CHARLATAN TRAPPED

Quote from: Gumbi on December 27, 2019, 10:54:48 AM

...
@AnonymousCoder
So you are saying here in public, that any number of non-elected reversals can negate any major elected reversal of clearly much higher significance!

A quarterly bearish reversal is not more significant than a yearly bearish reversal just because it has been elected. Do you think that a reversal is significant only if it is elected?
In fact testing yet failing to elect a YEARLY bearish reversal is MUCH MORE significant than electing a QUARTERLY bearish reversal. This just shows your lack of understanding of the reversal system.

The fact that gold came so close but still held a yearly bearish reversal at 1044.5 was more significant than electing a quarterly bearish reversal signalling gold was not as weak as it appeared.
Even the 2015 gold report indicated CRITICAL SUPPORT at 1044 and technical support at 1026. These levels were not even broken intraday. Only an absolute beginner would of shorted this market with that kind of information.

So since you are so certain about this could you please quote the Socrates documentation (with URL link) which contains the Elected Reversal Invalidation Rule which says that the election of a reversal can be negated by the non-election of another reversal.

If you can't do that, then you are implicitly confirming what I wrote in my previous post.

And to be precise, the fact that Martin Armstrong writes
"…a Monthly Bearish Reversal which is more important than a daily or weekly" does NOT qualify because we need to see the Elected Reversal Invalidation part of it which is not mentioned anywhere in the documentation. So No Elected Reversal Invalidation Rule here.

Gumbi you are trapped now. You contradicted yourself left right and center for everyone to see. We can always get you trapped. Why? Because you are dishonest and devious. The Martin Armstrong Charlatan in chief.

There is no way out of this.

1) If the documentation contains the Elected Reversal Invalidation Rule then the reversals are useless as documented.

2) If the documentation does not contain the Elected Reversal Invalidation Rule then we know that Gumbi / Martin Armstrong will at any time make up new rules to make fraudulent system performance claims. In that case, reversals are useless as well, and further discussion is pointless.

So show us that you did not make this up. Where is the rule documented that a non-elected reversal can invalidate an elected reversal?

BTW:

What a load of Bullshit this is. If in fact there was such a rule, then the computer could so easily just avoid generating the invalid reversal because it knows the other qualifying non-elected reversal. Then we would not even need to talk about it. Roll Eyes

UPDATE

Since no reference has been provided to any rule as requested above, we have ONCE AGAIN incontrovertible evidence that Martin Armstrong creates rules in hindsight to fraudulently misrepresent the performance of the reversal system.

Which is a crime.

Reference documentation on Socrates Reversals at this time 2019-12-28:

The Reversal System

The relevant case can be found here:

Quarterly Superposition Event in Gold 2015

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan. He spent 11 years in jail for that reason but he has not changed.

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