Maybe this has run its course. I've said what I think on a couple of issues and don't really want to continue to flog those particular horses. But whereas there was clearly some disagreement on which swings might be good illustrations or models for a biomechanically sounds swing, and more disagreement on what the end result should be - it struck me that there might still be a large middle ground of material to explore that might be both interesting and uncontentious (or at least less contentious).
Dariusz - if you've invested as much time as I think you have in researching your theories, then you must surely have amassed quite a bibliography of basic movement efficiency, motor learning, force production research - much of which is presumably based on peer-reviewed research.
I think it might be really interesting to take a step back from your conclusions and guide us through some of what you think are the most important tested and validated scientific principles, papers, books etc (perhaps not specifically golf-related) and show how you then derived your biokinetic principles for the golf swing.
In some ways, I'm thinking of a biomechanical parallel to what Jorgenson did with newtonian physics. A kind of a case study - starting with conventional and accepted science, and then showing the application to golf.
I doubt whether everyone will ultimately agree with the choices and interpretations that you make - but going back a stage or two in the process of your reasoning might (a) move the discussion to some points around which most reasonably people might actually agree; (b) clarify just where some of our disagreements arise; and (c) introduce us to some important science that might otherwise be passing us by.
and not evoking such interest as e.g. on the other forum. 