster Martin Armstrong praises his computer as usual for being able to sort out the correlations:

To survive this total complete mess, it will take a computer to monitor everything and sort out the correlations.

In one of his recent reports that carry a very high price tag, he made use of such a correlation as demonstrated here: The Martin Armstrong Gold / Silver Ratio Fallacy which indicates that such correlation may not hold for the future for long, only in hindsight.

And his results show that there is no value in correlating markets in the way that he does it.

And there is no evidence ANYWHERE in his writings that he used the correlation between markets successfully to provide better forecasting.

Still he makes these claims. In Socrates – Artificial Intelligence (Real) he writes amongst other hyperbole:

He also monitors the entire world news feeds and looks for fundamental news events that correlate behind the global trends.

I know with 100% certainty that his programs do NOT use news feeds as input at all. I have analyzed his systems, and according to my analysis, Socrates applies the same single-dimensional logic based exclusively, without exception, on the price history to every market in isolation. For some background, see:

The Reversal System - Engineering Perspective

For those who are interested in correlations between markets, this has been studied for years, see Stock correlation network.

Correlation queries have been available as various online computer services like here at aistockcharts.com and here.

Correlation studies are standard part of broker services today.

Until this day, Martin Armstrong's so called correlation models have been unavailable. At best, single studies have been manual executions not reaching the level of complexity as seen elsewhere.

Socrates still presents a flat earth model where each market is analyzed in isolation, merely based on its own time series, not correlated with anything.

Martin Armstrong planned in 2013 to build the Global Correlation Model. Here in 2014, it becomes obvious that this, while still not available, aims to be no more than expressing technical analysis of markets in terms of various currencies.

The Martin Armstrong Gold / Silver Ratio Fallacy

In a video available as part of the Metals Report subscription, Martin Armstrong made a clear statement regarding the significance of the Gold / Silver Ratio with respect to a potential Gold Rally, using Reversals and Forecast arrays as follows.

To cut a long story short: It is all bullshit, some other wizardry to keep the fools entertained and keep them buying his products. Martin Armstrong said that the Gold/Silver ratio needs to fall below 70 to get a change in trend. The ratio actually dipped below 70 without a precious metal rally after that time, but interestingly, while the Gold price rallied, the ratio then rose steadily up to now between 85 and 90, at the time when we have a significant precious metals rally. To make it clear: This is the opposite effect, and we are trying to derive conclusions from this?


Transcript from Video, made on 2016-07-01:

Now I said before that one of the reasons that we saw for example, that gold was not ready, was simply that this silver gold ratio has been rising. In a bull market, it normally declines which would then show we would then have people buying silver as well as gold. So this is been absent as you can see from effectively 2011. Now we went up and we reached this high in February. Now we have been moving down fairly aggressively but we have still not elected any monthly bearish reversals to say the trend is starting to change. We need that confirmation [shows monthly bearish reversals 7310, 7395, 7026, 6024] and now, what we are really looking at, we have taken out the first two minor ones, we really have to get below this 70 area, and then ultimately we have to take out 6024. But once that begins to develop, now we are looking at a long term change in trend. So this is one of the criteria that we have to look at moving forward. [changes to forecast array] Now let's look at the timing of this. From the February high, we had a directional change in March. That has materialized so far, and we ended up with a bit of a, a major volatility rise here in July. And our next real turning point is coming in August - we can see that we have a bit of a choppy period when we come into the elections through October, that's where we have a panic cycle, and then next January is the biggest turning point. So we may see then a movement down, reaction up, if we get a reaction to the upside in January next year that will probably be it on the gold silver ratio. The real breakout in the middle still appears to be more around 2018.

For another view of Martin Armstrong's incorrect Gold calls as part of this Gold Report, see:

Quarterly Superposition Event in Gold 2015

Socrates Technical Analysis Prediction Magic

The difficulties in following Martin Armstrong's Socrates trading advice

Why and how can Martin Armstrong and affiliates claim (make it appear to the untrained eye) that the Socrates system of Technical Analysis always creates the correct trading signals, makes the correct prediction and is free of human bias and never wrong?

The answer is very simple. The system produces multiple conflicting signals to choose from. In hindsight, one of the correct ones is chosen as the winner and the incorrect ones are ignored. That's it! We always win.

To explore how we get there, let us first look at the problem of forecasting from the rear vision mirror perspective - in hindsight.

Let's assume for argument's sake a scenario where we use a smart trading system that produces three possible signals from a single output: Buy, do nothing or sell.

We use that system and look in hindsight at a market situation, say a stock rally. We wanted to profit from it, but our system failed and advised to sell, so we sold and traded with a loss. Naturally, we review the situation and ask ourselves:

What was the signal that we missed that would have told us to trade in the right direction, the opposite direction?

Our system is a system that has only a single output, so there is no way we could have traded differently. No such signal!

Martin Armstrong would have had this problem when designing Socrates at the very beginning.

To solve this problem, Martin Armstrong would have extended his system to have multiple outputs to choose from. These outputs typically produce different results in any given market situation. Let us see how this is implemented in practice by inspecting the signals from a Socrates report in a single time frame, say daily, on the same day (quotes from actual reports):

• Our Daily level momentum is bullish
• The trend indicator is neutral
• Our long-term trend is bearish
• The cyclical strength indicator is bullish
• The market is trading above one indicating pivot implying that this market is in a positive position
• With respect to time, there is a prospect of a decline moving into (the following day)
• The overall tone on the Daily level is negative since the last Daily Bearish Reversal being elected ...
• The broader tone of the market is still positive on this trading level.
• The Oscillators are in a mixed position.
• Immediately, our (Energy) model continues to rally suggesting that a strong rally is likely. 
• We have elected a Bearish / Bullish reversal

Additionally, we may get:

•  Fake elected Reversals count
•  Superposition event canceling a recently elected reversal (Refer to Revision Signals)

These can all appear on the same day.

Then there are signals that must be considered but they are not in the reports:

•  The NON-election of a nearby Reversal (the most mysterious "signal" one could imagine)
•  Reversal One Percent Rule
•  Reversal gap

We are counting 16 signals in a single time frame. When we multiply this by 3 for daily, weekly and monthly time frames to be conservative, we get 48 signals to choose from, each of them may have different directions.

The Socrates system does not provide a computerized solution for consolidating these signals into a meaningful response, so it is a matter of human interpretation to find the correct conclusion.

Now let us look how this expansion is exploited to always produce the correct result in hindsight, by means of an example:

Wheat Futures Example

Let's try again to trade it, this time monthly reversals. Date elected: 2019-04-30, traded for one month until 2019-05-31
GDAX monthly bullish 5% loss
GDX monthly bearish 3.4% loss
SP 500 monthly bullish 6.6% loss
TLT monthly bearish 6.6% loss
/ZW Wheat futures monthly bearish 17.4% loss

On Friday, 2019-04-30 /ZW Wheat Futures definitely elected a Monthly Bearish Reversal, that, if had it been traded for the month, would have produced a loss of 17.4%. Martin Armstrong's response to this dilemma is to gaslight (blame) the user as follows:

Martin Armstrong's Response:

I saw your incredibly uninformed comment on wheat futures if you had the trader service you would know that MAY was a turning point and there was a MAJOR monthly bearish reversal just below which was not elected the only charlatan here is you.

In clear text, this means that in hindsight, the correct conclusion would have been to ignore the ELECTED Monthly Bearish Reversal, and instead to pay attention to the NOT ELECTED next reversal, i.e. a missing signal.

The undisputed fact is that at this time, the implied rule, the "Elected Reversal Invalidation Rule" as I call it, which forces the invalidation or negation of an elected Reversal by another non-elected Reversal, does not exist in any of the Socrates reference documentation The Reversal System.

In addition, the user needs to consider the turning point, the timing information from the forecast arrays. There is no signal that the system puts out that would indicate this choice. The user would have had to carry out research to come to this extremely far-fetched conclusion. A system of maximum effort for negative returns.

The answer to the question we asked in the beginning is fairly obvious from this example. The conclusion for the correct trading decision can only be made in hindsight by cherry-picking some signals that best fit the situation in the past. That is because there are no rules for how to pick the best mix of these signals for a trade. These rules are made up by Martin Armstrong and his shills in hindsight on the fly to match any situation as required.

Therefore, the Socrates system cannot be used to get accurate and verifiable trading decisions in real time.

See also:

The Reversal System - Engineering Background