...
I've seen a lot of claims that people have backtested things and posted their conclusion, but I've not seen something like I did. Testing many samples and properly describe the test and eventually even post the raw data.
...
I don't know whether I should actually respond to so much stupidity.
There is only one valid conclusion from this: Ask Socrates support to provide historical data!Other services are doing it.
If not supplied then unsubscribe from Socrates. After supplied then subscribe and check that historical data is actually authentic and sufficient.
Otherwise you are an idiot because:
1) You are deriving data that a convicted criminal
https://pennrecord.com/stories/511497776-federal-judge-coin-collector-s-criminal-record-mentions-will-not-be-stricken-from-ownership-complaintposted in hindsight without ability to check it and then you claim that you describe it "properly". Outrageous!
2) You are paying Martin Armstrong for your work of testing the bugs of his system
3) You are thinking that someone who has a massive amount of raw data that only very few are able to obtain would take the risk of publishing it just to please you.
Finally I want to make it clear that I am not taking any of Martin Armstrong's work seriously in any way. If I did that then I would discredit myself. I am posting here only to discredit Martin Armstrong and what he produces with the aim to save other honest people some grief and a lot of money.
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.