Fair enough. Then I guess you are going to then say that improvement proves the validity as well if lack thereof disproves it?
So all the people who have testified that they improved significantly are sufficient proof to you that CTE works?
Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
Fair enough. Then I guess you are going to then say that improvement proves the validity as well if lack thereof disproves it?
So all the people who have testified that they improved significantly are sufficient proof to you that CTE works?
OK, c'mon it was just a little joke, but maybe I went too far with it. The problem I see is that I'm trying to understand how CTE Pro1 really works and you are assuming I am trying to discredit it. I've asked the expert on CTE Pro1 many times, politely, if he could clarify some of his videos and I get no response, nothing. So I figure maybe I can snoop around and see if I can figure some things out. Again, I'm pegged as a troublemaker.
Frankly, the problem is you, Stan, with all due respect. You seem content to sell thousands of videos to people who try it without asking deeper questions. Meanwhile, there is an army of people who would love to know how this works. It is a remarkable thing when something to do with perception and 3D angles and whatnot can result in perfect ball pocketing when the ABC/CTE alignments are utilized. Aren't you a little curious yourself as to how this can work?
Everyone in here says, basically, stop commenting on CTE unless you get the DVD and try to make it work first. Ironically, that's exactly what I'm trying to do and the inventor of the system doesn't want me to have the DVD.
I guess that's why threads go on with thousands of posts.
I can attest that Stan does get asked deeper questions and he answers them both in pms, emails and phone conversations.
If you show a predisposition to being biased against something you are reviewing then any review is suspect as to the accuracy and honesty of it. I face the same thing whenever I review a competitor's case and especially one I have been publicly critical of before the actual review.
Dan, I trust you and will send you the DVD. You could just buy it but I think if you give it an HONEST try by watching it and trying to understand the motions involved then you might snap to it fairly quickly. My colleague snapped to it from watching Stan's YouTube videos yesterday. He ran the first two racks on a tight diamond nine foot and said it 'feels' effortless. This man is a pretty good one pocket player and someone who routinely runs 4-7 packs in nine ball on the bar box.
He was impressed with Stan's videos where he banks balls under the curtain. I haven't even mentioned those in the whole subconscious correction debate----how do you subconsciously correct when half the table is obscured? Making ten banks in a row when you can see the whole table is impressive enough but when you can't see the rail you are striking?????
Well first of all I have learned to use a system of overlapping folds so that there is broad hand coverage. Then I trained myself to use an alignment method where I brush edge of my butt cheek and put my hand out to center body and come in. Thus all issues are generally solved where the aim is concerned. Now ripping the paper is still a feel thing much like the stroke and it can be dogged but with practice both the aim and the pressure during the wiping stroke can be mastered.
OK, thanks John. See, what you and Stan call a bias against CTE I call being objective. Just give me the facts, the proof. Neil said something was proven several times. OK, great. Where is it? If it is somehow impossible to describe and you have to follow the instructions at the table or else it will never work, then fine, I'll try it at the table. I'm afraid that Stan is the one with the bias. I'm willing to say that people do benefit and play better after learning CTE. I just am not willing to say that the system works for the reasons you and Stan give because they seem to be gobblety-gook explanations. Maybe it works for some completely different reason for some people. I can guess some reasons that might make sense, but at this point who knows? The evidence in front of me says that Stan doesn't want to look too deeply, but you seem interested in doing so. As long as that is you aim, then I'd still be interested in looking at the DVD.
Post #2095 was the latest on it.
To save others some time, here is post #2095 (by Neil):
That non-sensical argument has been brought up before on here. They claim that while our subconscious could not make the shot before, even after years of trying to make it there still was no consistency in making it. But, somehow, this CTE system unlocked another portion of our brain that we weren't utilizing that knows exactly how to make the shot and enables the subconscious to now make the shot for us with consistency.
If that were even remotely true, it would be one of the greatest discoveries of the mind. And would be in all the scientific journals. Would be a greater claim than saying the subconscious is not what makes the shot.
To add to that, from previous posts, very simple to eliminate the subconscious from making the ball.
The subconscious role is to co-ordinate all the muscles to perform the task it is given to do. It does not differentiate between what is good or bad. Example, if you say to yourself just before a shot "don't miss this one", all your subc. hears is "miss this one". And it will do what is necessary to make sure you miss it.
When learning CTE, or anything else with pool for that matter, one must train the subc. on just what it is you want it to perform. In CTE's case, it is follow these steps and shoot.
The way to test the system is to stop trying to make the ball. It's that simple. If you are telling your mind to make the ball, your subconscious will do what is necessary to help you make it. However, if your goal is just to observe what happens, and to just follow the steps, then your subc. will do just that. You have no goal of making the ball, just seeing what happens when you follow these steps.
Well, in just observing, most of the time, what one finds out, is that the ball goes into the pocket you would have chosen to make it in. Sometimes, especially on banks, what one finds out it that it is not a one rail bank that the steps give you, but is actually a two rail bank.
So, it is in the observing that one eliminates the subc. from making the ball. And, also tests the system for what works and what doesn't work.
What is meant by "it is from another dimension"
Banks
Banned
And there's a huge part of the problem..
This.. stuff.. is what they call "proof", when it actually means virtually nothing. Yet, if anything is said in disagreement, Hawking is expected to give a teleconference with detailed explanations that JB can review with his team of rocket surgeons. As for his claim of his pack-running colleague.. take it for what it's worth - zip.
Simply that it is very unlike conventional ways of aiming.
I take it to mean in 3d instead of 2d. But I agree it sounds twilight zone instead.
for twilight zone aiming you don't need to look farther than ghost ball, even the name is metaphysical
John,
When I read that, I did not 'hear' you saying it. I heard it being said by someone else. I don't know whether it was my conscious or subconscious that told me that.
Perhaps it was my subconscious telling my conscious & my conscious mind acknowledged what it was being told by my subconscious & then it became a conscious thought.
Or... it was just a miss because the two were fighting & neither one would give into the other one so it was a mixed message to me, the shooter of this post.
Best Wishes.
Last edited:
Well to be fair some of your posts, including the one where you said you are in the skpetic/knocker camp seem to show a prejudicial slant.
People like Lou Figueroa called Stan a snake-oil salesman and even attacked his wife accusing her of fudging sales numbers when she stepped in to defend Stan's claims of how many he sold. These two people are salt-of-the-earth type people and didn't and don't deserve it. Stan should be sainted that he is still here after all the pure shit that has been flung in his direction. He can be forgiven for being somewhat touchy when it's not clear that someone is genuinely interested in giving CTE a fair shot.
I don't mind sending you something that you can easily buy for yourself.
I think that if you get it and you watch the YouTube stuff and you ask yoru questions not only of Stan, but of Bob Nunley, Mohrt, Neil, Dave Segal, Gerry Williams etc....all experienced CTE users then you will gain more insight that it not only works but also to understand how mechanical it is which leads to the precision IMO.
Do you have an alternate theory?
That is the first real answer I have ever received on that question.
Thanks.
But what about cte makes it more 3d than any other way of aiming?
Or your reading comprehension is not up to par.
Another in the long line of clueless statements from you.
It's easy enough to buy if you are really serious.
Curious as to your background since you seem to think you are the one to solve CTE.