Why CTE is silly

[JoeyA]

Ditto.

If I have done this in the past, I am sincerely sorry. I don't think I have. Also, if I do it in the future, please let me know. I'm sure you will. I will do the same.

Ditto. Again, if you think I have done this in the past, I am sorry. And if I ever do it in the future, please let me know. I will do the same.

Joey, it seems to me that your message is implying that I have done some of these things to you personally. I am not aware of this. If you feel this way, please let me know via PM, e-mail, or phone. I think you are a great guy. I like joking around with you at times, but I never want you to feel disrespected by me. Am I missing something, or are you getting me confused with "GetMeThere?" :grin-square:

GetMeThere, I hope you don't mind my reference above too much, but you do deserve a little abuse based on how much you've dished out lately.

Regards,
Dave

Sorry Dave,
I didn't see this post, unti just a few minutes ago.
You and I are just fine.

You haven't done anything to me personally and it was not my intention to insinuate that you have done any of these things to me personally, because you haven't.

I don't like to see good people vilified, talked down to, demeaned in any way, whether they are old, young, smart or unintelligent. especially people who I like. It's just who I am.

 

[GetMeThere]

Look at you both. What a disgrace.

You won't give direct evidence, yet you pretend you're proving something.

This is the problem that has plagued CTE for a decade--from which all rational people have concluded that is MUST be BS, because nobody is even able to state what it is.

You two have certainly proved you have no interest in establishing CTE--this is especially true of Neil, who claims to have a "throw-away" version of CTE he invented himself; so there would be no breach of trust to exactly describe it so it could be analyzed--yet he refuses (or, more likely, is UNABLE) to even describe it.

There's no other rational conclusion except: CTE IS SILLY

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Look at you both. What a disgrace.

You won't give direct evidence, yet you pretend you're proving something.

This is the problem that has plagued CTE for a decade--from which all rational people have concluded that is MUST be BS, because nobody is even able to state what it is.

You two have certainly proved you have no interest in establishing CTE--this is especially true of Neil, who claims to have a "throw-away" version of CTE he invented himself; so there would be no breach of trust to exactly describe it so it could be analyzed--yet he refuses (or, more likely, is UNABLE) to even describe it.

There's no other rational conclusion except: CTE IS SILLY

Shooting blind shots is as direct evidence as it gets. Zero adjusting. Why back-pedal? Embrace it. Let's start there.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Spidey:
Explain in detail how someone can make a video to prove CTE works.

As you've been told numerous times before, a video of somebody making shots and describing how they're supposedly doing it is meaningless - you've done it before and it was meaningless. Where's the proof that you're actually doing what you say you're doing? Why should we even believe you know what you're doing?

You mentioned before that explaining how the alignment is found, how the bridge is placed, how the pivot is executed and then finally making the ball doesn't count

That would count. Go ahead and explain it. You'll be the first.

There are no ridiculous claims. We say if you do x, y, and z with a straight stroke while having correct perception you make the ball.

That's a ridiculous claim. You've never said what "x, y and z" are.

Here's a nice test for Getmethere and the rest of the guys in this thread knocking CTE... in regards to ridiculous claims.... how about we setup a table, get some guys to hold a poster board in between the CB and OB and play a little game of "pig" and see who, after being set, can make more balls blind? That's scientific right, Getmethere, Dr. Dave, Mike Page, Lou & PJ?

No, it's not "scientific". You guys wouldn't know scientific if it introduced itself.

Shooting blind shots is as direct evidence as it gets.

LOL. Not a single clue.

pj
chgo

 

[GetMeThere]

Shooting blind shots is as direct evidence as it gets. Zero adjusting. Why back-pedal? Embrace it. Let's start there.

Dave, there are scientists and engineers here (and against your position). You have no idea what you're talking about regarding which tests are most direct and strongest.

The fact remains: CTE "believers" will not allow the light of day to shine on CTE. That tells us that CTE is almost certainly pure BS. Few things in life are more certain.

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

why don't the scientist just do like they did with evolution- when you don't have the components, just make up some that seem to fit??

What am I reading?

 

[Neil]

Ghost ball is dead on balls accurate, a industry term. You put the CB at the right spot on the table, the OB will go center pocket. You are estimating where the ghost ball needs to be. According to the "rules", if you can't see 1/32" on the ob, you sure aren't going to pick that spot out accurately out of thin air, or on the cloth. Not very scientific, is it??

Ghost ball is the only way that does not rely on hitting the OB ball first and that the ball hit is the ball wanted to be made. Sorry, but you lost me here, I don't understand what you are trying to say????

Meaning Ghost Ball can be used effectivey in combos, carom, banks, rail first shots and so on. There are other "systems" that can do the same thing.

No other can. Why, because Ghost ball is about putting the CB at the right spot on the table to make the OB and not trying to hit a spot on the OB with a spot on the CB. Big difference. And how can one learn to find that spot on the table,,,,,,,the ARROW. Now see, this is where you are wrong. Ghost ball can only put you where you THINK the cb needs to be to pocket the ball. You are not allowing for throw or anything else that WILL happen on 90%+ real shots. So, you are mentally adjusting for those things to happen, which means, according to the rules, that the ghost ball system is guaranteed to make you miss.

As far as the arrow, you aren't allowed to use it in a game, so it is of no consequence to reality. (See how easy this is to refute everything?)

Now, if you truely believe about trying something, than make the arrow. Place is as needed. Now, I wrote about what I refer to as the CB contact patch which the area of a ball that contacts the table.

Well, 180, on top of the CB is the same point. Now, just align the top of the CB to the point of the arrow and wham bam, center pocket goes the OB.

Now if you are also looking for a system that directs your exact bridge, stance, then you are really dreaming or you don't play much and the only game you play is 9 ball. You are the one dreaming here. Just so you know, pssst.... big secret being revealed here...... ready??? THE BALLS DON'T KNOW WHAT GAME YOU ARE PLAYING!!

I did land surveying for a bit, so I looks at things from points and angles.

This type of explaination is all GMT is asking for. Simple, direct, factual.

Your'e kidding, right???

For what it's worth, I have no problem with people using the ghost ball method, or any other method that helps them. For me, and a lot of others, ghost ball on anything other than close shots, just seems like a really poor way of aiming. Aim at something that isn't even there. For most of us, it's a lot easier to aim at something that we can actually see.

Take any aiming system you want, and put GTM's criteria to it, and they all will fall short. So, by his standards, we should all stop aiming, because aiming is snake oil and for fools.

 

[GetMeThere]

What am I reading?

Made-in-America, religiously-invoked, baloney.

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

Shooting blind shots is as direct evidence as it gets. Zero adjusting. Why back-pedal? Embrace it. Let's start there.

But even with blind shooting you'd have to see the ob first to identify the cte line. At that point, you should already know where to hit the ob even though you claim you don't know. Human errors can be made on both sides. That's not scientific.

 

[Neil]

Look at you both. What a disgrace.

You won't give direct evidence, yet you pretend you're proving something.

This is the problem that has plagued CTE for a decade--from which all rational people have concluded that is MUST be BS, because nobody is even able to state what it is.

You two have certainly proved you have no interest in establishing CTE--this is especially true of Neil, who claims to have a "throw-away" version of CTE he invented himself; so there would be no breach of trust to exactly describe it so it could be analyzed--yet he refuses (or, more likely, is UNABLE) to even describe it.

There's no other rational conclusion except: CTE IS SILLY

You know, just because you yappety yap, doesn't make it true. As far as my system, you are wrong on one count, and partially wrong on the other. I have described it in detail privately to some on here, and it has helped them. I am not putting it out for general viewing or study, as I know there are certain flaws in it that need to be taken into account.

You, on the other hand, are the one that has proved that you have no interest in finding out if CTE DOES have any merit to it. You have refused tests that you have essentially described, and when called on it, said that it doesn't prove anything, nice double talk on your part. When asked what system you use, and the scientific proof of it, you are silent. When asked for scientific proof of ANY sytstem, you are again silent. So, the disgrace is not us, but you and those that make the ridiculous demands that you do.

 

[Neil]

But even with blind shooting you'd have to see the ob first to identify the cte line. At that point, you should already know where to hit the ob even though you claim you don't know. Human errors can be made on both sides. That's not scientific.

O.K. then, what system do you aim by, and where is the scientific proof for it? Remember, if there isn't any, .......well, you know the drill by now.

And, if I get you right, you are saying that to be scientific, we have to show how to aim without looking at the ob at all???? Please tell me that's not what you're saying!

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

I aim by feel, judging the thickness of the hit on every shot.

 

[Neil]

I aim by feel, judging the thickness of the hit on every shot.

Not that I have anything against aiming that way, but just how is aiming that way any more scientific than aiming using CTE?? And, since you use a totally non-scientific way to aim, why are you against CTE because nobody has shown it scientifically to be correct??

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Neil:
...why don't the scientist just do like they did with evolution- when you don't have the components, just make up some that seem to fit??

This pretty much sums up the level of scientific discourse to be expected on this topic.

pj
chgo

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

No. I'm saying that you'd have to eliminate factors like human error. In a blind shooting contest, how would you know that Dave is really not adjusting before or during each final stroke? What if his stroke is not straight? How does he determine the pivot length? And what difference does it make, if GMT can't make a ball? Why does GMT even have to participate? This wouldn't be a scientific experiment, maybe a penis comparison.

 

[Neil]

No. I'm saying that you'd have to eliminate factors like human error. In a blind shooting contest, how would you know that Dave is really not adjusting before or during each final stroke? What if his stroke is not straight? How does he determine the pivot length? And what difference does it make, if GMT can't make a ball? Why does GMT even have to participate? This wouldn't be a scientific experiment, maybe a penis comparison.

I understand what you are saying, but what could he possibly be adjusting to if he can't even see the ob??

 

[Neil]

This pretty much sums up the level of scientific discourse to be expected on this topic.

pj
chgo

I figured you would have something to say about that. Just remember Pat, next time you post something about pool, you will be expected to give all pertinent scientific data to accompany it. Otherwise, it will have to be dismissed as snake oil.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dave, there are scientists and engineers here (and against your position). You have no idea what you're talking about regarding which tests are most direct and strongest.

The fact remains: CTE "believers" will not allow the light of day to shine on CTE. That tells us that CTE is almost certainly pure BS. Few things in life are more certain.

What you say is meaningless because these same "scientists and engineers" have a pre-disposition to not finding the truth. They'll take someone like me who has the method and less math to prove why there's no method by using math while never further breaking down the method to why it works.

If the scientists were to say, "This CTE method is compelling - lots of people are really, really successful with it. Let's work together to find out why it works," the responses would be different in this thread.

So, over the years, this has turned into a "I'll prove you wrong" argument instead of a sincere effort to find the TRUTH.

You and PJ can say what you want about the blind shots. That is the BEST way to determine tolerance and accuracy. It's easy to say, "Yeah, but how do we know you're using CTE to make the shots - it proves nothing." That's a RIDICULOUS comment because I wouldn't use any other method because it's the best method for the test (because it's the most accurate). Yeah, like I'd "pick a spot on the OB" and try to hit that blind...psssh. You and PJ would likely try that - hence, my point.

Shooting blind shots is indeed a scientific way to test a method without adjustment. The ONLY people on EARTH who would say otherwise is afraid of the outcome of such a test and how it would affect their predisposed positions.

The test would immediately show, over a series of shots, who gets closest more often and makes the most shots without ADJUSTING. So, while you think CTE can never hit your tolerances, I suspect that test will show otherwise.

You and the rest of these so called scientists have no desire to reach the truth. You have too much invested emotionally by calling people names and locking in your position of "no." Tests like the one I suggested are ignored while keeping the ball in your court on the "math" which your side has a monopoly on (as well as the monopoly of "lack of motivation" to drill down on the technique). Therefore, you guys are JUST as at fault as the same people you knock for not posting details when you won't invest the time into the technique as a player.

So, while you wanna "scientist" me to death - my achievements in "computer science" are no less impressive than any single achievement of any mentioned scientist on this board (and I'm saying that on the blind) - and I made these achievements by the time I was legally allowed to drink (not working for "other" companies and universities, but for companies I founded with my intellectual property). Therefore, you're not necessarily the smartest and most analytical guy in the room because you're better at math.

 

[mantis99]

What you say is meaningless because these same "scientists and engineers" have a pre-disposition to not finding the truth. They'll take someone like me who has the method and less math to prove why there's no method by using math while never further breaking down the method to why it works.

If the scientists were to say, "This CTE method is compelling - lots of people are really, really successful with it. Let's work together to find out why it works," the responses would be different in this thread.

So, over the years, this has turned into a "I'll prove you wrong" argument instead of a sincere effort to find the TRUTH.

You and PJ can say what you want about the blind shots. That is the BEST way to determine tolerance and accuracy. It's easy to say, "Yeah, but how do we know you're using CTE to make the shots - it proves nothing." That's a RIDICULOUS comment because I wouldn't use any other method because it's the best method for the test (because it's the most accurate). Yeah, like I'd "pick a spot on the OB" and try to hit that blind...psssh. You and PJ would likely try that - hence, my point.

Shooting blind shots is indeed a scientific way to test a method without adjustment. The ONLY people on EARTH who would say otherwise is afraid of the outcome of such a test and how it would affect their predisposed positions.

The test would immediately show, over a series of shots, who gets closest more often and makes the most shots without ADJUSTING. So, while you think CTE can never hit your tolerances, I suspect that test will show otherwise.

You and the rest of these so called scientists have no desire to reach the truth. You have too much invested emotionally by calling people names and locking in your position of "no." Tests like the one I suggested are ignored while keeping the ball in your court on the "math" which your side has a monopoly on (as well as the monopoly of "lack of motivation" to drill down on the technique). Therefore, you guys are JUST as at fault as the same people you knock for not posting details when you won't invest the time into the technique as a player.

So, while you wanna "scientist" me to death - my achievements in "computer science" are no less impressive than any single achievement of any mentioned scientist on this board (and I'm saying that on the blind) - and I made these achievements by the time I was legally allowed to drink (not working for "other" companies and universities, but for companies I founded with my intellectual property). Therefore, you're not necessarily the smartest and most analytical guy in the room because you're better at math.

I think this post really sums up this thread. Nothing but a witch hunt against CTE. Maybe one of the best posts I have seen Spidey make.

Math is a wonderful science, but one unfortunate thing about it is that it can be manipulated to say just about whatever someone wants it to say. Also, you can not use an equation to figure out something with which you do not understand all of the parameters. If something works, even though math says it shouldn't, obviously there is something wrong with the math, or the mathemetician. Science is about finding truth, not letting your bias get in the way. I imagine I do not have to say this, but the scientific method begins with hypothesis, then testing of the hypothesis to see if you are correct. You have a hypothesis, but have done nothing to allow any real testing of it. Any offered testing has been shot down by you. It is like telling newton that gravity does not exist because the math as you understand it does not equate, and holding to that even after seeing the apple hit the floor over and over again.

Personally, I do not know if CTE truely works or not, but I am willing to try it to find out. The biggest problem with CTE may not be whether or not it works, but the lack of good info on how and why it does. Instead of arguing with people, maybe you should learn how to do it and see if it actually works instead of trying to explain why it does not on paper.

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

I understand what you are saying, but what could he possibly be adjusting to if he can't even see the ob??

Because he can see the ob whlie sighting the cte line.

Not that I have anything against aiming that way, but just how is aiming that way any more scientific than aiming using CTE?? And, since you use a totally non-scientific way to aim, why are you against CTE because nobody has shown it scientifically to be correct??

It doesn't have to be. I'm not claiming that my system is always exact and accurate. It's not even a system. Maybe it would be more honest to say that I don't know how I aim. I just look at the cb and ob and I can see where the ob goes. I call that aiming by feel.
But when people claim that CTE automatically leads you to the correct aiming line, I call bs. It doesn't matter where the pocket is? BS. No adjustments needed? BS. It goes against everything we know about aiming in pool, so strong evidence is needed to convice others. You can aim how you like. I don't care. But if you claim that X is a superior aiming method or the BEST aiming method ever and that you teach it to all your students or you are selling it for 40$ and it truly works, people would like to see some proof, or they will tell you that X might not be as great as you think it is.
If you said that even with CTE you need to make "adjustments by feel", I wouldn't have a problem with it. Well I would still question the point of using such a system in the first place.

e: no...