Anonymous. Picture two is moving from the standing foot.
Are you saying it isn't
The only way anybody is not balanced is if the front foot has lost contact with the floor and is clear off the floor( we were always told that the heel skims the floor) and as the rear heel leaves the floor it will continued untill the tip of the toe only is in contact with the floor. At this time the body will have moved through the centre to the neutral position where picture four becomes one.
If the body is allowed to reach the front foot too early. The front foot will stop moving. That is why some find it hard to get into position three. That is with two straightish legs and with the heel of the front foot on the floor and the toe of the back foot.With the body moving through to the front foot of which the knee is flexing.
I would say that at first the weight is on the standing foot. At some point the weight will change and be equall on both feet. As above if the weight goes to soon to the front foot it can't move.
What is interesting is that there is a time when the body moves from the back to the ball of the foot and the foot is standing still. I can see clearly now why one of thoes lecturers had us in our stocking feet so that we could feel we were using the whole of the foot from heel to toe. on both feet..
Going to the Backward Walk in the pictures. In the Waltz on picture one, that is where the lady should be on the count of ( and ) that is three ( and ). In the picture you will see the lady feeling the floor behind her. Front foot still flatish ,toe coming off the floor body being moved back. Move the body back to quickly will result in the foot being unable to move and will not allow it to complete its potential You will notice that in picture four the heel of the supporting foot has not lowered. And will not lower untill the moving foot draws level with it. Just as it is written in the book. What about that Mr Anonymous. You've already made a statement on that haven't you. The above technique should be used in both the Waltz and the Foxtrot. This all about one step only. If anyone wants to get picky here. We do have rise and lower. They do differ between the dances. Add to that CBMP CBM NFR and Sway. Just a bit more. If this is Waltz as the feet draw level we will be ready for a side step. If it is Foxtrot we can continue straight ahead or backwards.

"The only way anybody is not balanced is if the front foot has lost contact with the floor"

No. You have lost your balance if your center of mass is not located direclty over or between points of support.

As the moving foot clearly still has a long ways to go (compare pictures 2 and 3) the rear or standing foot is the only foot supporting weight in picture two.

Because the body is entirely forward of the solitary support point, there can be no argument but to admit that the body is off balance in that picture.

Raising the moving foot off the floor would make it worse of course. And having not moved the moving foot so far forward yet would make it better, but the body will still be off balance here - this cannot be avoided unless the dancer folds at the waist and leaves the hips behind.

Imabalance is a fact of life - get used to it or find a new hobby.

Anonymous. I did put this on once before. So here it goes again. We were taught years ago that dancing can be an illusion. This guy I wont give his name, but at one time he was about as high as it is possible to go. He demonstrated the Feather Step and then asked how big was the first of the Feather. I was seated the nearest and he looked at me. I said to myself it was a pretty big step. So I took a guess and said 36 inches. There were others who said about 30inches. No he said the answer is about 7inches to 10inches maximun. How can that be. Well as soon as the foot went from a ball to a heel, the front foot in relation to the body stopped moving. In relation to the floor it was moving. So he explained think of the jaws of a vice only one side works. A simular thing happens here. Make no mistake when he transported his body it was really moving. But that front leg was being driven by the rear foot. Bearing that in mind look at the picture again. Do you see how the front foot leg hasn't altered its shape very much. Look at picture two again and see what you think the rear foot is doing. That front leg is being pushed by the back leg and will reach as in picture three.

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.