A real CTE shot for you to try.

[cookie man]

Not sure what you are reading. Several of my posts have been about hitting the shots. You should also know that "trying to find something wrong with it" is called peer review and is a critical component of science. That is different from trying to undermine a scientist by lying and falsifying data, which is not my intent (many climate scientists do that). With you and others on the 2x1 thing I don't take your first answer because those answers are often vague and don't get down to the nitty gritty the way mohrt did in his second video.

Criticizing something you know very little about, like your climate guy example, sounds just a little like what you do. Peer reviews should be done by knowledgeable people in the field. Do you consider yourself to be that person when reviewing CTE? I hardly think so.
My answer on the 2x1 table question was very complete, and tested out.

Concerning hitting the shots. You did it what once. Two different shots, one you made and one you didn't. That does not qualify as actually putting anything to the test.

 

[cookie man]

So, how's the book selling? I sure wish somebody would write a review and post it here.

Seriously, has anybody read the whole book, cover to cover? Mohrt?

Anybody?

Anybody?

Yes Mark, numerous people have read the book. The reviews are awesome. Haven't seen one complaint. It has every little thing you would ever want to know about CTE in it.

 

[Dan White]

I stopped reading when you told me what I believe and why I believe it.

Actually, you already told me what you believe. I don't remember the exact words but they were along the lines of someone being crazy if they thought climate change wasn't a real thing.

I should have stopped when you said you are only interested in reality and the truth. That is clearly not true.

You are only interested in what you think the truth is. Your truth, your reality.

That's how it works. If there is something wrong with what I say you show me where and we move forward. That's what is happening with mohrt's thread.

For the record, there is nothing that I believe just because a politician said it.

I'm pretty knowledgeable about climate science. The vast majority of people who believe it is a problem have been duped by politicians, corrupt scientists, and institutions that benefit from it being a real problem. I apologize if I lumped you in where you don't belong, but if you believe the scare it certainly isn't because of the depth of the science. That's a 100% fact.

 

[mohrt]

I forgot about this video and just now watched it. I am very glad to know you were a math major because that means you understand logic. On the other hand, neither of us, nor probably anybody else in this forum, is an expert on perception. I really liked this video because it laid things out clearly and with greater detail when it comes to the "mystery" part. Some reactions:

1. In my video analysis of your first shooting video I was attempting to kind of document what it is you were doing. I was looking for clues as to what might be causing your shot success. Sometimes you think you know what you are doing but in reality you don't. We are all victim to that. I'm not saying that happened here, but the video did disclose a couple of things which may or may not even matter. It's just data at this point. One observation is that you do approach the cue ball with the cue on the same line for each shot, and then pivot or sweep the cue into the shot line. I also observed that you were doing 1/2 tip pivots, but I agree that this isn't really important. What is important or relevant is that you ended up on the correct shot line each time, and that shot line was at a greater and greater angle to your initial cue and body position as you stepped in. Since you were stepping in the same way each time you had to make a greater and greater pivot to the NISL. Let's come back to that below.

2. In your video you moved the balls forward and then at 11:20 you said that you got the AL/SL and then before you got the NISL you said you can already tell the perception looks different than the prior set up. This is confusing. Can you elaborate? For this inside B shot the AL is edge to B (center ob) and the SL center to left edge. If you are consciously trying to align to these two spots and can even confirm while down on the shot that you can still see the AL as edge to B and can still see the SL as center to left edge then how can that alignment appear any different from the prior one?

3. Given item 2 it seems like the mystery is occurring before you acquire the NISL. IF that is true, and I'm not married to that idea yet, then there is a contradiction with your first video. As I mentioned above in item 1, you entered into each shot exactly the same way with the same body orientation and cue alignment and that suggests you were seeing the sight lines the same way. It appeared that the larger and larger shifts to the shot line as you moved down table happened after you were already down on the shot. What I'm getting at is at what point does the perception change? In the first video you entered each shot on the exact same body line and then adjusted to the shot line in shooting position. In the second video you are saying that the AL/SL lines look different before you get down to shoot, which suggests that there won't be much of an adjustment to get to the shot line. I hope that makes some sense.

4. Do you think the NISL adjustment is a fixed angle for all shots? In Stan's 4th video he demonstrates how he learned about stepping the cue ball. He puts a cue ball with red dot facing up and 1.5 diamonds away from the rail diamond. He shows how to avert your eyes to the edge of the cb and that shifts the alignment between the red dot and where it crosses the diamond to the edge of the diamond, or about 1/4 inch from center. I did the math considering that the cb was 12.5" + 6.25" + 3.5" to the diamond, assuming Stan was using his 9 foot table. That means that the gaze at the cb edge shits center ball by 0.64 degrees, or just over a quarter inch for a two diamond separation shot as in our examples. That means the NISL procedure shifts the contact point by maybe half of that depending on how far apart the balls are. I'm not concluding anything about that other than to ask if the NISL is a fixed angle adjustment. Stan, to my knowledge, doesn't say but I do not have the book.

Again, good video.

The uniqueness of the shot starts at AL/SL. Not NISL. I’ve tried to point this out numerous times over many videos and threads of discussion over years.

When I align to AL/SL for a given shot, then move the orientation of the balls on the table and again align to AL/SL, I can often tell the perception is slightly different. As in, the eye position in unique, even though the process is the same. Like I already said, that is likely where you need to be looking to figure out how CTE perceptions work.

 

[Dan White]

And Dan, please don't talk about science and junk science since you put up the junkiest possible videos to attempt to discredit Stan and Mohrt.

Not going to go into another dialog about practicality but yes, results matter. And, I don't promote anything that I don't find to be practical and valuable to the user. I have many friends in this industry and not a single one of them has any product or service that I recommend to others simply because of the friendship.

It is because of such assumptions/accusations that I stopped thinking of you as sincere and only see you as malicious.

Pretty sure I have read you correctly on this. But please continue so that you can provide even more evidence of your true state of mind.

Aren't you the one who made a promise to Hal Houle to spread the word and make his vision of CTE everywhere a reality? That was you, right? I didn't say you recommend things you don't like. What I am getting at is that you have an emotional attachment to CTE and I think that clouds your judgment... maybe. mohrt has said he has no dog in the hunt and I believe him.

I haven't seen you make a logical counterpoint to any of my videos that I can recall. If you want to join in a debate on topic in mohrt's thread please do.

Oh, and can you tell me what my agenda is just so I know?
I understand how offensive it is for me to tell you what you believe but I guess you can do it to me. )

 

[Dan White]

So, how's the book selling? I sure wish somebody would write a review and post it here.

Seriously, has anybody read the whole book, cover to cover? Mohrt?

Anybody?

Anybody?

If Stan has 1000 people in facebook then that's probably $100,000 so far, or not far from it I imagine.

 

[Dan White]

Criticizing something you know very little about, like your climate guy example, sounds just a little like what you do. Peer reviews should be done by knowledgeable people in the field. Do you consider yourself to be that person when reviewing CTE? I hardly think so.

I have been playing pool for decades so, yes, I can have an opinion. Peer review does not require that every reviewer has the same background. In fact, it is better if they don't. A marine biologist might have a paper reviewed by a statistician and a geologist, for example.

My answer on the 2x1 table question was very complete, and tested out.

I'll reread that later but I kind of got pulled off of the 2x1 thing. I believe I understand your point.

Concerning hitting the shots. You did it what once. Two different shots, one you made and one you didn't. That does not qualify as actually putting anything to the test.

I did it with Hal probably before you did. I've done it off and on for many years and never got it to work, I believe, because I held strictly to the instructions. You didn't pay attention to that video because I said I had been doing it for about an hour. It may also be that certain people can do it and others can't. I know that you guys are 100% sincere in what you are doing with CTE but while I have to acknowledge that it might be something you can legitimately do, you have to do the same and recognize that it simply can't be done by others. I have my own thoughts as to why and they are different from yours. So what. Maybe the discussion with mohrt will bear fruit.

 

[Dan White]

The uniqueness of the shot starts at AL/SL. Not NISL. I’ve tried to point this out numerous times over many videos and threads of discussion over years.

It's a difficult concept to absorb.

When I align to AL/SL for a given shot, then move the orientation of the balls on the table and again align to AL/SL, I can often tell the perception is slightly different. As in, the eye position in unique, even though the process is the same. Like I already said, that is likely where you need to be looking to figure out how CTE perceptions work.

OK I understand that point, but you didn't address my question. If you are aligning to ETB and CTE both times, and you can verify that you are on the B and the edge lines both times then how can they look slightly different? You understand what I'm saying, right?

 

[cookie man]

I did it with Hal probably before you did. I've done it off and on for many years and never got it to work, I believe, because I held strictly to the instructions. You didn't pay attention to that video because I said I had been doing it for about an hour. It may also be that certain people can do it and others can't. I know that you guys are 100% sincere in what you are doing with CTE but while I have to acknowledge that it might be something you can legitimately do, you have to do the same and recognize that it simply can't be done by others. I have my own thoughts as to why and they are different from yours. So what. Maybe the discussion with mohrt will bear fruit.

You may have talked to Hal before me but I got it to work in the first 2 minutes of talking to him. And I've used it for about 14 years. And i hold to strict instructions or i don't make the ball, pretty simple. I would like to hear more about what Hal taught you specifically though.

I have no doubt that some people get it and some don't. That's a given in my book.

 

[cookie man]

It's a difficult concept to absorb.


OK I understand that point, but you didn't address my question. If you are aligning to ETB and CTE both times, and you can verify that you are on the B and the edge lines both times then how can they look slightly different? You understand what I'm saying, right?

Because the lines would cross each ball positions differently. A CTEL will always hit an OB in a different spot, similar to the contact point on the OB always being different.

 

[JB Cases]

Aren't you the one who made a promise to Hal Houle to spread the word and make his vision of CTE everywhere a reality? That was you, right? I didn't say you recommend things you don't like. What I am getting at is that you have an emotional attachment to CTE and I think that clouds your judgment... maybe. mohrt has said he has no dog in the hunt and I believe him.

I haven't seen you make a logical counterpoint to any of my videos that I can recall. If you want to join in a debate on topic in mohrt's thread please do.

Oh, and can you tell me what my agenda is just so I know?
I understand how offensive it is for me to tell you what you believe but I guess you can do it to me. )

I have only made logical counterpoints.

I told you what my opinion is of your agenda based on your actions.

No I made no such promise to Hal Houle. Hal Houle and I never discussed any aiming system called CTE.

 

[JB Cases]

Actually, you already told me what you believe. I don't remember the exact words but they were along the lines of someone being crazy if they thought climate change wasn't a real thing.

I don't remember any such conversation with you but at no time have I ever stated that I believe anything because a politician said so.

What I think about climate change and what you think are inconsequential. I will act according to what works for me according to what I believe to be true. Charging your mind about anything is completely meaningless to me.

That's how it works. If there is something wrong with what I say you show me where and we move forward. That's what is happening with mohrt's thread.

Oh really, I showed you what you did and said wrong in several of your videos and we didn't move forward.

I'm pretty knowledgeable about climate science. The vast majority of people who believe it is a problem have been duped by politicians, corrupt scientists, and institutions that benefit from it being a real problem. I apologize if I lumped you in where you don't belong, but if you believe the scare it certainly isn't because of the depth of the science. That's a 100% fact.

I guess you are trying to draw me into a climate change debate?

I will say only that it is no surprise where you stand on that subject. You are an old white guy with nothing to lose so why not?

 

[Dan White]

You may have talked to Hal before me but I got it to work in the first 2 minutes of talking to him. And I've used it for about 14 years. And i hold to strict instructions or i don't make the ball, pretty simple. I would like to hear more about what Hal taught you specifically though.

I have no doubt that some people get it and some don't. That's a given in my book.

In honesty the conversation didn't get too far. He showed me the concept and had me hit some easy shots. I kept asking how the cue should be directed and he said to forget about the cue and just hit it. I realized at that point that this was a pivot system. Aim at a fixed spot and adjust your pivot as needed to pocket the ball. I got more out of his Greenleaf stories. Over the years following that I would give CTE another try based on conversations here but it never worked for me. The ball orientation mystery thing doesn't work for me.

 

[Dan White]

Because the lines would cross each ball positions differently. A CTEL will always hit an OB in a different spot, similar to the contact point on the OB always being different.

It will not hit the ball in a different spot if the two different shots have the same separation between cb and ob as in mohrt's example shot.

 

[Dan White]

I guess you are trying to draw me into a climate change debate?

I will say only that it is no surprise where you stand on that subject. You are an old white guy with nothing to lose so why not?

Don't want to get into it with you and your last sentence shows why. The data doesn't care who is looking at it.

 

[cookie man]

It will not hit the ball in a different spot if the two different shots have the same separation between cb and ob as in mohrt's example shot.

It will and it does hit in a different spot. Now we know why you are having a problem

 

[cookie man]

In honesty the conversation didn't get too far. He showed me the concept and had me hit some easy shots. I kept asking how the cue should be directed and he said to forget about the cue and just hit it. I realized at that point that this was a pivot system. Aim at a fixed spot and adjust your pivot as needed to pocket the ball. I got more out of his Greenleaf stories. Over the years following that I would give CTE another try based on conversations here but it never worked for me. The ball orientation mystery thing doesn't work for me.

Did he have you do the half ball pivot?

I'm sure the Greenleaf stories were a blast.

 

[JB Cases]

Don't want to get into it with you and your last sentence shows why. The data doesn't care who is looking at it.

Figures don't lie but liars figure?

Where is your cte data?

That's right, you don't have any.

I don't know, when trying to discredit the objectivity of a method the skeptic shoots two shots and explains to the audience that he found an objective aim point for the second shot after many tries but fails to understand significance of that discovery. Same skeptic then tries to talk about his extensive knowledge of science as if that, if true, has any bearing on the subject. It seems to me that no one who claims to follow the scientific method in search of answers would ever put out anything as incomplete and incompetent as the preceding example.

But it was done and so it is in this context that I tell you that nothing you say on this subject actually matters to me. You have discredited yourself in my opinion.

 

[Dan White]

Figures don't lie but liars figure?

Where is your cte data?

That's right, you don't have any.

I don't know, when trying to discredit the objectivity of a method the skeptic shoots two shots and explains to the audience that he found an objective aim point for the second shot after many tries but fails to understand significance of that discovery. Same skeptic then tries to talk about his extensive knowledge of science as if that, if true, has any bearing on the subject. It seems to me that no one who claims to follow the scientific method in search of answers would ever put out anything as incomplete and incompetent as the preceding example.

But it was done and so it is in this context that I tell you that nothing you say on this subject actually matters to me. You have discredited yourself in my opinion.

Well it will be hard but I guess I'll have to soldier on without you.

 

[Dan White]

It will and it does hit in a different spot. Now we know why you are having a problem

Let's back up to where we have common ground because I don't understand why we disagree. We're talking about pure geometry for the moment, if you will. Forget the pool table, 2x1 or pockets. Two balls are 2 diamonds away. You aim center cb to edge ob for a "half ball hit." You can see the alignment clearly. Now move the two balls somewhere else but still 2 diamonds away. Same result, right? Now do the same thing with two lines. The first is cb edge to B and the second is center to edge. You line them up when they are 2 diamonds away from each other and it looks a certain way. Move the balls to a different place still the same 2 diamonds apart and it still looks the same, correct?

Are we on the same page here? If not then can you explain the geometry?