My Thread... just so I can make some comments on... whatever.

[ENGLISH!]

That's an odd way to define objective. Do you know any non-CTE examples to illustrate what that means?

pj
chgo

He's misinterpreting an article that he linked a while back. I explained what the article was saying in my other post.

 

[Neil]

That's an odd way to define objective. Do you know any non-CTE examples to illustrate what that means?

pj
chgo

Pat, I have posted the links to the article several times on here. All one has to do is google the word and do a little studying on what the word actually means. There are several meanings to the word.

I have gone over those links numerous times with Rick. Each time he totally dismisses them as if they don't exist, and instead chooses to use only his definition of the word.

 

[oldmanatc]

All points described by cte exist on different spots on OB and CB. In the system you cannot just find two points in space and then move until they are aligned. I understand that argument, however the system as taught gives accurate and repeatable results.
The other day i was practicing some shots and decided to shoot a bank shot using cte. Without knowing exactly where on the rail the OB was going to hit, i was able to make the shot several times in a row. How could i be making subconscious adjustments to an aim point if i don't already know exactly where it is. CTE put me in alignment with that point, not my subconscious.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

 

[ENGLISH!]

All points described by cte exist on different spots on OB and CB. In the system you cannot just find two points in space and then move until they are aligned. I understand that argument, however the system as taught gives accurate and repeatable results.
The other day i was practicing some shots and decided to shoot a bank shot using cte. Without knowing exactly where on the rail the OB was going to hit, i was able to make the shot several times in a row. How could i be making subconscious adjustments to an aim point if i don't already know exactly where it is. CTE put me in alignment with that point, not my subconscious.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

At least you admit the FACT of the matter even if you perhaps could have stated it better.

You answered your self in you own question. IF... it is subconscious, you will NOT be consciously aware of it. One's subconscious is NOT dependent on one's conscious mind.

You do NOT need to consciously know what your subconscious already knows. Your subconscious mind is an Amazing Entity when you can keep your conscious mind out of it's way. It is almost like the conscious mind thinks that it knows while the subconscious mind actually does know.

Perhaps...

The shot that you're talking about FIT the objective visual & the resulting angle that it delivers or it was off some & the subconscious mind knew that & made the 'adjustment' subconsciously without your conscious knowledge.

Move the balls over 5 inches & do the EXACT SAME THING & it will not pocket. The balls do NOT present themselves differently. The points on the balls WILL put you in the exact same spot & IF you do the exact same pivot, the balls will not pocket as they did for the other bank. They are on the same angle relative to the rail but moved over 5 inches.

To think otherwise would simply be illogical.

So NOW... what do you do that is OBJECTIVE & does not involve any subjectively learned interpretation & input to pocket the second bank?

Here is where you will make some 'adjustment' & if you are truly unaware of it, then it will be subconscious in nature. It will probably be before getting down or perhaps may be done once down or a combination of both. You may move off the line objectively dictated by the points on the balls or you may change the amount of the pivot or you may do a bit of both OR... you may steer the cue during the stroke.

If "IT" is 'working' well for you & you're happy, then that is all that should matter to you. If you think you are shooting well because of the 'system' then you are, whether there is more involved or not, may not matter to you. For others, we are aware between what is objective & what is not.

Thanks for the post & Best Wishes during this Merry Christmas Season.

 

[cookie man]

Your supposed explanation does NOT detail in ANY objectively descriptive manner what is objectively different that would indicate any difference from one shot to another.

I think everyone that might be reading these threads knows that "IT" involves the CTE line & then the edge of the cue ball to points referred to as A (or C) & B on the object ball.

I'm rather sorry to say that I doubt that you even understand what the issue is.

Yet you will say that you have provided an 'answer'....

BUT... your response is no answer to the specifics of the question. Hence you've really provided no answer.

It was the 5 shot perception you tube video & what was said there that convinced me that it is not as described & that there would be nothing forthcoming to indicate otherwise & hence there was no need for me to purchase the new DVD that came out later & no need for me to purchase the book when it comes out either... because... my ONLY intrigue & interest in it was the assertion of it being 'an objective aiming system'.

There are approximately 25* of separation between shot #1 & shot #5 in that 'perception' you tube video.

That means that there are at least 25 separate individual different center pocket shots. Where are the 25 different objective indicators for each of those shots?

As to the 'marketing' tactic employed by the proponents. I did not become a cricket. I merely responded by asking a question. Is Stan saying that "IT" is NOT an objective aiming system? Please note that the word 'marketing' is in singles quotes. That can be & is an indication that the word is not being used in the literal sense. Some tried to get technical with the meaning of that word as a 'way out'. Word of mouth can be & is a form of 'marketing'.

Someone else went through the trouble to go back & look at the very early posts but said that some have disappeared. Barton admitted that if Stan did not use the phrase 'totally objective', he did. The word totally was no big deal until the proponents tried to make it a big deal & another 'way out'.

So... if the basis & foundation of the method is NOT objective & it was never affirmed to be such, or claimed to be such, or described to be such, then what has ALL of the hub bub been all about for so long & so many years...

even before I relatively recently came onto the seen?

IF there is no contention that it is 'an objective aiming system' & that can be stated & be made clear...

then I would have no issue with "IT".

Merry Christmas.

YOU are the only one that has brought the objection to the word objective to the discussion. You made hundreds of posts complaining about it being marketed as totally objective. Stan called you on it and you backed off and now just babble on and on about the word objective.
My answer is what it is. We don't think in terms of angles of degrees, just proper objective visual perceptions. Sorry you can't think logically enough to understand that.

 

[cookie man]

As usual you misstate so much that I can not hardly find ANY truth in your post here without going over it with a magnifying glass.

That is one of the issues why Dan, I, & others have relegated you to irrelevant & insignificant regarding the discussion of the subject.

I have NOT admitted that Stan never used the word totally. Barton said that IF Stan did not, he did. It is also Barton that has wanted to assign percentages of objective vs subjective.

That can not be done regarding the nature of something.
It is either one or the other. Your analogies, as usual, are inapplicable & can not be logically associated with the topic & subject matter of the topic.

One could use 99% of objective means & a process could still be subjective in it's nature.

Something that is subjective does not become objective. As usual you misinterpreted that article for your own purpose.

Something that is subjective can become more accurate as the process is learned over time by repetition... but it is still a subjective process. One is still using their subjectivity because the process was NOT... & is NOT an objective process.

The ONLY reason that I engage with you at all is because of the inaccurate & outlandish things that you almost always say that need to & should be corrected so as to not allow you to give the wrong & untrue impressions that you attempt to give.

Merry Christmas.

Except the process is OBJECTIVE. So you are wrong once again

 

[cookie man]

At least you admit the FACT of the matter even if you perhaps could have stated it better.

You answered your self in you own question. IF... it is subconscious, you will NOT be consciously aware of it. One's subconscious is NOT dependent on one's conscious mind.

You do NOT need to consciously know what your subconscious already knows. Your subconscious mind is an Amazing Entity when you can keep your conscious mind out of it's way. It is almost like the conscious mind thinks that it knows while the subconscious mind actually does know.

Perhaps...

The shot that you're talking about FIT the objective visual & the resulting angle that it delivers or it was off some & the subconscious mind knew that & made the 'adjustment' subconsciously without your conscious knowledge.

Move the balls over 5 inches & do the EXACT SAME THING & it will not pocket. The balls do NOT present themselves differently. The points on the balls WILL put you in the exact same spot & IF you do the exact same pivot, the balls will not pocket as they did for the other bank. They are on the same angle relative to the rail but moved over 5 inches.

To think otherwise would simply be illogical.

So NOW... what do you do that is OBJECTIVE & does not involve any subjectively learned interpretation & input to pocket the second bank?

Here is where you will make some 'adjustment' & if you are truly unaware of it, then it will be subconscious in nature. It will probably be before getting down or perhaps may be done once down or a combination of both. You may move off the line objectively dictated by the points on the balls or you may change the amount of the pivot or you may do a bit of both OR... you may steer the cue during the stroke.

If "IT" is 'working' well for you & you're happy, then that is all that should matter to you. If you think you are shooting well because of the 'system' then you are, whether there is more involved or not, may not matter to you. For others, we are aware between what is objective & what is not.

Thanks for the post & Best Wishes during this Merry Christmas Season.

Totally wrong. Moving the balls only change the perception, not what we do. We do the same thing over and over. SO YOU ARE WRONG ONCE AGAIN.
Please gain some knowledge if you are going to continue to post on the subject.
We rely on NO SUBCONSCIOUS ADJUSTMENT.

 

[oldmanatc]

It is working for me and i am happy with it. It can also work for others who have yet to try. Why can't you be happy with that. You seem determined to try and convince curious non-users who read these posts to skip CTE. You will obviously never be satisfied with any description because you choose not to be.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

 

[Dan White]

It is working for me and i am happy with it. It can also work for others who have yet to try. Why can't you be happy with that. You seem determined to try and convince curious non-users who read these posts to skip CTE. You will obviously never be satisfied with any description because you choose not to be.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

Here's the problem:

Stan shows a video where 5 balls are pocketed at various cut angles. To pocket each ball he uses the same set of "visual lines," which in that video were CTE and ETA. To a lay person this does not seem feasible because if you do the same thing for each of the shots, only one shot can possibly come close to being pocketed. It is like shooting straight in shots on all balls scattered around the table. If you shoot each ball straight, a few of them might actually be pocketed because they happen to be straight in shots.

When CTE users attempt to address the confusion, we get vague answers, and private messages saying they don't really know why it works but it does. Cookie just said he does the same thing for all shots but uses a different perception for each shot. When he says "perception" is he referring to the visuals I mentioned above, or is he referring to the "perception" Stan uses in the 5 shot video where he uses the same visuals and different perceptions to pocket 5 balls at varying shot angles? If so, WTF is a "perception" if it is not the same thing as a visual?

The other answer I have received, which I can at least understand, is that you just have to keep doing the CTE method over and over for a couple of weeks and eventually everything will "click in" and you will perceive everything to look like the same shot.

So when these answers are challenged by skeptical people (who, by the way, in many cases would be delighted if the system worked as advertised), the CTE supporters "go to" response is that you are either 1) too lazy to give CTE a real try, 2) you are unqualified to have an opinion because you can't shoot 3 balls, and my favorite, 3) "You are a hater and I will never answer another question from you" (or some variation thereof).

CTE users believe the system works as advertised. Skeptics believe the system gets the player in the general vicinity of the pocket, sometimes, but it is something else, like subconscious adjustments, that are responsible for the actual pocketing of the ball.

So now you are up to speed on the last 20 years of discussion.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Here's the problem:

Stan shows a video where 5 balls are pocketed at various cut angles. To pocket each ball he uses the same set of "visual lines," which in that video were CTE and ETA. To a lay person this does not seem feasible because if you do the same thing for each of the shots, only one shot can possibly come close to being pocketed. It is like shooting straight in shots on all balls scattered around the table. If you shoot each ball straight, a few of them might actually be pocketed because they happen to be straight in shots.

When CTE users attempt to address the confusion, we get vague answers, and private messages saying they don't really know why it works but it does. Cookie just said he does the same thing for all shots but uses a different perception for each shot. When he says "perception" is he referring to the visuals I mentioned above, or is he referring to the "perception" Stan uses in the 5 shot video where he uses the same visuals and different perceptions to pocket 5 balls at varying shot angles? If so, WTF is a "perception" if it is not the same thing as a visual?

The other answer I have received, which I can at least understand, is that you just have to keep doing the CTE method over and over for a couple of weeks and eventually everything will "click in" and you will perceive everything to look like the same shot.

So when these answers are challenged by skeptical people (who, by the way, in many cases would be delighted if the system worked as advertised), the CTE supporters "go to" response is that you are either 1) too lazy to give CTE a real try, 2) you are unqualified to have an opinion because you can't shoot 3 balls, and my favorite, 3) "You are a hater and I will never answer another question from you" (or some variation thereof).

CTE users believe the system works as advertised. Skeptics believe the system gets the player in the general vicinity of the pocket, sometimes, but it is something else, like subconscious adjustments, that are responsible for the actual pocketing of the ball.

So now you are up to speed on the last 20 years of discussion.

Good Post Dan.

It is rather obvious that 'some' have no idea what so ever of what objective means & are operating on delusions of reality.

Best 2 Ya.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Here's the problem:

Stan shows a video where 5 balls are pocketed at various cut angles. To pocket each ball he uses the same set of "visual lines," which in that video were CTE and ETA. To a lay person this does not seem feasible because if you do the same thing for each of the shots, only one shot can possibly come close to being pocketed. It is like shooting straight in shots on all balls scattered around the table. If you shoot each ball straight, a few of them might actually be pocketed because they happen to be straight in shots.

When CTE users attempt to address the confusion, we get vague answers, and private messages saying they don't really know why it works but it does. Cookie just said he does the same thing for all shots but uses a different perception for each shot. When he says "perception" is he referring to the visuals I mentioned above, or is he referring to the "perception" Stan uses in the 5 shot video where he uses the same visuals and different perceptions to pocket 5 balls at varying shot angles? If so, WTF is a "perception" if it is not the same thing as a visual?

The other answer I have received, which I can at least understand, is that you just have to keep doing the CTE method over and over for a couple of weeks and eventually everything will "click in" and you will perceive everything to look like the same shot.

So when these answers are challenged by skeptical people (who, by the way, in many cases would be delighted if the system worked as advertised), the CTE supporters "go to" response is that you are either 1) too lazy to give CTE a real try, 2) you are unqualified to have an opinion because you can't shoot 3 balls, and my favorite, 3) "You are a hater and I will never answer another question from you" (or some variation thereof).

CTE users believe the system works as advertised. Skeptics believe the system gets the player in the general vicinity of the pocket, sometimes, but it is something else, like subconscious adjustments, that are responsible for the actual pocketing of the ball.

So now you are up to speed on the last 20 years of discussion.

Each shot requires a different perception, i.e where you stand to perceive the visuals.

For simplicity sake, this could be roughly where you would stand if using ghostball.

In other words, if shooting the 5 shots with ghostball, you aren't going to stand in the same place relative to the balls as the cut angle increases. The same is true when using CTE. Different perception for each shot, but the same visuals.

If you still don't understand it after that, then I'm afraid you never will.

 

[ENGLISH!]

------------------------------

 

[Dan White]

Each shot requires a different perception, i.e where you stand to perceive the visuals.

For simplicity sake, this could be roughly where you would stand if using ghostball.

In other words, if shooting the 5 shots with ghostball, you aren't going to stand in the same place relative to the balls as the cut angle increases. The same is true when using CTE. Different perception for each shot, but the same visuals.

If you still don't understand it after that, then I'm afraid you never will.

This is what you and others have said more than once. The problem for me is that I don't understand how you can have it both ways. If Stan says that a particular visual like CTE ETA "locks in" your position, then how can you change your starting position as in your ghost ball example and still get the CTE ETA visual?

Can you explain this in a different way? Whenever I am explaining something to someone and it is clear that they don't get what I'm saying, I try to find a different way of saying it, rather than thinking it's just their fault if they are too stupid to get it.

 

[8pack]

Each shot requires a different perception, i.e where you stand to perceive the visuals.

For simplicity sake, this could be roughly where you would stand if using ghostball.

In other words, if shooting the 5 shots with ghostball, you aren't going to stand in the same place relative to the balls as the cut angle increases. The same is true when using CTE. Different perception for each shot, but the same visuals.

If you still don't understand it after that, then I'm afraid you never will.

So in order to find the right perception, do you go through several different perceptions till you find the right one?

 

[ENGLISH!]

Each shot requires a different perception, i.e where you stand to perceive the visuals.

For simplicity sake, this could be roughly where you would stand if using ghostball.

In other words, if shooting the 5 shots with ghostball, you aren't going to stand in the same place relative to the balls as the cut angle increases. The same is true when using CTE. Different perception for each shot, but the same visuals.

If you still don't understand it after that, then I'm afraid you never will.

Jon,

That's like saying...

see the center to center line for a straight in shot from off to the side.

THAT is a different perspective that will yield a different perception.

But...

How does that in any way objectively get one ON TO the shot line?

That's almost like saying...

see it from the video camera mounted on the wall.

What is there that is objective that gets one ON TO the shot line?

The visual with a particular pivot yields one & only one outcome angle.

So what is there that is OBJECTIVE that then puts one ON TO the line of the proper perspective from which to see the proper 'perception' for the shot by viewing the visual from a different physical perspective?

Did you read Dan's post?

You've given no different attempted 'answer' than anyone else & act like you just revealed the gospel.

When one moves off of the the physical spot from where one can see the lines simultaneously that is supposed to 'FIX' the cue ball & thus 'fix' the center of that cue ball, one then leaves the realm of objectivity & enters into the realm of subjectivity with now no fixed center cue ball.

Any subsequent 'newly fixed cue ball & new center cue ball is totally dependent on one's subjectivity as they then decide what, to them, is the proper 'perception' for the shot.

What 'perception' & from what physical perspective is correct & what is there that OBJECTIVELY tells one what that is & from where that is... that would then give one a new 'fixed' cue ball & new center cue ball?

There are at least 25 different & distinct center pocket shots between shot #1 & shot #5 (probably more). What are the 25 different & distinct objective indicators to tell one that THIS is the spot for THAT shot?

Please consider these questions rhetorical because I am rather sure that you do NOT have any real answers.

That's because there is no such real answer because there are no such objective indicators.

Merry Christmas.

 

[oldmanatc]

Watch the dvd there is plenty of info to get your moneys worth. If you dont understand watch it again. If you still dont get it, contact Stan he is a business man who backs his product. I got more tha i feel i paid for, if you need more info i suggest you do the same.


Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

 

[ENGLISH!]

Watch the dvd there is plenty of info to get your moneys worth. If you dont understand watch it again. If you still dont get it, contact Stan he is a business man who backs his product. I got more tha i feel i paid for, if you need more info i suggest you do the same.


Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

With all due respect...

I don't think you understand the issue.

It seems rather many do not understand what it is to say that there is an objective system.

I can shoot using the shadow of the balls. That is an 'objective' method for some shots, BUT... there is an issue with that method.

At a certain point one must make an 'adjustment', a change.

Instead of aligning center cue ball to the shadow one must then align the shadow of the cue ball to the shadow of the OB & then further on the edge of the CB to the shadow of the OB.

There is nothing objective that tells one when, at what point for what shot should those 'adjustments' be made.

That decision is based purely on a subjectively learned data base & the decision to adjust or not can be correct or incorrect for those angles near those 2 points.

There is no objective method that is not dependent upon ones subjectivity.

Perception is subjective by definition.

For simplicity of explanation.

If one looks at a round flat object from head on, it will appear round & hence that is an objective view.

If one moves off of that line to the right, the round flat object will no longer appear round but will appear oval in shape. That is a subjective perception & it will be different from one that moves even farther off to the right.

If one moves far enough off to the right & perhaps more on plane with the flat round object it can then appear to be just a line of rather thin thickness with no oval shape at all.

So.. that would be different perceptions from different physical perspectives but with only one being an objective view of the reality.

Best Wishes to YOU & All.

PS I AM happy that "IT" is 'working' for you or rather that you are working well with "IT". There has been no other description offered so I have no 'choice' to make me 'satisfied'. It not about me being satisfied. It's about making matters clear & accurate so that others can make informed determinations.

 

[oldmanatc]

It is obvious as other have stated (and I'm sorry to repeat myself) that you clearly dont understand the system. I apologize for not decribing it, but the info is available to those who actually wish to learn 'it'.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

 

[Neil]

Jon,

That's like saying...

see the center to center line for a straight in shot from off to the side.
No it's not, but that you think so is rather telling.
THAT is a different perspective that will yield a different perception.

But...

How does that in any way objectively get one ON TO the shot line?
By following the rest of the steps that you conveniently omit.
That's almost like saying...

see it from the video camera mounted on the wall.
Now you are just making up stupid stuff thinking it makes your point. It doesn't.
What is there that is objective that gets one ON TO the shot line?
You were just told, yet, once again, dismiss it. Again, rather telling on you.
The visual with a particular pivot yields one & only one outcome angle.
duh...
So what is there that is OBJECTIVE that then puts one ON TO the line of the proper perspective from which to see the proper 'perception' for the shot by viewing the visual from a different physical perspective?
Why do you keep asking the same question after you get the answer? Again, rather telling on your reading comprehension and your lack of skill when it comes to how to see a shot correctly.
Did you read Dan's post?
Why ask something you know the answer to? Do you think it makes your point or something?
You've given no different attempted 'answer' than anyone else & act like you just revealed the gospel.
That's because he did, but again, you dismiss it due to your inability to comprehend the simplicity of it, and the objectivity of it.
When one moves off of the the physical spot from where one can see the lines simultaneously that is supposed to 'FIX' the cue ball & thus 'fix' the center of that cue ball, one then leaves the realm of objectivity & enters into the realm of subjectivity with now no fixed center cue ball.
One again, you show that you have no clue what you are even talking about, yet you sit there like you have spoken the gospel.
Any subsequent 'newly fixed cue ball & new center cue ball is totally dependent on one's subjectivity as they then decide what, to them, is the proper 'perception' for the shot.
For that to be true in the slightest, then one would also have to concede that the ghost ball line is subjective. Yet, I don't think anyone other than you would be that naive about it.
What 'perception' & from what physical perspective is correct & what is there that OBJECTIVELY tells one what that is & from where that is... that would then give one a new 'fixed' cue ball & new center cue ball?

There are at least 25 different & distinct center pocket shots between shot #1 & shot #5 (probably more). What are the 25 different & distinct objective indicators to tell one that THIS is the spot for THAT shot?
You have been given the answer, you quote the answer, and yet you still can't seem to grasp it.
Please consider these questions rhetorical because I am rather sure that you do NOT have any real answers.

That's because there is no such real answer because there are no such objective indicators.

Merry Christmas.

Rick, you obviously are not using any critical thinking, or common sense, or rationality, or logic in your thinking. You obviously have not thought through it at all. For it you had, and if you were at all observant of others, you would know that even rank beginners know roughly where to stand to make an object ball.

Without any guidance, everyone can get on the rough ghost ball line. That sounds pretty objective to me. Yet, you constantly complain that you are the one person that kind find the rough ghost ball line. Which I don't believe for a second. Because, for that to be true, you would also have no idea where to stand to make any shot. You wouldn't even know which direction to shoot the cb to make an object ball.

So, when you tell someone to stand on the rough ghost ball line, and everyone does it, then that is pretty darn objective directions.

 

[ENGLISH!]

It is obvious as other have stated (and I'm sorry to repeat myself) that you clearly dont understand the system. I apologize for not decribing it, but the info is available to those who actually wish to learn 'it'.

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk

I realize the futility of the situation here.

I would ask you to realize that what has been described as the process does NOT describe 'an objective aiming 'system'.

The description of process does NOT fit the description of what 'an objective aiming system' would be IF one were possible & did exist.

There is a mis-characterization in place. I'm sorry that you not can see & not understand that.

BUT, I am happy for you at the same time, because you're happy with the way you are playing while utilizing the process & that is what it is ALL about.

Merry Christmas & Have a Happy New Year & Keep Shooting Well.