So when a shot is presented and there are ten 600 speed shooters who will try it and five of them are told an aiming perception like 30ILS and each cte player nails it and the other players are inconsistent what should the observer glean from that?
I think you missed it in Stan's videos where he throws out random shots and nails them over and over. Even with a curtain in the way Stan nails banks, one two and three rails.
In a full field of actual players, most of the 6s will bomb out. So of those guys, the prepared 5 can do a prepared routine and the other 5 are subject to no criteria in particular. Do they even care? Very ambiguous example - like ProCT itself.
Interesting that only the video where a person misses a few shots are what you choose to focus on but all the videos where players are making almost everything they shoot at are not mentioned.
Ten players, five of whom aim with specific objective instructions and five who aim by feel. The five system aimers consistently outshoot the others. What conclusion could be drawn from that?
The point is that it is the table time put in by the user that makes it work for SOME people, not some ridiculous phenomena on a 2x1 table. That is just marketing jibberish, IMO.
I am simply using your own standard. You said you know it works because you take it to the table for proof. 11 out of 14 misses says it doesn't work. Cowardly means an inability to reevaluate long held beliefs for fear of looking foolish.
Where is your proof of this?
You mean 5 methodicals vs 5 guessers? Quit juggling the specs.
Dog won't hunt, John. Everybody knows that you kicked in and kicked in hard. What we want to know is how much you were able to squeeze out of all your "four-flushing" amigos. They talk like they've got deep pockets. C'mon, Man, spill! Tell the troooof! Coupla hun each? A thou from The Big Spenda?
Don't want to learn CTE aiming then don't. But damn it's kind of sad to see people who don't want to learn something spending so much effort to tell people they don't want to learn and going even farther to knock the thing that they don't want to learn. I mean, financially I don't know what their time is worth but to me they have spent far more than $100 in time knocking. Everyone needs hobbies I guess.
What have I made up?
If by methodical you mean uses an objective aiming system vs aiming by feel then yes.
Oh, have you aggregated the total shots taken over all the videos and come up with a make percentage OR are you cherry picking your range to suit your desired conclusion? Also how were the shots missed? By wide or narrow margins? What other factors were present? Were the shots taken on a regular table or a scale version with 1.5" balls? What was my glucose level? Was my vision sharp or not when the video was shot? Was I on any medication or not? Following your desire to nitpick wouldn't you think that these details are just as important to know the environment that the data you are using was created in?
Proof of an imagined outcome? Weren't you the one who proposed doing thought experiments?
Yes time spent mastering a valid method usually leads to that method becoming a reliable tool. The difference is that you think CTE users are turning a screwdriver into a hammer automagically when in fact they are simply learning how to use a better hammer in better ways.