Probably because I've actually been trying to get some real work done for a change.You sure are doing a LOT of talking for dr_dave...I wonder why that is.![]()
Well, obviously, I don't speak for Dr. Dave.
It's my impression, however, is that people like Dr. Dave, Mike Page, Patrick Johnson, Lou Figueroa, and others (including myself) perceive LARGE INCONSISTENCIES in the reasoning and theories behind the IDEA of CTE and how CTE is claimed to work.
Regarding TAR presentations: surely you must be aware that many very IMPORTANT and complex matters have been decided in ways other than BETS. (It's funny to recall when you described yourself as an "old school" guy: what you're offering almost has the sound of a challenge to a DUEL).
The simple fact remains that challenges of IDEAS have been made to the principles underlying CTE (as far as CTE is understood, that is. Most of what is understood and discussed comes from the seminal posts of Hal Houle a long time ago). Those challenges have been made, and those challenges have NOT BEEN MET.
I would imagine that it has not escaped Dr. Dave's notice that, at least in this thread, you have not arose to try to meet those challenges. What Dr. Dave thinks of that is his business--as is his choice regarding whether to share what he thinks.
As for your case, I'm interested in giving a close reading of posts right here of your case for how the place to hit balls into pockets can be determined without taking into account the exact LOCATION of the pockets in relation to the balls. It's my understanding that the CTE system claims that it's NOT necessary to know the exact location of the pockets in relation to the balls being pocketed--and I personally think that anyone who believes that has their "geometric screw" severely loosened (or missing). If you can MAKE a sensible case against my challenge I'm pretty confident I would be able to UNDERSTAND IT, and if I could understand it, I can completely and easily assure you that I would SAY SO--and be very HAPPY about it. I am ALWAYS happy to learn new things, and, as many have pointed out--since my screen name is an anonymous one, I could "disappear" from the forum, and nobody in real life would ever have to know how WRONG I was to challenge the ideas underlying CTE--if worry about being wrong was a concern to me.
Once again, the pocket is there and I know that it is there, but I do not have to engage in contact points or lines or whatever..........CTE is a highly objective aiming system and in time will be recognized as such. No other system has the objectivity that CTE has.....PRO ONE is the natural version with no manual pivot, just see and shoot. You will see in time......hopefully.
What timeframe is your video due out????
Yes, I can explain it. The elementary 3-step prescription for CTE, if followed with robot precision and absolutely NO adjustments, will enable the user to pocket many shots. Perhaps the shot you mention is one of those. With your particular way of seeing the center-to-edge line, and your particular offset from center, and your particular bridge length, and your particular way of pivoting -- that shot goes for you.
However, precisely following the elementary prescription for CTE, as least so far as we currently know it, will also lead to missing a lot of shots. The now well known Dr. Dave 3-shot set up should tell anyone that something more is going on than robotic repetition of 3 simple steps.
What I have been looking to learn (for quite a long time) is whether there is any fairly simple and systematic way of sighting, offsetting, and pivoting that will work for all shots (if carried out with robotic precision). Call it a systematic set of "adjustments," if you will, or a more complicated prescription for a shot. For example, if the OB is approximately A feet from the pocket, and the CB is approximately B feet from the OB, and the angle to the pocket is approximately C (thicker, thick, thin, thinner, ...), then sight to point D on the OB and use an offset of approximately size E and a bridge length of approximately size F, and an effective pivot point of length G, and ... . Or something that works better (hopefully, simpler than that).
If CTE is just another way of "getting in the ballpark" with a consistent pre-shot routine, and then letting subconscious adjustments take over, then it's not for me. But I am still open to the notion that pivot aiming can be more than that. And I eagerly await whatever additional information we will receive from Stan, Dave, and Ron.
I'm here to tell you if I aimed the shot I posted in my normal way I would maybe have made 1 out of the 5 if I were lucky. I cannot consistently pocket balls.
Vague.
Everybody knows the "pocket is there" Stan. CTE claims to be a SYSTEM. The claim advocates make is that CTE is able to EXACTLY pocket balls, yet it does NOT "systematically" use EXACT information about the relative positions of ball and pocket to do so. The claim, or implication, is that the aiming "information" in CTE comes only from the CB and OB.
It's my contention that is nonsense. I've not yet heard evidence against my contention.
btw, I'm going to step away from the computer for a couple of hours at this point--that should give you plenty of time to explain how CTE pockets balls into pockets that CTE (as a system) doesn't know exist!
......I can pocket balls without looking at the pockets. The CB/OB relationship always present the shooter with specific system variables. I know the variables and I rarely make much ado about the pocket.
I do not intend to teach you the system over the internet. I have never done so and will not start doing so now. But it would be a mistake to think that I could not present CTE in its exactness by word.
Quite obviously, CTE works by MAGIC--and you have proved it.
People have waited for MILLENNIA for proof that magic works. You've proved it. Great work! I'm sure Stan and Spidey will consider your "1 shot" experience as great support for the veracity of CTE!
Are you mocking another well respected member?
LOL. We're anti-CTE secret agents sworn to do our duty. How else are we supposed to bring the vast worldwide CTE conspiracy of secrecy to its knees and save mankind from a fate worse than Houliganism?Mike:
...their modus operandi is to instigate a reaction from Cte users to gain some insight or tidbit. It's a smokescreen.
OMG! Overt mocking?!!?eezbank:cookie man:
Are you mocking another well respected member?
That's the way I read that as well. 3K wasn't even talking to him.
OMG! Overt mocking?!!?
What's next, blatant teasing? Where will it end?? Can AzB as we know it survive this frontal assault on its delicate sensibilities??? Will I run out of question marks before I finish this post
Damn!
pj
chgo
Go eat your fish!
As for your case, I'm interested in giving a close reading of posts right here of your case for how the place to hit balls into pockets can be determined without taking into account the exact LOCATION of the pockets in relation to the balls. It's my understanding that the CTE system claims that it's NOT necessary to know the exact location of the pockets in relation to the balls being pocketed--and I personally think that anyone who believes that has their "geometric screw" severely loosened (or missing). If you can MAKE a sensible case against my challenge I'm pretty confident I would be able to UNDERSTAND IT, and if I could understand it, I can completely and easily assure you that I would SAY SO--and be very HAPPY about it.
......I can pocket balls without looking at the pockets. The CB/OB relationship always present the shooter with specific system variables. I know the variables and I rarely make much ado about the pocket.
I do not intend to teach you the system over the internet. I have never done so and will not start doing so now. But it would be a mistake to think that I could not present CTE in its exactness by word.
CTE may or may not be silly (I'm not sure, because I've been told I still don't know what CTE is). All I know for sure is that the situation you describe, which has been going on for many, many years, is most definitely silly. I hope Stan's DVD changes this by filling in all (or at least some) of the missing details.CTE advocates makes claims which on their surface seem silly, CTE deniers point them out, and challenge the advocates to reconcile the inconsistencies, and the advocates say they COULD, but they WON'T.