DJIA High September 20, 2018; one last gasp

Short shelf life predictions work themselves out pretty quickly.  I'm pretty sure there's a truth in all the work I do so now's the time for a self-teaching lesson.

Before the high registered today, I saw the handwriting in the futures and had already begun the introspection.  The 'signs' are unmistakeable so the question is why they would mislead.  And I can only think they are misleading or seemingly misleading to teach a lesson.  My reflections are these.

First and foremost and as I've warned, 'signs' are subjective.  Heck, they may be only my delusion.  I'm prepared for that having failed with my interpretation of 'signs' before.  They include the perceived acrostic/telestic encoding in WD Gann's "The Tunnel Thru the Air" and derived "Map of Time."  They are encodings that present supposed communication intended by the author.  And like all communications other than mathematics, there's subjectivity.  I've been 'taught' to suspect 'signs.'

Second, and perhaps the problem failure gives me this time is that I have perceived from Major Motors and from a study of the 1929 and 1987 crashes a rule numerology and the workings of the Map of Time that should be inviolate.  The rule is...

a decline begins on the line immediately following 

the line on which the numerical signal is given. 

Perhaps the problem might be in the context of yesterday's essay regarding conjecture between truths.    Did it say the decline will be the "day after the signal is given," in which that would have been September 19th?  No, the rule I've perceived is the "line after."  [It should be noted the rule I've perceived in my studies of 1929, 1987 and Major Motors and given above is found in acrostic/telestic encoding.  But to rely on that would seem circular.]

Let's look at the what happened in 1929 as recapped in previous essays:

I identified September 2, 1929 as containing the numeric signal and therefore the decline should begin on the next line.  Well, it did:

The signal date is September 2, 1929 (green highlight) appearing on line 14829 (green arrow).  That line did not include the all-time-high date which was September 3.  Rather, the ATH occurred on September 3 (yellow highlight) on line 14830 (yellow arrow).

And the first day of the decline occurred on line 14930 as well.  The first day of the 1929 decline occurred on the line following the line on which the signal was given.  

Where are we now, in 2018?  Well, the first day of the line following the numeric signal given on line 410 (green arrows and highlight).  And the ATH occurred today, September 20, 2018 (yellow arrows and highlight):

We still have another day on that line (red arrow, red date) to be the reversal, that being September 21, 2018.  If another ATH occurs tomorrow, that will demonstrate failure.

*** ***

So far, I failed to interpret the rule correctly.  I've said it many times to myself, read it in the acrostic/telestic coding many time, and I've derived it in Major Motors, 1929 and 1987 studies.  Perhaps it comes down to reading the literal, perfect interpretation of what has been seen.

You'll have to take my word for the 'numeric signal' having occurred September 19 at 9:12am (though I published it several days ago) because it will not be provided.  I have alluded to its composition and a person might be able to derive it from its elements having been provided in my essays.  What I have provide are the often proved incorrect "signs."  The "sign' is the 'x' that marks the first line of the decline:

"That 'x' marks the decline begin"

A new ATH today does not invalidate line 411; there are two dates on that line and today is the first of the two.  

If September 21, 2018 marks an ATH, the numeric rule is incorrect and the 'sign' above is invalid.  It will invalidate much of what I perceive as having been learned over the last several months of study.

Shelf life, one more day, September 21 or 70 days to a much lower low.

Jim Ross