How to Aim Pool Shots (HAPS) - new videos by Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett

[dr_dave]

Using "Gearing" Outside English to Eliminate Throw, the shot Bob showing in the video he stuns the OB with outside, which squirts CB the right amount to right, and have the EIT take OB to pocket? Am i right?

Yes, there is squirt and swerve, but he is accounting for these effects in his aim (he does it intuitively, but BHE/FHE could also be used for this). The CB is hitting the OB in the line-of-centers ghost-ball position. There is no cut-induced or spin-induced throw at all because "gearing" outside english is being used. That's the whole point of the video ... throw can be eliminated with the correct amount of sidespin.

Another issue, IMO, any shot that is about a diamond or less separation stun or part stun will always be there, unless hit soft..

... or, unless the CB is hit high enough to create natural roll topspin immediately off the tip (see follow shot natural roll tip height).

Also, please have Bob do cut to left pocket to ensure he is not steering CB!

Bob does sometimes have a steer in his stroke, but he is usually quite accurate, and I was watching fairly closely to make sure he was hitting along the desired shot line at the donut placed at the ghost-ball position.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[naji]

Yes, there is squirt and swerve, but he is accounting for these effects in his aim (he does it intuitively, but BHE/FHE could also be used for this). The CB is hitting the OB in the line-of-centers ghost-ball position. There is no cut-induced or spin-induced throw at all because "gearing" outside english is being used. That's the whole point of the video ... throw can be eliminated with the correct amount of sidespin.

... or, unless the CB is hit high enough to create natural roll topspin immediately off the tip (see follow shot natural roll tip height).

Bob does sometimes have a steer in his stroke, but he is usually quite accurate, and I was watching fairly closely to make sure he was hitting along the desired shot line at the donut placed at the ghost-ball position.

Catch you later,
Dave

Do not mean to give hard time or under mine your great job along with Bob, but to get clarity. From the vid, the CB heads at 90 degrees off the OB which is an indication of stun! i could be wrong..

 

[dr_dave]

Do not mean to give hard time or under mine your great job along with Bob, but to get clarity. From the vid, the CB heads at 90 degrees off the OB which is an indication of stun! i could be wrong..

That is correct. All of the shots in that video were hit with stun (with or without sidespin). The correct tangent-line motion also helps indicate that CB did in fact hit the OB in the desired ghost-ball position.

Regards,
Dave

 

[naji]

That is correct. All of the shots in that video were hit with stun (with or without sidespin). The correct tangent-line motion also helps indicate that CB did in fact hit the OB in the desired ghost-ball position.

Regards,
Dave

Ok thanks. So what you saying is using just a little english (you calling it gearing english) and stun cancels out the throw with proper aim compensation, any more english will cause EIT and over cut if the CB did not squirt enough!

 

[JB Cases]

Well stated. You're probably right.

However, I firmly believe that the video links I posted are very different than those historic "aiming system" threads, where very little real information was provided, and the main purpose seemed to be to sell a "system," often with sometimes-outrageous "marketing claims," with no openness to discussion or debate, and with no true sharing of information. Those threads were also full of personal attacks, as a result of the style of presentation and reaction to criticism and questions.

The HAPS thread is not about a specific cut-shot "aiming system." The topics covered are extremely diverse and closely related to many topics often discussed on the Main Forum. We are not trying to sell a specific cut-shot "aiming system." We are sharing a significant amount of specific and relevant information, with complete and open detail. We are also open to criticism and questions.

Having written all of this, I still understand how the moderators might see a need to "hide" this thread so many of the "aiming system" zealots (both "Naysayers" and "Yaysayers" whatever that means) won't feel that Bob and I are being given any sort of special treatment (even though that is not the case).


Please share what your think, and ask any questions you might have, after you check out everything.

Catch you later,
Dave

Dave, you can't have it both ways. You were, and remain, a major instigator in the "aiming wars". It was due in part to your mocking stance that Hal's methods were denigrated and advocates mocked and called religious kooks among other things.

You took a decidedly UNSCIENTIFIC approach to them and never seriously tried to work with anyone who was working hard on them as far as I could see in order to understand the proper motions and how to decode them.

So because of that people lined up on both sides, partially bolstered by your "credentials" as a man of science. Were it not for you and a few other constantly interrupting the discussion on CTE then those discussions would have run their course as boring conversations among interested users. But by defaming the proponents and the teachers as you have you were part of the flame wars that erupted.

Hence the creation of a sub-forum dedicated to "aiming". If you think it's a sandbox, well, it is. Now you can't reasonably expect that YOUR view on aiming should then be exempt after you were a primary driver that led to this forum's existence.

That you want to advertise your latest instructional set in the main forum is clear. Everyone who sells stuff wants to advertise their stuff in the main forum.

Sorry, you have to be more clever than this if you want to advertise in the main forum. How about participating in more general conversation and letting your signature be your ad? Then people will find your stuff and buy it.

As I have said in the past and continue to say, you have a lot to offer. I hold you in high regard for your work. We disagree about how you have handled CTE and that is not likely to change as long as you continue to mock it and those who teach it.

Overall though, I applaud you.

 

[nobcitypool]

I agree. CTE is NOT fraction aiming. However, the different versions of CTE are "partly based on" fractional-ball aiming. The alignments, "visuals," and cut angle ranges are based on fractional-ball "aims."

Regards,
Dave

Dave, I respect you and your contributions to pool. However, from some of your posts, it is clear that you do not fully understand Stan's CTE/Pro One or you wouldn't mark statements like the one above.

I don't see all of this as a competition or black and white. I use lots of things I've learned from your DVDs plus lots of what I've learned from Stan. It doesn't have to be one or the other, a combination works well for me.

 

[GaryB]

Hal initially was teaching fractional but even then, when he was living in Garden Grove, said that he was working on something else that enabled him to make balls without seeing the pockets. He then moved to Burlingame (sp?) south of San Francisco where he continued to refine his system until it became CTE. Now exactly when it became a refined CTE I can't exactly pinpoint but my conversations with him indicated it just was prior to moving to Pa. Thankfully Spidey and others started beating a path to the very generous man's home where they were all welcome. Then Stan showed up and in an opened minded way began a dialogue with Hal that I'm sure that they both enjoyed immensely. Stan with Hal's OK refined it in a manner that it could be explained to all those who were willing to learn hence the DVD's Thank you Stan especially for giving the proper credit to Hal Houle. I couldn't believe all of the crap that was thrown at anyone who believed in CTE especially Hal. In the years while Hal was in So. Calif he taught many systems that helped many people, he taught people how to bank better and just in general to play better pool. I watched him and I never saw him once asked for any payment of any kind. He was just a kind, generous man who took delight in seeing your eyes light up and your game get better as you understood something that has escaped you before.
G."Charlie" Brown
Yankee Doodles & Hard Times, Bellflower

 

[dr_dave]

Ok thanks. So what you saying is using just a little english (you calling it gearing english) and stun cancels out the throw with proper aim compensation, any more english will cause EIT and over cut if the CB did not squirt enough!

For every cut angle, there is a precise amount of sidespin that will results in absolutely no throw (from CIT or SIT). This is called the "gearing amount," and the 40% rule helps one visualize the tip offset required based on the cut angle. At small cut angles, very little sidespin is required; and at larger cut angles, much more spin is required. This applies whether there is stun or not. We used stun in the video because it results in the largest possible throw. We wanted the effect to be obvious ... that's why we used stun (and sometimes stun occurs or is required in certain game situations). If there is stun, and the amount of sidespin is not close to the "gearing" amount, the OB will be thrown a significant amount (i.e., the OB will not head in the "line of centers" direction, perpendicular to the tangent line).

I hope that helps. I recommend you watch the following videos, even if you have seen them before, and maybe watch them more than once. You might get more out of them now that you seem to have a better understanding of things.

NV B.70 - Squirt (cue ball deflection), swerve, and throw, from VEPS II
NV B.86 - Cut-induced throw (CIT) and spin-induced throw (SIT), from VEPS IV
NV E.2 - Back-Hand (BHE) and Front-Hand English (FHE), from HAPS I
HSV B.33 - Outside english gearing, and cut and spin-induced throw
NV E.3 - Using "Gearing" Outside English to Eliminate Throw, from HAPS I

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

... As I have said in the past and continue to say, you have a lot to offer. I hold you in high regard for your work.

Thank you, John.

Best regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I agree. CTE is NOT fraction aiming. However, the different versions of CTE are "partly based on" fractional-ball aiming. The alignments, "visuals," and cut angle ranges are based on fractional-ball "aims."

Dave, I respect you and your contributions to pool.

Thank you.

However, from some of your posts, it is clear that you do not fully understand Stan's CTE/Pro One or you wouldn't mark statements like the one above.

I'm sorry if you feel my statement above was inaccurate or even insulting. That certainly was not my intent.

I don't see all of this as a competition or black and white. I use lots of things I've learned from your DVDs plus lots of what I've learned from Stan. It doesn't have to be one or the other, a combination works well for me.

What have I written that makes you think I see it as "one or the other?"

I have never thought of Stan's work in this way, nor do I think that my DVD's diminish or compete with his contributions in any way.

It is no secret that I am not a fan of the CTE approach; however, I have gone out of my way to understand and see value in both sides of the debate. In fact, I've create a resource page that summarizes many of the benefits of pivot-based aiming systems like Stan's. These systems obviously help and provide value to some people. Just because I'm not a fan doesn't mean my stuff is at odds with CTE. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true ... my stuff can strengthen the games of people who use CTE or any other "aiming system."

Best regards,
Dave

 

[336Robin]

There was no foul here

I've read this thread although admittedly I scanned some of the posts and others I went back and reread a few times.

I found myself wondering what was the point here? What do some of you really want?

Perhaps the point here was that you didnt think that Dave and Bobs stuff was any different than anyone elses. If that be the case I would have to disagree with you.

I dont think I have personally seen Dave's Aiming Method/System purported on any thread here except his DAM System which is supposedly all the general practices of things to do in order to play great pool which is a farciscal retort about aiming but perhaps true. Although I didnt see NV.1

Ok he didnt do a great job of representing CTE but did he not list it as alternative? Yes I think he did.

So was the aiming rule adhered to? Yes I think it was. Aiming shots to object balls was not the centerpiece of yet he does show ways to aim bankshots by explaing Systems or Methods used for reasoning out ways to be successful with them yet I dont think he tells anyone how to aim to a specific finite point.

Comments seem to lean towards his inept description of CTE according to some of the comments. So would you have been happier if he put in a plug for Stan?

Regardless of how anyone feels about an aiming method in particular CTE I dont see that has anything to do with sound advice on how to accomplish kick shots, bank shots or any other aim.....regardless of the fact that he has a product.

Aiming is the word that gets us into trouble and a rose by any other name is still a rose? Perhaps not so because there are obvious differences in the material in question and any aiming method/system.

I thought the idea of having a forum was to find ways of enriching the lives of other pool players and that is difficult when you cant throw out some bait for people that would seek if they only knew.

After all there are plenty of other people plying their wares on the Main Forum via their signatures, the threads they create with names associated to their line of work making it a mode of transfer to themselves to do business with. Dr. Dave was upfront about his intentions and I thought his information stood this litmus test of neutral general territory although the dreaded word aim was used.

I would hope that each one of you create and enrich the experience of pool players and we would or could grow the following for the game.

I will agree that it appears that he felt his situation and material were "different" and should be treated "differently." Perhaps they are but that isnt going to prevent the hairsplitting narratives that say....Poo on thee.....Poo on thee.....Poo on thee....but what a great job!

What a conundrum of opposites!

I didnt know this but it even seems like Dr. Dave is one of the very one's responsible for the Aiming Section.

I would dare say not as much as the heated arguments Ive seen from the CTE camp.

I could say more but what use is it?

Why can we all not unite ourselves in creating and enriching players instead of bickering over this piece of the pie or that?

If you want to know how to aim just ask Earl. Let me know what he says I would be very interested.

 

[sfleinen]

I've read this thread although admittedly I scanned some of the posts and others I went back and reread a few times.

I found myself wondering what was the point here? What do some of you really want?

Perhaps the point here was that you didnt think that Dave and Bobs stuff was any different than anyone elses. If that be the case I would have to disagree with you.

Respectfully, Robin, you missed the point. The point was NOT whether Dave's/Bob's information was "any different" than any other aiming technique. Indeed, the plethora of aiming-related topics here runs the gamut. No, the issue is that any aiming-related topics get moved here, because the topic of aiming in general -- irrespective of whether it's banking, or traditional aiming, or any of the alternative aiming methods -- is a lightning-rod topic. Remember, this subforum (Aiming Conversation) was created specifically for the purpose of moving this controversial subject away from the Main forum, because this topic -- no matter how innocent-looking -- has PROVEN over years of existence on this forum -- indeed far longer than you and I have been members here -- to be an airplane with one lead wing that dips and spirals into the ground.

I don't like it, and I'm sure I speak for a lot of folks (including Dr. Dave and yourself and many others). But I think the expression goes "ya do what ya gotta do" when it comes to making changes to forum design to accommodate the readership and prevent fights. The topic of Aiming is the "big kahuna" for AZB in this regard.

I dont think I have personally seen Dave's Aiming Method/System purported on any thread here except his DAM System which is supposedly all the general practices of things to do in order to play great pool which is a farciscal retort about aiming but perhaps true. Although I didnt see NV.1

And here's where you faux pas'ed. You're commenting on something you haven't even seen. Just to bring you up to date, Dr. Dave's "DAM" system is a comedy farce, based on aiming system proponents' past claims on these very boards as to the transformative powers of their system. Dr. Dave kept a log of these claims, and built a fictitious "DAM" system out of them.

[...snip, snip, snip...]

I will agree that it appears that he felt his situation and material were "different" and should be treated "differently." Perhaps they are but that isnt going to prevent the hairsplitting narratives that say....Poo on thee.....Poo on thee.....Poo on thee....but what a great job!

What a conundrum of opposites!

I didnt know this but it even seems like Dr. Dave is one of the very one's responsible for the Aiming Section.

I would dare say not as much as the heated arguments Ive seen from the CTE camp.

I could say more but what use is it?

Why can we all not unite ourselves in creating and enriching players instead of bickering over this piece of the pie or that?
[...]

I'm not sure you've seen enough of the history of AZB (or even RSB before that) to know why things are the way they are here in this subforum. There's a long back-channel story here, Robin. Suffice to say that you're commenting on something without sufficient background.

Concerning the bolded above, you should try hanging around here to see the paradoxes that exist in the Aiming camp. And especially the in-fighting. Just stand back and watch. The in-fighting will surprise you, and give you an idea of why this Aiming Conversation subforum exists. And you should know that this in-fighting is but just a taste of the larger fighting that went on when aiming was allowed to be on the Main forum.

Again, I don't like it, you don't like, many-many-many people don't like it. But it happened for a reason. I think the time you spend creating posts like the above might be better spent researching why this happened.

Just my $0.02,
-Sean

 

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave's "DAM" system is a comedy farce, based on aiming system proponents' past claims on these very boards as to the transformative powers of their system. Dr. Dave kept a log of these claims, and built a fictitious "DAM" system out of them.

For the record, you are only partly correct.

The italicized "marketing claims" at the beginning of the DAM page are mostly quotes or paraphrases from "aiming system" proponents from a long history on RSB, BD CCB, and AZB. That's where you are correct.

Where you are wrong is that DAM is not just a "comedy farce." It actually involves some sound advice about how to aim. The useful advice starts here:

billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#DAM_advice

Regards,
Dave

 

[JB Cases]

I actually think it's fine to have an aiming subforum. At first I didn't like the idea but later I warmed up to it because I felt that it's good to have all the information in one spot. I also feel that HEALTHY debate is productive. Calling people religious kooks and mocking them by calling what they do mystical mumbo-jumbo is not productive.

Let's all face it, the main forum is simply the general area for general stuff. All the regulars who are really interested in a topic will find it. If the idea is to catch the attention of the non-regulars for your product or topic then be creative about how you do it.

No one is stopping anyone from putting a little line in their signature that says - for a really exciting new series on aiming go here........ that of course means that you will have to participate in some OTHER topics so that the general population will see what you want them to see. The whole lead a horse to water thing ya know.

 

[sfleinen]

For the record, you are only partly correct.

The italicized "marketing claims" at the beginning of the DAM page are mostly quotes or paraphrases from "aiming system" proponents from a long history on RSB, BD CCB, and AZB. That's where you are correct.

Where you are wrong is that DAM is not just a "comedy farce." It actually involves some sound advice about how to aim. The useful advice starts here:

billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#DAM_advice

Regards,
Dave

Ah, I see that page has had some additions since the last time I read it! For the record, Dave, the last time I looked at that page was when you first created it (several years ago?), and in that time, it was indeed a farce. You were even posting it as a farce, as an example of the outlandish claims you'd collected. You'll recall the uproar it caused with the aiming system proponents when it first came out, and started a jihad against you all on its own, which all added to the reason why we have an Aiming Conversation subforum today.

So yes, I do stand [partially] corrected on that latter part of your page.

Good to know it's an actual system now,
-Sean

 

[336Robin]

Reply to Sean

Sean,
Excuse me Im not so good with the multi quote.

Respectfully, Robin, you missed the point. The point was NOT whether Dave's/Bob's information was "any different" than any other aiming technique. Indeed, the plethora of aiming-related topics here runs the gamut. No, the issue is that any aiming-related topics get moved here, because the topic of aiming in general -- irrespective of whether it's banking, or traditional aiming, or any of the alternative aiming methods -- is a lightning-rod topic. Remember, this subforum (Aiming Conversation) was created specifically for the purpose of moving this controversial subject away from the Main forum, because this topic -- no matter how innocent-looking -- has PROVEN over years of existence on this forum -- indeed far longer than you and I have been members here -- to be an airplane with one lead wing that dips and spirals into the ground.

I don't like it, and I'm sure I speak for a lot of folks (including Dr. Dave and yourself and many others). But I think the expression goes "ya do what ya gotta do" when it comes to making changes to forum design to accommodate the readership and prevent fights. The topic of Aiming is the "big kahuna" for AZB in this regard.

I was around for a fair amount of the infighting I think you are speaking of although I came on the scene in 2007 and I participated in some of it...why? Because I see and hope to lead others to see what I do a great way to make shots....that is very simple in nature.

At a point I had to excuse myself from the arguments because I just didn't have squat to provide a solution for an answer to represent my side of the story. Its not that I want to be on any side in the.....Aiming Wars....its just that I am.

I do have beliefs that aiming is not so difficult a task to conquer with a plan and all I probably should say is buy my next book when its out as an Ebook. You will find it on Amazon and other booksellers. I hope it brings you a new perspective that you find interesting because its new original material that has been lying right in front of you for a long time.

That's what I saw in Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett's material. In fact if they hadn't already have published it I likely would have gotten to something similar eventually because there are many, many methods and systems out that deserve to be in the public realm for all to see that will enrich a persons game.

At a point this silly argument between these two camps needs to stop, its incessant drivel very few need to hear and its doesn't help anyone's game.

I think Stan has done a great job of representing his side of the aiming scenario and he is to be applauded for what he has done but its not the definitive work of the century because.....ask someone who plays top speed how they aim.......just see what you get.

If they can tell you what it is....all describe it a little different. Diversity is a wonderful thing, if we end up in the same place it was worth it.

So if I come on here and sort of take up for Dr. Dave ..its because enough is enough that's what got this yet another thread... landed in the bathroom closet.

All in all this has taught me a lesson probably several. One I'm glad I don't produce pool stuff for a living, I do it for the thrill it gives me for attaining excellence....Man its absolutely great.

You probably have some points here and they are the result of all of the past...Poo... that has occurred....doesn't matter now but its changed things here on Az and frankly I think the acrid disagreements and division is something we should work on doing away with.

So in essence....hey why cant we just let each other live?

Sure marketing will have to be done on the sly and without upfront honest discourse on the subject by replying to threads etc, etc.

I just don't think I can read another word of shadow systems, reflections of the lights in the balls and things I consider too complicated that sort of suck the joy out of pool for me.

Pool even aiming is very explainable, simply like some of the explanation found in the material that Dr. Dave and Bob Jewett developed and simplicity is a good thing.......aiming word used or not.

You might be making a statement that is true....this is how it is now....but that doesn't mean we cant rise above it.

 

[justadub]

(snip)
You might be making a statement that is true....this is how it is now....but that doesn't mean we cant rise above it.

Conceivably "we" could, but knowing those involved, it'll never happen.

Never, ever.

 

[sfleinen]

Conceivably "we" could, but knowing those involved, it'll never happen.

Never, ever.

That's exactly right. Robin's waxing poetic about a utopian society, but that's definitely not here when you consider the players involved. Move the topic of Aiming back onto the Main forum, and you watch -- just watch(!) -- what happens, and very quickly.

In fact, I'd bet large that the furor would be even higher, because folks have gotten used to the peace of having the topic of Aiming in its own subforum. They would not be pleased at all to see this rancor re-join the Main forum.

Robin, I know what you're saying, but it ain't gonna happen, bud. People don't change. At least in the respects when it comes to "religious beliefs" like Aiming. And yes, it is indeed sad that a crucial topic of aiming (part and parcel of good pool) is so divided into camps who all think they're right.

This is part of that "all or nothing" extremist society we've become. It's all "black or white," "hot or cold," "left or right [read: democrat or republican]," etc. Nobody, it seems, remembers that there are countless shades of gray in between the black and white signpost extremes, like we were taught growing up. As technology advances, so too does the division between the peoples of our society.

-Sean

 

[336Robin]

I never said ......

That's exactly right. Robin's waxing poetic about a utopian society, but that's definitely not here when you consider the players involved. Move the topic of Aiming back onto the Main forum, and you watch -- just watch(!) -- what happens, and very quickly.

In fact, I'd bet large that the furor would be even higher, because folks have gotten used to the peace of having the topic of Aiming in its own subforum. They would not be pleased at all to see this rancor re-join the Main forum.

Robin, I know what you're saying, but it ain't gonna happen, bud. People don't change. At least in the respects when it comes to "religious beliefs" like Aiming. And yes, it is indeed sad that a crucial topic of aiming (part and parcel of good pool) is so divided into camps who all think they're right.

This is part of that "all or nothing" extremist society we've become. It's all "black or white," "hot or cold," "left or right [read: democrat or republican]," etc. Nobody, it seems, remembers that there are countless shades of gray in between the black and white signpost extremes, like we were taught growing up. As technology advances, so too does the division between the peoples of our society.

-Sean

Sean,
I never said I wanted the Aiming Section moved to the main forum.

What I said was that I didnt think Dr. Daves thread was in question but thats something that you obviously felt was and perhaps a few others chimed in and it seemed because the dreaded word Aim was used.

It also seemed that people were upset he didnt give proper credence to cte in his material according to the comments.

I was clear about what I said and you seem to want to expand my comments beyond.

What I am saying now is that its a shame that we cant discuss ways to shoot shots into rails and ways to aim shots that either involve hitting the rail first or the object ball first for a positional objective. Isnt that what you do on a pool forum?

In fact it seems to me that you are raising a stink about all of this more than anything else.

I just wanted to review some worthwhile pool material and discuss some cool topics. Who knows out of that conversation that happened another Aiming System might have been formed......Im thinking Robins Utopian Left of Ctel Shadowy, Thousand Points of Light System....hmm ...I like it. Its a New World Order you know!!....

 

[nobcitypool]

I'm sorry if you feel my statement above was inaccurate or even insulting. That certainly was not my intent.

Dave, I didn't find your statement insulting, just inaccurate IMHO.

What have I written that makes you think I see it as "one or the other?"


It is no secret that I am not a fan of the CTE approach; however, I have gone out of my way to understand and see value in both sides of the debate. In fact, I've create a resource page that summarizes many of the benefits of pivot-based aiming systems like Stan's. These systems obviously help and provide value to some people. Just because I'm not a fan doesn't mean my stuff is at odds with CTE. In fact, if anything, the opposite is true ... my stuff can strengthen the games of people who use CTE or any other "aiming system."

Reading some of your comments relating to CTE/Pro One, it is clear you don't fully understand it. As a scientist, I would think you'd refrain from commenting unless you do understand it.

I agree that your data and information can strengthen the games of people who use CTE/Pro One. It has definitely helped me. Your aiming information is solid as well, I certainly use and/or reference parts of it. The game of pool is very complex, one should use every resource available to improve their game IMHO.

I wasn't a participant at this site when the vicious aiming flame wars apparently took place. I happen to think having a separate aiming forum is a good thing. While I can't speak 100% of the mindset of the moderators who moved your thread, were I you, I certainly wouldn't consider it an insult and take it personally that your thread was moved. I've seen no shortage of threads moved to the aiming forum that didn't make sense to me.

Best regards,
Dave

....................