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.
See below.
no you're not estimating. You are choosing from a list of options. A person can learn to identify the perceptions very accurately which means that their body will be in one position for edge to a, one for b, and another for c. I have done a few videos explaining this. As for aim not needing to be precise, that only applies when all you need to do is make the ball and your margin of error is huge. Otherwise if you want to play shape then your aim needs to be precise. If the margin of error is small then the aim needs to be very precise. The objectivity is in the fact that edge to a is a clear line, edge to b (center) is a clear line, and edge to C is a clear line. Each one of those perceptions 15/30/45 degrees produces a different body position relative to the cueball.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).
Learning to recognize and align to those perceptions is the learning curve. Some people get it right away and others need more time.
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.
Based on this description you're not doing it right. You have not understood Stan's instruction/description which is not unusual. You don't shift your perspective to the edge of the object ball. AFTER you have aligned using the edge of the cueball to A/B/C then you move your head slightly to allow one of your eyes to focus on the edge of the object ball and then you bring your eyes to center and that is the shot line emanating from that point towards the object ball.
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.
I think you might not be using occlusion correctly here. But before discussing what I think you mean I think it would be helpful to know whether you understand the exact steps and the process. If you would like to do a video chat sometime I can show you and then at least you would have the steps down correctly and thus be able to break down how each step is visually important.
Regarding distance: the farther away the object ball is the smaller it appears. So perhaps the pivot amount/distance is a direct reflection that adusts with distance. And actually you might have hit on something.
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.
I think that there might be merit to the convergence concept. It's got to be something or we are left with the magic subconscious and while I would be ok IF that's the ultimate conclusion I would like to explore the other possibilities.
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.
Geno's perfect aim IS basically the eyes lead and the body follows. It is more along the lines of let the focus get you close and your brain does the rest. There are many CTE users who have successfully used Geno's teachings AND the CTE process to get the results they want.
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.
It would be helpful to know if you are doing the steps in the correct order and in the correct way.
continued in another post..........
Last edited: