Camcorder?

[andytube]

Is it essential to have a camcorder to hand whilst doing the challenge? My one is old and not much good now.

[palkanetoijala31]

Is it essential to have a camcorder to hand whilst doing the challenge? My one is old and not much good now.

Far too bulky most phones will do pretty good filming these days.unless ur going to do some kind of actually documentary and lots of filming its not worth it!.

[Sam]

A camcorder? Can't say I have ever taken one on any attempts, just used the "video" function on my mobile phone

[andytube]

But is it essential to get some video proof if one was to set a new record?

[Sam]

No

[palkanetoijala31]

Well you could always do what this guy did

http://youtu.be/Lh5Vq94Sljs (but no it isnt essential to film although it doesnt harm if u do of course )

[The Raven]

But is it essential to get some video proof if one was to set a new record?

Video proof is not essential, but useful evidence. A couple of photos with date-logs, a log of arrival and departure times for each station and witness statements will be required.

[andytube]

I was planning on purchasing one of the newer, lighter, more battery efficient camcorders, but just lost my job, so that purchase is on hold for now.

Will take loads of photos with the time/date stamp turned on. Although come to think about it, I can't see how to turn that function on (over to Google....).

[snudge27]

At the end of the day, it's the same as anything that requires proof; being in court, for example.

As long as you can provide a cromulent account of events, and back it up with evidence to prove it, then you should be believed. I imagine that Guinness would work on a more civil system of evidence, so if they can be 51% sure (on the balance of probabilities) that you've done it, that should be enough to tip the scales in your favour.

[Nigel]

At the end of the day, it's the same as anything that requires proof; being in court, for example.

As long as you can provide a cromulent account of events, and back it up with evidence to prove it, then you should be believed. I imagine that Guinness would work on a more civil system of evidence, so if they can be 51% sure (on the balance of probabilities) that you've done it, that should be enough to tip the scales in your favour.

Personally, I believe that Guinness should use the criminal burden of proof criterion, i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt. I suspect in practice they use neither, but instead their own garbled assessment of what is required.