If you read what I wrote, you would see I did not question a single thing that Mr. Gambino said he experienced. I accepted his experience without question. I am not going to shrink from my experience any more than I would expect Mr. Gambino to shrink from his. I simply want to see it, examine it, understand and use it.
What I questioned was his assumption that a difference of perception is necessarily a difference of cause and his resulting conclusion based on that -- since I know it to be a false assumption -- in this case at least.
He contended that his different experience of subtle and gradual effects was not explained by the mechanism I outlined for the more sudden and sharp application that happened to be illustrated in the images. I explained that in fact the same biomechanical factors were in play and the suddenness was not an inherent factor in the action.
He assumed that they had to be differently caused -- just because they SEEMED differently felt. Seeming is not seeing. You have to mistrust your assumptions to see. The eyes always see first what the mind expects them to see.
"My eyes and my arm shouted out the truth, but you were not seeing. ... The seeing, the true seeing, that is the heart of it." To quote Syrio Forel.
Just because something is explainable does not make it less profound, less interesting or less worthy of study -- not unless one simply wishes to dwell in the mystery of unexamined experience. In which case, go with God.