Stan also states its the contact point that the curved line took him to. Not the actual contact point. Whats he mean by curved line I'm not exactly sure.
Could Stan clarify this statement in his video
- Thread starter Colin Colenso
- Start date
- Status
Wait...I have to go back & freeze myself back together.
For the part bolded, do you mean that it is on a different vertical 'slice' line where the only common point of the two would be the exact center point of the ball 1 1/8 inches into the ball.
Do you realise all of the different angles of extremely small differences that that that would be as that relates to each different distance between the CB & OB?
IMO one would never be able to accurately match up the cue to all of those extremely small differences.
Stans example was huge & vastly disproportional to what it would really be.
If I have misunderstood you, I'm sorry. If so, could you possibly say it different way?
Last edited:
It seems that you are inferring that there is more than one contact point. I did not see or hear anything from Stan about a correct contact point nor an incorrect contact point.
Without any clarification as such, I would think that almost anyone would conclude that he is talking about the one & only one contact point that sends the ball to center pocket as CTE is supposed to do as it is connected to the table.
What other contact point are you suggesting that he might have meant?
Stan also states its the contact point that the curved line took him to. Not the actual contact point. Whats he mean by curved line I'm not exactly sure.
Maybe this is exactly what CTE does on its own.
As Stan says " it's the contact point that's representative of where the curved line took him to." He's not saying it's the actual contact point as most people understand it to be.
The more you guys try to prove and help with the videos the more damage your doing.
The first shot, the bank took me 6 inches..repeats the process and it took him 12.
Why ..because cte takes you to right angles. It created 2 different angles and logic will tell you it should've created the same . Yes Steve it should've.
If its the nature of cte to take you to right angles and you've pocketed two different type of shots like in this case... it is evident you didn't use logic on one of them.
You guys seem to be treading backwards.:wink:
Thanks.
I'm heading out today, but I do NOT recall Stan saying anything about 'Not' the actual contact point. I'll have to watch it again.
But... If so...I don't see the relevance.
Thanks again,
Rick
If, so... do you realise how subjective THAT would be as your curve would not be my curve.
But again, I don't see the relevance of envisioning a curved line from where to where for what purpose.
I'm in a bit of rush, so pleas excuse me for for being brief & repetitive.
Thanks much for your efforts & civility,
Rick
I watched it & that is the same BS, sorry, that is in the 5 shots. Why does it seem that people that are probably rather logical in the rest of their lives seem to be totally illogical when it comes to CTE.
IF the ball of the second shot would have gone to the chip on the rail THEN that would be consistency & lend itself to the method actually being an objective visual system or method.
To say that one uses the same visual with the same fixed cue & with the same exact pivot & yet gets a different outcome & then says that the results are based on a 100% totally objective method is......well you fill in the blank.
It would be very obvious to any logical or rational individual that passed basic geometry that what Stevie did in those two shots does not fit the explanation & it would be obvious to that logical & rational individual that Stevie did something, I repeat something, different. Now whether he, Stevie, knows it or not, that he did something different, is a whole other subject as is what exactly did he do different & why would be a whole other subject too.
But the something different would not even be in any doubt or question to that unbiased, logical, rational, individual.
One can NOT do the exact same thing & get a different result, period.
So...what was different? Well in a simple answer, it was Stevie's desire & intention. On the 1st. shot he wanted to bank the ball & on the 2md. shot he wanted to cut it in the side pocket.
Hence, Stevie did something different.
What caused it or what was it based on does not even matter in this discussion.
The matter is that he did NOT shoot those two shots purely based on an objective 'approach' of seeing the same relative CB & perform the same bridge set & same exact pivot. That is...unless the 'point' of 'A' is not a point or a vertical line through a point, but is instead a range of multiple points & vertical lines.
Step, back & think where else in anyone's life would they allow such illogic to be taken as truth?
1 + 1 +1 = 3. It does not = 1 nor 2 nor 4 nor 5.
Cookie, I'm not directing this to you per say, but just in general. It was just you that brought up the shots.
Please keep that in mind should you choose to respond. We do not need to get personal.
If we can keep it within the realm of logical discussion & 'arguement', I think some will find that it is not correct to say that the results of CTE are based, no based is not the correct word as CTE might be considered to be based objectively but the results of so many of the shots are NOT the result of applying only the objectivity.
Sorry but I have run.
Thanks cookie man,
Rick
Last edited:
So you didn't shoot them. Why not?
I'm not going to try and explain what he means by the curved line. The point is he's not talking about the contact point in the usual way. He said the contact point that the curved line took him too, sounds more like an aim point. He would have to clarify that.
Look reality is Stevie is right. I know, logic says different. I don't disagree with that. But truth on the table with CTE is STEVIE is right. The system takes you to different places. This isn't fly by night stuff, I just shot the exact same shots and got the exact same results as Stevie. So Stevie and I are either shooting the shots as prescribed by CTE, or making the same exact adjustments. I am not making any adjustments for those shots. CTE is what it is. Logic may say it doesn't work but the balls sure go into the pockets.
I don't agree that logic says different. Logic says different if you're totally clueless about how to get the visuals correctly. Logic says different if you have absolutely no clue about how the system works. Fact is, it's not logical to attempt to vehemently argue something when you have no knowledge or factual background to make that argument from. However, that doesn't seem to dissuade so many from doing so, therefore, logic means nothing.
Here's logic. When multiple professional players can make those shots in the exact same way using the system, it is logical to believe the system works as advertised. When you see them do it on video countless times and your eyes show you there is no physical tweaking when their down in the shooting position, logic dictates the system is working as advertised.
The system is totally objective. The fact that you refuse to learn it and thereby discover for yourself why that is only showcases your true agenda. You are soley out to harrass another member on here. You have NOTHING to back up your claims except incorrect statements and ignorance of how the system even works. You even went so far as to say the equivalent of 1+1 does not equal 4, and you can not add the rest of the proper equation to get to 4. That in itself is total ignorance at it's best. You want to use a false equation, and then tell others they cannot use the correct equation.
What are you getting out of all this Rick? Why do you feel the need to harrass Stan and any other CTE users? Why do you laud TOI, which you yourself have said does not work the way CJ describes it? Yet, you do not do the same to CJ that you do to Stan. Why is that? So far, Stan has only made correct claims, as those that understand the system can attest to. CJ has made many false claims. Yet you say nothing to him.
You speak often here of "logic". Where is the logic in purposely trying to hurt another individual and their life work when you don't even understand what it is they are teaching, and why? Where is the logic in saying anything when you have no platform from which to speak with any intelligence on the subject at all?? Where is the logic in nitpicking statements without looking at the whole context of the statement? Where is the logic in continually making yourself look ignorant instead of intelligent? Where, Rick, where is it????
Last edited:
The reason he thinks the sun shines out of CJs butt is because many moons ago CJ agreed and complimented Rick on something he said. Now anything CJ promotes has the backing of rick. He felt proud CJ agreed with what he once said, and it made his head explode with joy. CJ could have created CTE pro1 and Rick would sing its praise all across the forum. Pathetic if you ask me.
Winner, winner, chicken dinner. I'd give you another greenie if the system would allow me to,.
Let's see what other players have to say about our techniques and how they've........
I see Rick is being accused of "agreeing with CJ" - he isn't alone considering the thousands of players that are using and benefiting from TOI.
Why do they desperately not want anyone to find out how effective TOI is? Is it possible that they chastise everyone that publicly endorses 'Ultimate Pool Secrets'?
Let's see what truly unbiased players from around the world have to say about our techniques and how they've benefited.
I see Rick is being accused of "agreeing with CJ" - he isn't alone considering the thousands of players that are using and benefiting from TOI.
Why do they desperately not want anyone to find out how effective TOI is? Is it possible that they chastise everyone that publicly endorses 'Ultimate Pool Secrets'?
Let's see what truly unbiased players from around the world have to say about our techniques and how they've benefited.
- Status