**Re: The Stunning Price Cycle Calling The S&P 500 Tops & Bottoms On The Hourly Chart**
Your reply reminds me of politicians. They never reply directly to the question. All they do is provide some form of reply but don't address the question.

You keep on talking about 5th and 9th cycles over and over again and the 94 % accuracy but beyond that I have not seen any substance that you have offerred.

Can you please provide some numbers so that we have some context. You mentioned that there were 16 that met the 94 % accuracy. Can we just have one example without having to watch an hour long advertisement.

The first chart in the thread illustrates one cycle with two vector trends, the first vector trend is short (with red vector lines), and the following vector trend in the chart (with green lines) is long. Those two vector trends end on the 9th vector each.

That is an example of two vector trends within one cycle where the vector trend ended on the 5th wave (made up of 9 vectors each).

Each vector line drawn has a minimum price movement of 1.793% from its swing extreme. If a swing is smaller than 1.793% of price, it will not qualify as a valid vector or wave.

The second chart shows the three years of cycles (16) and how many times price ended on the 5th or 9th vector during that time period.

Of the 30 cycles of long and short trends of either 3 waves (made up of 5 vectors) or 5 waves (made up of 9 vectors) the price extreme occurred on the 5th or 9th vector in 14 of 30 vector trends. The first chart is a close up of one cycle, or just 2 vector trends.

In another 8 vector trends in the 3 years bird's eye view chart, the end of the 5th or 9th vector was within 94% of that vector movement entire price movement.

The S&P 500 moves in minimum price vectors of 1.793% on the hourly chart and concludes trends on the 3rd wave (5 oscillating vectors) or 5th wave (9 oscillating vectors) in 22 out of the 30 vector trends so constructed between January, 2010 and February, 2013.

I'm not trying to be evasive. I hope I am here making myself better understood.

Cordially,

Michael Calhoun

Juris Doctorate