Man, oh man, Dave, you are quite the CTE salesman! But when someone asks you how CTE works, you respond that you don't know, don't care, and neither should anyone who wants to learn it -- just accept it that it works (because you did), and that's that. Or, a song and dance ensues about how the information "is not yours to share" and therefore you're not in a position to share it. But yet we see Matrix-like "there is no spoon" posts like this from you.
Don't get me wrong, Dave, I'm not trying to start an adversarial thing here. (We've talked before, and you *know* I respect you.) I just happen to know for a fact that not all Filipinos are taught CTE as you position. A prime example is Efren -- he's a classic ghostballer/contact-point aimer (and yes, I asked him).
I know you're excited about CTE, and I heartily congratulate you for it! It's great when a system works for a particular person -- anything to help get a better game, I say. But CTE is not, and I repeat NOT, an aiming panacea. CTE is not for everyone -- especially those (like myself) who have EXCELLENT 3D spacial visualization. I'm not going to "throw away" my natural ability to see that ghostball (as well as where it's touching the cloth at the contact point of the object ball -- a spot which is a piece of cake for me to aim at), just so I can "blindly" point and pivot and trust. I did try it over a span of a couple of months, and I didn't like it -- on every shot, it was like I was constantly fighting myself to ignore all this information that was pouring into my head from my 3D spacial perception, and I had to reroute that info to the mental trash bin, because a voice was saying "Use the [point-and-pivot] force, Luke!"
I guess what I'm saying here is that if one has good 3D spacial perception, ghostball/contact-point aiming might be the best fit. Those that have trouble seeing the ghostball/contact-point (read: those that advocate "how can I aim at something I can't see?") should investigate a system like CTE. Whatever works -- the key is to try it. If it doesn't work, try something else. Once something is found that works, then (and only then) investigate *why* it works, if one is of the type of person that finds this information interesting.
And, if one is going to be a booster for any particular type of system, and publicly expose him/herself to being a sort of resident expert on the topic, one *better* know the finer details of *why* the system works. This "so-and-so system works, it's proven to work, there's no reason to know why, just accept it" stance is not going to fly. Many folks have an inherent need to know why things work, before the information is fully accepted and absorbed.
Respectfully,
-Sean