Posted Dec 15, 2015 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Marty, it has become obvious that the analysts who try to attack you personally are the very people who hurt so many for they forecast only on opinion. They are often wrong and never see the big picture. One even claimed to have read all your transcripts and said you committed fraud yet could not explain anything no less why the bank paid back everyone and you owed nothing. When they have nothing to defend their analysis, they attack the messenger.
How did your eyes open to see the the whole rather than a tiny part? It seems the Elliott Wave and Goldbugs are in the same camp. They cannot see what they do not understand. The Elliot Wave seem biased and the Goldbugs just repeat the same nonsense for decades.
ANSWER: Any attempt to forecast based upon “I think” will never be 100% correct. That is impossible. Opinion is not consistent because we are all human. What opened my eyes was having clients from around the world and having to provide forecasting based upon their currency perspective. The same forecast for one person based on the dollar will be wrong for someone based in euro, C$, A$, yen, or renminbi. No matter what method of analysis they use, anything that is purely SUBJECTIVE fails. You cannot assume that the world will respond based upon what you see in your own currency.
The fact that these analysts try to attack me personally demonstrates that they are not capable of seeing the whole. You are correct. When you cannot argue method, you attack the messenger, which demonstrates your own inability to forecast. Our major clients always ask, “WHAT DOES THE COMPUTER SAY?” They are not asking for my personal opinion and there is a huge difference. Some of the best forecasts I had to deliver were the very ones I myself thought were nuts. Over the years, I learned that when the computer has to be correct when it makes me think that way.
You are correct: it was the bank that paid back what was stolen.
After the bank paid back what it took, they kept me in prison on contempt with no criminal complaint or any description of a crime. They claimed there were losses before Republic, yet nothing was ever articulated. I got into the Supreme Court because there was no description of even an order to be held in contempt. They had to release me for there was nothing describing any wrongdoing.
So in the end, this was all bullshit. I was never charged for anything nor was Prudential. There were no losses; they just made that up to keep me in prison. Had I not made it to the Supreme Court, they never would have released me. That is how corrupt the government has become in the hands of the New York bankers. So, anyone claiming they read the transcripts is just a liar. What does that say about their analysis?
Tags: Armstrong Case, Armstrong Trial, subjective analysis