Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin Colenso View Post
Because Stan's challenge requires proof to change his mind about claims that have no basis that can be analyzed.
e.g. Length of pivot in CTE,
Stan has been quite clear, with the exception of shots where the distance between the OB and CB are less than 12", the length of the bridge is irrelevant.
degree of sweep in Pro 1,
It is a 1/2 tip pivot. The shooter learns to simulate this through learning CTE and simulating the mechanical 1/2 tip pivot with their move into the shot.
direction of visual perceptions,
Not sure what this means.
2x1 ratio,
Not exactly sure what this means, or said differently, what you mean by this. Stan has demonstrated with the curtains and through countless single rail and multi rail banks, how the system connects with a 2 x 1 table.
90 degrees.
Not sure at all what you mean by this
In all, it's the most poorly descriptive system, in terms of objectivity, ever devised.
Nob, appreciate your efforts to explain.
Re: Pivot: As one who has spent years studying all aspects of pivots, the idea that pivot length isn't a significant variable is counter intuitive. I'm not saying it's impossible that it isn't, just that it hasn't been objectively explained why it isn't a significant variable. I can understand that most people are bridging at a similar length, hence variability is not significant enough to be noticed.
Re: Sweep / 1/2 tip pivot: These are objective in one sense, but the application would seem prone to error (e.g. 3/8ths tip or over or under sweep) and, skeptics will wonder if this phase invites intuitive adjustments, rather than a purely formulaic repeatable technique.
Re: Visual Perceptions: I don't see how this perception is any more objective that the path or line I perceive on shot. I would say it is intuitive.
Re: 2x1, 90 degrees, connect to the pockets etc: They're stated like they are part of evidence, but they are just ideas that suggest a kind of sacred, never should have been discovered unearthly geometry. It's ok to believe that, but crucifying the agnostic isn't necessary.
You're of course welcome to your opinion. Given all the detailed technical materials and graphs you have generated, I would think you would offer some factual technical detail versus an unfounded opinion at a very high level of abstraction.
I have pondered how our planet really came to be and wished there were absolute definitive proof whether that was natural happenstance or the work of a higher level being. However, I do know I'm here, life is good and I'm not going to slit my wrists because I don't have the perfect factual answers to all that. I'm not even considering slitting my wrists. While I don't have the factual math on why CTE/Pro One works, I have worked with it now for two years and know it works. I have no motivation whatsoever to "want it to work", I know I'm not subconsciously tweaking or doing anything like that. I'm consistently hitting shots I didn't hit before. Were my subconscious taking over, I'd be missing those shots.
I certainly wouldn't want you to slit your wrists, and wish you continued success with it.
I've never said the system doesn't work. For all I know, it may turn out to be the basis for the best aiming ever known.
I just question some of the claims and some of the explanations, not for their veracity, but for a deeper more objective understanding. That's the scientific method, which even proponents employ to make adjustments and improvements to the basic CTE concept, the visual sweep replacing the pivot for example, the addition of BHE to account for throw etc.
Even some proponents admit intuitive adjustments and taking rails into account with their perceptions. These statements contradict others and raise the curiosity of those interested in HOW IT WORKS, because it clearly does work for some.
