I have reason to believe that it is someone not David Race, but rather
someone who used to be friends with Rudy Ferretti.
Still, The reupload to YouTube is protected by US Law especially since it leaks private details of a
lawsuit which she is just openly telling another person. Just made Billy and the Law Firm look like clowns IMO.
Like I don't understand why such details of the lawsuit made it out of Billy, but why isn't it mentioned publicly like Billy claimed
"Everything would be transparent." So you'll tell your best friends private details of a huge lawsuit?
Was he not consulted to not speak of the details to anyone or press?
Withheld information is the worst. Put it up and get on with it.
Can you elaborate a bit on this point:
Specifically, which private details and what statutes (federal or state) are being ignored? Also, who or what is being protected? I'm genuinely interested in understanding what you're saying here.
Ok re-read it a few more times: You're saying you're *not* worried about some sort of lawsuit/charge because you're uploaded the audio?
i feel especially paranoid with the need to point out i'm not a lawyer and nothing i say is legal advice, just repeating my understanding based on many news stories i've read over the years
usually whats illegal is HOW you obtain the info, not sharing it.
so if someone steals classified info like snowden they can go to jail, but once he releases the info he stole anyone else is free to share it. it was the stealing, not the sharing of the info that was illegal.
The person in question is trying to have it removed from YouTube.
The private details in question are supposed to be as stated usually by law firms to not be released, however
an individual without "client privilege" released this information. This isn't the part that is illegal.
The removal of public information from the media is something of a blind field.
The individual who re-uploaded to Youtube is protected within US law.
"You're saying you're *not* worried about some sort of lawsuit/charge because you're uploaded the audio?"
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but I didn't upload the audio or the one who re-uploaded.
I was merely sent this a few days ago and decided to share it in hopes that the person who did comes forward so that we may ask what their position is in all of this and why are details or bogus statements about the case being disclosed.
If you're suggesting that getting the link above makes it against the law, much could be said the same for any message sent to anyone.
Like if I sent Jace a private message of something fake and he reshares that. I hope you're not suggesting sharing is against the law.
Jace was made well aware of this in private before I posted it at all.
There have been conflicting stories for years surrounding Billy Mitchell and the subject of the perfect Pac-Man and Donkey Kong.
Chris Ayra, in a public forum and in conversations with me and others, presented his account of Billy and himself achieving perfect games in 1983 and 84.
The story, as Billy tells it, is different. He claims that he and Chris had only discovered the secret to getting a perfect game and the only other person who was in the know was Walter Day. Over the years, the story may have been recounted as them getting a perfect past the 6th key, but Billy never gives the impression he actually achieved a perfect game. It also appears that even Chris went along with this story for some time.
When I told Rick Fothergill that Chris told me he and Billy achieved perfect games with scores of 3,333,360, he replied by saying that was not what Chris told him.
Rick confronted Chris, and Chris apologized for lying to him.
I believe Chris has more integrity than Billy ever will. Unfortunately, I believe he went along with Billy in order to prop up the narrative that the first perfect Pac-Man occurred in 1999 because that is where Billy wanted to focus the attention.
I believe he sought to give the impression this was such a monumental feat that it took almost 20 years for anyone to do it.
The truth, that it only took about 3 years, doesn't sound as impressive.
After all, Bill Bastable had already achieved a perfect eat, arriving at the split screen on his first man in 1982. If he had known about the 9 regenerating dots at that time, Pac-Man history may have been far different.
However, I don't remember Chris saying anything about Walter knowing they had actually achieved perfect games.
If Walter had known about another Billy Mitchell perfect game in Tokyo, Japan, just a couple months after the one at Funspot, it is unthinkable that he wouldn't have publicized it. This, however, was one of the claims Billy made in his statement submitted with his evidence package.
Billy told me the "evidence package" was never intended to be made public. After all, you can't call someone out for lying if you don't know about it. Interestingly, this element of his original statement was left out of his recent filings. It doesn't matter though. His fraudulent statement can still be admitted into evidence.
On the other hand, if Walter subsequently discovered that Billy achieved a perfect game in 1983, although not official, such would shatter the illusion which had been built up over time and detract from Billy's mythical narrative. After all, this would show that two gamers had already maxed out the game, and only within 5 months of each other - Billy in November 1983 and Chris in April 1984.
I do believe Billy achieved a perfect game at Funspot in 1999. This is wholly apart from whether he violated a gentlemen's agreement (he did), or whether TG should have accepted it.
Robert Mruczek can attest to the fact that there were 3 VHS tapes which contained Billy's perfect Pac-Man game. Robert admits he only watched portions of the game, but he told me that he specifically watched the end where Billy arrived at the split screen and started calling people on his cell phone. (Clarification - 09/15/2020, 11:09PM : Just so no one gets the wrong impression, Robert Mruczek was not even a referee when Billy's perfect Pac-Man was entered into the datsbase. A few years after, Walter sent him two boxes of recordings, amongst them were 3 VHS tapes which contained Billy's perfect Pac-Man game. Robert only watched portions of the game out of curiosity. He had never been tasked to adjudicate or verify this score.)
So unless there is some new evidence which would in some way call into question this game, whether one likes it or not, Billy achieved a perfect game at Funspot on an original arcade unit.
Now, with respect to Billy's DK score of 874,300, there are conflicting accounts. I have heard the first kill screen occurred during the timeframe of the Life magazine shoot in November 1982, but I have also seen Twin Galaxies reference this score as having been achieved on July 13, 1982.
The purported 1,050,200 score was reported by TG as taking place exactly 25 years after his 874K game. That date was also reported to be July 13, 2007 by Todd Rogers. It wasn't until this year that the date was changed in one of Billy's initial court filings to reflect July 14, 2007. Guinness then followed suit by parroting this new date in their reinstatement announcement.
There was confusion on this issue as some thought the July 1982 game may not have been the kill screen game but simply his personal best at the time.
Given this, I do remember Billy communicating to me that his first DK killscreen was in fact in July of 1982. He stated it as "history's first" Donkey Kong killscreen. Of course we know the date that is now being put forth for the 874,300 game is November 7, 1982, reflected in the Guinness announcement and one of Billy's subsequent court motions.
What is interesting is that the 874,300 score was listed in Walter's first edition of his record book(1998) as having taken place on July 2, 1985, the same day that is listed for Billy's DK Jr. score of 957,300.
What seems undeniable to me is that Billy is seeking to rewrite history by using the justice system, thinking that whoever presides over this case will be no wiser.
Remember the 1,047,200 game was said to have taken place on June 7, 2004 and was consistently reported as such for close to 14 years. Now, in one of Billy's recent filings, he claims it occurred "on or about December 28, 2004".
There is a clear pattern of unethical behavior, involving revisionism and attempts to RetCon, not only the gaming community, but lawyers representing him, potential judge(s) and jury, as well as the general public.
Keep in mind the following is what Billy James Mitchell IV (aka Billy Jr.) told me:
"I don't really know if the tapes are real or fake, and neither will a jury. They will know what 30+ witnesses have to say."
The impression given is that a jury will only know what our witnesses tell them, while the heart of the matter, the technical evidence will be dismissed.
Since it can be shown that certain statements from these "witnesses" contain provably false claims, and that one of the witnesses was manipulated into signing something he never affirmed, not to mention another "witness" was recently charged with fraud, I think a good case can be made for witness tampering, deception, and the application of undue influence to present testimony in favor of the plaintiff.
I think a judge would be very interested in such things, don't you?
Thank you for sharing your knowledge of competitive Pac-Man history and the issues you've identified when comparing the different accounts that are out there, particularly with statements made in the most recent Mitchell evidence submissions. It's interesting to think about a legal strategy that presumes the jury will be unable to consider the technical evidence at all, thereby leaving them "no choice" but to lend all weight to the witness statements. If the case does proceed to trial, I suspect the jury will be interested in hearing from a number of witnesses, even those who didn't appear in the latest court submissions but were central actors in the original dispute and later in the original Evidence Package, such as Robert Childs.
Turning to Pac-Man history again, one thing that caught my eye was that in an earlier discussion (I think) you included a scan of the Pac-Man scores found in the 2006 edition of the Twin Galaxies' Official Video Game & Pinball Book of World Records - Arcade Edition - it cited Mitchell's perfect game as a video submission. I think that Rick Fothergill's entry said the location of the score was "home arcade" or something like that, not Funspot. Did Fothergill achieve his Perfect Pac-Man in Ontario or did he travel down to Funspot in late July 1999 to perform the game there? Mitchell has mentioned in other places that Fothergill got his Perfect Pac on the Funspot machine, and I had assumed this was the case until I saw the TG Book scan.
Rick Fothergill DID achieve his perfect Pac-Man at Funspot on 07-31-1999.Attachment 114962
Walter posted the wrong location for Rick, but correctly notes the type of submission.
Thanks for the clarification David.
For general reference in the thread, here's a link to a June 2003 interview with Mitchell from the Broward Palm Beach New Times entitled "Arcade King." The article recounts the Perfect Pac-Man and some info on Mitchell's desire to achieve a million point DK score at Funspot:
There are several different accounts of Mitchell's Funspot visit out there, but I think this is the second article I read where it's claimed that Fothergill actually visited Funspot on July 1 to play against Mitchell head to head. They're not direct Mitchell quotes, so it's plausible the writer conflated the Funspot event in May with the July visit when reviewing notes. There's mention of taking breaks during the game, I know others in the past have talked about marathon rules, although Mitchell (or probably Billy Jr) in a previous tweet (now private or possibly deleted) indicated that Pac-Man wasn't classified as a marathon game, so the "break" rules wouldn't apply. In reference to Donkey Kong, apparently Mitchell pledged to announce a game date "soon" and then travel to Funspot to play for his million point DK game.
i spent alot of time reading the marathon rules old and new. mitchel's defense holds up. marathon rules, from everything i've seen, wouldnt have applied. now rules change all the time, so if anyone wants to claim a brief iteration of the rules aplied, fine, maybe but then the onus is on them to find any such evidence