I agree. I have been thinking about this for a while, and we are working on it. But it is very hard. Armstrong produces so much confusing material that one needs to unravel and explain as you can see. So much work! Imagine how much horse power we had to apply to get these trolls to stay away. Only the raw facts and rinse and repeat will do it.

Martin Armstrong's Wikipedia article is of course a good place to record facts. It included some more of the failed predictions which were later rejected by an editor because no source acceptable by Wikipedia standards can be found for them. The problem is that no mainstream media outlet wants to write about Martin Armstrong because it would have a negative impact on their credibility.

It might be useful to find someone who can publish on a neutral site for example these recent failures as in https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com/2019/07/major-failed-predictions.html

That would be a start.

Obviously armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com is not neutral because its single objective is to be critical in the single subject.

At this stage, the only idea I have is to publish the facts, explaining the fraud etc. on as many sites as possible.

It might just be enough to provide material that frustrated Socrates users looking for a 2nd  opinion can find on the internet.

It all takes time.

Any other ideas?

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for a reason.

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


See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.