I don't see it, but that's fine. All conspiracy theories aside, Stan does not need to resort to tricks or misdirection to make these shots. I've witnessed them, and I can make them pretty cleanly myself (without the curtains, haven't tried 'em.) I guess there is no way to prove it any further online. You make a an observation, Stan explains the situation, what else can we make of it outside of an in-person demo?
Stan's Curious Curtain Video
- Thread starter Dan White
- Start date
I don't see it, but that's fine. All conspiracy theories aside, Stan does not need to resort to tricks or misdirection to make these shots. I've witnessed them, and I can make them pretty cleanly myself (without the curtains, haven't tried 'em.) I guess there is no way to prove it any further online. You make a an observation, Stan explains the situation, what else can we make of it outside of an in-person demo?
There is a new book and video being released called!
"NATURAL CURES FOR AIMING! "
Be sure to get it. It's certain to be a best seller. Hope Kevin Trudeau does not sue over the title.
Lol
Kd
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Saying stuff like that just makes you look pretty ignorant. Is that the effect you were going after?
There is no system for the human factor. Doesnt mean the actual aiming system isnt exact.
Reproduce this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1v49xzCKc4
No reinforcers.
No marks on the table.
Pocket balls at different distances and angles. You cheated when when you put 3 reinforcers on the table and practiced for 15 minutes before shooting the video.
No different distances. All shots are "0-2".
It would be interesting to watch this at "2-4" with Stan calling the speed of his stroke. All three strokes, medium, soft, hard. Even without a curtain.
GoldenFlash
Banned
Then, after he's finished with 'reproducing' he can try this one too.<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m4KYhhzduhM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Stan's teachings are brilliant.....and they WORK.
Exactly.
It is simple. Hit the object ball on the correct spot with the correct spot on the cue ball and it will go where you intend it to go. What is so hard about that?
The hard part is getting the human to cooperate.
Let me clear things up a little. Stan said he wanted to to a curtain demo because his students were asking for it and he thought it was a good idea. He set up the shot from DVD1 with the reinforcer for the object ball. He already had a reinforcer he was using for other shots (the dark one for the cue ball). Because he had new cloth and new rails, he practiced the shot in the morning, enough to leave a cloud of chalk dust on the cloth (this was his "morning session"). He took a break for lunch, and when he came back, he turned on the camera and made it on the first recorded attempt. That is Stan's "testimony." At no point were students in his house on that day hitting shots. By Stan's own words, he did practice the shot [all] morning because of the rails and cloth.
Also, let's keep in perspective what we are talking about. I don't doubt that Stan made those shots. My contention, as I said on my video, is that making those shots is intended to make CTE look like magic, but anybody who has some experience can make the same shots. I also made several single and double bank shots in a row on another video, without CTE, without practice, and without hole reinforcers, other than the foot spot.
It's just not that hard to do. Like Ray Martin told Lou Figuera, the pockets are in the same place they have been for the last 100 years. First of all, it isn't really 15 shots. It is 7 identical shots from each side of the table, plus maybe on center table shot. The 15 degree and 30 degree visuals are going to line up with the pockets at a particular position on the table, not far from where Stan placed the balls. But anyway, there's not a lot to analyze here. With a little practice, of which Stan has had an enormous amount, any good player can do the same, expecially the balls within one diamond of the long rail. Those are pretty much gimmies.
Kidding, right? Stan uses a hole reinforcer, say he's practiced the shot into the side pocket (everything I'm criticized for doing) and even then proceeds to miss the shot twice until he gets just the right spin and speed. What does that prove? Why did Stan put the hole reinforcer where he did, and why did he put the cue ball where he did? I believe the answer is that that particular set up banks the ball in the upper right with the 15 or 30 degree perception, whichever. Then, to go to the side pocket, he picks another perception that, from that position, gets you close to the side pocket, requiring adjustment with speed and spin.
If the first shot required no spin, and each perception leads to a different pocket, then why did he have so much trouble with the second shot to the side. That perception should have taken the ball there naturally just as in the first shot, no?
This video proves that no matter what system you use for banks, ultimately you have to tweak the shot based on table conditions.
GoldenFlash
Banned
You lose again
Too bad, you lost....now (as president Obama said) you can come along for the ride but you got to sit in the back. :grin:
You just cannot stand losing can you.
Too bad, you lost....now (as president Obama said) you can come along for the ride but you got to sit in the back. :grin:
Are you so emotionally unstable that you will hold grudges and not let things go?
Did daddy not give you enough attention?
Now let me clear things up a little. Stans words:
I used that dot during a morning session and then had lunch and upon return to my table for an afternoon session I did that video on first attempt.
When Stan says "session", I believe he is talking about a lesson with a student. Not a practice session for himself. Maybe he can clarify that. Furthermore, it is an assumption of yours that even if he was practicing that morning, that he was practicing this specific shot. He said no such thing.
All of this is nonsense anyways, you can view *many* of Stans videos, and watch him make balls under curtains with random placements with very high accuracy. Any of those should reinforce the notion that Stan does not require chalk marks or practice so he can make these shots with a high rate of consistency.
mohrt - you are reading things into the discussion that just aren't there. Here is post number 5:
Stan said: (with my comments in blue)
I had a student request to do those shots on video. Do you think the student who requested a video of the shots in DVD1 was with Stan at the table taking a lesson? Almost every student that comes through my door goes through the entire set of shots for DVD1. The set-up in question is my only 4 way multi-shot on my first DVD. I also had 1 or 2 students that week. One or two all week? No mention of any students that morning. No comment that his student created the chalk residue.
Not only did I decide to do a video for those shots I decided that I would use the curtain with my students for those shots for l demo purposes. I clearly remember thinking of that as a good idea so I set up the shots and practiced them that morning for a dual purpose...for students and a video. It doesn't get much more clear than that, not to mention that he repeats that he practiced the shot in other posts, you know, because of the new cloth and new rails and all.
mohrt - I asked Stan why there were chalk marks on the table. He said it is because he practiced the shot in the morning due to new rails and cloth, and then made a video after lunch. What don't you understand about that?
I do agree that this doesn't matter. No amount of blind trick shots is proof of anything. Anybody can make blind shots if they are a good player and practice a bit.
I believe the final work on how CTE Pro1 actually works will be determined by Stan's book. If he can't adequately describe the system in 35 or so chapters, without using undefined terminology like "visual intelligence" then the system is rubbish. If he can, then he'll have proven all his critics wrong.
Forgot to mention how you have no other videos that show that hole reinforcer on the table, and you do have one video showing the other reinforcers in the triangle a couple of months prior, yet the reinforcer in question, the one you use every day, is not there. If you used that spot every day enough to darken the reinforcer for diagonal shots, you'd also have track marks in the cloth. Just sayin'.
Well so you say. The only reason you pocketed the balls because you cheated by shooting only 3 marked and pre-practiced shots.
Stan has multiple videos with lots of shots with no reinforcers for reference. There are at least 2 other CTE users with with curtain videos and no reinforcers.
You say the pockets have been in the same place for over 100 years but they may not be so easy to find when you can't actually see the pocket.
So consider this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpcDls9V3ds#t=2m39s
In any case no one has posted a curtain video without CTE and without cheating (like you).
Mista - I'm going to assume you are a fairly new player, so I don't mean for you to necessarily understand my following points. However, guys like mohrt and Neil and cookie man, who have been playing for a long time absolutely, 100% will understand what I am about to say:
This is 100% complete horse hockey. I would be the farm on that, and here's why.
1. Stan has a curtain across the table at an angle in which the foot spot is clearly visible,
2. Stan has been playing for 50 years,
3. Anybody who has played for even 1 year knows well that a line from the side pocket drawn through the foot spot goes to the center of the corner pocket,
4. In order for Stan to put a marker on the rail representing where he aimed, he would have had to walk around and see where the laser was pointing so that he could place the marker there. So it isn't as if he pointed the laser 9 times and then looked at where they pointed after. He got feedback after every single time he pointed the laser,
5. Stan pointed out that he positioned the laser in a friendly location and pointed at center table indicating that his trials were from half table distance.
So given these facts, how many of you seasoned players really believe that a guy who is clearly an outstanding player, a guy who has played for 50 years and coached a champion level player (his son) could possibly point the laser A FULL DIAMOND, OR WELL OVER 12.5 INCHES (on a 10' table maybe 15 inches??) away from the pocket at a half table distance with the foot spot as a visual aid, to boot?! And then, to add insult to injury, the next laser spot (after seeing the first one off by a diamond) is still a full half diamond away!
This stretches the imagination to the breaking point for me, and I would be very disappointed in rational CTE supporters like mohrt if you try to defend a presentation like this. I want you guys to try something at the table. Lay your cue down pointing at the first diamond away from the corner on the foot rail where Stan said his first alignment was pointing. You tell me there is any place at mid table where you believe pointing the laser (your cue) at this point makes any sense at all, and is plausible in any possible way. You do that and come back here with a straight face and tell me you could be off that much.
So let's recap the idea presented in this video: Stan can't for the life of him tell where the pocket is just by guessing with a laser, but guess what? -- it doesn't matter because with the magic of CTE you don't need to know where the pockets are!
I'd REALLY like to see you experienced players try to defend this one. Try what I did 5 minutes ago. Go to your pool table, put your hand in front of your eyes so that all you can see is the foot spot (mimicking the curtain in the video), then lay your cue on the table where you think the corner pocket is. If your cue is not pointing somewhere between the left and right sides of the pocket, then shame on you.
I just tried it on a 7' table. First attempt was half a diamond off to the left. I tried from various places on the table, not just by the side pocket. Certain angles I was off to the left, nearer a side rail I was dead on.
Here's why I believe that is, and why Stan had trouble with it. It's called visual intelligence, you know, that phrase you mocked a little while ago, yet the same thing you are claiming to use here.
Notice how Stan sets the laser, his head and body position. Now, go to another video where he is shooting and you can look right down the cue. See anything of note there? If your vision center is right between both eyes, one would have no problem setting the laser on most angles. However, when the vision center is notably off to one side, then from years of playing pool we see a straight line a little differently. If our head is in the right position, we have no problem seeing a line as straight and following it out to a distance. But, if we just set something down, such as a laser, and try to point it to a distant object, odds are we will be off to one side or the other consistently. This is because when we set the laser, we tend to look right down it, which skews our vision center, or visual intelligence. The distant spot ends up not being where we thought it was at all.
In other words, if I look straight at a distant object and try to point at it, I will be off the the left every time. But, if I angle my head to the right a little, and then point, I will be dead on almost every time.
That said, since just a few posts ago you stated that none of this really matters anyways, then why keep wasting your time trying to find any little thing to try and discredit Stan with? If you had spent the amount of time actually learning the system on the table as you have trying to discredit it and Stan, you would be adapt at using it by now.