Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post

Saying his retirement date is not proof....is not proof he lied.
Saying that identifying machines is not proof...does not prove he didn't put down the play.
Saying that providing details does not prove anything....also doesn't disprove anything.

With time being what it is I put the probability that Rob's retirement date was just coincidence somewhere between slim and none. But you can always say it's possible....just like 18 yo's in a row is possible.

There is another piece of evidence I forgot to include. Rob told us the published sequence was wrong. KJochio, looking for evidence to shoot down Rob's story, contacted the author of the article and asked him about the sequence. The author told him he intentionally used a wrong sequence.

How could Rob have possibly known the published sequence was wrong if he had never worked the play? Of course, KJochio's assertion was some phantom person taught the sequence to Rob after the fact. Here's the problem with that assertion. Where did KJochio get that idea? HE FABRICATED IT to back his narrative.

Rob is a huge target in the gambling world. Why have these phantom people never come forward to tell us Rob is a fraud? I'll tell you why. PHANTOM'S ARE TOTALLY LACKING IN COMMUNICATION SKILLS. THEY CAN'T SEE, HEAR OR SPEAK.
Good evening, everyone.

I'm basically just appearing to back up MC's statement about the published sequence being wrong. Please note that I am not currently offering an opinion about whether or not Rob Singer did the DUB and have almost zero interest in the subject of whether or not he did it. I WOULD be interested in interviewing him if he could prove (to my satisfaction) that he did it, but I don't think he would care to participate in such an interview anyway.

Anyway, I've spoken to one of the individuals KNOWN to have done the DUB and can confirm that he believes something is inaccurate with the step-by-step in the WIRED article. I'm hoping to conduct a full-length interview with this individual one day, but he's not sure whether or not he can actually do it for reasons that I will not disclose here. The only thing that I can add is that this individual did not specifically say that the mistake (in the article) was intentional, but that doesn't mean it wasn't.