Posted Feb 6, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
wow. Just wow. I read the blog post on the Superbowl coming up. You casually interpreted the Eagles plus Player Foles as more eligible for a win – cyclically. Additionally, according to bookmakers – the majority was wrong (as it must be). You did not specifically point that out, but casually dropped the bookkeeping numbers. So your regular readers would notice the majority being wrong.
So I am really impressed. I still do not understand your whole numbers game with the 8.6 and so forth. It would be amazing to have a blog post where this is condensed so that even an idiot like me could repeatedly look it up and understand.
Nevertheless, just knowing there are cycles and certain indicators as with the Superbowl already makes a huge difference in understanding.
Thanks, Marty, it is just so much fun learning with you.
All the best,
COMMENT #2: Marty; You did this post so nonchalant I doubt you realize that it when you forecast such off the chart events, you are really demonstrating to the world that you are a force to be reckoned with. No wonder the government wanted your computer. It is absolutely amazing! Trump, Brexit, Russia collapse, Ukraine, coldest winter in ages, right down to the 13-year peak in flu you called for this year. All these things prove so much more than just forecasting gold or the Dow.
Thank you for the education. You are changing the way many of us think.
REPLY: True, I just rushed that together given all the emails asking about who would win. The 41 v 33 victory for the Eagles was precisely on point. They were on a 37-year cycle like the Triple Crown and the Patriots hit Pi. Both those cycles effectively predicted who would be in the Superbowl. The analysis of the quarterbacks helped with Brady peaking on his 17.2-year cycle (2 * 8.6). Look at the correlations and trends, it all just came together that the Eagles would win and I knew that was a long-shot given all the betting out there. No, I did not bet. I was busy working on something else.
There is so much more to analysis than people care to look at and I suppose you are correct, forecasting these sorts of things makes people look at cycles even more as an answer.
It was fun to do it.