Quote from: AnonymousCoder on January 06, 2020, 01:53:34 AM

I have to laugh. Why?

Look at these arrays. There are 12 columns in every array, right?

In this one, it has 6 extremes to pick from, right? 3 highs and 3 lows. 6 out of 12 that is 50%. Please note that in Armstrong speak, there is no difference between high and low, right?

So we have a probability of roughly 50% already that any attempt to fit any curve to this in the way that our Charlatan in Chief advises us to do, will actually be successful. Then you have the variation that these arrays are actually dynamic, so the highs and lows are not fixed while time moves on.

What does this mean? It means that for a curve fitting exercise (in hindsight) you can choose perhaps out of 4 different arrays the one that suits you best. At the end of the day, your success will always be 100%.

Now you think: hey, I have fitted the past with a great deal of cherry-picking, and therefore, the future will cooperate and follow the path of the array into the future? That is pure bullshit. Many people have tried this before. It never worked.

I did a ton of testing on Socrates when it came out and all of it was basically junk but for some reason the arrays on his private system were significantly different and appeared to have some accuracy to them (I don't know why). I have no idea what you mean about with extremes/highs/lows, post up a drawing like I did so we know what you're talking about. I don't use any of MA's rules at all when looking at the arrays (as I said I don't think he understands his own stuff). There's some dynamic stuff in the array for sure but if you look at the long-term row there's always some sort of static cycle in there because you see it on every array.