Glad to see your finally are starting to understand the idea of superiposition, Don.

however

"Look at picture two again"

Yes, look at it, and admit that there is no possible way that body can be in balance over it's standing foot.

To use superposition (as you described in your post) it is necessary to project the body off balance in this manner.

Anonymous. How about picture two going backwards. If you put a ruler through the middle you will find she is still over the heel of her RF. Place the man into this picture and what have you got.

"Anonymous. How about picture two going backwards. If you put a ruler through the middle you will find she is still over the heel of her RF. Place the man into this picture and what have you got."

Don, I don't really care about picture two going backwards. There are a number of problems with the overall sequence as even it's creator admits.

My point, which you still seem to be missing is that picture two - essentially by accident - happens to be showing an important detail of the relationship of the standing knee and body to the foot. Specifically, it clearly shows - with ZERO room for argument a pose in which the body is vertically aligned, but quite off balance, being entirely forward of the standing foot.

You still haven't figured out that this is possible. Once you really pay attention to what is in that picture, and see that it is possible, we can get back to debating what should be done at what point in what action.

But as long as you fail to understand what your eyes are telling you, there really cannot be any discussion.

Anonymous. You obviously have not got a printed copy of both desquences. I have. Maybe you should get a ruler and see. Would the centre of the body be a straight line from the ear down to the floor. As I have said you must look at one to get a clear picture on what is happening on two. On one it is over the standing foot. On two it is over the knee of the standing foot. On three it is in the middle. Would that not mean to you that the figure is moving.

That should be sequences. Sorry.

"Maybe you should get a ruler and see. Would the centre of the body be a straight line from the ear down to the floor. As I have said you must look at one to get a clear picture on what is happening on two. On one it is over the standing foot. On two it is over the knee of the standing foot."

On two, the body is indeed over the knee of the standing foot, but it is NOT OVER THE STANDING FOOT.

Therefore it is off balance.

Yet it is still vertical... no leaning.

Imagine that... and you had thought it impossible.

Anonymous. You don't seem to be able to understand that the body is moving and will not get ahead of the foot that is going to be the new standing foot. As the foot draws level call that a collection point, or neutral. The pictures are not a movie . If they were there are frames missing.
If these are steps in the Waltz and it is a Natural Turn you would need to get a mirror image so that the RF is forward.Beat one is frame three. and the (and ) is almost frame four.
If this is as is, the figure is either a Closed Change or a Reverse Turn. There is however no reason why it cannot be danced straight down the LOD for practise.
If on the other hand this is Foxtrot. There is still a collection point after picture three on four where there is a neutral position. And then go straight ahead.
I hope I have written this in a way that can be understood, part of which is a copy from the technique book.
If you find it hard to understand then don't comment untill you do understand it. I would prefere not have to write this, or any part of this again.

"Anonymous. You don't seem to be able to understand that the body is moving and will not get ahead of the foot that is going to be the new standing foot."

Depending on the nature of the step it may or may not get ahead. On something like the 3 to 1 transition in waltz where you lowered with your feet together, the body must initially get ahead of both feet as the standing knee bends. On a walk without rise or fall, it might not - but it would still be nice for it to briefly be ahead at the very start.

But that is all really besied the point. As long as there is only one standing leg, the body is off balance if it is not over that standing leg. Even if it is between the feet, this cannot restore balance unless both feet are sharing the body weight, something that should not be happening as long as the moving foot is moving.

All skilled dancers are off balance a lot of the time. Some keep their bodies between their feet while they do it, and some send their bodies outside their feet - but all have periods of imbalance by virtue of not having their body over or between STANDING (weight bearing) feet.

Anonymous. First. I can stand balanced on one foot as long as you like.
When I am moving my foot is not supposed to leave the floor. It is the ball of the foot touching the floor which then becomes a heel skimming the floor with the toe slightly raised. That is not standing on one leg.
Body weight . Stand on your two toes and bend your knees. Where is your weight. The knees are over the toes. Lower your heels and now where is your weight. Its over your heels is it not it. We are is still talking Waltz here... How can you say the body gets ahead of the feet. The knees are ahead of the feet. I cannot get my body ahead of my feet unless I straighten the knees. Now I am diving. When the knees finaly straighten it will be on an horizontal plane as we walk.

"Anonymous. First. I can stand balanced on one foot as long as you like."

What of it? That has little to do with moving dances.

"When I am moving my foot is not supposed to leave the floor. It is the ball of the foot touching the floor which then becomes a heel skimming the floor with the toe slightly raised. That is not standing on one leg."

If you aren't standing on it, it can't support your balance.

Thus if your center of mass is not over the foot you ARE standing on, you are OFF BALANCE. Regardless of the position of your moving leg.

However, if you moving leg is not yet ahead of you, it may help keep your center of mass balanced over the standing foot longer, even as your body center moves forward. Whears if you swing your moving leg out in front of you, it's weight (and inertia too) will pull you off balance even earlier.

"Lower your heels and now where is your weight. Its over your heels is it not it. We are is still talking Waltz here... How can you say the body gets ahead of the feet. The knees are ahead of the feet."

As soon as the knees are ahead of the feet, the body should be as well. That is the key element shown in picture two, which you still insist on ignoring. Are you blind?

"I cannot get my body ahead of my feet unless I straighten the knees."

Sure you can - see picture two, only don't move the free foot yet.