John Schmidt says CTE works after all.

SpiderWebComm said:

No sir! On the contrary, you were EXTREMELY smart to have an open mind to give CTE a try and work through it as you did and become proficient with it.
Would you say you're better off now using it than without it?
You've been playing pool for decades, maybe longer than anyone on here if you started in your teens. You've seen every aiming system in existence.
Would it be an accurate statement to say CTE is an "outside the box" method to aim and align balls for pocketing shots compared to everything else?
(check your pm inbox. I'll send the answers. Please don't share especially with "you know who")

Click to expand...

oldmanatc said:

English it is beyond your current understanding of science and reality. Please don't take that as an insult. I'm sorry I'm not qualified to describe it scientifically, but the example I gave is very real. I have told each person I conducted the test to use the point of CB That is touching the felt as a reference for CCB then visualize a line from CCB to OBE and lay the shaft along this line behind CB.

I have conducted the test twice at my house where 3 CBs were used the rest have been at a local bar and only one CB could be used.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

GoldenFlash said:

There is no question that I am better off by using the CTE method of aiming. And I have seen them all.
I (we) and other pool room loafers had the pleasure of watching Wimpy reveal his system for aiming back in 1955 after he'd beat Joe Cosgrove and Danny Jones in that order. He used a system with a line he'd drawn on the ferrule with india ink and a mechanical drawing pen. Billy Johnson's method was VERY close to Stan's CTE system.
My eyesight is still 20/25 in both eyes, I wear no corrective lenses, have no cataracts, and I am 77 years old. My blood pressure is 120/68. my heart rate is 52 and my weight is appropriate. I quit smoking back when Lucky Strikes were 27 cents a pack and you put a quarter and a nickel in the machine and the pack came out with 3 cents stuck inside the cellophane wrapper.
I used to think there was something wrong with me physically....not so after discovering CTE.
I can now merely look at a shot, determine if it is a 15-30-45, get down, manual pivot and drill that sucker. Yea, yea, I still miss but it is NOT because I aimed wrong...(that paragraph was for the 'delusional one' before the mini-thesis begins, etc.)
I am still planning a visit to Kentucky for a couple of days for in-person instruction with Stan, though. Waiting until spring (April) so I can get in a few hit and miss spots for some Crappie fishing while I am in his area.
Honestly, I don't know what "outside the box" means. I do know that with only Stan's discoveries to be concerned with, pool shooting is again like it was when I was 21.
"Delusional ones" can do as they please. :thumbup:

Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:

I am very glad for you that are playing well utilizing IT & are happy with the results. Enjoy your trip in April.

Click to expand...

stan shuffett said:

I am very glad for GoldenFlash that he is playing well utilizing Center-To-Edge Aiming with great results. I look forward to meeting and working with him.
Success is a choice! GoldenFlash does not have to reference his system as IT because he chose to know and understand CTE. This individual knows how to learn. He has clearly demonstrated real motivation by the fact that he cut out a 2x1 rectangular surface so he could study the visuals on the job during his bus stops. I tip my hat to this man!
I am betting that GoldenFlash references his vehicle as a bus and not an IT.
Stan Shuffett

Click to expand...

GoldenFlash said:

...Honestly, I don't know what "outside the box" means....

Click to expand...

Jal said:

It means thinking about something in a novel way, as in breaking a pattern.

Goldenflash and all of us who got involved with CTE are prime examples of your definition for "thinking outside the box".. Stan is at the top of the totem pole as far as taking it beyond Hal when thinking about something in a novel way and breaking all old patterns of visualization for aiming.

An example would be if Spiderweb thought of something to contribute other than ad hominem ranting, or Stan realizing that his 'visual intelligence' was just past experience creeping in through the backdoor.

I don't think a kick by a mule in your backdoor would even help to get you out of your vertical inside the box thinking.

Jim

Click to expand...

Jal said:

It means thinking about something in a novel way, as in breaking a pattern. An example would be if Spiderweb thought of something to contribute other than ad hominem ranting, or Stan realizing that his 'visual intelligence' was just past experience creeping in through the backdoor.

Jim

Click to expand...

stan shuffett said:

[
QUOTE=Jal;5471607]It means thinking about something in a novel way, as in breaking a pattern. An example would be if Spiderweb thought of something to contribute other than ad hominem ra

It is commonly known that one's brain is about 60% visual in nature of its whole.

Pool is a visually driven game. Your pitfall is that you can only understand pool from the mathematical aspect of your brain. The material that you offer is virtually useless as far as how the game should really be played.

I have studied perception for nearly a decade and have come to understand how one's vision can be optimally used for viewing two spheres for aiming purposes.

I can explain proper CCB offsetting.
I can explain in and out vision alignments.
I can explain straight line offset sighting.
I can explain exactly when conventional aiming is used and why.
i can explain the specifics for using 3 dominance apects of one's vision.
I can explain CTE as a multiple straight line system.
I can explain three major aiming alignments for CTE that are exact.
I can explain how mirrored in and out alignments are used.
I can explain how CTE yields a wide band of vision vs. a limited ban for conventional aiming.
I can explain the pivot and what it is for.
I could go on and on about what I understand that you know nothing about.

One thing is for certain, you understand pool incorrectly.....your math mind is nothing for explaining how to really see the game....

Anytime that YOU want to debate VISUAL INTELLIGENCE at a table, .I will accommodate you and you will become a huge loser.

Stan Shuffett

Click to expand...

Jal said:

It means thinking about something in a novel way, as in breaking a pattern. An example would be if Spiderweb thought of something to contribute other than ad hominem ranting, or Stan realizing that his 'visual intelligence' was just past experience creeping in through the backdoor.

Jim

Click to expand...

8pack said:

.......................................................................


No one tries to attach math to the game, but it can be done.(when balls collide math tends to fall short) The tables we play on are 2x1, You are the one who attached your system to the table and to the pockets. The table in return gave us he truth of your VISUAL INTELLIGENCE and its called adjusting,shooting when the shot looks right.
Pool is easy to understand, and Im sure in your mind many of us are loser's . Like in most cases on aiming here , the truth is hard to see, or is it.

Click to expand...

oldmanatc said:

English, first off I understand that the test has potential falsifications, but it still illustrates that the eye aacounts for ball position on the table automatically. The way I described how to perform the tests was to visualize the line then put the shaft on the line. By visualizing the line first, the shape of the shaft has no bearing. I used the distance from the closest diamond to measure how much each shaft was offset.

The major difference between CTE and fractional aiming is that in fractional aiming you are visualizing the balls overlapping, where with CTE you are visually aligning four points. The range that you can visualize CTE is somewhat narrow. Once you find both CTE and ET#, you are in a precise position relative to the CB. This isn't hoccus pocus, every CTE user experiences this same phenomenon and accurately enough to pocket most shots. The test results seem to indicate that this isnt a learned behavior, instead it is how we perceive these situations in a 3 dimensional world. There is plenty of evidence out there that the eye isnt perfect and can be tricked into perceiving things different from what they really are. There is a spacial relationship that the eye accounts for when utilizing CTE. Stan calls it visual intelligence, and I don't have any better term for it.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

oldmanatc said:

English, first off I understand that the test has potential falsifications, but it still illustrates that the eye aacounts for ball position on the table automatically. The way I described how to perform the tests was to visualize the line then put the shaft on the line. By visualizing the line first, the shape of the shaft has no bearing. I used the distance from the closest diamond to measure how much each shaft was offset.

The major difference between CTE and fractional aiming is that in fractional aiming you are visualizing the balls overlapping, where with CTE you are visually aligning four points. The range that you can visualize CTE is somewhat narrow. Once you find both CTE and ET#, you are in a precise position relative to the CB. This isn't hoccus pocus, every CTE user experiences this same phenomenon and accurately enough to pocket most shots. The test results seem to indicate that this isnt a learned behavior, instead it is how we perceive these situations in a 3 dimensional world. There is plenty of evidence out there that the eye isnt perfect and can be tricked into perceiving things different from what they really are. There is a spacial relationship that the eye accounts for when utilizing CTE. Stan calls it visual intelligence, and I don't have any better term for it.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:

Dan,

I guess it seems that some of us are immune to the supposed 'physical visual phenomenon' or... it simply does not exists.

When I & others see the CTE & ETA lines simultaneously & get that fixed cue ball & then do the exact same defined prescribed pivot...
we get the same cut angle & not a different cut angle.

That is... unless we allow our individual subjectively time learn shot pictures to influence us to shoot the shot differently which means deviation from the objective visual because we must be immune to the supposed 'physical visual phenomenon'.

Just a thought.

Regards.

Click to expand...

stan shuffett said:

You

Ride your wave while you can! Enjoy it! You will crash along with anyone else that has placed all their marbles on the 5 shots.

I will be devoting one chapter of 32 entirely to the 5 shots that you and others are ALL IN with.

There will be diagraming, V locations, precise visual alignments to include detailed dominance info.....exact reverse engineering for the 5 shots....

You picked the wrong shots to sweat! I have missed some calls for a very few shots in my work but those 5 are not included.

Stan Shuffett

Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:

Sir,

I look forward to your intellectually logical explanations.[/QUOTE/]



Few words, wisely chosen.......cause the train is a comin'

Stan Shuffett

Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:

Sir,

I look forward to your intellectually logical explanations.

From your statement can we assume you'll be one of the first in line to PURCHASE his book in order to take it to the table and satisfy your not so intellectual and illogical assertions over the last few years?

If they exist, why have you not put them forth here a long time ago.

I guess you haven't been paying attention just as you've not paid attention to him or everybody who tries getting through to you. His book was just completed and soon TO BE released.

Perhaps if you had, it would have saved much time & misunderstanding, etc.

Click to expand...

ENGLISH! said:

Sir,

I look forward to your intellectually logical explanations.

If they exist, why have you not put them forth here a long time ago.

Perhaps if you had, it would have saved much time & misunderstanding, etc.

Click to expand...