The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

It still amazes me, that some are of the opinion that the "burden of proof" is equally shared by both sides

For the record, once again: the one making the extraordinary claims MUST assume 100% 0f the burden of proof. If the authenticity is NOT proven, then the car remains a REPLICA. Period. No wiggle room.

Just imagine the pure silliness, if this were not true: Every car guy who finds a piece of rusted steel in a garage someplace, may "claim" some authenticity to a long-lost vintage Ferrari. "Hey, the burden is on the experts to prove that claim wrong! My claim is valid and true, until it's proven wrong!" pure nonsense

 

EXACTLY.

 

Agreed. The car in question was sold, and bought, as a replica. It remains a replica to this very day ... and this statement requires ZERO proof.

Establishing something OTHER than "replica status" ... THIS is where proof is required, where ALL of the proof is required.

Couldn't be more simple.

 

Well, the funny thing about that is... the guy that does not have the burden of proof seems to be the only one desperately trying to prove it isn't the real deal. Why is he burdening himself with trying so hard to desperately prove it isn't what JG claims if he does not have to? I'm gonna go with: revenge.

Whereas the guy who does have the burden of proof doesn't seem to care what this group thinks as he hasn't posted here in years.

Seems that JG's belief is still that the chassis is indeed #0846, does he have to prove it to anyone? No. He can believe what he wants. Doesn't mean he's right. Doesn't mean anyone has to believe him. IMO he has yet to prove it is indeed what he claims.

Seems that MiuraSVU's belief is that the chassis is not #0846, does he have to prove it to anyone? No, even though he continues to try so hard to do what he has no obligation to? But again, doesn't mean anyone has to believe him. And again, he can believe what he wants. Doesn't mean he's right. IMO he has yet to prove it is indeed what he claims it isn't.

Fact of the matter is, this is not a court of law, no one has to prove anything. They take on the burden due to they want to, even though they are under no obligation whatsoever to do so.

If JG wants people to actually believe him, versus just make a statement where people don't believe him, in this non court of law setting, he will need to prove his case with actual documented proof that shows it.

If Miura wants people to actually believe him, versus just make a statement where people don't believe him, in this non court of law setting, he will need to prove his case with actual documented proof that shows it.

Such as, this chassis factory, that proves where, how, and why #0846 was constructed. All we have is hearsay. Mr. Jeff Kennedy is operating on the same "you gotta believe me" that people accuse JG of using. It's the same "you gotta believe me" Mr. Jeff Kennedy uses when he talks about his secret cadre of "Ferrari experts" that know this is not the surviving chassis, yet he offers zero substantiated proof of why that is? Or why these Mr. snuffleupagus experts are at all qualified to make such a decision. Just a lot of you got to believe my hearsay. There is zero documented proof so far that the chassis were built at any chassis shop. Let alone that #0003 was built there. Let alone that #0003 was built from scratch there Vs. repaired. It's just a lot of you have to believe my hearsay blah, blah, blah.

Thus, why it is my opinion, that neither side of this quandry has proven anything definitively. They are just saying you have to believe me. And IMO neither has to prove anything. It is their right to believe what they want, and it is your right to believe what you want.

 

A few things stand out about this post ...

It matters not, what the "motivation" is ... for anyone presenting evidence (one way, or another) in this thread. Unless you're accusing miurasv of actually fabricating false evidence, that is ... and this accusation would certainly require proof! So what, if someone is on a "personal vendetta" which drove that person into countless hours of research ... this motivation in no way diminishes the value of the evidence discovered and presented!

Second, if you think the current owner of the replica in question is not "personally motivated" to prove its authenticity, you're sadly mistaken. He still advertises the car as authentic, and if i'm not mistaken has hired teams of lawyers over the years to "legally solidify" his claims of authenticity.

(By the way, you can't discount period pictures and personal testimony as "faulty" evidence, when the very same "faulty" evidence was used in an attempt to "prove" authenticity! If this type of evidence was used to argue authenticity, the same type of evidence can certainly be used to cast serious doubt on those claims of authenticity)

I do agree, though, that we are all free to "believe" anything we want! I'm sure i could convince someone on this thread, that the rusty piece of metal in my garage once belonged to the chassis of a vintage Ferrari. Further, i could demand that my claim is "true", until such evidence is uncovered that proves it to be false. We are all free to live in fantasy land

But back here on planet earth, the car remains as it was sold & bought: a replica, until proven otherwise. So far, that proof is absent.

 

You do have to prove your assertion of the identity if you tout it as such or attempt to sell it. Its a really nice care with vintage parts but the car is not a real Ferrari. That much is certain.

 

Vangool,

You have the opportunity to do your own research and come back here with your findings and "proof". This opportunity was pointed out to you some years back but you obviously did nothing in the intervening period.

Have you even bothered to reach out privately to any of the internationally recognized experts?

The world of Ferrari exists in more places than Ferrari Chat.

 

My father used to own a painting by "Turner".

When he took it to Sotheby's to appraise it, in all honesty, and him believing it was real, they said it was a "Turner", except it had not been painted by him.
In his studio, definitely, by one of his appretices, with touches by the Master, possibly, the signature, a small detail.
So, the signature was not worth terribly much.
Alas, a TRUE Turner, 'twas not.

A lovely work of art definitely. But that was all, thus worth a fraction, just as any real good copy of anything.

I think he should have kept it, never have it looked at by experts, and all of us in the family still believing it was a "Turner".
After all, when my Granma bought it in England, last century, it was guaranteed to be real.
Well, the Gallery was long gone, and...

Just look at the Maser recently on BaT done no less by DK Engineering, but DEFINITELY not a Maser, a facsimile of, only that. Still a lovely car,
but at least it was clearly specified what it was. That, is honesty.

Regards, Alberto

 

I myself would love to believe that #0846 survived its two fires and the Targa crash and somehow was the chassis Marcel Massini saw in Switzerland and that David Piper bought it without knowing what it was and sold it on. And to that end I have seen so much of what was considered settled history with Ferrari's later proven to be wrong. But as with #0384AM and #0816 the proof is in the pudding. And its up to Jim G to prove that pudding. Its not dissimilar to those that want to rewrite history on any issue, be it the Elgin Marbles or the Moon landings. At this point perhaps the only solution is for the holy trinity of David Piper, Marcel Massini and Ferrari itself to confirm that the chassis or any part there-in is original. Anything else means its still a car that "might", "could" or "possibly" includes some parts from #0846 and if we settle for that, my Hyundai might, could or possibly includes parts from the Mars Rover cos why not?

 

Mr. Werewolf

On this we are in 100% agreement. Anyone can make any claim they want, regardless of their motivation. The problem that comes into play IMO, that when someone's motivation is revenge, they lose their objectivity and follow a myopic path of research that does not lead to a truthful conclusion. They only follow the facts that will lead them to their desired conclusion, instead of following all the facts to where they lead no matter their desired conclusion.

A couple of examples of this that have been seen in this thread have been:
-The disregard of Tom Meade's statement. This was immediately disqualified due to Tom Meade was claimed to be an attention seeker and was lying to gain recognition and relevance after his death. No other reason than that. It was not looked into at all beyond that, just disqualified due to IMO, it did not fit the narrative.

-The disregard of Josh Lange's statements about the conversations he had with Tom Meade. Instead of having a respectful conversation to ascertain what his beliefs were and see if they held any water, like Tom Meade, he was quickly cast off as a charlatan that was only doing this AKA lying, in order to get in the good graces of James Glickenhaus and possibly acquire support/money for his projects from JG. It was not looked into at all beyond that, just disqualified due to IMO, again it did not fit the narrative. He was then subsequently ran out of town by those that did not want it to be part of the narrative.

-The actual physical elements that remain unanswered such as the crash damage and alterations to the frame. No one has an answer to this. And no one cares to find one. These are part of the tale, and any researcher worth his salt will follow any lead to it's end, whether it fits the narrative or not.

As far as Miura fabricating evidence, I don't believe he has. But again, the evidence presented, is in the realm of you have to believe me. It would not stand up in a court of law as none of it has been verified officially. But we are not in a court of law, and I do believe the evidence he has presented is what he says it is.

I do believe that JG still believes the chassis in question is indeed the remains of #0846. And just as Miura et al. has the right to believe the car is not #0846, JG has the right to believe from his findings that it is. As this is not a court of law, and everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe. What I said is, he seems to not care about proving it to this group, or waste his time arguing with this group. He believes what he believes (again not my beliefs) and has every right to spread that belief where and when he wants. If people care to dispute that where he is posting this then they have every right to do this as well.

This is where you are, IMO, wrong. And I believe logic dictates that. You cannot with any degree of certainty discredit an object from pictures taken years ago versus how an object sits today. As objects can be repaired, retouched etc. and not match exactly to what the pictures once showed, as that object has now changed in areas and will show obvious differences even if in other area's some of the original elements remain. This is mostly true if the repairs/modifications are not carried out by the original creator, as every creator will leave a signature, and even in the case of the original creator doing the repair, it will most likely not look exactly the same, as most likley every stroke of the brush is different.

Now, you can verify that something is indeed that object from old pictures Vs. as it sits today, if you are able to exactly match some of the elements from the picture to the object as it sits today. I.E. you have a close up of a weld and that weld appears exactly in present form as it does in the pictures.

I do agree with that first part as well. We are all entitled to claim our AMC Gremlin is #0846. As we are all entitled to not believe it is #0846. As far as if the car is believed to be a replica or not, I do not claim that JG has proven, in most people's eyes that it is indeed #0846. We can agree on that, as I agree with that, if the car were at auction today, I would not pay the ticket for it being 100% genuine. Some may. At that point we are in a buyer beware situation IMO. At that point you value it for what you believe it to be. IMO, the damage has been done to casting doubt on what it is, and even if the matter were settled legally in a court of law, I believe there would still be people out there, due to the years of doubt in threads like this, that would still not believe it to be the real deal and bid accordingly.

Speaking of a court of law, as well as the burden of proof, I feel there are some concepts of a legal argument that you do not understand? Maybe I am wrong?

First off, in reality, burden of proof does not exist outside of a court room. It is indeed a function of a court room. As for Burden Of Proof to function as intended, it requires a impartial judge and jury (impartial being the key word here and why selecting a jury that is believed to be impartial is a key aspect of the courtroom) to make their decision according to the burden of proof presented. Another aspect is that the Burden Of Proof varies depending on what type of case is being presented. For instance the burden of proof in a civil case falls under a preponderance of the evidence. This standard is to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred. It needs to be perceived by the jury that it seems to be more true than untrue, a scintilla if you will, which in laymen's terms is just a hair, the smallest amount one way or the other.

Then in a Criminal case, the Burden Of Proof is elevated to beyond a reasonable doubt which is the highest standard of proof that may be used. This standard requires the claimant shows that the only logical explanation from the facts presented is that the claim appears to be true, and that no other logical explanation can be inferred or deduced from the evidence presented.

So, as we can see all Burdens Of Proof are not the same.

And now, onto the second part of Burden Of Proof. Against what is the standard belief, that the person denying that the claim is indeed true, that the Burden Of Proof has not been met with witness testimony, documents, or objects, that denier is then off the hook, they are not. They then themselves have to either accept that Burden Of Proof has been met or show through witness testimony, documents, or objects that the burden of proof has not been met. That the claim and the burden of proof have not been met beyond a scintilla or reasonable doubt depending on the requirements of the case. Once the claimant has presented it's case, the burden of production shifts to that party which denies that the burden of proof has been met. They have taken the position of denial, and once that denial has been stated, they then have the opportunity to provide evidence either rebutting the plaintiff’s evidence or supporting the defendant’s own arguments. If they fail to provide a sufficient rebuttal, then it is up to the judge and jury to decide if the burden of proof has been met.

Again, Burden Of Proof does not truly exist in an argument outside of the courts. Although, I will agree that if you want someone to believe your position outside of the courts you will need to supply this Burden Of Proof with actual facts and evidence, but again,the burden of proof here does not function as the laymen interprets it to be, due to without a Judge and Jury, the Burden of Proof does not function as intended by the law. And again, the party proposing the denial is not off the hook to rebute and prove his case if he cares to win the decision of a jury or the peanut gallery.

The fact of the matter is, without an Impartial judge and jury, the Burden Of Proof can never be judged to be 100% conclusive as there is not an impartial audience making the decision. As in the case here and as stated above, people will state what they believe to be true and disregard what they don't feel fits their narrative. A factual decision will never come out of these circumstances, a decision with actual finality can only come from a court of Law. And, as we know, from examples of say wrongly incarcerated prisoners or people that were obviously guilty but got off, not even the courts will get this right 100%. But I feel that most Lawyers will agree that the courts function correctly most of the time. But in a situation where the claimant or the denier is also the judge and jury and only follows the facts that are convenient to their predisposed belief, you will never get a truthful answer, you will only get a pissing match, and in a pissing match no one can ever claim 100% certainty that the conclusion bears any truth.

Regards

Vincenzo Vangool

 

Again, this is just your opinion, not an actual factual statement. Although many will believe that it does not contain any elements of #0846, the evidence used in the denial of the claim does not show this either, as the methods used to assert that claim are flawed from the very start. You cannot come to a real conclusion that it is not the same car, one that may have went through changes since the pictures were taken in days past as an object sits today.

As well as no one should believe that this chassis has any elements of #0846 either, as I have said many times before, that perspective has yet to be proven as well and the opinion of it not having any remains is justified as well until it is actually proven to be more true than untrue.

Your belief is that it has 0%, and that is 100% your right, as we all have the right to our own opinion, but that does not make it fact, as from the evidence presented so far by both sides, there is no level of certainty. But I will agree, that at this point, JG's assertion that the chassis in question contains around 80% of #0846 is just his opinion.

And that brings me to my next point.

And I do find it ironic that Miura's extensive years long research pilgrimage has shown so far what JG has stated from the beginning. From the get go, JG has never claimed the chassis to be 100% the remains of #0846. He has only claimed 75-80% of it is the actual remains. Meaning that 20-25% was seen as being re-done. A court of law could easily see the differences that Miura has pointed out as being that 20-25% with no denial of the other 80%, that Jim says existed from the start of this, is not original to the chassis.

 

I am certain it is not 0846. The arguments for it all fell through. A replica chassis as declared by the man that built and sold it. The real one is long gone.

 

I have no desire to waste more of my time with this than I already do. IMO, it is a fools errand that will never really lead to any real conclusion in a setting with no actual judge and jury, where Burden Of Proof does not function as intended. I do not have a dog in this fight. I personally don't care if the chassis is #0846 or #0003. I feel, that in the interest of Ferrari history, it would be indeed valuable to ascertain if the chassis is real or not, but in the end, I do not own the car or have the motivation to spend hours on a fools errand with a biased peanut gallery self nominating themselves to be judge and jury. At the end of the day I think it would be delightful if they were the glorious remains of #0846, but I would rather see the research follow the path of truth over a preconceived notion, and with any amount of proper factual research I do not see that happening with this group. I'd rather spend my time doing things I enjoy versus spending my time researching someone else's pissing match. But to each their own.

Another thing I will not do Mr. Jeff Kennedy, is what you do. I will not make claims that I can't back up with actual factual evidence. I will not claim I know what the chassis is due to a secret cadre of experts that I will not reveal, and not only the facts behind those claims, but also who these secret experts are. I will not try to sway the public opinion with claims I can't back up. I will not claim to know the chassis history due to the unsubstantiated claim that you know the constructor with no evidence to back up not only that, but the actual evidence that matters, the construction of this specific chassis versus the others made by Piper. You make these definite claims that don't really show anything, they are broad by construction, and do not prove or facilitate any actual pertinent facts that would determine if the chassis were scratch built or repaired. Even if you could prove with documentation who the chassis builder was, that does not address the question of how the chassis was built. I will not make claims I am not willing to back up with my valuable time to provide the documentation to back up that claim. As I have never claimed, one way or the other, that the chassis is this or that.

And to be honest, I feel that people that make claims they can't back up with evidence ruins any credibility they may have. Just as I feel someone, such as yourself, that openly voices his disdain for someone, will never have any objectivity in doing that research.

As far as reaching out to the Ferrari experts, I feel that is another waste of time. Again, I don't have a dog in this fight. And beyond that, if I was indeed so inclined to pursue that, my feeling is that it would only be a waste of that time, as any claims I make from that will be passed off as hearsay by those that want to believe what they want to believe.

If these experts feel that they want to tell their tale, and believe those claims could pass the scrutiny of a court of law, then they can appear on the public record and post said claims to last forever on the forum of their choice. I am not here to search out their truth, if they believe in it so much, then they can post it publicly for all to scrutinize. If they are not willing to do this, then their claims are meaningless.

As far as my purpose here goes, IMO, it is to keep the conversation honest and help to follow the path of truth versus the path of bias that only follow the facts that support preconceived beliefs. I know already that you will say I'm worthless etc., and I don't care. It's a public forum and I will provide the contribution I see fit, whether you or others believe it to be a contribution or not. You can ridicule that belief all you want.

Regards

Vinny Vangool

 

I am glad you brought this up. As it is the reason I believe the picture show research to be inconclusive.

This is not only my opinion, but rather the educated opinion of one of my best friends fathers.

A couple months back, I was lucky enough to run into my friends father at his kids birthday party. And just like Mr. Kennedy, I don't care to reveal who he is and you can disbelieve that this person even exists due to this, as he is not a car historian or a Ferrari man that is making any claim one way or the other that the chassis is real as Mr. Kennedy's behind the scenes experts have. Not believing my statement here is fair game, for I can certainly respect anyone that feels what comes next to be meaningless, just as I find Mr. Kennedy's claims to be meaningless. But I will type these words anyway, whether you believe it or not, or feel my statement without revealing the man behind it, ruins it's very credibility.

I would be willing to ask him though, if he would make a statement regarding the following. But, I wont press him to as Ferrari's are not his field of study, and I don't think it's worthwhile for him to put his neck out for a cause he has no interest in. As well as it's not worth his time to participate in an argument he has no concern for. Again, he is not a Ferrari expert that has made claims through another person but then hides in the shadows. I would not ask him to jeopardize his standing in his career for a subject he cares nothing about. But, if he is not concerned with that, and is willing to write his beliefs in his own words, and be OK with me posting those words, I will.

My friends father is considered to be the foremost expert of a certain extremely valuable object. An object that's value far surpasses any Ferrari out there, as well as any Turner painting. These objects are also older than any Ferrari in existence etc., and have experienced the ravages of time, and thus have had restorations done to them.

He is a Historian, professor, author and curator of these objects as well as being considered the worlds foremost authority on them. A couple minutes of his time can turn your $1 object into a $100 million dollar object, just as he he can turn a $100 million dollar object into a $1 dollar object. Over the years, for laughs, I have often tried to bribe him to validate a fake as the real deal, just so we can make a decent cash grab on a side hustle.

I decided to ask him if he felt that comparing an object from a picture in the past, versus as it sits today, was a proper methodology to determine if the object was the real deal or not. Believe me or don't, but I tried not to reveal my beliefs on the subject, as I wanted his expert opinion of how proper research was done. His response was that no, it was not a proper method and that it was an extremely flawed methodology as objects can change over time, that objects are repaired and those repairs, restorations etc. will not be the same as once pictured and therefore cannot be judged that way. It is not a reliable way to authenticate something.

He explained that the way you authenticate something, is to find the creators signature, as that is unmistakable to the trained eye. That every creator has their signature and it can not be duplicated. I asked him what he meant by this? His explanation was that he had been sent an object for authentication a few weeks ago (at the time) and the owner was convinced it was the real deal. Unfortunately for the owner, it was not. He explained that it only took him seconds to come to that conclusion, which I thought was crazy, that it seemed like it would take longer to verify something so valuable. He explained it like this: Every artist leaves a signature. And that from years of study, he can recognize it immediately. He further explained it to me as this: When you get a letter from a dear friend, you don't have to look at the name on the bottom to see who it is from, you can tell who it is from just due to the specific signature of their writing. That even though there may be students of that creator, that have studied these objects and the creators methods their whole lives, and are responsible for the restorations of these objects, they will never duplicate that signature exactly. That you authenticate not by the changes made to the object, but by finding the original signature left by the creator.

So, as far as your dad's painting goes, if your belief is correct that Turner did indeed put his hand on it, it may not be 100% an official Turner painting, it seems to have mostly been done by his students, but... you claim that there may be a percentage of the total of the work that was done by Turner, maybe even hypothetically 99.9% students with say 0.1% Turners contribution,. So, logic dictates that it is not also 100% done by his students and thus a certain percentage is actually paint strokes done by Turner, and this was determined by the signature(I believe? of the brush strokes, not the name) left by Turner.

Does that matter? IMO, yes. As 100% is 100%, and not 100% means not 100%. If it is a fact that some of the strokes were done by Turner, logic dictates that a percentage of it is a painting by Turner. A collaborative effort no less, but still, one of the collaborators was indeed Turner. No matter how small the percentage.

Again, does this matter? I'd say so. As the man himself touched it and I would have to believe that increases the value. I would have to think in the hierarchy of worth when it comes to a Turner painting, that a fake not touched by his students or himself is the least valuable. That a painting done by his students is more valuable. That a painting done mostly by his students with small contributions by Turner himself is more valuable. And the most valuable would be those paintings that are 100% Turner.

As far as the Maser reference. I feel that is comparing apples to oranges. As it is 100% a copy with I'm guessing no contribution by the original creator. But I do agree with honestly disclosing what you are selling.

Regards

Vincent Vangool

 

Well then. Please express your thoughts on why you believe your opinion to be fact?

Do you feel your facts would survive the scrutiny of a court of law?

Regards

Vin Vangool

 

Well, it would be interesting if Marcel would make it part of the public record what exactly it was he saw in Switzerland. As well as his account of how the events of that day may differ from JG's recollection of what Mr. Massini told him. But I have never seen him step up to the plate. Maybe some day he will.

As far as the Holy Trinity goes, I think you have to consider how impartial some of the members of that holy Trinity are going to be? I don't know if Piper is going to keep things on the level in light of the feud, as well as Ferrari has been known to make plenty of documented mistakes. If Pipers testimony were to be considered relevant, I think you would have to put him under oath with cross examination etc.

I do agree that it is up to JG to prove that pudding if he wants the chassis to be believed to be authentic, as it's obvious many don't believe it is. And I agree with anyone can claim their blender or microwave is #0846. But that has more reasonable doubt than this scenario IMO.

Regards

V V

 

https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/posts/148405423/




Information links to posts from this thread that prove the P4 replica with a 3 litre 312 F1 engine #DP0003 that James Glickenhaus bought from David Piper is NOT Ferrari's 330 P3/P4 #0846, the 1967 winner of the 24 Hours of Daytona.

https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/posts/148250702/

The evidence provided in the links in the post above is comprehensive, to say the least.

But apparently..., there are still reasons to doubt the overwhelming evidence that "0846" ceased to exist in '67.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Every time this thread pops up, I think of this song.

 

Thank you, i suppose, for a very, very long post. Unfortunately, several of your paragraphs can be dismissed immediately.

You stated, several times in fact, that the concept of "burden of proof" does not exist outside of a courtroom. This is 100% FLAT WRONG. See this wiki page, to understand where the concept applies to fields of logic, science and philosophy as well:

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

"Holder of the burden
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.[2]

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[3][4]

Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".[5][6][7]"


Second, the issue i have with discounting period photographs (vs new) and personal testimony as "faulty" evidence is simply this: you can't rely on such evidence to support a claim of authenticity, and then dismiss evidence of the same flavor if it argues against authenticity.

In short: If we remove period photographs and personal testimony from all claims of authenticity, what evidence even remains to support the idea that this replica car might be built upon the chassis of #0846?


It seems that any remaining claims of authenticity must now, finally, degrade to this simple summary: we can all believe what we want On this, i do agree! When logic, reason, proof and evidence fail us .... all that remains is "belief".

BELIEVE what you will

 

One final point: any notion that the possible "authenticity" of this replica only matters to a few remaining posters on Fchat could not possibly be more WRONG.

As we've seen, not only does it continue to matter to the current owner of the replica in question (even if he no longer posts on Fchat), but please ask the current owners of real P3/P4 cars if the proven existence of another one would be of any interest to them

Ask any Ferrari historian ... or, for that matter, any lover of vintage race cars as well ...

 

Mr. Vincent Vangool:

What amount of original bit(s) of 0846 would it take for you to believe that the JG car is the original 0846? One cross member? One bolt? 2 tubes, 3 tubes?

Already proven that it the engine is not. Or do you dispute that conclusion too?

Get off your keyboard and make some actual contacts with the true experts. Maybe some of them will talk will talk with you and let you in on the truth. But, that would require some meaningful actions on your part in lieu of spewing rampant ill-informed speculations. It is what I did to realize where the truth on this topic exists.

 

Mr. Vincent Vangool,

I will even give you the first step in the quest for real information. Find the list of senior IAC/PFA judges and try reaching each of them.

This might prove that you actually care about getting true insight on this subject. Until you do that you should remain in the standing room only section behind the last row of the bleachers.

 

Preponderance of the body of evidence. First and foremost, the man that made the replica frame declares and warrants it in writing. The long story of how the owner desperately tried to explain discrepancies in the frame design but all were proven wrong. The picture evidence showing no link to the real car. Sorry, this case is closed with a capitol 'C' and has been for some time.

 

Please allow me to pre-empt where i see this going, with a modification (if i may):

"The long story of how the owner tried to explain a connection to 0846, but enough substantial doubt was cast by very compelling evidence to the contrary that the "burden of proof" (required by any such extraordinary claim) was nowhere close to being met. Therefore, in any "venue" worthy of serious debate or consideration ... be it philosophical, scientific, logical or legal ... the car remains as it was sold & bought: a replica."

Once again ... and i know i'm beating a horse that's been dead for years ... from a philosophic, scientific, logical or legal perspective: the replica status of this car does not NOT need to be "proven".