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

[stan shuffett]

Oh yeah... the book.

You are too smart to need the book.

There will be thousands that will appreciate my work in book form.

Stan Shuffett

 

[JB Cases]

Well, I won't get into that. Let me just say that as someone not "immersed in it" as you say, the video is not effective. I think you have to already understand the concept in order for the video to make any sense, which of course defeats the purpose of creating an educational video.

I don't agree, the video is primarily for those of us who have been studying the method for a while and have been training our perceptions and visual acuity as pertains to CTE aiming.

I know that many people try to pick up CTE "for free" through the videos and with the benefit of of experience on my side I can say that all the information to do that IS inside Stan's free videos.

But it isn't "there" for anyone who is skimming and looking for a magic bullet method of aiming. Especially when trying to learn it from the support videos a major requirement is lots of table time going through the concepts presented. I am sorry but it's my experience that very very very few people are willing or able to give up that time.

In my new training room I will be able to put up videos on the big screen right at table side and go over them moment by moment with those interested in learning CTE. I think it's difficult to understand the concepts when not at the table to work through them and when one doesn't have a proper foundation to build on.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Ok, so if you use the cte line to position your body to the shot that line comes through the center of the CB and out the back facing the shooter. That's objective in that every shooter can find the CTEL and get on it.

If you then map the actual ghost ball line (the actual shot line) you will find that this line converges with the cte line in the center of the cb and then exists the back of the cb towards the shooter.

At the exit point the real shot line is literally less than .5mm away from the CTE line.

That's a fact regardless of what the cut angle is. I say less than because I don't have the measurements for all possible angles.

This video however demonstrates the point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nETWcUmJsgs

Now, beyond that, the difference in body placement for each perception is very slight. I will cover this in depth at some point on video. It is however consistent in that any CTE user will end up with their body and bridge in the same place if the instructions are understood and followed.

Yes, any given perception used on any given shot can only produce ONE outcome. But as demonstrated the SAME perception can work on many different shots because each shot is a single task unrelated to any other shot.

I know you are hung up on the five shots from one position video. It's funny but we both drew opposite conclusions from this. You drew the conclusion that there must be fudging happening and I drew the conclusion that CTE works for real based on those multi-shot videos. I know that you understand that Stan and Gerry are both calling out DIFFERENT perceptions/solutions for each shot.

Thus their body position IS different for each shot. The steps however remain the same, use the CTE line for initial orientation, choose a perception and a pivot, sweep in and go to center cue ball. The difference for each shot IS the perception used. It's not a guess or an estimation but instead a hard choice based on practiced division of the object ball into four pieces yielding three points to align/aim to, A, B, C.

The fact that the shooter doesn't know if the shot line he is led to is "right" should be a proof of some sort to the objectivity of the system.

(of course over time the more shots are taken the more that "shot pictures" are formed so you have a chicken/egg scenario where having landed on the correct shot line so often through CTE now the shooter has a just see it picture of the right shot line as well)

The difference is that there is no real trial and error. It's simply correct choice vs. incorrect choice. Because out of the four perceptions and tossing out the few shots where two perceptions are functionally the same, the shooter can literally eliminate at least two right away and is left with two to choose from. Choose wrong and you try again with the other one and it's right.

No, little thinner, little thicker, thinner, thinner......figuring out how to hit the shot. Simply choose a perception and shoot and be either right or wrong. If wrong use the other one and be right and then you literally own it from then on, assuming you can remember it.

BUT if you practice enough then you learn to recognize immediately which perception is the right one right away and thus can just move into the shot fluidly. That's when it becomes second nature and literally no one can tell what the shooter is doing to aim.

The move until you see it isn't subjective, it's literally MOVE until you can perceive the lines clearly. Those lines are connections that IF drawn are literally in the same place for everyone and this is exactly why it takes all the illusion out of aiming.

So the only subjectivity comes in the initial training phase where the shooter learns to see the lines where they are rather than to superimpose old aiming habits on top of CTE. That bias which precedes a paradigm shift can be very subjective. Once the shift to seeing what IS there properly happens though then it's pretty much all objective from there. There is no step beyond that where the shooter has to guess at anything when deciding where to put the cue down in preparation to shoot.

John,

Your 'reverse engineering' is interesting, but how did you make a measurement of such a small amount of 1/2 of ONE (1) mm on the the sphere of the CB. I see that you say less than, so I would surmise that the largest difference would be with the two balls virtually touching as the difference would be dependent on the differences in distances between the two balls.

I don't really get the point you're trying to make with this.

But your statements regarding the 'perceptions' of the visual being single shot dependent makes no sense.

Picture the 3 or 5 parallel shots.

The OBs & CBs are equal distance apart from shot 1 to shot 2 to shot 3 etc. as are the centers, edges, & A points.

Hence when one 'places' the lines between the relevant points they too will be an equal distance apart from the previous shot & hence so will the vision center of the shooter that allows one to see the lines objectively.

So, objectively the shooter must be in the same physical position relative to the balls in order to even see the visual & fix the CB.

That is simply a scientific fact.

That has been the issue.

So... what is there that is objective visually that would cause the shooter to need to be in a different physical position in order to see that same visual?

Some of us know that there can be no real answer when we ask that, because we know that there is nothing that causes that.

Hence, no answer has ever been presented because there is no logical real answer because the proposition of a different OBJECTIVE perception is not dictated by anything objective.

It's probably just the desire & intention to get more or less angle than the true objective visual would yield. So... one fudges or one shades subconsciously & that is subjective or the pivot amount is subconsciously fudged or the cue is steered.

If you were hypnotized & told to not realize any fudging you would not.

Perhaps that's it. There are subliminal messages in the DVD's.:wink:

Best Wishes.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

Your 'reverse engineering' is interesting, but how did you make a measurement of such a small amount of 1/2 of ONE (1) mm on the the sphere of the CB. I see that you say less than, so I would surmise that the largest difference would be with the two balls virtually touching as the difference would be dependent on the differences in distances between the two balls.

I don't really get the point you're trying to make with this.

But your statements regarding the 'perceptions' of the visual being single shot dependent makes no sense.

Picture the 3 or 5 parallel shots.

The OBs & CBs are equal distance apart from shot 1 to shot 2 to shot 3 etc. as are the centers, edges, & A points.

Hence when one 'places' the lines between the relevant points they too will be an equal distance apart from the previous shot & hence so will the vision center of the shooter that allows one to see the lines objectively.

So, objectively the shooter must be in the same physical position relative to the balls in order to even see the visual & fix the CB.

That is simply a scientific fact.

That has been the issue.

So... what is there that is objective visually that would cause the shooter to need to be in a different physical position in order to see that same visual?

Some of us know that there can be no real answer when we ask that, because we know that there is nothing that causes that.

Hence, no answer has ever been presented because there is no logical real answer because the proposition of a different OBJECTIVE perception is not dictated by anything objective.

It's probably just the desire & intention to get more or less angle than the true objective visual would yield. So... one fudges or one shades subconsciously & that is subjective or the pivot amount is subconsciously fudged or the cue is steered.

If you were hypnotized & told to not realize any fudging you would not.

Perhaps that's it. There are subliminal messages in the DVD's.:wink:

Best Wishes.

Which I then took to the table.

 

[ENGLISH!]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Okay... John,

Do you realize that due to friction & collision induced throw those balls won't pocket as lined up unless there is enough speed or spin to negate the CIT. We don't play pool in a book nor in a sterile vacuum laboratory.

But, what's your point?

Also IF the variance, let's say averages about 1/4 of ONE(1) mm on the shooters side of the ball what is that variance at the end of the cue stick or at the point well off the table where one stands tall & eyes the shot.

But again, what's your point?

Also, move the CB 1/2 ball to the left of the shots or toward the top of the page & then what do you get? Is it not much different edge to B lines?

But again, whats your point?

How about putting the CB near the top left corner where the 1st. ball would be a straight shot, then how much variance in cue stick angle would be required for the other shots?

But again, what's your point?

But...more importantly, what do you have to say regarding my correct premise regarding the 3 or 5 parallel shots & how there is NOTHING OBJECTIVE that would force the shooter into a different physical position to see the same visual.

You seemed to have ignored that & want to talk around it & instead want to talk about what seems to be a rather meaningless diagram & YOUR WORK regarding it.

Best Wishes.

PS What's up with the huge tip representation that is certainly not to scale & is supposed to be for size comparison?

 

[stan shuffett]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Okay... John,

Do you realize that due to friction & collision induced throw those balls won't pocket as lined up. We don't play pool in a book nor in a sterile vacuum laboratory.

But, what's your point?

Also IF the variance, let's say averages about 1/4 of ONE(1) mm on the shooters side of the ball what is that variance at the end of the cue stick or at the point well off the table where one stands tall & eyes the shot.

But again, what's you point?

Also, move the CB 1/2 ball to the left of the shot or toward the top of the page & then what do you get?

But again, what's your point?

But, more importantly, what do you say about my correct premise regarding the 3 or 5 parallel shots & how there is nothing objective that would force the shooter into a different physical position to see the same visual.

You seemed to have ignored that & want to talk around it & instead want to talk about what seems to be a rather meaningless diagram & YOUR WORK regarding it.

Best Wishes.

PS What's up with the huge tip representation that is certainly not to scale & is supposed to be for size comparison?

All 5 shots go with 15 inside and there is an objective anchor for each shot.....

Over the years spanning DVD1, DVD2, and YouTube I have miscalled a few video shots, perhaps 5, maybe less. Not a bad record, considering the zillion possibilities on a table. But I can assure you this much.....THE FIVE OR THE THREE are not included in that minute grouping of miscalled visuals.

It is practically impossible for me to miscall a shot as there are no inbetweeners. Makes it super easy.....

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

All 5 shots go with 15 inside and there is an objective anchor for each shot.....

Over the years spanning DVD1, DVD2, and YouTube I have miscalled a few video shots, perhaps 5, maybe less. Not a bad record, considering the zillion possibilities on a table. But I can assure you this much.....THE FIVE OR THE THREE are not included in that minute grouping of miscalled visuals.

Stan Shuffett

With all due respect,

You saying so without any logical, reasonable, non science bending explanation as to the what & why is basically meaningless & useless to all that have a different understanding of the facts, have doubts, or are having trouble making what you say so for them, etc.

It seems to be a simple question, but I & others know that there is no real answer to the question & that is why none is ever given, no matter how many times it is asked by any number of individuals.

No disrespect, but you giving me you're assurance is meaningless to me. Some individuals like myself & like the other individuals involved in this dispute do NOT go by blind faith on certain, most all, subject matters.

So... I will politely ask again, IF there is something OBJECTIVE that forces the shooter to be in a different physical position in order to see the same visual for each of the 3 or 5 parallel shots... WHAT IS IT?

I, Satori, Anthony, PJ, Dan & I'm sure others are in the same physical place relative to the balls when we see the CTE & ETA lines simultaneously & get a fixed CB & hence the same outcome angle for each shot & hence they all do not pocket nor even come close.

Thanks in advance for a kind reply & answer.

Best Wishes.

PS if there is an individual objective 'anchor' for each shot what is it or what are they?

 

[stan shuffett]

With all due respect,

You saying so without any logical, reasonable, non science bending explanation as to the what & why is basically meaningless & useless to all that have a different understanding of the facts, have doubts, or are having trouble making what you say so for them, etc.

It seems to be a simple question, but I & others know that there is no real answer to the question & that is why none is ever given, no matter how many times it is asked by any number of individuals.

No disrespect, but you giving me you're assurance is meaningless to me. Some individuals like myself & like the other individuals involved in this dispute do NOT go by blind faith on certain, most all, subject matters.

So... I will politely ask again, IF there is something OBJECTIVE that forces the shooter to be in a different physical position in order to see the same visual for each of the 3 or 5 parallel shots... WHAT IS IT?

I, Satori, Anthony, PJ, Dan & I'm sure others are in the same physical place relative to the balls when we see the CTE & ETA lines simultaneously & get a fixed CB & hence the same outcome angle for each shot & hence they all do not pocket nor even come close.

Thanks in advance for a kind reply & answer.

Best Wishes.

Why would I want to share anything here with you? Your whole mission is to discredit CTE PRO ONE. This could be a great place for me to share and teach CTE but the community here can thank the handful you listed as to why I do not care to
present my work here........

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

Why would I want to share anything here with you? Your whole mission is to discredit CTE PRO ONE. This could be a great place for me to share and teach CTE but the community here can thank the handful you listed as to why I do not care to
present my work here........

Stan Shuffett

With all due respect.

This is exactly what we have come to expect.

No answer to what is probably the most substantive & significant question being asked about it.

One that IF actually answered in a logical, reasonable, non science bending manner, would most probably put an end to most. if not ALL, of the hub bub regarding the description.

Yet, you make excuses & refuse to give that answer.

I think most individuals can make their own determination with regards to those facts.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

PS1 I have not been, nor am I trying to discredit anything. I & others simply want the truth. Rather many obviously think that they are successfully using CTE as & for the reason that it is described.

That has never been proven & the ONLY way to do so is through a logical, reasonable, critically thought out, non science bending explanation as to why the description of an 'objective aiming system' would be & is accurate.

To my knowledge, such an explanation has never been given.

PS2 Anyone inclined to buy & try CTE should certain do as they wish, but should do so with the knowledge of the above & knowing that the description of an 'objective aiming system' is under question by a number of individuals. I think Dr. Dave is not on board with that description & he has some rather significant science credentials.

PS3 I was at one time rather intrigued with the description of an 'objective aiming system'. I found a rather significant question regarding the validity of that description. If that question could & would be answered in an appropriate manner, I would most probably be a convert & would advocate for & 'promote' it. But... that seems extremely unlikely since it seems that no such answer will be forth coming from any CTE advocate or supporter & not even from the man that is selling it.

 

[stan shuffett]

With all due respect.

This is exactly what we have come to expect.

No answer to what is probably the most substantive & significant question being asked about it.

One that IF actually answered in a logical, reasonable, non science bending manner, would most probably put an end to most. if not ALL, of the hub bub regarding the description.

Yet, you make excuses & refuse to give that answer.

I think most individuals can make their own determination with regards to those facts.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

PS1 I have not been, nor am I trying to discredit anything. I & others simply want the truth. Rather many obviously think that they are successfully using CTE as & for the reason that it is described.

That has never been proven & the ONLY way to do so is through a logical, reasonable, critically thought out, non science bending explanation as to why the description of an 'objective aiming system' would be & is accurate.

To my knowledge, such an explanation has never been given.

PS2 Anyone inclined to buy & try CTE should certain do as they wish, but should do so with the knowledge of the above & knowing that the description of an 'objective aiming system' is under question by a number of individuals. I think Dr. Dave is not on board with that description & he has some rather significant science credentials.

PS3 I was at one time rather intrigued with the description of an 'objective aiming system'. I found a rather significant question regarding the validity of that description. If that question could & would be answered in an appropriate manner, I would most probably be a convert & would advocate for & 'promote' it. But... that seems extremely unlikely since it seems that no such answer will be forth coming from any CTE advocate or supporter & not even from the man that is selling it.

You were invited for free training and turned it down......I call BS on your motivation.......

Honestly, I do not even think you are a pool player.........I think you are a hack!

Put up a video explaining CTE as I teach it.....show a gap or two.

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

You were invited for free training and turned it down......I call BS on your motivation.......

Honestly, I do not even think you are a pool player.........I think you are a hack!

Put up a video explaining CTE as I teach it.....show a gap or two.

Stan Shuffett

Sir,

Perhaps you should read more posts in the threads.

I've already given a complete explanation regarding the timing of your invitation & my ruptured disc, traveling, etc. & my subsequent change of mind supported by your 5 shots perception video.

This is just more of the same old same old 'attack' the messenger to avoid the subject.

No real answer put forth.

I think this too can be very telling to any intelligent reader here.

'Attacking the messenger' is a last ditch tactic of the side desperately losing a logical debate or contrary discussion.

Any intelligent individual would ask the question, 'Why not just give the answer & put the matter to rest?'

Then they would make their own conclusions when they see that no logical, non science bending answer is ever given.

Best Wishes to You & All.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I have not been, nor am I trying to discredit anything. I & others simply want the truth.

The TRUTH has been given to you thousands of times by a good number of individuals who have either learned from the DVDs and youtube videos or gone to Stan at his studio for private lessons.

BUT... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA

You want to pray for everyone else on here...pray for yourself to set an appointment with a well known psychiatrist to do something with your obsessive behavior.

There really is a serious mental imbalance going on if THIS SUBJECT overrides all the normal activities and thoughts one should have at your stage and age in life.
GET A REAL LIFE and GET HELP! (with all due respect)

 

[ENGLISH!]

I would kindly ask that everyone please note that I was engaged in an exchange with John Barton when Mr. Shuffett interjected himself into that exchange.

 

[cookie man]

I would kindly ask that everyone please note that I was engaged in an exchange with John Barton when Mr. Shuffett interjected himself into that exchange.

It's an open pool forum.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I would kindly ask that everyone please note that I was engaged in an exchange with John Barton when Mr. Shuffett interjected himself into that exchange.

Everyone has noted a long time ago that you're continuously engaged in an exchange with ALL THE GARGOYLES, DEMONS, and CRAZIES that roam around constantly in your addled mind.

 

[cookie man]

Well, I won't get into that. Let me just say that as someone not "immersed in it" as you say, the video is not effective. I think you have to already understand the concept in order for the video to make any sense, which of course defeats the purpose of creating an educational video.

Educational video's are made to increase knowledge of a subject. If you were already up to speed on said
subject then subsequent video's are very helpful.

 

[cookie man]

With all due respect.



T.

You have shown ZERO respect to anyone

 

[cookie man]

OK Neil. This is about as straightforward a post as I've seen on how to use CTE. It doesn't get us all the way there, though. I've put in bold the phrases that I picked up on and that I'd like to ask you to expand on if you would.

For the purposes of this post, I don't care if something is objective or not.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. If I read the bold sections above I conclude that "visual intelligence" is simply knowing enough about pocketing balls to know where to stand so that if you hit the cue ball the object ball would go somewhere near the pocket, if not in. Cookie man also said you have to stand in the approximate correct position to start the process. Then you say from this vantage point you look for the CTE/ETA lines to fine tune the actual aim point, and then do a pivot. This is where you lose me. When I stand in the approximate spot to pocket the ball ("visual intelligence") and then try to apply the visual, I find that I cannot make a CTE/ETA visual work even if that is supposed to be the correct visual because I'm standing in a place that won't allow me to see the CTE/ETA unless I do something ridiculous like bend sideways. What am I doing wrong?

Move to where you can see it, pretty simple.

 

[cookie man]

As I understand it, CTE is the line from the center of the cue ball to the edge of the object ball, otherwise known as a half-ball hit. Your statement implies that all shots are half-ball hits. No?

No, you never even think about half ball hits. You really are lost on CTE. If you are serious seek personal instruction

 

[cookie man]

Stan - the feedback I get even from your followers is that they don't really know what you are talking about. Isn't there possibly a different way to illustrate how different ball positions on the table (ie, red, yellow, green oversized balls) lead to different perceptions of the same visuals?

Not feedback from me