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


The days given are the supposed crash start dates as noted in the

earlier post.




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


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,


Peter Eliades

Stockmarket Cycles



Chris Carolan wrote:



Before we continue, could you precisely define the Puetz time wondow?


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.




----- Original Message -----

From: Peter Eliades <>


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