I got answers about his arrays before.  The bars ACTUALLY do mean the price levels, as he emailed me.  And I forgot where he said this, but he said that the price levels are relative only in THAT timeframe that is being plotted.  So you cannot compare the price levels between two different array plots.

Now, you can pull up ANY arrays from ANY of his posts.  Then you can tell me that whether he even gets 50% of the relative price levels CORRECT in any forecast arrays.  I checked some, and they were just WRONG.  And of course, he won't publish that.  I just happened to get that answer from him.

The reversals would work just like any other technical analysis tools.  Anyone can identify the support and resistance levels.  You don't need anyone else to tell you that.  It's just in any charts, and they do kind of work to a certain extent.  And not everyone would agree on the exact price numbers, but they would all kind of cluster around the actual support and resistance.

Again, I'm not saying that he is not a good trader.  He is probably at least top 10% of the traders.  BUT going from there and then to claim that he has an AI computer predicting the whole world for the long term, is simply ridiculous.

And I also agree that he has VERY GOOD insight to economics, which obviously deals with the very long term forecast.  But again, I don't need a con artist to tell me that stock markets always go up in the long term due to inflation in the long term, etc.  I know that.

The point that I'm trying to make is that when someone smart like him tells the truth 98% of the time, and tells lies just 2% of the time, it will be quite difficult for anyone to figure out the 2% untruths.  In this case, it's the ECM model, the AI computer/Socrates, etc.  Just ask yourself, or him, what is the value of the cycle length of ECM?  If such fundamental question cannot be answered within scientifically acceptable answers, such as mean/variance, then the whole ECM model is simply voodoo numerology.  According to him, it should be 8.6153846615 that he put on the headline section of his own website.  And I know for sure that value is WRONG, since it is not mathematically consistent.

Again, as I stated, it was simply PHYSICALLY impossible to have such computational power back in 1980s to achieve ANY realistic levels of natural language processing nor speech recognition, unless you spent tens of billions of dollars on the computer/network.  You would think that if he could have done any speech recognition, he would have written any published papers.  None at all.  There are decades of research on speech recognition to achieve what can be done today, which is still way far from perfect.

Anyway, he wraps the core untruths with his good trading abilities, and some automated technical analysis, and maybe some good political contacts.  That's all I am trying to say.  But then he would be just like any other good traders, and he will have hits & misses, but NOT an AI that analyzes the entire world objectively without any faults.  The way he approaches AI is the expert-system way, not the neural-network way, and that will NEVER work.