The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

The picture Jim has posted of him and MF with the letter in the PDF clearly shows both signatures on the letter.

Link to PDF in post below.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/144578067-post7484.html

 

No, it does not. Only MF's signature in the link you posted.

 

I believe you are incorrect, take a look at that link. I see both signatures there.

Perry

 

In the picture at the top two signatures are clearly visible in the letter held up by Jim and with MF standing next to him. Zoom in on the PDF and you will see the two signatures if your monitor is not big enough.

You are correct the letter below only has one though.

 

What I find interesting is that in his letter Forghieri makes no reference to a specific chassis (sn)_number.. I am not going to suggest why this is the case. There are just to many possibilities..tonga's crew

 

Thanks. Why would Jim have signed this letter? People only sign letters they write don't they?

 

I believe you are incorrect, take a look at that link. I see both signatures there, in the picture with MF. Zoom in, it is there. Perhaps JG signed it later, after the pdf of the document alone.

Perry

 

The letter has clearly been initiated, written and formatted by Jim and then simply signed by MF, why would MF write a letter using someone elses address on it!

 

bingo. cheers. clemente

 

I often have to sign letters sent to me at work to confirm that I have received and read them, so this does not strike me as particularly unusual.

In this age of identity theft I also wouldn't want a copy of my signature freely published on the web either, which might explain why Jim has redacted it from the copy published by him.

 

Sorry, but I don't buy the above in this case.

 

Then why don't you clearly state what you are implying with this dancing around regarding a simple signature?

 

No need. Paul's already done it.

 

There is nothing remotely suspicious or incorrect about the format of the letter. A normal business letter would have the sender's address incorporated into the letterhead at the top and would specify the recipient's address in the body of the letter below the letterhead. MF (as an individual) probably doesn't have letterhead stationary on hand for this type of correspondence (since it is essentially a one-off), he doesn't need any introduction, and the subject matter of the letter as a declaration neither requires nor lends itself to written response, so omitting the sender's address is not even remotely suspicious. Specifying the recipient's address in the body of the letter is entirely normal and expected for both business and formal personal correspondence.

Having both sign it is very unusual, but given that only the sender's name is typed, that is also entirely consistent with proper letter format and it seems like Jim's signature was added "on the fly" (e.g. in the spirit of the occasion, or to add his endorsement of the letter, or to confirm his presence at the signing, etc).

 

Why would JG write a letter opening with "Dear James"?

 

I have no idea!

The formatting of the Italian/English letter from Feb which MF penned is very different to the short letter from March.

The March letter is consistent with someone whose first language and education is english.

It makes no reference to the Feb letter or its contents, which only surfaced via MF after the March letter was published to the net by Jim.

If MF was of the understanding the March letter superseded the Feb one, then why send it to Steve? all he had to do was say "my viewpoint on the matter is covered in the March letter posted to the net by Jim", end of.

I was brought up in the UK, Africa and Australia in english, and always taught in each of those countries your own address top right, followed by date and tel number, the recipients to the left if formal correspondence/business, followed by a topic heading if required.

MF simply refers to Jim by his surname in the first letter, the second however is as if they are well known to each other? maybe they bonded in between? they both seem happy in the photo.

Jim can clarify the sequence of events to put this to bed, Its simple enough for one of the posters on here, who is a facebook friend of Jim to ask him who wrote and printed the March letter prior to its signature, and post his reply on here.

I dont think its right to keep asking MF all the time, I imagine he is regretting getting involved now.

 

Yes, probably because people keep pointlessly pestering him about a document he obviously understood and signed in good faith.

 

It hasn't been pointless though has it? We wouldn't have learned the extra details of the document of 23rd February had MF not been contacted with questions of the March, 14 letter.

The letter of March, 14 conflicts with details of the February, 23rd document. The March, 14 letter implies/suggests that this original modified P3 chassis that then went on to win the 1967 24 Hours of Daytona, as MF has studied it, still contains MF's December 1966 modifications to accept a P4 engine. It does not as MF has clearly stated in the February 23rd document.

 

Like I said before, unless the entire chain of communications is posted by Forgheri AND Glickenhaus - no one else is trustworthy enough, it has to be both of them - we will never know for sure if there is more information exchange between Feb 23 and March 14 that culminated in the final signed document (and personal declaration by MF to Giancarlo Minardi and the ACI) dated March 14. Since the document was posted accompanied by a photo of both men smiling and holding it up, it is much wiser to assume that that document is MF's final word on the subject, whatever value that brings to this discussion.

But of course there are fans of tinfoil headwear that will continue to single out details in order to shape their arguments, even when contradictory (such as the sudden change in opinion regarding MF's expertise/understanding of the English language). Soon people will suggest - never clearly, I might add - that Sal is holding a gun to Forgheri out of frame so he will smile and take a picture next to Jim holding up a letter. Or that the discrepancies in international standards for letterheads and letter-writing are definite proof of deceit. Etc etc etc....

Rob Lay has got it right re: the greyness of it all, but I suspect the continuation of the discussion here without the participation of Jim Glickenhaus has more to do with some of us feeding that desire to witness surefire defeat. I know I am guilty of that, but on the other hand, there are only so many slow days at work...

 

I am amazed.....I have never encountered such a rigid view of the world.

You know Arabic reads right to left...WTF!

 

..and that was the only "correct" school??

I think we have finally found the problem!!

Roberts Rules of Order...Strunk and White's Elements of Style..

Metric or SAE??

 

Respectfully, Sir...no one is trying to sell YOU anything.....

As I mentioned a few pages back, you are not a principal in the discussion.
Jim shared all the details in a search worldwide for expertise and opinion.

I don't think he intended to spar the rest of his days, with someone who's entire knowledge is self taught, from books.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.
What is wrong, IMO..is both your tone, in inquiry, and behavior.

It's really quite off putting, and more than once John Houghtaling III has offered you a way out. You know him, and his occupation, I assume.

He makes an excellent turtle soup, also.

 

Think of all the cars he built, races he managed, brave men he watched die in flames, Italian heroes, some of them...

I would think his emotional attachment to any one chassis, would be a simple human curiousity, at this point.

I don't think he would ever cross the Ferrari corporate position.

 

I get the point, but what happens if Ferrari constructs the body panels on the original wooden forms? What happens if Ferrari supplies an original Ferrari engine to you? I mean, for everyone who has blown an engine and had it repaired at Ferrari, there must be some allowance for replacing the original.

This thread continues to surprise me as we find ways to chase down threads into areas where I never thought we'd go.