You wrote-: "Nevertheless, I have to say that I, for one, find it more than slightly offensive that you persist in the introduction all sorts of variations of "golfer examples in action" into your arguments as grounds for your presumption that, somehow, Homer may just have got it all wrong and you will set us all to rights."
I am puzzled by your use of the word "offensive". It is never offensive to analyse/dissect/criticize a scientific theory, because a "true" scientist invites rigorous analysis/counterarguments/criticism of his theory, because he knows that his theory's ability to withstand any attempt at falsification (in a Popperian sense) strengthens his theory. In the absence of criticism, a scientific theory is essentialy untested, and therefore not knowingly "true". A scientific theory is optimally tested when it is attacked from every possible angle, because it becomes the "best' theory when it withstands all attempts at falsification (better than alternative theories in the same field). I have read virtually all of Yoda's archived posts and he has repeatedly demonstrated that HK's golf swing theories are extremely sound and not easy to falsify. That's why I hold HK's work in such high regard - it has a very low falsifiability factor.
Regarding my modus operandi of attacking any golf swing theory, it merely reflects my scientific approach established over many decades. I find that the best way to understand a scientific theory and assess its "falsifiability factor" is to attack and analyse it from every possible angle. If it withstands rigorous analysis, then my admiration for its "low falsifiability" factor increases, and I respect it much more. So, don't be offended. Instead, you should realize that my inability to find flaws in Hk's theory actually strenghtens his theory in a way that you would not realise if his theory was not repeatedly dissected and analysed and criticized by me, and many other critics.
Threaded Mode
