[David Armstrong]

This is where the meat lies. When measuring a technique's effectiveness vs another technique, you have to use a level playing field.

Only if the level playing field is pertinent. In this case, it isn't as the issue can be addressed from several different points. The situation determines the need, the need defines the effectiveness. I can set up a playing field where the chamber empty carry is more effective than chamber loaded FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION.

A properly trained marksman can easily draw from concealment in well under 2seconds.

Irrelevant, as most people are not properly trained marksmen, and the 2-second time was for example only, just as the 2/10 second to chamber a round is for example only. No matter what the normal timeframe for the presentation, the entire issue becomes important only if the event occurs in the boundaries defined by that tiny fraction of a second, no matter what the times are.

We are talking two people of equal skill beginning their draw at the same time. That is the only accurate way to measure the effectiveness of a technique.

We'll disagree. That may be the only way you can accurately measure the effectiveness of a technique, but it certainly isn't the only way to do so, and it is certainly not the way I would do so. I tend to discuss effectiveness based on how well something does what it is supposed to do in the real world. Using that criteria the chamber empty technique is quite effective. History and experience have shown us that.

As far as training goes, I have had more training than most people.

So have I. The question is not if you have had any training, but if your training is relevant. So, how much training have you had in the Israeli method?