Is this GT2 Timeslip doctored? Check it out...
Thread Starter
Lexus Champion
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,426
Likes: 0
From: c
Is this GT2 Timeslip doctored? Check it out...
By an administrator? 
http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/s...threadid=12973
Read the first post, and then go to the 2nd page and read javasuperhero's post. Kind of fishy if you ask me.
http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/s...threadid=12973
Read the first post, and then go to the 2nd page and read javasuperhero's post. Kind of fishy if you ask me.
looks like someone got caught in a lie... that 8 looks crazy. It could be the printer, but the other eights are fine. thats what happens when you dump $16k on mods and they dont work...
haha i love stuff like these. why would people try to trick other people why they are not professional in that -- yet? i mean, you have a fast car, that's for real, why alter stuff?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shank, are you sure that timeslip hasn't been photoshopped? As a graphics guru, I found the following:
The trap speed has been altered. The "12" in the "128.92" is significantly smaller than the "8.92". My best guess is the "12" was taken from the smaller font used in the other parts of the timeslip. The "12" and "8" have been smushed together and are not straight. My best educated guess is that your true trap speed was a 118.92 and not 128.92.
The ET has also been doctored. The second "1" in "11.149" has been brought in from a different part of the timeslip as well. It does not match the size or distance of the rest of the numbers in the ET. Your ET was most likely a 12.149 and not an 11.149. So you ran a 12.149 @ 118.92 MPH.
Also, the "Ov/Un" entry of the timeslip shows a 11149 which was also doctored. It's no coincidence that the bogus ET uses all five of these numbers as well (11.149) in the same exact order.
Lastly, it's virtually impossible for your car to run 9.861 in the 1000' and 11.149 in the 1/4 mile. This would mean your car only needed 1.288 seconds to travel this distance! I checked numerous 9 and 10 second timeslips from various different AWD and RWD cars and not ONE could beat that 1.288. Those are 9 and 10 second cars! Your car needed 2.288 seconds since it ran a 12.149 and not 11.149.
Anyone who plays with graphics would know right away just by looking at the "8" in your trap speed that it was doctored. Doesn't that look awfully awkward to anyone else? The size just doesn't fit at all with the rest of the numbers. When you blow it up in your graphics program of choice there becomes ZERO doubt that this slip has numerous alterations.
I just thought I'd post the FACTS and not comment on possible motives or intentions...
The trap speed has been altered. The "12" in the "128.92" is significantly smaller than the "8.92". My best guess is the "12" was taken from the smaller font used in the other parts of the timeslip. The "12" and "8" have been smushed together and are not straight. My best educated guess is that your true trap speed was a 118.92 and not 128.92.
The ET has also been doctored. The second "1" in "11.149" has been brought in from a different part of the timeslip as well. It does not match the size or distance of the rest of the numbers in the ET. Your ET was most likely a 12.149 and not an 11.149. So you ran a 12.149 @ 118.92 MPH.
Also, the "Ov/Un" entry of the timeslip shows a 11149 which was also doctored. It's no coincidence that the bogus ET uses all five of these numbers as well (11.149) in the same exact order.
Lastly, it's virtually impossible for your car to run 9.861 in the 1000' and 11.149 in the 1/4 mile. This would mean your car only needed 1.288 seconds to travel this distance! I checked numerous 9 and 10 second timeslips from various different AWD and RWD cars and not ONE could beat that 1.288. Those are 9 and 10 second cars! Your car needed 2.288 seconds since it ran a 12.149 and not 11.149.
Anyone who plays with graphics would know right away just by looking at the "8" in your trap speed that it was doctored. Doesn't that look awfully awkward to anyone else? The size just doesn't fit at all with the rest of the numbers. When you blow it up in your graphics program of choice there becomes ZERO doubt that this slip has numerous alterations.
I just thought I'd post the FACTS and not comment on possible motives or intentions...
Originally posted by 1SICKLEX
Shank, are you sure that timeslip hasn't been photoshopped? As a graphics guru, I found the following:
The trap speed has been altered. The "12" in the "128.92" is significantly smaller than the "8.92". My best guess is the "12" was taken from the smaller font used in the other parts of the timeslip. The "12" and "8" have been smushed together and are not straight. My best educated guess is that your true trap speed was a 118.92 and not 128.92.
The ET has also been doctored. The second "1" in "11.149" has been brought in from a different part of the timeslip as well. It does not match the size or distance of the rest of the numbers in the ET. Your ET was most likely a 12.149 and not an 11.149. So you ran a 12.149 @ 118.92 MPH.
Also, the "Ov/Un" entry of the timeslip shows a 11149 which was also doctored. It's no coincidence that the bogus ET uses all five of these numbers as well (11.149) in the same exact order.
Lastly, it's virtually impossible for your car to run 9.861 in the 1000' and 11.149 in the 1/4 mile. This would mean your car only needed 1.288 seconds to travel this distance! I checked numerous 9 and 10 second timeslips from various different AWD and RWD cars and not ONE could beat that 1.288. Those are 9 and 10 second cars! Your car needed 2.288 seconds since it ran a 12.149 and not 11.149.
Anyone who plays with graphics would know right away just by looking at the "8" in your trap speed that it was doctored. Doesn't that look awfully awkward to anyone else? The size just doesn't fit at all with the rest of the numbers. When you blow it up in your graphics program of choice there becomes ZERO doubt that this slip has numerous alterations.
I just thought I'd post the FACTS and not comment on possible motives or intentions...
Shank, are you sure that timeslip hasn't been photoshopped? As a graphics guru, I found the following:
The trap speed has been altered. The "12" in the "128.92" is significantly smaller than the "8.92". My best guess is the "12" was taken from the smaller font used in the other parts of the timeslip. The "12" and "8" have been smushed together and are not straight. My best educated guess is that your true trap speed was a 118.92 and not 128.92.
The ET has also been doctored. The second "1" in "11.149" has been brought in from a different part of the timeslip as well. It does not match the size or distance of the rest of the numbers in the ET. Your ET was most likely a 12.149 and not an 11.149. So you ran a 12.149 @ 118.92 MPH.
Also, the "Ov/Un" entry of the timeslip shows a 11149 which was also doctored. It's no coincidence that the bogus ET uses all five of these numbers as well (11.149) in the same exact order.
Lastly, it's virtually impossible for your car to run 9.861 in the 1000' and 11.149 in the 1/4 mile. This would mean your car only needed 1.288 seconds to travel this distance! I checked numerous 9 and 10 second timeslips from various different AWD and RWD cars and not ONE could beat that 1.288. Those are 9 and 10 second cars! Your car needed 2.288 seconds since it ran a 12.149 and not 11.149.
Anyone who plays with graphics would know right away just by looking at the "8" in your trap speed that it was doctored. Doesn't that look awfully awkward to anyone else? The size just doesn't fit at all with the rest of the numbers. When you blow it up in your graphics program of choice there becomes ZERO doubt that this slip has numerous alterations.
I just thought I'd post the FACTS and not comment on possible motives or intentions...
Trending Topics
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/s...threadid=13025
The admin deleted it. I was gonna copy and post here the rea' vs fake timeslip. The above link is the arguement continued.
The admin deleted it. I was gonna copy and post here the rea' vs fake timeslip. The above link is the arguement continued.
ClubLexus Stories
Celebrating Lexus & Toyota from Around the Globe
Top 10 Most Confusing Things Lexus Has Ever Done!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Lexus ES Review: Lexus Re-Embraces Founding Principles
Michael S. Palmer
10 Lexus Bargains That are Cheaper Than a New Toyota RAV4
Joe Kucinski
8 Weirdest Things Lexus Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
10 Lexus Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
8 Tips for Improving Your Hybrid or Plug-in Hybrid's Efficiency!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Best Lexus Models No One Remembers
Joe Kucinski
TRD Off-Road Premium: Best 2026 4Runner, Except This One Thing
Michael S. Palmer
Top 10 Lexus & Toyotas to Drive Before You Die!
Joe Kucinski
Originally posted by 1SICKLEX
http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/s...threadid=13025
The admin deleted it. I was gonna copy and post here the rea' vs fake timeslip. The above link is the arguement continued.
http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/s...threadid=13025
The admin deleted it. I was gonna copy and post here the rea' vs fake timeslip. The above link is the arguement continued.
dunno, even if the time slip wasn't PS, java still posted one very weird timing (something from 1000' to 1/4 mile in 1.2 secs?). if even a 9 seconds car can't do it, how can that mere gt2 do it? the admin can brag all day about the other timing, but how can he himself explain this one?
btw, i don't know if it's just me or not, but does anyone think that the tone/way/attitude of how the admin speaks is kinda stupid and childish? i don't know, if it's from a member i might understand. but an admin driving a gt2? umm....
oh well, i don't have that car anyway, i don't want him to call me out for a race...
Lexus Fanatic
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 14,523
Likes: 3
From: new jersey
Rominl
agreed on his attiude
but i thought this was also interesting
wish i paid better attention in school
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ShankGT2
RMR what do you mean 169mph. How did you get that?
In my 12.0 run, I did 1.8 in the last 320', so what is that mph??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
take the 1.288 seconds in the last 320' and multiply it by 4, which gives you your ET for that 1/4 mile; 5.152 seconds, multiply by another 4 which gives you your 1 mile time at that rate of speed; 20.608 seconds.
We all agree that there are 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in every minute, so 60 minutes x 60 seconds is 3600 seconds in an hour: 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds.
So if 1 mile is 20.608 seconds then you can plug it in to the equation.
1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds
1 hour = 60 minutes = 20.608 seconds per mile
1 hour = 60 minutes = 174.69 miles per hour
any mathmaticians want to correct me? I am pretty sure I am right.
So in conclusion for that last 320' you were traveling at 174.69 miles per hour.
__________________
agreed on his attiude
but i thought this was also interesting
wish i paid better attention in school
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ShankGT2
RMR what do you mean 169mph. How did you get that?
In my 12.0 run, I did 1.8 in the last 320', so what is that mph??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
take the 1.288 seconds in the last 320' and multiply it by 4, which gives you your ET for that 1/4 mile; 5.152 seconds, multiply by another 4 which gives you your 1 mile time at that rate of speed; 20.608 seconds.
We all agree that there are 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in every minute, so 60 minutes x 60 seconds is 3600 seconds in an hour: 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds.
So if 1 mile is 20.608 seconds then you can plug it in to the equation.
1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds
1 hour = 60 minutes = 20.608 seconds per mile
1 hour = 60 minutes = 174.69 miles per hour
any mathmaticians want to correct me? I am pretty sure I am right.
So in conclusion for that last 320' you were traveling at 174.69 miles per hour.
__________________
Originally posted by T.L.W.
Rominl
agreed on his attiude
but i thought this was also interesting
wish i paid better attention in school
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ShankGT2
RMR what do you mean 169mph. How did you get that?
In my 12.0 run, I did 1.8 in the last 320', so what is that mph??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
take the 1.288 seconds in the last 320' and multiply it by 4, which gives you your ET for that 1/4 mile; 5.152 seconds, multiply by another 4 which gives you your 1 mile time at that rate of speed; 20.608 seconds.
We all agree that there are 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in every minute, so 60 minutes x 60 seconds is 3600 seconds in an hour: 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds.
So if 1 mile is 20.608 seconds then you can plug it in to the equation.
1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds
1 hour = 60 minutes = 20.608 seconds per mile
1 hour = 60 minutes = 174.69 miles per hour
any mathmaticians want to correct me? I am pretty sure I am right.
So in conclusion for that last 320' you were traveling at 174.69 miles per hour.
__________________
Rominl
agreed on his attiude
but i thought this was also interesting
wish i paid better attention in school
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ShankGT2
RMR what do you mean 169mph. How did you get that?
In my 12.0 run, I did 1.8 in the last 320', so what is that mph??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
take the 1.288 seconds in the last 320' and multiply it by 4, which gives you your ET for that 1/4 mile; 5.152 seconds, multiply by another 4 which gives you your 1 mile time at that rate of speed; 20.608 seconds.
We all agree that there are 60 minutes in an hour, and 60 seconds in every minute, so 60 minutes x 60 seconds is 3600 seconds in an hour: 1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds.
So if 1 mile is 20.608 seconds then you can plug it in to the equation.
1 hour = 60 minutes = 3600 seconds
1 hour = 60 minutes = 20.608 seconds per mile
1 hour = 60 minutes = 174.69 miles per hour
any mathmaticians want to correct me? I am pretty sure I am right.
So in conclusion for that last 320' you were traveling at 174.69 miles per hour.
__________________
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post