A real CTE shot for you to try.

[BC21]

It seems that vitriol(hate?) is rather prevalent with a few on the CTE side. I have not seen any from the other side. Have you?

Yes. Not sure "hate" was the correct word. I should've used a different word.

I was mainly trying to show how ignorant (and borderline adolescent) it is to resort to name-calling, belittling, ridiculing, judging one's character, or literally declaring hate simply because of statements made in the anonymity of an online setting. Derogatory comments made in defense of or against something as trivial as an aiming system for pocketing pool balls should not be taken so seriously.

I know when emotions get riled up it's easy to fall into that type of back and forth. I've done it myself. But in the big picture, I'm not one to judge someone's character based on differences of opinion when it comes to aiming pool balls. It's just not a character-defining subject. Lol

 

[BC21]

As I just explained a few posts back, when you focus on the OB you see two separate cue balls in the foreground. This can be easily tested by closing one eye at a time and taking notice. So no, it's not that cut and dry. Your eyes work together to focus on a specific place at any one time. Other things in our perspective view are seen individually by each eye.

Yep. Peripheral vision includes what the eyes see to the left and right, and also up and down, from what we are actually focusing on. When focusing on a distant object, we can simultaneously and consciously pay attention to or make out what we are seeing peripherally, within a few degrees of our primary focus.

 

[BC21]

And we have a new participant. Wonder if this one will try to shove his keyboard opinion down our throats for 20 years, lol.
Recently retired and spends his day making 30 posts on AZ about a aiming system he has no intention of learning or using.
SAD SAD SAD

It's very unlikely that he's a "new participant". Seems like a newby, even one who has spent 10 years in silent observation, would not start off so confident and strong, as if 10 years of reading the back and forth between people here has finally triggered some sort of spontaneous combustion.

 

[bbb]

Sorry, no. When I focus on the OB, I do not see 2 CBs in the foreground. Looking out of one eye at a time shifts the perspective away from ones vision center to each open eye, but when both eyes are open the perspective is from the 'vision center'. There are no separate things that are seen by an individual eye that are not seen from the other eye when it is open and operational. Every individual thing is seen with BOTH eyes if they BOTH are open & operational. Your statement that ones 'vision center' is "more important" for determining a fixed CCB for one method over another needs an explanation that I have not yet heard & frankly doubt I would believe. Does any CTE method require shooting a shot with only one eye or using only one eye to get a fixed CCB.

We have a dominant eye because it is 'wired' on a shorter route to the brain. Turning ones head to the side does not change that. Turning ones head just changes the physical perspective point from which each eye is seeing and brings those different perspective points closer together relative to the line of look which actually decreases the ability to determine the 3rd. dimension, but the short 'wired' eye remains the dominant eye. That change in perspectives can be significantly huge given that a tip contact patch is only 3mm & we are attempting to put the center of that onto the center of the 2 1/4" diameter CB.

regarding seeing 1 or 2 balls when focusing on another ball you may find this video interesting
Brock String Training Video - YouTube

 

[mohrt]

It's very unlikely that he's a "new participant". Seems like a newby, even one who has spent 10 years in silent observation, would not start off so confident and strong, as if 10 years of reading the back and forth between people here has finally triggered some sort of spontaneous combustion.

Confident and strong does not make correct. We see two different objects in close (and far) proximity when looking at an object. He doesn't understand that.

 

[JB Cases]

You don't comprehend what i write. Read it again. It was my conclusion from what Hal was telling me that a variable pivot was going to be the only way to pocket the balls. He had my eyes going in one direction and the cue lined up in another so there seemed to be a lot of play in how you draw the cue back. I don't remember all the details, only that he didn't want me to think about how I was drawing the cue back.

I got that this was your conclusion. It was wrong then and still wrong today.

You don't listen. And that not listening leads you to make wrong conclusions.

As for your description of what you claim Hal was doing to you.....I say that you are wrong and because Hal was trying to instruct you over the phone it is far more likely that your interpretation of what the instructions were was the problem.

I have documented my first encounter with Hal and said that I wouldn't have gotten anything from him except a feeling that he was a crazy person if I hadn't "emptied my cup" so to speak and just followed directions without a preconception.

I believe what Hal was asking you to do was let your eyes lead and your body would follow as Stan puts it.

This is very hard to do for a "by the book" person rooted in classical 2d geometry to explain the alignment to a pool shot. Those people are hardwired to think from the pocket backwards through the object ball to the cue ball cue to the arm. I believe you are one of them and that this is why you are unable to grasp CTE.

Which brings us back to the subconscious (adjustment) right?

This is the heart of your opposition, that if you strictly follow the directions then you cannot achieve different outcomes with the same input.

And you would be right if you were following strict directions for fractional aiming where the aim and the hit are identical. All of the lines in a fractional hit system can be drawn in 2d perfectly and will always produce the exact same result assuming a perfectly coordinated sighting and execution.

However the directions are not for a fractional hit method. The directions are for a fractional perception method that gives the user multiple vectors that result in different outcomes based on a concept that has been named "stepping" by Stan.

This is counterintuitive because pool knowledge and subsequent intuition is built on the 2d modeling of pocket-ball-ball-cue-arm lines to explain aiming.

So until you empty your cup you will continue to say things like got tired of cranking my neck. Guess what? I got tired of it too but I did it anyway until that particular body move is fluid. Was a matter of muscle memory and practice.

Anyway, my main point remains that if your goal is to disprove CTE using your rigid framework then you are going to fail to disprove CTE to anyone but those locked into that framework. The rest of the world is results-oriented and they have the ability to appreciate wonder at things that work but whose absolute mechanisms are not fully understood yet.

 

[JB Cases]

There are plenty of reviews Mark, you just don't know where to look for them

I guess the long detailed review that is on this forum doesn't count for Mark?

 

[cookie man]

It's very unlikely that he's a "new participant". Seems like a newby, even one who has spent 10 years in silent observation, would not start off so confident and strong, as if 10 years of reading the back and forth between people here has finally triggered some sort of spontaneous combustion.

So you are saying he has a 10 year head start on his 20 year journey, lol. Or 10 year head start plus 20 years will equal 30 years, lol. That is PJ territory, legendary if you will.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

I got that this was your conclusion. It was wrong then and still wrong today.

You don't listen. And that not listening leads you to make wrong conclusions.

As for your description of what you claim Hal was doing to you.....I say that you are wrong and because Hal was trying to instruct you over the phone it is far more likely that your interpretation of what the instructions were was the problem.

I have documented my first encounter with Hal and said that I wouldn't have gotten anything from him except a feeling that he was a crazy person if I hadn't "emptied my cup" so to speak and just followed directions without a preconception.

I believe what Hal was asking you to do was let your eyes lead and your body would follow as Stan puts it.

This is very hard to do for a "by the book" person rooted in classical 2d geometry to explain the alignment to a pool shot. Those people are hardwired to think from the pocket backwards through the object ball to the cue ball cue to the arm. I believe you are one of them and that this is why you are unable to grasp CTE.

Which brings us back to the subconscious (adjustment) right?

This is the heart of your opposition, that if you strictly follow the directions then you cannot achieve different outcomes with the same input.

And you would be right if you were following strict directions for fractional aiming where the aim and the hit are identical. All of the lines in a fractional hit system can be drawn in 2d perfectly and will always produce the exact same result assuming a perfectly coordinated sighting and execution.

However the directions are not for a fractional hit method. The directions are for a fractional perception method that gives the user multiple vectors that result in different outcomes based on a concept that has been named "stepping" by Stan.

This is counterintuitive because pool knowledge and subsequent intuition is built on the 2d modeling of pocket-ball-ball-cue-arm lines to explain aiming.

So until you empty your cup you will continue to say things like got tired of cranking my neck. Guess what? I got tired of it too but I did it anyway until that particular body move is fluid. Was a matter of muscle memory and practice.

Anyway, my main point remains that if your goal is to disprove CTE using your rigid framework then you are going to fail to disprove CTE to anyone but those locked into that framework. The rest of the world is results-oriented and they have the ability to appreciate wonder at things that work but whose absolute mechanisms are not fully understood yet.

Think you are right JB, and I think the rest of work is still as a group of people more Goal Orientated. Many people in the U.S.A., are no longer in the mode of wanting something, and working on achieving that something a day at a time..

They are like the Boy Scout face with the challange of Five Mile Hike, they do not say I will do it a step at a time, think only about the next step. They quit say no way I can walk 5 miles, and not even trying.

 

[JB Cases]

Firstly, I respect that you as a proponent have never taken your exuberant fervor down into the attack the messenger & personal insults realm.

Secondly, It is good & I thank you for acknowledging Science & Reasonable, Rational, Cognitive Logic.

However, the things that you have said & are saying here do not in any manner do away with the reality of science.

Multiple sets of shots with the 2 balls an equal distance apart can only yield the same lines between the defined points & can only yield one bisecting line between them if the directions are followed objectively. Hence only one outcome angle can be achieved if the defined pivot is done & straight stroke is delivered to center cue ball relative to the line of the stick.

It is rather easy to be fooled into doing something different if one is focused on a predetermined outcome & science says that such must be happening if you & others say that you are doing the same thing & yet getting a different outcome angle. That can NOT be the reality. It is just that simple.

So, what is the reality regarding those who are supposedly using CTE successfully. There have been suggestions made over the years that have been refused to be acknowledge by the side you are on. Currently Dan White & BC21 have made suggestions & Dan White seems to be investigating what specifically you are doing in order to get a different outcome angle via supposedly doing the same thing.

For the same separation between the balls to get a different outcome angle using the 2 lines between the defined points requires that something different has been done. The suggestion or claim of some visual phenomena is bogus.

Looking at 2 spheres(balls) the same distance apart with lines between the defined points on those spheres anywhere in The Universe those lines along with the bisecting line between them will be in the same places relative to the spheres/balls.
For balls a certain distance apart, with the defined pivot a 15 inside = a particular outcome angle & that angle will be the same regardless of where the balls are on the table IF the procedure is followed objectively & not subjectively. It really is that simple.

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.

So there are no such things as optical illusions?

Also light is distorted by what it passes through as well. Vision is a function of optical receptors and lenses and interpretation of the received images. Perspective changes that information.

 

[BC21]

So there are no such things as optical illusions?

Also light is distorted by what it passes through as well. Vision is a function of optical receptors and lenses and interpretation of the received images. Perspective changes that information.

Excellent video! Like the "blue dot effect", the mind tends to make us see what we want to see based on conditioning.

 

[JB Cases]

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.

And? You disclaim personal experience and then use personal experience as an example of doesn't work.

If I were to discuss high level physics without ever having done even the simplest physics experiments then I would either need to be extremely well versed in the findings of others or I would have to be a prodigy whose brain works on a higher level in some way.

Experience does matter with a physical system. Boston Dynamics builds agile robots computationally and then sees how they fail in the real world. That failure experience gives them the knowledge to make computational changes that they can then test with physical objects.

Neal Degrass Tyson said at the edge of knowledge lies God and that edge expands constantly. Inn other words science is not a rigid constraint but an ever evolving discovery. Principles that appear to be rigid have been discovered and used to power the innovation that composes our modern societies. That doesn't mean that we have unlocked all knowledge about our own capabilities and vulnerabilities. It doesn't mean that we have discovered everything about how humans perceive objects and space-time.

It is telling that you complain about shooting the messenger while at the same time comparing CTE proponents to flat earthers.

Anyway, "French Roots", enjoy the anonymity and if you feel attacked then check your feelings because until you're attacked when using your personal name and your personal data you haven't been attacked. Your thoughts, the thoughts of an anonymous user, have been confronted. You're on the strict geometry side, we get it. Add one voice there. I could add ten more here on the other side if I asked them to post here. But what would be the point of that?

Have you said anything that your side hasn't said before? Nope. Nothing of substance. Have you described or insulted the pro-cte posters in any way that that hasn't been said before? Nope.

So basically, your contribution really doesn't move the discussion along and actually could just be ignored with the same result.

My thought is that if you've been lurking for a decade then that should have been plenty of time to bring original material to the table. Especially when one claims "french roots".

 

[JB Cases]

Excellent video! Like the "blue dot effect", the mind tends to make us see what we want to see based on conditioning.

Want is part of it but not all of it. How the mind works is still quite a mystery. But we know that optical illusions are real and that they trick the most hardened observer.

You have discovered a way to use a mathematical principle to cut through whatever illusions/issues arise from the alignment of two spheres at different angles.

Hal discovered ways to use perceptual tricks to do the same.

Math and physics underlie both methods but the "math" that governs perceptual methods isn't known yet nor does it need to be as pool is results-oriented.

So I do think it's more than the brain wanting to see something. I think it is truly a matter of perspective and perception from that perspective. The more we train to filter out the illusions the more we can see what is really there in my opinion.

 

[French Roots]

I am NOT going to engage in Mr. Barton's form of irrational BS. I did not even read his post here. However, the One Voice... I could add ten or more... caught my eye as I was moving down to make my post. The Mob Mentality of Majority Rule is BS. It can be a Million to One & the One can be right. Has anyone seen the Henry Fonda Movie where he was the Lone Juror holding out & he was right?

Very often CTE Supporters use the "attack the messenger" tactic because they have nothing of any real substance to support their position. They also very often try the "turn the table" tactic. Both are BS regarding any legitimate form of debate... & CTE supporters use such because they have nothing of any real substance to support their position because their position is wrong.

John Barton recently made a video to try to demonstrate how accurate CTE is & he only pocketed 3 of 14 shots for a 21.5% success rate. That is less than 1 out of 4. He could not even make a simple cross side bank. Yet CTE is supposed to be an "objective system" that "objectively dictates" to the shooter the shot line to "center pocket". He missed the pocket in 11 of 14 attempts & just about bragged how "close' he was. Close is not even any good in competitive horse shoes.

I have read many of John Barton's posts in the past. They are irrational & his attempts at analogies are NOT analogous. He starts with false premises & then tries to make a logical argument to form a conclusion that favors his position... but those conclusions have been false because the premises were false.

 

[cookie man]

Recently there was a nice regional tournament in Maryland. Lots of quality players in the 96 person field. Brandon Shuff won it and Matt Krah finished 5th. Not bad for 2 players using a system that people on here think they shouldn't use.

 

[French Roots]

One should use whatever method one wants to use. One believing or thinking they are using something does not actually mean that they are. One can not actually use what does not exist.

Fran Crimi posted that a certain pro was endorsing a certain aiming method & she thought that he must be struggling & was trying to find his game. She said that she was right & in less than a year he was not at all trying to use nor using what he had endorsed, but those endorsements were still out there.

 

[JB Cases]

I am NOT going to engage in Mr. Barton's form of irrational BS. I did not even read his post here. However, the One Voice... I could add ten or more... caught my eye as I was moving down to make my post. The Mob Mentality of Majority Rule is BS. It can be a Million to One & the One can be right. Has anyone seen the Henry Fonda Movie where he was the Lone Juror holding out & he was right?

Very often CTE Supporters use the "attack the messenger" tactic because they have nothing of any real substance to support their position. They also very often try the "turn the table" tactic. Both are BS regarding any legitimate form of debate... & CTE supporters use such because they have nothing of any real substance to support their position because their position is wrong.

John Barton recently made a video to try to demonstrate how accurate CTE is & he only pocketed 3 of 14 shots for a 21.5% success rate. That is less than 1 out of 4. He could not even make a simple cross side bank. Yet CTE is supposed to be an "objective system" that "objectively dictates" to the shooter the shot line to "center pocket". He missed the pocket in 11 of 14 attempts & just about bragged how "close' he was. Close is not even any good in competitive horse shoes.

I have read many of John Barton's posts in the past. They are irrational & his attempts at analogies are NOT analogous. He starts with false premises & then tries to make a logical argument to form a conclusion that favors his position... but those conclusions have been false because the premises were false.

LoL. Won't identify what the alleged false premise is but don't have a problem attacking "Mr Barton" with personal attacks. This done after crying about being personally attacked while posting under an anonymous account.

So by your "logic" if a video is posted where the user makes 100% of the shots taken using cte then this must prove that CTE works perfectly right?

 

[JB Cases]

One should use whatever method one wants to use. One believing or thinking they are using something does not actually mean that they are. One can not actually use what does not exist.

Fran Crimi posted that a certain pro was endorsing a certain aiming method & she thought that he must be struggling & was trying to find his game. She said that she was right & in less than a year he was not at all trying to use nor using what he had endorsed, but those endorsements were still out there.

What pro? All these vague anecdotal assertions are not scientific proof which one would not expect to see from a self-described scientifically literate critic.

 

[French Roots]

Yes. Not sure "hate" was the correct word. I should've used a different word.

I was mainly trying to show how ignorant (and borderline adolescent) it is to resort to name-calling, belittling, ridiculing, judging one's character, or literally declaring hate simply because of statements made in the anonymity of an online setting. Derogatory comments made in defense of or against something as trivial as an aiming system for pocketing pool balls should not be taken so seriously.

I know when emotions get riled up it's easy to fall into that type of back and forth. I've done it myself. But in the big picture, I'm not one to judge someone's character based on differences of opinion when it comes to aiming pool balls. It's just not a character-defining subject. Lol

However, it is not the difference of onion regarding aiming that shows ones character. It is what they say & do during the discussion of such that is indicative of their character.

 

[JB Cases]

I am NOT going to engage in Mr. Barton's form of irrational BS. I did not even read his post here. However, the One Voice... I could add ten or more... caught my eye as I was moving down to make my post. The Mob Mentality of Majority Rule is BS. It can be a Million to One & the One can be right. Has anyone seen the Henry Fonda Movie where he was the Lone Juror holding out & he was right?

Very often CTE Supporters use the "attack the messenger" tactic because they have nothing of any real substance to support their position. They also very often try the "turn the table" tactic. Both are BS regarding any legitimate form of debate... & CTE supporters use such because they have nothing of any real substance to support their position because their position is wrong.

John Barton recently made a video to try to demonstrate how accurate CTE is & he only pocketed 3 of 14 shots for a 21.5% success rate. That is less than 1 out of 4. He could not even make a simple cross side bank. Yet CTE is supposed to be an "objective system" that "objectively dictates" to the shooter the shot line to "center pocket". He missed the pocket in 11 of 14 attempts & just about bragged how "close' he was. Close is not even any good in competitive horse shoes.

I have read many of John Barton's posts in the past. They are irrational & his attempts at analogies are NOT analogous. He starts with false premises & then tries to make a logical argument to form a conclusion that favors his position... but those conclusions have been false because the premises were false.

Mob mentality? Talk about false premises........

Since you indicated that you won't engage with me even though that's exactly what you are doing by mentioning me and my content, it seems like barely scanning what I wrote is going to be your preferred method of choosing what to respond to. What I said is that your voice here is meaningless when you have nothing new to offer just as adding ten more people who are pro-whatever is equally meaningless if all they offer is support without anything that settles the central disputes.