I think the point is, that a zero knowledge proof only works between two parties, the proofer and the verifier. If I want to proof something to you I cant just say "Hey I showed it to Bob over there. Ask him if I'm telling the truth." But that doesnt really come through in the analogy.

> I think the point is, that a zero knowledge proof only works between two parties

Ah! I did not get that part of it. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't think the story made that part clear enough. For example, in the epilogue it says "Countless people saw Mick Ali on television, and he became famous."

But, as you say, one of the main points was that watching it on television shouldn't have been enough to convince the viewers at home. They could have been watching the faked version.

It would have been clearer if the epilogue had said "Countless viewers saw Mick Ali on television and remained skeptical, but the reporter himself was convinced Ali must have been telling the truth."

Yes, you must have missed something. If you want someone to help clarify it for you then you'll need to be more specific. Who do you think is cheating? How do you think they are cheating? Why do you think they are cheating?

And so on.