A real CTE shot for you to try.

[mohrt]

This is just an observation I made at the table. Interesting nonetheless. I don't know if this means anything, but I thought I'd share. I setup this specific shot at the table, it is a 30I to the upper right corner pocket. For illustration purposes I drew the CB as a double-vision ball as one would observe when putting focus on the OB. Once I was on my offset where I could see AL and SL correctly for ball pocketing, I closed each eye independently and this is what I noted.

1) when closing the left eye only, I observed the right edge of the cueball aligned with OB center. This is appropriate for AL. The CB center was to the left of the OB left edge, crossing nothing of importance that I could see.
2) when closing the right eye only, the right edge of the CB was right of OB center, crossing nothing of importance that I could see. The CB center was right of OB left edge, crossing nothing of importance that I could see.

This equated to some observable things:
* both eyes must be used together to form a workable perception. Separately they did reveal some interesting data.
* the AL was aligned with OB center (B), and the right edge of the cueball perceived with the right eye. (see line drawn on right-hand side)
* the SL was aligned with OB left edge and the (at least what appeared to be) center of the cueball overlap from left and right eyes combined. (see line drawn on left-hand side)

Is this consistent with all CTE shots? I have yet to draw any conclusions, this is the only shot I tested thus far. It would be interesting if other proficient CTE users observe the same thing I did with this specific shot setup.

I'm going to note that none of this information is anything official or a guide anyone should follow regarding CTE. It is only an observation of details for the sake of discussion. You know, for science

 

[French Roots]

So, now one wants to "bet" that I would want to slap him, if I could get away with it. He would lose that bet, if God was the one to ,decide who wins.

It seems that some project themselves out rather much.

If someone says, "I want to kill you". That should be reported to the authorities & perhaps get a restraining order against that individual. It is threatening if not a technical threat that they are going to do so. One can also threaten without acting on that threat. Also people who want to threaten without technically getting caught doing so can know how to word it to get the point across while not technically making a threat.

"for years"? No. 1 or 2 times & maybe more "over the years"? Yes.

Dan White has posted about a PBIA Certified Instructor.

I am NOT going to post any specifics of what I know because do not want to open those deranged can of worms.

Has anyone noticed that when the CTEers get involved in a thread involving those telling the truth that things get taken OFF of the topic of CTE?

 

[cookie man]

View attachment 597375
This is just an observation I made at the table. Interesting nonetheless. I don't know if this means anything, but I thought I'd share. I setup this specific shot at the table, it is a 30I to the upper right corner pocket. For illustration purposes I drew the CB as a double-vision ball as one would observe when putting focus on the OB. Once I was on my offset where I could see AL and SL correctly for ball pocketing, I closed each eye independently and this is what I noted.

1) when closing the left eye only, I observed the right edge of the cueball aligned with OB center. This is appropriate for AL. The CB center was to the left of the OB left edge, crossing nothing of importance that I could see.
2) when closing the right eye only, the right edge of the CB was right of OB center, crossing nothing of importance that I could see. The CB center was right of OB left edge, crossing nothing of importance that I could see.

This equated to some observable things:
* both eyes must be used together to form a workable perception. Separately they did reveal some interesting data.
* the AL was aligned with OB center (B), and the right edge of the cueball perceived with the right eye. (see line drawn on right-hand side)
* the SL was aligned with OB left edge and the (at least what appeared to be) center of the cueball overlap from left and right eyes combined. (see line drawn on left-hand side)

Is this consistent with all CTE shots? I have yet to draw any conclusions, this is the only shot I tested thus far. It would be interesting if other proficient CTE users observe the same thing I did with this specific shot setup.

I'm going to note that none of this information is anything official or a guide anyone should follow regarding CTE. It is only an observation of details for the sake of discussion. You know, for science

Your observations are correct for this shot. And i'm betting you will get similar results on all shots. Closing the right eye also makes the inside dead on.

 

[French Roots]

No one has to read a word that I post & most of my posts have been in response to others posting to, at, or about me... just as this post was in response to such.

 

[cookie man]

So, now one wants to "bet" that I would want to slap him, if I could get away with it. He would lose that bet, if God was the one to ,decide who wins.

It seems that some project themselves out rather much.

If someone says, "I want to kill you". That should be reported to the authorities & perhaps get a restraining order against that individual. It is threatening if not a technical threat that they are going to do so. One can also threaten without acting on that threat. Also people who want to threaten without technically getting caught doing so can know how to word it to get the point across while not technically making a threat.

"for years"? No. 1 or 2 times & maybe more "over the years"? Yes.

Dan White has posted about a PBIA Certified Instructor.

I am NOT going to post any specifics of what I know because do not want to open those deranged can of worms.

Has anyone noticed that when the CTEers get involved in a thread involving those telling the truth that things get taken OFF of the topic of CTE?

Man, did you come here with an agenda or what.

 

[Dan White]

WHAT part of TO MY KNOWLEDGE is unclear to you? You said it and I addressed what I thought of your description WITHOUT seeing the actual content. HOW THE F COULD I BE WRONG WHEN I CLEARLY SAID TO MY EFFING KNOWLEDGE.

And for real a person is a stone cold freaking weakling of epic proportions IF they want to take someone expressing a desire to slap someone as a dire physical threat. Dial it down there Dan. Let the aiming system guys do the exaggerating...... <----- JOKE - have to LABEL EVERYTHING I guess.

Now I "want" to slap you because you are acting like a MAJOR EFFING JERK. First, the odds of ANY HUMAN actually hitting you in any way over aiming system arguments is less than zero. Secondly the odds of any aiming system user who didn't say they want to slap you taking upon themselves to do based on another user's LIKELY tongue-in-cheek comment, or even if the comment was meant seriously, is even lower. Thirdly, stop being a whiner, you already know that a CTE user couldn't hit you accurately anyway.

Lastly, IF anyone were to hit you over these aiming discussions then I would soundly condemn that action. That you imply that I wouldn't is another testament to your very low character in my opinion.

DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT WANT TO TOUCH YOU IN ANY WAY FOR ANY REASON. THE PRECEDING COMMENTS ARE RHETORICAL FOR THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION.

Don't be such a drama queen. You said you didn't think there has ever been a physical threat to your knowledge and your knowledge was wrong. If I can find the comment somewhere without too much time I will post it.

 

[Dan White]

You have called Stan a fraud so from there it's really hard to see your interest in this as anything but attacks.

Never happened. I may have said he is making claims and making $ partly based on unproven proclamations, but I never called him a fraud. I am pretty convinced that he believes what he is saying.

 

[French Roots]

Man, did you come here with an agenda or what.

What agenda would you assume that to be? Did Stan Shuffett come onto AZB with an agenda or did that develop afterwards?

I stated outright that I joined for basically 3 reasons... to perhaps discuss aiming & aligning in general, to discuss some topics that come up in the Instructors Forum, & to help those telling the Truth regarding CTE.

It has been you & Barton who have confronted me with all kinds of BS & I have chosen to respond to some & not respond to some.

I have no agenda. What I stated above is why I decided to join now that I have free time on my hands.

 

[boogieman]

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 what I do, don't ask me to describe getting perfect stance because I have no idea, I see the shot standing and then it feels like I'm falling down into the shot like a dancer, nothing was conscious. Dancers practice by repetition until the dance is internalized. At this point their mind can wander and their body just does it. Think working at your job. Repetition trains your body to do the work subconsciously so you can daydream. I have no idea where my feet/elbow/shoulder/head etc is, but when you know you know. Take the aim standing and "fall" into place on the table. It almost transcends the English language. If I consciously think about stance, aim, my shoulder, etc, I've already missed. It can be useful in practice, but in a game, no. I am 100% focused on winning and I won't shoot anything I can't "FEEL." I'll play a safe if I don't feel with at least 90% certainty (and the safe will have 100%). When I play bad, I will shoot a shot with a 25% chance. When I'm focused on winning, all my aims are perfect. I can carom, combo, do 3 rail kicks, etc. The problem is, focus takes work. We lose focus and our mind wanders, we shoot bad shots to see how the balls react. If I lose focus and care about winning or getting a good practice session in, I might as well go home for the day, pool is over. If I always played at or above my best level I would be unbeatable and THE top pro, but I have a feeling that's true for everybody!

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

You do this with drills. Shoot shot after shot til you get the EXACT result. It's simply self lead training. The authors of any book on pool know full and well they can't explain how to make your (individual human one with your DNA) body do it, but after you do their drill as they say 20, 50, 100 times, or until you have perfect results you can do it. Their book worked, you know because you got the EXACT result. Well... that was from the practice you put into training your body, not just reading the book alone. I have no doubts CTE requires practice and it says to, but people would be idiotic to think anything pool related didn't. When I hear this tired argument, it's just funny. Imagine someone expecting CTE to work without practice! You have to shoot the shots to understand. When you apply the methods and shoot them good, it worked.

If you find your alignment standing, come down focusing on the correct ABC and understand how eye dominance relates to pool, then hit it, it goes. But do you know why it goes? You put the practice in and are hitting it and your body knows enough how to hit it (including your brain a part of your body). You also had CLEAR INTENT because, "eh, yeah that's an outside 45," ie you recognized the shot as one you've shot 1000s of times. Any system will work if you are talking about good players. The key is, some systems eliminate variables and these make it easier to learn. It's actually much harder to shoot ALL (as in any shot ever possible in pool) shots on the table with only the CTE aim areas. Some CTE would be harder to shoot than by just taking an aim point, but since you only practice a few "aims" of shots, you know the aim intimately and your body knows exactly how to hit it. It's easy for you and may even hypnotize railbirds. Might be "scientifically" a more difficult shot, but you've practiced that same shot thousands of times, I mean, it's only one of the dozen of so shots that you ever shoot, or would ever have shot so you got this. It would take serious discipline for me to give up all the shots I know and simplify it to a dozen. If I TRULY learned the dozen shots and all their minute differences in stroke, spin, humidity, etc, and get the pinpoint leave I want, I will be better than I am today. Learning a new system won't suck the info and muscle memory from your body. If you're DISCIPLINED on learning a new system and it keeps working you know it's legit.

 

[French Roots]

View attachment 597375
This is just an observation I made at the table. Interesting nonetheless. I don't know if this means anything, but I thought I'd share. I setup this specific shot at the table, it is a 30I to the upper right corner pocket. For illustration purposes I drew the CB as a double-vision ball as one would observe when putting focus on the OB. Once I was on my offset where I could see AL and SL correctly for ball pocketing, I closed each eye independently and this is what I noted.

1) when closing the left eye only, I observed the right edge of the cueball aligned with OB center. This is appropriate for AL. The CB center was to the left of the OB left edge, crossing nothing of importance that I could see.
2) when closing the right eye only, the right edge of the CB was right of OB center, crossing nothing of importance that I could see. The CB center was right of OB left edge, crossing nothing of importance that I could see.

This equated to some observable things:
* both eyes must be used together to form a workable perception. Separately they did reveal some interesting data.
* the AL was aligned with OB center (B), and the right edge of the cueball perceived with the right eye. (see line drawn on right-hand side)
* the SL was aligned with OB left edge and the (at least what appeared to be) center of the cueball overlap from left and right eyes combined. (see line drawn on left-hand side)

Is this consistent with all CTE shots? I have yet to draw any conclusions, this is the only shot I tested thus far. It would be interesting if other proficient CTE users observe the same thing I did with this specific shot setup.

I'm going to note that none of this information is anything official or a guide anyone should follow regarding CTE. It is only an observation of details for the sake of discussion. You know, for science

Like I said before, I do not see 2 CBs when looking at the OB. If I close one eye then I see one CB from the perspective of the open eye. If I change eyes, then I see one CB from the perspective of that other open eye.

The CB is far enough away to prevent one from "crossing" their eyes.

The issue is if the ball set with the same distance of separation between them is moved farther away or closer by 1/2 or 1 diamond, those lines do not change... because the defined points on the balls have not changed.

There is nothing that objectively causes the points nor the lines to change. Hence if the procedure is followed exactly the same, then the outcome angle remains the same.... just as it did for the multiple shots that Dan White tried.

 

[cookie man]

What agenda would you assume that to be? Did Stan Shuffett come onto AZB with an agenda or did that develop afterwards?

I stated outright that I joined for basically 3 reasons... to perhaps discuss aiming & aligning in general, to discuss some topics that come up in the Instructors Forum, & to help those telling the Truth regarding CTE.

It has been you & Barton who have confronted me with all kinds of BS & I have chosen to respond to some & not respond to some.

I have no agenda. What I stated above is why I decided to join now that I have free time on my hands.

LMAO. Like i said welcome to the next 20 years of your life. Pretty amazing that you can't admit to having an agenda.
Why not start a thread with your aiming method of choice?

 

[cookie man]

... just as it did for the multiple shots that Dan White tried.

How about the years of shots that i do. Does Dan's one attempt, while not knowing what he's doing, over ride mine?

 

[JB Cases]

What agenda would you assume that to be? Did Stan Shuffett come onto AZB with an agenda or did that develop afterwards?

I stated outright that I joined for basically 3 reasons... to perhaps discuss aiming & aligning in general, to discuss some topics that come up in the Instructors Forum, & to help those telling the Truth regarding CTE.

It has been you & Barton who have confronted me with all kinds of BS & I have chosen to respond to some & not respond to some.

I have no agenda. What I stated above is why I decided to join now that I have free time on my hands.

Lol, I assume your agenda is to knock. That is ALL you have done with your initial posts.

You have not yet told the truth about CTE but your implication that what you have stated thus far on the subject is the the "truth" is a clear indication that your agenda is to KNOCK CTE and use strawman fallacies among other falsehoods while pursuing that agenda.

 

[JB Cases]

Like I said before, I do not see 2 CBs when looking at the OB. If I close one eye then I see one CB from the perspective of the open eye. If I change eyes, then I see one CB from the perspective of that other open eye.

The CB is far enough away to prevent one from "crossing" their eyes.

The issue is if the ball set with the same distance of separation between them is moved farther away or closer by 1/2 or 1 diamond, those lines do not change... because the defined points on the balls have not changed.

There is nothing that objectively causes the points nor the lines to change. Hence if the procedure is followed exactly the same, then the outcome angle remains the same.... just as it did for the multiple shots that Dan White tried.

What shots did Dan try? I saw no shots tried, only a static video and five minutes of talking with CLAIMS that he shot some shots. Of course FOR YOU anecdotal "evidence" like this is perfectly fine as long as it comports with your stated position.

 

[cookie man]

I stated outright that I joined for basically 3 reasons... to perhaps discuss aiming & aligning in general, to discuss some topics that come up in the Instructors Forum, & to help those telling the Truth regarding CTE.

.

I have no agenda. What I stated above is why I decided to join now that I have free time on my hands.

One single post in the instructors forum and all the rest here in the aiming forum bitching about CTE, but he has no agenda.

 

[JB Cases]

Like I said before, I do not see 2 CBs when looking at the OB. If I close one eye then I see one CB from the perspective of the open eye. If I change eyes, then I see one CB from the perspective of that other open eye.

The CB is far enough away to prevent one from "crossing" their eyes.

The issue is if the ball set with the same distance of separation between them is moved farther away or closer by 1/2 or 1 diamond, those lines do not change... because the defined points on the balls have not changed.

There is nothing that objectively causes the points nor the lines to change. Hence if the procedure is followed exactly the same, then the outcome angle remains the same.... just as it did for the multiple shots that Dan White tried.

Please tell us the difference between the CTE line and the shot line as it exits the back of the cueball. Please give us the range from narrowest to widest?

Oh you don't know it? I do.

 

[JB Cases]

Never happened. I may have said he is making claims and making $ partly based on unproven proclamations, but I never called him a fraud. I am pretty convinced that he believes what he is saying.

Oh quit, you either SAID or heavily implied that Stan was defrauding those who purchased his DVDs and book. Unreal how revisionist you all can be.

Of course he believes what he is saying. You STILL have implied that he is defrauding people.

 

[French Roots]

How about the years of shots that i do. Does Dan's one attempt, while not knowing what he's doing, over ride mine?

Totally different circumstances.

What part do you & others not understand that Dan White's results match up with what SCIENCE says WILL happen? His results were totally predictable per what SCIENCE says.

What Stan Shuffett & you guys say go completely against what SCIENCE says... & you guys have never offered up any form of "scientific proof' that what you guys say is true.

It is not me nor Dan White nor any other individual saying that he asserted claims regarding SS's CTE do not match up with Truthful Science.

It is SCIENCE that is saying that. We are merely pointing out what SCIENCE says.

Barton sarcastically suggested that if someone made 100% of their shots, then per my criteria that would mean that CTE is what it is said to be or something like that.

That is NOT true. It would not.

I think it was Dan White who said that you & others simply do not understand how science works.

 

[French Roots]

I have no reason to think that Dan White is LIEing or would lie.

CTEers almost always go to the "attack the messenger" tactic or character assassination. Please think about that?

The thing that CTEers such as Barton & Cookie Man seem to not realize is that the Scientific Prediction of what WILL happen is exactly what Dan Whites said actually happened.

Science does not make mistakes nor tell falsehoods.

 

[boogieman]

Not bad for 2 players using a system that people on here think they shouldn't use.

I don't think many are saying people shouldn't use it, most are saying yeah, that works, but MY way does too.