MARTIN ARMSTRONG, once a US based trillion dollar financial adviser, used the number pi to predict economic turning points with precision. When some big New York bankers asked him to join ...
See full summary »
MARTIN ARMSTRONG, once a US based trillion dollar financial adviser, used the number pi to predict economic turning points with precision. When some big New York bankers asked him to join the club to help them to take over Russia, he refused to join the manipulation. A few days later the FBI stormed his offices accusing him of a 3 billion dollar Ponzi Scheme - an attempt to stop him talking about the real Ponzi Scheme of debts that the US has build up over the years and which he thinks starts to collapse after October 1, 2015, a major pi turning point he is predicting.
An incoherent mess. This so called "documentary" does not present any coherent, logical reasons to believe Mr. Armstrong is anything but the runner of a Ponzi scheme. However, this is not how the story is presented to the viewer, instead all kinds of conspiracies (and incoherent predictions) are suggested. Almost all of the people being interviewed appear to be somehow involved in the scheme. Any Ponzi huckster needs to be able to BS his way to the top, and to cover his BS with even greater BS. If Mr. Armstrong made valid predictions, they should review a set of verifiably published predictions, not allow the people to pick and describe what predictions they made and how uncannily accurate they were.
In every Ponzi scheme, a lot of people did not believe it actually was a Ponzi scheme even after it was revealed to be such. There are a great number of Ponzi schemes involving algorithms purportedly predicting the market. Using the value of pi to predict markets is a ridiculous concept. In every Ponzi scheme, one essential question is that if somebody can predict the market, why would that person share this information with anybody? If the predictions become common knowledge, the market adjusts to these predictions, and there are no gains to be had.
17 of 28 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this