He and Socrates are not perfect. No one can be.
Thing is that he often implies (or even flat out claims) that his computer's predictions can't possibly be wrong, thus deceiving readers.
For example:
I greatly appreciate the confidence saying I am newer wrong. But on an individual level, NOBODY can possibly be right all the time. This is why I try to emphasize that the numbers are the numbers and that all we can do is watch how everything unfolds. I have no personal vision of the future and what I fear I would not say publicly anyway for that is just opinion.
All I can do is say this is what has happened in the past and express what the computer says not ME. The markets are the only infallible guide if you just listen..
It is NOT that I am never wrong. Personally, that is just not possible. I try to qualify what I think from the model.
If we get signals in all, it is hard to be wrong for this is NOT my personal OPINION. You can see the future unfold in slow-motion.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, Have you ever been wrong?
ANSWER: On a personal level, of course.
[...]
If I was personally infallible, then why build a computer?
Posted Jan 26, 2013 by Martin Armstrong
But our computer has been forecasting politics for the last 30 years and it has never been wrong yet in any country.
He also implies that he can predict long-term with 100% accuracy, which actually then makes it "perfect" prediction machine for some events and time-spans:
The Long-Term is far easier to predict with even 100% accuracy than Short-Term.
So if he acknowledges that he's not always correct, how come he NEVER admitted when his computer was wrong? Or perhaps I missed such confession?
Did he ever come out and said
Well guys, this is one time in 30 years that computer's forecast was wrong. I don't think he has.
In fact when he's wrong, he just brainwashes you into thinking he was right, see for example his 2016 elections "long-term" "prediction":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg53486641#msg53486641