[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [RT] Re: 1929-1987 Spiral Calendar Analog update


  • Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:25:25 -0500
  • From: "Jim Ross" <jrosscpa@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [RT] Re: 1929-1987 Spiral Calendar Analog update

PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links



The dates of Nov 23 and Dec 10 still have great Spiral Calendar significance.  HOWEVER, the SC Analog ‘final high’ was invalidated when the Nov 2 highs exceeded the October 19 high.  Personally, I believe the ‘final high’ will occur near December 10 based upon several SC intervals and previous highs.  But, again, the Analog I’d been presenting is simply no longer valid.

 

From: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of fxapprentice
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 9:55 AM
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [RT] Re: 1929-1987 Spiral Calendar Analog update

 

 

Jim,
Is your scenario about secondary high on 23rd of Nov 2009 still valid ?
Sincerely,
Michael.

--- In realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Jim Ross" <jrosscpa@xxx> wrote:
>
> 1929-1987 Spiral Calendar analog update. The first three paragraphs
> introduce the subject and are only a rehash of prior updates. Skip to the
> fourth paragraph if you've been following this speculation.
>
> The SC analog projects 4 dates in 2009 based upon the comparable landmark
> dates in 1987 and Chris Carolan's F25 interval (a simple algorithm of the
> Fibonacci series' 25th number). See my first post and subsequent posts of
> this speculation dated September 25, 2009. The four dates and computations
> based upon DJIA are computed in the following (ignore the "First bottom"
> which is not a landmark date and which has NOT previously proven to provide
> SC significance):
>
> http://www.screencast.com/users/Virginia_Jim/folders/Jing/media/dc727e07-537
> 2-4181-a778-a229cc4ca671
>
> Picking four dates that might have been picked at random months or years in
> advance and represented to become significant turning points in the 2009
> market is, in my opinion, an occurrence the likelihood of which is
> statistically so improbable that it cannot be computed. If the Gaussian
> likelihood of the occurrence of the October 19, 1987 event was 1 in 5000
> lifetimes (where one lifetime is that of the universe) as computed by Nassim
> Taleb, then I expect predicting four unique dates surrounding either the
> 1987 or a prospective 2009 resonance of 1987 is similarly and, likely,
> vastly more improbable. Without any hint of causality, the 1929-1987 SC
> analog is simply numerology.
>
> It has become an intriguing speculation because there are, tentatively,
> three signs that it might work. FIRST, the interval between 1929 to 1987
> divided by 1987 to 2009 is .381, a near perfect Fibonacci coincidence. This
> first caught my attention but that was all; it was 'cute.' SECOND, in back
> testing the four dates it was noted that the July 11, 2009 date (a Saturday)
> was a perfect projection of the bottom that actually occurred on July 10,
> 2009. I call that a "successful" projection realized because any projection
> cannot be more accurate than its measurement interval; one day. That date
> signaled the bear market rally had reached a midpoint bottom before a final
> grand run-up into the second projected date. This low was projected in
> contrast to the rampant speculation de jour that a head and shoulders top
> destined an exactly opposite move down to test March lows. THIRD, the
> October 16, 2009 date projecting a final highest high next preceding a
> significant decline has resulted in a new recovery high on October 14, 2009
> and October 19, 2009. Given the 1 trading day allowance for measurement
> error, October 16, 2009 has, tentatively, proven to be a success. It is
> considered a tentative success because any new high after October 19, 2009
> will indicate the date was not a "highest high" and will reduce confidence
> in the model.
>
> This last week's decline has increased the likelihood that the predicted
> October 16, 2009 high (which occurred one trading day later on October 19,
> 2000) was a successful prediction of the SC Analogy. Assuming that to be
> the case, the November 23, 2009 secondary high becomes the next important
> predicted date. That puts a gap in the model because the model predicts the
> "final high" and the "secondary high" but no "First bottom." When does the
> first bottom occur and how far will it penetrate? Carolan did not offer
> that date, I presume, because unlike the four dates it was 4 trading days
> off between 1987 and 1929. In other words, the first bottom in 1929 plus
> F29 missed being a valid projection by 4 trading days.
>
> How far, then, will this first wave down go? In 1929 it was 20% and in 1987
> it was 10%:
>
> http://www.screencast.com/users/Virginia_Jim/folders/Jing/media/7b53d6e5-b6c
> a-49e8-ab14-c95f07ded5a3
>
> Pretty big variance in "How far" and SC surely does not give guidance on
> anything but the 4 dates. And when? Again, I simply don't know. But the
> model says after October 16 and before November 23. Based on other SC
> estimation I've done, I'm thinking November 17 or so with a one-week climb
> to the November 23 secondary high. You might take a look at the following
> comparison of 2009 to 1929 and 1987 which is aligned on the highest closing
> high of each year:
>
> http://www.screencast.com/users/Virginia_Jim/folders/Jing/media/332e8bb9-9f0
> 6-4b5b-be72-c82d9b818c2e
>
> Something else to look at are those two vectors. Livermore and others liked
> to draw trend lines on the high and the first low and then the high and the
> first reactionary high. Well, you can see in 1987 and 1929, those lines
> were pretty indicative of what followed. I'll leave it to your imagination.
>
> One other implication of that chart. The 2009 ascension into the October
> 19, 2009 high is steeper than EITHER 1929 or 1987. If this market is
> destined to collapse, I expect it could be historic. And if this is
> destined to be the greatest bear in history as the Kondratieff Winter or the
> Grand Supercycle stature would suggest, would it not be poetic that it sport
> the greatest crash in history? Vastly unlikely.
>
> Jim
>



__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___