I have seen quite a few interviews with Martin Armstrong. And others commenting on him. In particular Bill Holter has said some interesting things about him. There are suggestions that he 'cut some kind of deal' to ultimately get out of prison, and so he is not as free as he might be on certain topics. I myself am not too sure about that though.

He seems to me to be sincere in what he says about gold price moves. It is just that he cites examples going all the way back to such as the Roman Empire to justify what he thinks is going to happen in our time. Now I know that history repeats. It is just that, with technological developments, some of what he says just may seem a bit off. For example, we can talk about historical gold/silver ratios. But what if new technologies non-existent in the past make silver even more important as a resource than gold? This could mean ratios are realised not based upon historical precident. This is just an example.