|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I’m sure Chris Carolan has back tested tons of stuff and he’s
apparently making a living at applying “clusters” to find likely change in
trend dates. I’ve seen many analysts use the near date Spiral intervals to do
the same thing. However, I believe the near dates are less accurate than when
you can find a relevant distant date. It appears to me (and I have a sum total
of maybe 2 months of concentrated SC research) that the longer waves are pure,
have focus and direction without crosscurrents….none of crosscurrents of
shorter chaotic SC waves. Sorry to overuse the wave metaphor but I really do
perceive the ocean wave analogy as descriptive.
1929 simply doesn’t’ work directly with 2009. However, 1987 was
generated from 1929 via Carolan’s Spiral Calendar algorithm. And 2009 is
generated from 1987 by that same algorithm. The algorithm does not relate 1929
to 2009 if I’m understanding your question, but they’re indirectly related by
the algorithm and directly related by the Fib 22.1 / 58.0.
I first discovered the algorithm gave me dates in 2009 using
1987 as the reference and that was interesting. Then I noticed the intervals
were .381 and that was interesting. And then I had the idea that July 11 was
already passed and wanted to know if it was a similar ‘significant low’…….it
was and I became really really interested and posted the results September 25.
I still didn’t think it was likely to be a ‘find.’
The next text, where we are right now, would change the odds.
Anyone can predict 4 dates and get one right. But get 2 right along with the “polarity”.
In other words, the algorithm is not predicting just a date but whether it’s a significant
high or low.
I don’t know why it APPEARS to be working now and not for every SC
interval. What I do believe is that if this date proves to be successful (and
we won’t know that another higher high won’t be made for say a week or two),
then the probability of the last two take on a life of their own.
I doubt this helps but it does indicate the unsettled
understanding on my part of what MIGHT be happening,
Jim
From: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of bradcline@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 10:08 PM
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RT] Failure of studies/patterns
Jim,
Are you really
comparing apples to apples? Shouldn't there be a study to show 22.1 years from
the 1929 start date and see what that brought? Wouldn't that be a clue for this
87 to 09 study? Just asking. If there isn't can you explain why?
Thanks,
Brad
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ross" <jrosscpa@xxxxxxx>
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 11:20:50 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: RE: [RT] Failure of studies/patterns
Here are the numbers, simply add the F25
interval in days to the 1987 dates:
http://www.screencast.com/users/Virginia_Jim/folders/Jing/media/2ce6c5be-5a5e-4ddf-9479-60d89be7e2d1
Here’s the implied analog in chart form:
http://www.screencast.com/users/Virginia_Jim/folders/Jing/media/69b40183-b3b1-421e-ae54-1e6a3146af65
Some interesting “coincidents"
1.
The interval from 1987 to 2009 or 22.1 years divided by
the interval from 1929 to 1987 or 58.0 years equals .381 (a near perfect Fib
number).
2.
July 11 is the computed date and July 10 was a significant low
not the lowest low. The “spring lows” in 1929 and 1987 were not the lows
to date of those years either.
3.
October 16 is the computed date and October 15 is, TENTATIVELY,
a ‘hit’ given the +- one day (any projection cannot be more accurate than its
measurement period).
There are two criticisms I have made of
this “speculation”. First, that the dates are occurring one moon later in
relation to the spring equinox than 1929 or 1987. My belief is Carolan
made his discovery in relation to the equinox but broadened it to the Fibonacci
spiral counted in lunar periods. I believe the reference to the equinox
is not the computation but a coincidence; that the real computation is all
Fibonacci. Second, that crashes as documented by Stephen Puetz, Chris
Carolan and Peter Eliades occur in either a spring or fall season. Well,
December 10 is not in that season. My thinking on that is that the first
wave defined by the dates, namely after the final high of October 16 and before
the secondary high of November 23 will be a large enough wave in its own right
to be considered a crash. In 1929 and 1987 that same first wave was 10%
and 17% respectively. If this is, as Ellioticians say, intermediate 1 of
primary 3 of cycle c, the next three weeks could be historic. And December
10 could, in its own right, be a crash. But it would be considered simply
a continuation of the first wave.
Those above are my self criticisms and
rationalizations. Yours is the seasons in which these dates occur.
It boils down to one extra lunar cycle. Like the extra moon in the
computation, the whole thing is shifted one lunar interval relative to 1929 or
1987. But it otherwise is the same number of days between the
dates. And my RATIONALIZATION is that it not the season of the year or
the equinox as the reference point…..it a Fibonacci computation in lunar
intervals.
The character of 1929 was quite
different from 1987. In 1929 there were a series of huge down days and
the nation went into a decade depression. In 1987 it was largely a
one and done and the nation recovered quickly. I fully expect this time
will be different as well.
Hey, its all numerology, no plausibly
sustainable causality and the rationalization I’ve read is too elaborate to try
to recount. If the October 15 high holds, I’d say it’s probability of
fulfillment would convince me I don’t want to be long. If I gave you
those dates 8 months ago, I’d say the probability is 1 in infinity against
their implication.
Good luck,
Jim
From: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jim White
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 11:22 AM
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RT] Failure of studies/patterns
Help me with this - I am not a spiral
calendar expert.
Carolyn's correlation of 4 dates was
spring low, summer high, fall high and crash date. The distance between 20 and
87 dates 717 moons. How do you come up with a correlation for 2009?
Also spring low this year was 3/6
If there is a correlation, shouldn't the
next date be a fall high followed by a crash?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 6:05 AM
Subject: RE: [RT] Failure of studies/patterns
M Syed, I appreciate your insights and
sharing.
Here’s a pattern for you. I first
posted this speculation on Slope of Hope, markettimers@xxxxxxxxxxx,
yelnick, spiritoftruth on September 25. I call it the Sirial Calendar
1929-1987 analogy. It predicts 4 dates in 2009 that MAY replicate the
same 4 dates that occurred in 1929 and 1987 that were the focus of Chris
Carolan’s book, The Spiral Calendar. The four dates are computed very
simply according to Chris “Spiral” intervals published in his book (Fibonacci
based intervals counted in synodic periods of 29.5306 days).
http://www.screencast.com/users/Virginia_Jim/folders/Jing/media/e78ae4c6-8eb2-4977-b8d6-001fe77b25c8
The first of 4 dates was July 11, 2009
and was a perfect “hit”. It was a significant low. If you recall,
on the date of that low, everyone….everyone was watching the infamous Head and
Shoulders TOP. It was being shown on CNBC. EWI was publishing
it. It ordained that the market would re test the March 2009 lows.
But the July 11 date indicated that it was THE low before the next date which
would be a top…and that date is October 16, 2009, yesterday.
Keep in mind any projection can never be
more accurate than the projection interval. So, July 11 was the
projection +- one day. And, July 11 was a Saturday. So, I’d have
said that significant low could have occurred on Friday July 10, Thursday July
9, Monday July 13 or Tuesday July 14 and the model would have been credited
with a successful prediction. Similarly, I’d say three dates would
satisfy the October 16 prediction; Thursday October 15, Friday October 16 or
Monday October 19.
Well, October 15 had a new recovery high
in the DOW and SPX. I’d say that satisfies the model. There could
be a remaining high according to the model on Monday or it might not
occur. The model remains valid either way; it simply projected the final
highest high on October 16 +- 1 day so it could have a further high
Monday. Now, if Tuesday October 17 has a further recovery high, I’d say
the model is bust. But for now, the model has predicted TWO monument
dates in 2009 that occurred in BOTH 1929 and 1987.
Pure numerology. Nothing
more. If I gave these four dates to you with the implications in June
2009, what would be the probability you’d give a numerological savant that
they’d occur? One in infinity. When the first date worked, what
would the probability be? Well maybe a little less worse, say one in
Taleb’s 5000 lifetimes (of the universe). But now we’ve tentatively got 2
out of 4 dates are a success. It’s got me interested. A new high
AFTER Monday trashes the whole thing, but until then it’s a “hmmmmm.”
Here’s the implied analog in chart form aligned for the lowest low in each of
the 3 years:
http://www.screencast.com/users/Virginia_Jim/folders/Jing/media/07742629-a2d9-4b56-a3e5-83f0d23443c0
Interesting stuff,
Jim
From: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of tpmods
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 8:35 AM
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [RT] Failure of studies/patterns
I am seeing
bearish calls in our group since last 30 days or so,needless to say all those
bearish calls gone wrong predicting market trend and stopped out,then next time
they came up with other patterns and gave sell calls again failed.
So we need to do self check now why we failed,this helps us in long term and
increase our chances for our future trades profitibility.
take this in right spirit.
Bye and good luck.
__._,_.___
![]()
__,_._,___
|
|