The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

What a muppet!

 

What a lame insult. Try harder. Or at the very least, copy someone that has a sliver of whit.

 

Compare P4 0858's rear side engine mountings with the real 0846 at Daytona. They are the same.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Vince..I think it's time for you to stop posting. You have gone well over the point of reason. Now you are just being silly. And I think you know this.

 

This is very true. So much so, I personally know a fellow who has a very desirable 250tr. The car was burned up so there is pretty much nothing left of it, but the numbers remain. Yes I have seen it, along with 30 other or so more mundane ferrari's in various states of destruction. Yet he will not sell any thing, even though he says he wants to. Weird.

 

How so?

Is it proven that this is 0003?

Yes or no?

If no, how does one say it is 0003?

The origin of this chassis is undetermined at this point and should be stated as such.

The car is believed to be 0003 or 0846 and has been proven to be neither as of this posting.

If you have definitive proof that it is 0003 then post said facts. Until then it is not factually known to be either. Calling it 0003 is no more factually correct than calling it 0846. When I refer to the car it is 0003/0846 as it has yet to be determined which one it is and should be referenced to as the current facts state.

 

A. This is not a court of law.

B. If you think you can get MF in to be desposed lets do it, but for now all we have is heresay, and Steve has delivered no better.

C. Steve is operating from a place of bias, not skepticism, and thus why his methodology is extremely flawed. To understand how flawed please refer to John Houghtailings posts. He is a lawyer that works in a court of Law and feels Steve honors no standard of proof. Steve can post as much heresay as he wants and as many pictures as he wants, but if he does not adhere to a standard of proof his results are meaningless as they are extremely biased and that bias will not lead to any truth.

One minute MF's heresay is used to determine that it is irrefutable fact that the chassis is 0003. When Foghieri's heresay flips to it is 0846 Steve does not honor Foghieri's word as he did before when it suited his purpose. All we have is heresay at this point, what makes that heresay even less reliable is the fact that Steve uses it towards his bias with no respect for standard of proof.

You can make any innocent person seem guilty in a court of law with the right bias of your narrative. The difference in a court of law is that you would have to maintain a standard of proof to pull that hat trick off.

I commend Steve on his efforts and discoveries but until he loses his biases his efforts will not lead to the actual truth, it will just lead to whatever he is working to construct. No different than a murderer with a clever lawyer. The guy may get off, but he is still guilty.

 

The photographic evidence posted is reason enough to sway in favor of Jim's car not being 0846. Not sure why there is an issue. Although not completely proven, all evidence posted thus far seems to indicate Jim's chassis is indeed what he bought..a replica.

 

Absolutely not true I'm afraid. You and John Houghtaling are wrong. I did honour Ing. Forghieri's word as I still do. I posted copies of my questions to MF here and they asked for clarification which lead to him receiving clearer and more factual information, much of which was photographs posted here by the car's owner, resulting in a different conclusion by him. The initial posted conclusion wasn't actually quite as we had been lead to believe by the omission by Mr Glickenhaus to disclose the existence of the more comprehensive previous letter's results of Ing. Forghieri's findings from the information that had been made available to him by the 23rd of February, 2016.

 

Correct if you listen to David piper in this video,,,,,,,,,,,,he has a very good memory just imagine Jim asking him questions regarding 0846 what answers David piper would have for him going through the whole car . Buying a replica is tricky to the new owner you must know all his reasoning for a build to suppliers, paint bolts wiring etc etc,,,,,,,,,,David piper is a great candidate to take it through it step by step and Im sure he's eliminated and marked down the best to the worst in parts building these and knows where to go first hand to get the right supplies. Wealth of knowledge to the new owner? He doesn't seem very shy about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1VCLvVJAsg

 

Sway, sure. But the other side has not yet comeback with their rebuttal. It is a one sided discussion at this point that can easily be swayed the other way with said rebuttal.

I will propose a yes or no question to the group...

Is their anyone here that can confirm that it is irrefutable fact that this is 0003? Yes or no. No explanation neccessary.

Can anybody prove without vetting Jim's rebuttal that this is irrefutably not 0846. Again, yes or no question.

Can anyone confirm that it is irrefutable fact that this is 0846? Yes or no.

Can anybody prove without vetting Jim's rebuttal that this is irrefutably not 0003. Yes or no.

My gut instinct is that the answer to all the above questions will be the same.

 

I think the two of them in the room is what should happen. Till then it is pure speculation as to who is correct.

 

When MF came out against his original claim you flip flopped on him being credible in a heartbeat.

It is only when people agree with you that you take them at their word.

I doubt Houghtailings reading was wrong. it is a proffession for him that he is deeply knowledgeable of, not a passing hobby as it is for you. You may have uncovered some compelling research, and I credit you for that, but in the real world you prob have no law experience whatsoever, whereas he is very accomplished at knowing what a standard of proof is all about and clearly has demonstrated how you do not adhere to it.

 

Sorry, but Houghtaling's research on the evidence I have posted here, and of myself regarding my stance towards Ing. Forghieri after his March, 14th letter was published by Mr Glickenhaus, was not thorough enough. He came to the wrong conclusion as he very incorrectly assumed that I relied totally on the word of Ing. Forghieri to state my case whereas that is clearly not true. He is not a lawyer I would instruct.

 

That is pure B.S.

When MF originally claimed the car was not 0003 you shouted it from the rooftops as fact.

 

The photographic evidence posted shows that Jim's chassis is not 0846. David Piper sold him a replica chassis DP003. Ferrari as far as they are concerned 0846 is long gone.

The photos posted in comparison to Jim's chassis do indeed show far to many differences for Jim's chassis to be 0846, regardless of what MF or anybody else has said.

Obviously this is my opinion and I feel strongly enough to say Jim's car is not 0846. It is exactly what he bought. A replica.

 

Steve has been very consistent. Not sure what thread you have been reading, but it sure haven't been this one.

 

So you think that Houghtailing was wrong?

 

Did I, Vincent? I think you'd better re read what you wrote.

 

So you are saying that the car today would appear exactly as it did in 1967?

Has the area in front of the bulkhead been determined to be of P3 construction or P4?

The first thing you will learn about filmmaking is if you take three pictures and arrange them in a different order, they will tell a very different story. Same thing with creating any narrative. If you build the story the way you want to it will tell that story.

Frankly I think without hearing what the other side has to say in relation to the narrative you have created leads to a one sided conclusion.

 

Yes. I think he may be. I personally cannot argue against period evidence. It's all there in black and white (pardon the pun)

 

Let's not get carried away. 0846 may indeed still exist. In what configuration is any bodies guess. Maybe is exactly as Ferrari dumped it, or maybe is in the chassis of a 34 Ford..who knows.

As far as Jim's car is concerned..I'm jealous of it for sure, but IMHO it is exactly what he bought DP003.

 

My reference is to the aft bulkhead section.

Are you saying that it has to appear exactly as it did in 67? Are you saying that no changes could have taken place?

My father, for instance, looks much different today, than he did in 67.

Welders and angle grinders can change things.

From what has been presented are you certain that this is 0003?

Is the front of this chassis built to P3 spec or P4 spec?

 

I am not talking about period evidence. I am talking about Steve changing what is reliable versus what is not reliable evidence based on when it suits his need.

Please re-read Houghtailings post on the subject before replying.

 

It is clear you do not have the knowledge to conclude what this car is either way.