John Schmidt says CTE works after all.

[stan shuffett]

With all due respect, I think you do not have a very good understanding of the situation & what has been going on for so long.

Personally I think most of the individuals that have objections regarding it, the"haters" as you & some others call them, are the more open minded individuals in comparison to the proponents.

I don't think anyone has ever said that it does not work in the sense that one can not utilize it & play well. I also do not think that anyone has said that it can not be an aid or that it can not be beneficial.

One of the objections has been it being called a system vs a method. As has been said by others that is a bit of semantics, BUT... the word system does have a different connotation vs the term method.

Then, seemingly the largest objection is it being called an 'objective aiming system'.

That implies that there are objective visual indicators for every shot that can be seen by everyone & using them will result in pocketing the shot & it does not require any subjective interpretations, etc. by the shooter.

However... perception is at the core of it & by definition perception is subjective & if the core of it is dependent on subjective perceptions then how can it be an 'objective aiming system'?

That phrase too has sort of been suggested to be & thrown into the realm of relative semantics but that phrase has a far more suggestive implication than just the word system.

So, you see the dispute has not really been about whether or not it can work for someone but rather what exactly is it & what is it that would allow it to work for someone.

On one side it is claimed, asserted, to be an 'objective aiming system' & that it is 'connected' to any 2:1 ratio rectangular table (the balls remain the same size yet there are many different sized tables) That is a rather provocative assertion.

On the other side it is said to be a subjective method just as all other aiming methods are subjectively learned & utilized.

I hope that gives you a better understanding of matters & I do not think it is fair, right, or civil to refer to anyone as a "hater" just because they have a different understanding of something & express that understanding openly.

IF the assertions were not made or if they were corrected or retracted, then the whole long standing hub bub would probably cease & disappear.

The issue as I have laid it out for you IS an issue of the mind & intellect, & the individuals that have objections have been & are willing to discuss it in a rational logical intelligent manner, but it is the proponents & that have resorted to name calling, personal insults & 'attacks', along with ridiculous challenges & propositions that would prove nothing in the realm of an intellectual discussion or debate. Intellectual discussion is the ONLY means of any resolution regarding the issue since it is of the mind & intellect. No demonstration can prove whether or not one's subjective subconscious mind is in play or not or whether the demonstration involves ONLY the visual seeing & aligning to objective indicators with no subjectively learned perceptions involved.

Those matters can ONLY be determined through rational cognitive critical thinking & explanation.

Again I hope this gives you & others a better understanding of the situation.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

You have had invitations but your real issue is that you stopped short before seeing it all......Hal was right and I can prove it and will prove it.

Stan Shuffett

 

[lfigueroa]

well i owe everyone I've ever offended when i said little green men from Mars don't exist, i have a close friend who i respect and like a lot and he says he saw the little green men and they helped him play better and he understands their language and they are real. i've never seen them. since he says he's seen them thats good enough for me. I've been wrong before so this is no shocker lol. i was wrong on the little green men and again I'm sorry to the greek guy on the history channel with the exploding hair and any of the other ancient alien theorists out there.

Lou Figueroa
with apologies to
Giorgio Tsoukalos

 

[ENGLISH!]

I stopped when I realized that it was not a fully objective method but would still require subjectivity.

That is not for what I became interested & intrigued.

If it were a complete objective only system or method, I would NOT have stopped.

I was rather amazed at how well the process worked when a shot fit the process & the 'objective' visual indicators, lines, & pivots.

I was also very disappointed how useless it was, TO ME, when a shot did not fit the process & the 'objective' visual indicators, lines, & pivots.

I already had & have my long time subjectively learned & built shot pictures, perceptions & 'visual intelligence' for the shots that do not specifically fit the methods that I use.

Why would I want to spend all of that time to 'erase' those just to build new ones based on what, TO ME, is a more complex base method?

If anyone wants to do that, they certainly should.

If anyone does not already have their own subjectively learned perceptions & visual intelligence data base then using it to build such might be a good way to go & it certainly is no worse than any other method, though, TO ME, it is more complex than most. So if they want to use it to build their subjectively learned shot pictures, perceptions, & visual intelligence data base, then they should certainly do so.

They should just know that it is not a complete objective system & will take time to learn & build their own subjectively learned shot pictures, perceptions, & visual intelligence data base from off of it's base.

I hope all can see that I am not a 'hater' & I am not a 'basher'.

I just think that individuals should make their own determinations based of off a very clear picture of reality.

If a system or method with a pivot in both directions does not have at least 38 to 45 visually objective indicators then it is not a complete objective system or method & will require subjectively learned & built shot pictures, perceptions, & visual intelligence in order to make 'decisions' from off of the base indicators.

That's just the reality based on science & the need to produce the 75 or 90 angles required to play the game. It's basic science & math.

If there is anything that can explain away the reality of the science & math, I & others are all ears ready & willing & wanting to hear it.

That is just not likely to come, as the world is a hard place with physics, geometry, & the math that we use to explain them rather firmly established in place & are extremely likely to stay in place... & they cover & govern the 3 dimensions & even the 4th. dimension of time.

 

[Banks]

Have any of the CTE haters taken an actual certified lesson and walked away still feeling that it doesn't work?

Or are all of you still assuming things? Not exactly sure I've seen more narrow-minded people in my life.

I don't need a lesson to know that the claims are ridiculous.

Since you are questioning my character, the word MEETING in that context was for agreement with what bwally said......Nothing wrong with two people meeting face to face for a CIVIL discussion.

If you want to investigate my integrity any further, I am willing to take a polygraph test. You can name the bet.

Integrity is not having to create a second username to promote yourself. At least try to write in a different style. Also, if your locations cross, don't say you know the pool scene, but have never met yourself.

 

[GoldenFlash]

Sure, Stan. You weren't suggesting Lou receive a little facial in the process, were you? Nah.
...wondering in what county the moderators have drawn the line for the CTE group.
Jim

I think that line of your post is an oblique effort on your part at being overly confrontational.
Rest assured the high priest of this place keeps a watch on all of us.
Not cool, man. :shakehead:

 

[ENGLISH!]

You have had invitations but your real issue is that you stopped short before seeing it all......Hal was right and I can prove it and will prove it.

Stan Shuffett

Sir,

Just to make matters clear, can you tell me & us exactly what it is that Hal was right about & what it is that you will be attempting to prove?

If it is that a completely objective system for aiming pool shots exists, then I will be very interested in implementing it for my game.

That was what initially intrigued me when I first heard such.

IF that is a reality, I wish you good fortune in being able to prove it.

Sincerely I do, but given the requirements & the physical materials at hand, my science education just does not see one existing & hence proving such impossible.

But... Sometimes strange things happen.

 

[GoldenFlash]

If a system or method with a pivot in both directions does not have at least 38 to 45 visually objective indicators then it is not a complete objective system or method & will require subjectively learned & built shot pictures, perceptions, & visual intelligence in order to make 'decisions' from off of the base indicators.
That's just the reality based on science & the need to produce the 75 or 90 angles required to play the game. It's basic science & math.
If there is anything that can explain away the reality of the science & math, I & others are all ears ready & willing & wanting to hear it.
That is just not likely to come, as the world is a hard place with physics, geometry, & the math that we use to explain them rather firmly established in place & are extremely likely to stay in place... & they cover & govern the 3 dimensions & even the 4th. dimension of time.

The part of your post (that I have in color) is where you lose me. Maybe I am just not on the higher intellectual level as you??
My questions concern: Why should a player want to get involved with 38 to 45 visually objective indicators when all that's required to make practically every shot on the table are 5 from Stan Shuffet's CTE system?
(I use the word "practically" since there are shots that just cannot be legally pocketed...no matter how they're aimed")
Thereby leaving the mind wide open to get in the groove, enjoy the game, let the "feel" take over, plan position play, speed, and observe those perplexed looks from the losers as they reach for their money to pay up.
Okay...the burden is now on you to lay down the sales pitch for those 38-45 visually objective indicators of which you speak.
Fire away.

 

[stan shuffett]

Sir,

Just to make matters clear, can you tell me & us exactly what it is that Hal was right about & what it is that you will be attempting to prove?

If it is that a completely objective system for aiming pool shots exists, then I will be very interested in implementing it for my game.

That was what initially intrigued me when I first heard such.

IF that is a reality, I wish you good fortune in being able to prove it.

Sincerely I do, but given the requirements & the physical materials at hand, my science education just does not see one existing & hence proving such impossible.

But... Sometimes strange things happen.

You know something, I am a stubborn man. I connected to the system years back. I knew there was something to it. I trusted Hal Houle. It took me 2121 days to go from connection to a complete objective understanding. Most of my critics have not put in 2 full days of study, and surely not 21. My hours of study from connection till now totals more than five years of my college classes and all of my outside study combined. I did it.....I speak the truth sort of like I do not dump when a few thousand can be on the line in a Calcutta for the favor of my side. Nuff said!

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

The part of your post (that I have in color) is where you lose me. Maybe I am just not on the higher intellectual level as you??
My questions concern: Why should a player want to get involved with 38 to 45 visually objective indicators when all that's required to make practically every shot on the table are 5 from Stan Shuffet's CTE system?
(I use the word "practically" since there are shots that just cannot be legally pocketed...no matter how they're aimed")
Thereby leaving the mind wide open to get in the groove, enjoy the game, let the "feel" take over, plan position play, speed, and observe those perplexed looks from the losers as they reach for their money to pay up.
Okay...the burden is now on you to lay down the sales pitch for those 38-45 visually objective indicators of which you speak.
Fire away.

Where to start?

I don't think anyone has said, & certainly I have never said, that one should ever get involved with 38 or 45 visually objective indicators.

BUT... that is what it would take with a pivot in both directions in order to OBJECTIVELY cover all of the angles that are involved to completely & successfully play the game & especially for a center pocket system as it is asserted to be, & for that it would be the 45 & not the 38.

That is what it has been claimed & asserted to be, an 'objective aiming system'.

If you think that you are pocketing all of the 90 angles of shots based on only five(5) objectively derived lines, then you are mistaken. Please note the phrase, "objectively derived lines".

You bring up "feel". The claim, assertion, is that there is no need for any subjective 'feel' or interpretations, influences, tweaks, decisions, adjustments, etc. to arrive at any of the 90 angled shot lines because it is an 'objective aiming system' that is connected to all 2:1 ratio rectangular tables regardless of size, even though the balls stay the same size.

Those of us that do not see it as 'an objective aiming system' are saying that it takes one's subjectively time learned shot pictures, perceptions, &/or visual intelligence to make the variations based off the 5 objectively derived lines.

That being the case, while different, it is like all other aiming methods at it's core.

One could use fractional with the OB inner edge, 1/8, 1/4/, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4, 7/8, & outer edge & have 9 indicators & make subjective, perception based tweaks off of those. If only a defined pivot in either direction is based off of those that is only 18 outcome angles in a game that requires 90.

The whole point of the 38 & 45 indicators is to show, just as you say, how burdensome & overwhelming that would be for any normal human being to implement & even IF they could they would still have to make a subjective determination as to which one would apply to any given shot.

Hence, a truly objective aiming system, If one actually did exist, for all practical purposes would be unusable by any normal individual.

Now back to the fractional. Even 9 indicators is rather much & making a determination as to which one it is that is the closest to an actual shot line would be difficult, at least until one gains their visual intelligence based off of that method. But... bring it down to CB edge to edge, 1/4, center, & 3/4 & outer edge as a base makes it much easier from which to use one's subjectively learned visual intelligence as a starting point & either tweak or apply a thickening or thinning pivot from there. What a coincidence, that's five(5)

If you want to use 'your' 5 as your method & it works well for you as you say that it does then that is certainly fine & you're at will to do whatever you wish, as well that you should.

But saying that all 90 angles of cut shots can be OBJECTIVELY pocketed from just 5 lines is well, not accurate. Subjective interpretation, etc. must come into play

I hope my response here along with my other posts can give you & others a better perception, view, picture, understanding of just what the actual issue is.

It is not whether or not one can play well using it, obviously some, like yourself, have & are, but it's about exactly what is truly going on & science & math dictates that you are not making all of the different 90 angles of shots on a purely objective visual look at 5 indicators.

I would ask you to now explain how it is that you ARE doing that but I know that that is NOT the case in reality, so I will not ask you to do that.

Instead, I would ask that you to give the reality of the numbers some thought along with exactly what objective means along with what subjective perception means & how one builds that visually subjective perception intelligence.

You're playing well, you should take more credit for doing so.

I guess I should head off a try at a 'rebuttal'. The objective points & lines based on those points are fixed. One can take them anywhere in the Universe & they will be exactly the same if the distance between them is the same. They will not 'present' themselves differently' regardless of where they are nor be any different just because they are in a different location any where in the Universe or on any table. Inanimate objects simply exist & do not present themselves differently. IF the distance between the balls are the same then the lines based on the same points of them is the same. Again, simple science.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

You are missing my point.

JS FB post speaks to his position. Fine.

My question, which is not addressed in JS FB post: what level player is Brian Wallace? JS FB post does not speak to that point and BW here will not address it. With all the ballyhoo surrounding the OP and Brian Wallace, I think BW level of expertise is a salient question best answered in the first person. If he doesn't want answer, so be it. But put the drums, cymbals, and trumpets away, lol.

Lou Figueroa

I am not missing your point as it has no relevance to what John posted on Facebook. Drums cymbals trumpets? Have a Snickers Bar Lou.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ENGLISH!]

You know something, I am a stubborn man. I connected to the system years back. I knew there was something to it. I trusted Hal Houle. It took me 2121 days to go from connection to a complete objective understanding. Most of my critics have not put in 2 full days of study, and surely not 21. My hours of study from connection till now totals more than five years of my college classes and all of my outside study combined. I did it.....I speak the truth sort of like I do not dump when a few thousand can be on the line in a Calcutta for the favor of my side. Nuff said!

Stan Shuffett

Sir,

I've never said that you lack sincerity nor integrity even though I have at times been perplexed by some things that you have said.

I also never doubted or questioned Einstein's but even he made mistakes.

Sometimes he needed quite a bit of help with the mathematics, as that was not his forte. His forte was in out of the box conceptualization of matters. Sometimes the mathematics showed him wrong as he once made a mistake that cost him two(2) years. He did not deny his mistake, but instead went back to the point prior to the mistake & began anew.

 

[8pack]

I'm not a "CTE guy". I've tried it out of curiosity and it does work for me, but I'm not married to it or anything. Seems to me, though, that you're a lot more interested in "air time" than I am.

You got me sloppy, nothing gets past you.

 

[stan shuffett]

Where to start?

I don't think anyone has said, & certainly I have never said, that one should ever get involved with 38 or 45 visually objective indicators.

BUT... that is what it would take with a pivot in both directions in order to OBJECTIVELY cover all of the angles that are involved to completely & successfully play the game & especially for a center pocket system as it is asserted to be, & for that it would be the 45 & not the 38.

That is what it has been claimed & asserted to be, an 'objective aiming system'.

If you think that you are pocketing all of the 90 angles of shots based on only five(5) objectively derived lines, then you are mistaken. Please note the phrase, "objectively derived lines".

You bring up "feel". The claim, assertion, is that there is no need for any subjective 'feel' or interpretations, influences, tweaks, decisions, adjustments, etc. to arrive at any of the 90 angled shot lines because it is an 'objective aiming system' that is connected to all 2:1 ratio rectangular tables regardless of size, even though the balls stay the same size.

Those of us that do not see it as 'an objective aiming system' are saying that it takes one's subjectively time learned shot pictures, perceptions, &/or visual intelligence to make the variations based off the 5 objectively derived lines.

That being the case, while different, it is like all other aiming methods at it's core.

One could use fractional with the OB inner edge, 1/8, 1/4/, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4, 7/8, & outer edge & have 9 indicators & make subjective, perception based tweaks off of those. If only a defined pivot in either direction is based off of those that is only 18 outcome angles in a game that requires 90.

The whole point of the 38 & 45 indicators is to show, just as you say, how burdensome & overwhelming that would be for any normal human being to implement & even IF they could they would still have to make a subjective determination as to which one would apply to any given shot.

Hence, a truly objective aiming system, If one actually did exist, for all practical purposes would be unusable by any normal individual.

Now back to the fractional. Even 9 indicators is rather much & making a determination as to which one it is that is the closest to an actual shot line would be difficult, at least until one gains their visual intelligence based off of that method. But... bring it down to CB edge to edge, 1/4, center, & 3/4 & outer edge as a base makes it much easier from which to use one's subjectively learned visual intelligence as a starting point & either tweak or apply a thickening or thinning pivot from there. What a coincidence, that's five(5)

If you want to use 'your' 5 as your method & it works well for you as you say that it does then that is certainly fine & you're at will to do whatever you wish, as well that you should.

But saying that all 90 angles of cut shots can be OBJECTIVELY pocketed from just 5 lines is well, not accurate. Subjective interpretation, etc. must come into play

I hope my response here along with my other posts can give you & others a better perception, view, picture, understanding of just what the actual issue is.

It is not whether or not one can play well using it, obviously some, like yourself, have & are, but it's about exactly what is truly going on & science & math dictates that you are not making all of the different 90 angles of shots on a purely objective visual look at 5 indicators.

I would ask you to now explain how it is that you ARE doing that but I know that that is NOT the case in reality, so I will not ask you to do that.

Instead, I would ask that you to give the reality of the numbers some thought along with exactly what objective means along with what subjective perception means & how one builds that visually subjective perception intelligence.

You're playing well, you should take more credit for doing so.

I guess I should head off a try at a 'rebuttal'. The objective points & lines based on those points are fixed. One can take them anywhere in the Universe & they will be exactly the same if the distance between them is the same. They will not 'present' themselves differently' regardless of where they are nor be any different just because they are in a different location any where in the Universe or on any table. Inanimate objects simply exist & do not present themselves differently. IF the distance between the balls are the same then the lines based on the same points of them is the same. Again, simple science.

A truly objective aiming system does exist. It is practical and simply used....and it expands for all purposes.....or it could not be professional. Hal called CTE a professional system and not just for blowing hot air either. I am glad I believed him.
Your position is sort of nice actually because once the swell of CTE understanding tips, it makes me wonder if you will continue your Mission Impossible.

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

A truly objective aiming system does exist. It is practical and simply used....and it expands for all purposes.....or it could not be professional. Hal called CTE a professional system and not just for blowing hot air either. I am glad I believed him.
Your position is sort of nice actually because once the swell of CTE understanding tips, it makes me wonder if you will still continue your Mission Impossible.

Stan Shuffett

Sir,

I have no 'mission'.

As I've said, I just think individuals should make their own determinations knowing the reality of matters.

My science education & the numbers tell me what they do & I base my determinations on them.

If an explanation is ever presented that can logically indicate differently then I will amend my determination.

As I have also said, I wish you good fortune in that endeavor as if it is a reality, I will want to implement it in my game.

I was intrigued when I first heard the description. My 'hope' for such briefly clouded my judgement.

If it is now clouded & you are capable of removing those clouds, I will be delighted.

IF... is very often a huge word though.

Also, language is all that we have to communicate ideas, etc. Lack of communication & miscommunication are two of the worse problems in the world & they can at times cause much grief.

 

[stan shuffett]

Sir,

I have no 'mission'.

As I've said, I just think individuals should make their own determinations knowing the reality of matters.

My science education & the numbers tell me what they do & I base my determinations on them.

If an explanation is ever presented that can logically indicate differently then I will amend my determination.

As I have also said, I wish you good fortune in that endeavor as if it is a reality, I will want to implement it in my game.

I was intrigued when I first heard the description. My 'hope' for such briefly clouded my judgement.

If it is now clouded & you are capable of removing those clouds, I will be delighted.

If is very often a huge word though. Also language is all that we have to communicate ideas, etc. Lack of communication & miscommunication are two of the worse problems in the world & they can at times cause much grief.

You never wanted CTE enough to make the trip here. That says something. A key component for learning CTE is desire. You do not have any real desire or you would have already shown up.

IF is not a huge word. It's a great lesson from Kippling.

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

You never wanted CTE enough to make the trip here. That says something. A key component for learning CTE is desire. You do not have any real desire or you would have already shown up.

IF is not a huge word but a great lesson from Kippling.

Stan Shuffett

Sir,

When I was first very intrigued & interested because of the description & you made your offer to come to you to be a neutral testimonial of sorts, it was not long after I had ruptured an L5 disc in my back and I had significant family matters on the near horizon. I was NOT traveling anywhere.

Once I began experimenting with it my intrigue began to wain but I was holding judgement for the then upcoming new DVD as I was told that that would be all that I would need & that I would NOT need the first DVD.

When I saw your 5 shots perception video on You Tube, I realized that there would not be any revelations forth coming on the new DVD regarding any application that would be completely objective.

That is when my determination was solidified. After that, there was no point in investing any more time in it.

I opted to not have surgery on my back & have made only one trip over an hour long & THAT was Family related as were any & all 1 hour trips.

If it requires a trip to you for a personal education, then for what purpose are the DVDs?

When I said IF was a huge word, I was not speaking literally, but it can have & usually does have very significant implications.

IF you are ever capable of giving an explanation that logically proves that it's application is completely objective & a trip to you is what is require, I may consider making such a trip.

But there is that word IF again.

 

[stan shuffett]

Sir,

When I was first very intrigued & interested because of the description & you made your offer to come to you to be a neutral testimonial of sorts, it was not long after I had ruptured an L5 disc in my back and I had significant family matters on the near horizon. I was NOT traveling anywhere.

Once I began experimenting with it my intrigue began to wain but I was holding judgement for the then upcoming new DVD as I was told that that would be all that I would need & that I would NOT need the first DVD.

When I saw your 5 shots perception video on You Tube, I realized that there would not be any revelations forth coming on the new DVD regarding any application that would be completely objective.

That is when my determination was solidified. After that, there was no point in investing any more time in it.

I opted to not have surgery on my back & have made only one trip over an hour long & THAT was Family related as were any & all 1 hour trips.

If it requires a trip to you for a personal education, then for what purpose are the DVDs?

When I said IF was a huge word, I was not speaking literally, but it can have & usually does have very significant implications.

IF you are ever capable of giving an explanation that logically proves that it's application is completely objective & a trip to you is what is require, I may consider making such a trip.

But there is that word IF again.

The 5 shots! The 15 and 30 can make every SHOT on a 2x1 table somewhere and most of the time to the desired pocket. And you are ohung up on a pararell line of demo shots......that YES, go and not any other way.

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

The 5 shots! The 15 and 30 can make every SHOT on a 2x1 table somewhere and most of the time to the desired pocket. And you are ohung up on a pararell line of demo shots......that YES, go and not any other way.

Stan Shuffett

Sir,

The issue seems to be that you & others do not see the illogic of that in the context of a truly objective application.

The question of what is it that is objective that gets the shooter to the 5 different locations & hence lines that yields 5 different angles & all those in between based on the same 'objective visual' has been asked numerous times & no answer has ever been given with anything that is objective.

Different perceptions are not objective & the points on the balls & lines based on them do NOT change IF the distance between them stays the same.

This has all been gone over rather many times & I see no good end into going into it again, unless that is, you now have a different answer, which I do not see as likely.

 

[stan shuffett]

Sir,

The issue seems to be that you & others do not see the illogic of that in the context of a truly objective application.

The question of what is it that is objective that gets the shooter to the 5 different locations & hence lines that yields 5 different angles & all those in between based on the same 'objective visual' has been asked numerous times & no answer has ever been given with anything that is objective.

Different perceptions are not objective & the points on the balls & lines based on them do NOT change IF the distance between them stays the same.

This has all been gone over rather many times & I see no good end into going into it again, unless that is, you now have a different answer, which I do not see as likely.

You are extremely limited in your understanding of the vast scope of perception, not in the feel domain, though. You are rock-solid in conventional pool to nowhere but you are a featherweight when it comes to "how to really explain the game, visually."

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

You are extremely limited in your understanding of the vast scope of perception, not in the feel domain, though. You are rock-solid in conventional pool to nowhere but you are a featherweight when it comes to "how to really explain the game, visually."

Stan Shuffett

Sir,

I understand more than you think.

I've been playing for decades not looking down the line of my cue stick while using what I would call 'parallel' english.

Also some of the IQ tests are very visual tests of what one's ability is to perceive the reality & I score quite high on them.

But I do not assign words like objective where it should not be & is not applicable.

That is the crux of the matter.

You seem to be "hung up" on that.

Perhaps it is language that is holding you back from being able to communicate your logical explanation.

Perhaps Brian Wallace can be of assistance since it seems he has turned around John Schmidt's opinion of aiming methods by what he communicated to him. Unless that is, John was not convinced, but is merely trusting his friends interpretations, because he is his friend & simply trusts him.