#### boogieman

##### It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.

Do you?Do you have proof for anything you imply?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter sparkle84
- Start date

Do you?Do you have proof for anything you imply?

You want me to provide proof for something Dan implied lolDo you?

Sure.You want me to provide proof for something Dan implied lol

So he has proof a ball has a edgeâ€¦â€¦.Stan can and has backed up all his claims. All the proof you need is in the FREE yes FREE Truth Series on youtube. If thats not enough all the proof is diagrammed, pictured and totally described in the book CENTER POCKET MUSIC. If that's not enough go to the testimonial thread to read about some success that poolplayers across the globe are having with CTE. And there's that little group on social media where a couple thousand poolplayers are having great success with CTE.

Why shouldnâ€™t he provide it?Sure.

When drawn on the paper yes the balls have edges.So he has proof a ball has a edgeâ€¦â€¦.

Vertical tangent when viewed dead on. Just another figment.

Go ahead draw be a ball on paper please.When drawn on the paper yes the balls have edges.

Those things are called circlesâ€¦â€¦not balls and even circles do not have edges.

Draw a square. That square has edgesâ€¦. Where twp planes meet at a angleâ€¦..

LmaoGo ahead draw be a ball on paper please.

Those things are called circlesâ€¦â€¦not balls and even circles do not have edges.

Draw a square. That square has edgesâ€¦. Where twp planes meet at a angleâ€¦..

I don't have a bone to pick in this argument. However, as a college graduate with BSC and MSC in Computer Science and minor in math I find it very hard to believe that if its possible it cannot be diagrammed. If its possible to diagram something in 4 or more dimensions (and it is) and its possible to diagram virtually every classical physics problem, and its possible to diagram in the projection of 3 dimensional objects on a 2 dimensional screen (which is how objects are rendered in a computer, and I dont just mean do it, I mean diagram to explain how it works), then it should be possible to diagram something as simple as finding a line from one point to another point in space..No, I am saying that Stan and others can demonstrate the usage and if the assumption is that they are telling the truth about about using the method then it proves FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES that the method is effective. A group of CTE players can communicate to each other the EXACT way to apply the method for any makeable shot. A group of Dan White jellybean method users will NOT have the same effectiveness in my opinion.

Then the answer is that the exact same "thing" is not being done for both shots OR there is a variable missing that is not being accounted for. OR the subconscious - using the EXACT SAME OBJECTIVE AND CONSCIOUS steps - is making some final "adjustment" that is COMPLETELY UNKNOWN to the user but which results in getting on the correct shot line consistently for both shots. Could be. And IF SO then the method works exactly as stated BECAUSE the most important criteria is getting to the shot line dependably. So if the OBJECTIVE steps are 1-2-3 and go to shooting position and you get on the shot line then "it works" is perfectly correct. Now, how WELL does it work? That's the key metric we are looking for. If I go to buy a tool and it only "works" half the time then I can discard the use of that tool is not reliable.

You can certainly CLAIM to use any method you can dream up but if it can't be reliably taught to others and reliably used by them to fulfill the goal of getting to the shot line then the effectiveness will not be attractive to those wishing to find methods of aim that produce consistently correct results.

I am speculating based on my knowledge of various aiming methods. IF everything is above board and we get beginners with no prior influence and we are reasonably sure they haven't learned any other methods of aim I am highly confident that your "jellybean" method fails and the CTE students will easily score higher.

Yeah that's a good idea. In fact I would love to take a lot of beginners and gather a ton of data on how they approach shots before they learn ANYTHING. Then teach them basic stroke structure and test again. Test with center ball first then teach them about sidespin but nothing about aiming or deflection and test again. Go through every possibility to isolate whatever can be learned.

Yes I am. Assumptions are the bedrock of science. Your assumption, based on your experience is that CTE cannot work as described. From an academic perspective that is a valid thing to assume. However you have not actually dissected the method or tested with all available means and so being a good scientist you should ALSO assume that perhaps you don't have all of the variables accounted for. I am positive that tests such as I have proposed would turn out closer to what I assume then closer to what you assume. Unless you want to participate in trying to test your mocking "jellybean method" against CTE in a controlled manner we simply can't really KNOW can we?

However I am pretty sure than no one reading this is confident enough that your group of beginners would outscore the CTE students to actually bet on the outcome. I am however willing to bet on the CTE students in such a contest.

Yes it is. And so instead of worrying about whether there is a 2d diagram than you can be happy about the more important question is whether any given method is actually beneficial, as tested against some sort of benchmark performance, and whether it is practical.

No, I said it HAS NOT been diagrammed to YOUR satisfaction. A ghost ball diagram is wrong UNLESS it INCLUDES some formula to determine the amount of conscious adjustment needed to make it work. Or with enough brute force one can force the mind to make those adjustments as a subconscious act and the mind will get to a point where it does pretty good with a range of shots, having trouble with some and no problem with others.

Yes, when people make claims that are not congruent with KNOWN science then arguments arise. However you are not a scientist studying the intersection between 2d plotting of ball positions in a constrained field and the 3d target acquisition methods used by the stereoscopic vision of a human. Therefore when you CLAIM that you can make all the shots using your jellybean method and you do make all the shots and attribute it to eating jellybeans then such a claim will cause argument. You can demonstrate great shotmaking and it could be enough to get people interested. And if those who try the method can't get better results than what they were doing they will ask for clarification or drop it.

IF however they were to get better results then it would be worth looking into to find out IF there is any discernible reason why jelly beans should help with shot making. If the results indicate no reason then it can be put down to unknown IF the results are consistent. For example placebos often work in pain reduction. It is unknown WHY they work. So all the researchers are left with is the FACT that they work to a certain degree when scientifically and chemically they should have zero effect. Scientists can speculate why with all sorts of guesses but without a SPECIFIC and clearly undeniable reason they can't really KNOW.

What they do know though is that if 100 patients are given placebos and asked about their pain levels then x-percentage of them are VERY LIKELY to report a reduction in pain levels. That is data on the EFFICACY. So when they have this and then they test drugs against the placebo benchmarks they can determine the efficacy of the drugs which they KNOW is causing a chemical reaction.

So observationally, if someone says I do xyz steps and get to the shot line BECAUSE of those steps then they are being truthful in their description. That person takes two different shots, applies the SAME steps and gets to the shot line. They are making a claim that they can back up demonstrably. Can this claim be reproduced by teaching others the same method? If yes then it has been proven for PRACTICAL purposes. The researcher has then verified that the method is TRANSFERABLE and for a certain percentage of users is of practical value. At that point one can feel confident that teaching the method IS beneficial to others WITHOUT needing to KNOW exactly how it works. The question of exactly HOW it works can be taken on by those interested in dissecting things. The question of DOES it work is the interesting one for those interested in finding good reliable methods to fulfil the task.

Now, lets say for the sake of argument that it is impossible to diagram, then a rigorous mathamatical proof should still be possible, and lets further say for whatever reason it cannot be proven but is still possible, in that case the lines, perspectives (or whatever stan uses) should at least be solvable mathematically on paper. And no, you shouldn't have to buy a 500 page book to see a diagram/proof/solution, they should fit on one or 2 pages of notebook paper.

If this diagram/proof/solution exists, releasing and explaining it in a video I think would be more helpful (and would help sell more books than not releasing it) than all of Stan's videos combined which I have watched and can honestly say I still don't understand the system. And if it was rigorous it would put to bed (almost) all the arguments in this subforum.

Last edited:

Because he's the one who presented the challenge. In a debate team, the counter punch is often stronger than the opening. It's runout time.Why shouldnâ€™t he provide it?

Those figments... you'd almost say a phantasm. I'll call it what it is... ghost. It doesn't matter how you see. You see or you don't. Ghost Contacht Geometeryâ„˘ if you will!Vertical tangent when viewed dead on. Just another figment.

90 degrees is 90 degrees, only an idiot wouldn't see this.Go ahead draw be a ball on paper please.

Those things are called circlesâ€¦â€¦not balls and even circles do not have edges.

Draw a square. That square has edgesâ€¦. Where twp planes meet at a angleâ€¦..

I don't think this is as big a deal as you seem to think..No, I am saying that Stan and others can demonstrate the usage and if the assumption is that they are telling the truth about about using the method then it proves FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES that the method is effective. A group of CTE players can communicate to each other the EXACT way to apply the method for any makeable shot. A group of Dan White jellybean method users will NOT have the same effectiveness in my opinion.

OK now we are getting somewhere.Then the answer is that the exact same "thing" is not being done for both shots OR there is a variable missing that is not being accounted for. OR the subconscious - using the EXACT SAME OBJECTIVE AND CONSCIOUS steps - is making some final "adjustment" that is COMPLETELY UNKNOWN to the user but which results in getting on the correct shot line consistently for both shots. Could be.

That does not mean "it works." You have just said there may be an unaccounted variable or subconscious adjustment that is responsible for making it work. If we learn what that is then it means that all the other steps are useless, possibly. You might as well use Poolology to put you on the shot line until you learn the shot pictures and no longer need that crutch. This is what we've been saying for years.And IF SO then the method works exactly as stated BECAUSE the most important criteria is getting to the shot line dependably. So if the OBJECTIVE steps are 1-2-3 and go to shooting position and you get on the shot line then "it works" is perfectly correct.

I noted that you were making assumptions because you were making statements as if they were fact. Many of us have concluded that CTE does not work as described because that description violates geometry and also because when following the steps to a tee we get results you would expect if you don't allow yourself to fudge the shot. The proponents of CTE have never, in 20 years, offered any proof of their claims. The fact that they play well with CTE is meaningless when the discussion is about how that success is achieved. You say the "how" doesn't matter as long as it works. I say ignorance is not always bliss. Why complicate a simple process?Now, how WELL does it work? That's the key metric we are looking for. If I go to buy a tool and it only "works" half the time then I can discard the use of that tool is not reliable.

You can certainly CLAIM to use any method you can dream up but if it can't be reliably taught to others and reliably used by them to fulfill the goal of getting to the shot line then the effectiveness will not be attractive to those wishing to find methods of aim that produce consistently correct results.

I am speculating based on my knowledge of various aiming methods. IF everything is above board and we get beginners with no prior influence and we are reasonably sure they haven't learned any other methods of aim I am highly confident that your "jellybean" method fails and the CTE students will easily score higher.

Yeah that's a good idea. In fact I would love to take a lot of beginners and gather a ton of data on how they approach shots before they learn ANYTHING. Then teach them basic stroke structure and test again. Test with center ball first then teach them about sidespin but nothing about aiming or deflection and test again. Go through every possibility to isolate whatever can be learned.

Yes I am. Assumptions are the bedrock of science. Your assumption, based on your experience is that CTE cannot work as described. From an academic perspective that is a valid thing to assume. However you have not actually dissected the method or tested with all available means and so being a good scientist you should ALSO assume that perhaps you don't have all of the variables accounted for.

The JBM is not a mocking thing (well, maybe in one post it was). It is an analogy to make a point that seems lost on some.I am positive that tests such as I have proposed would turn out closer to what I assume then closer to what you assume. Unless you want to participate in trying to test your mocking "jellybean method" against CTE in a controlled manner we simply can't really KNOW can we?

Of course.I don't have a bone to pick in this argument. However, as a college graduate with BSC and MSC in Computer Science and minor in math I find it very hard to believe that if its possible it cannot be diagrammed. If its possible to diagram something in 4 or more dimensions (and it is) and its possible to diagram virtually every classical physics problem, and its possible to diagram in the projection of 3 dimensional objects on a 2 dimensional screen (which is how objects are rendered in a computer, and I dont just mean do it, I mean diagram to explain how it works), then it should be possible to diagram something as simple as finding a line from one point to another point in space..

Now, lets say for the sake of argument that it is impossible to diagram, then a rigorous mathamatical proof should still be possible, and lets further say for whatever reason it cannot be proven but is still possible, in that case the lines, perspectives (or whatever stan uses) should at least be solvable mathematically on paper. And no, you shouldn't have to buy a 500 page book to see a diagram/proof/solution, they should fit on one or 2 pages of notebook paper.

If this diagram/proof/solution exists, releasing and explaining it in a video I think would be more helpful (and would help sell more books than not releasing it) than all of Stan's videos combined which I have watched and can honestly say I still don't understand the system. And if it was rigorous it would put to bed (almost) all the arguments in this subforum.

When challenged with math he doesn't understand, a CTE inventor and retired grammar school reading teacher will say that it is a "visual system in 3D" and cannot be diagrammed. Then his yapping dogs follow up ad nauseum with propaganda.

Of course.

When challenged with math he doesn't understand, a CTE inventor and retired grammar school reading teacher will say that it is a "visual system in 3D" and cannot be diagrammed. Then his yapping dogs follow up ad nauseum with propaganda.

After posting this I watched some CTE video that had been posted in the last few months that I hadn't watched and the next video that came up after that video I did what Stan said to do and I think I might understand CTE Pro 1 to some degree now. (I'm not sure really if I'm just aiming on my own or if what he said to do actually does something).

If it actually did work as I see it, I think it is in fact diagramable, they just need to use the right type of diagrams, and it should be very obvious to them how to depict it in 2 dimensions (HINT to the CTE People: The type of diagraming would be similar to diagraming a 4 dimensional 100x100x100x3 hypercube in 2d on paper. IE 3 seperate 3d cubes, or in this case 3 first person drawings/photographs of what you see, before and after shifting your eyes, and then a 3rd one when you apply what you learned/saw after shifting to the actual aiming). This type of diagram is far from mathematical proof or even a easier to attain mathematical solution/demonstration.

Using a program such as 3dstudio or maya or whatever people use these days to render it is definitely possible to render the 3d visuals that CTE-Pro1 produces in 2d then add labels to depict 3 dimensional features. Nowdays its also probably (more like definitely) also possible to render a 3-dimensional virtual reality view of the perspective before and after the shifting as well. One would need to use a VR headset to view the results, however. If this was done, and CTE-Pro1 in fact works, then the successful results would (probably) stick out like a sore thumb when this was watched. And it could all be done by a relatively unskilled 3d artist on cheap computer hardware.

I think one reason they don't release these diagrams is it might be very easy to mathematically/visually disprove that CTE works by releasing them (see below on occlusion vs distance). And for those who are not familiar with mathematical proving/disproving, it is much easier to disprove something than to prove it.

I've had so many aiming systems 'work' for the first few hours then you realize you aren't doing anything different and basically aiming subconsciously the way you always have and wouldn't be surprised if this is the case once again with CTE.

But either way the claims of objectivity are definitely not true because you have to estimate an angle to determine where to aim the center/edge of the cue ball to on the object ball (A/B/C/EDGE). I think you can do the exact same thing with memorizing ball fractions and identifying angles (which would work reasonably well as long as its not, for example, a cut to the side pocket with the OB so close to the rail that the aim needs to be really precise).

Basically if I'm doing CTE right (and quite possibly not) after you 'shift your perspective' (move your eyes from the point on the object ball (A/B/C/EDGE) to the edge of the object ball while keeping your head still) you see the fractional ball hit you need to make out of the corner of your eye furtherest away from the pocket, then you remember the fraction you saw and try to line up on it the best you can, or try to keep it locked into your eyes and drop down on it from there without it moving. I have no clue if this is what Stan mean's when he says you will 'see the aim line (after shifting your eyes)' however, but if it is, I think they are not doing a very good job of explaining it.

Common sense from tells me however that what is occluded by the shifting the eyes will be affected by the distance between the eyes and the cue ball. (Dont believe me, look at a object in the distance, place your hand out so the object is partially blocked from view, now move your hand closer to your view, the object now will obviously be completely blocked.) I think this is where the different pivot lengths in standard CTE come into account....and I dont see how shifting your eyes will ever take this into account, without some mathematical formula for how you need to shift your eyes differently for different distances). And even i'm wrong and CTE doesn't work by occlusion the distance between your eye and the OB should affect the angle you shift your eyes in the same way distance affects the angle you need to pivot with normal CTE.

Now the CTE people are probably going to say your brain automatically handles this difference in convergence of objects at a distance, I don't really have any complete response to that at this time. However I will note this problem appears to be spawn from from using the same A/B/C/EDGE points on the object ball regardless of distance, which makes the the angle the stick pivot/eye shift takes not constant for the same angle of shot.

The only 'aiming system' that I've tried that has given me good long term results (the results are very good and are reflected in how much more consistant I have been at tournaments since using it) was using geno machinos work, which isn't really an aiming system at all, it is using a different eye-cue placement to sight in different cut directions and coming down on the shot from the stance consistently and aiming (most shots anyway) with feel. I don't really use the fractional aiming system part of his teachings, even though I do think they have some merit I find messing with a concious system really throws me out of my rhythm. Now that I've internalized the physical changes of the 'system' (if you really can call it that, its more like better fundamentals) it might be a good time to try to internalize the mental (aiming system part) as well.

Anyways, I will mess with CTE Pro 1 more in the future and see if it can (over a sustained period of time) solve some of my problem shots that I miss the same exact way almost every time then report back on the findings.

Last edited:

Actually I never said he was wrong. I just asked if he could back up his implication. But weâ€™ve heard nothing. And in his posts to other people he has resorted to name calling insults. That usually means he has nothingBecause he's the one who presented the challenge. In a debate team, the counter punch is often stronger than the opening. It's runout time.

Your answer, as related to White and his posse of losers with their incessant rants about CTE Aiming, is this=========>Why donâ€™t you stop. You have nothing. You know nothing about CTE. I asked you direct questions before and you had no answers in your own words.

Why do you keep up this battle against CTE?

Why? Why? Why?

Any person who becomes so self absorbed with the concept of controlling others, has an obsessive compulsive disorder bordering on manic depressive.

Described metaphorically,

The only thing that will come close to filling that hole is

And then someone asks the question â€śwhat do they want revenge forâ€ť??......and the answer is

If you are referring to me I have no idea what you are talking about.Actually I never said he was wrong. I just asked if he could back up his implication. But weâ€™ve heard nothing. And in his posts to other people he has resorted to name calling insults. That usually means he has nothing

lol. I like JB but he's the one that most closely fits this statement.Your answer, as related to White and his posse of losers with their incessant rants about CTE Aiming, is this=========>

Any person who becomes so self absorbed with the concept of controlling others, has an obsessive compulsive disorder bordering on manic depressive.

Described metaphorically,that person has a great big empty hole through the middle of their mind. They can never hate enough, they can never dislike enough. they can never argue enough, they can never lie enough, they can never proclaim their "innocence" enough, or never be negative enough to fill up that hole.

The only thing that will come close to filling that hole isREVENGE.

And then someone asks the question â€śwhat do they want revenge forâ€ť??......and the answer isâ€śthey want revenge for being bornâ€ť.