Just like I said you would do, and like you have done every time, you just try to change the subject and misdirect things away from having to provide any evidence for all your silly claims. Where is any evidence to support any of your silly claims? Years later everyone is still waiting. Heck, where is the video of this Corey test that you are now citing as the holy grail?
How far was the notebook from the cue ball in that test? Was the notebook the same distance from the cue ball on every shot or did it vary depending? Assuming you did it the right way, which is doubtful, where is the video so we can see that for ourselves? Since you have been fighting the legitimate science on this topic for quite some time, and have been desperately trying to come up with any evidence at all that you can use to try to refute the evidence which disagrees with your claims, surely you of course videoed all this testing that you knew you would be referencing as your proof, right? So where is it?
Was the cue stick at as close to the same angle as possible for every shot throughout the test? It needed to be. You probably think it was but with the notebook near the cue ball it would be very easy to subconsciously change the cue angle on some shots as the height of the notebook changed. Where is the video so we can see for ourselves that the cue angle stayed pretty consistent?
How often did the tip hit the notebook? And when it did, where did it hit the notebook, and how often at each spot? All very important for several reasons but I see no mention of any of this showing that you were even aware that it was important much less that you properly took it into consideration and accounted for it correctly. No video to show how it was done or that it was done properly either.
To an extent the notebook keeps you from being able to hit lower than intended (although it doesn’t necessarily do a great job at this for several reasons), but what kept Corey from hitting a little higher than he intended to on some shots? Yes I know he is skilled but there should be some kind of check in place to confirm where the cue ball was actually contacted. How did you handle this? Where is the video showing how it was done?
How did he establish what he considered to be the miscue limit? First miscue at a certain notebook thickness is the miscue limit? Miscuing half the time at a certain thickness is the miscue limit? Two miscues in a row is the miscue limit? Three times in a row is the miscue limit? Two out of three at a certain thickness is the miscue limit? Until he just kind of “felt” like it was the miscue limit without really relying on a certain amount of miscues? Only one way is accurate. Hopefully you know what that is and can share that with us if you did it properly. And if you do know, was that same miscue limit criteria used every time in every test and for every chalk? Why or why not? Where is the video showing that it was done properly?
Those are just some of the things that were very important to properly take into consideration and there are more. Do any of it wrong and the results of the experiment are not reliable no matter which side of the argument they support, and regardless of whether it is Corey or anybody else doing it. I highly doubt you knew some of these things were important, much less exactly how they should be handled. Where is the video so we can see for ourselves that a couple of guys that know nothing about how to do a proper experiment actually did a proper experiment whose results can be relied on? Share with us all the exact procedures you used for the experiment so we know just how (un)reliable it was.
