Here is what I would do if I owned this forum.
I would DEMAND that all the participants get into a room somewhere with pool tables and video cameras and make them hash it out.
But the cameras can't get into a player's mind. For every shot line that you claimed was found using only CTE, we could claim that you reverted to your pre-CTE method of aiming as a final check/adjustment. As you've noted before, the difference in cue direction between making a shot and missing it is very small - we're generally talking about a few tenths of a degree at typical ball separations and cut angles. I suppose, though, that if you were doing manual CTE, once you got into the pre-pivot alignment, some sort of device could be used to ensure that the pivot to centerball was done without any further tweaking.
Suppose then that the device proved that you weren't making any post-pivot adjustments. Well, for us, that would demonstrate that you've memorized your "perceptions" very well. That is, for all shots which require, say, the A reference point on the object ball and the same inside or outside pivot, but different final aim lines, you've internalized whatever you have to do (pre-pivot) to end up on those differing aim lines after the pivot. Fine, but we would say that recalling what you've internalized is what we call
feel. It's not guaranteed that you're going to do it right because it involves memory, just as with any other method of aiming.
But if you disagreed with the above, that it's not a matter of memorization, than we'd have to ask you for explicit instructions as to how you arrived at the different aim lines. That is, what lines did you construct in your mind, what dots did you connect, etc., and how did these lead you to the shot line?
I would do that for any such topic - essentially a put up or shut up ultimatum.
I understand your point because I see people make and stick to false assertions which I know to be 100% wrong due to my participation in said events. Yet they flame away with impunity never being censored and asked to present their proof or drop it.
Well, we have some common ground here. Good to hear that we can agree on something!
In this case though Jim we have plenty of anecdotal evidence. What is the job of the scientist when anecdotal evidence of a phenomena comes along? They should investigate it to determine the cause.
Not simply as an intellectual debate but real hands-on work.
I visited with Pat and he wouldn't even try to mimic the steps for CTE. He flat out refused to do it. So to me continued arguing on his part as to how HE thinks it 'works" is ridiculous when the many refuses to get his hands dirty with it.
There's still that gulf between our sides regarding what constitutes a 'proof,' though sometimes I think our differences are simply over the meanings of words, as per above.
Jim
