Re: [MTA] On Eclipses
by Peter Eliades
01 September 1999 03:01 UTC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
1) Tulip mania-Feb 4,
1637 2)Miss Bubble-12/28/1719 3)S. Sea
Bubble-8/30/1720 4)1929-10/11/1929 5)1977 Soybean- June 1/1977
6)Precious
Metals-3/4/1980 7)1987 crash 10/2/1987 8)1990 Tokyo
2/6/1990
The days given are the
supposed crash start dates as noted in the
earlier post.
Peter
Chris Carolan wrote:
Thanks Peter, One more
question, which 8 crashes did he use? I
found a
later list of 12 in the
archives, but what were the original eight?
thanks again Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Eliades
To: LONG WAVES
Sent: Tuesday, August 31,
1999 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [MTA] On
Eclipses
Puetz's original research goes back to May 1994 and it was
motivated by a Prechter
statement in 1993 that suggested that a
potential relationship
between eclipses and important market turns. In
his first research report,
he noted that all 8 of the greatest market
crashes in history (I
personally find that a rather brash and subjective
statement) began (by
"began" he means the top prior to the complete
crash leg down e.g. October
2, 1987 and October 11, 1929) within a time
period of 6 market days
before to 3 market days after a full moon that
occurred within 6 weeks of a
solar eclipse. The more common occurrence
was that the full moon
accompanying the crash within the stipulated
period above was also a
lunar eclipse, but if not, it would be a full
moon one cycle away from a
lunar eclipse full moon. The requirement
remains, however that the
full moon accompanying the start of the crash
must be within 6 weeks of a solar eclipse. In that first
research
report, he calculated that
for all eight crashes to accidentally fall
within the required
intervals would be .23 (the chance of any one crash
beginning within one of the
four full moon intervals defined above)
raised to the 8th power, or
one chance in 127,696. If the Hong Kong
crash conformed to the above
pattern, and I believe it did, then the
odds go to 1 in 555,200 that
it was a coincidence.
Puetz was careful to disavow the suggestion that these eclipse
combinations caused the
crashes. If his pattern follows here and if one
is convinced that this
market top will be followed by a crash, then the
August 26 full moon is the
last one this year to be within 6 weeks of a
solar eclipse and one cycle
of a lunar eclipse. So far, the market has
dutifully topped out almost
exactly on that date. As I said, let the
games begin. There sure are
a lot of cocky complacent bulls around. I
welcome and look forward to
your further explanations and commentaries,
Chris.
Peter Eliades
Stockmarket Cycles
Chris Carolan wrote:
Peter,
Before we continue, could
you precisely define the Puetz time wondow?
I've
serached the archives and
seem to find differing flavors of the concept.
Perhaps you could set it out
as he does and we'll go from there.
Thanks in advance.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Eliades
<cyclese@earthlink.net>
To: LONG WAVES
<LongWaves@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31,
1999 5:18 PM
Subject: Re: [MTA] On
Eclipses
> Chris,
> As I hope you know, I have great respect
for the originality and
> creativity of your
market analysis. For that reason I read all your work
> carefully and try to
maintain an open mind. As you probably also know, I
> am attracted to the
Puetz research on the interrelationship between
> crashes and lunar and
solar eclipses. Because of where I believe our
> market is in the
overall "longwave" picture, and because of the apparent
> (at least to anyone
with true historical knowledge and perspective)
> maniacal
overvaluations, I do not believe it is folly to view the Puetz
> research as a guideline
as to when a crash might more probably occur.
> It's not so much
viewing any eclipse as a potential crash zone. The
> rules are quite clear,
whether time continues to affirm them or not.
> When the overvaluation
and the internal technicals surpass even 1929 in
> many ways, and when the
Puetz time window comes into view, and when the
> time window of the
prior crashes is being followed so closely, I would
> maintain it would be
folly not to pay attention. I am a firm believer in
> the Galbraith manifesto
that the speculative episode ends not with a
> whimper, but with a
bang, and so I believe this mania will end with a
> crash, not a Chinese
"water torture" drip, drip, bear market. That much
> having been said, I
treat every Puetz solar-lunar eclipse setup as the
> setup for a potential
market crash. Since his initial research, there
> has been at least one
more crash, arguably two, right on schedule within
> the time parameters he
developed.
> We tend to be egocentric in this country (and in every country I
> might contend) and we
tend to think ours are the only markets of
> significance, but we
all know there are other significant markets in the
> world, not the least of
which is Honk Kong. The Hong Kong and the Asian
> market crashes in 1997
fell virtually exactly within the Puetz time
> parameters for a crash.
I guess I need to know how your theory that all
> major crashes fit the
gamma-center line is interpreted in relation to
> the Honk Kong/Asian
crashes. I don't think calling them minor crashes
> fits the bill, but I am
willing to listen to your reasoning. The
> unraveling of the
market over the past few weeks is pretty spectacular
> and the Dow Industrials
last week made a new all-time high accompanied
> by the lowest Ratio
Adjusted McClellan Summation Index in history going
> back to 1926. That's
right, even worse breadth divergence than any
> all-time Dow high back
in 1929. The table is set for something dramatic
> here and the
complacency of the players is astounding. Let the games
> begin!
>
> Peter Eliades
> Stockmarket Cycles
>
> > If eclipses have some effect on people's
trading and investing
> > decisions, then
shouldn't the strength or occurrence of that effect be
> > related to the strength
of the eclipse? Astronomers talk about
> > near-eclipses,
when the eclipse node and new moon come close, but not
> > close enough to
cause an eclipse. Astronomers even
disagree as to
> > when some eclipses
occur, as various eclipse canons have different
> > interpretations as
to whether some of the more marginal alignments
> > even constitute an
eclipse. I've made a "handy" chart (I use that word
> > with trepidation
here) that plots all solar eclipses from 1600-2023.
> > The eclipses are
plotted by their saros number, the numbering system
> > devised by the
Dutch astronomer van de Bergh in 1955. Across the top,
> > diamonds mark the
birth of new saros series, followed by the dashed
> > lines as each
saros repeats every 18 years (6585.3 days actually).
> > Across the bottom
are old saros series, with diamond marks denoting
> > their termination.
The center of each saros series is denoted with a
> > yellow triangle.
I am not defining the center as the mid-point
> > between start and
end, but rather as the eclipse in the series whose
> > gamma is closest
to zero, which is to say that eclipse whose shadow
> > passes closest to
the center of the earth. Simply put,
the closer in
> > time that the new
moon crosses the eclipse node, the closer the shadow
> > is to the center
of the earth, and therefore the more central the
> > eclipse is. The pattern of eclipses on the chart is one
of a band
> > gently rising
throughout the saros series. Those eclipses in the
> > center of the band
are the central eclipses in terms of their
> > alignment.
Additionally, the chart shows the eclipses that occurred at
> > major financial
panics in red. This month's solar eclipse is shown in
> > blue. My opinions?
Eclipses are important, but not because of any
> > relationship they
have to planetary alignments. This
eclipse will not
> > be associated with
any major financial panic. Those who
look towards
> > every eclipse to
see Puetz' theories manifest will do well to study
> > this chart and
eliminate a good many non-central eclipses from
> > consideration. And
to those skeptics who think astronomical
> > relationships in
market are nonsense, I pose the following question.
> > Why do these major
crashes fit the gamma-center line so nicely on the
> > saros chart? Shouldn't they be distributed randomly along
the
> > vertical axis of
the chart? Chris Carolan