risky biz:
There are those of us that appreciate your strong opinion about the underpinnings of this particular shot, and for your stoic stance to defend your beliefs even in the presence of conflicting information from banking masters like John Brumback.
Personally though, I think you're just a bit too fixated on that object ball's last bounce off the long rail closest to the camera -- i.e. you're working the shot backwards based on that bounce, all the way through the cue ball strike, with an assumption that the "gear effect" stayed constant throughout.
The problem is that this thinking is flawed. As mentioned earlier, there are many shots where the object ball's spin gets REVERSED after it strikes the cushion hard. The classic 3- and 4-rails cross-side bank is an example of this, where the object ball is found to be striking both sides of the side pockets alternatively, the spin on the object ball "reversing" each time. If you tried to apply the "gear effect" to those two shots, thinking the spin on the object ball never changes, you'll find the 3- and 4-rails cross-side bank to be "an impossible shot." It isn't.
Also, I personally don't pay too much attention to the shooter's "post-shot" flair or antics -- e.g. steering or lifting the cue off the table to one side of his/her body, etc. Mike Sigel likes to push or throw his cue to one side of his body (often the same side, throughout the rack) on almost every shot. It's just body-steering, 's all.
As for the stop-motion / shadows / where the cue tip is in the video, that's really hard to tell -- unless you have a video file/stream player with capabilities that others don't have (e.g. a player with slo-mo enhancement capabilities). Just a thought.
Not trying to be confrontational, but rather I hope this is helpful.
-Sean