I know it's not the first go-round on the topic but an increase of 30% and an increase of 100% aren't directly comparable either.
It isn't a matter of proof, it is a matter of legitimate possibility that is supported by evidence.
Is Schmidt's and charlie 626 Legit
- Thread starter Dan Harriman
- Start date
- Status
It isn't a matter of proof, it is a matter of legitimate possibility that is supported by evidence.
Statistically speaking, I believe JS's numbers were more or less in line with what you would expect. Buckets of 100's and then 200's, a lot of 300's, a few 400's and one 600. Someone ran the numbers.
Just because you run 100 doesn't mean you will ever run 200. However, if you do run 600 you can look back at the attempts made and see if they make statistical sense. If JS made 500 attempts and never got above 150 then a 600 popping up out of nowhere would be suspicious.
Well, to use your analogy: if you thumb through a 500 page novel in 10 seconds, would you be able to tell if all the pages were still there?
Lou Figueroa
We are discussing the difference between edited and not edited. Focus...
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
37 signatures on the certification for Mosconi's 526
You use words like "I doubt" to promote an idea. But since you weren't there, it's just speculation. Had you been there it would have been informed speculation. Had you lived in the area and known the people and the room owner, and also knew Mosconi, then you might have an informed opionion.
But when you say you doubt people were mingling, you're just speculating without anything other than your own ideas to back you up.
Watch the final of the US Open, and you can see spectators talking, eating, moving around. That's what happens at matches. And for 2 hours and 10 minutes i would speculate that there was some of that, since i see that happening in matches that last 45 minutes.
And as was just pointed out, you said the affidavit has 50 something signatures. That's just speculation also, and as it turns out, it's just wrong. 37 is the number. How much value should we place on your other speculations?
It seems to be a common thing these days for people to treat speculation as evidence.
Last edited:
If you view a match at 2x speed, you're looking at 8 shots/minute instead of 4, or about 8 seconds per shot instead of 15 seconds. And the actual time the player is bent over the shot is around 5 seconds instead of 10. That's not difficult, and i find it actually easier to keep focused.
As i said, you can rail about part of the section from 400-500 balls being played at 2x speed as if that's some kind of dirty trick. But from Mark Wilson et. al., it wasn't hard to follow.
Have you taken my suggestion and ran a straight pool match at 2x speed? It's not at alll comparable to reading 500 pages in 10 seconds. But I think you already know that.
Last edited:
I still think its silly to believe that the people who signed the Mosconi affidavit watched every shot of his run, at the level of scrutiny that Lou is suggesting needs to be available to ensure that there was no fouls or other hanky panky. I'm skeptical that any of them watched all 526 shots. Maybe they did, but I doubt it. They were there for the event. They could very well have looked away for any of dozens of reasons, could have gone to the restroom, could have turned for a drink, or could have been involved in a conversation with someone.
None of that is any more unbelievable than the concept of being able to see shots clearly enough at 2X speed and be able to tell if something was amiss.
None of that is any more unbelievable than the concept of being able to see shots clearly enough at 2X speed and be able to tell if something was amiss.
None of that should be necessary.
He's claiming a world record. Unadulterated evidence should be available for verification. It is not, so my mind is open to questions.
Lou Figueroa
Did you ever go to a Mosconi exhibition?
I saw several -- no one left their chair. It was just a different era. Nowadays people pay $500 a seat for a concert and go off to buy a chili dog.
Lou Figueroa
Yes, John Schmidt is claiming a BCA record, and established a run of 626 that was accepted by the BCA as a new record based on witness statements and viewing a continuous video.
I had the understanding that it was less than 100 shots that were sped up, and at 3 shots/minute (?) that's 33 minutes at normal speed. 17 minutes at 2x speed. Maybe it wasn't necessary to reduce the length of the presentation by less than 20 minutes , but it's not an unreasonable thing to do. As you know, there are frequently parts of a straight pool game that are unremarkable. Maybe they had a target duration for the presentation, and with the additional time taken in describing the history of 14.1 runs and the facilities, and the process that Schmidt followed, it may have just made the event too long. Have you actually asked someone who's part of the team presenting it?
It remains though that reputable and highly regarded straight pool players have 'witnessed' the video and have made 'written statements' on this forum that the video was continuous and it was a magnificent run of 626.
John Schmidt may wind up selling copies of the raw video, or maybe he'll prefer to sell the video with commentary. (I'd be most interested in the commentary.)
But until he gets what income he can from his "Evening with John Schmidt", you can always pay the $50, attend his presentation, and ask him questions directly. Maybe he'll play that 20 minutes for you at normal speed, or maybe you'll have to wait to purchase your own copy. Either way, you can slow that part down if you're still suspicious that there's a conspiracy. I think Danny Harriman will.
If one were conspiriatorially minded, or just super suspicious of the claim, speeding up the footage could be used to hide cuts and edits. If the sped up video was played without sound (especially) it would make such trickery a lot easier.
I stopped doubting the run after Bob J. said he'd seen the footage. He's probably the one I'd choose on this forum to review something like this.
However, as long as JS holds on to the footage, he'll have to accept doubters. It's just the nature of these things. People have grudges, idolize Mosconi and have other motives not to believe the claim. There will always be people like this and the only real defense is to release the data. Somehow I doubt some of those people will even accept the unedited video and instead fabricate a new reason not to believe any of it. That is also to be expected. Some people are just nuts. I learned long ago that people believe what they want to believe and evidence is usually not a really big factor in that decision.
Doubters are fine, defamers are not imo. There are people who doubt that the earth is round.
At large is correct as usual. Despite your heartfelt effusive description of the importance of the moment for an ordinary person you simply can not know if all 17 people saw every shot.
If John turned in exactly the same claim with exactly 17 people who claimed to see it would that be enough for you?
Statistically, if you can run 100 then you can run another hundred. It is rare that a human achieves something that they have trained for which they cannot repeat.
Whether they ever do repeat has many factors but ability to do without some overarching mitigating factor is unlikely to be one of them.
Perhaps all you needed was more focused attempts.
Some people can. The question is whether you should bet against them?
I agree with this. And if I were John Schmidt i wouldn't care. It's a losing game to cater to the conspiracy-minded. Right now they seem to be focused on the 2x portion of the presentation, but if that were resolved it would be something else.
The previous allegations included shaved slates, phony pockets, electronically controlled balls, Leprechauns, and 'magnetism'.
- Status