Proofs of the EXACTNESS of Pivot Systems

[JoeyA]

Bon Appetit

This won't prove anything, but I thought it was interesting.

One of the things that confused me when first watching the DVD was the lack of summarization of when to do what. How do I know which sight point to use? Why are some pivots obvious and others aren't, and how do I know which one to use? I usually need clear cut instructions and reasons why to do something, but I think Stan intended people to watch the DVD and study it and shoot the reference shots and understand the steps, but for me watching it in my bedroom with no table nearby it was definitely not clear.

I saw a list that I think Dr. Dave had summarizing the choices, but I had to find out and verify it for myself, especially as I was having early succes with the system once I understood the lines etc.

CueTable Help

So I set up the test above, starting with cue ball 1 being a straight in shot and moving all the way across the table to the side pocket. The balls were spaced pretty close together at the beginning, then about a cue ball apart toward the end to prevent interference when shooting. Since these are all left cuts, the CTE line was to the right edge of the OB for all shots.

From guestimating with the other Cuetable tool (which only had one CB/OB available), the range of shot angles were approximately: 0, 6, 11, 17, 22, 27, 30, 34, 38, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49. Could be off by a degree or so but pretty close.

I understand that on the face of it the system looks like it could only possibly work with 6 or 8 cut angles, but I was able to make every ball shown the first time until I got to CB 12, where I seemed to land on a dividing line between the extreme limit of the B aim point and the need to shift to the 1/8 visualization. I barely missed with one but made it cleanly with the other.

As expected, the aim points/sight lines progressed from A for thick cuts up to CB 7, then B up to CB 11 and almost 12, then 1/8 for the rest. The pivots moved from R for the thicker shots within each aim point to L for the rest, much as Dr. Dave's summary table said.

To emphasize, I paid a lot of attention to the lines, using my cue and eyes to line them up as best I could, then I put all of my attention to approaching the CB 1/2 tip offset and pivoted without looking at the shot or adjusting, then looked up at the OB, stroked once or twice and fired. If I somehow subconsiously adjusted for each of these shots while doing this, then damn I'm good, and I'm more than happy to use this system even if there is no math behind it...


Look, I'm as math and science based and anyone. My IQ is well above genius level and I was a complete math/science/computer geek growing up. I want - I need - to know how things work. If you can't "prove" it, it doesn't exist, and for me that pertains to most things in life. So I completely, 100% get where the "naysayers" are coming from, even if it is somewhat arguing over semantics or claims, whether intentional or not, that have been made on websites and in other materials. Yet here I sit, with less than 8 hours invested in studying and working with this system, and I'm having great results, as inexplicable as they might be. If geometry exists to prove how to reconcile this approach to the true aim line, it may not be as easy as some think to prove or diagram on paper, especially with way the relative size of the object ball changes with distance. I've tried doing some diagrams, and everytime I get close to what I think is a possible answer I find a shot or have a thought that doesn't work. As I continue to play with the system and verify my thoughts one way or the other, I'll obviously post back with any findings I have, and hopefully through productive discussions amongst everyone here a definitive answer one way or the other can be found.

Scott

Let me see:
• You made 13 out of 14 shots using CTE/Pro One, the aiming system that Stan Shuffett made a video of, and you haven't been using it but for a short while. hmmmmmmm.
• You're a math lover and you think you understand where the naysayers are coming from. (Oh, you mean about them saying they want to learn the math behind CTE/Pro One. Well good luck with that)
• You're at or above the intellect level of virtually every naysayer on the forum.
• You get it. Well I'll be darn.

I guess the naysayers should break out the plastic forks and knives and a few napkings because that crow pie is a little stale, but they've got a deserved meal coming. They should take a few extra napkins to wipe each others' tears away.

I feel so bad about this. :killingme::killingme::killingme:

 

[AtLarge]

... My IQ is well above genius level ...

What's the next level above genius?

Glad to hear of your interest, testing, and interim results. Keep us posted.

 

[jwpretd]

If geometry exists to prove how to reconcile this approach to the true aim line, it may not be as easy as some think to prove or diagram on paper, especially with way the relative size of the object ball changes with distance.

That's a correct statement. If you want to draw the geometry in the 2D plane, then what you have to be able to do is project what is actually a 3D visual perspective onto that plane. It's not trivial (i.e., I can't do it ), nor am I certain how useful it would be.

It would probably be more useful to draw it in 3D. I don't believe this should be difficult in principle, but I haven't yet figured out how to do it with True Space, which is the only 3D drawing program I have available right now. I'm fairly certain that this is due to limits in my knowledge rather than limitations in the program itself.

It might be still more useful to construct a physical model using styrofoam balls and thin pieces of yarn. The idea is to attach the balls immovably to a large, fairly thick piece of cardboard sitting on a table. Obtain the visual sight lines per the CTE/Pro One methodology, and stretch pieces of yarn between the balls along those sight lines, fastening them at the correct positions on the balls (e.g., from the top center of the "cue ball" to the outer edge of the "object ball"). This stretching is why the balls must first be rendered immovable, and why very light yarn should be used. Now find the pre-pivot cue alignment and pivot point per the CTE/Pro One methodology, and stretch a piece of yarn along the cardboard to indicate that. Lastly, perform the pivot to the center of the CB and stretch a piece of yarn to indicate the final cue alignment. At least three shots need to be set up this way: straight-in, 20 degree or so cut, 50 degree or so cut. A piece of yarn should be stretched from the OB center to the center of the imaginary pocket used for that model. It would also be useful to put a ghost ball in place, provided it didn't interfere with the pieces of yarn that indicate the sight lines.

To illustrate the principles involved, the size of the balls and the distances between them wouldn't really matter much. If a choice had to be made, then it would be better to have them larger than pool balls rather than smaller. However, I think it would be best to have them as close to the right size as possible; balls that are excessively large (or small) would cause the sight lines, pivot point, etc, to be displaced fairly far from where they would be for real pool balls.

A model like this would be fairly tedious for one person to build alone, but I don't think two people would have much trouble. Obviously, whoever is determining the sight lines, pre-pivot alignment, etc, should be someone who is well-versed in the details of CTE/Pro One. Once the model is built, it should be photographed from various angles, and especially from as close to directly above each shot as can be managed.

 

[Masayoshi]

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=2550238#post2550238



All reviews and etc have been on manual cte and not pro1. Pro1 is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (the complete final version) and takes out a lot of the worry about bridging,etc. I just thought i would add this.

Jb i always thought used a version of cte mixed with 90/90 when i viewed his videos and thought he made it up himself and was obviously flawed and i also believe he could not figure out stans systems or he would be in the middle of this. Spideys opinion i believe was that if the Math was worked out for Pro1, his opinion was it would be exact. You would have to ask spidey for his definition of exact?

Right above the bolded part, Stan says "Now, I am thrilled to say that CTE is systematic and EXACT."

He also claims that the description of CTE is exact. These are two separate statements.

So you agree that CTE relies on feel? If so, that would technically make you a naysayer.

 

[Masayoshi]

Let me see:
• You made 13 out of 14 shots using CTE/Pro One, the aiming system that Stan Shuffett made a video of, and you haven't been using it but for a short while. hmmmmmmm.
• You're a math lover and you think you understand where the naysayers are coming from. (Oh, you mean about them saying they want to learn the math behind CTE/Pro One. Well good luck with that)
• You're at or above the intellect level of virtually every naysayer on the forum.
• You get it. Well I'll be darn.

I guess the naysayers should break out the plastic forks and knives and a few napkings because that crow pie is a little stale, but they've got a deserved meal coming. They should take a few extra napkins to wipe each others' tears away.

I feel so bad about this. :killingme::killingme::killingme:

You think that basic geometry will change because some guy on the internet claims to be "above genius level"?

 

[Masayoshi]

This won't prove anything, but I thought it was interesting.

One of the things that confused me when first watching the DVD was the lack of summarization of when to do what. How do I know which sight point to use? Why are some pivots obvious and others aren't, and how do I know which one to use? I usually need clear cut instructions and reasons why to do something, but I think Stan intended people to watch the DVD and study it and shoot the reference shots and understand the steps, but for me watching it in my bedroom with no table nearby it was definitely not clear.

I saw a list that I think Dr. Dave had summarizing the choices, but I had to find out and verify it for myself, especially as I was having early succes with the system once I understood the lines etc.

CueTable Help

So I set up the test above, starting with cue ball 1 being a straight in shot and moving all the way across the table to the side pocket. The balls were spaced pretty close together at the beginning, then about a cue ball apart toward the end to prevent interference when shooting. Since these are all left cuts, the CTE line was to the right edge of the OB for all shots.

From guestimating with the other Cuetable tool (which only had one CB/OB available), the range of shot angles were approximately: 0, 6, 11, 17, 22, 27, 30, 34, 38, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49. Could be off by a degree or so but pretty close.

I understand that on the face of it the system looks like it could only possibly work with 6 or 8 cut angles, but I was able to make every ball shown the first time until I got to CB 12, where I seemed to land on a dividing line between the extreme limit of the B aim point and the need to shift to the 1/8 visualization. I barely missed with one but made it cleanly with the other.

As expected, the aim points/sight lines progressed from A for thick cuts up to CB 7, then B up to CB 11 and almost 12, then 1/8 for the rest. The pivots moved from R for the thicker shots within each aim point to L for the rest, much as Dr. Dave's summary table said.

To emphasize, I paid a lot of attention to the lines, using my cue and eyes to line them up as best I could, then I put all of my attention to approaching the CB 1/2 tip offset and pivoted without looking at the shot or adjusting, then looked up at the OB, stroked once or twice and fired. If I somehow subconsiously adjusted for each of these shots while doing this, then damn I'm good, and I'm more than happy to use this system even if there is no math behind it...


Look, I'm as math and science based and anyone. My IQ is well above genius level and I was a complete math/science/computer geek growing up. I want - I need - to know how things work. If you can't "prove" it, it doesn't exist, and for me that pertains to most things in life. So I completely, 100% get where the "naysayers" are coming from, even if it is somewhat arguing over semantics or claims, whether intentional or not, that have been made on websites and in other materials. Yet here I sit, with less than 8 hours invested in studying and working with this system, and I'm having great results, as inexplicable as they might be. If geometry exists to prove how to reconcile this approach to the true aim line, it may not be as easy as some think to prove or diagram on paper, especially with way the relative size of the object ball changes with distance. I've tried doing some diagrams, and everytime I get close to what I think is a possible answer I find a shot or have a thought that doesn't work. As I continue to play with the system and verify my thoughts one way or the other, I'll obviously post back with any findings I have, and hopefully through productive discussions amongst everyone here a definitive answer one way or the other can be found.

Scott

Its been figured out. CTE/Pro1 gets you close, feel and experience fills in the rest. This is not a bad system, but by no means exact.

 

[JAW725]

Right above the bolded part, Stan says "Now, I am thrilled to say that CTE is systematic and EXACT."

He also claims that the description of CTE is exact. These are two separate statements.

So you agree that CTE relies on feel? If so, that would technically make you a naysayer.

CTE/Pro-One may incorporate feel, I don't know and don't really care. I follow the procedure as outlined on Stan's DVD and the balls drop. I believe if many on this forum really gave it a go, almost eveyone will have Pro-One working for them with high success (it's easy). If CTE/Pro-One does rely on feel then it is bar none, with out a doubt the most amazing "FEEL" system thus far! With Pro-One I can pocket balls in a way I could never imagine before and the best thing is I repeat the same procedure over and over.
BTW for anyone who believes there is an adjustment happening during the pivot, it's funny how after I lock in my visuals I never have to look at the OB again, so what am I basing the adjustment on? My eyes cross the CTEL and I see the new center of the CB, that's it, Just saying.

 

[JAW725]

This won't prove anything, but I thought it was interesting.

One of the things that confused me when first watching the DVD was the lack of summarization of when to do what. How do I know which sight point to use? Why are some pivots obvious and others aren't, and how do I know which one to use? I usually need clear cut instructions and reasons why to do something, but I think Stan intended people to watch the DVD and study it and shoot the reference shots and understand the steps, but for me watching it in my bedroom with no table nearby it was definitely not clear.

I saw a list that I think Dr. Dave had summarizing the choices, but I had to find out and verify it for myself, especially as I was having early succes with the system once I understood the lines etc.

CueTable Help

So I set up the test above, starting with cue ball 1 being a straight in shot and moving all the way across the table to the side pocket. The balls were spaced pretty close together at the beginning, then about a cue ball apart toward the end to prevent interference when shooting. Since these are all left cuts, the CTE line was to the right edge of the OB for all shots.

From guestimating with the other Cuetable tool (which only had one CB/OB available), the range of shot angles were approximately: 0, 6, 11, 17, 22, 27, 30, 34, 38, 41, 43, 46, 48, 49. Could be off by a degree or so but pretty close.

I understand that on the face of it the system looks like it could only possibly work with 6 or 8 cut angles, but I was able to make every ball shown the first time until I got to CB 12, where I seemed to land on a dividing line between the extreme limit of the B aim point and the need to shift to the 1/8 visualization. I barely missed with one but made it cleanly with the other.

As expected, the aim points/sight lines progressed from A for thick cuts up to CB 7, then B up to CB 11 and almost 12, then 1/8 for the rest. The pivots moved from R for the thicker shots within each aim point to L for the rest, much as Dr. Dave's summary table said.

To emphasize, I paid a lot of attention to the lines, using my cue and eyes to line them up as best I could, then I put all of my attention to approaching the CB 1/2 tip offset and pivoted without looking at the shot or adjusting, then looked up at the OB, stroked once or twice and fired. If I somehow subconsiously adjusted for each of these shots while doing this, then damn I'm good, and I'm more than happy to use this system even if there is no math behind it...


Look, I'm as math and science based and anyone. My IQ is well above genius level and I was a complete math/science/computer geek growing up. I want - I need - to know how things work. If you can't "prove" it, it doesn't exist, and for me that pertains to most things in life. So I completely, 100% get where the "naysayers" are coming from, even if it is somewhat arguing over semantics or claims, whether intentional or not, that have been made on websites and in other materials. Yet here I sit, with less than 8 hours invested in studying and working with this system, and I'm having great results, as inexplicable as they might be. If geometry exists to prove how to reconcile this approach to the true aim line, it may not be as easy as some think to prove or diagram on paper, especially with way the relative size of the object ball changes with distance. I've tried doing some diagrams, and everytime I get close to what I think is a possible answer I find a shot or have a thought that doesn't work. As I continue to play with the system and verify my thoughts one way or the other, I'll obviously post back with any findings I have, and hopefully through productive discussions amongst everyone here a definitive answer one way or the other can be found.

Scott

Scott, I'm glad you're having success with CTE/Pro-One as I know many would if they gave it a go like yourself. If you've found positive results in just 8 hours you'll be loving it after a month or so. Also, please do continue to work this system out mathematically, I'm curious However, no matter the conclusion my opinion will never change regarding the overall importance of this system. Just like Spidey has said, "Pool is outcome based" and I know the outcome of the OB
If CTE/Pro-One does rely on feel or "small" subconscious adjustments, then it provides me a solution for aiming, the ability to see or feel the shot (in the hole) that I did not previously possess. The results (for me and may others) speak volumes and if it's just the systems glam that gets us there time again and again, then so be it....that's still !u$%*ng amazing!

 

[jsp]

If I somehow subconsiously adjusted for each of these shots while doing this, then damn I'm good, and I'm more than happy to use this system even if there is no math behind it...

The system seems to allow you to subconsciously adjust for each shot. Does that make the system good? For you, most probably, considering you're pocketing a fair number of different shots using it. Does that make the system exact? NO!

Look, I'm as math and science based and anyone. My IQ is well above genius level and I was a complete math/science/computer geek growing up. I want - I need - to know how things work. If you can't "prove" it, it doesn't exist, and for me that pertains to most things in life.

If your intelligence is "above genius level", then you would already know how these pivot systems work. No genius-level thinking required, just a simple understanding of geometry and common sense.

If geometry exists to prove how to reconcile this approach to the true aim line, it may not be as easy as some think to prove or diagram on paper, especially with way the relative size of the object ball changes with distance.

That work has already been done...by Jal! Again, you can find it here and here. But just to be clear, his work doesn't prove that these systems are exact. Actually quite the opposite. What his analysis shows is what the pivot distance needs to be, if you follow all the steps in the system, in order to arrive at the true ghost ball aim line.

For these systems to be exact and not rely on feel, these detailed and intricate graphs that show exactly where to pivot the cue MUST BE PART OF THE SYSTEM. IOW, the system itself should tell you EXACTLY where to pivot the cue. Otherwise, the system relies on you to arrive at the true pivot point by feel or subconscious adjustment in order for your cue to arrive at the ghost ball aim line. It's a bit mind-boggling why this is so difficult for some to comprehend.

Scott, I look forward to your response.

 

[jsp]

CTE/Pro-One may incorporate feel, I don't know and don't really care.

This is really what the attitude should be regarding these systems. If the system helps you pocket more balls, then so be it. Keep using it!

Just stop pontificating (not referring to you JAW725) a system is exact simply because it helps you pocket balls. That's precisely where posters like me have issues.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JAW725:
If CTE/Pro-One does rely on feel or "small" subconscious adjustments, then it provides me a solution for aiming, the ability to see or feel the shot (in the hole) that I did not previously possess.

That's great. So why do all the yaysayers go up in flames whenever this is suggested?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Let me see:
• You made 13 out of 14 shots using CTE/Pro One, the aiming system that Stan Shuffett made a video of, and you haven't been using it but for a short while. hmmmmmmm.
• You're a math lover and you think you understand where the naysayers are coming from. (Oh, you mean about them saying they want to learn the math behind CTE/Pro One. Well good luck with that)
• You're at or above the intellect level of virtually every naysayer on the forum.
• You get it. Well I'll be darn.

I guess the naysayers should break out the plastic forks and knives and a few napkings because that crow pie is a little stale, but they've got a deserved meal coming. They should take a few extra napkins to wipe each others' tears away.

I feel so bad about this. :killingme::killingme::killingme:

Joey, why do you constantly try to fan the flames of division and conflict around this subject? You used to be a model of tolerance here; now you're the posterboy for aiming system jihaad. What have you allowed this topic to turn you into?

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyA]

Its been figured out. CTE/Pro1 gets you close, feel and experience fills in the rest. This is not a bad system, but by no means exact.

I don't know if you were one of the ones who ridiculed and lambasted CTE/Pro One by Stan Shuffett or not.

But it sure seems that a lot of people are pulling up short of the previous negative claims that they used to make about CTE/Pro One. :yeah:

I can't wait to hear all of the apologies.

 

[Masayoshi]

I don't know if you were one of the ones who ridiculed and lambasted CTE/Pro One by Stan Shuffett or not.

But it sure seems that a lot of people are pulling up short of the previous negative claims that they used to make about CTE/Pro One. :yeah:

I can't wait to hear all of the apologies.

What do you mean pulling up? That's what this whole thread has about and what we "naysayers" have been claiming the whole time.

What do you mean by ridiculed and lambasted? If you mean we were being harsh on you guys for claiming that CTE is exact while that is not so, there will obviously be no apologies or pulling back, we (in the general sense) were right, you (also in the general sense) were wrong, simple as that.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JoeyA:
I don't know if you were one of the ones who ridiculed and lambasted CTE/Pro One by Stan Shuffett or not.

But it sure seems that a lot of people are pulling up short of the previous negative claims that they used to make about CTE/Pro One.

I can't wait to hear all of the apologies.

Masayoshi:
What do you mean pulling up? That's what this whole thread has about and what we "naysayers" have been claiming the whole time.

What do you mean by ridiculed and lambasted? If you mean we were being harsh on you guys for claiming that CTE is exact while that is not so, there will obviously be no apologies or pulling back, we (in the general sense) were right, you (also in the general sense) were wrong, simple as that.

What Joey means is that he has never understood the topic to begin with and simply goes automatically into fight mode whenever it comes up. To him the important thing isn't what's true or false; it's which "side" you're on.

pj
chgo

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

What I do like about "Pro One" is that it divides the shot angles into full, 3/4, 1/2 and 1/4 hits, and then goes from there. It's always a good start. So there is definitely improvement, and "Pro One" is bound to be more "exact" than standard CTE. However... The one thing in my view that has changed is that CTE doesn't claim to be "exact" anymore (even if it's advertised that way, which is a different issue), but that it's rather heavily dependent on feel - like every other aiming method. I still think it's absurd to have to dance around the cueball like that until you finally end up aiming by feel anyway. What's even more absurd is how people are trying to figure it out using this line and that line and argue perception vs. reality. Because it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter how exactly you line up the shot initially. CTE, ETC, CTC, offset, ... It's a distraction for your brain. All you need to do is AIM and then bring your whole shooting body down, including your bridgehand, cue, head and shooting arm. The actual aiming process happens during the pivot, which doesn't have to be a pivot at all. It nullifies everything you did beforehand, and your subconscious aiming processor can take over. It's also bad for your mechanics, but screw that. Nobody cares anyway.
I can say all of that with reasonable certainty, because I spent far too much time with this subject, reading instructions, testimonials, trying it out at the table and so on. In the end it provides at least some amusement.

BTW, here are my top 10 shots I made last week using aim by feel that nobody cares about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ5TajZYW6Y

 

[lfigueroa]

I don't know if you were one of the ones who ridiculed and lambasted CTE/Pro One by Stan Shuffett or not.

But it sure seems that a lot of people are pulling up short of the previous negative claims that they used to make about CTE/Pro One. :yeah:

I can't wait to hear all of the apologies.

Good grief. No one is pulling up on anything -- the naysayers are being proven correct by your own camp. In what alternate universe are you living in.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Johnnyt]

The most exact (not really exact) aiming system is the ones that are used by the pros that run 200-400 balls w/o a miss, and the pros that score in the mid to high 900’s on Accu Stats score card. All of the ones that I have talked to and read about use contact to contact point, ghost ball, fraction, and adjust all of them to feel. They got the feel from shooting every shot on the table 1000’s of times and over many years. Johnnyt

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I'd like for everyone to try this at home>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wu2Y2xdwRU

Some things:

- This is a good example of how the shot circle works. This was never included in the DVD because 1/2 tip pivots were chosen, so it's really not needed. I think this is a good example of how CTE pivots should work. This would only over-complicate a DVD; however, with all the talk that CTE only figures 6 angles per OB/CB distance, I thought I'd make the video. TRY THIS YOURSELF on your table or at the pool hall. Don't even bother shooting the shot--- just check to see that the shaft goes through the CB and the center of the ghost ball.

- I use a 1/2 ball pivot because it's easier to see. If you pivot 1/2 tip shy of center, you're at the "starting position" for Stan's DVD

- I pivot from the right on every shot because it's easier to see, it's the starting position for the beginning shots and also because it "doesn't matter." Pivoting from the left means you're only starting from a different position on the "circle."

- When I pivot for these examples, the bridge is the pivot point (as if there were a nail through my shaft)

- CTE provides a vector through the HEART of the ghostball on every single shot--- not 6 angles.

- The 1/2 tip pivot mitigates bridge length distance changes / corrections, which is why it was put on the DVD. If you want to have fun with 1/2 ball pivots, setup different shots within 12" distance (just to start with) and mirror the distance/bridge length and pivot to center and watch everything go.

- For 1/2 ball pivots and CB/OB distances beyond 12" (bridge length), you must use the "shot circle" and pivot along the arc, pretending your tip extends to the OB vertical plane and pivoting "from the tip, backwards" --- the pivot point works itself out. Once again, with 1/2 tip pivots--- you can just follow Stan's instructions.

Before anyone posts anything--- go to a table and try this. It won't take long for you to see that this will put you to the heart of the ghostball on every shot. Pay close attention to your alignment - make sure that's right first and foremost.

Follow the instructions closely and let's discuss further. Sorry for being MIA--- I'm sick as a dog with a fever. I made this video so we can have a clear discussion on how this works.

Dave

 

[JoeyA]

What Joey means is that he has never understood the topic to begin with and simply goes automatically into fight mode whenever it comes up. To him the important thing isn't what's true or false; it's which "side" you're on.

pj
chgo

No Patrick. You're wrong.

I'm just really more interested in hearing your apology that you and your merry band of naysayers, were wrong about Hal Houle, Stan Shuffett, CTE/Pro One and aiming systems users.

You and a few other Naysayers ridiculed and lambasted CTE/Pro One users and aiming system users for a very long time and you got away with it.

Now, I am just reminding you and the rest, of the naysayers history of posting negative information about them and CTE/Pro One.

What's the matter Patrick, it doesn't feel good when someone's giving you a little taste of what you've been giving everyone on this forum since day 1?

Don't have me digging up some of your negative comments and those of Dr. Dave and the rest of the naysayers. We can regurgitate it all over again if you like.

Start a new thread and come clean.
Have Dr. Dave and you make a formal apology to the yeasayers, acknowledging that you were wrong for ridiculing the users of aiming systems, specifically CTE/Pro One including Stan Shuffett and that it is an EFFECTIVE AND ACCURATE AIMING SYSTEM, that it may be the best method of aiming out there and that while you haven't been able to substantiate the math just yet, you will give it your best effort to determine why it works so well.

Then the remainder of the naysayers will fall in lock step with you and brotherly love will return to the forum, until your next round of aiming system bashing begins.

Don't forget: You posted on RSB that you used aiming systems. Don't make me go get those posts.

JoeyA