One of his tricks is to not provide a deadline when price should hit his target (for example as you mention with regards to gold).  
Thus when he says "gold below $1,000" he can actually NEVER BE INCORRECT, because the whole thesis is that it's going to happen "eventually".  
In the meantime (while for example gold is above $1,000) he will feed you with "Sorry, it's just not TIME yet" and similar bullshit (implying that he knows when it will happen, but in fact he has no clue), and when (if) it happens, then he will say "it was just TIME" (again, implying that he knew exact day in advance), but never actually called (gave readers info about) exact date.  


In other words, if it does not happen - he is not incorrect, but if it happens - he is correct.



Take the detailed gold example:  
https://busy.org/@traxo/martin-armstrong-gold-bear

Readers were deliberately deceived for years, for whatever reason.  
Now someone might come out and say:  
  - Oh well it's not Armstrongs's fault they opened trades when Martin never advised them to
  - Oh but he has a disclaimer so it's never actually trade advice
  - Oh but you are supposed to trade only Socrates X or Y, not his public writings because those are his "opinion"

However, the problem with all that is Martin never actually flat out say when to buy or sell in the first place, and mostly he doesn't even tell you what his opinion is vs what his "computer" projects.  
You can only try to conclude it yourself from his writings, or his other data.

So in the end it's always up to you when to trade what, but note you can't actually trade anything:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg53208223#msg53208223 thus his projections are completely worthless for trading, but really useful if they give you dopamine once you read about them in hindsight and then go and praise Socrates.

He is fully aware that his listeners/readers trade and lose money based on what he says because they are blinded. IMO there is no excuse for deliberately deceiving your crowd.