I'm sure that some of the USSSA management hears about topics discussed on here, again though this site is not USSSA run or affiliated. They are under no obligation to come on a third party website and explain anything. From what I have seen, when USSSA has official announcements to make they do it through email to registered players or on USSSA run and affiliated websites or pages.
Dale has raised issues IN PERSON at the convention based upon topics discussed here and reported back. Remember DW is not a USSSA employee, and from what I understand did not pay for the test, meaning he might not have access to it.
I do know how scientific theory is tested, the theory is posted in scientific publications where other scientists can then evaluate and comment on the methods and findings. Do you know that whoever performed this study did not do so? Or are you just assuming that because they did not go on a website that is not run or affiliated with the client for whom they performed the test, and lets be honest in no way qualifies as a forum or and for scientific minds, and post their findings for peer review?
I can't speak for Coop's silence. But I do know that your original post with your study was posted right around Thanksgiving and it is now Christmas season and holiday celebrations are in full swing. Could be he is just busy.
I agree that being open and honest with your beliefs can be beneficial to open discussion and I respect your beliefs on the topic of reaction time from moving the pitching rubber back while maintaining the same ceiling height and strike zone. But those are your beliefs, and they most certainly sound reasonable. However, it is possible that factually speaking it might be disproved by scientific testing. Attempting to combat or disprove that scientific testing with a halfass "study" with no controls or confirmed measurements whatsoever is not having an intelligent debate or scientifically disproving anything. It is essentially yelling 2 + 6 = 10 because I guesstimated.
As I have reiterated I have no information to addressed this topic. I do agree that it would seem reasonable to assume further distance from the plate means more time to set and/or back up to defend. On the other hand, it would also seem reasonable that by maintaining the same ceiling necessitates higher pitch speed which could require more forward momentum to generate which would require more time/effort to change momentum to move backward. I don't know what the answer is.
What I do know is that through your "study" you have gone beyond stating your belief and have come across as pushing your "study" as fact capable of disproving another study that we don't even know the specifics of. In this, you lose credibility on the subject and as a result of this decrease the likelihood of someone actually associated with the test who may be able to provide clarity desiring to engage in discussion. To me, someone seeking to confirm their testing would want to seek minds that are capable of having informed and studied conversations on the result, not some person they don't know with zero background in performing such tests that has a study with zero confirmed parameters. Rather than gather actual factual information to support your belief, you simply resort back to claiming you proved your point because someone doesn't want to have a debate with an opposing side that is supporting their position with zero facts.