A real CTE shot for you to try.

[French Roots]

Post #400 is filled with passive aggressive attributes. I am not in any way inclined to try to discuss science with anyone who is not versed in the reality of such science. The most vocal proponents of Mr. Shuffett's CTE have consistently shown that they have renounced the authority & use of rational cognitive reason regarding this subject matter.

One does not have to physically travel around this planet to know that it is not flat. The attempts by CTE proponents to disqualify others on the basis of physical experience is actually ridiculous.

The onus of proof should actually be on those making assertions as to what Mr. Shuffett's CTE is. So far, in how many years have they completely failed to successfully argue that it is what it is said to be? They will continue to fail in that endeavor because science dictates that it can not be & is not what it is said to be.

My comments in post #399 should explain to any non-biased individual why it can not be what it is said to be & why it can not work as what it is said to be, as well as explain why there must be something different done to get a different outcome angle. If someone says that there is something in reality that yields something, then the onus of proof of what that is in reality should be on the one declaring that existence.

As for the experience thing, I recall an AZB member saying that he tried for about 2 years to get Mr. Shuffett's CTE to work & could not do so before finally giving up on it & moving on to his own variation that seemed to work for him. I can not recall his name but something Tiger is coming to mind.

 

[Boxcar]

"There was/is a lot of talk about the rails & pockets & curtains. None of that matters. For a set of 2 balls with the same distance of separation between them the defined points on the balls & the lines between those points remain the same no matter where those balls are put as does the bisecting line between them. There is no visual phenomena that makes human beings see them in any other orientation as long as they are not twisted onto some other plane other than the horizontal plane upon which they sit & the human being remains in the vertical alignment.

FYI, The picture of what we see is actually up side down on the retina of our eye & it is our brain that reverses that image so that we have the correct picture of the reality in our minds eye. Light travels in a straight line & is only bent when traveling gravity free & then affected by the enormous gravity of a planet, etc. before it leaves that gravitational field on a slightly different angle. That does not happen on the planet when light is under the constant affect of gravity." -French Roots

Careful, you might confuse them.

I continue to be slightly amused and very amazed that not one single, solitary Altar Boy has quoted their New Bible yet. I wish one of them would come forward and declare that they have read the whole tome and be prepared to cite line and verse.

 

[The_JV]

I continue to be slightly amused and very amazed that not one single, solitary Altar Boy has quoted their New Bible yet. I wish one of them would come forward and declare that they have read the whole tome and be prepared to cite line and verse.

After reading this all I could think of was South Park

 

[mohrt]

Go ahead and sneer, meanwhile I'm pocketing balls better than I ever could with PIITH guessing aiming.

 

[French Roots]

"There was/is a lot of talk about the rails & pockets & curtains. None of that matters. For a set of 2 balls with the same distance of separation between them the defined points on the balls & the lines between those points remain the same no matter where those balls are put as does the bisecting line between them. There is no visual phenomena that makes human beings see them in any other orientation as long as they are not twisted onto some other plane other than the horizontal plane upon which they sit & the human being remains in the vertical alignment.

FYI, The picture of what we see is actually up side down on the retina of our eye & it is our brain that reverses that image so that we have the correct picture of the reality in our minds eye. Light travels in a straight line & is only bent when traveling gravity free & then affected by the enormous gravity of a planet, etc. before it leaves that gravitational field on a slightly different angle. That does not happen on the planet when light is under the constant affect of gravity." -French Roots

Careful, you might confuse them.

I continue to be slightly amused and very amazed that not one single, solitary Altar Boy has quoted their New Bible yet. I wish one of them would come forward and declare that they have read the whole tome and be prepared to cite line and verse.

Others have posted the real truth over the years & they have still remained committed to the impossible. It is not me that has nor will be confusing them.

 

[Dan White]

I'm guessing it's very complicated for you.

Each CB and OB relationship has it's own unique PERCEPTION. I don't know why you can't understand this

Maybe I'm just not that bright. That's why I try to break it down and make it simple and go step by step, but you are afraid of where that will lead, I guess. For instance, even I can understand that if I aim the cb center at the ob edge that is a center to edge alignment or a 30 degree cut. I can put those two balls anywhere on the table or anywhere in space and that center to edge will look exactly the same. The real mystery is why you won't even acknowledge that. I'm not even referring to CTE at this point.

 

[French Roots]

Go ahead and sneer, meanwhile I'm pocketing balls better than I ever could with PIITH guessing aiming.

To whom is this comment directed? I hope it is not directed to me as I have not done any sneering.

The fact that you are pocketing balls better is not any proof that what has been claimed about CTE is true in any way.

If you were just guessing before using CTE, then naturally using any even semi legitimate method would be an improvement.

 

[French Roots]

Maybe I'm just not that bright. That's why I try to break it down and make it simple and go step by step, but you are afraid of where that will lead, I guess. For instance, even I can understand that if I aim the cb center at the ob edge that is a center to edge alignment or a 30 degree cut. I can put those two balls anywhere on the table or anywhere in space and that center to edge will look exactly the same. The real mystery is why you won't even acknowledge that. I'm not even referring to CTE at this point.

I think most know that you are brighter than the average bear. What you have said here is basically the crux of why this 'war' has been going on for so long. The vocal proponents here on AZB have refused to acknowledge simple science or even the common sense that The Same = The Same... & only Different can = Different. They seem to "believe" whole heartedly that there is some magical visual phenomena that defies science. That simply does not exist. There is nothing that dictates to a human being to be in a different location to see the same thing when nothing of the relationship between the balls has changed. I know you know this, but they either refuse or can not come to grips with those facts.

 

[mohrt]

To whom is this comment directed? I hope it is not directed to me as I have not done any sneering.

The fact that you are pocketing balls better is not any proof that what has been claimed about CTE is true in any way.

If you were just guessing before using CTE, then naturally using any even semi legitimate method would be an improvement.

I think most know that you are brighter than the average bear. What you have said here is basically the crux of why this 'war' has been going on for so long. The vocal proponents here on AZB have refused to acknowledge simple science or even the common sense that The Same = The Same... & only Different can = Different. They seem to "believe" whole heartedly that there is some magical visual phenomena that defies science. That simply does not exist. There is nothing that dictates to a human being to be in a different location to see the same thing when nothing of the relationship between the balls has changed. I know you know this, but they either refuse or can not come to grips with those facts.

Simple protractor/ruler/laser logic would suggest everything is always the same. But at the table, when lining up AL and SL just as carefully and precisely as possible, the stepped center ends on the NISL to a pocket. So clearly the shot picture on the surface of the table affects our perceptions of the AL/SL/CCB. This is not something even debatable to me, it is persistent and repeatable. Just because it's not instantly easy for anyone to execute doesn't make it any less true. IMHO it can be sorted out by anyone with a little persistence. I'm still digging into the WHY. Since I can very strongly see the perceptions, I'm sorting out what is affecting them. I mean, if I was just guessing the AL/SL on every shot, I would think that would be obvious and useless. I know what I see, and it is very exacting.

 

[cookie man]

Maybe I'm just not that bright. That's why I try to break it down and make it simple and go step by step, but you are afraid of where that will lead, I guess. For instance, even I can understand that if I aim the cb center at the ob edge that is a center to edge alignment or a 30 degree cut. I can put those two balls anywhere on the table or anywhere in space and that center to edge will look exactly the same. The real mystery is why you won't even acknowledge that. I'm not even referring to CTE at this point.

I'm not afraid of anything. Nothing has led anywhere with you guys for over 20 years. Same old Same old.

Ok center CB to OB edge is a 30 degree cut if we are not talking about CTE, Happy.

 

[cookie man]

I continue to be slightly amused and very amazed that not one single, solitary Altar Boy has quoted their New Bible yet. I wish one of them would come forward and declare that they have read the whole tome and be prepared to cite line and verse.

Plenty have read it. Some of us already knew everything before hand.

I would much rather be an Alter Boy then an anonymous dick posting on AZ. How about that Dick, I mean Richard.

 

[Boxcar]

Go ahead and sneer, meanwhile I'm pocketing balls better than I ever could with PIITH guessing aiming.

As much as you play and as much as you agonize over a game, if you are not getting better you may want to consider golf. Face it, "cte" isn't making you better, you are making you better.

Getting better at pool is not proof that "cte" works.

 

[cookie man]

The onus of proof should actually be on those making assertions as to what Mr. Shuffett's CTE is. So far, in how many years have they completely failed to successfully argue that it is what it is said to be? They will continue to fail in that endeavor because science dictates that it can not be & is not what it is said to be.

The proof is out there for free in The Truth Series on youtube and in a big new book. There has been nothing posted here ever to disprove anything CTE.

 

[cookie man]

There is nothing that dictates to a human being to be in a different location to see the same thing when nothing of the relationship between the balls has changed. I know you know this, but they either refuse or can not come to grips with those facts.

Wow, so the pocket relationship to the balls doesn't change. That's interesting.

 

[French Roots]

Simple protractor/ruler/laser logic would suggest everything is always the same. But at the table, when lining up AL and SL just as carefully and precisely as possible, the stepped center ends on the NISL to a pocket. So clearly the shot picture on the surface of the table affects our perceptions of the AL/SL/CCB. This is not something even debatable to me, it is persistent and repeatable. Just because it's not instantly easy for anyone to execute doesn't make it any less true. IMHO it can be sorted out by anyone with a little persistence. I'm still digging into the WHY. Since I can very strongly see the perceptions, I'm sorting out what is affecting them. I mean, if I was just guessing the AL/SL on every shot, I would think that would be obvious and useless. I know what I see, and it is very exacting.

Sorry, but no. Others have done it & they get what science dictates, which is the same outcome angle for the same separation distance between the balls. There is no different "perception". How can there be when the lines are between the same defined points on the balls & nothing has changed with that relationship?

How can a human being perceive a change when no change has occurred? Well... I guess they can, but not correctly.

If one does the same thing regarding the same thing then science dictates the same outcome & in this situation that is the same outcome angle.

 

[mohrt]

Sorry, but no. Others have done it & they get what science dictates, which is the same outcome angle for the same separation distance between the balls. There is no different "perception". How can there be when the lines are between the same defined points on the balls & nothing has changed with that relationship?

How can a human being perceive a change when no change has occurred? Well... I guess they can, but not correctly.

If one does the same thing regarding the same thing then science dictates the same outcome & in this situation that is the same outcome angle.

Sorry, but your arguments don't change anything. You are working with incomplete data. Your rule definition isn't taking into consideration that perception is a visual concept that doesn't fall within the math constraints of rulers and 2D lines. We have two eyes viewing onto the surface with two spheres. The head can tilt and turn. There are numerous ways to view a given shot with these parameters. Hal figured out a simple formula to lead the eyes to the shot line using the parameters at hand. I don't have to first apply math parameters to understand that this perception ruleset works. So really, I'm not interesting in debating math and angles. I'm more interested in WHY it works. We already know HOW. Telling me why it can't possibly work falls on deaf ears. I already know it works, and very effectively so.

 

[French Roots]

Wow, so the pocket relationship to the balls doesn't change. That's interesting.

You Sir again show that you seem to not even understand the issue. Perhaps that is due to what seems to be a reading comprehension issue such as you have displayed with this comment. However, you almost always misstating what others have said to then make your snarky comments would seem to indicate that you may just be intentionally disingenuous.

Your comments on the matter are insignificant given that you seem to not even understand the issue. I am not inclined to engage with one who seems to have a significant reading comprehension issue nor with one who is disingenuous.

Please do not take my comments to others out of context & then comment on them? That is a very polite request.

 

[cookie man]

Sorry, but your arguments don't change anything. You are working with incomplete data. Your rule definition isn't taking into consideration that perception is a visual concept that doesn't fall within the math constraints of rulers and 2D lines. We have two eyes viewing onto the surface with two spheres. The head can tilt and turn. There are numerous ways to view a given shot with these parameters. Hal figured out a simple formula to lead the eyes to the shot line using the parameters at hand. I don't have to first apply math parameters to understand that this perception ruleset works. So really, I'm not interesting in debating math and angles. I'm more interested in WHY it works. We already know HOW. Telling me why it can't possibly work falls on deaf ears. I already know it works, and very effectively so.

Amen Brother

 

[cookie man]

You Sir again show that you seem to not even understand the issue. Perhaps that is due to what seems to be a reading comprehension issue such as you have displayed with this comment. However, you almost always misstating what others have said to then make your snarky comments would seem to indicate that you may just be intentionally disingenuous.

Your comments on the matter are insignificant given that you seem to not even understand the issue. I am not inclined to engage with one who seems to have a significant reading comprehension issue nor with one who is disingenuous.

Please do not take my comments to others out of context & then comment on them? That is very polite request.

I understand all the issue's thank you very much.

It's you that have no clue.

By the way, are you going to answer questions asked of you or be like the rest that don't answer anything

 

[French Roots]

Sorry, but your arguments don't change anything. You are working with incomplete data. Your rule definition isn't taking into consideration that perception is a visual concept that doesn't fall within the math constraints of rulers and 2D lines. We have two eyes viewing onto the surface with two spheres. The head can tilt and turn. There are numerous ways to view a given shot with these parameters. Hal figured out a simple formula to lead the eyes to the shot line using the parameters at hand. I don't have to first apply math parameters to understand that this perception ruleset works. So really, I'm not interesting in debating math and angles. I'm more interested in WHY it works. We already know HOW. Telling me why it can't possibly work falls on deaf ears. I already know it works, and very effectively so.

Sir,

A closed mind & deaf ears are never the attributes of one seeking the real truth. My "comments" are not intended to change anything. They are merely available for anyone with a non-biased open mind to consider and realize that they are based in science. Your assumption that "IT" is what is working to get you to pocket balls is erroneous. You should be interested in why you are actually pocketing balls & not telling others that it is because of some unknown & unexplainable visual phenomena that does not exist nor a bogus connection to the shape of the table. If you do not care why, then fine, but you should not be putting out unsubstantiated information. There are 88 different cut angles & angles in between those. It is impossible for a limited few amount of markers to objectively dictate to a shooter all of those different angles.

What "formula" did Hal figure out to lead the eyes to an actual shot line? Please advise? I would be very interested in that.