The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Thanks for the insults, it shows real character, especially when nobody can really answer the hard questions. Now back to the opera:

Isn't the great assumption in this entire drama the fact that we're "assuming" that somebody rescued a chassis from the scrap yard that nobody wanted to keep in the first place?

Also noted: If I go to the tech section and ask a question, an answer for which can be found in any available tech manual, the participants willingly and quickly provide an answer. But if I dare to ask a question concerning an answer that MIGHT be buried among 128 pages of data, I'm told to go look it up myself. Now that really makes sense.

 

Oh, puh-leaze. You've earned it.

One's staunch refusal to read, learn and memorize that which has been presented time and again as direct answers to your own direct questions over the course of several years in tandem with now-stereotypical replies as if this were the quite literally the show-me (again) state defeats your own purpose. If you are seeking the truth - it's been said time and again. Hence the "insult" as you so describe it.

Time and again, evidence has shown it can hardly be considered an insult to compare those of your ilk to invalids.

Read the goddamned links provided time and again. Most are 1 (ONE) page. NOT 128. Some stretch to 6. [If you're still counting with your fingers, a fail-safe method is to count one hand as 5 (five), plus 1 (one) finger from the other hand. I have a pretty good idea which finger you're thinking of.]

THEN Discuss.

 

We could tell you (and JG has explained it over and over), but then you'd ask for proof.

Is it any wonder why we insist that you read it on your own and then come to a conclusion?

C.

 

Wax, it took you longer to type that longwinded reply that it would to provide a direct answer. I detect a growing frustration on the thread when Piloti and I ask some simple questions that SHOULD easily have a simple answer. I guess it's easier to dodge the tough questions that require direct answers and simply anty up documented "assumptions" and "possibilities".
Still waiting for somebody to inform Piloti and I as to who is guaranteed to be the person that pulled the chassis out from the Modena scrap yard. Unless one can anty up that person to verify that the event actually occured, your alledged trail of provenance has a major break that leaves JG's desired outcome pretty much dead.

(WARNING: CORVETTE ANALOGY FOLLOWS)

One of the 3 1956 Corvette SR2 racers WAS pulled out of a salvage yard back in the 60s or 70s and restored to its rare grandeur. But ITS trail of provenance is verifiable with the appropriate owners. So such a theory IS possible, but as I say, unless you can complete the trail with testimony from real people and not "assumptions", then the credibility is dead.

 

Naysayers:

WE have already answered your questions to everyone's satisfaction but your own.

Then again, YOUR pleasure may be best described as trolling, given the refusal to acknowledge the simplest of facts, as claimed by numerous witnesses let alone links provided time and again, let alone the oft-mentioned booklet as well as updates provided by the owner of the vehicle which has incited such passions from all ends of the spectrum.

If you don't believe the answers provided by any and all parties, that is YOUR problem.

What is OUR problem is one thread after another being destroyed by your ilk. That is why this thread was created. I created a few just for this very purpose which were summarily deleted. No more.

Even if you think 'Napolis is doing the "wrong" thing to no (or, as oft argued "TO") great fruition of ANY description, that is HIS problem.

Not YOURS.

HE can live with himself.

If you consider it a problem, this is your thread to hash it out on. But, ******* it, READ, CLICK LINKS AND READ, LEARN AND MEMORIZE.

There are many who support him in his quest, and I am adamantly one of them.

'Napolis has blessed us with as open a book as there ever was on a Ferrari, let alone any marque to my knowledge, but I am a judgmental man, and as such, I have determined his character to be his greatest strength, and I am all the better for it.

He caught a big fish, but this is no fish story, and he didn't catch it by trolling.

 

OK 0846 fans, I've waded through all 128 pages of the document and still have plenty of questions.

First off, Horsefly must not be TOTALLY full of hogwash, otherwise, I would not be included in JG's document. I'm honored to be a part of the documentation with my references to "any competant welder being able to build a chassis with a GOOD set of plans". And another Horsefly quote concerning a prototype Pontiac convertible that was saved from the GM scrapper. That Pontiac story came from a Vette Vues Magazine letter many years ago.

The following is the part that disturbs me regarding the "continuation of provenance" regarding the car. On page 28 of JG's document, it is stated that,

08/02/02
"I spoke with Marcel Massini this morning (He was the fellow who saw 0846 in Switzerland in 1977. He repeated that there was definetly and entire chassis
(stamped 08460)"
Mark Ketcham

Now here's the part that I find disturbing: If someone saw a chassis in 1977 that was STAMPED 08460, the how can THAT CHASSIS be the one that is currently in JG's car? JG's chassis has NO stamping, am I correct? Then how can it be the same chassis? Are we now to start making MORE ASSUMPTIONS that the car was damaged again after 1977 and the all important stampings disappeared? This is a VERY DISTURBING disruption in the trail of provenance.

On page 81, the assumption is made that the chassis maker utilized the remains of 0846 to build one of Piper's 3 chassis. This statement makes 2 great leaps of assumption: 1. That the chassis maker pulled the chassis from the junkyard. Is there any proof whatsoever of this assumption? 2: That the chassis maker then used this well used hunk of junkyard chassis to build up a complete chassis for Piper.

On page 104, Christian Philipsen, consultant to Pininfarina, makes the statement that it is "100% POSSIBLE" that "my car contains the substantial chassis remains of 0846".
POSSIBLE???? Isn't that like saying that it is POSSIBLE that any Modena junkyard might still contain some P4 parts in 2005? POSSIBLE, yes. But LIKELY or PROVEN, not really.

In my opinion, the claims to 0846 still existing are interesting, but have many LARGE gaps in logic that must be answered.

 

Jesus Arlie,

Give it a rest already.

 

Speaking of mysteries, can anyone tell me where 2 of the 4 1939 Alfa Tipo 412s are? According to Fusi, there were 4 cars built, but there is NO record of anymore than 2 ever racing, nor is there evidence of ANY kind that more than 2 were built, other than what Fusi, who was with the Alfa factory says. The bottom line is that even people that WERE there at the time don't know everything.

 

Once again you're wrong, and unlike you, I don't have to use anonymous sources to prove it.

The Ford GT 40 David Hodges 1984 lists J6 as the Le Mans winner.

The Ford that Beat Ferrari John Allen 1985 lists J6 as the Le Mans winner.

Shelby American World Registry 1987 lists J6 as the Le Mans winner.

I purchase J6 1991

GT 40 An Individual History and Race Record Ronnie Spain 1992 Lists J6 as the Le Mans winner.

Through forensic investigation helped by Bob Casey of the Henry Ford Museum I come to realize that the ALL of the hereto published books are wrong and that J6 is not the Le Mans winner. I restore J6 to her proper colors.

In 1997 I met David Hodges at The Goodwood Festival of Speed when I was there with J6. I told him of my research and that his book (1984 edition) was wrong concerning J6. He corrected this mistake in his 1998 edition and Acknowledged me by name and thanked me for my help on page 8 of that edition.

In 1997 I met Greg Kolasa the registrar of the GT 40 section of the Shelby World Registry at Lime Rock when I was there with J6. I told him that the last edition (1987) of the Shelby Registry was wrong concerning J6. I showed Greg the physical damage on my tub and the flat seat floor that proved that.
Greg corrected the next (1997) edition of the registry.

Nathan IMHO you have begun playing with yourself. Have fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

After keeping quiet throug all this, I'd like to thank you Napolis for spending so much of your time document your evidence and why you believe what you do. Your arguments are clear and concise, and some will always find conspiracy theories behind every letter "F", but F'em.

The car is as honest a representation as possible given the fog of time. Awesome work, and I have the utmost respect for what you've accomplished with 0846, 002C, and the other cars.

Arlie - give it a break: we understand your perspective, everyone understands your perspective, almost no one agree's with you. so what. In 2035 or 2055 when JG's great-grandson wants to sell his great granpapy's car for $50 - there'll be no shortage of dialogue on the Internet for my grandkids to justify paying him two or three comma's worth of coin.

 

I've read them all - I've read the document, many times in fact - why don't you go back and READ WAYNE'S POST #120 in this thread. Then go away and find out the difference between 'theory' and 'facts'. I have asked for some facts, and so far you still haven't come up with FACTS!! Just a load of theories, smokescreen and insults.

That's blatantly obvious. But you need to be careful - it appears to have damaged your ability to question, reason and discern.

True, and the facts and photos etc. are much appreciated. Doesn't mean that I have to accept the theories as well.

Puulllleeeezzzze - enough!!

 

What do you class as fact? It seems to me that you don't believe that the chassis that Jim has documented as being a P3 converted to P4 is the one that Piper sold him, or at least is not the same as the one Piper sold. Otherwise your statement;

Makes no sense

Either the chassis was in the condition that is shown in Jims documents when sold, or Piper didn't know what he had, because the documented chassis sure as hell isn't a P4 built from Ferrari blueprints

So to add to the list of unanswered questions. How do you believe the chassis in question came to be modified?

 

Jim - on a lighter note, are you taking 0846 to Monterey / Laguna in a couple of week's time ?

www.fluidimages.co.uk

 

Jim
It seems to work for you

 

As someone alluded, we are wading thru the fog of history in debating the minutia. Its just this kind of inane arguing that chased the GTO owner of 3223 away from our forum. Personally, I don't understand why Jim puts up with constant harassment every-time he post some really interesting stuff about any of his cars. I applaud his patience and hope that he continues to grace this forum with his presence. I feel privileged to hear his thoughts and impressions of driving his cars on our highways and over in Italy. Let's face it, I'm sure he has better things to do then sit here and endlessly argue over provenience. All I know is that he has some of the most fabulous cars ever produced. I thank Jim for generously sharing his time, pictures and thoughts.

peace

Ken

 

Hi

0846 is spending the summer in her homeland where she's being CAT scanned, studied, and wind tunnel tested. I'll be on the Pebble tour on Thursday and on the lawn at Pebble on Sunday with my Duesenberg J446 which was recently at Villa d'Est and is featured in the Sept. issue of Octane.

 

Jim I have been intrigued by the history of the 0846.
One question that I have for you is:

do you think somebody [like Ferrari SpA or something] acknoledge that you own the 0846?

best

 

They already have. They built new uprights and the invoice and build sheet referrenced the car and they corrected the date on his entry on the owners site.

 

Wax, et. al

Can we please separate the discussion about '0846' from a discussion of JimG? It seems that anyone who has questions about the car gets targeted by Jim's supporters as a person of negative character. Can you all not understand that some people may like/respect JimG as a person and still not accept his viewpoint on the car?

It is not disrespectful to ask for factual support of one's pet theory, it is not disrespectful to ask specific follow-up questions, and it is not disrespectful to disagree with someone's elses' theories. Can we please lay off the attack-dog mode of discourse?

(as for the P3/4, I have my private opinion, but will keep it private as it is irrelevant to the greater scheme of things. I just read and watch with interest)

 

Hear, hear

 

Jim,

I have a question regarding the updated project doc. Were any of the original 100 pages changed, or did you just add the additional pages? I wanted to print the doc, but i don't want to have to print the entire 128 pages.

 

Hannibal Lecter says "I don't like rude people." He's known to bite their damn heads off.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Those of us that have a backbone can play that game too.

If you name your own poison, we're going to give it to you. We will act just like you. We will get rude. If passivity fails for you, it fails for us and it's time to let the aggressive dogs out. It is damn near criminal the way one thread after another was destroyed, so we'll take a bite out of crime, thank you very much.

If you think I or any of my compadres with at least half a backbone (Hi, Sfumato) will sit and passively watch the same old bull**** play out, whereby we've got to play nice with rude conspiracy theorists who've derisively spit and **** on every thread concerning this vehicle AND/OR as in the case of one developmentally-arrested Equine-Winged-Insect, who has gone out of his way to make a mockery of it in completely unrelated topics in threads in subforums far and wide, you're sadly mistaken.

We will bite their damn rude heads off.
_____

In closing, as stated time and again, you cannot build a P3/4 using P4 blueprints.

'Napolis has an authentic P3/4. Not a replica.

Forensic evidence verified by many a soul with hands-on experience with said chassis long before Piper ****ed it up validates and in so doing, authenticates 'Napolis's (crews) discovery and contention the P3/4 is none other than the far greater than majority remains of 0846.

For those gazing at their own navels, as no doubt there ain't much else to look at down below, should there happen to be the 0846 stamping welded to another chassis, the chassis not in 'Napolis's possession would be the same (un)reconstructed bull**** Horsefly and other doomsayers so decry - a car built around a few scraps of metal. A replica.

 

Hi
Pages were added at two stages. Nothing was changed in the earlier pages except perhaps for the page #'s as the additional two additions may have changed that slightly. If you print from where your doc. ends you'll have it all.

Best

 

Tillman

Read post 126.