Quote from: AnonymousCoder on August 28, 2019, 02:18:38 AM

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/Siver 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?

I remember reading about the 70 G\S ratio and thinking the same thing (ie it did go to 64 but who knows, with all these difficult to compile rules maybe it falls under some other exemption which causes it to be negated?!). The ratio was actually falling while the Jan-June 2016 rally was happening and then rose again when the rally was over so that much makes perfect sense. You can see the G/S ratio falling again now with PMs making another run (and this time I didn't miss it). The problem with simply putting out a static number like 70 is that the charts are dynamic and based on sloped support/resistance lines so to me the G/S ratio needs to stay below 81 (currently) to signal a change in trend.

Quote from: Alex-11 on August 28, 2019, 07:34:43 AM

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/models/
most important Timining Paragraph and Models & Methodologies Second Edition

Socrates Pro only
The Socrates Platform User Manual
Top Questions and Misconceptions (Topic 1)

Forecast Arrays a few blog posts
Understanding Cycles lots of blog posts.

To simplify things, the focus should be currently on the top row of the monthly arrays and on the highest bar only. Consider turning points and cycle inversions, intraday high/lows and highs/lows on closing basis. Additionally there is the sidway movement and a breakout / decline from it.
There are a lot of other things MA is talking about regarding cycles and arrays, but you have to have a lot of time to study that as well and it makes things more complicated. It's not required to understand turning points. Directional changes and panic cycles can be considered as well, but for the beginning I would ignore them.

Alex, I appreciate you posting those manuals, alot more helpful than searching through countless blog posts (hopefully there are no special rules found only there).

In my analysis I have not see the top row on the array to be particularly helpful.

Take this example.... https://postimg.cc/1fHxYrvh

You can see the second largest bar on the top row does show the 2016 downward movement well (turned out to be a very substantial PM rally, not sure why MA had a hard time calling that from the array). Then again the largest bar on the top row occurs in 2018 yet it shows a big nothing burger on the actual market chart. Looking at the market against the array you can see a G/S ratio peak developing in 2019 quite easily with large volatility and it's also the center of the long-term bars as well which again suggests the 2019 time-frame for a trend to develop. The markings on the array were done in early 2016 so you can see I had highlighted 2019 for a possible event even back then based strictly on the array itself. Again in my real world testing the long-term and empirical bars along with directional, panic and volatility have shown to be the most reliable against actual market situations. The top bar only seems to work when all the stars line up perfectly such as right before the 2008 market crash. So I guess what I'm saying is that the arrays do appear to have some value but it surprises me that the person who supposedly created them isn't able to read them well.