CJ Wiley: flat earther

filler may not be better than lassiter was. we will never know. but in any case it would be close.

filler would win on todays equipment and jumping rules

and lassiter would win i believe on the old equipment and playing conditions.

but both in their prime would adjust to the conditions and be tops and rated in the top few.
 
Last edited:
sjm said:
Darn right. I visited Stonehenge in June with a friend. The tour guide, who referred to it as "a giant 4,000-year-old Lego" noted that not only have they not figured out how they erected the structure, which involved lifting stones that weighed thousands of pounds, to great heights, but they cannot figure out how the stones (of a type only available in Northern Wales at the time, some 100+ miles away) were brought to the Salisbury plain on which Stonehenge sits.

The evidence that even prehistoric man had a great comprehension of science and engineering is undeniable, but nobody can fully explain numerous prehistoric achievements. Yes, the pyramids and Stonehenge are the best know mysteries, but there are many others.
Click to expand...
Just to elaborate, people don't know the specific methods used, but there are plenty of demonstratable techniques using the technology of the time to achieve Stonehenge, the Pyramids, and any other "mystery." For example, from the Wikipedia for Stonehenge:

Over the years, various authors have suggested that supernatural or anachronistic methods were used, often asserting that the stones could not have been moved otherwise due to their massive size. However, conventional techniques, using Neolithic technology as basic as shear legs, have been demonstrably effective at moving and placing stones of a similar size. The most common theory of how prehistoric people moved megaliths has them creating a track of logs along which the large stones were rolled. Another megalith transport theory involves the use of a type of sleigh running on a track greased with animal fat. An experiment with a sleigh carrying a 40-ton slab of stone was successfully conducted near Stonehenge in 1995; a team of more than 100 workers managed to push and pull the slab along the 18-mile (29 km) journey from the Marlborough Downs
Click to expand...
 
ShootingArts said:
The biggest flaw with TOI is that it is a cure for a problem that doesn't exist, actually makes the problem worse! Shooting at the middle of the cue ball a slight error has very little effect. People think it is the end of the world if you meant to use one sidespin and you get none or less or even cross over the centerline of the cue ball. The reality is it has less to do with the path of the balls than if you are starting from a touch of inside to begin with.

With a touch of inside, the surface of the cue ball is now falling away on one side. If the amount of error on each side is the same for a centerball hit or a touch of anything hit, the degree of ball path error will be greater when the two sides are not equal. The whole touch of inside thing has always been a red herring. It might create more focus in an individual but so will other less harmful things.

Hu
Click to expand...
The objective is to not put outside spin on the ball unless that is what you intended to do.

It is either intentionally inside or "neutral" if you happen to hit a bit "outside" of TOI.

That keeps "runaway" cue balls to a minimum.
 
Rocket354 said:
Just to elaborate, people don't know the specific methods used, but there are plenty of demonstratable techniques using the technology of the time to achieve Stonehenge, the Pyramids, and any other "mystery." For example, from the Wikipedia for Stonehenge:
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. Very interesting stuff. I was only sharing what a tour guide at Stonehenge related. Again, I think the key here is to recognize that prehistoric man had a greater grasp of science and engineering methods than we might think.

Still, the matter of how dozens of gigantic stones which were specific to a section of Wales were moved over 100+ miles to the Salisbury plain is not open and shut, at very least not in the eyes of the on-site scientists at Stonehenge.

Still, I'm with you for the most part. There's always an explanation for the seemingly inexplicable, we just have to look hard enough for it.
 
HawaiianEye said:
The objective is to not put outside spin on the ball unless that is what you intended to do.

It is either intentionally inside or "neutral" if you happen to hit a bit "outside" of TOI.

That keeps "runaway" cue balls to a minimum.
Click to expand...

What is the dispersion of cue ball locations if we consider contact accuracy to be within a 32nd of an inch, a sixteenth total? The dispersion from either side of centerline is minimal. The dispersion from the outside of the contact area when considering starting off from one side is more, considerably more if we add in that many pro's advocate some level of sidespin to almost all shots.

Just the nature of two curved objects, the further from center the two objects contact each other, the greater the effect of the curves. Moving where the contact area will be from a less sensitive area to a more sensitive area seems basically flawed.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
What is the dispersion of cue ball locations if we consider contact accuracy to be within a 32nd of an inch, a sixteenth total? The dispersion from either side of centerline is minimal. The dispersion from the outside of the contact area when considering starting off from one side is more, considerably more if we add in that many pro's advocate some level of sidespin to almost all shots.

Just the nature of two curved objects, the further from center the two objects contact each other, the greater the effect of the curves. Moving where the contact area will be from a less sensitive area to a more sensitive area seems basically flawed.

Hu
Click to expand...
It works for me.

I have no problem with it.

I have played with it for decades and don't even think about it.
 
HawaiianEye said:
I have played wit it for decades and don't even think about it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Your subconscious recognizes the angle of the shot after a LOT of repetition. You've developed a consistent way of delivering the cue ball to where it needs to go. It works because you expect it to.
No system will ever give the accuracy needed to perform tough shots. The nature of the shot and the physics of round objects striking each other leaves you with way too much guesswork. Without recognizing the shot and knowing how to shoot it, your chances of pocketing balls only increases slightly with a system since it can only get you in the ballpark.
 
jay helfert said:
Had several experiences like that. One time I'm walking out of a casino and had a strange premonition about the Chuck-A-Luck game by the exit. The number six stuck in my head and I felt like I had to play, even though the odds are so bad. I walked over and put 100 on the number six.

Lo and behold three 6's came up on that spin. I knew I should quit but I couldn't help myself so I played once more and quit. That was weird!

We have powers we don't understand and strength we didn't know excisted. I've gotten out of some serious jams by showing power instead of weakness. Saw the fear in their eyes and watched them cower.
Click to expand...
Those all all hold overs from our limbic system fellas. Instincts on overdrive. We still retain some of that from our past when there were animals out there that preyed upon man. When the hair stands up on the back of your neck? That gut feeling you get? A general uneasiness that something ain't right? All attributable.
 
sjm said:
Thanks for that. Very interesting stuff. I was only sharing what a tour guide at Stonehenge related. Again, I think the key here is to recognize that prehistoric man had a greater grasp of science and engineering methods than we might think.

Still, the matter of how dozens of gigantic stones which were specific to a section of Wales were moved over 100+ miles to the Salisbury plain is not open and shut, at very least not in the eyes of the on-site scientists at Stonehenge.

Still, I'm with you for the most part. There's always an explanation for the seemingly inexplicable, we just have to look hard enough for it.
Click to expand...
Imagine that!! Smart people even way back then!!🤷🏻‍♂️😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: sjm
Anybody that has the knowledge and skills to make touch of inside work has the knowledge and skills to not need it.

I used TOO for years, a touch of outside to minimize throw. The world didn't end. I used touch of inside too, whatever the shot needed. Heavy inside english and follow have gotten uncommon enough that I was having people jump out of their chair when the ball didn't behave as expected. All of these things are just tools to break out as needed.

If a shot benefits from a little inside I will use it. Making it the default thing to use feels like a crutch, and a handicap!

Whatever gets somebody through the night! It's all good if it works for you.

Hu
 
ShootingArts said:
Anybody that has the knowledge and skills to make touch of inside work has the knowledge and skills to not need it.

I used TOO for years, a touch of outside to minimize throw. The world didn't end. I used touch of inside too, whatever the shot needed. Heavy inside english and follow have gotten uncommon enough that I was having people jump out of their chair when the ball didn't behave as expected. All of these things are just tools to break out as needed.

If a shot benefits from a little inside I will use it. Making it the default thing to use feels like a crutch, and a handicap!

Whatever gets somebody through the night! It's all good if it works for you.

Hu
Click to expand...
It's just an aiming offset. Gun people do it habitually - right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top