Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[ENGLISH!]

It seems that there are rather many on AZB that feel that they can chime in with personal barbs & just go on about their merry way.

They want to play on a one way street of hypocrisy as they themselves get upset when one responds to a barb that they themselves first fired.

They don't seem to understand that one reaps what they sow.

I'm sure one will come on now & throw it at me because there are no mirrors on that one way street & they can't see it when it was they themselves that fired the barb(s) first.

Just some food for thought.

When was the last post made that was actually about the topic that was being discussed before all of the personal barbs started flying?

We can't count Dan's as he too was making a corrective post of another 'false' statement.

 

[ENGLISH!]

In JB Cases post #1723, he graphically shows how the same CTE post-pivot shot line can make an infinite number of different cut angles to the corner pocket...for different separations between the CB and OB.

Sorry for the size of his picture.
View attachment 399257

Be well

Just to try to get this back on topic.

E,

The 5 shots were not at different separations.

They were parallel shots with equal separation between the CB & OBs.

Just to be clear, in case anyone is deriving an inference that should not be made.

Stay Well.

 

[JB Cases]

Oh yeah I see it. We had some discussion of that by pm. I'm not sure how I dismissed it. I said that it was interesting and was useful in helping me learn how and when Stan switches from one pivot to a different one depending on the shot angle. My point was that this did not address my question, really, because my question had to do with the 5 shot perception video. In that video Stan says he uses the same visual and the same 1/2 tip left sweep (pivot) on all 5 shots. The video you sent me shows how to shift from one pivot to the next. Stan doesn't do that in the 5 shot video. The video I posted last night from the pro player that Stan knows (forgot his name) was a direct explanation of what I didn't understand in Stan's video. Unfortunately, his explanation was "that's just the way it works."

Stevie Moore is the professional player's name you are thinking of.

Here is the video I tried to link to earlier. Going frame by frame I maintain that Stan's stroke was straight and true through the cueball on all of the CTE aimed shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DDQ0NUC5U

 

[JoeyA]

I'm just trying to think who is the CTE salesman since the guy who invented it after 10 yrs is still working on it when natural aiming takes like 30 seconds


1

Sorry, you're mistaken. The guy who invented CTE died not too long ago.
His name is Hal Houle.

JoeyA

 

[Dan White]

What does the warm up stroke have to do with the hit on the cue ball? When Stan hits the cueball he is hitting it dead center, or incredibly close to dead center since we can't actually see the tip on the ball at contact.

I think you're chasing a unicorn here on this.

For one thing as Colin CLEARLY showed the shooter can swoop and add backhand spin and STILL make the ball when the dead nuts perfect shot line for center ball is plotted, marked, known and used 100% for each taken.

So even if Stan was a tiny bit off center in the delivery, which he wasn't in my opinion it likely wouldn't matter and certainly isn't gearing the object ball into the pocket.

You found that in a warm up stroke the shaft near the joint came off the line you drew on screen slightly. What does that translate into at ball contact? Nothing because at ball contact the cue came straight through the ball. But the overall point is that the butt of the cue can rotate like an egg when stroking and still come through dead straight on impact.

My video rebuttal is still uploading - https://youtu.be/tiZjW0zHGJc

I went frame by frame in it to illustrate what I see.

Your video doesn't work.

About 30 pages ago I said I was interested in debating the subject of CTE, but only if you were going to be intellectually honest and follow the evidence where it leads. You gave me a pretty indignant response.

When I started posting the video of Stan's stroke I was surprised that you thought it was great. You made the comment that any investigation that can prove how CTE works would be great. This was a red flag to me because I'm interested in finding out whether or not CTE works as advertised, or if something else is going on. After I point this out to you, you agreed, I think, that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

OK, so what happens:

1. I post a video that I don't think has ever been seen before and I put it out there for people to inspect and see if I've done something wrong.

2. You make a rebuttal video (great!) and dispute my finding on the first CTE shot.

3. Using your rebuttal analysis as proof, you immediately post multiple times that CTE is confirmed even more because Stan swooped in the first non CTE shot, but shot straight in the CTE shot.

4. Within 24 hours, I post a new video affirming that Stan's CTE stroke is misaligned during the shot, refuting your assertion.

The problem here is that in good faith (at least on my part) I'm putting information out there for people to debate. Instead of allowing me or others the time to scrutinize your findings, you go off and tout your discovery.

What I thought we were doing was trying, first, to come to an agreement on what we were actually seeing. Learning what that actually means is a whole other (and more difficult) subject to tackle. But how can we hope to make any progress if we begin making interpretations of the data before we even agree on what we are looking at!

I have since found a video of you at Stan's house for 3 or 4 days, touting your visit as the most important experience of your pool playing career. I'm glad you had such a great experience and I'm not knocking it in any way. This video, however, made me realize that you may actually simply be looking for new ways to show how CTE really does work as taught, and not really looking for evidence of how or whether in reality CTE works. In short, I think you are a full on cheerleader and I don't think you have it in you to be impartial.

I have several other instances on video of Stan pulling his hand in at the backstroke, and AFTER getting his CTE alignment. This quirk is just something Stan has ingrained and he isn't even aware of it. He shoots so well you'd be crazy to try and fix that flaw. I don't think there is much point in posting any new videos based on what I am seeing, unfortunately. We're just going to end up at "I don't see any flaw in Stan's stroke and even if it is there it doesn't matter anyway because CTE isn't affected by a cue motion like that."

Nobody can say I didn't give it a good try!

 

[Dan White]

JB your video now says "private."

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...you immediately post multiple times that CTE is confirmed even more because Stan swooped in the first non CTE shot

The significance of that shot to me isn't Stan's stroke, but that he had to subconsciously adjust from the center-to-edge alignment in order to make the ball. He doesn't know he did it there, but claims to know he doesn't do it with CTE. I don't think both can be true.

pj <- that's why it's called subconscious
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^ ^

>>>:thumbup2:<<<

 

[Dan White]

The significance of that shot to me isn't Stan's stroke, but that he had to subconsciously adjust from the center-to-edge alignment in order to make the ball. He doesn't know he did it there, but claims to know he doesn't do it with CTE. I don't think both can be true.

pj <- that's why it's called subconscious
chgo

Yes, the subconscious is a powerful thing. Stan quoted Bob Fancher as saying the subconscious is 0.5 seconds ahead of conscious thought. Since the "pulling in" stroke motion takes far less than 0.5 seconds to execute, maybe the conscious mind never catches on to what just happened because it was more interested in what the balls on the table are doing. Just speculation there.

When you say "he" (in blue) are you talking about Stan or JB? If I recall, JB says what you say above, but Stan said he does that motion routinely, I guess, when stunning balls with CTE. Who is right, and what does that really mean with regards to CTE?

For the record, I believe it is clear that he re-aimed the shot in mid backstroke in both the non CTE shot AND in the first CTE shot, but less dramatically for non CTE (not saying much because the first one was way off).

Thanks.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Your video doesn't work.

About 30 pages ago I said I was interested in debating the subject of CTE, but only if you were going to be intellectually honest and follow the evidence where it leads. You gave me a pretty indignant response.

When I started posting the video of Stan's stroke I was surprised that you thought it was great. You made the comment that any investigation that can prove how CTE works would be great. This was a red flag to me because I'm interested in finding out whether or not CTE works as advertised, or if something else is going on. After I point this out to you, you agreed, I think, that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

OK, so what happens:

1. I post a video that I don't think has ever been seen before and I put it out there for people to inspect and see if I've done something wrong.

2. You make a rebuttal video (great!) and dispute my finding on the first CTE shot.

3. Using your rebuttal analysis as proof, you immediately post multiple times that CTE is confirmed even more because Stan swooped in the first non CTE shot, but shot straight in the CTE shot.

4. Within 24 hours, I post a new video affirming that Stan's CTE stroke is misaligned during the shot, refuting your assertion.

The problem here is that in good faith (at least on my part) I'm putting information out there for people to debate. Instead of allowing me or others the time to scrutinize your findings, you go off and tout your discovery.

What I thought we were doing was trying, first, to come to an agreement on what we were actually seeing. Learning what that actually means is a whole other (and more difficult) subject to tackle. But how can we hope to make any progress if we begin making interpretations of the data before we even agree on what we are looking at!

I have since found a video of you at Stan's house for 3 or 4 days, touting your visit as the most important experience of your pool playing career. I'm glad you had such a great experience and I'm not knocking it in any way. This video, however, made me realize that you may actually simply be looking for new ways to show how CTE really does work as taught, and not really looking for evidence of how or whether in reality CTE works. In short, I think you are a full on cheerleader and I don't think you have it in you to be impartial.

I have several other instances on video of Stan pulling his hand in at the backstroke, and AFTER getting his CTE alignment. This quirk is just something Stan has ingrained and he isn't even aware of it. He shoots so well you'd be crazy to try and fix that flaw. I don't think there is much point in posting any new videos based on what I am seeing, unfortunately. We're just going to end up at "I don't see any flaw in Stan's stroke and even if it is there it doesn't matter anyway because CTE isn't affected by a cue motion like that."

Nobody can say I didn't give it a good try!

Dan,

Have you ever seen the comedy routine done by, I think, Sid Ceasor, where his wife comes home early & catches him in bed with another woman & starts yelling & accusing, & Sid says. 'what? where?, who? as he & the other woman get dressed, make the bed & she then leaves.

Then with the evidence gone Sid tells his wife, 'Look Dear, I'm in my suit, I got home just a couple of minutes before you. You must have had a really difficult & bad day. You must have been hallucinating.' With that, the wife, with a dumbfounded look on her face, looks around & sees nothing, & then asks Sid, 'What do you want for dinner?'

The title of the skit, was Deny, Deny, Deny.

Best to Ya,
Rick

 

[JB Cases]

JB your video now says "private."

Your video doesn't work.

About 30 pages ago I said I was interested in debating the subject of CTE, but only if you were going to be intellectually honest and follow the evidence where it leads. You gave me a pretty indignant response.

When I started posting the video of Stan's stroke I was surprised that you thought it was great. You made the comment that any investigation that can prove how CTE works would be great. This was a red flag to me because I'm interested in finding out whether or not CTE works as advertised, or if something else is going on. After I point this out to you, you agreed, I think, that we should follow the evidence wherever it leads.

OK, so what happens:

1. I post a video that I don't think has ever been seen before and I put it out there for people to inspect and see if I've done something wrong.

2. You make a rebuttal video (great!) and dispute my finding on the first CTE shot.

3. Using your rebuttal analysis as proof, you immediately post multiple times that CTE is confirmed even more because Stan swooped in the first non CTE shot, but shot straight in the CTE shot.

4. Within 24 hours, I post a new video affirming that Stan's CTE stroke is misaligned during the shot, refuting your assertion.

The problem here is that in good faith (at least on my part) I'm putting information out there for people to debate. Instead of allowing me or others the time to scrutinize your findings, you go off and tout your discovery.

What I thought we were doing was trying, first, to come to an agreement on what we were actually seeing. Learning what that actually means is a whole other (and more difficult) subject to tackle. But how can we hope to make any progress if we begin making interpretations of the data before we even agree on what we are looking at!

I have since found a video of you at Stan's house for 3 or 4 days, touting your visit as the most important experience of your pool playing career. I'm glad you had such a great experience and I'm not knocking it in any way. This video, however, made me realize that you may actually simply be looking for new ways to show how CTE really does work as taught, and not really looking for evidence of how or whether in reality CTE works. In short, I think you are a full on cheerleader and I don't think you have it in you to be impartial.

I have several other instances on video of Stan pulling his hand in at the backstroke, and AFTER getting his CTE alignment. This quirk is just something Stan has ingrained and he isn't even aware of it. He shoots so well you'd be crazy to try and fix that flaw. I don't think there is much point in posting any new videos based on what I am seeing, unfortunately. We're just going to end up at "I don't see any flaw in Stan's stroke and even if it is there it doesn't matter anyway because CTE isn't affected by a cue motion like that."

Nobody can say I didn't give it a good try!

Dan, your premise is that Stan's stroke is indicative of his brain realizing that the shot line chosen is not correct and thus the subconscious causing him to steer the shot.

I agreed with you that the first shot, a NON-CTE aimined shot where Stan deliberately lined up for a pure half ball hit which is what a true 30 degree shot would require, showed an apparent steering. This would be a plausible explanation for the obvious swoop in the stroke at contact since a straight stroke would not have resulted in a pocketed ball with that aim.

But on subsequent shots the stroke was indeed straight at contact and through the shot. You are right that the stroke deviated from the dead nuts perfect line during the warm-up strokes but it was slight and did not affect the shot at all where the cue went straight through the ball on all of the CTE aimed shots. At least that is what I see with a frame by frame study.

If you want to do a real experiment I will be glad to donate to the costs of having Stan get down on any shot and then marking the cue position and replacing him with a spring loaded cue that shoots dead straight every time. IF Stan has landed on the shot line with a slight overcut as claimed then the spring loaded cue will pocket the ball or get extremely close every time.

I understand that you are looking for evidence to explain how CTE works and "steering" due to some kind of subconscious correction sounds like a plausible road to explore. I would even agree that a video showing steering on each shot taken or a lot of them would be indicative of being aimed wrong.

But this video doesn't show that for the shots aimed using CTE. You might disagree because of your overlaid lines and I am quite sure that if I were to download this video and dissect it using a better program than your phone app I could show that either there is no deviation at contact OR that what's there is insignificant to the outcome and NOT indicative of subconscious correction.

https://youtu.be/O4DDQ0NUC5U

This one should work. Please do not eve make the mistake of telling me what I am thinking. If you ever found a smoking gun I would be the first one to be asking why is it smoking. I have no allegiance to Stan Shuffett that prevents me from looking deeper and considering the possibility that he is not correct in the underlying reason WHY CTE works.

As for the video where I gushed about our visit with Stan it was one of the best experiences of my life in pool. NOt because I am a fan boy and hanging from Stan's nuts but because the man is genuine, honest, and above all that extremely knowledgeable about much more than aiming. His walls are filled with trophies he and his son have won, pictures of him with many students and top pros who have taken instruction at his studio. But honestly, as I have said, mostly because he PROVED to me beyond a shadow of doubt that CTE is an amazingly powerful way to aim when done right. He proved the accuracy after I tried hard to make him struggle and tried to find shots where he could not find a cte solution.

I played devil's advocate and I used the very critiques made on AZB to challenge him to prove them wrong on the table and he did. I certainly did not allow myself to be blinded and dazzled by a prepared instructional course. I had my own agenda and I stuck to it and Stan more than proved that the method works as advertised.

You can believe that or not but it's the stone cold truth and is why I would bet $1000 a shot on Stan against any other breathing human being.

 

[JB Cases]

Dan,

Have you ever seen the comedy routine done by, I think, Sid Ceasor, where his wife comes home early & catches him in bed with another woman & starts yelling & accusing, & Sid says. 'what? where?, who? as he & the other woman get dressed, make the bed & she then leaves.

Then with the evidence gone Sid tells his wife, 'Look Dear, I'm in my suit, I got home just a couple of minutes before you. You must have had a really difficult & bad day. You must have been hallucinating.' With that, the wife, with a dumbfounded look on her face, looks around & sees nothing, & then asks Sid, 'What do you want for dinner?'

The title of the skit, was Deny, Deny, Deny.

Best to Ya,
Rick

We can do this all day.

 

[cookie man]

Dan,

Have you ever seen the comedy routine done by, I think, Sid Ceasor, where his wife comes home early & catches him in bed with another woman & starts yelling & accusing, & Sid says. 'what? where?, who? as he & the other woman get dressed, make the bed & she then leaves.

Then with the evidence gone Sid tells his wife, 'Look Dear, I'm in my suit, I got home just a couple of minutes before you. You must have had a really difficult & bad day. You must have been hallucinating.' With that, the wife, with a dumbfounded look on her face, looks around & sees nothing, & then asks Sid, 'What do you want for dinner?'

The title of the skit, was Deny, Deny, Deny.

Best to Ya,
Rick

And this is what you call adding to the conversation

 

[Dan White]

Stevie Moore is the professional player's name you are thinking of.

Here is the video I tried to link to earlier. Going frame by frame I maintain that Stan's stroke was straight and true through the cueball on all of the CTE aimed shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DDQ0NUC5U

JB - I made a comment in your YouTube video post.

Another point I didn't make on YouTube is that you haven't analyzed anything about my last video. You merely reanalyzed the original video and said, "Yup, its straight." My video fills half the screen with a 6 inch section of Stan's cue. In your video, I can see all the pictures on the wall. Tiny movements matter. How can you hope to see anything moving so fast from so far away, unless maybe you don't want to see it?

 

[Poolplaya9]

I really don't care about exactly why [CTE] works. I only care about if it works for me, not how it works. There are many, many, things in life that I use everyday that I don't understand the workings of. This computer is just one of them.

I don't need to know how it works, only that if I hit these buttons, this happens. And, that makes my life a little better. I won't refuse to use the computer just because I don't understand it all...

All I know is this- follow these steps, and it works. Worry about why it works, and you will never benefit from it. Will CTE work for everyone? No.

You don't understand how CTE works, don't care how it works, and don't feel how it works is important. You have said that a number of times, John Barton who has said that dozens of times, and many of the other CTE arguers have said it as well. The problem is that on the one hand you all say you don't understand how CTE works, and then on the other hand you turn right around and argue in the most closed minded and adamant manner possible about every last detail of how it works and doesn't work. You all obviously do care a lot about the mechanism by which it works for you otherwise you wouldn't be so militant in your need to argue how it works even when you admit not knowing. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't understand it on the one hand, and then argue every last detail about it with someone on the other. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't care how it works, and then be absolutely and completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that you might be subconsciously adjusting for an inaccurate system regardless of the evidence.

When it is convenient for the CTE arguers, you admit you don't understand how CTE works. When someone asks questions you don't have answers to, or wants more detail where descriptions of the steps are vague, or wants proof of anything like that it objectively finds the correct aim/shot line or of anything else, the response from your side is all too often "CTE can't be proven to work as claimed and I don't understand how it works and it isn't important how it works and I don't care, all I know is it works for me and that is all that is important". But when someone is showing mathematical proof on paper or through explanation that it does not find the correct shot line, and that CTE users are actually adjusting by feel to make their shots just like with any other system, you and the rest suddenly become experts who fully understand every last detail of the system and will argue vehemently against any possibility of subconscious adjustment.

So which is it? Do you fully understand it or not? Do you care how it works or not? Here is the answer and give this some serious internal soul searching before replying back with the knee jerk argument that every pore of your being will reflexively want to make. You all don't understand how it works, otherwise you would never say you didn't understand if you did. Plus you would be able to answer those tough questions if you did. Of course you don't understand how or why it works and have said so many,many times. You also do care how it works--a lot. A whole lot. Like a WHOLE LOT. But why is that? Because you will feel stupid if you actually have to accept to yourself that you were just subconsciously adjusting for everything the whole time. So your ego makes you have a closed mind about that and makes you need to have to argue against that vehemently, in the hopes that nobody believes you were subconsciously adjusting and will think to themselves "look how dumb those guys were", and so you don't have to accept it yourself and feel like "man how dumb was I to have just been using feel all along and adjusting and never even realizing it". But it shouldn't be something to be embarrassed about or ashamed about or to feel stupid about. We all do things subconsciously that we don't realize, and often, and it's just part of being human. But ego just won't let you guys look at the evidence and the facts without that bias.

The truth of the matter is that you and the rest of the CTE arguers/users don't understand the system, and it isn't important to you how it works as long as it isn't subconscious adjustments you are making that corrected for the system's inaccuracies. Ego is why you can never accept subconscious adjustment and is why you are so compelled to argue that which you admit to not understanding. It is misplaced ego though. Again, not consciously realizing something you are doing subconsciously doesn't make you an idiot, it makes you human, and there is no shame in being human. On the other hand, ignoring facts and evidence because of your ego displays a lack of ability to utilize critical thinking skills, and that level of willful bias is something that actually is shameful though IMO because that is something we have a lot more if not total control over.

This is simply a case of reflexively fighting against something simply because it isn't the way you would want it to be (because you are afraid it will make you look and feel silly) instead of just searching for the truth without bias and with an open mind whether you will hate the answer you arrive at or not. Seriously, do some real soul searching on this and ask yourself honestly why it is so important to you that it doesn't turn out to be subconscious adjustment. If it was really true when you guys all say "who cares how it works as long as it works" then it wouldn't matter to you if the reason was subconscious adjustment, but yet it does matter to you all a lot (it shouldn't, and so the question to ask yourself is why does it, and in that answer lies the cause of your biases).

 

[JB Cases]

Yes, the subconscious is a powerful thing. Stan quoted Bob Fancher as saying the subconscious is 0.5 seconds ahead of conscious thought. Since the "pulling in" stroke motion takes far less than 0.5 seconds to execute, maybe the conscious mind never catches on to what just happened because it was more interested in what the balls on the table are doing. Just speculation there.

When you say "he" (in blue) are you talking about Stan or JB? If I recall, JB says what you say above, but Stan said he does that motion routinely, I guess, when stunning balls with CTE. Who is right, and what does that really mean with regards to CTE?

For the record, I believe it is clear that he re-aimed the shot in mid backstroke in both the non CTE shot AND in the first CTE shot, but less dramatically for non CTE (not saying much because the first one was way off).

Thanks.

It isn't clear at ALL that Stan "re-aimed" the CTE shots. You can find similar deviations in warm up strokes in just about every player. Even SVB has a little tick in hsi stroke that is clearly visible every time he shoots and this is one of the smoothest stroking players on earth.

 

[Dan White]

Dan,

Have you ever seen the comedy routine done by, I think, Sid Ceasor, where his wife comes home early ...

Best to Ya,
Rick

LOL. Hadn't heard of that one. I think you're dating yourself, though.

 

[JB Cases]

You don't understand how CTE works, don't care how it works, and don't feel how it works is important. You have said that a number of times, John Barton who has said that dozens of times, and many of the other CTE arguers have said it as well. The problem is that on the one hand you all say you don't understand how CTE works, and then on the other hand you turn right around and argue in the most closed minded and adamant manner possible about every last detail of how it works and doesn't work. You all obviously do care a lot about the mechanism by which it works for you otherwise you wouldn't be so militant in your need to argue how it works even when you admit not knowing. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't understand it on the one hand, and then argue every last detail about it with someone on the other. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't care how it works, and then be absolutely and completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that you might be subconsciously adjusting for an inaccurate system regardless of the evidence.

When it is convenient for the CTE arguers, you admit you don't understand how CTE works. When someone asks questions you don't have answers to, or wants more detail where descriptions of the steps are vague, or wants proof of anything like that it objectively finds the correct aim/shot line or of anything else, the response from your side is all too often "CTE can't be proven to work as claimed and I don't understand how it works and it isn't important how it works and I don't care, all I know is it works for me and that is all that is important". But when someone is showing mathematical proof on paper or through explanation that it does not find the correct shot line, and that CTE users are actually adjusting by feel to make their shots just like with any other system, you and the rest suddenly become experts who fully understand every last detail of the system and will argue vehemently against any possibility of subconscious adjustment.

So which is it? Do you fully understand it or not? Do you care how it works or not? Here is the answer and give this some serious internal soul searching before replying back with the knee jerk argument that every pore of your being will reflexively want to make. You all don't understand how it works, otherwise you would never say you didn't understand if you did. Plus you would be able to answer those tough questions if you did. Of course you don't understand how or why it works and have said so many,many times. You also do care how it works--a lot. A whole lot. Like a WHOLE LOT. But why is that? Because you will feel stupid if you actually have to accept to yourself that you were just subconsciously adjusting for everything the whole time. So your ego makes you have a closed mind about that and makes you need to have to argue against that vehemently, in the hopes that nobody believes you were subconsciously adjusting and will think to themselves "look how dumb those guys were", and so you don't have to accept it yourself and feel like "man how dumb was I to have just been using feel all along and adjusting and never even realizing it". But it shouldn't be something to be embarrassed about or ashamed about or to feel stupid about. We all do things subconsciously that we don't realize, and often, and it's just part of being human. But ego just won't let you guys look at the evidence and the facts without that bias.

The truth of the matter is that you and the rest of the CTE arguers/users don't understand the system, and it isn't important to you how it works as long as it isn't subconscious adjustments you are making that corrected for the system's inaccuracies. Ego is why you can never accept subconscious adjustment and is why you are so compelled to argue that which you admit to not understanding. It is misplaced ego though. Again, not consciously realizing something you are doing subconsciously doesn't make you an idiot, it makes you human, and there is no shame in being human. On the other hand, ignoring facts and evidence because of your ego displays a lack of ability to utilize critical thinking skills, and that level of willful bias is something that actually is shameful though IMO because that is something we have a lot more if not total control over.

This is simply a case of reflexively fighting against something simply because it isn't the way you would want it to be (because you are afraid it will make you look and feel silly) instead of just searching for the truth without bias and with an open mind whether you will hate the answer you arrive at or not. Seriously, do some real soul searching on this and ask yourself honestly why it is so important to you that it doesn't turn out to be subconscious adjustment. If it was really true when you guys all say "who cares how it works as long as it works" then it wouldn't matter to you if the reason was subconscious adjustment, but yet it does matter to you all a lot (it shouldn't, and so the question to ask yourself is why does it, and in that answer lies the cause of your biases).

I said on a PRACTICAL level I don't care how or why it works. I don't care how or why Ghost Ball either practically as long as it works.

On an intellectual level I am extremely interested in how it works. Which is why I have done my own research and come to my own conclusions about why it works.

 

[JB Cases]

JB - I made a comment in your YouTube video post.

Another point I didn't make on YouTube is that you haven't analyzed anything about my last video. You merely reanalyzed the original video and said, "Yup, its straight." My video fills half the screen with a 6 inch section of Stan's cue. In your video, I can see all the pictures on the wall. Tiny movements matter. How can you hope to see anything moving so fast from so far away, unless maybe you don't want to see it?

Why don't you comment on Colins video showing that the ball can be made with many deviations from a straight stroke when shooting down a known line?

You claim tiny deviations matter and apparently think that ONLY a 100% straight stroke is a valid one yet you have no comment about Colin's disagreement with your claim and his video example to back it up.

 

[JB Cases]

And Dan, the video I am commenting on is on a 50" monitor. Frame by frame.

I can make drawings on screen too, lines and circles and grids if that's where we need to go.