"Mexican"We know several things.
1. John was pursuing Mosconi's record run.
2. John and his team claimed to have broken it by a hundred balls.
3. The video of the run was reviewed in it's entirely by the Billiard Congress of America and accepted as a valid claim.
4. Several well-known and well regarded individuals in the pool world have said that they watched the video and have said that the claim is valid.
5. To date no-one who has seen the run at a viewing has stated any misgivings about it.
So, unless you do not trust John and his team, do not trust the BCA, do not trust folks like Bob Jewett and Fred Agnir and Mike Bender, do not trust Predator Cues and think that these people are willing to risk their reputations by lying about the run I don't understand why you claim to have doubts?
When we speak in probabilities the likelihood of the run being legit is pretty much 100% given all of the factors in play.
So what then are exactly your concerns?
That John and his team doctored the video and fooled everyone?
That the BCA is not competent enough to validate the run based on the video?
That Bob and Fred and Predator are not competent enough to validate the run?
That esteemed world class cuemaker Mike Bender is not capable of validating the run or that he is complicit in faking it?
Let's hear your specific concerns Lou. Because simply saying you don't know what happened and therefore haven't made up your mind as to whether the run is valid or not is intellectually weak. Take a stand and defend it.
You accept that Mosconi ran 526 balls based on a signed statement attesting to it but you weren't there. A similar signed statement, a sworn affadavit, is present for John's run. All things being equal then that level of evidence is satisfied.
A further level was achieved by presenting the video to the BCA and getting their approval. So unless you think that the BCA is incompetent or complicit what further proof do you need? Because clearly seeing it with your own eyes isn't a requirement for you to believe mosconi's record.
So I do "know" what "happened" at the BCA in terms of what is most likely to have happened based on the whole picture. There is zero need to soft-pedal "doubt" here. Just like I believe that you won a state championship without needing to interview people who were there and get them on record saying that they saw you do it.
I believe that somewhere someone has a record of that event and a list of the finish order and that you wouldn't lie about something that someone else had a record of. The probability of your claim to a state championship in Wyoming (iirc) is likely to be true.
The claim of beating Mosconi's record is more likely to be true than your claim to have been a state champion for the same reasons.
If I had any doubt about your claim I would state it clearly and ask for proof and you would very likely tell me to go screw myself. Would it be right for me to traipse through the forums sowing "doubt" about your claim in an attempt to make you prove it? I don't think it would be.
In fact back when I thought you were cool I didn't doubt any of your "stories". But when it started to come out that your versions of the stories you told were not shared by others who were also present it did tarnish my trust in your "versions". But these stories were not really consequential anyway and ammounted to personal perspectives more or less. I think you are smart enough not to lie about things that would be likely to have a written record of results.
And I would hope that you think John and all of the others involved in his quest to break mosconi's record wouldn't lie about something so consequential. But seemingly you think that someone is lying about it.
Because the only two states that can exist are the run is valid or it isn't. If it isn't then the principals know it isn't and they are lying.
There is no in between state. The bca could have stated that they watched it from start to finish when they didn't but that only means that they were not being true about their statement validating the run. That wouldn't make the run invalid though which is the point of contention you continue to allege.
Your unwillingness to take a clear position on this is a clear indication that you would prefer to cast aspersions vaguely instead of making specific allegations to define your "concerns". I can't describe the colloquial term for this type of behavior on this forum but it shares letters with the famous brand Stussy.
Man-up Lou and stand for what you seem to believe. Or let me continue to define your behavior for everyone else when by you continuing to peddle accusations of fraud without directly stating it.
On this point at least Danny has shown more balls and honesty in stating his position than you have. I wouldn't worry about whether you're "good" with John Schmidt at this point because I think you have blown that at this point.
