My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE

[cookie man]

Again your first statement is incorrect & misleading. You're putting words into Mike's mouth that he did not say.

Your last statement is somewhat also misleading as ALL have been warned in another thread.

Best Wishes to All.

I remember you being warned, not everyone. You were warned for your constant babbling while offering no proof.

 

[cookie man]

Again, I think almost any unbiased reader can see the truth of matters.

Best Wishes to ALL.

I think they can too, just like the mods who warned you.

 

[ENGLISH!]

You are asking people to say why something cannot be the way it is? I have not ASKED anyone to say anything & certainly not what you are suggesting here. The way it is is that IT is not 'an objective aiming system' & the reasons are as stated by Patrick Johnson in the quote of him that I used in the opening post of this thread. Everyone can read it & make their own determinations

So if I made a post declaring the earth to be flat on a public forum and asked people to back me up and agree with me I should be surprised when people with proof to the contrary show up? Another of one your very very many many inapplicable & non associative supposed analogies that lead to an incorrect 'conclusion'. Very exasperating.
If you were interested in debate that helps further everyone's understanding of all viewpoints then you wouldn't have a problem with conversation about the central point of objectivity. I've had no problem with any genuine 'debate'. It's almost all of the vocal CTEers that seem to not want ANY genuine debate. But... as some have said there in no real point to such at this time as almost all has already been said. It's now just a matter of he said she said because the CTE side has refused to accept logic & continue to make the illogic claims. So when one such claim is made someone should respond & point out the illogic of those claims. That has been relieved of me in any but own threads.

You simply cannot expect to make an assertion on a public forum without expecting some rebuttal and discourse. Perhaps you should look in the mirror & then tell this to the author of the phrase 'an objective aiming system'. When you see such, perhaps you will not be calling for 'protection' of all industry individuals.

I have adequately explained how I understand subjectivity and objectivity as pertains to aiming in pool. I would think that you would want to discuss this or are you hung up on just the concept of total or 100% objectivity? You have done no such thing at all, much less adequately.

If so then sure, I agree, no system is totally or 100% objective. And the REASON none can ever be is the fudge factor called human cognition. We are not precise measuring tools. We can't plot a grid mentally with machine precision. Thus we must make the best judgement we can using all the information available to us. Every bit of true data we have to use reduces the fudge factor enabling us to make consistent decisions with repeatable results.

Everything we do to acquire factual knowledge should be for the purpose of making consistent, rational decisions. But at the end of the day we are NOT robots so all we can do is get as close as humanly possible to an unbiased decision when faced with making one. Again this is more of what I referred to in my earlier post. You're going off all over the place except on the topic at hand. You seem to be trying to say if an objective system did exist we as human beings would not be able & could not utilize it objectively instead of realizing that such does not exist. You seem to be contradicting yourself on what you have said in the past.

John,

Please see the inserted responses & please try to realize that it is rather difficult to respond in a totally kind manner when much of what you state as facts are just as you see as such & are in reality nothing more than your opinion. Also do you realize that you ignore much when responding to others & then sort of accuse them of doing the same thing.

Best Wishes.

 

[cookie man]

I was not talking about the accuracy of the numbers but the implication you made using them that all of them involved CTE & that could not be farther from the truth.

Again you display the fallacy of your 'logic'.

One does not need to have ever seen a pool table in order for them to properly comment on or discuss the subject of what is objective & what is subjective.

The amazing thing is that the vocal CTE proponents seem to not have a clue as to the difference or... they are being disingenuous.

Best Wishes to ALL.

PS1 I think every unbiased reader can see the ever ongoing tactic by nearly every vocal CTE proponent of 'attack' the messengerS instead of making logical 'arguments' to support one's position. That is very very telling when one has to resort to that tactic.

PS2 Arguing for or against with each other was NOT the intention nor wish for this thread, BUT it has been hypocritically derailed & hijacked into the hellish abyss of the 'attack' the messenger tactic with almost no logical 'argument' on behalf of CTE with the exception of a few fail logic attempts.

If you are going to post anything about cte please include the amount of your training and the quality of the instructor teaching you. Otherwise how could anyone take you seriously?
And in regards to PS1, you have never once made a logical argument to support your position.
And in regards to PS2, the messenger had no logical argument

 

[cookie man]

Patrick Johnson:

It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.

To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.

pj
chgo

You keep bringing up this quote as if it means something. PJ bases things on pocket slop as in the whole pocket. CTE is a center pocket aiming system, totally different than that as to which PJ is referring.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Stan, myself and every CTE user who participates in these discussion has made every attempt in numerous ways to explain WHY they assert anything pertaining to CTE.

As for your theories, my return had to do with something I said about AZB on Facebook and that led to a discussion between Mike and I about me posting on AZB again.

Yes the numbers are small here but that doesn't mean we should allow untruth to flower. As I said, on youtube we are doing great. And I personally signed a lease an hour ago that will allow me to build a training facility and put up more videos. I am excited because one of the things I will do is to take posts like yours and put them to a group of players IN REAL LIFE and work out the answers ON THE TABLE on video or on live stream, recorded for everyone else to see on demand.

Why is this subject so important to me?

Simple, Hal Houle chose to give me some of his time and it forever changed how I look at pool and how I play pool. I didn't seek him out, never participated in aiming conversations/debates and thought, as many still do, that ONLY trial and error brute force is the only way to learn to pool. So it's important to me to pass on what this man started and not allow inaccurate (in my opinion) information to blossom about his methods.

As for saying CTE is 100% objective, I have said that and it is my opinion that it is close enough to be practically 100% objective. At least that is how it seems to me for the reasons I have outlined dozens of times. However for the purpose of your thread I will agree that it is NOT 100% objective and settle for 99%.

I do NOT agree that things are either subjective or objective. Like a light switch. It is a matter of perspective. One view can be an illusion and the other view can be the actual state. The illusion however can be taken as the reality and even defended to the death if one maintains only one perspective. (and yes this applies to both sides of a debate as well)

Nice post.:thumbup2:

Your concluding paragraph's explanation sort of contradicts the opening statement more than it supports it though.

3 different perspectives can yield 3 different subjective 'stories', viewpoints, explanations, conclusions etc. but there is only one objective truth. One can be in a position that will not allow one to see the objective truth. When one is placed in a certain position one may be able to only see a portion of the objective truth & NOT the reality of the entire objective truth.

It's either the objective truth in it's entirety or it is a partial truth based on a subjective perception. When one is placed on the only single line that allows viewing a certain objective view, that is it, if one moves off of that line then they have lost that objective view & are now in a place or on a line that only allows seeing the view subjectively as compared to the objective view from the only allowable line for seeing it.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Has already been done. Marvin Chin. "Billiards Accuracy". He invented the "equal/opposite" method. Jimmy Reid highlighted it in a few of his instructional videos. Can be proven geometrically on paper, and on a table. And it works with the larger cueball on the barbox as well. I'm not sure CTE can do that (that's an assumption - I've never heard the big ball being addressed in CTE conversation).

That's impossible.

I discovered &/or invented equal & opposite overlap in 1968 when I was 13...

or at least I thought that I did & for me I did as no one told me about it & I had never heard of it.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Oh?? And just who asked you not to have an honest discussion on here? I wish you would employ the same tactics. I'm asking you honest questions and you won't give an honest answer to my questions, or anyone else's questions. Just what false hypothesis are you even referring to? Why is it that anytime someone ask you anything, you either totally avoid it, or don't answer it while calling that person a liar?

Discussion take more than one person. Yet, you seem to be the only one that is allowed to say anything unless someone happens to agree with you. So far, you have had one "maybe" agree with you in this thread.

There obviously was a computer glitch of some sort as an unintended post was made earlier before a change of mind & a different response was intended & also made.

Neil,

When did you stop beating your wife morning, noon & night & only start beating her in the morning & at night?

Answer the question!

Don't go off on any explanation of the truth or reality.

Answer the question!

When did you stop beating your wife at noon everyday?

Everyone please note the green text as an indicator of 'sarcasm'. I am not being serious & only only making a point.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick Johnson:

It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.

To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.

pj
chgo

You keep bringing up this quote as if it means something. PJ bases things on pocket slop as in the whole pocket. CTE is a center pocket aiming system, totally different than that as to which PJ is referring.

As I've told you before, if CTE was truly a "center pocket aiming system" it would require an infinite number of aiming solutions. In other words, by insisting on that you're actually insisting that CTE can't work with anything less than an infinite number of objective steps - in other words, it's impossible.

If you actually tried to understand some of these comments instead of putting your fingers in your ears you might finally figure out what's being said.

pj <- holding my breath
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

No one has ever posted what exactly a hole is or what they mean by saying that.
And one of the best players in your area made all five shots with CTE.

Were they made utilizing CTE ONLY objectively or by utilizing their subjective perception of the shots to fill the holes along with the CTE objective visuals?

Your posts along with those of some others that THINK you are making comments that prove ANYTHING with regards to whether or not it is an objective system have no clue regarding the issue.

The ONLY 'proof' that can be provided is with a totally logic, rational, cognitive explanation.

That has not ever come from ANYONE.

You're well versed in CTE, so please provide such an explanation?

I won't hold my breathe for such.

But I could probably hole my breath after I hit submit & not die before a reply is made as to why you WON'T provide such here & now.

Things like, 'It's already been done', 'It's all out there & I'm not going to do your work for you.', 'I would, but you'd never understand it, so I'm not going to waste my time.'

How can there be a logical 'debate' when many, if not most, on the pro CTE side, do not even know or understand the question & issue at hand?

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[Neil]

Nice post.:thumbup2:

Your concluding paragraph's explanation sort of contradicts the opening statement more than it supports it though.

3 different perspectives can yield 3 different subjective 'stories', viewpoints, explanations, conclusions etc. but there is only one objective truth. One can be in a position that will not allow one to see the objective truth. When one is placed in a certain position one may be able to only see a portion of the objective truth & NOT the reality of the entire objective truth.

It's either the objective truth in it's entirety or it is a partial truth based on a subjective perception. When one is placed on the only single line that allows viewing a certain objective view, that is it, if one moves off of that line then they have lost that objective view & are now in a place or on a line that only allows seeing the view subjectively as compared to the objective view from the only allowable line for seeing it.

Best Wishes.

Rick, I know you think you are making sense here, but you really aren't. What you are saying, is that if one moves off the objective line given, then it becomes subjective. I agree with you there. However, what you are saying is, if one doesn't follow the directions of the objective system, then it becomes subjective, so you can't say it's objective if any subjectivity can be brought into it.

That's not how things work. If you understood CTE, you would understand where you are going haywire with your thinking. Is the initial line up perception objective or subjective? Well, it can be both to different people. That is because until one acquires visual intelligence, meaning knowing where to stand for a given shot, it is subjective.

However, once properly trained, as I pointed out in an earlier post about objectivity, the perception then becomes objective. There is only one place to stand to see the shot correctly.

If I tossed an ob and a cb on the table, and told you to stand where you need to to get in line with making the ob, you would right away know that you had to stand behind the cb in a rough line from the cb to the cb ghost ball adjacent to the ob. That is because from your experience, you knew exactly what was wanted of you, and it was a very objective statement. The statement brought you to one place when you followed the directions.

The same thing is true for CTE. When first learning it, the perceptions are subjective. One does not yet have the experience to know just where or how to stand to see the visuals correctly. Much like a person that has never seen a pool table would have no idea how to stand if one told them to make the ob and handed them a cue. They wouldn't even know which ball was the ob, or eve what the cue was for. Yet, telling you to do that, you instantly know exactly what is wanted of you. For them, it's subjective, for you, it's objective.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I remember you being warned, not everyone. You were warned for your constant babbling while offering no proof.

That too is not accurate & I certainly can not help what your memory can & can not accomplish where mental recall is concerned.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Patrick Johnson:

It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.

To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.

pj
chgo

You keep bringing up this quote as if it means something. PJ bases things on pocket slop as in the whole pocket. CTE is a center pocket aiming system, totally different than that as to which PJ is referring.

Please see PJ's post #129 above & please read it slowly so that perhaps you will comprehend the error in your thinking & the statements that you've made.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Rick, I know you think you are making sense here, but you really aren't. What you are saying, is that if one moves off the objective line given, then it becomes subjective. I agree with you there. However, what you are saying is, if one doesn't follow the directions of the objective system, then it becomes subjective, so you can't say it's objective if any subjectivity can be brought into it.

That's not how things work. If you understood CTE, you would understand where you are going haywire with your thinking. Is the initial line up perception objective or subjective? Well, it can be both to different people. That is because until one acquires visual intelligence, meaning knowing where to stand for a given shot, it is subjective.

However, once properly trained, as I pointed out in an earlier post about objectivity, the perception then becomes objective. There is only one place to stand to see the shot correctly.

If I tossed an ob and a cb on the table, and told you to stand where you need to to get in line with making the ob, you would right away know that you had to stand behind the cb in a rough line from the cb to the cb ghost ball adjacent to the ob. That is because from your experience, you knew exactly what was wanted of you, and it was a very objective statement. The statement brought you to one place when you followed the directions.

The same thing is true for CTE. When first learning it, the perceptions are subjective. One does not yet have the experience to know just where or how to stand to see the visuals correctly. Much like a person that has never seen a pool table would have no idea how to stand if one told them to make the ob and handed them a cue. They wouldn't even know which ball was the ob, or eve what the cue was for. Yet, telling you to do that, you instantly know exactly what is wanted of you. For them, it's subjective, for you, it's objective.

This is real simple.

Based on your statement that I put in Blue, I think it would be obvious to anyone with common sense & intelligence that you either have no understanding of what objective vs subjective entails or... you are being disingenuous in that regard.

Hence, no logical discussion can be had with you as is rather often the case & others have stated.

Hence, I should & will certainly try to ignore you as I would suggest others do regarding this subject.

You tempt me to tell how a management member has referred to you but that would not be Kosher & would probably get a ban.

Best Wishes & Prayers for You.

PS Just so you know my 'ignoring' started after reading the sentence that I put in blue by not reading any more of you post.

 

[ENGLISH!]

 

[Neil]

This is real simple.

Based on your statement that I put in Blue, I think it would be obvious to anyone with common sense & intelligence that you either have no understanding of what objective vs subjective entails or... you are being disingenuous in that regard.

Hence, no logical discussion can be had with you as is rather often the case & others have stated.

Hence, I should & will certainly try to ignore you as I would suggest others do regarding this subject.

You tempt to me to tell how a management member has referred to you but that would not be Kosher & would probably get a ban.

Best Wishes & Prayers for You.

PS Just you so know my 'ignoring' started after reading the sentence that I put in blue by not reading any more of you post.

No, Rick, I do understand the meaning. You would to if you bothered to read my earlier post about it. Or are you actually saying that you know more than the authors of those articles I quoted?

See, you aren't in this for any discussion, as you just proved. When faced with the evidence, and you find it disagrees with your agenda, then you again try and dismiss what was said and call me names in the process. Attack the messenger and not the message, as you so often claim others do, but you never do that......

And if you mean your buddy Wilson, go ahead and post what he said. It's no secret that he doesn't like me at all.

And please stop with the false best wishes and prayers. Adding a lie to the end of your post doesn't make you a saint.

 

[ENGLISH!]

No, Rick, I do understand the meaning. You would to if you bothered to read my earlier post about it. Or are you actually saying that you know more than the authors of those articles I quoted?

See, you aren't in this for any discussion, as you just proved. When faced with the evidence, and you find it disagrees with your agenda, then you again try and dismiss what was said and call me names in the process. Attack the messenger and not the message, as you so often claim others do, but you never do that......

And if you mean your buddy Wilson, go ahead and post what he said. It's no secret that he doesn't like me at all.

And please stop with the false best wishes and prayers. Adding a lie to the end of your post doesn't make you a saint.

I have no inclination to even try to have a discussion with someone that is illogical & twists & distorts almost 'everything' so that it fits their purpose.

Your premises & supposed relaying of what was said & meant & your conclusion based on the articles you quoted was almost completely illogical. So again why would I want to have a discussion with YOU.

For you to call Mr. Wilson my buddy just shows how out of touch with reality you seem to be.

You infer that I lie about having Well Wishes & for saying Prayers for you. This too exhibits that you seem to think you are omniscient & can even see & know what is in my Heart. I Wish Well for Everyone & I also Pray for Everyone.

To be honest I can not understand why anyone would want to have a discussion with you. So... where you are concerned, you are correct, I have no desire or inclination to have a discussion with you on this subject or practically any other subject. You reap what you sow & you've sown a lot of bad oats with me that will not be fruitful & from what I've seen, you've done the same with many others too.

Best Wishes to You & You Will Be in My Prayers & I'm Sorry that You Seem to Not Understand That God 'Hates' the Sin but Still Loves the Sinner & That We Should Try to Emulate His Example.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The following is a quote of Patrick Johnson from post #163 of the Millions of Views thread that has since been closed. It is a rather concise explanation as to why an 'objective aiming system' does NOT exist. Please read it with an open, unbiased, logical, reasonable, rational & critically thinking mind?

"It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.

To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.

pj
chgo"

 

[Neil]

The following is a quote of Patrick Johnson from post #163 of the Millions of Views thread that has since been closed. It is a rather concise explanation as to why an 'objective aiming system' does NOT exist. Please read it with an open, unbiased, logical, reasonable, rational & critically thinking mind?

"It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.

To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.

pj
chgo"

How can that statement be made when the person stating it doesn't know what systems are out there? Or what would be required for a system to be objective in the first place?

To be a more accurate statement, the ending of it should read "still way more than any system I know how to use can define.".

What are all the requirements for an objective aiming system, and why would the number of possible cb/ob alignments negate a system from being objective?

Please answer it with an open, unbiased, logical, reasonable, rational & critically thinking mind.

 

[cookie man]

The following is a quote of Patrick Johnson from post #163 of the Millions of Views thread that has since been closed. It is a rather concise explanation as to why an 'objective aiming system' does NOT exist. Please read it with an open, unbiased, logical, reasonable, rational & critically thinking mind?

"It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.

To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.

pj
chgo"

And it still has nothing to do with CTE, but your mind can't handle that.