"In one sentence you write. And the technique outside the book does not contradict and in fact supports Alex Moore.
In the very next sentence you write In simpler words. Do you realize theres technique beyond what Alex Moore wrote."

Quickstep, what you are eternally going to fail to understand is that your simply minded reading of the book is woefully incomplete. A lot of what the external sources of technique really are is a clearer restatment of exactly what is in the book; the rest of it tends to be coverage of topics that extend and supplment what is in the book - for example, talking about mechanisms of rise that the book does not cover, but clearly are a necessary complement to the ones that it does.

"Considering we are disccusing one half of one complete step and it clearly states at the end off that one half of one step where any differences occure."

WRONG. IT SAYS NO SUCH THING. Quit claiming your own ideas are to be found in the book... they are your own mistakes alone.

"Why dont you simply say either he was correct or he wasn't."

He was correct, but INCOMPLETE. With a normal student that's not a problem, with a trivia obsessed literalist who DOES NOT THINK like yourself, then it's a very big problem, as we've been seeing here over and over and over again.

"What is being discussed is the horizontal plane of those three steps in the three dances."

No, what is being discussed is almost entirely the vertical plane. As a bit of review, the vertical plane includes one vertical direction and one horizontal direction - up and down, and forward and backward. We haven't really talked much about direction or path of movement across the floor, which would be the horizontal plane, or about the rotation within it it.

"What happens . What is our natural reaction when if our foot hits an imoveable object on the ground and we trip. Without thinking or foot goes out at twice the speed the body is moving."

Yes. And a lot of people dance like they are tripping! In order to dance well, you must be come comfortable projecting your weight past your standing foot, towards a place where there is not yet any foot ready to receive it, SECURE IN THE CONFIDENCE THAT A RECEIVING FOOT WILL BE THERE BY THE TIME YOU ACTUAlLY _NEED IT_.

"It is unnatural for the body to go ahead of the feet or foot."

On the contrary, it is a regular feature of all efficient human movement!

"Our feet with this inbuilt reaction will not allow it."

That reaction is not your feet, it is your paniced mind. Calm down and it won't inhibit you any more.

If my panicked mind does not react I will fall on my face will I not.
Just for future reference would you like to repeat that my body is over a point in front of me where my foot as not yet arrived. Is that correct
I can understand a very frustrated teacher with a pupil who keeps thrusting a leg forward and keeping the weight too far behind them. I might say get your weight more forward. But most people do not have that trouble, even absolute first time beginners don't have that problem.
Some person middle aged who has never played any sport in their lives suddenly discovers dancing can be a problem. I would ask or get them to fill in a questionare, and one of the questions would be what sports have you played. From this I would know what to expect. If they are a girl and have done ballet I know they are going to be very toey. If they have played a lot of tennis they will most likely be too strong in the shoulders . As they walk across the floor it will give a good indication of how they will dance. Be prepared for those that step forward keeping the back heel on the floor. They are going to be like dancing with a lead weight. With me they would get plenty of raising and lowering of the heels which is good for everybody anyway.

"If my panicked mind does not react I will fall on my face will I not."

If it panics, it will whip your foot out ahead of you - the stumble reflex. That would not look like dancing or even sensible walking, it would look like you tripped and caught yourself.

If it react normally, it will calmly position your foot so that it is there by the time you actually need it.

If it does nothing at all, then yes you'd eventually fall on your face.

"Just for future reference would you like to repeat that my body is over a point in front of me where my foot as not yet arrived. Is that correct"

It projects from the standing foot until it is over a point of the floor ahead of the standing foot.

When this first happens, ideally the moving foot would not yet have passed that point either.

But the really important comment is that the body is past the ONLY FOOT that can support it.

"But most people do not have that trouble, even absolute first time beginners don't have that problem."

Actually not sending the body is a very common problem when people try to dance. It's a very rare problem when people try to walk though. The issue is that once you tell someone to dance, they tend to forget how to walk, and it takes them a few years to learn that it's okay - in fact necessary - to move their body when dancing with the same continuity and ease they move it with when walking.

"As they walk across the floor it will give a good indication of how they will dance."

Maybe. If you can get them to dance as naturally as they walk. But most students won't - instead, they will try too hard, hold their hips back, and ruin the natural ease of the movement.

"Be prepared for those that step forward keeping the back heel on the floor. They are going to be like dancing with a lead weight."

There are in fact steps that call for that. Just as there are steps that must not have that. It all depends on the application... something you will most likely remain ignorant of unto your grave.

I cant think of any step forward where it is suggested it comes off a flat foot. Not even a step to the side.
Concerning Projection of the body. Untill it is over a point of the floor ahead of the standing foot. You wrote.
Does that mean you are no longer standing up straight. That is very difficult to do unless your knee is straight. You did say the knee is flexed. Is your knee flexed or is it straight as you fall forward. Very hard to do off a knee that now bent.
Putting all jokes aside. The way you have described in your writting is as old fashioned and as old as the hills. My parents were taught that way. the male had ungiving legs that were so straight they could be called stilted. This was the way it was done and consquently this is how it was taught. It very likely goes hand in glove with the lady standing too square and not being the slightest bit offset. This is of course all about Foxtrot. They were still very good at what they did but compared to today the way the style of dancing has altered they would have difficulty getting out of the morning session 9.30am at Blackpool. Ladies have always been more flexible in the legs than men, possibly because they have to be going backwards most of the time.
If your teacher or your teachers teacher are well into middle aged and have not had a lesson in the last 15 years or so. Well what can we say.

" cant think of any step forward where it is suggested it comes off a flat foot."

That's because you DO NOT THINK.

Two obvious examples:

- Any forward step following a prep step.

- Any forward step following a TH step.

In short, any forward step following a step in which the footwork ends with heel, rather than with toe.

When a step's footwork ends with heel rather than toe, it means that the heel must remain on the floor well into the following step. Not quite to the point where the next step is placed, but the heel will stay down well after the feet pass.

"Not even a step to the side."

Yes, those actions are usually toe/ball to toe/ball.

"Concerning Projection of the body. Untill it is over a point of the floor ahead of the standing foot. You wrote.
Does that mean you are no longer standing up straight."

Absolutely not! you would remain upright, but you are upright over a point on the floor in front of your standing foot.

"That is very difficult to do unless your knee is straight. You did say the knee is flexed. Is your knee flexed or is it straight as you fall forward. Very hard to do off a knee that now bent."

Actually it is BENDING THE KNEE THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE. The only part of the body "tilted" is the shin. From the knee up you are VERTICAL.

"Putting all jokes aside. The way you have described in your writting is as old fashioned and as old as the hills."

You haven't been paying any attention to the way I was taught. No matter how many times I point out that THE KNEE IS BENT, you somehow believe I said it was straight!

"My parents were taught that way. the male had ungiving legs that were so straight they could be called stilted."

See what I mean? I write BENT and you somehow see "straight" in its place!

"This was the way it was done and consquently this is how it was taught."

Yes, that's approximately the way they used to dance. And that's the type of dancing for which the books foot rise timing was written. When you change to bending the knees a lot more as we do today, the TIMING OF THE FOOT RISE MUST ALTER.

As it is pointed out in the technique book. It is taken for granted that a Heel will always become a toe. In the book it says it is assumed but not mentioned. Your supposed to know that.
How many times do they have to tell you that the heel starts to rise as the moving foot passes. The exact words are as the moving foot passes the toe of the standing foot.
The ball of the moving footwill be touching the floor and then it becomes a heel.
Going backwards the heel becomes a ball and then a toe and again a ball. The heel of the supporting foot will not lower intill the moving foot is under the body.
Unless it is written I would never try to tell a person anything that is not in the book regarding technique. You have absolutely no right to push what you have been taught onto others. Just stick to that book, or books and you wont be far wrong. do as I do , quote facts not fiction.

"As it is pointed out in the technique book. It is taken for granted that a Heel will always become a toe. In the book it says it is assumed but not mentioned. Your supposed to know that. How many times do they have to tell you that the heel starts to rise as the moving foot passes. The exact words are as the moving foot passes the toe of the standing foot."

You are WRONG, because you are missing a critically important detail.

What the book actually teaches is that a heel will eventually become a toe, but when it does so only AFTER the other foot has passed, which is to say after the end of hte step, the fact that it becomes a toe is assumed and not mentioned.

In contrast, when it does explicitly mention the heel becoming a toe, it is because that is supposed to happen at or before the end of a step.

So we have two different possibilities:

1) steps where the toe is mentioned and reached at or before the end of the step.

2) steps where the toe is not mentioned, and reached - that is to say the heel rises - only AFTER the end of the step.

"Going backwards the heel becomes a ball and then a toe and again a ball. The heel of the supporting foot will not lower intill the moving foot is under the body."

Depends on the step. In most outside partner cases, it must lower before the feet even close! Watch Jonathan's feather and quickstep videos for an example of why this is so critically important to creating smooth movement.

"Unless it is written I would never try to tell a person anything that is not in the book regarding technique."

Then you'll never be much of a teacher, will you.

To teach someone how to dance like Alex Moore recommended, you are going to have to expand a lot upon what is in the book, because the book - if interpreted over literally - is not sufficient to actually create that dancing. You have to be able to see the big picture and then fill in all the details necessary to create it.

"You have absolutely no right to push what you have been taught onto others."

Push, no. But I have a DUTY to correct your outrageously incompetent recommendations when you make them. When I say something, it's based on what I've learned dancing with and discussing these topics in private lessons with the leading ballroom teachers alive on this planet today. When you say something, it's based on your misunderstanding of an introductory textbook. You can't be bothered to take your questions to a real teacher whose authority compares to that text...

"Just stick to that book, or books and you wont be far wrong. do as I do , quote facts not fiction."

Oh please, you quote far more fiction than fact!

As usual instead of coming straight to the point. far to much writting, At the extent of the stride the foot will lower immediatly. That means the foot will become flat on the floor. The moving leg will move to a position under the body and as the heel passes the toe of the standing foot the heel of the standing foot will begin to raise
If that is what you meant why don't you write as clear and to the point as is the above.

"As usual instead of coming straight to the point. far to much writting, At the extent of the stride the foot will lower immediatly. That means the foot will become flat on the floor. The moving leg will move to a position under the body and as the heel passes the toe of the standing foot the heel of the standing foot will begin to raise"

ONLY FOR SOME STEPS.

If the given footwork is HEEL-TOE then what you say is approximatley correct.

But if the given footwork is HEEL (only), or if the step was TOE-HEEL, then THE HEEL MUST STAY DOWN WELL BEYOND THE PASSING OF THE FEET!

These are two different actions, and you cannot claim to understand book footwork until you recognize the difference between them!

HT and H are TWO DIFFERENT FOOTWORKS

At this moment flicking through the pages on the description of the footwok I haven't found one that is not down as H.T. except in the Tango.