Sandra Vi going for record across America

Ok, I just started browsing through some of Mimi's data on Movescount and I'm seeing something suspicious. Look at the speed/pace graph on the Movescount data for the Oct 2, 2017 Afternoon run, it is completely robotic and unnatural. It looks nothing like what is on Strava for the same run. Also compare that Oct 2, 2017 Afternoon Movescount to other Movescount uploads and you will see that the speed/pace is so odd looking. It doesn't look anything at all like from a runner. In fact, the speed/pace is so regular it looks like it was a poorly done computer generated spoof or it was recorded from someone riding a bike/car:

https://imgur.com/a/vFFjJ

http://www.movescount.com/moves/move179690605

https://www.strava.com/athletes/13566252

Proof wrote:

Many people probably believe that you would be unable to spoof on Movescount several days worth of data showing that it comes from a Suunto Spartan watch. Maybe you can prove to disbelievers that it is possible.

How many times have I proven URC wrong?

Results wrote:

I just clicked on this one at random and it seems even more fuzzy with regard to cadence:

http://www.movescount.com/moves/move176494328

She did around 14:40 miles per hour up an elevation of almost 4000 feet. She also did this in temperatures from 100-110 degrees F. Likely a lot of water stops in there, so the time is even more remarkable.

I dunno, it looks reasonable enough to me. The climb was from 157 to 1071 meters, which is 941m or 2999 feet. That was spread out over 13 miles, which works out to a 4.4% average grade. It's a decent hill climb, but nothing extreme. She started the run at 4:57am, when according to weather data for that date, the temperature was around 65F climbing to 75F when she reached the top of the hill (see

) The 100-110F reported by the Suunto watch is the temperature on her skin (or her wristband). Those watch-based thermometers always read way too high in my experience, and are next to useless.

All this 'Marvelous Mimi' self aggrandisement stuff is enough to turn me off this woman.

Then you start adding the suspect recording for the first couple of weeks, then blaming Race Drone and throwing them under the bus, then some of the things Terrible Tim has said and done, then Jackarse Jenny..., etc, etc.

Here is another suspicious of Mimi's Movescount uploads, look towards the end of the run on the speed/pace graph for this October 1, 2017 Afternoon run where about 1.5 hours was recorded of very unnatural looking speed/pace that looks like it is yet again not from a runner.

I'm going to go through all of Mimi's Movescount data later on to identify all the data that seemingly is not from a runner. You guys may be able to do it faster.

http://www.movescount.com/moves/move179539234

not 1024 wrote:

Um, try again? Maybe with a calculator this time?

You missed the really big. You can find it on Mimi's Gamin where is still exitst

MIMI OCT 2: 10:37:00 AM Elev 2064.47 ft, and then 10:39:00 AM Elev 1632.74.

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

Proof wrote:

Many people probably believe that you would be unable to spoof on Movescount several days worth of data showing that it comes from a Suunto Spartan watch. Maybe you can prove to disbelievers that it is possible.

How many times have I proven URC wrong?

Is that a "Yes" or "No" that you will demonstrate several days of spoofed data on Movescount showing that it is coming from a similar watch?

Proof wrote:

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

How many times have I proven URC wrong?

Is that a "Yes" or "No" that you will demonstrate several days of spoofed data on Movescount showing that it is coming from a similar watch?

I don't think I need to since it looks like I may have found a smoking gun on Mimi's Movescount data that indicates cheating by simply looking at the ridiculous speed plots:

I have a cheesy wang wrote:

Scam the man is a dirty c u nt who fu cks spaniels. I have proof but I'm not sharing it (basically my spaniel has a cummy loose bottom because of him).

But you see, I am sharing the proof the indicates cheating. It's right there in Mimi's own Movescount data.

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

I'm going to go through all of Mimi's Movescount data later on to identify all the data that seemingly is not from a runner. You guys may be able to do it faster.

Maybe something human powered like an Eliptigo or a recombinant bike. Or, with tweaked heart rate data a gasoline powered stand up type scooter.

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

But you see, I am sharing the proof the indicates cheating. It's right there in Mimi's own Movescount data.

Mimi's fanclub will never believe anything except Mimi's word.

BTW: Edit the Subject title when the URC trolls change it.

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

Ok, I just started browsing through some of Mimi's data on Movescount and I'm seeing something suspicious. Look at the speed/pace graph on the Movescount data for the Oct 2, 2017 Afternoon run, it is completely robotic and unnatural. It looks nothing like what is on Strava for the same run.

I don't see any discrepancy: the Movescount and Strava data for speed/pace agree. The graph of the Movescount data has a larger range on the vertical scale, so it makes the speed look flatter if you don't check the Y-axis scale. The Movescount data also looks quantized or rounded, maybe by their graph widget. But the speed numbers look the same between Movescount and Strava, once you convert minutes/km to minutes/mile.

stay on it buddy!

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

...just started browsing through some of Mimi's data on Movescount and I'm seeing something suspicious. ...it is completely robotic and unnatural. It looks nothing like what is on Strava for the same run.

Also compare that Oct 2, 2017 Afternoon Movescount to other Movescount uploads and you will see that the speed/pace is so odd looking. It doesn't look anything at all like from a runner. In fact, the speed/pace is so regular it looks like it was a poorly done computer generated spoof or it was recorded from someone riding a bike/car:

I'm not saying she's cheating, just that the cadence looked odd to me because of the big range. Honestly I don't know what faked cadence data would look like.

I didn't know that the watches taking skin temperature. That seems kind of pointless, and as you said I think she wears them over armbands. If she was running in 70 degree weather that's a lot easier than 115 so it makes the time and distance more believable. Someone in this thread has said she'd been running in temperatures over 100 degrees but I'm not sure when that way. Anyway, it's not a major point, just something I thought interesting.

not 1024 wrote:

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

Ok, I just started browsing through some of Mimi's data on Movescount and I'm seeing something suspicious. Look at the speed/pace graph on the Movescount data for the Oct 2, 2017 Afternoon run, it is completely robotic and unnatural. It looks nothing like what is on Strava for the same run.

I don't see any discrepancy: the Movescount and Strava data for speed/pace agree. The graph of the Movescount data has a larger range on the vertical scale, so it makes the speed look flatter if you don't check the Y-axis scale. The Movescount data also looks quantized or rounded, maybe by their graph widget. But the speed numbers look the same between Movescount and Strava, once you convert minutes/km to minutes/mile.

It doesn't look to be a rounding or quantizing issue at all. Just look at the first 75% of the speed plot from that Movescount and then look at the remainder of it. No quantizing or rounding in the first 75% and then a sudden change to extremely steady speeds that is nothing like a runner puts out.

not 1024 wrote:

Scam_Watcheroo wrote:

Ok, I just started browsing through some of Mimi's data on Movescount and I'm seeing something suspicious. Look at the speed/pace graph on the Movescount data for the Oct 2, 2017 Afternoon run, it is completely robotic and unnatural. It looks nothing like what is on Strava for the same run.

I don't see any discrepancy: the Movescount and Strava data for speed/pace agree. The graph of the Movescount data has a larger range on the vertical scale, so it makes the speed look flatter if you don't check the Y-axis scale. The Movescount data also looks quantized or rounded, maybe by their graph widget. But the speed numbers look the same between Movescount and Strava, once you convert minutes/km to minutes/mile.

I see the pace varying a couple minutes per mile or more. I think it's important that she keeps the pace relatively even while running across a state as exciting and Kansas.

Makes sense wrote:

I see the pace varying a couple minutes per mile or more.

This is a sign of a distressed runner.

Makes sense wrote:

not 1024 wrote:

I don't see any discrepancy: the Movescount and Strava data for speed/pace agree. The graph of the Movescount data has a larger range on the vertical scale, so it makes the speed look flatter if you don't check the Y-axis scale. The Movescount data also looks quantized or rounded, maybe by their graph widget. But the speed numbers look the same between Movescount and Strava, once you convert minutes/km to minutes/mile.

I see the pace varying a couple minutes per mile or more. I think it's important that she keeps the pace relatively even while running across a state as exciting and Kansas.

That movescount data is very odd. If you place your cursor over the graph on those flat sections, her pace is exactly the same for the whole section. There's not a runner alive who can maintain the exact same pace to the second for a period of a mile. Then you add in elevation changes.

This is very strange for sure. I'm not sure you could do this even on a bike or in a car?

The URC trolls keep changing the thread subject title. Please edit the subject name when replying to these trolls.