Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Thu May 6 12:00:53 2004

Hi Jack,

No, I did not label you as fraud.

A fraud is someone who produces fallacious information for the purpose of receiving a profit.

All I am arguing is, that when I entered the site, I discounted both CHP and torque and valid transfer mechanics.

Eventually, I went through a stage where I counted CHP and torque as essential ingredients in producing bat-speed.

Now, I am going through a period questioning whether torque is really a proactive or reactive force.

However, I still believe linear hitting does not produce as much bat-speed as a CHP. After all, we all know that hinges planted in a fixed location will allow the door rotate around the hinges faster than an unsturdy hinge that tends to slide forward.

Many times, I complimented you on your research.

In fact, there is a tremendous difference between saying that a person is lying, and the ability to "make no preconceived notions" about what you see, which I believe was the sign that you placed on your desk while doing your research.

Many times, beliefs that individuals believe in can become fallacies when tested, rather than truisms.

However, as long you believe in BHT and THT, and continue to make observations on their possible benefits, this means that your empirical observations were done in an honest manner.

Sincerely,
BHL
Knight1285@aol.com

P.S. If you think that I was trying to label you as a "fraud," then you have my sincere apology. In fact, all I am doing is questioning whether torque exists, or does not exist. At this point, I am a firm believe in CHP, and rotation around a stationary axis, but discount torque.

Adair is wrong is his "crack the whip theory."

However, he is most likely correct in arguing that there is no torque in the swing.