Stevie Moore parallel shots CTE video

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan White said:
LOL.



Yes, I read all that post 40 - 45 stuff, but I'm left wondering, "So what"? I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just not sure why you are pointing out that when you move the object ball and then move your body that you are rotating around the cue ball. That happens with every shot with or without an aiming system.

The crux of the issue is this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0&t=415s

There is no explanation as to how Stan gets the ob to go in 5 different directions using the same visual. Each of the CTE supporters has their own theory as to "why it works" but nobody really knows. The only explanation I can even make sense of is from mohrt, who if I recall correctly, says this (paraphrasing): Let's say you have two balls in an ETA perception that pockets the ball in the corner. Now move the ob 2 inches. You can use the same ETA perception but the ball will still go in the same pocket because the position of the rails and pockets fool your eye so that you can still line up ETA and it will LOOK LIKE ETA (when it really isn't) because the angle of the rails to the two balls makes it look that way. So, after having written that I hope I got that wrong and he isn't really saying that.

Use your technical and/or reactor background. What do you think? Sometimes the simplest answer it the most likely. Is it possible that adjustments are being made in Stan's video and either 1) not realized, or 2) not disclosed?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I almost made an even dozen but I dogged one. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) :)

I find that when I'm shooting with CP aiming I don't move into a straight in shot position first but that I approach at the approximate shot line and then fine tune my aiming point from there. If you're pivoting after you get down on your shot I think you helped prove my point. You're equating a pivot amount with a change in the shot angle as you fine tune the aiming point.

I can't explain Stan's video because I'm not familiar with Pro One sweeps. I'll draw up a pivot triangle for them and check the angles involved. At first glance they seem to lie within 15* of each other so I think it's possible they share the same visual. I'll get out the graph paper and scale and get back to you on that one.

Perhaps you're not aware of the Navy's new Vorpal Reactor. Made that puppy out of two 50 gallon drums and radium from 12 Rolex watch dials.
 
Dan White said:
LOL. This reminds me of the time John Barton/Collins offered to send me a free copy of DVD2 for me to take a look at. I took him up on the offer and pm'ed him my address. Instead of sending the DVD, he posts in the forum what a cheapskate I am for not wanting to purchase the DVD. :eek:
Click to expand...

Nice deflection and typical. You still didn't admit to purchasing it. How about a copy of the receipt for payment as well as you proudly holding the book in your miserly el cheapo hands.

Like I said, start a new thread in the main forum about stroking. Many would be interested and you'd be a hero instead of a trolling nuisance.
 
lfigueroa said:
Dan, if you never saw DVD2, you did not miss anything.

I was sent a copy by someone who wanted me to review it, as I did DVD1 (the one that was supposed to "stand alone" and when it didn't, folks wanted a refund for), but I passed because I thought it'd just be ruled "piling on." Just more gobbledygook.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

If there is any gobbledygook it's what you're saying here compared to the past. Cheap ass Lou claimed that he bought DVD2 originally and now states he was sent a copy from someone who wanted him to review it. You never bought it.

Why would they do that and who cares? You know nothing about CTE and never have. It would be like you reviewing a DVD for new techniques in ski jumping. What the hell do you know?

You're a 20 year basher naysayer with your mind and attitude made up and would never change your tune even if it upped your game which couldn't possibly happen because you're too little of a man.
 
Dan, The Five Shots- Drop it!

Concerning the 5 shots:

I have studied that grouping of 5 shots for 6, nearly 7 years. It is true that the 15 and 30 make most of the zillion shots on a 2x1 surface.

I have always said the 15/30 make the five shots. It is still true. However, some changes will be presented in a dedicated chapter for those shots.

I understand now why a 15 mm and a 9mm tip makes those shots in the same way. I have finally understood he visual phenomena behind it all. Students are making balls but that does mean they can explain what's happening.

I am the only person that can properly explain those 5 shots. In due time I will conduct free clinics and free online explanations. You are waisting your time.....so, drop it!

About your Physicists friends, When my book is complete I will be happy to host them at my home for a free clinic and thoroughly school them on what they could not understand about CTE.

Stan Shuffett

John, I am ok!
 
Last edited:
stan shuffett said:
Concerning the 5 shots:

I have studied that grouping of 5 shots for 6, nearly 7 years. It is true that the 15 and 30 make most of the zillion shots on a 2x1 surface.

I have always said the 15/30 make the five shots. It is still true. However, some changes will be presented in a dedicated chapter for those shots.

I understand now why a 15 mm and a 9mm tip makes those shots in the same way. I have finally understood he visual phenomena behind it all. Students are making balls but that does mean they can explain what's happening.

I am the only person that can properly explain those 5 shots. In due time I will conduct free clinics and free online explanations. You are waisting your time.....so, drop it!

About your Physicists friends, When my book is complete I will be happy to host them at my home for a free clinic and thoroughly school them on what they could not understand about CTE.

Stan Shuffett

John, I am ok!
Click to expand...

Excellent !
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Nice deflection and typical. You still didn't admit to purchasing it. How about a copy of the receipt for payment as well as you proudly holding the book in your miserly el cheapo hands.

Like I said, start a new thread in the main forum about stroking. Many would be interested and you'd be a hero instead of a trolling nuisance.
Click to expand...

What's the deflection? You're talking about the book? Yes, I bought the book with my very own allowance money. I also bought a Gold Crown 5.

Instead of calling me cheap, why not be constructive and help Stan write that book?
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Hal started laughing like hell and put his finger on top of the cue ball and the cue ball shot off to the side across the table because it was spinning so fast it looked like it was just sitting there. Jewett got pissed and left the building to continue his two decade onslaught from being humiliated in person.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure this is exactly what happened. Were you there?
 
Dan White said:
What's the deflection? You're talking about the book? Yes, I bought the book with my very own allowance money. I also bought a Gold Crown 5.

Instead of calling me cheap, why not be constructive and help Stan write that book?
Click to expand...


Dave authored the FOREWORD. His multi-paged submission was turned in many months ago.....

It's quite good......Wouldn't you love to have a peek at it? I get it out every now and then....it's special.

Stan Shuffett
 
Vorpal Cue said:
Yeah, I almost made an even dozen but I dogged one. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) :)

I can't explain Stan's video because I'm not familiar with Pro One sweeps. I'll draw up a pivot triangle for them and check the angles involved. At first glance they seem to lie within 15* of each other so I think it's possible they share the same visual. I'll get out the graph paper and scale and get back to you on that one.
Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see what you conclude from your drawings. I believe our objections may become more clear to you if they are not already.

Regarding the bold part, nobody can explain it. Stan's been looking at the balls in his perception video for 6 years and thinks he's got it now. Think logically: If you use a method that works for you, but you do not know how that method works, is it logical to insist that you are not doing something subconsciously to effect the outcome? In other words, how can you rule out the possibilities if you don't understand how/why it works? It just isn't logical to say, "I don't understand how it works, but I KNOW it is an 'objective' system."

Perhaps you're not aware of the Navy's new Vorpal Reactor. Made that puppy out of two 50 gallon drums and radium from 12 Rolex watch dials.
Click to expand...

I had to look up "vorpal." Pretty funny. Maybe you can come up with Vorpal CTE?
 
stan shuffett said:
Dave authored the FOREWORD. His multi-paged submission was turned in many months ago.....

It's quite good......Wouldn't you love to have a peek at it? I get it out every now and then....it's special.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

That explains a lot. What's Dave's cut on the action? :wink:
 
Dan White said:
It'll be interesting to see what you conclude from your drawings. I believe our objections may become more clear to you if they are not already.

Regarding the bold part, nobody can explain it. Stan's been looking at the balls in his perception video for 6 years and thinks he's got it now. Think logically: If you use a method that works for you, but you do not know how that method works, is it logical to insist that you are not doing something subconsciously to effect the outcome? In other words, how can you rule out the possibilities if you don't understand how/why it works? It just isn't logical to say, "I don't understand how it works, but I KNOW it is an 'objective' system."



I had to look up "vorpal." Pretty funny. Maybe you can come up with Vorpal CTE?
Click to expand...

Concerning my work with CTE. I set out to learn it and understand it and NOT to invent anything new. CTE is a phenomena and I knew that going in. It has taken me years to get to the bottom of it.

What's interesting is that you had the same pieces of the mystery in front of you as much as a decade before me. I figured out what you could not in a much shorter time. You did not and do not possess the gumption necessary to unravel something that was never supposed to be.

Instead, you spun your wheels and have gone nowhere. You could take the multitude of available pieces and in 25 or even 50 years never reach my understanding of CTE by yourself. You need my brain. You are NOT a doer with CTE.....

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
Dan White said:
That explains a lot. What's Dave's cut on the action? :wink:
Click to expand...

The act of publishing a book is not a hustling action as you sort of imply. The work that I will be putting forth is a body of educational material.

Furthermore, I asked Dave to consider writing my Foreword. He accepted my offer referring to it as an honor.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
stan shuffett said:
The act of publishing a book is not a hustling action
Click to expand...

It's not the publishing part I was referring to. :rolleyes:

All kidding aside, if you can prove out a system that allows balls to go in different directions while using the same objective alignment, then you are a better man than I. It's a big "if," though.

Also, referring to your other post in which you say I don't have the capacity to figure this stuff out, I say this: I figured out how to aim probably 25 years ago, so of course I wouldn't even try to discombobulate Hal's method -- it's just not necessary. Achieving a good stoke is the challenge.
 
Dan White said:
It's not the publishing part I was referring to. :rolleyes:

All kidding aside, if you can prove out a system that allows balls to go in different directions while using the same objective alignment, then you are a better man than I. It's a big "if," though.

Also, referring to your other post in which you say I don't have the capacity to figure this stuff out, I say this: I figured out how to aim probably 25 years ago, so of course I wouldn't even try to discombobulate Hal's method -- it's just not necessary. Achieving a good stoke is the challenge.
Click to expand...

There is no IF about it. I proudly kept my head up for years while trying to grasp CTE while many at the same time hurdled stones my way. That's part of it and I accepted that part long ago when Hal sternly lectured me about forthcoming attacks from many directions.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
Dan White said:
Yeah, I'm sure this is exactly what happened. Were you there?
Click to expand...

No, but Hal was and told me everything that happened. You certainly weren't there and Jewett doesn't want to discuss it or will vehemently deny that it happened.

I wonder why. Hal couldn't possibly have made up a story like that since he never had any ill will toward Jewett or anyone. They both lived in San Francisco at the time.

Hal used to laugh his ass off at the naysayers because he always felt he knew something they didn't know. The more they attacked, the harder he laughed.
 
Dan White said:
It's not the publishing part I was referring to. :rolleyes:

All kidding aside, if you can prove out a system that allows balls to go in different directions while using the same objective alignment, then you are a better man than I. It's a big "if," though.

LMAO. Stan doesn't have to prove anything with CTE to show he's a better man than you and there are no IF'S, ANDS, or BUTS about it. What a joke.

Also, referring to your other post in which you say I don't have the capacity to figure this stuff out, I say this: I figured out how to aim probably 25 years ago, so of course I wouldn't even try to discombobulate Hal's method -- it's just not necessary. Achieving a good stoke is the challenge.
Click to expand...

Start the STROKE thread Mr. Wizard. What's holding you back?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top