You simply don't understand how camera/video works, it is motion picture combined together, it is picture after picture after picture and so on and so fourth, very quickly to make it moving pictures then you perceive it as a video.
I do understand it, which you should know because I already gave an explanation of it better than yours. It is you who clearly does not understand how cameras work, certainly not in the sense of being aware of the optical illusion type tricks they can play on you, which I showed indisputable proof of in post #138 but apparently you weren't willing to spend the minute to look and actually learn something. The camera/video is making it look like the nine ball is moving many times all throughout the video, even before the shot, when it very clearly cannot have really moved. You also don't seem to understand basic physics and seem to think that after being sideswiped by a pool cue that an object ball will sit there for a while and postpone its reaction before it finally decides to move at some later time at its leisure when it feels like it.
If he fouled the 9ball, then you may think as a simple guy who don't understand video that the same FRAME (picture) should have the cue attack the cueball and that same specific/particular frame should also have the 9ball moving right?
If you expect to have ONE PICTURE where the SHAFT hit the cueball & have the 9ball move in one frame, then please for the love of god read a book about motion pictures, thats all I am gona say here.
Seriously, learn to read. It's just pure laziness in cases like this where you repeatedly fail to comprehend the same very simple words over and over. Contrary to your statements above I have said several times already, very explicitly, that the frame in which this type of foul occurs does not have to also show the movement on the nine ball (although also contrary to your claim that it was actually impossible for that to be able to happen, it actually is quite possible that it
can happen in the same frame, it just doesn't always have to and I have never once claimed that it needs to here and in fact have repeatedly said otherwise).
What I have actually said, over and over, and this is the part you just can't seem to understand and comprehend, is that the next frame AFTER the foul has occurred, and read that closely again and really let it sink in because I am not now and never have said it has to be in the same frame with the foul, but on this type of foul, the next frame AFTER the foul has occurred will show that the object ball has moved as a result of the foul that already occurred immediately BEFORE that frame. On this type of foul, if the ball isn't moving in that next frame AFTER the foul occurred, then you have to deduce that a foul most likely did not occur. Read that 50 times if you have to in order to understand it because you haven't comprehended it correctly the last 13 times you read it when I said it. "Same frame" and "frame after" are two very different things, yet for some reason you keep "hearing" "SAME frame" every time I actually say the "frame AFTER".
In post #138 I point out where the foul HAD to have occurred if it occurred. And then I point out the next frame AFTER that, where you would expect to see the nine moving if indeed a foul had actually occurred just prior to that. I point out that we do not see the nine ball moving in that frame AFTER, not even a little bit, not even maybe, thus making it very unlikely that a foul occurred at all because nine balls that get sideswiped by cue sticks tend to move and they tend to move right away, not at some later date, and we would have seen it moving in the frame right AFTER the foul if there had been a foul.
