Todd Rogers banned from Twin Galaxies and records removed

[MaximRecoil]

 

 

Also - it makes no sense for Todd to doctor an old photo, when it's so ridiculously easy just to take a new one, and doctor that.

 

Also, there's no need to doctor a photograph at all. For example, I just took this picture:

 

 

There are no signs of doctoring in that photograph because it isn't doctored. However, in this day and age it is very easy to have your TV display any image you want it to, and then you can take a perfectly real photograph of it. You could even take the picture with an old Polaroid instant film camera, and if you had a vintage TV (mine is a CRT, but it's from 2005), there would be no way (that I know of) to tell it from a picture taken in '82. Pictures are useless as proof of a video game score these days.

[Keatah]

How does a doctored photo store it's own original? I'm not following.

 

It doesn't. In context of this thread - the way "underlying" is used here refers strictly to the method of text overlay and how much data is obscured or lost.. and how/if it can be recovered by way of imagination and interpolation.

 

In this first example we have some text pasted. And in order to get good contrast and clear readability the surrounding area is blacked out. For all you and I know, this is copy/pasted. Or not. And what are the two black areas hiding?

 

In this next example a different method of adding text is used. It's cognizant of the background and only the text overwrites the image. There is enough detail here for someone to remove the green lettering and get somewhat closer to the original.

 

And here is the original.

 

 

As you can see, it will be much easier to clean up the second image and redraw parts of the fireplace and flag. There is without a doubt a fireplace and flag - in the first image we don't know what's there, could even be a flatscreen monitor on top and a portal to another dimension on the bottom.

 

---

 

As to answer your question point blank in technical terms, there are roundabout methods of storing two identical images in one file. Some are well known, and some are secret.

 

You just copy the first image, enlarge the canvas, and paste it in. Side by side. Similar to those old-time stereo photos or even those ViewMaster reels. But instead of containing 2 slightly different perspective-shifted photos, they would be identical. Not stereo

 

You could use stenography JPG file. You hide one image inside the other, with the help of algorithms and coding and such other "secret agent stuff"..

 

JPG images store a thumbnail of themselves in the file header. Or, rather, the specification supports it. This is a common thorn in the side of people looking to recover lost photos from a damaged hard disk. They do a recovery, get the intact file header and see a tiny version of the real image. Then when they look at the original it's all scrambled. Well, yes, the header was small enough to be contiguous and true to the file pointers the data recovery program examined and retrieved. But the rest of the file may have been fragmented and partially overwritten by other disk activity. What a prick-tease, eh?

 

And going off on more of a tangent, there are alternate data streams in NTFS and several other methods by which a picture can host a copy of itself - but they're not applicable here because someone doctoring photos for videogame hi-scores isn't likely to know of them. Or they simply aren't practical. I'll leave it to you to explore further.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Keatah

[ZackAttack]

Pictures are useless as proof of a video game score these days.

 

For older systems I would think videos are just as useless. It's way too easy to hide some cheat hardware in the cart, controller, or console. It would be easy to make a modified dragster cart which has the finish line moved up just enough to make 5.51 possible. Come to think of it, why didn't Todd just do that?

[Thomas Jentzsch]

I doubt he had the knowledge and tools back then.

[Jason123]

I had over the years always knew he was a cheater. C'mon look at his scores, some were so much higher/better than the second place guy that they were obviously fraud. T.G. kowtowed to this guy and many others (see Billy Mitchell) that the integrity of T.G. has been compromised for decades.

[Keatah]

Heh. Maybe we should just make him a "legend". Call it a day. Every hobby, every field of endeavor, has some sort of larger-than-life figurehead thats full of impossible stories and tall tales.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Pictures are useless as proof of a video game score these days.

Agreed. So for all new records, the rules have to be either very strict or the entries would have to be classified (e.g. confirmed/unconfirmed). Where anything that could have been faked falls into the latter category.

 

But for old records (if the original evidence still exists at TG), they could relax the rules a bit. E.g. if they got (and still have) a Polaroid 10, 20 or 30 years ago, then IMO this should be still sufficient.

[enthusi]

Actually Im not sure if 'proofs' even make sense at all.

Not making a big fuss out of it helps

And forging 'evidence' now is even more sad the whole story already is.

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Not making a big fuss out of it helps

We know that this won't work.

 

People want to compete. For fun, glory, ego-busting, money, fatherland whatever... And where is competition, there always has been and always will be deception.

[Keatah]

Was there ever a "5.57" auto-play rom ever made. I know and have the "5.61" rom..

[Thomas Jentzsch]

Don't think so.

[[d2f]Iggy*SJB]

Also you could have send in a photo of the wanted time while the game was still running and the dragster is close to the finish line. On the resulting picture the dragster would be a very few pixel left of the finish position (2 pixel for 5.57), but that is really hard to identify on a blurred, CRT photo.

 

All you need is:

- good enough skills to be at least close to the wanted time

- a friend taking the photos

- patience (or a VCR with decent freeze frame)

 

Who had a VCR in '82? I didn't get one until '86, and even then they were quite pricey.

 

 

 

I don't even know if photo manipulation may have even been necessary. The question I have is - how carefully did the person answering the mail at Activision really vet the photos that came in?

 

There would have been a lot of photos coming in, and patches going out. And a lot of those photos would have been pretty blurry, or badly exposed, or both. I remember trying to take pictures of my scores off a TV screen in the early 80's, and all I had access to was my Instamatic (which never took very good photos on its best day). I didn't have a working Polaroid anymore, so I couldn't just take a picture, wait a few minutes to check it, then take another if it didn't work. I had to take a bunch and send it off to be developed and hope I got something usable. I was able to get photos of Gravitar for the Atari patch, but I don't think I ever got a readable picture of any Activision score (seems to me I tried for Laser Blast, and got nothing).

 

So one possible scenario - Todd gets a 5.61 or a 5.57. Takes a blurry photo, and sends it in with a letter saying, "I know it's hard to read this, but the score is really a 5.51."

 

Person at Activision answering the mail that day is already swamped with patch requests, reads it, checks a list to make sure it's eligible for a patch and says, "Okay, looks right to me." And presto - high score. Later, someone else at Activision reads the lists of scores that have been written down and says, "Wow - is this score right? That's not possible!" Person answering the mail says, "Yes it is - I check all of these to make sure they've sent a photo." But by then, the original letter and photo have been discarded, as have every other submission that has come in, because none of this is about maintaining a database of official "World Records". This is about sending patches out to kids who play their games, because it's a fun thing to do.

 

It doesn't seem like it would've been that hard of a system to manipulate. And if you get away with it once... then you might be inclined to try it again.

 

Hypothetically speaking.

 

 

This looks like the exact same camera I had:

 

s-l1000.jpg

 

Hey, we had that camera! Used it to take the pic that got me my Bucket Brigade patch.

 

Only one brick left to remove. Acitivision needs to make a statement revoking their endorsment of this "record". Then this mess is officially delt with in full.

 

Not gonna happen. It's not even the same Activision from back then. If there's even ONE employee left from those days, I'd be shocked. No way the current Activision heads are going to come out and say anything about this, if they are even aware it's going on.

[MaximRecoil]

 

Who had a VCR in '82? I didn't get one until '86, and even then they were quite pricey.

 

VCRs were somewhat common in '82. My aunt and uncle had one, and they were far from rich. I remember watching the movie Airplane on videotape at their house in the early '80s when I was 6 or 7 years old; it was the first movie I ever saw on videotape. VCRs didn't become something that "everyone" had until the mid to late '80s when the cheapest ones got down to about $200.

 

However, VCRs capable of a perfect still-frame were always rare. 4-head models had a much better still-frame function than standard 2-head models, but even those weren't usually perfect. The VCR we had when I was a kid happened to be one of the very few that had a perfect still frame function (General Electric VG-7720, 4-head, HQ, manufactured by Panasonic). It wasn't even an expensive one; $250 at Sears, Christmas 1988. You can see how perfect the still-frame function on that particular model is here - https://youtu.be/7PRm0CLb1vg?t=1m17s

 

I don't know if there were any models available in '82 that had a perfect still-frame, though there were probably some with a good enough still-frame.

 

Todd Rogers wasn't the only, nor even the first, person to get a 5.51 according to Activision:

 

In volume 1 of Activision's newsletter there were 2 people tied at 5.61: Chuck Hunter, Sr., and Chuck Hunter, Jr.

 

In volume 2 there were 3 people tied at 5.57: Todd Rogers, Greg Nichols, and Tony Armstrong.

 

In volume 3 those 3 were still tied at 5.57.

 

In volume 4 there were 4 people tied at 5.57 (it doesn't say who the 4th person was).

 

In volume 5 there were 2 people tied at 5.51: William Stewart and Kevin Kopaczewski.

 

In volume 6, there were 3 people tied at 5.51: William Stewart, Kevin Kopaczewski, and Todd Rogers.

 

In volume 7, the final issue, Dragster isn't mentioned at all.

 

I'd like to know what William Stewart and Kevin Kopaczewski have to say about their alleged 5.51 times:

 

 

 

Edit: Omnigamer already asked Kevin about it:

 

 

 

The only thing I remember was the joystick we had was super sensitive, and made the Dragster game interesting because of the times we could get below 6 seconds. We used to fight pver that joystick, never found another one that was that good. I have memory of someone getting a 5.43 time, and I thought it was listed in the Activision new letter. So I didn't think much of my time. I did receive a Dragster patch from activision.

Edited February 2, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[Karbuncle]

Kevin remembering a 5.43 and then thinking it had been listed in Activision magazine is a good example of false memory syndrome. I find it interesting how in the modern era when you no longer have to rely on memory, nobody can get below 5.57, and code analysis also only goes to 5.57.

 

But in all honesty I've spent entirely too much energy worrying about Todd's lack of proof. With the ENTIRE world effectively thinking he's a cheater/liar/fraud, the first item on his agenda would be to conclusively prove he can pull off a 5.51 legit. I mean, think about how much of an 'in your face' moment that would be. Guinness would have to apologize, TG would have to apologize, thousands of 'haters' would have to apologize, omingamer and myself would have to apologize, etc. It would truly be the most triumphant moment in his entire life. Yet what does Todd do? He pulls a "well now I'm never going to prove it because haters were mean to me". That's not something an innocent person says. That's something a guilty person does to prevent from ever admitting the truth. The man is disgraced, banned, and forever tarnished. He can ride off into the sunset having never proven anyone wrong about the 5.57 limit. That's the last I have to say about him, and I'm not going to waste any more time or energy on him

Edited February 2, 2018 by Karbuncle

[MaximRecoil]

Kevin remembering a 5.43 and then thinking it had been listed in Activision magazine is a good example of false memory syndrome. I find it interesting how in the modern era when you no longer have to rely on memory, nobody can get below 5.57, and code analysis also only goes to 5.57.

 

Kevin's false 5.43 memory is irrelevant, because his alleged time of 5.51 was published in 1982, which eliminates the need to remember it (also, it isn't necessarily a false memory; it's entirely possible that someone back then did tell him that someone got a 5.43, or a 5.47, or an otherwise faster time than his own). I find it interesting that he doesn't seem to remember it very well, nor does he seem to care about it, and also says he didn't really care about it even in 1982 because he thought a much faster time had been accomplished by someone else. Someone who forges evidence for a video game score/time is obviously highly driven to be recognized, yet this guy barely remembers and doesn't seem to care.

 

And there's also William Stewart. Where is he? Apparently not out seeking any sort of recognition. This whole thing is very strange. If it was just Todd Rogers, then I'd have no problem theorizing that the 5.51 was a typo; a misreading of the photograph; intentional forgery on the part of Rogers, or whatever, but the two others who got the 5.51 published before Rogers, and who no one has ever heard of because they never tried to "cash in" on it, makes those theories kind of far-fetched.

 

Maybe it's the Mandela Effect. Back in the universe where Berenstain Bears was Berenstein Bears, and the Scarecrow wasn't packing heat in The Wizard of Oz...

 

 

... maybe 5.51 was a totally possible time on Dragster.

 

 

 

But in all honesty I've spent entirely too much energy worrying about Todd's lack of proof. With the ENTIRE world effectively thinking he's a cheater/liar/fraud, the first item on his agenda would be to conclusively prove he can pull off a 5.51 legit. I mean, think about how much of an 'in your face' moment that would be. Guinness would have to apologize, TG would have to apologize, thousands of 'haters' would have to apologize, omingamer and myself would have to apologize, etc. It would truly be the most triumphant moment in his entire life. Yet what does Todd do? He pulls a "well now I'm never going to prove it because haters were mean to me". That's not something an innocent person says. That's something a guilty person does to prevent from ever admitting the truth. The man is disgraced, banned, and forever tarnished. He can ride off into the sunset having never proven anyone wrong about the 5.57 limit. That's the last I have to say about him, and I'm not going to waste any more time or energy on him

 

Todd can't do that. According to his own claims, he's only ever gotten a 5.51 three times, all of which were in the early 1980s. He's never claimed to have done it since then, though he did claim a 5.54 about 14 years ago in a post right here on AtariAge which was accompanied by a photograph of his TV screen - http://atariage.com/forums/topic/34156-yes-broke-6-sec-on-dragster/?p=483263

 

That's another strange part of this whole thing. I would expect Todd, who has definitely taken credit for some dubious and flat-out fictional scores/times in multiple games, to say that he's gotten 5.51 lots of times in practice over the past 35 years.

Edited February 2, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[Thomas Jentzsch]

If Todd would be able to show 5.54 in public, this would invalidate the code analysis which is most striking evidence against his record. And then 5.51 would be seem possible again.

[VectorGamer]

though he did claim a 5.54 about 14 years ago in a post right here on AtariAge which was accompanied by a photograph of his TV screen - http://atariage.com/forums/topic/34156-yes-broke-6-sec-on-dragster/?p=483263

Is that photo legit or doctored? 5.57 is supposed to be the best time anyone can get after all.

[+Cafeman]

Do you mean to say there is an actual snapshot of Dragster 5.54 right here on the AA forums?!

 

That old thread shines a light of believability on Todds claim of 5.51!

[MaximRecoil]

Is that photo legit or doctored? 5.57 is supposed to be the best time anyone can get after all.

 

Todd posted it as a legitimate picture of course, but who knows? Like in the example picture I posted earlier in this thread (post #126) of a 5.51 time on my TV screen, it's entirely possible to take a legitimate photograph (i.e., undoctored) of any image you want your TV to display. In my case I took a few screenshots from Stella to get the numbers I needed, and those can be edited in any photo editing software 100% seamlessly, because they are raw pixel dumps saved in a lossless format (PNG). That gave me this:

 

 

Then I displayed that altered screenshot on my CRT TV via an old Western Digital WD TV Live media player with composite video output, and took a picture. It isn't perfect. I should have let the time for the second player max out to 99.99 before taking the Stella screenshot, because a picture taken before the timer stops would have motion blur on the hundredths of a second digit, at least with a normal camera (you'd need a high speed camera to avoid motion blur). Also, technically-oriented people might notice that in my photograph, the image on my TV is being generated by a ~480i signal, whereas an Atari 2600 generates a ~240p signal. I could mask that somewhat by sending the WD TV's composite signal through the RF modulator of a VCR. It would still be ~480i, but the RF artifacts would make it harder to spot.

 

Another option is to use a real Atari 2600 and a hacked ROM to get the 5.51 time to display on your TV. In that case there would be no signs in the photograph whatsoever of foul play.

Edited February 2, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[Supergun]

Either way, that's why I've remained relatively silent on this. The only thing worse then taking part in an Internet pile on, is having to walk it back afterwards.

[MaximRecoil]

If Todd would be able to show 5.54 in public, this would invalidate the code analysis which is most striking evidence against his record. And then 5.51 would be seem possible again.

 

For what it's worth, there is at least one person who claims to have seen Todd do a 5.54 multiple times, in person. I don't have the reference handy; you'd have to search through that massive thread on Twin Galaxies to find it. If I remember right, the person might have been light on credibility though; Ron Corcoran perhaps.

Edited February 2, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[MaximRecoil]

Do you mean to say there is an actual snapshot of Dragster 5.54 right here on the AA forums?!

 

That old thread shines a light of believability on Todds claim of 5.51!

 

It is interesting. If he forged the 5.54 picture, then why did he make it 5.54 rather than the 5.51 that he calls his "HOLY GRAIL" time? This was in 2003, long before there was any meaningful traction behind the idea that he was a fraud. People would have accepted a 5.51 picture at face value just as they did the 5.54 at the time.

Edited February 2, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[+stephena]

In my case I took a few screenshots from Stella to get the numbers I needed, and those can be edited in any photo editing software 100% seamlessly, because they are raw pixel dumps saved in a lossless format (PNG).

 

You don't even need to go that far. You can open the ROM in the Stella debugger and change the values directly, and have it display whatever you want. So you don't need to hack the ROM, or edit any pictures. This has been possible (in Stella at least) for over 10 years.

 

EDIT: Here's one directly from Stella:

 

Edit $B3 for seconds, $B5 for subseconds in the RIOT RAM. Took 5 seconds (no pun intended).

[MaximRecoil]

 

You don't even need to go that far. You can open the ROM in the Stella debugger and change the values directly, and have it display whatever you want.

 

Yeah, I know that can be done but I've never tried it. Seamlessly editing uncompressed or lossless pixel dumps is very easy though, it can even be done perfectly in old versions of MS Paint (and you could draw them from scratch with 100% accuracy in old versions of MS Paint as well, if you wanted to).

 

 

 

So you don't need to hack the ROM, or edit any pictures. This has been possible (in Stella at least) for over 10 years.

 

I mentioned hacking the ROM with regard to using it on a real Atari 2600 (after burning it to an EPROM or copying it to a flash cartridge), so that you get a proper 240p signal being sent to the TV. Or you could just use a ROM that's already been hacked, such as Thomas Jentzsch's auto-shifting, no blown engine hack, which allows for 5.51 and even faster times.

Edited February 2, 2018 by MaximRecoil

[VectorGamer]

Breaking: Billy Mitchell's Direct Feed Recordings are MAME Generated

http://donkeykongforum.com/index.php?topic=2055.msg33395;topicseen#msg33395