Need help with this chart

[POD]

Hi all,
I've been learning the Elliott Wave Principle for some time now, and i ran into this chart (attached) and the text, that describes it, says:

"Wave (I) is a fairly clear "five," assuming 1789 to be the beginning of the Supercycle. Wave (II) is a flat, which neatly predicts a zigzag or triangle for wave (IV), by rule of alternation."

So, my question is: Is wave (II) really look like a flat? Does it make any sense?

THX.

 

[S S]

Hi all,
I've been learning the Elliott Wave Principle for some time now, and i ran into this chart (attached) and the text, that describes it, says:

"Wave (I) is a fairly clear "five," assuming 1789 to be the beginning of the Supercycle. Wave (II) is a flat, which neatly predicts a zigzag or triangle for wave (IV), by rule of alternation."

So, my question is: Is wave (II) really look like a flat? Does it make any sense?

THX.

To answer your question, you shall have to look at the daily-weekly-monthly details for the part marked as Wave (II) and being claimed as a flat. Then only one could find, if it is a flat, and if so, a flat of which type.

 

[POD]

To answer your question, you shall have to look at the daily-weekly-monthly details for the part marked as Wave (II) and being claimed as a flat. Then only one could find, if it is a flat, and if so, a flat of which type.

Hi, thanks for replying
As i can see that, it seems like a Zigzag rather then a Flat. I don't think looking at the daily-weekly-monthly charts will make any difference. You can notice the little subwave b within this Zigzag/ Flat, and if you'll consider the required ratios among the subwaves, within a Flat, than some rules are being broken here.
It looks pretty much like wave (IV). Don't you think?