Anyway, some words from a guy who does Photoshop for a living:

The only real way you could tell that the numbers weren't faked (other than the math, but I'm talkin' on a well-thought out calculations and stuff, and on a REALLY GOOD Photoshop fake) would be to chemical test the inks on a real one and the said slip. Paper wrinkles can easily be added to the slip shown here, and you could also fake faded ink with it as well, just as easily. CaliKid's timeslip photo can also be altered very easily, even with MS Paint (seriously!). You could even go as far as to tape a real timeslip paper to another paper, then print on it using an inkjet printer to make it look real.

JazzMan's evidence: I compared them myself, using layers in Photoshop... the pixels are EXACTLY THE SAME. NO scanned image on the planet can do such a thing, and even without the math evidence, this is more than enough to prove this fake.

Edit: Sorry Im dumb

Run the numbers again. He'd have had to AVERAGE almost 134 mph the entire last half of the 1/4 mile, yet his trap speed was only 2 mph faster than that.

No way, no how. The numbers just don't add up.

Even in your example, the Viper had a 146 mph trap speed. THAT might make it possible, but that still doesn't account for the 1,000' time to 1/4 mile time discrepancy.

Nope, never happened like the slip showed.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by John Boelte: The way I see it, in the last half of the quater mile, GT-X accelerated 44.75 MPH in 3.27 seconds. He did that with a claimed 508 HP and 540 lbs/ft of torque. Seems reasonable to me. I hereby your ! I've seen video of a Viper doing similar things. His 1/8th mile didn't go so well, he did a lot of slipping and spinning, then he hooked up and finished with something crazy like 11 seconds and 146 MPH. I thnk the video is at http:www.racingflix.com GT-X - My congratulations to you. Hopefully you can forgive our friends.

I think you're a bit confused

The timeslip has pretty much been debunked, both by direct observation of the pixels and by mathematics. The number probably represents the margin by which the right car won.

I invite you to look over the numbers I posted on the last page. According to his time slip, for him to do what the slip says he did, he would have had to go over 200mph, then slow back down. If you can find error in my math, please show me.

I won't argue photoshopping, because it can be done well enough not to be detected, but the numbers don't lie.

I'm a huge V8 fan and really want to see a V8 Fiero running 10's and 11's, but I have to hold a V8 owner to the same standard I would hold a V6 owner to. This timeslip just doesn't get it. And I would have been trilled with an 11sec pass, too.

It may seem reasonable, until you start looking at how much time elapsed between the 1000 foot mark and the 1/4 mile mark. That distance is 320 feet. And the fake timeslip shows that he covered that distance in 0.962 seconds. Well, speed is miles per hour, or distance per time. This is a simple proportion, solving for miles gives us an average speed over that 320 feet of 226.8 MPH. That's how fast he would have to be going for the entire 320 feet to do it in 0.962 seconds. Since he showed a trap speed of 136.66 MPH, that means he would have had to slam on the brakes and lost almost 100 MPH in the last few feet of the final 320 feet of the track. And to maintain the average, he would have had to have been going well over 300 MPH in the first part of that 320 foot of track. Do you see where this is going? The more you look at it, the more squirrely the data gets. His acceleration profile would need to look like the stock market tech bubble to fit his data.

Because there are other numbers on that very same piece of 'paper' that are exactly the same:

These are the numbers JazzMan was talking about, the 1/4mi times and trap speed from the left column. The 'borrowed' numbers are from the right column's 330 ft reading, and the far left column's "1000".

The pixel distortion is caused by the JPEG compression used on the original image. No distortion was caused what-so-ever from the GIF conversion. This GIF contains the exact pixels in the timeslip image, blown up 400% so you can see the similarities. The pixels you see are exactly as you would see them on the original JPEG image.

Borgio and sqoach - Thanks for sticking up for me. I appreciate it.