[Mike O]

It is an exact analogy - when they draw and fire, they've aimed the gun at the target below the eye line. In the golf stroke, the Aiming Point is the target for the initial direction of thrust of PP#3(analogous to the bullet), also below the eye line. But, unlike the bullet, PP#3 does not continue toward the Aiming Point after the initial move(trigger pull) from the Top, because the hand path starts curving, unlike the ideal conceptual hand paths in Ch 9, in spite of a straight line effort. Once the right shoulder initially drives PP#3 toward the Aiming Point, forget about it, but continue to trace the Plane Line with PP#3. The trouble happens when the player continues to try to make the hands go toward the Aiming Point by manipulation, all the way to Impact, causing the hands to be moving down and out at Impact, instead of moving up and in as they should.

Joe,
I'll try this one more time and see if we can communicate - however I don't think it's going to work between you and I.

[b][i]It is an exact analogy - when they draw and fire, they've aimed the gun at the target below the eye line. In the golf stroke, the Aiming Point is the target for the initial direction of thrust of PP#3(analogous to the bullet), also below the eye line.
I see the similarity here - however my intitial post was covering the context of what might happen if you use the aiming point concept and have the perception of continually driving the hands towards the aiming point and how that would move the hands above the plane. Alternatively, in order to create an on-plane motion and using the aiming point concept you'd need to pick something well inside the plane line. So it's much more than just an aiming issue. Your gunshot example has the aiming issue but doesn't really address the brain/movement issues that was essential to my post.

But, unlike the bullet, PP#3 does not continue toward the Aiming Point after the initial move(trigger pull) from the Top
Thrust effort and where PP#3 would move are two separate things - to clarify - even from the top PP#3 doesn't move towards the aiming point - due to shoulders uncoil etc.

But, unlike the bullet, PP#3 does not continue toward the Aiming Point after the initial move(trigger pull) from the Top, because the hand path starts curving, unlike the ideal conceptual hand paths in Ch 9, in spite of a straight line effort. Right - curving from a face on viewpoint. However, I still have an issue with comparing the moving bullet from the effort of the hands to continue towards an object and not actually be moving towards that object (aiming point) becuase of the brain's perspective.

Once the right shoulder initially drives PP#3 toward the Aiming Point, forget about it, but continue to trace the Plane Line with PP#3.
Again, the PP#3 isn't moving towards the aiming point from the top. The player's effort may be to move it towards the aiming point but the hands move back and away not directly on a straight line to the aiming point. (for most professional full swings).

When you say forget about it after the initial drive - well then we are no longer talking about the Golfing Machine concept of aiming point - and that is the discussion here.

The trouble happens when the player continues to try to make the hands go toward the Aiming Point by manipulation, all the way to Impact, causing the hands to be moving down and out at Impact, instead of moving up and in as they should
Your not addressing my point here - my post isn't about where the hands hit their lowpoint - it was about how using the aiming point concept could cause the hands to move above the original plane on the downswing.

I was under the impression that you dis-agreed with my idea that if have the perception (intent) of thrusting to the aiming point throughout the downswing - i.e. the Golfing Machine aiming point concept - that your hands would move above plane. However, from your posts so far I haven't been able to understand why you dis-agree with that.