I don't think it is meaningless and actually the "exit distances" (the difference between the CTE line and the GB line as they exit the cueball towards the shooter) is mostly less than .25mm
Frogs don't rub their ass when they hop. We know this by studying them using slow motion video.
No, all it says is that we don't yet have a robot that calculates like a human. Currently robots that shoot pool have to do it by mapping the rectangle and monitoring the positions of each object and plotting the trajectories using the absolutely precise measurement data that it has available. A human looking at it from a diagonal perspective and having one data input mechanism is using a different means of interpreting that information. Saying that there "is something about the human brain that already has the shot lines for all shots preprogrammed" is kind of a cop out. The reason is that almost every human activity we do today has been improved through better techniques that were developed though human thought and study rather than the incremental evolutionary process that favored those better able to throw a spear accurately.
I said it didn't apply to a specific hypothesis under the criteria defined by Carl Sagan. The most likely answer is that a person's use of certain methods likely improves their ability.
I haven't had CTE for 20 years. I had what Hal taught me which was not CTE but which used objective reference points on both balls. Then when I saw people online talking about CTE and Hal I started paying attention to what they were saying. I was helped in private by some of the folks who had been in constant communication with and who visited Hal often. I learned CTE as Stan teaches it from Stan videos and from him directly.
And I do teach CTE locally. But I do not consider myself to be disciplined enough to have mastered every aspect well enough to call myself an instructor of CTE online. I know that objective aiming methods are very solid and consistent. I am results-oriented and I know that even now if I try to use feel or ghost ball on a wide range of shots that my shot-making consistency drops. So I prefer to call myself a cheerleader because that's what I am mostly doing since there are well-qualified instructors who have studied the method to a degree that they can teach all aspects without error. Now if you want to say that I should be a better player than I am I guess that would depend on where I was before learning objective aiming and other influencing factors between then and now. For example I just went though a year of being in pain when playing that would affect my stance and stroke. My vision has also been deteriorating significantly making it much harder to focus at distance. And really I just don't actually play that much and when I do the muscle groups used don't respond as easily as they used to. And after several hours I am in a pretty good amount of pain and it takes a few days for the aches to go away.
So yeah, if you think I should be better than I am I would agree with you in principle. It would also mean that you agree with me that CTE usage should help folks improve which in fact it has done for many people who shoot way better than I do.
Here is a video of a man who demonstrates some great bank shots using CTE after proficiently learning CTE.
