[justadub]

Originally Posted by briankenobi

The same reason I keep track of it.

Me too!

(Just here for the train wreck)

[jay helfert]

Originally Posted by ShootingArts

In years past and still accepted on some documents, two witnesses carry the same weight as a notary. Here we have over thirty witnesses.

While it has been believed that there have been higher runs, Willie's went down as the highest official run due to the numerous witnesses and exhibition setting. Because this is accepted as the official high run, for another run to beat it, the run would have to be set under similar conditions.

I won over 160 games of eight ball in a row one night. I had a motley bunch of witnesses that overlap to have seen the whole thing, maybe even a few that saw it all. Never heard of the equal, never heard of anyone claiming any number of wins in a row as a record. I won when I challenged that old nine foot table and retired undefeated when the last of my challengers quit so there were also no losses that night. I could claim a record, not even I would care since it has no official standing. Out of twenty to thirty challengers, only four to six could have made a ball in an ocean so the accomplishment isn't what it seems anyway. The most amazing thing was to have never made an early eight or scratched on the eight in those bucket pockets, standard on those tables.

If they were to declare john's record to be the video record I would be much more willing to accept it. To call it the exhibition record when it wasn't set in an exhibition is ridiculous. One thing more, the number of Willie's witnesses didn't change from day one. john's went from four to five to six to eight in the days following the run. Had eight people witnessed it from start to finish in a closed business that would have been the claim to begin with, or so I believe.

When we start questioning credibility of his witnesses, he is left with one that might have been focused on every shot, his racker. Even he might have wandered off during a rack for coffee or a whiz. (Incidentally, I am skeptical that all thirty-six or thirty-eight of Willie's witnesses saw every shot. However with that many witnesses it is easy to believe that some did and that there was overlap so that several dozen witnesses saw any shot.)

My point is few would accept the conditions john's attempt was made in as acceptable to set a record in any sport or event. If it is valid everyone with a video camera or cell phone can set it up and start going for world records at pretty much anything. I wonder if anyone caught my great pass of thirteen cars before the green flag on video? Got to be at least a track record! Got away with it too in front of several thousand witnesses. It was even legal under current standards.

Hu

I love you Hu but 160 games! C'mon man, that's a stretch. I have held the table in bars playing Eight Ball from 9 PM to 2 AM closing time on a couple of occasions. And this was on a 7' table against mostly weak opposition. I may have won fifty to sixty games each time. You just can't play that many more games in that period of time.

[Biloxi Boy]

Ya'll are determined to make me work.

Todd "being first duly sworn" -- clear enough

"deposes" -- indicates a statement, oral or written, under oath

"Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence" -- sounds like he swore to it to me.

As an interesting sidenote, notice the retro language in the 1954 Ohio affidavit: "Further affiant saith not." I have always ended my Mississippi affidavits: "Affiant further saith not."

I am not judging here, simply observing that we do not have, as I always thought, an Affidavit signed by 30+ observers. For instance Wiki reports it like this "[a] handwritten and notarized affidavit[11] with the signatures of more than 35 eyewitnesses exists as proof of this feat." But this is false.

Here's more on dates. Wiki reports the run was on the 19th and 20th. Signatures were collected on the 19th. How do you certify something that is not yet complete? Affidavit not executed until six days later? Note, the only date on the affidavit is above the Notary's signature. This is when it was executed -- it might have existed, unsigned by Todd and not notarized, for days before. THE DEVIL IS ALWAYS IN THE DETAILS.

[Black-Balled]

Witnesseth.

You subsequently added to Charles "Danny" Harriman's banned list.

Who want summa dat?

Originally Posted by Biloxi Boy

Ya'll are determined to make me work.

Todd "being first duly sworn" -- clear enough

"deposes" -- indicates a statement, oral or written, under oath

"Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence" -- sounds like he swore to it to me.

As an interesting sidenote, notice the retro language in the 1954 Ohio affidavit: "Further affiant saith not." I have always ended my Mississippi affidavits: "Affiant further saith not."

I am not judging here, simply observing that we do not have, as I always thought, an Affidavit signed by 30+ observers. For instance Wiki reports it like this "[a] handwritten and notarized affidavit[11] with the signatures of more than 35 eyewitnesses exists as proof of this feat." But this is false.

Heres more on dates. Wiki reports the run was on the 19th and 20th. Signatures were collected on the 19th. How do you certify something that is not yet complete? Affidavit not executed until six days later? Note, the only date on the affidavit is above the Notary's signature. This is when it was executed -- it might have existed, unsigned by Todd and not notarized, for days before. THE DEVIL IS ALWAYS IN THE DETAILS.

[xradarx]

It will apparently appear in the next 'A Game of Pool' in the Twilight Zone, Episode 626, if it ever gets that far. bye uno

[ShootingArts]

Originally Posted by Biloxi Boy

Hu -- still in mississippi, the signature of two witnesses will substitue for an "Acknowledgement" on a deed but I want to say one of the witnesses has to appear before a notary and give a witness's acknowledgement (you need an acknowledgement to record).

Also, in the Mosconi docs, since the multiple signatures were made before the Affidavit, and its sig. and contents, existed, the multiple signatures could not be construed as supporting affd. or contents.

As I mentioned, last I knew in Louisiana it can vary with the document, no doubt partially because we are the only state in the union with our state laws based on French rather than English law. Some documents, two witnesses as good as gold, others different things apply. I haven't kept up with the laws, may have changed. I have bought and sold over a hundred thousand dollars worth of land on agreements I wrote on the back of junk mail envelopes! Always seemed to have a few of them in the truck even if they had gotten stomped down into the floorboards and dirtied.

The signatures are meaningless for what is on the other side of the paper, a different document. However, if you read the document above the witnesses signatures it says essentially the same thing and they are valid witnesses to that statement. Interesting that they typed the notarized statement on the back of the handwritten one, makes it so they can never be separated.

Another bit that I don't know where all applies, in Louisiana a handwritten document bears more weight than a typed one, at least in some instances.

We could go crazy trying to figure out the law where it happened, in 1954!

Hu

[AtLarge]

Originally Posted by xradarx

AS compared to the JS626 witness statement for all jonny-come-lately's. Not one witness stated that they, in fact attended the entire 4 hours and 7 minutes, of the run. No notary signed certification available to be included. Mosconi's is notary signed and stamped with a seal and on record in the Smithsonian Institute.

The documents for Schmidt are the same as for Mosconi -- a certification signed by the witnesses (37 for Mosconi, 8 for Schmidt) and an affidavit, referring to the certification, signed a few days later by one of the witnesses and a notary public.

[Danny Harriman]

Originally Posted by Bob Jewett

Guinness has essentially no official records. Those are not, for the most part, interesting to their customers.

Just go onto their site and do a search. Here are part of their "billiard" records:
Attachment 560003

U won't be able to dance around the truth forever on j.s and bca corruption bob the scholar. Purty soon will hear bout how u need to virtually flatten the curve of doubt regarding the edited 626 hoax. Hey scholarly bob - what is the rule for claiming to have surpassed Mosconi's eh - true World Record - and not show verifiable proof of having accomplished it? I looked at j.s. predator 626 advertisement, in the comment section below there seemed to be many posters who were looking for their own private copy to purchase. Alot of them were asking when is the unedited video going to be available? It was a reoccurring question in the comment section of their high light 'reel deel' ? What do you tell those people in the comment section of the bogus 626 advertisement - who are genuinely interested in seeing an unedited version of this so called historic run? Are u really going to say there was a virtual showing in a couple theaters out West and or that it is their property so they can do what they want, when fake news catalysts decide to go after 14.1 - they will find it - not the easy street as they once thought. I really don't think u, bca, predator cues or j.s. will have a viable answer - to give - and that is a travesty. I understand there are many bogus Guinness records, however that does not give them the right to try and steal Mosconi's World Record - without first providing unedited proof - to those who really care about 14.1. Mosconi's run is not the property of bca - thank God.

[lfigueroa]

Originally Posted by Biloxi Boy

Yes, it is clear to a trained mind. Read the document titled "Affidavit" -- it tells you that only one person appeared and was sworn. Give me a break.

Maybe your mind needs a little more training because the affidavit also says he "...personally observed the signing of the same by many of the signers." So it's more than just about one guy.

In any case, anyone (with or without a trained mind) can clearly see what the intent of the affidavit was -- guys that went out to see Mosconi put on an exhibition and saw something great and wanted to attest to that for posterity.

Lou Figueroa

[lfigueroa]

Originally Posted by jimmyg

Correct, two separate documents....the notarized statement was executed on the 24th of March while the "run" and "witness statement" occurred on the 19th of March...evidently, there wasn't a notary present during the run to verify all of the signatures of the witnesses. That being said, a witness statement containing that many witnesses would/should stand up to logic as well as law.

By the way, I'm sure that you realize that a "notarized" statement only means that the identity of the signatory was verified by the notary...nothing more.

Thank you.

Lou Figueroa

[lfigueroa]

Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson

Yes - I could get a statement notarized today that "certifies" I saw Travis Trotter run 1,000 in rotation. Isn't evidence of anything except I am who I say I am.

I bet the naysayers today would have been naysayers regarding Willie's run too...

pj
chgo

Very logical.

Lou Figueroa

[jimmyg]

Originally Posted by Danny Harriman

I knew u would be one of the 1st one's to use the term virtual or virtually, essential 'bob the scholar'. we will see bout the 'virtual mystery tape' - eventually - no virtual platform - will there be 4 u or bca. the chopped video of ur all's mystery 626 is not showing much virtue at this point in time - and I'm not alone in my opinion (as u are very aware of). Guiness could start a new type of record, the basic premise could be how long a fraudulent claim can be made - without showing verifiable evidence. U won't be able to dance around the truth forever on j.s and bca corruption bob the scholar.

The "chain of custody" of the original tape needs to be documented and verified from the moment it is created...it also need to be examined and determined to be undoctored by an independent "expert".

The more important the claim, the more documentation needs to be provided.

[lfigueroa]

Originally Posted by Biloxi Boy

Ya'll are determined to make me work.

Todd "being first duly sworn" -- clear enough

"deposes" -- indicates a statement, oral or written, under oath

"Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence" -- sounds like he swore to it to me.

As an interesting sidenote, notice the retro language in the 1954 Ohio affidavit: "Further affiant saith not." I have always ended my Mississippi affidavits: "Affiant further saith not."

I am not judging here, simply observing that we do not have, as I always thought, an Affidavit signed by 30+ observers. For instance Wiki reports it like this "[a] handwritten and notarized affidavit[11] with the signatures of more than 35 eyewitnesses exists as proof of this feat." But this is false.

Here's more on dates. Wiki reports the run was on the 19th and 20th. Signatures were collected on the 19th. How do you certify something that is not yet complete? Affidavit not executed until six days later? Note, the only date on the affidavit is above the Notary's signature. This is when it was executed -- it might have existed, unsigned by Todd and not notarized, for days before. THE DEVIL IS ALWAYS IN THE DETAILS.

lol, you really undermine whatever credibility you think you have by using Wiki as a reference for your argument but anywhos, just in case you can't figure it out: the exhibition started the evening of the 19th and then he kept going past midnight.

oh my.

Everyone considered it the night of the 19th.

Lou Figueroa

[lfigueroa]

Originally Posted by jimmyg

The "chain of custody" of the original tape needs to be documented and verified from the moment it is created...it also need to be examined and determined to be undoctored by an independent "expert".

The more important the claim, the more documentation needs to be provided.

The Sagan Standard
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Lou Figueroa

[ShootingArts]

Originally Posted by jay helfert

I love you Hu but 160 games! C'mon man, that's a stretch. I have held the table in bars playing Eight Ball from 9 PM to 2 AM closing time on a couple of occasions. And this was on a 7' table against mostly weak opposition. I may have won fifty to sixty games each time. You just can't play that many more games in that period of time.

My partner and I went in a place one evening, still daylight. As usually I let him lead about five minutes. When I went in he was on the only table playing somebody. A couple ladies sitting alone, the only females in the place. It was a cowboy honky-tonk on a weeknight. Hundreds in there on the weekends, maybe a dozen or so now, still early.

I ambled over to the ladies and offered to buy them a drink. They asked for little Millers. Cool, cheap dates! I sat and watched Bobby pocketing fives most regular for awhile, then decided I had better get a challenge up. Bobby didn't always remember the split!

Bobby held the table until my challenge came up, then missed a ball. If he missed a ball playing me I always considered it the signal to take over so I did. I was a long haired bearded stranger, in denim and cowboy boots of the semi-round toe variety. All I wore for a decade or two. No ballcap or I would have looked like most except that beard. Anything but a gray beard screamed hippie back then!

Bobby was known there and was known to scuffle and fight even though he wasn't big. Did a little whittling on occasion too. It was soon obvious that we were together since Bobby and the girls came over to watch and I was flipping him a five to get all four of us a beer when needed. Normally somebody would have picked a fight or even a cutting but taking on the pair of me and Bobby both didn't have much appeal.

Even on that bucket pocketed table only a handful of the guys were a threat to run out. I backed off playing the absolute bangers, made the few that could run three balls think they might get a chance. At the peak I had fifteen or twenty guys challenging the table and with it being fifty cents a game some were putting up five or ten dollars at a time. Nobody really thought they could beat me by then but they all wanted to be the one on the table when I beat myself! How they kept up with challenges was curious to me even that night. A few quick discussions but mostly things stayed very orderly.

Nine foot table, no quarters on the pocket irons. At one time there were one quarter wide challenges covering one long rail and three-quarters of the way up the other long rail. That was roughly 120 challenges on the table at one time! This isn't counting the hour or so before it built up to that or after it started tapering down. People were quitting the game to go straight to work the next morning.

After being the only one buying beer for four all night, and I went through a lot of beer playing pool back then, I stepped out into the bright sunlight the next morning with over eight hundred in fives, two lounge lizards, and a short parade(everybody left in the place) escorting me, Bobby, and the girls to the truck! A warmed over 454 under my hood, once in my truck nobody was catching me.

Being out of work in the seventies those challenges represented a lot of money to me and I knew if I lost a game I was going to be frozen out for a long time so I had to win every game.

This was an area I raced cars in and drank buckets of beer in the stands when I wasn't racing but without Bobby to steer not a direction I had played pool in although not much over an hour from home. I had let the ponies run that first night, a dumb move. Showed up about a month later, I put my money up and won two or three games before the rest of the challenges were pulled off the table. Another month or two I tried again. I put my money up, everyone pulled their challenges. Shoulda milked the cow for years instead of butchering it.

Hu