My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE

[cookie man]

As I've told you before, if CTE was truly a "center pocket aiming system" it would require an infinite number of aiming solutions. In other words, by insisting on that you're actually insisting that CTE can't work with anything less than an infinite number of objective steps - in other words, it's impossible.

If you actually tried to understand some of these comments instead of putting your fingers in your ears you might finally figure out what's being said.

pj <- holding my breath
chgo

If you are going to post anything about cte please include the amount of your training and the quality of the instructor teaching you. Otherwise how could anyone take you seriously?
And if you only had more of an understanding of cte, but you don't do you.

 

[cookie man]

Were they made utilizing CTE ONLY objectively or by utilizing their subjective perception of the shots to fill the holes along with the CTE objective visuals?

Your posts along with those of some others that THINK you are making comments that prove ANYTHING with regards to whether or not it is an objective system have no clue regarding the issue.

The ONLY 'proof' that can be provided is with a totally logic, rational, cognitive explanation.

That has not ever come from ANYONE.

You're well versed in CTE, so please provide such an explanation?

I won't hold my breathe for such.

But I could probably hole my breath after I hit submit & not die before a reply is made as to why you WON'T provide such here & now.

Things like, 'It's already been done', 'It's all out there & I'm not going to do your work for you.', 'I would, but you'd never understand it, so I'm not going to waste my time.'

How can there be a logical 'debate' when many, if not most, on the pro CTE side, do not even know or understand the question & issue at hand?

Best Wishes to ALL.

You brought up your player, I just told the rest of the story.

 

[cookie man]

Please see PJ's post #129 above & please read it slowly so that perhaps you will comprehend the error in your thinking & the statements that you've made.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

If you are going to post anything about cte please include the amount of your training and the quality of the instructor teaching you. Otherwise how could anyone take you seriously?

 

[cookie man]

Is your mind dead?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

If I actually tried to understand some of these comments instead of putting MY[/B ] fingers in MY ears I might finally figure out what's being said.

pj <- holding my breath
chgo

Fixed the sentence for you. If you held a CUE and got on the table working with CTE as much as you hold your breath and little ding-a-ling, this crap wouldn't have been going on for almost two decades.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The following is a quote of post #2075 for the poll thread on Aiming System or Feel.

I think could very well be true & sums up why the 'war' has been going on for so long given then logical explanations given against the existence of ANY 'objective aiming system'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Poolplaya9 View Post
You don't understand how CTE works, don't care how it works, and don't feel how it works is important. You have said that a number of times, John Barton who has said that dozens of times, and many of the other CTE arguers have said it as well. The problem is that on the one hand you all say you don't understand how CTE works, and then on the other hand you turn right around and argue in the most closed minded and adamant manner possible about every last detail of how it works and doesn't work. You all obviously do care a lot about the mechanism by which it works for you otherwise you wouldn't be so militant in your need to argue how it works even when you admit not knowing. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't understand it on the one hand, and then argue every last detail about it with someone on the other. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't care how it works, and then be absolutely and completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that you might be subconsciously adjusting for an inaccurate system regardless of the evidence.

When it is convenient for the CTE arguers, you admit you don't understand how CTE works. When someone asks questions you don't have answers to, or wants more detail where descriptions of the steps are vague, or wants proof of anything like that it objectively finds the correct aim/shot line or of anything else, the response from your side is all too often "CTE can't be proven to work as claimed and I don't understand how it works and it isn't important how it works and I don't care, all I know is it works for me and that is all that is important". But when someone is showing mathematical proof on paper or through explanation that it does not find the correct shot line, and that CTE users are actually adjusting by feel to make their shots just like with any other system, you and the rest suddenly become experts who fully understand every last detail of the system and will argue vehemently against any possibility of subconscious adjustment.

So which is it? Do you fully understand it or not? Do you care how it works or not? Here is the answer and give this some serious internal soul searching before replying back with the knee jerk argument that every pore of your being will reflexively want to make. You all don't understand how it works, otherwise you would never say you didn't understand if you did. Plus you would be able to answer those tough questions if you did. Of course you don't understand how or why it works and have said so many,many times. You also do care how it works--a lot. A whole lot. Like a WHOLE LOT. But why is that? Because you will feel stupid if you actually have to accept to yourself that you were just subconsciously adjusting for everything the whole time. So your ego makes you have a closed mind about that and makes you need to have to argue against that vehemently, in the hopes that nobody believes you were subconsciously adjusting and will think to themselves "look how dumb those guys were", and so you don't have to accept it yourself and feel like "man how dumb was I to have just been using feel all along and adjusting and never even realizing it". But it shouldn't be something to be embarrassed about or ashamed about or to feel stupid about. We all do things subconsciously that we don't realize, and often, and it's just part of being human. But ego just won't let you guys look at the evidence and the facts without that bias.

The truth of the matter is that you and the rest of the CTE arguers/users don't understand the system, and it isn't important to you how it works as long as it isn't subconscious adjustments you are making that corrected for the system's inaccuracies. Ego is why you can never accept subconscious adjustment and is why you are so compelled to argue that which you admit to not understanding. It is misplaced ego though. Again, not consciously realizing something you are doing subconsciously doesn't make you an idiot, it makes you human, and there is no shame in being human. On the other hand, ignoring facts and evidence because of your ego displays a lack of ability to utilize critical thinking skills, and that level of willful bias is something that actually is shameful though IMO because that is something we have a lot more if not total control over.

This is simply a case of reflexively fighting against something simply because it isn't the way you would want it to be (because you are afraid it will make you look and feel silly) instead of just searching for the truth without bias and with an open mind whether you will hate the answer you arrive at or not. Seriously, do some real soul searching on this and ask yourself honestly why it is so important to you that it doesn't turn out to be subconscious adjustment. If it was really true when you guys all say "who cares how it works as long as it works" then it wouldn't matter to you if the reason was subconscious adjustment, but yet it does matter to you all a lot (it shouldn't, and so the question to ask yourself is why does it, and in that answer lies the cause of your biases).

 

[ENGLISH!]

The following is quote of Poolplay9's post#2108 on page#141 from the Poll thread on Aiming Systems vs Feel

All the math you will ever need is right there in my post you quoted. Hint: Start off by counting how many unique objective cut angles CTE Pro 1 produces. To ensure you aren't counting fake angles you can only manufacture with subjective feel adjustments, make sure you are able to give a full detailed description of all the CTE steps to achieve a cut angle before counting it. Detailed means no two people could possibly do it any differently if everybody were trying to follow your instructions. How many unique objective cut angles that you can fully explain all the steps to exactly reproduce it in detail (and where everyone else could exactly reproduce it) did you come up with?

 

[stan shuffett]

The following is quote of Poolplay9's post#2108 on page#141 from the Poll thread on Aiming Systems vs Feel

All the math you will ever need is right there in my post you quoted. Hint: Start off by counting how many unique objective cut angles CTE Pro 1 produces. To ensure you aren't counting fake angles you can only manufacture with subjective feel adjustments, make sure you are able to give a full detailed description of all the CTE steps to achieve a cut angle before counting it. Detailed means no two people could possibly do it any differently if everybody were trying to follow your instructions. How many unique objective cut angles that you can fully explain all the steps to exactly reproduce it in detail (and where everyone else could exactly reproduce it) did you come up with?

CTE is a visual system. There are ONLY 4 visual alignments based on center cue ball.
I repeat, 4 ONLY.........See and align to the fixed cue ball..... 4 visual alignments, NO ADJUSTMENTS.....
**one interchange visual

I have been at this for years.....so, you will debate this from the conventional side...There is no chance that you can intelligently discuss this because YOU like many other of your steadies have not bothered to learn center to edge aiming....

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

How can that statement be made when the person stating it doesn't know what systems are out there? Or what would be required for a system to be objective in the first place?

To be a more accurate statement, the ending of it should read "still way more than any system I know how to use can define.".

What are all the requirements for an objective aiming system, and why would the number of possible cb/ob alignments negate a system from being objective?

Please answer it with an open, unbiased, logical, reasonable, rational & critically thinking mind.

I have absolutely no inclination to get into a discussion with you but this post of yours is a good indication as to why.

One does NOT have to go into space & look back & SEE that the earth is NOT flat.

One can simply make a few observations & then apply one's reasonable, logical, common sense, critical thinking mind, IF one has such, & determine accurately & truthfully that that earth is 'round' & not flat & do so without ever leaving their front doorstep, if they can simply observe the sun setting & the shadow that it casts on the moon.

Then if one wants some confirmation one can simply observe an object perhaps like a hill or small mountain & take a trip of say 15 to 30 miles depending on the height of the hill & note that the object is no longer visible from that different location.

It would not & does not require traveling to every nook & 'corner' of the earth to see & know ALL that is out there.

Best Wishes, Have a Great Day & I Prayed for You Last Night & Will Do So Again After I Hit Submit.

 

[ENGLISH!]

And it still has nothing to do with CTE, but your mind can't handle that.

On the contrary, it is totally 100% applicable to CTE & any other supposed 'objective aiming system'.

Please see Poolplaya9's explanation regarding 'you' & other vocal CTE defenders.

I have no inclination to have a discussion with you for nearly the same reasons that I have no inclination to have such with one of your like individuals.

Best Wishes to You & Have a Great Day.

PS I prayed for you too last night & will also do so again after I hit submit.

 

[ENGLISH!]

You brought up your player, I just told the rest of the story.

No you left out the important relative facts regarding the nature of what was actually used to pocket all of those 5 shots.

Please see Poolplaya9's post regarding the math.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

CTE is a visual system. There are ONLY 4 visual alignments based on center cue ball.
I repeat, 4 ONLY.........See and align to the fixed cue ball..... 4 visual alignments, NO ADJUSTMENTS.....
**one interchange visual

I have been at this for years.....so, you will debate this from the conventional side...There is no chance that you can intelligently discuss this because YOU like many other of your steadies have not bothered to learn center to edge aiming....

Stan Shuffett

With all due respect, what is so difficult then for you to explain in a logical & concise manner, objectively, how are all of the required angles cover by just the alignment of just the 4 visuals?

Please keep in mind that most, in not all of 'us' still taking part in this 'dispute' have not said that one can not pocket all of the shots while utilizing your version of CTE.

What is being said by most, in not all still involved, is that the basis for many, if not most shots, is a subjective perception of what the actual line for the shot IS. Is that the true & hence objective line for the shot? Yes, naturally & surely... IF... the shot pockets. That means that one has correctly utilized their subjective perception of the shot to arrive at the correct & 'objectively' true line for the shot.

But, for many if not most, of the shots there is NO objective indicator for those shots & for those, one must utilize their subjective perception of the shot & shade somehow off of the base objective visual which does NOT specifically fit the shot at hand.

Please do not critique what I've said above with rhetoric or repeat the same old same old.

Please give a complete & logical, reasonable, critically thought out, non science bending, explanation as to how the alignments from the just the 4 visuals can objectively cover ALL of the required outcome angles of the game when there is only one physical position & alignment that allows for the 'fixing' in place of the CB relative the OB with a given CTE visual.

Thanks in Advance if you are able to comply with my request & Best Wishes.

 

[Neil]

I have absolutely no inclination to get into a discussion with you but this post of yours is a good indication as to why.

One does NOT have to go into space & look back & SEE that the earth is NOT flat.

One can simply make a few observations & then apply one's reasonable, logical, common sense, critical thinking mind, IF one has such, & determine accurately & truthfully that that earth is 'round' & not flat & do so without ever leaving their front doorstep, if they can simply observe the sun setting & the shadow that it casts on the moon.

Then if one wants some confirmation one can simply observe an object perhaps like a hill or small mountain & take a trip of say 15 to 30 miles depending on the height of the hill & note that the object is no longer visible from that different location.

It would not & does not require traveling to every nook & 'corner' of the earth to see & know ALL that is out there.

Best Wishes, Have a Great Day & I Prayed for You Last Night & Will Do So Again After I Hit Submit.

I don't blame you for not wanting to get into a discussion with me. It's hard to win when you don't use critical thinking skills, common sense, or logic to make your points. You ask others to use those skills, but when they do, you have no answer to it, and instead resort to just calling them names. Everytime someone says something you have no answer to, you say you won't have a discussion with them anymore.

You are so stuck in your closed-mindedness that when given the definitions of the word "objective", you can't even comprehend what the definition means. And, despite all your googling on it, you can't come up with one definition of it that agrees with your stance on it. So, instead, you come up with totally irrelevant comments like the above about the flat earth to try and sidetrack the issue of your lack of understanding about the subject.

The truth is, you were looking for a magic pill in CTE, and found out that it requires work, and dismissed it. And then, decided to go on a crusade to knock the system just to make yourself feel better about your mistake. And, over the years, no matter how much proof you have been given, you dismiss all of it because, again, it required a little work to even understand.

You start this thread hoping to have others give you some "ammo" to use, because you can not come up with any on your own, and you found out only one person posted anything vaguely considered ammo. He was wrong with his statement, but that didn't stop you from re-posting it a number of times because that is all you had. Then, you had to resort to looking up old posts of people running down CTE to make your case. Really sad. And, if one was to be honest about it, you should have also posted the post where that persons post was totally refuted. But, that doesn't fit your agenda, so you omit that part of the story.

 

[Neil]

With all due respect, what is so difficult then for you to explain in a logical & concise manner, objectively, how are all of the required angles cover by just the alignment of just the 4 visuals?

Please keep in mind that most, in not all of 'us' still taking part in this 'dispute' have not said that one can not pocket all of the shots while utilizing your version of CTE.

What is being said by most, in not all still involved, is that the basis for many, if not most shots, is a subjective perception of what the actual line for the shot IS. Is that the true & hence objective line for the shot? Yes, naturally & surely... IF... the shot pockets. That means that one has correctly utilized their subjective perception of the shot to arrive at the correct & 'objectively' true line for the shot.

But, for many if not most, of the shots there is NO objective indicator for those shots & for those, one must utilize their subjective perception of the shot & shade somehow off of the base objective visual which does NOT specifically fit the shot at hand.

Please do not critique what I've said above with rhetoric or repeat the same old same old.

Please give a complete & logical, reasonable, critically thought out, non science bending, explanation as to how the alignments from the just the 4 visuals can objectively cover ALL of the required outcome angles of the game when there is only one physical position & alignment that allows for the 'fixing' in place of the CB relative the OB with a given CTE visual.

Thanks in Advance if you are able to comply with my request & Best Wishes.

With visual intelligence. A key ingredient you do not yet possess because you won't take it to the table to acquire it. It's akin to you sitting in a basic 5th grade math class and asking how to solve a calculus problem. You first have to learn the basics before you can begin to understand the rest of it.

You demanding to know the higher aspects of CTE without even understanding the basics is not logical, and surely is not using critical thinking skills.

 

[stan shuffett]

With all due respect, what is so difficult then for you to explain in a logical & concise manner, objectively, how are all of the required angles cover by just the alignment of just the 4 visuals?

Please keep in mind that most, in not all of 'us' still taking part in this 'dispute' have not said that one can not pocket all of the shots while utilizing your version of CTE.

What is being said by most, in not all still involved, is that the basis for many, if not most shots, is a subjective perception of what the actual line for the shot IS. Is that the true & hence objective line for the shot? Yes, naturally & surely... IF... the shot pockets. That means that one has correctly utilized their subjective perception of the shot to arrive at the correct & 'objectively' true line for the shot.

But, for many if not most, of the shots there is NO objective indicator for those shots & for those, one must utilize their subjective perception of the shot & shade somehow off of the base objective visual which does NOT specifically fit the shot at hand.

Please do not critique what I've said above with rhetoric or repeat the same old same old.

Please give a complete & logical, reasonable, critically thought out, non science bending, explanation as to how the alignments from the just the 4 visuals can objectively cover ALL of the required outcome angles of the game when there is only one physical position & alignment that allows for the 'fixing' in place of the CB relative the OB with a given CTE visual.

Thanks in Advance if you are able to comply with my request & Best Wishes.

I have been on the explanation trail for many years as evidenced by my AZ posts, DVDs and YouTube videos.......I will put it ALL together in text book form.....

I have put in nearly one full decade of perceptual work at a table......all of my work is coming out in 2016.

You are unable at this point to last with me even 5 minutes at a table concerning CTE........you are 8 years behind in perceptual experience.

I am going to share with the WHOLE WORLD what to look at and how to align to it.....CTE CTE CTE CTE......

If I had to approach pool conventionally...I'd quit today....YOU are teaching the game incorrectly just as PJ is doing....he is teaching the game the wrong way......

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

I don't blame you for not wanting to get into a discussion with me. It's hard to win when you don't use critical thinking skills, common sense, or logic to make your points. You ask others to use those skills, but when they do, you have no answer to it, and instead resort to just calling them names. Everytime someone says something you have no answer to, you say you won't have a discussion with them anymore.

You are so stuck in your closed-mindedness that when given the definitions of the word "objective", you can't even comprehend what the definition means. And, despite all your googling on it, you can't come up with one definition of it that agrees with your stance on it. So, instead, you come up with totally irrelevant comments like the above about the flat earth to try and sidetrack the issue of your lack of understanding about the subject.

The truth is, you were looking for a magic pill in CTE, and found out that it requires work, and dismissed it. And then, decided to go on a crusade to knock the system just to make yourself feel better about your mistake. And, over the years, no matter how much proof you have been given, you dismiss all of it because, again, it required a little work to even understand.

You start this thread hoping to have others give you some "ammo" to use, because you can not come up with any on your own, and you found out only one person posted anything vaguely considered ammo. He was wrong with his statement, but that didn't stop you from re-posting it a number of times because that is all you had. Then, you had to resort to looking up old posts of people running down CTE to make your case. Really sad. And, if one was to be honest about it, you should have also posted the post where that persons post was totally refuted. But, that doesn't fit your agenda, so you omit that part of the story.

More omniscience when you can't even see the forest for the trees.

Why don't you stop 'attacking' me & do what I just requested from Stan.

You won't... because you can NOT do it.

BUT... you will beg off of doing it with all kinds of excuses that you will call reasons like, 'It's already been done.', 'I'm not going to do your work for you.', 'I would but you won't or can't understand it.' Or something else of the like.

Well... it's not FOR me & neither is this thread.

It's about anyone that is considering CTE that has been intrigued & possibly enticed with the description of it being 'an objective aiming method'.

Well... if you believe that it is such is or 'know' that it is such then do what I've just asked Stan to do.

Go ahead, do what Nike says &, 'Just Do It'.

Best Wishes & I Will Pray Again.

 

[ENGLISH!]

With visual intelligence. A key ingredient you do not yet possess because you won't take it to the table to acquire it. It's akin to you sitting in a basic 5th grade math class and asking how to solve a calculus problem. You first have to learn the basics before you can begin to understand the rest of it.

You demanding to know the higher aspects of CTE without even understanding the basics is not logical, and surely is not using critical thinking skills.

Sorry, but just as I predicted. A cop-out.

It's not for or about me. It's about those considering CTE & are perhaps intrigude & perhaps enticed by the description of 'an objective aiming system' & perhaps due to the objections regarding that description that have been voiced they are sitting on the fence & can just not make themselves pull the trigger & buy & try CTE.

So... do it for them. Give a concise logical objective explanation as to the how & why CTE is an objective aiming system that uses objective visuals to get one on the specific shot line for ALL of the required angles necessary for the game.

That is up to 75 different & distinct outcome angles.

Again... Like Nike says, 'Just Do It'... not for me or PJ or Satorie or 8Pack Anthony or Dan White or TonyTheTiger, etc.

... but do it for all those that you want to help that are sitting on the fence & just can't seem to make themselves buy it.

But please do not come out with anything but a complete concise, reasonable, logical, non science bending explanation that is filled with supposition(s) & conjecture(s) & irrational statements.

I know I am asking for the impossible because such does not exist.

Best Wishes & You Have a Great Day & a Great Weekend.

 

[Neil]

More omniscience when you can't even see the forest for the trees.

Why don't you stop 'attacking' me & do what I just requested from Stan.

You won't... because you can NOT do it.

BUT... you will beg off of doing it with all kinds of excuses that you will call reasons like, 'It's already been done.', 'I'm not going to do your work for you.', 'I would but you won't or can't understand it.' Or something else of the like.

Well... it's not FOR me & neither is this thread.

It's about anyone that is considering CTE that has been intrigued & possibly enticed with the description of it being 'an objective aiming method'.

Well... if you believe that it is such is or 'know' that it is such then do what I've just asked Stan to do.

Go ahead, do what Nike says &, 'Just Do It'.

Best Wishes & I Will Pray Again.

So, now you want to throw logic, common sense, and critical thinking right out the window? Rick, it has been explained to you many times before. You don't understand it because you have nothing to base the explanations on. You want the answers to the test but won't do the work to figure out the answers.

If you really want to understand it, then get your butt on the table, go through the practice drills the DVD says to do, and actually learn the system. Then you will have a basis for asking questions and will have the knowledge to understand the answers.

You blaming me, Stan, or anyone else for your failure to understand is beyond absurd. And is nothing more than a cheap excuse for your laziness to actually do a little work to learn something. You want everything handed to you on a silver platter. Time to grow up, life doesn't work like that. With your attitude, you reap what you sow- years of frustration of not being able to understand or do instead of having something to help your game. It's getting old listening to you cry about not wanting to do the work required.

 

[stan shuffett]

More omniscience when you can't even see the forest for the trees.

Why don't you stop 'attacking' me & do what I just requested from Stan.

You won't... because you can NOT do it.

BUT... you will beg off of doing it with all kinds of excuses that you will call reasons like, 'It's already been done.', 'I'm not going to do your work for you.', 'I would but you won't or can't understand it.' Or something else of the like.

Well... it's not FOR me & neither is this thread.

It's about anyone that is considering CTE that has been intrigued & possibly enticed with the description of it being 'an objective aiming method'.

Well... if you believe that it is such is or 'know' that it is such then do what I've just asked Stan to do.

Go ahead, do what Nike says &, 'Just Do It'.

Best Wishes & I Will Pray Again.

You are not interested in CTE.....you were selected for free training and a sharing of everything CTE and YOU turned it down. You never asked to reschedule.....

Like I said......You can NOT last 5 minutes with me at a table before you are lost! Why, because you do not have the wherewithal to do what I have done at a table....You can toss your math stuff...your logic crap down the drain.....POOL is visual and I know visual.....it about CTE CTE CTE.....get used to it cause it's never going away.

I am going to share additional info that is extremely important to our game! and what do you and what do your cohorts do.......YOU ALL try to stifle my info......and make it go away.

I have worked to share CTE with players everywhere and I am full steam ahead!!!!! PJ and others could have worked to do the same thing but their egos got in theirway........

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

I have been on the explanation trail for many years as evidenced by my AZ posts, DVDs and YouTube videos.......I will put it ALL together in text book form.....

I have put in nearly one full decade of perceptual work at a table......all of my work is coming out in 2016.

You are unable at this point to last with me even 5 minutes at a table concerning CTE........you are 8 years behind in perceptual experience.

I am going to share with the WHOLE WORLD what to look at and how to align to it.....CTE CTE CTE CTE......

If I had to approach pool conventionally...I'd quit today....YOU are teaching the game incorrectly just as PJ is doing....he is teaching the game the wrong way......

Stan Shuffett

Well, again, with all due respect, Sir, that is about what I expected... no such explanation.

I guess the dispute & the discussion & the discourse, etc. will continue until your book comes out & then it will probably pick up as I surmise that if you can not give such an explanation here, you will not be able to give one in your book either.

So I would guess that the turmoil will just rage on in one form or another. That is a shame, as such an explanation from you would certainly seem to quell at least some of, if not most all of, the objections.

Best Wishes & You Have a Great Day & a Great Weekend.

PS Is there an approximate release date for your book?