Post Verdict Dispute Discussion: Jeremy Young - Arcade - Donkey Kong - Points [Hammer Allowed] - Player: Billy L Mitchell - Score: 1,062,800

  1. 06-29-2020, 03:08 AM
    If you want a good laugh, look at Mitchell's declaration exhibits (the recent 241-page one), go to "Exhibit 20" on page 69, titled "Chain of Custody Brief". Whoo, this thing is a real hoot! Let's check out some highlights:

    Name:  Chain of custody - 1.png
Views: 410
Size:  32.0 KB

    First up, we're back on the classic "Dwayne did it." They're not even beating around the bush, they're just like straight up "Dwayne altered Billy's tapes to frame him!" Also, check out that first sentence. It sure makes it sound like TG was out to get Billy before they even had the evidence to do so. Of course, in reality, this was all initiated by the publication of the MAME evidence by Jeremy Young. TG simply started looking into the matter once that evidence was published, and that included tracking down the tapes.

    Name:  Chain of custody - 2.png
Views: 420
Size:  610.5 KB

    Now we're gettin' to the good stuff! Yes, yes, added frames, gray border. Somehow the sketchiness of Billy's tapes gets twisted into proof someone edited them after the fact, and not proof they were bogus in the first place.

    Name:  Chain of custody - 3.png
Views: 445
Size:  60.8 KB

    Hahahahaha! This is wild! "Well, just because the game play is the same doesn't mean someone didn't unreel his VHS tape and use some sort of magic tool to draw little MAME signatures all over the transition frames. Nor does it mean they didn't rip the tape to their computer, edit frames in a video editor to draw little MAME signatures over each and every transition, while making sure these edited transitions are all consistent with the VHS quality of the surrounding playback, plus adding several other MAME identifiers while never missing an arcade transition or an arcade signature (like "rivet ramp" or "bonus before barrel") anywhere, and then re-recording it to the VHS without any loss in quality." Next they're going to try and tell us someone recreated all of Billy's exact game play and game RNG in a 2.5 hour MAME playthrough, while saying "tHiS iS nOt aN iNsUrMoUnTaBlE tAsK".

    Name:  Chain of custody - 4.png
Views: 412
Size:  54.8 KB

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!! Did they really just say that last part? "The load screens are too quick for the human eye, so how could anyone really tell the difference that easily? Also, you'd think someone would've seen this and brought it up years ago!" Don't tell me they let Billy Jr write this sh*t again. XD

    But no, they're still on this whole "TG lost the custody, Dwayne altered the tapes, You're trying to compare it to 2005 King of Kong footage even though you never see transition screens." Gosh, if only we had footage of Billy's tapes from 2005, which current TG never touched, which Dwayne never touched, and which did show transition screens. If only...

    Well, we don't have 2005, so I guess we'll have to settle for the footage we have from 2006:

    Name:  Chain of custody - 5.png
Views: 398
Size:  340.9 KB

    Funny how Billy never gets around to addressing this. It's like it didn't even happen.
  2. 06-29-2020, 03:23 AM
    Name:  Lakeman - Caption.png
Views: 395
Size:  31.6 KB

    "Type to enter a caption"?

    I mean, it's a little more polished than the Sept 2019 legal threat. There's not, like pages upside-down and sh*t. But still, did they actually do a once-over before hitting "Send"?
    Likes grinder2112, Von Krieger liked this post
  3. 06-29-2020, 06:59 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ersatz_cats View Post
    This is from Kimberly "Morningdove" Mahoney's statement:

    Attachment 112442

    Wait, I thought the story was that the machine was padlocked? How exactly were you able to confirm the machine was running on original, unmodified hardware? Did you have the key? Are you just guessing?
    If that's guessing, then that would be considered speculation. While I'm not legally certified, I have looked up types of objections in law, and speculation is a valid reason to disallow testimony.

    If it's not speculation, then it's a 'he said-she said' which proves that someone is not telling the truth. Either way, I'd say Billy's case isn't as solid as he'd like to think.
    Lauren Tyler
    Eternal Champion of Ragol
    Likes ersatz_cats liked this post
  4. 06-29-2020, 07:32 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by The Evener View Post
    ...
    In the release, Funspot supplied the camcorder/tapes used for the recording, and while Funspot staff were undoubtedly present and observed at least portions of Mitchell's game and presumably the split screen - perfect score moment (Mitchell started his attempts on July 2 I believe, and I recall spent the entire day at Funspot playing Pac-Man), I haven't read any contemporaneous reports where Funspot staff were identified as surrogate TG referees.
    this is an important point i think MANY gamers miss in relevance to "witnesses"

    having witnesses, i dont care if its millions of witnesess, if none of them vouch for you, then they arent "witnesses". just the fact people were there in no way lets us know what those people would testify seeing.

    being in the location doesnt mean you actually witnessed the event
    witnesses the event, but not testifying doesnt mean the witness supports your version
    further, and this is very relevant for games, seeing someone play/witnesseing doesnt mean you saw or know enough about the game to vouch for it. for example, did the witness just walk by for a minute? did they see the player play but never see the score? never see proper setting? how can they know the tapes and score from the event they saw match the entered score in question?

    something that really reminded of this was one of billy's witnesses, no i wont be saying names. not just cause we all have to careful with legal stuff, but because i'm bringing this up more as a general point for other scores by other players

    i was in one of the facebook arguments over a year ago on billy's score. one of the people witnesses the pacman -- cool i dont think any of deny the pacman. well sometime later for billys perfect pacman attempt, billy failed, hit the split screen, and this same person started celebrating pointing out how billly did the perfect again. othes pointed out bily didnt get it and would need to try again. he asked what the difference was, as long as you make it to the kill screen isnt the score the same? so this person (and again not shaming them, not doubting their character, just pointing out not all viewers are valid witnesses for gameplay) could watch a game and think a perfect pacman score was achieved when it clearly wasnt. didnt even know what the perfect score was or that invisible dots even exist. I think that shows pretty well how an honest person can truly witness something, but not quite know what they're witnesses

    so in reality, all any of these witnesses prove is that yes, they saw the player playing the game of that name. setting, score, and rules arent really "witnessed"
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Thanks Lauren Tyler thanked this post
    Likes Lauren Tyler, ersatz_cats liked this post
  5. 06-29-2020, 09:12 AM
    Thanks for sharing the results of your review, ersatz_cats.

    As you mentioned earlier, the GWR decision is woven through a lot of the Mitchell documents. Although it's relevance isn't clear to me in the context of the legal action, I'm nonetheless curious about the extent and scope of Guinness' review.

    For example, in the course of their investigation how did Guinness reconcile recognizing Mitchell as the first million point Donkey Kong player with his score of 1,047,200 when Mitchell declared in the very same package that he doesn't submit video taped world records, that the 1,047,200 score was never an official submission, that it was for entertainment purposes only?

    Were they troubled by contemporaneous TG forum posts from Walter who explained that RTM would verify the 1,047,200 tape when Walter later declared that Mitchell only submits live world records?

    How did Guinness react to Robert Childs statement that he created a video that was uploaded to his YouTube channel on the same day that Mitchell announced his world records at the 2010 IVGHOF entitled "After DK record Billy Mitchell goes for donkey kong junior record" that showed Childs swapping out PCBs at Boomers in Mitchell's presence (stated to be DK replaced by DK Jr by Childs before he decided to remove the video dialogue and replace it with classical music) but was in fact the same DK Jr PCB the entire time - a video that was apparently intended to be a promotional video done in the form of a near satire, information that was only divulged 8 years later ("you want to know what the fake board swap video was? It was a YouTube moment") in response to a direct question by Apollo Legend who travelled 3300 miles to do so at Childs' Florida arcade showroom during the height of the dispute?

    I know the core focus is on the technical (scientific) evidence concerning the use of original unmodified arcade PCB, but I would be interested in learning more about Guinness' methodology since the role of witness testimony was highlighted in their press release for reinstating the scores.

    So coming full circle, I was struck by what wasn't included in the new declarations as well as by what was found there - particularly in the latter case where, for example, arguments presented in Mitchell's collection of documents appear to (in my opinion) uphold and validate TG's approach to the witnesses statements contained in the original Evidence Package.
    Last edited by The Evener; 06-29-2020 at 12:30 PM.
    Likes ersatz_cats liked this post
  6. 06-29-2020, 01:45 PM
    Name:  FALSE CLAIMS SAMPLE_Page_1.png
Views: 384
Size:  186.6 KBName:  FALSE CLAIMS SAMPLE_Page_2.png
Views: 385
Size:  661.3 KB
    Name:  FALSE CLAIMS SAMPLE_Page_3.png
Views: 388
Size:  528.6 KB
    Name:  FALSE CLAIMS SAMPLE_Page_4.png
Views: 383
Size:  481.7 KBName:  FALSE CLAIMS SAMPLE_Page_5.png
Views: 388
Size:  102.5 KB
  7. 06-29-2020, 03:33 PM
    I got a question out of curiosity.......

    If the court accepts that Mitchells declaration is in fact a "false claim" (as per the TG evidence above) does that mean that Mitchell could be charged with perjury?

    Also, if there happen to be many proven "false claims" does that mean many charges of perjury?

    What's the penalty for perjury in the USA?


    just wondering.


    john

    .
  8. 06-29-2020, 05:07 PM
    According to a law firm's website in California:

    "Committing or suborning perjury in California is a felony and is punishable by up to four years in jail."
    Lauren Tyler
    Eternal Champion of Ragol
    Likes ersatz_cats, maximumsteve, Robert.F liked this post
  9. 06-29-2020, 08:48 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Lauren Tyler View Post
    According to a law firm's website in California:

    "Committing or suborning perjury in California is a felony and is punishable by up to four years in jail."


    OK. Thanks for the info.

    Hmmmm, jail.

    I'm pretty old and spent a lot of time in a mining town. I know a hell of a lot of peeps that have been to jail.
    They ALL give the same feedback (those I still speak/spoke to).......

    1.....there's free food (if another inmate doesn't take it off of you)

    2.....theres free accommodation (guaranteed)

    3.....there's free sex (guaranteed)

    4.....the above applies regardless if you are male or female, or how old you are. As per what I've been told.

    I just remembered, I know 2 peeps pretty well that went to jail for perjury. That was only about 4 years ago.

    I was going to apologize for maybe being off topic, but maybe I'm not? :)



    john

    .
    Likes maximumsteve liked this post
  10. 06-29-2020, 09:48 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by The Evener View Post
    Thanks for sharing the results of your review, ersatz_cats.

    As you mentioned earlier, the GWR decision is woven through a lot of the Mitchell documents. Although it's relevance isn't clear to me in the context of the legal action, I'm nonetheless curious about the extent and scope of Guinness' review.

    For example, in the course of their investigation how did Guinness reconcile recognizing Mitchell as the first million point Donkey Kong player with his score of 1,047,200 when Mitchell declared in the very same package that he doesn't submit video taped world records, that the 1,047,200 score was never an official submission, that it was for entertainment purposes only?

    Were they troubled by contemporaneous TG forum posts from Walter who explained that RTM would verify the 1,047,200 tape when Walter later declared that Mitchell only submits live world records?

    How did Guinness react to Robert Childs statement that he created a video that was uploaded to his YouTube channel on the same day that Mitchell announced his world records at the 2010 IVGHOF entitled "After DK record Billy Mitchell goes for donkey kong junior record" that showed Childs swapping out PCBs at Boomers in Mitchell's presence (stated to be DK replaced by DK Jr by Childs before he decided to remove the video dialogue and replace it with classical music) but was in fact the same DK Jr PCB the entire time - a video that was apparently intended to be a promotional video done in the form of a near satire, information that was only divulged 8 years later ("you want to know what the fake board swap video was? It was a YouTube moment") in response to a direct question by Apollo Legend who travelled 3300 miles to do so at Childs' Florida arcade showroom during the height of the dispute?

    I know the core focus is on the technical (scientific) evidence concerning the use of original unmodified arcade PCB, but I would be interested in learning more about Guinness' methodology since the role of witness testimony was highlighted in their press release for reinstating the scores.

    So coming full circle, I was struck by what wasn't included in the new declarations as well as by what was found there - particularly in the latter case where, for example, arguments presented in Mitchell's collection of documents appear to (in my opinion) uphold and validate TG's approach to the witnesses statements contained in the original Evidence Package.
    if we're gonna talk about guiness its worth mentioning, that unlike tg, guiness did in fact outright slander billy mitchel. they claimed he did ALL his world records on mame. and then stripped his records accodingly. such a libelous statement put them in a precarious predicament. oh gee, i wonder why they issued that statemnt in the first place, i choose not to publicly speculate, but i have my suspicions on why they put out such a fraudulent statment and screwed themselvves....
    If you have enjoyed this comment please consider clicking the "like" button
    Likes Robert.F liked this post
Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 13 21 22 23 24 25 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 259
Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 13 21 22 23 24 25 ... LastLast
Join us