# Working through the "Truth Series" created by Stan S.

#### The_JV

##### 'AZB_Combat Certified'
Ok... figured I'd give really understanding the CTE method a try. To be clear, I will not be attempting to utilize the system at this time. I have other things I'm working on and I don't want to either screw those efforts up and/or not give CTE it's due diligence.

That said, I'm 11:40 into the first video found on YouTube and already have a question. Videos are disabled by Stan so either follow the embedded link or note the screen shot below.

How does the 2-ball have a 30 degree relationship with the corner, when its just a few inches off the 45 degree line to the pocket...?

Last edited:

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Ok... figured I'd give really understanding the CTE method a try. To be clear, I will not be attempting to utilize the system at this time. I have other things I'm working on and I don't want to either screw those efforts up and/or not give CTE it's due diligence.

That said, I'm 11:40 into the first video found on YouTube and already have a question. Please follow the link below that should start you right at the section in question.
How does the 2-ball have a 30 degree relationship with the corner, when its just a few inches off the 45 degree line to the pocket...?
First and foremost, forget about fractions and thinking of angles in degrees. 15,30,45 are lines and have nothing to do with degrees.

And you can't post Stan's you tube videos here.

#### The_JV

##### 'AZB_Combat Certified'
First and foremost, forget about fractions and thinking of angles in degrees. 15,30,45 are lines and have nothing to do with degrees.
ok... so the lines are just referenced as 15, 30, and 45...?

Stan states the 2-ball has a "30 degree relationship to that right angle". The right angle being the relationship of the long and short rails. So the "30 degree relationship" the same as the line labelled as 45...?

Please bear with me. Just trying to wrap my head around the theory

And you can't post Stan's you tube videos here.
??? The content is open source on YouTube. Is it some AZB rule I'm unaware of...?

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
ok... so the lines are just referenced as 15, 30, and 45...?

Stan states the 2-ball has a "30 degree relationship to that right angle". The right angle being the relationship of the long and short rails. So the "30 degree relationship" the same as the line labelled as 45...?

Please bear with me. Just trying to wrap my head around the theory

??? The content is open source on YouTube. Is it some AZB rule I'm unaware of...?
30 degree relationship just means it falls into the B reference line for a particular range of shots.

Stan has it locked so the videos can't be shared. Nothing to do with an AZ rule.

#### The_JV

##### 'AZB_Combat Certified'
30 degree relationship just means it falls into the B reference line for a particular range of shots.
Oh ok... so the fact that it nearly follows the path of the 45 degree line has no bearing on it's designation of preception...?
Stan has it locked so the videos can't be shared. Nothing to do with an AZ rule.
Didn't realize that... I'll fix my post. Thanks

#### The_JV

##### 'AZB_Combat Certified'
Ok next question 'here at the 12:26 mark' of the second Truth Series videos. Stan is already completed explaining the SL, AL, and PX lines for the 30 degree perception. During the 30 degree walk through, he places the SL and AL perfectly parallel to one another which makes sense, and explains that one eye follows the SL so the other can perceive the AL. The PX is the resulting combined 'parallax' view of the two preceptions. However when he explains the 15 degree perception the SL and AL are not parallel to one another, and I'm not entirely certain how the PX lands parallel to the AL and not evenly between the SL and AL.

Is the CTE user meant to physically cross their eyes to focus on these non-parallel lines...?

Last edited:

#### JoeyInCali

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
400 page to go ?
I wonder how many years it would take to go through this book .

#### The_JV

##### 'AZB_Combat Certified'
400 page to go ?
I wonder how many years it would take to go through this book .
Ya I can't sign up for the book... Anything that supposed to make the game 'easier' shouldn't take that much effort to learn.

#### French Roots

##### Member
Ya I can't sign up for the book... Anything that supposed to make the game 'easier' shouldn't take that much effort to learn.
You seem to be well grounded in reality & with some understanding of simple rational, logical, cognitive, reason & general science & common sense.

I am sure that you realize that Mr. Shuffett's CTE can not be & is not what it is said to be... & that a few proponents posting here are in denial of that reality.

Doing the same thing does not = something different... not even when doing the same thing is a visual procedure.

So... why are you engaged in the endeavor that you seem to have taken on?

#### The_JV

##### 'AZB_Combat Certified'
Ok next slice of confusion...

At around the '15min mark' of still the second installment of the Truth Series found on YouTube. Stan is brekaing down the 45 degree perception. This one adds another wrinkle to the sight lines. This time the SL, which up until this point was the first perception established but is now the second. The AL is now discussed first. I have to assume because the SL has no physical reference to the CB and therefore would have to be subjectively guessed at. Which would fly in the face of the whole 'objective' aiming claim. Despite this, it isn't the odd part.

When developing the 45 degree perception. Stan offsets the AL by his 1/16", and then when he places the PX he also offsets this by the 1/16"....? Pic below:

-So on the 15 degree perception, the SL is developed first, the AL second, neither has any offset and the PX lands right in the middle.
-On the 30 perception, the SL is developed first with a 1/16" offset, the AL second without any offset, and the PX lands parallel to the AL. Still confused as to how your eyes are meant to follow separate lines that aren't parallel and how the PX ends up being bais towards the AL.
-On the 45 perception, the AL is developed first with an offset, the SL is mentioned as a 1/2" from the edge of the CB, but no mention of offset, and finally the PX is now also offset by this 1/16".

So 3 different perceptions, 15/30/45. All with varying sight line methods to produce them. Some with offsets that effect the outcome. Some with offsets that don't seem to matter. Seems to fly by the seat of it's pants.

#### The_JV

##### 'AZB_Combat Certified'
So... why are you engaged in the endeavor that you seem to have taken on?
I'm simply giving the CTE guys their due. Although I think the argument that "you must play with CTE to earn the right to criticize" is a little childish. I do think that one should at the very least make an effort to understand the background of a debate before they try to fully engage.

I won't adopt CTE, much like won't adopt Poolology. I gave Poolology a shot and it's merit is out there for anyone to discover if they have a spare 10mins and a table to use. Thus far I've watched about an hour of CTE content between John/Stan, and I'm still scratching my head at how this is supposed to work. Not saying it doesn't. Just suggesting it's awfully involved for such an easy task.

#### French Roots

##### Member
I'm simply giving the CTE guys their due. Although I think the argument that "you must play with CTE to earn the right to criticize" is a little childish. I do think that one should at the very least make an effort to understand the background of a debate before they try to fully engage.

I won't adopt CTE, much like won't adopt Poolology. I gave Poolology a shot and it's merit is out there for anyone to discover if they have a spare 10mins and a table to use. Thus far I've watched about an hour of CTE content between John/Stan, and I'm still scratching my head at how this is supposed to work. Not saying it doesn't. Just suggesting it's awfully involved for such an easy task.
Are you aware that Mr. Shuffett's, Stan's, CTE is supposed to be an Objective System that dictates the Center Pocket Shot Line via a supposed connection to a 2:1 ratio rectangular table & some supposed visual phenomena that yields a different dictate depending on where the same separations of the two balls are on the table?

If so, then I would surmise that you realize how absurd those claims are. Or do you?

#### The_JV

##### 'AZB_Combat Certified'
If so, then I would surmise that you realize how absurd those claims are. Or do you?
I'm going into it with hardly knowing any of the theory. My plan is to make up my own mind if it is something I would deem as absurd.

Thanks for the comment. If you have any theories as to why the 15,30,45 degree perceptions require a verying set of instructions for manlipulating the SL, AL, PX, I'd love to hear them

#### French Roots

##### Member
I'm going into it with hardly knowing any of the theory. My plan is to make up my own mind if it is something I would deem as absurd.

Thanks for the comment. If you have any theories as to why the 15,30,45 degree perceptions require a verying set of instructions for manlipulating the SL, AL, PX, I'd love to hear them
Language has been an issue. The CTEers, starting with Mr. Shuffett, have virtually raped the meaning of words.

That said, how does one "manipulate" the lines. They are fixed between the defined points of both balls. As long as the separation distance between the balls remains the same so will those lines & so will the bisecting(not parallax) line between them. Given those facts, there is no visual phenomena that will dictate to the shooter to get into any different position to supposedly see the same thing.

Before this new procedure that has been put out, there was not even any directions to do anything other than to move until one could see both lines simultaneously & equally. That dictates what was termed a center cue ball. It is based on that point that one would then offset the stick parallel by 1/2 tip & pivot to Center Cue Ball. The thing is that if one pivoted to that CCB, then side spin would be being put onto the shot. So... in reality it would have to be a slightly different CCB to avoid that side spin.

I do not remember if there was even any directions if one should move their vision over that final stick line or make a stroke across ones vision line with what amounts to a then misaligned stance. I know there was criticism about that.

Anyway, you are venturing into what simply does not exist, a rabbit whole so to speak.

#### boogieman

##### It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Thus far I've watched about an hour of CTE content between John/Stan, and I'm still scratching my head at how this is supposed to work.
Personally I found the books to be laid out better or at least easier to understand and pick at the info. The videos are good, but you almost have to understand the terms and how to apply them to get the most out of the video. If there's something presented in the book that confuses you, you can either look in the index/glossary or usually the nagging question is answered in the next chapter or two. I took to writing down questions on a notebook paper but discovered they were usually answered fairly soon after the question was written down. I think the book does a good job at leading you to think then presenting the answer. I know the CTE guys think I hate them, but I don't and I'm not knocking the system. The book is good, I think it's worth the price.

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Personally I found the books to be laid out better or at least easier to understand and pick at the info. The videos are good, but you almost have to understand the terms and how to apply them to get the most out of the video. If there's something presented in the book that confuses you, you can either look in the index/glossary or usually the nagging question is answered in the next chapter or two. I took to writing down questions on a notebook paper but discovered they were usually answered fairly soon after the question was written down. I think the book does a good job at leading you to think then presenting the answer. I know the CTE guys think I hate them, but I don't and I'm not knocking the system. The book is good, I think it's worth the price.
I for one don't hate you. At least you are working through the book. Whether you end up liking CTE or not you are giving it a try and not posting unjust keyboard opinions. Can't ask for much more then that.

#### The_JV

##### 'AZB_Combat Certified'
Personally I found the books to be laid out better or at least easier to understand and pick at the info. The videos are good, but you almost have to understand the terms and how to apply them to get the most out of the video. If there's something presented in the book that confuses you, you can either look in the index/glossary or usually the nagging question is answered in the next chapter or two. I took to writing down questions on a notebook paper but discovered they were usually answered fairly soon after the question was written down. I think the book does a good job at leading you to think then presenting the answer. I know the CTE guys think I hate them, but I don't and I'm not knocking the system. The book is good, I think it's worth the price.
I was starting to wonder if the head scratching things jumping out a me early on in the "Truth Series" were going to be answered later on. Kinda like a M. Night Shyamalan movie, where all the pieces fall together in some big montagey twist...lol

I was hoping some of the resident CTE guys would enlighten me on some of my queries. I guess I'm haven't endeared myself yet with my efforts.

#### French Roots

##### Member
I was starting to wonder if the head scratching things jumping out a me early on in the "Truth Series" were going to be answered later on. Kinda like a M. Night Shyamalan movie, where all the pieces fall together in some big montagey twist...lol

I was hoping some of the resident CTE guys would enlighten me on some of my queries. I guess I'm haven't endeared myself yet with my efforts.
Others have asked questions & if the question gets in any manner serious then no real answer has ever been provided, because there are none. The stock answer as always been just follow the directions. One guy spent about 2 years following the directions until he finally gave up & put together some method of his own that worked better for him.

Do you honestly think that there is a way that can objectively lead the shooter to the center pocket shot line?

#### The_JV

##### 'AZB_Combat Certified'
Do you honestly think that there is a way that can objectively lead the shooter to the center pocket shot line?
I honestly think I can be open minded until I finish the "Truth Series". Trying my best not to enter the effort with bias.

#### French Roots

##### Member
I honestly think I can be open minded until I finish the "Truth Series". Trying my best not to enter the effort with bias.
I think you are a reasonable individual capable of some cognitive forethought. The supposed "Truth Series" will continue for as long as Mr. Shuffett is capable of making a video. Hence it will be a while before you are finished watching those.