Let me try another tact:
If a random lady interview me, and I already wrote the about the chain of contact and what I wrote my contact information upon, and who I gave it to, then you could surmise that with her article, and the documented first round of elimination. matches up my name and the car/typo’d and my dial in time and break out and bad reaction time.
I have two independant sources linking me to this event on this day. it is statistically not likely for her to open a phone book for 7 bay area counties which has a higher population than some states and find me.
I’m curious as to why you dispute these facts they are more corroborative of my placement at the day and time of the event. and there’s a time.
tell me I’m wrong? If I provide you with timeslips, would that be the silver bullet you are looking for? if it is, and I ask someone, like Don Glenn, who was out at the track-two cars, and asked him for his timeslips, the only way you could dispute those timeslips would be to compare the race number against the FACTS that I provided.
The only other methods of verification is for you to witness me at the track and they have a live feed for you to do it. then I would have to call you on my cell phone and say, I’m in the next group of cars. Or you come see me at the track.
either way, I’m not going to the track again until I figure out if that damper does exist and how to remove it/bypass it.
you are essentially grinding the napoleonic code on me, and I’m asking you to prove me wrong on my attendance. and the elimination run that the track documented on the link I provided. you can match that time to the one I originally posted. Ironically, that’s when I had all of the slips in my hand. they didn’t come out of thin air.
you did write down times,at sac, to prove me wrong, and I can easily argue that those came out of the air by your same napoleonic code
