The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

12 1/2 years and 7823 posts ago this saga began. Mr. G. has a series of other spectacular Ferraris that are completely clear on their provenance and do not have holes in their continuity. That criteria does not apply here. Yet the owner is desperate to have recognition that this car is accepted as what he wants it to be known as.

I too want to know what it is that Mr. Forghieri recognized in this car as the telltale and how such information was presented to him. Scrutiny of the finding and the methods used to make such determination are fair game. Considering the resources available to the car's owner why did it take 12 1/2+ years to get such a review? I have reservations if the determination was made from a couple of photographs instead of a on-site physical inspection.

This is still leaving out any conclusion of how much may be the remains. Are we talking of vast amounts or a small portion? Mr. Forghieri did not address that only that.

Now as for that statement that tied together the Italian Government to the Targa Florio, that Targa Florio recognizes this car which is interpreted as the Italian Government condones the car. Now come on. That should in no way by any reasonable thinking person be a logical conclusion.

The burden of proof and the need to dispel questions falls upon the person that is desperate to have this accepted as fact.

 

All the invite from the Automobile Club of Palermo to the TF confirms is that they were not shown the more detailed MF document dated 23rd of February, 2016.

 

Be honest, were you of that same opinion during the years that Forghieri's verdict was used to discredit the car's claims?

It seems that this man's expert opinion only matters when it suits certain agendas.

 

I still believe that there is more to the story. What is presented so far is incomplete to reach an accurate understanding.

From the past it is not just Mr. Forghieri's information that made the provenance claims on this car problematic. The exalted pdf provided by the owner is rife with errors and faulty logic.

 

Have you inspected the frame, Jeff??

Jim is pretty open to visitors, when the car is "home"....

I'll admit in New Orleans I did not crawl all over it, I found 002C parked unattended in the open (Patrolled by NOPD) parking garage, far more interesting....

He was actually using the Lola that weekend on the street.
I did pull a few stoplight drags, against that one.

 

You owe Rob some more beer.

 

Jeff Kennedy

Let me ask you this question... would you rather the frame survived or did not survive?

 

You have proof we all wear pants, I need, nay demand to see it. I demand to hear what sort of pants David Piper got made. I don't wear pants, and I demand proof that Jim has some original pants. Its all about how you give me accurate proof of this pants comment. MF used to wear pants but Jim must of cheated him and the Targa organisers, when he said he wore the same pants, I reckon Piper bought some pants cut them in two, sewed on another leg. And on and on and on.

Hell lets all wear kilts, lava lava's etc. until its proven as a form of protest against #0846. Just saying.

 

I would like that the frame remain. But the question is irrelevant since the real question is about if this is that frame or to what extent it may be portions of that original frame.

That also does not address the other point on lack of continuity to the car that exists today.

 

I agree wholeheartedly, with the exception of the irrelevant part.

 

On re-reading this again, I believe Steve makes it clear that he accepts Ing Forghieri's judgement that Mr. Glickenhaus' P4 is the 1967 Daytona-winning chassis formerly known as 0846. So noted, unless Steve is going to specifically object to this statement, then we can take his acceptance of Ing Forghieri's validation as fact. Thank you for that, Steve.

Many of us are curious to know what Ing Forghieri saw on his inspection that led to him confirming that this is the chassis formerly known as 0846 - but Ing Forghieri has no obligation or duty to advise us on what he saw to make that confirmation. It would be nice to know, but that lack of clarity by no means diminishes the fact that he DID state, with absolute certainty, that this chassis is the 1967 Daytona-winning chassis formerly numbered as 0846. You say, "fair game", I say nonsense - neither you nor I nor anyone has the right to query Ing Forghieri and cast his statements into doubt. It would be nice to know, sure - but him being tired of being pestered and nagged and not wanting to waste his time on such queries from the peanut gallery doesn't invalidate what he has already stated.

Ing Forghieri was able to reach an accurate understanding - that's all that is required. You reaching an accurate understanding is entirely irrelevant, and doesn't affect the validity of Ing Forghieri's confirmation in the slightest.

Sure, Ing Forghieri stated that the pdf first prepared 12 years ago is incorrect in several details - it is not current, and contains now-known factual errors. That doesn't invalidate Ing Forghieri's confirmation of the frame's provenance in the slightest.

There is no question any more - Ing Forghieri has stated that this is the frame of the Daytona winning car, formerly known as 0846. If the frame was in a Ferrari scrap pile for a year, or was rescued by Tom, or was bought by Piper and routed through Switzerland as testified to by Marcel Massini (are you going to start throwing doubt on his statements now, too?), before being sold to JG, it doesn't matter - it's the frame.

 

It appears Gordon has popped along after 300 odd pages of debate, appointed himself judge, jury and executioner and has the final word on the matter!

Problem is that convoluted path you have taken to come up with your final "end all the debate" statement above is so full of holes it makes swiss cheese look like Titanium, much like the PDF which has only recently been updated with the very brief "suits Jims cause" MF letter, but conveniently makes no mention of the very detailed Italian version which does not, and none of the errors in the pdf you mention have been removed either, go figure!

You seem to think Steve is the only voice of doubt out there and if you constantly batter him down he will give in, when if fact he is one of the very many doubters, but one of only a few who have put their head above the parapet publically and raised questions which have yet to be answered.

Why did it take Jim 12 years to contact MF? why, only because Steve received confirmation from MF that the smoking gun element of Jims chassis, the option of mounting 2 different spec engines was nothing to do with Ferrari at all, which has again conveniently been dropped now its proven to be done by others and not original to the conversion of the the real 0846 in period.

If and when MF clarifies what he spotted in photographs that remind him of original elements of the front of the real 0846 chassis then I am sure Steve will clarify his own viewpoint, until then badgering him and twisting his words is doing your cause no favours.

 

I think he is just stating the facts. My guess is that in a court of law a signed letter from Forghieri stating that it is the surviving remains of 0846 would result in the same opinion/decision.

You have to remember that before, he stated that the work done on the car is not the way they would do it, some will argue that things were not always done the way it should be done due to time constraints etc. at the time and there are other examples of that, but even if true, that section could have been modified by Piper, doesn't mean the rest of the chassis is not recognizable by him.

So I don't think he is being judge and jury, I just think he is assessing what any logical judge and jury would conclude.

And what any conspiracy theorist would argue against.

 

where are the skills of the italian language ? cheers. clemente

 

That's not how courts of law work, at least not in this country. If this dispute were somehow presented in an American court, MF's letter would be treated as hearsay. The man himself would be required to come in and testify, and to be subjected to cross-examination regarding the bases for his conclusions.

Steve is not popular here because he challenges the conclusions of someone who is very popular (and for the most part, deservedly so). But Steve is actually doing it right. I'm sure he'd love for JG's car to be the real deal, as much as any of us would. But the original car was lost and allegedly destroyed/scrapped/discarded. Under such circumstances any trained historian/investigator/attorney would operate with a heavy dose of skepticism, and put the party making the claim that history had been rediscovered to his proof. I do not see Steve as doing anything more or less than that, however unpopular his efforts to mine down to bedrock truth may be.

To conclude concretely that MF has identified any part of JG's car as remnants of 0846, understanding the specific details that MF relied upon to come to his conclusions is ESSENTIAL, not optional. The most accurate and believable facts are those which have been thoroughly challenged, vetted, and cross-examined. Anything less is a mere leap of faith, influenced by the leaper's preconceived notions and biases.

Steve is doing the hard work no one else wants to in order to distill the most accurate truth. I struggle to understand why that is so unpopular with so many people.

 

Wish I had been able to articulate this as well as you just have.

Jeff

 

I understand Foghieri would need to deliver his testimony versus the letter but glad the original poster clarified.

It is funny though, when Steve posted Foghieri's original letter his fanboys took it as open and shut gospel and now they are doubting this one....

Point is his testimony would most likely yield the same results I stated. Will we ever have an open and shut courtroom decision? No, so people can always cast doubt that the sky is not blue. All of these people have never come up with a logical way of how a P3 frame came to be under the hands of Piper so for me logic is heavily on the side that Piper did not build this. Piper believed the frame to be of P4 construction which originally it is not. Correct me if I am wrong?

I think logic is heavily on the side that this is the real deal.

Although Steve has done some hard work, the motivation behind the hard work completely taints that work IMO, and all the hard work in the world is useless if the motivation behind it is extremely biased. You can work as hard as you want but with that kind of bias, his conclusions will never be truthful. You can work really hard to be a great scientist but if you use that work to destroy the world it doesn't make you a humanitarian.

I do not think it is a secret that Steve is motivated to win this argument due to he did not like what was said about 0858. This is not some expert on a historical search for the truth, this is a schoolyard argument. He can deny that but I'm pretty sure most of us see right through it.

If you still fail to understand why it is so unpopular with so many I would suggest reading John Houghtailings posts on the subject. I think they clarify what Steve is doing and why most find it unappealing.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/423520-one-only-0846-debate-thread-378.html#post144584460

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/423520-one-only-0846-debate-thread-380.html#post144589368

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/423520-one-only-0846-debate-thread-382.html#post144591849

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/423520-one-only-0846-debate-thread-382.html#post144592182

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/423520-one-only-0846-debate-thread-388.html#post144600275

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/vintage-thru-365-gtc4-sponsored-vintage-driving-machines/423520-one-only-0846-debate-thread-389.html#post144600460

Think I'm wrong? Then find me one post where Steve is working to find out if the chassis could indeed be genuine, you wont, every bit of his efforts are concentrated on discrediting it.

I am fine with finding the cracks that will prove it to be a replica, if it is not the real deal then that is what an investigation is all about but when your whole line of research is to discredit it then you are not taking the information and using it in anyway that will give a real answer. You can be the hardest worker in the world but your work will still be useless as far as finding the truth is concerned. Hard work motivated by ill intentions produces worse results than no work at all. Mostly when that work is motivated by a vendetta and IMO trying to save face.

 

Vince, I see Steve as faithfully playing the role of doubtful skeptic or opposing counsel which, under the specific circumstances of a "rediscovered" lost piece of history like JG's car, has to be played by SOMEONE if the real truth is to be discovered.

As the doubtful skeptic, he would not be fulfilling his role if he went at half-heartedly and failed to fully cross-examine evidence put forth by others. I think he has said that he would be happy if the car could conclusively be determined to have the remnants of 0846 contained within it. But he's not willing to accept conjecture or hearsay or inconsistent 50 year old memories. He's taking a hard look at every piece of evidence used by others to support the conclusion that the car is 0846 and challenging them as a good historian or investigator would. To the extent he has done that fairly (and that's where our biases as observers start to get in the way), his motive is irrelevant.

To do what Steve is doing, one does have "drink his own Kool-Aid" to some degree to find the motivation to follow through on the hard questions and not be swayed by popular opinion or group-think. On that point I hesitate to believe he is any more guilty than anyone in the opposing camp....

 

I don't agree. If he were the doubtful skeptic he would not abandon his methodology he has established when decisions are in his favor. He is completely biased in his research and decision making due to, IMO, what happened in the 0858 thread. IMO Steve is upset of how posters treated his idol David Piper when Piper demolished what most consider a historical artifact by butchering it into a replica.

"The issue is whether you are abandoning the standard of proof you set forth simply bc you don't like the direction it is going." Quoted from John Houtling.

He has turned this into a war against James G IMO to try and build his Ferrari cred IMO. So now we get a thread that goes nowhere and is muddled in excessive length and confusion and has sent away a very interesting memeber of Ferrari Chat. If he was just being the doubtful skeptic versus the offensive opponent I don't think this would have happened.

I feel we need to change the course of this thread. Right here and right now and let bygones be bygones. We are enthusiasts not divorcees. This should not be handled similar to a contentious Divorcee trial, this is not a court of law. As enthusiasts I feel we should work together, not against each other, to uncover as much information about this chassis as possible. That's why we are here right? To enjoy these cars and learn as much about them as is possible? I mostly think we should flesh out what happened to the frame when it was 0003 as I think it is ignorant to think that most of the answers of what this frame is don't lie there. This whole burden of proof thing is stupid, no one here is on trial, most of us just want to know what this frame actually is. And IMO the way to do that is to find out as much about it in every course of its life.

Cheers.

 

Vincent Vangool and GordonC
I can't see that either of you have added one word of evidence or fact to this debate. All you've done is attack the character and personality of Miurasv. You're as bad as what you accuse him of. Bring your facts and evidence, or even your questions, but don't waste our time with your personal attacks.
Nathan

 

I would say the same about you. Touche.

All I have seen from you is attacks on Jim G.

BTW, most of us are well aware that in the beginning you were the one feeding Miura information and fueling his fire.

Your vendetta is not much difference then his.

So who is attacking who?

I get it, Piper is your hometown hero and you want to defend his honor, but at least do it in a search for the truth.

Completely biased "facts" and "evidence" are not a contribution, they are nothing but confusion as they do not reveal the truth, they tailor it which leads one further away from ever sorting through the mess.

You have written a book on P4's so I would have to ask if you consider yourself an expert? If so... I would like to take this opportunity to do what Miura has been doing all along, asking experts questions as you recommended in your post. So my question for you would be this: Do you feel that this chassis was originally constructed as a P3 or as a P4?

You helped set the tone of this pissing match early on Piloti, so what do you say we put all that in the past and constructively figure out the history of this chassis? I'd have to say that after Foghiari's most recent statement some of the conclusions of the past may be dead wrong and it is time to re-examine those assumptions by the experts.

Are you enough of a gentleman to do that?

 

None of this negates that Steve himself posited the claim that MF and only MF could be the arbiter of whether #0846 contained any of the original. Steve was very vocal about this very point and reminded us all to the point of tedium. As other posters have pointed out when MF stated that indeed he believes it does, Steve quickly changed position to MF must prove to Steve and all of us, what evidence does MF have that any particular part came from #0846. That changing of position is of concern because even though Steve declares he requires MF to offer evidence under the latest position what will happen if MF offers that evidence, will he accept that evidence or change to a position 3, 4 or whatever.

Fair enough if the debate is about what the car is or isn't but to deride anyone that doesn't share your belief in a claim and then to change your belief in the claim and then to refuse to explain why you have changed your position on that claim is just a little disingenuous and doesn't breed confidence that everyone is posting fairly.

 

Au contraire. James Glickenhaus and his team have done the hard work in discovering, researching, etc., what no troll wanted to believe.

From the beginning, it was expected that trolls would stir the pot (and that they did), and eventually stew in their own juices, thereby stinking up the kitchen. At which point, the chef left the stench. He has less time for fools than I do. Easter eggs down rabbit holes are fun to leave, though.

What used to be *publicly* posted here "first" - well, well, well. Figure it out.

As for these questions, "work" and so forth you enjoy as bad flavor of the day, you could not be more wide of the mark.