A real CTE shot for you to try.

[French Roots]

What difference does Barton's latest question to me have to do with whether or not the asserted claims regarding CTE are true or not?
The answer to his BS distraction question is dependent on the distance of separation between the balls as that changes the angle of the CTE line.

So, his question is unclear to me. If he really wants an answer, then perhaps he will ask in a more precise & clear manner.

 

[French Roots]

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

It is more like one should use whatever works best for them, but false assertions & claims about methods should not be made as a sales pitch nor to entice anyone to try something that simply does not exist.

 

[boogieman]

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

Yes! You can aim to different sides of the ball with each eye. You can "step" the ball on each side with each eye. One eye is wrong for a particular shot, one eye is correct (but you might still get away with using the wrong one, just not every time. Stepping is a physical trick to get your eyes to correctly pick out an edge or aim point. Both can work, but on a left cut you know which way to turn your head. Which eye is closer to the OB with the aim line you had to take? Therein lies the answer. There is an easy way to "hyper focus" your eyes, stepping takes advantage of that. Your eye needs enough visual information to tell that you're looking at a sphere. You already know how to hit a sphere through whatever system you use, but this last bit of visual information from stepping is crucial. You also can't superimpose ABC, fractions/ghost balls etc properly without seeing the details on a clearly and properly rendered sphere.

I know enough about eyes to know this part of CTE is TRUTH. I can't comment on the actual aiming system yet. I've been playing a lot lately and am on an improvement streak. I don't want to try anything different with how I aim, but once I hit a plateau I'll probably try more out.

The crazy part, it's possible to get down on the table after aiming and you don't even see the cue ball, it's edge or whatever and still 100% make the shot with no problems and pinpoint position. I need a quick glance to know how far it is and get a sense of it's center of mass to apply english (or center). But I don't purposely look where the CB is to get into stance. That's silly. I took an overview of the table and know it's position from that step. If you aim correctly while standing, you will fall onto the perfect shot line without a thought or care in the world. Just like a duck swims. I think the thing that is difficult to understand, you're using the CB for additional aiming info that many (including me) do by feel. So at least personally, some of it is still a bit confusing, but I'm also confused by hearing people talk about using their stick for aiming and getting in line. I don't even want to think about my stick, that's part of my body, I know it's on the shot line because I aimed standing up and got into position. I would have to give up this "fall into the perfect alignment" and add other things to focus on while playing. Would it improve my game? Possibly, but it's so tough to give up a good thing when you're already improving at a good rate! I understand the more you practice anything the more ingrained it becomes and takes a very short time once proficient.

 

[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?

Not often. But it's typical for people being challenged or belittled to counter back with aggression or frustration. In other words, calling someone an idiot is a good way to get a nasty or hateful comment in return.

 

[BC21]

What difference does Barton's latest question to me have to do with whether or not the asserted claims regarding CTE are true or not?
The answer to his BS distraction question is dependent on the distance of separation between the balls as that changes the angle of the CTE line.

So, his question is unclear to me. If he really wants an answer, then perhaps he will ask in a more precise & clear manner.

I have the answers I need concerning the big CTE questions....

Does CTE really work as described? It might, or it might not. I don't care.

Where's the proof that it only works on a 2:1 table? I don't care.

How can 2 balls spaced the same distance apart provide a different ccb perception based on where they are on the table? I don't care.

How does the numerology (15+30+45=90, and therefore the system connects to 90° angles) make sense? It doesn't, but I don't care.

 

[cookie man]

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.

"Dan's results match up with science". Which results exactly.
The first shot that he made and swore that he was using strict CTE. I even questioned him on that claim and accused him of just using a half ball hit. He denied my charge and said he was using Strict CTE.
Or the second shot that he missed and didn't really know why but wanted to continue working with Mohrt to figure it out.

What does science say now.

 

[cookie man]

Science does not make mistakes nor tell falsehoods.

So scientific assumptions have never been wrong OKay

 

[French Roots]

So scientific assumptions have never been wrong OKay

There is no such thing as a "scientific" assumption. An assumption is not deemed "scientific" until it has been proven to be true.

"Dan's results match up with science". Which results exactly.
The first shot that he made and swore that he was using strict CTE. I even questioned him on that claim and accused him of just using a half ball hit. He denied my charge and said he was using Strict CTE.
Or the second shot that he missed and didn't really know why but wanted to continue working with Mohrt to figure it out.

What does science say now.

Science says that you are not "scientific".
There is not even a reason for those shots to actually be shot at all. You guys just do not get it. Did you take any Science in H.S.?

 

[cookie man]

There is no such thing as a "scientific" assumption. An assumption is not deemed "scientific" until it has been proven to be true.

And you have proven nothing

 

[cookie man]

Science says that you are not "scientific".
There is not even a reason for those shots to actually be shot at all. You guys just do not get it. Did you take any Science in H.S.?

Yet you tried to use those shots as an example and now you are doing the crawfish

 

[French Roots]

And you have proven nothing

It is not me proving anything. It is SCIENCE that actually says & proves SS's CTE is not an "objective system".

 

[cookie man]

It is not me proving anything. It is SCIENCE that actually says & proves SS's CTE is not an "objective system".

Your witnesses have proven the science and CTE.
And we know already without you admitting it that you have proven nothing.
96 posts in two days. Must be nice to be retired lol.

 

[French Roots]

Yet you tried to use those shots as an example and now you are doing the crawfish

BS.

I used the picture of Mohrt's shot to explain that there is no difference when the "ball set" is moved forward or backward. Hence the outcome angle is the same.

Dan White's & PJ's results just go along with what SCIENCE dictates..

It is you being like you are here why no one on the Science Side wants to engage with you & it is why I made the comments about you that I did early on.

You seem to have reading comprehension issues and an inability to understand what is really very simple.

Or... you are just trolling.

 

[French Roots]

Your witnesses have proven the science and CTE.
What is that gibberish supposed to mean?
And we know already without you admitting it that you have proven nothing. I said that it is not me proving anything because it is SCIENCE that says & proves that SS's CTE is not an "objective system'. YOU just di not get how SCIENCE works.

96 posts in two days. Must be nice to be retired lol. Yes it is nice to be retired. You are retired, right? Probably most all of those post were in response to your posts & Barton's posts.

 

[cookie man]

BS.

.

Dan White's & PJ's results just go along with what SCIENCE dictates..

Which results? The balls they made or the balls they missed.

 

[French Roots]

Which results? The balls they made or the balls they missed.

I am done with your BS. I also will not take the bait.

I will ask someone how to use the ignore feature.

 

[cookie man]

I am done with your BS. I also will not take the bait.

I will ask someone how to use the ignore feature.

I don't blame you, i've completely blown your theories out of the water.

 

[BC21]

BS.

I used the picture of Mohrt's shot to explain that there is no difference when the "ball set" is moved forward or backward. Hence the outcome angle is the same.

Dan White's & PJ's results just go along with what SCIENCE dictates..

........

Maybe Dan used the wrong eye to get his perception when the ball set was farther away. And I'm not trying to be funny.

The difference between your vision center perspective and your left or right eye perspective is only around 1 to 2 degrees. This change in perspective could easily provide enough angle difference to make both shots work using the same visual references. You would just have to know how to use those references along with your vision options.

 

[The_JV]

In other words, calling someone an idiot is a good way to get a nasty or hateful comment in return.

Based on my short experience in attempting to discuss CTE theory. Just using a '?' is more than enough to receive a nasty or hateful comment...lol

 

[cookie man]

Based on my short experience in attempting to discuss CTE theory. Just using a '?' is more than enough to receive a nasty or hateful comment...lol

Honestly this aiming forum has been a shit show for a long time. Can you really blame anyone for not sharing info on here. If the mods stuck to there sticky about "no bashing systems" then we could have a more open discussion.