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.
