Posted this in the other thread, but the same "argument" is going on here, so I'll post it here also....
Jim, it's just the same arguments worded differently. And, once again, you are trying to put math and 2D graphics to something that is visual. As far as I know, no one has EVER been able to describe human vision mathematically.
You and others are approaching this from the wrong direction. Not very scientific, actually. Here we have an aiming system that works as described. That is a known from example and testimony. For science, pretty much forget the testimony, but we have the testing of the system to show that it does work as described. Now, knowing that, we go backward and try and put it on paper or explain the actual results using math.
So far, no one can. So, does that mean that the system now does not work? NO! It means that your math doesn't work, because we already know the system DOES work, and have proved it in blind tests. So, what can we deduce from this? Only that there is a fault in your examples that so far can not be described. We do not yet know all there is to know on WHY it works, but we DO know that it DOES work. Not being able to describe why does not equate to it does not work. That's a false assumption on the part of many of you that say it can't work. Evidence shows that it does work, you just can't figure out how yet. You can't dismiss the evidence just because you don't understand how the evidence came to be.
.. CTE is just a word hal came up with for his system, nothing more.
