My Thread... just so I can make some comments on... whatever.

[Neil]

I realize the futility of the situation here.

I would ask you to realize that what has been described as the process does NOT describe 'an objective aiming 'system'.

The description of process does NOT fit the description of what 'an objective aiming system' would be IF one were possible & did exist.

There is a mis-characterization in place. I'm sorry that you can see & understand that.

BUT, I am happy for you at the same time, because you're happy with the way you you are playing while utilizing the process & that is what it is ALL about.

Merry Christmas & Have a Happy New Year & Keep Shooting Well.

Rick, being somewhat religious, and this being Christmas, I am going to give you an example that you should understand very clearly.

While CTE is in no way, shape, or form a religion, it does have at least one similarity to religion. That being, in religion, those that believe are familiar with the verses that state that God is evident in all around us, and that therefore none are without excuse.

The atheist states that there is no proof of a God. Yet, all believers see the evidence for a God all around them, and really don't understand why everyone doesn't. Even though the answer to that is also in the Bible. They don't see the evidence simply because they refuse to see the evidence.

In much the same way, no matter how much evidence you are given, it will never be enough for you simply because you choose to be blind to it. It's not a matter of the evidence not being there, it's just that you refuse to accept the evidence because of the implications of what that would mean.

So, you can decry it all you want to. It doesn't change the fact that the evidence is clearly visible for those that are willing to see it. And, for them, it can be a great benefit to them. Unfortunately, for you, it will never be of any benefit to you for the above reason.

 

[ENGLISH!]

It is extremely obvious that some have no true or real understanding of what OBJECTIVE & OBJECTIVITY is.

The things that they refer to as 'objective' are not even in the realm of what the word can be applied, given the context of the situation.

Hence, They have a FALSE understanding of or...

they are applying a FALSE NARRATIVE of what it is intentionally.

If the premise is FALSE... one can still reach a 'logical' conclusion but that logical conclusion will be a FALSE conclusion because it, the conclusion, is based on a FALSE premise.

Some seem to not understand that it is basically the premise that is in question & under 'debate'.

Three individuals standing ROUGHLY on the ghost ball line is NOT objective. 2 of the 3 or even all 3 may be no where near the exact & true objective ghost ball line. They have made an APPROXIMATION. That's like telling 6 individuals to go outside & stand where they can see the Moon. They will all go outside & ALL 6 will stand in a different position to see the Moon. Now take that down to the door nob on the front door & visualize the different angles that the 6 individuals will be standing on relative to the front wall of the house or to the straight line entry into the house. Now take that down to telling them to stand where they can see the door nob precisely & 'perfectly' round. IF they follow that directive they should all get on the same line & most would but not necessarily.

BUT... how many would bend down so that they could see the door nob as 'perfectly' round with no oval along the horizontal axis? The answer is maybe one out of the six.

That one individual followed the objective directive precisely & objectively. The others did not do so but instead thought that they did & hence they where not in the precise place & spot to see the door nob as objectively round, but instead had their eyes in a subjective position & were seeing the door nob with a different & SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION.

TRY to THINK about that & this.

IF one actually getS one ON the ghost ball line JUST by telling them to do it...

...THEN there would be no need for ANY further directives, instructions, methods, or 'systems'. BECAUSE one would then already be ON THE TRUE OBJECTIVE SHOT LINE. The issue is that the ghost ball is not real & hence not objective.

If you tells 6 individuals to get roughly on the ghost ball line there is an extremely good chance that they will all be on a different line & hence ALL have a different subjective perception of the shot from those different perspectives.

Nothing... no indication has ever been given here to describe what the objective indicator would be for any shot other than those that match the actual alignments of the simultaneous seeing of the CTE & Edge to lines... that are supposed to be objective & hence fix the cue ball & it's center.

By that, I mean IF shot #1 is a TRUE ETA with inside thinning pivot...

then what is the objective indicator for shot #5 that is approximately 25* more cut?

IF ETA with the precise 1/2 tip inside pivot yields the angle for shot #1 & THAT is objective...

Then how can the same yield the angle for shot #5... objectively?

Please consider these questions as rhetorical as I realize that no one, as of yet, has been capable or willing to give any realistic answers given the seemingly complete lack of any true understanding of what is meant by the terms OBJECTIVE & OBJECTIVITY.

Saying move until you see the 'perception' for the shot is NOT any kind of objective instruction & is based on NO OBJECTIVE VISUAL INDICATOR.

The reason is because the balls do NOT present themselves in ANY different manner that yield the definitive points & lines being any different for shot #1 than they do for shot #5 or any other shot for that matter.

For the process to be considered objective there can be NO opportunity to go off into one's own subjectivity & that is simply not the case once one leaves the line that seeing the two objective lines simultaneously puts one on.

That is unless there is another definitive objective indicator that tells one how far off to move for the specific shot at hand. That has never been given.

It seems that there has been a false premise accepted in that where one sees the lines simultaneously is different relative to the balls depending on where they are on the table. That is a false premise & perhaps a false assumption being made by some if not many.

If one sees those lines from an offset then one has left the spot that the objectivity of the lines has placed them on.

When leaving that spot of objectivity one then goes into a subjective perception of those lines, unless there is another objective indicator that tells them where to stop moving & hone in on that new objective indicator to place them in the new & different position.

If anyone thinks that the CTE & Edge to lines are different & can only be seen from different positions relative to the balls depending on where they are on the table they are mistaken. That quite simply is NOT the case. One can not legitimately bend science & it's truths.

I think THAT is the crux of the matter. The truth of science vs a false premise.

Then... we have not even gotten into the subjectivity in application of the supposedly specifically defined 1/2 tip 'pivot' or visual sweep.

For those interested please read this at least twice as it is intended as food for thought.

Merry Christmas to ALL.

 

[oldmanatc]

In the attached image there is an extremely limited range of view in which an observer can percieve both the 3 dimensional image and the womans hand seeming to pet the deer's back. The perceotions for CTE similarly can only be viewed from an extremely limited range. So limited in fact that when the steps are executed properly the object ball will fall in a pocket.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

 

[gregcantrall]

It is extremely obvious Long winded rhetorical drivel deleted.........................

For those interested please read this at least twice as it is intended as food for thought.

Merry Christmas to ALL.

Thank you for the laugh. Literally Laughed Out Loud.

I could do no more than skim through it the first time. I did find the laugh I was looking for at the end though.

Merry Christmas!!!!:thumbup:

 

[cookie man]

Here's the problem:

Stan shows a video where 5 balls are pocketed at various cut angles. To pocket each ball he uses the same set of "visual lines," which in that video were CTE and ETA. To a lay person this does not seem feasible because if you do the same thing for each of the shots, only one shot can possibly come close to being pocketed. It is like shooting straight in shots on all balls scattered around the table. If you shoot each ball straight, a few of them might actually be pocketed because they happen to be straight in shots.

When CTE users attempt to address the confusion, we get vague answers, and private messages saying they don't really know why it works but it does. Cookie just said he does the same thing for all shots but uses a different perception for each shot. When he says "perception" is he referring to the visuals I mentioned above, or is he referring to the "perception" Stan uses in the 5 shot video where he uses the same visuals and different perceptions to pocket 5 balls at varying shot angles? If so, WTF is a "perception" if it is not the same thing as a visual?

The other answer I have received, which I can at least understand, is that you just have to keep doing the CTE method over and over for a couple of weeks and eventually everything will "click in" and you will perceive everything to look like the same shot.

So when these answers are challenged by skeptical people (who, by the way, in many cases would be delighted if the system worked as advertised), the CTE supporters "go to" response is that you are either 1) too lazy to give CTE a real try, 2) you are unqualified to have an opinion because you can't shoot 3 balls, and my favorite, 3) "You are a hater and I will never answer another question from you" (or some variation thereof).

CTE users believe the system works as advertised. Skeptics believe the system gets the player in the general vicinity of the pocket, sometimes, but it is something else, like subconscious adjustments, that are responsible for the actual pocketing of the ball.

So now you are up to speed on the last 20 years of discussion.

The common denominater is the skeptics have never bothered to learn the system.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Rick, being somewhat religious, and this being Christmas, I am going to give you an example that you should understand very clearly.

While CTE is in no way, shape, or form a religion, it does have at least one similarity to religion. That being, in religion, those that believe are familiar with the verses that state that God is evident in all around us, and that therefore none are without excuse.

The atheist states that there is no proof of a God. Yet, all believers see the evidence for a God all around them, and really don't understand why everyone doesn't. Even though the answer to that is also in the Bible. They don't see the evidence simply because they refuse to see the evidence.

In much the same way, no matter how much evidence you are given, it will never be enough for you simply because you choose to be blind to it. It's not a matter of the evidence not being there, it's just that you refuse to accept the evidence because of the implications of what that would mean.

So, you can decry it all you want to. It doesn't change the fact that the evidence is clearly visible for those that are willing to see it. And, for them, it can be a great benefit to them. Unfortunately, for you, it will never be of any benefit to you for the above reason.

The blind hypocrisy regarding yourself in this post is astounding.

It seems that you also do not know the meaning of the words believe & belief. I already knew that you have no clue as to what proof is & is not as you have shown such many many times.

You think many things are 'proof' when they are actually more 'proof' in the other direction than what you intend.

It is you that is believing in the objectivity of "IT" with absolutely no proof of it. It fact, you have to ignore the contrary proof in order to still allow yourself to believe in "IT" as described as objective.

That is IF you are genuine & not being disingenuous in what you proffer.

Your analogy of a simple physical aiming process in pool to the debate regarding the existence of God & a Creator is totally inapplicable as are so very many many of your other analogies.

If there was intellectual proof that God the Creator exists then atheists would acknowledge it. There is none & that is why it is necessary to believe.

Jesus said, 'for whomever BELIEVES in Me'. If proof where intended then Jesus would have remained here & shown His resurrected self continually as proof.

What you have talked about is the why Believers can not understand why atheists do not BELIEVE. But as usual you misstate the situation.

With every post that you make you convince me more & more that the term used to describe you by a management member is totally accurate.

You continue to stalk me & make 'attacks' upon me. You never post anything of any REAL substance regarding the debate at hand other than nonsensical analogies & misinterpretations of the actual terms involved.

As I have said before, you have rendered yourself irrelevant & insignificant to this 'debate' & actually many others as well.

Why direct your comments to me or even mention me?

Why don't you give a detailed description of just what makes "IT" an objective aiming system but do so while staying within the normal meanings of the word in the context of an objective visual object or objects that takes one to & puts one's stick ON the actual shot line. That way any neutral reader can make their own determination.

You won't because you can not, because there is no such animal.

So... instead you continue to attack me while exuding exorbitant amounts of hypocrisy.

It's like some others have said, it's you projecting yourself out & onto me more than anything else.

Merry Christmas.

PS1 Before you go off of hypocritically accusing ME of 'attacking' you, I think it is very evident that I am responding to your illogical 'attacks' on ME.

I've been asked to ignore you & I've been asked why it seems that I can not do so. The answer is because of all of the flat out untruths that you put out in such an arrogant manner, either knowingly & willingly or inadvertently due to a lack of knowledge regarding the truth of matters. I will try to do a better a job of totally ignoring you & perhaps they will better see that it is YOU that is the problem.

PS2 Then there is the hypocrisy of those that complain about detractors going into & disrupting the positive thread regarding "IT". Well take a look at where each of you are in this thread.

 

[Dan White]

It is obvious as other have stated (and I'm sorry to repeat myself) that you clearly dont understand the system. I apologize for not decribing it, but the info is available to those who actually wish to learn 'it'.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

I'll put you down for reply #1. :thumbup:

From my prior post:
So when these answers are challenged by skeptical people (who, by the way, in many cases would be delighted if the system worked as advertised), the CTE supporters "go to" response is that you are either 1) too lazy to give CTE a real try, 2) you are unqualified to have an opinion because you can't shoot 3 balls, and my favorite, 3) "You are a hater and I will never answer another question from you" (or some variation thereof).

 

[ENGLISH!]

View attachment 406508 In the attached image there is an extremely limited range of view in which an observer can percieve both the 3 dimensional image and the womans hand seeming to pet the deer's back. The perceotions for CTE similarly can only be viewed from an extremely limited range. So limited in fact that when the steps are executed properly the object ball will fall in a pocket.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

That's not true, but that in no way defines "IT" as objective. The woman or another could move her head to a different location & that would require her hand to be moved to a different location OR... she could move her hand & that would require that her head & eyes be moved to a different location. There are an endless number of locations & lines here that would yielded that same or similar looking results. It's analogies like these that are not actually comparative to "IT" that indicate & show a lack of understanding. Sorry.

That "range" is where one's subjectivity is allowed to enter & indeed must enter, in order to pocket the ball based on an objective view that will not pocket the ball IF shot ONLY based on that objective view of the defined lines & the fixed center cue ball of such.

As I've said, there are at least 25 separate & distinct 'center pocket shots' between shot # 1 & shot #5 & there are NOT 25 separate & distinct objective indicators.

As always just food for thought.

 

[Dan White]

The common denominater is the skeptics have never bothered to learn the system.

Another answer #1 I'd say. :grin:

What is so hard about visualizing CTE and ETA, getting down on the shot from that position without moving the head sideways, placing the tip and bridge 1/2 tip offset, and then pivoting to CCB? It took me about 3 minutes to learn how to do that 10 years ago from Hal. (except Hal didn't have the ETA).

Can you explain how I can get the CTE/ETA visual from two different standing positions? If that could be explained the CTE wars would cease. Even if it were something like, "You can't do it, but if you move your head to the left eventually it will look right. Then you can pivot and shoot." At least in this case I'd have something I could try to make work. Instead, all we have is Stan saying, "Not yet, not yet, noooooot yeeeeet. There! Perfect!"

from my earlier post:
So when these answers are challenged by skeptical people (who, by the way, in many cases would be delighted if the system worked as advertised), the CTE supporters "go to" response is that you are either 1) too lazy to give CTE a real try, 2) you are unqualified to have an opinion because you can't shoot 3 balls, and my favorite, 3) "You are a hater and I will never answer another question from you" (or some variation thereof).

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The perceptions for [aiming by feel] can only be viewed from an extremely limited range. So limited in fact that when the steps are executed properly the object ball will fall in a pocket.

True for this, too. In other words, you haven't really said anything.

pj
chgo

 

[oldmanatc]

No argument here. For some of us CTE is just a more consistent method of arriving at the same spot. Its apparently not the case for all. I'd be disappointed too if I bought the dvd and that alone wasn't enough to allow me to grasp the concept. But that clearly isnt the argument being discussed. My only intent posting here is that someone reading these threads who would otherwise be willing to attempt to learn CTE can at least see by testimony that 'it' does work and work well for many that use it.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

 

[Neil]

Well, Rick, I was hoping for a change, but you performed just as expected. When confronted with what you know to be the truth, instead of manning up and admitting it, you instead accuse me of attacking you and then proceed to call me names and even state that a moderator has called me names in the hopes of that somehow bolstering your statement.

You obviously spent no time thinking about what I wrote. But, instead only spent time trying to find ways to dismiss the truth. You even misquote the Bible in your feeble attempt to alter the truth. Shame on you.

Your comments on why I was wrong are not even very well thought out at all. In fact, the are amazingly poorly thought out and ridiculous. Such as you stating that if a number of people are told to stand on the APPROXIMATE ghost ball line, some will not be on the actual ghost ball line. Well, DUH!!! I didn't state for them to be on the exact line, so of course most will not be on the exact line. Therefore, if they shot, most would miss.

Saying that is not objective, only showcases that you will reach to any low of understanding just to try and make your case. If you told ten people to go stand behind the car, that would be an objective statement. Yet, not all ten would be standing in the exact same spot. No difference in the objectivity of that statement and standing app. on the ghost ball line. As you well know, but will not ever admit because then you would have to admit the truth which you are no longer capable of.

Being Christmas, even though all you deserved was a lump of coal, I gave you the truth. Merry Christmas. The fact that you want to complain about it and piss all over it is your problem.

 

[cookie man]

Can you explain how I can get the CTE/ETA visual from two different standing positions? If that could be explained the CTE wars would cease. )[/I].

It's been explained over and over.
Now, learn the system

 

[cookie man]

True for this, too. In other words, you haven't really said anything.

pj
chgo

but you act like you have lol

 

[Dan White]

It's been explained over and over.
Now, learn the system

I must have missed the post where somebody explained how you can get the same visual (CTE ETA) from two different starting positions (ie, near ghost ball starting position). I think it was mohrt who came close to an actual explanation when he said after awhile it just starts to look like the same visual. I may have that wrong because the explanations are so difficult to follow. Can you help me out by just reposting what you consider to be an answer (I'm serious)?

As far as learning the system, what did I get wrong when I posted:
What is so hard about visualizing CTE and ETA, getting down on the shot from that position without moving the head sideways, placing the tip and bridge 1/2 tip offset, and then pivoting to CCB?

Here's a clear, straightforward explanation of the ghost ball method:
First set up a cut shot at any reasonable angle. Place a ball frozen to the object ball so that that placed ball is on the line from the object ball to the pocket (in other words, freeze the two balls so they point to the pocket). Go to the cue ball and get down on the shot so that the cue ball is pointing at that frozen ball. That is your aim point. Remove the frozen ball and keep that image in mind so that the cue ball replaces that ball. You will find that the object ball will miss fat due to throw. You will have to hit balls slightly thinner than the ghost ball tells you until you get a natural feel for throw. Eventually your brain will take the throw into account and the ghost ball aim point will send the object ball into the pocket.

Why can't we have the same explanation of how you can see the same CTE visuals from two different starting positions? Is the answer really to just keep looking at it and eventually everything will look like a CTE ETA visual?

 

[skip100]

Here's a clear, straightforward explanation of the ghost ball method:
First set up a cut shot at any reasonable angle. Place a ball frozen to the object ball so that that placed ball is on the line from the object ball to the pocket (in other words, freeze the two balls so they point to the pocket). Go to the cue ball and get down on the shot so that the cue ball is pointing at that frozen ball. That is your aim point. Remove the frozen ball and keep that image in mind so that the cue ball replaces that ball. You will find that the object ball will miss fat due to throw. You will have to hit balls slightly thinner than the ghost ball tells you until you get a natural feel for throw. Eventually your brain will take the throw into account and the ghost ball aim point will send the object ball into the pocket.

I'm sold Where should I send the check?

 

[oldmanatc]

Dan i didn't get much time at the table last night and i will continue to explore further. I cant speak for what others have said in the past but to me, if you could see the same perception on the same shot from multiple angles, then executing the same steps would result in at least one wrong shot line and the system would fail. In my limited attempts last night I couldnt find any place off of the CTE line where i could see bothe CTE and ET*. The CTE line is always going to be close to the GBL (only a 1/2 tip pivot away).

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

 

[cookie man]

I must have missed the post where somebody explained how you can get the same visual (CTE ETA) from two different starting positions (ie, near ghost ball starting position). I think it was mohrt who came close to an actual explanation when he said after awhile it just starts to look like the same visual. I may have that wrong because the explanations are so difficult to follow. Can you help me out by just reposting what you consider to be an answer (I'm serious)?

As far as learning the system, what did I get wrong when I posted:
What is so hard about visualizing CTE and ETA, getting down on the shot from that position without moving the head sideways, placing the tip and bridge 1/2 tip offset, and then pivoting to CCB?

Here's a clear, straightforward explanation of the ghost ball method:
First set up a cut shot at any reasonable angle. Place a ball frozen to the object ball so that that placed ball is on the line from the object ball to the pocket (in other words, freeze the two balls so they point to the pocket). Go to the cue ball and get down on the shot so that the cue ball is pointing at that frozen ball. That is your aim point. Remove the frozen ball and keep that image in mind so that the cue ball replaces that ball. You will find that the object ball will miss fat due to throw. You will have to hit balls slightly thinner than the ghost ball tells you until you get a natural feel for throw. Eventually your brain will take the throw into account and the ghost ball aim point will send the object ball into the pocket.

Why can't we have the same explanation of how you can see the same CTE visuals from two different starting positions? Is the answer really to just keep looking at it and eventually everything will look like a CTE ETA visual?

Stan explains it very well on the dvd, in personal lessons, and for free on you tube videos.
Why don't you start by considering them visuals, and not same visuals from two different starting spots. Think about it, we don't start by judging angles. Starting spots mean nothing, visuals mean everything.
Who cares about GB where you have to constantly adjust,lol.

 

[Dan White]

Stan explains it very well on the dvd, in personal lessons, and for free on you tube videos.
Why don't you start by considering them visuals, and not same visuals from two different starting spots. Think about it, we don't start by judging angles. Starting spots mean nothing, visuals mean everything.]

Well it seems I'm not going to get a straight answer unless I buy the DVD, and I've been told it isn't there, either. OK, let me try to follow what you are saying. I'm going to get in the approximate ghost ball position first and then instead of trying to fit the ETA visual to the cb-ob-pocket relationship I should instead choose whatever set of visuals that kind of match up with what I am looking at?

Who cares about GB where you have to constantly adjust,lol.

That's something I found rather amusing if I can be so bold to comment on. In one of Stan's videos he shoots a shot using ghost ball estimation. He puts his bridge hand on the table and kind of bounces it around as if he is having trouble finding the right spot to put his hand, like searching for a quarter under the couch. C'mon who's he kidding?... There is no estimation when you learn ghost ball. If you work at ghost ball for as long as it seems you need to work on CTE (has JB finally learned CTE yet?) you will know exactly how to aim the shot without thinking about it.

 

[cookie man]

Well it seems I'm not going to get a straight answer unless I buy the DVD, and I've been told it isn't there, either. OK, let me try to follow what you are saying. I'm going to get in the approximate ghost ball position first and then instead of trying to fit the ETA visual to the cb-ob-pocket relationship I should instead choose whatever set of visuals that kind of match up with what I am looking at?

No not what i said. Seems people keep comparing shot 1 to shot 5 and
sighting eta and ctel the same. Each shot is unique. Approach them like they are. Shot 1 really has nothing to do with shot 5. You wont understand because you've never bothered to learn how the visuals work. Forget shot 5 and just learn how the visuals work for shot 1.