The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Don
Because he wasn't there
He didn't work for Ferrari
He wasn't a works mechanic
Nathan

 

I am starting to believe that everything needs to be revised slightly.

As it seems everyone's take is not 100% factual.

 

I'm wrong???

You were the one that posted this

Here's the definition of everyone:
eve·ry·one
[ev-ree-wuhn, -wuhn] Show IPA
pronoun
every person; everybody.


That definition includes Ferrari. As they are people, they are everyone.

In one sentence you are saying everyone believed that 0856 was the winner till 79. In another sentence you are saying it has been known since 67 who the winner was. Which is it?

Did you not read Post #8484 for accuracy and clarity after you wrote it?

Like I said, we are ALL to blame for the muddying of actual history. Myself included As well as everyone else. That is why all of this needs to be examined further. For it has been proven many times before that even the experts are not 100% accurate and even less do their statements clearly define what happened.

Your statement in post 8484 leads to the belief that everyone believed 0856 was the Daytona winner till 1979. There is no other way to interpret what you wrote.

Even if Ferrari knew, that everyone includes the experts. I would have to wonder how hard they were digging if the truth wasn't revealed to them till 1979 when it was clearly written in Ferrari's records since 1967. It took experts 12 years to figure out the truth?

Goes back to the old saying....

Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

I personally would like to know the reason of why it was believed that Wayne was making a statement about the Targa Florio when they story was first told in front of a group of people? And I would like to know why that story has since changed....?

 

OK - "nearly everyone" - happy now?

Well that explains a lot. I've noticed throughout this thread that all you do is pick holes in things. Why don't you go away, do some research and come back when you've got something factual to add?
Nathan

 

There are very few 100% facts in this story.

 

I think you're getting there.

I believe that anyone that would have read your statement would come to the same conclusion. Am I wrong?

When writing history as fact it is best to make points clearly with zero room for error.

Picking holes in things is how the real facts surface. That is the something factual I have to add to this conversation. Trying to get down to the real facts versus just taking what one person believes to be the facts. As even your facts, as stated, are not that factual. Your facts and the way you word them help to muddy the waters.

So, I'm here to pick them apart and see how factual the facts are displayed.

Which, I don't feel they are being displayed all that clearly, as evidenced by your earlier posts.

Did I not prove, by your own admission, that your statement was not very factual at all? There is no grey area in facts. Either it is or it isn't, and the way you worded your post, it was not factual, it was mis-leading.

As there aren't many proven facts to this story, I don't know how anyone is bringing anything factual to the table in the first place, yourself included.

 

I agree. On both sides. Which is why I believe they need to be picked apart and examined further.

 

Yes, You're wrong. It seems that most posters understood it, except you.
Again, instead of picking holes why don't you go away and come back when you've got something factual to add? Picking holes is not adding anything factual.
Nathan

 

Facts are not sided. They are either there or not. The assumptions used to fill in the gaps (left by lack of facts) is where a bias comes into play.

 

As very few posters have posted since then I would say you are stating yet another misleading statement.

How does everyone leave any room for misinterpretation? Please explain.

Everyone is everyone.

Everyone but Ferrari means everyone but Ferrari.

By your statement, Did Ferrari not dress up and sell 0856 as the 1967 Daytona winner?

Cause by your statement it seems like it was sold by 0856 was sold by Ferrari as the Daytona Winner. Your statements and your contradictory statements to your original statements are very misleading. I don't see facts here but quite the opposite. I see your statements as confusing facts. So not very factual at all.

Here's a fact I'm bringing to the discussion, and I don't even have to go away to make this factual statement. Your sentence construction is unclear and misleading. It does not express the real information clearly.

There is visible damage to the frame but yet no one has a good reason for how it happened.

It seems to me like you are here on more of a vendetta to dis-credit this car then to search for the actual history of it. I feel the job of a historian is to dig deep and question everything in search for the truth versus rely on what others have passed on as being entirely factual.

There is accident damage on the car. You have no idea of how it came about.

An expert, as in someone who actually works on the cars, feels that the damage is of the sort that could have happened in the impact of the Targa Florio, but yet you discount it due to Sparling's statement that seems to have changed through heresay the second time around. Yet you investigate this no further. Have you contacted Hydjuk to see why he feels this damage was caused by the type of impact the car had the Targa Florio? Or do you just discount it and assume an incomplete conclusion due to Sparling's second telling, through a second person, does not confirm it? Just cause Sparling's story has changed doesn't mean that the damage is not the result of the Targa Florio crash or other crash.

Is it possible that the frame damage believed to be from the LeMans fire was not from a fire at all? That the damage was due to a shredded tire whipping against the chassis tubing at 100+ miles an hour?

Have you looked into these possibilities at all? Or have you just deduced your answers from a lack of investigation and relied on what was readily available from other sources that fit with the story you want to tell?

If no one has any idea of how this happened, I think it is safe to say that no one has really looked deep enough into the frames history. To me all that we have is a story told on no real information but conclusions made on top of muddy conclusions.

 

The possibilities are all conjectures and assumptions... not to be confused with facts.

There are a gazillion possibilities...

 

Yeh - whatever.
Nathan

 

I just bruised my forehead with my palm.

Edit: this was in response to a post by VV that has since disappeared.

 

As much as we might prefer, history is never clear cut. Incorrect memories, incomplete records and personal perspectives always have their effect on the narrative.
Matters of much greater import studied by generations of scholars remain in dispute.

The conversation will continue, as it should, but I don't expect it to be "settled".

 

I realized why it was not worthwhile, so I deleted it.

I understand that it was in reference to the whole post.

 

I am not speaking of facts being sided here. I am speaking of both sides of the argument facts not being 100% factual and thus the reason for further examination.

As you said, we have mostly conjecture and assumptions, not facts.

I am saying that is true for both sides of the argument.

 

I would not trust Ferrari to know anything about their own cars previous to 1990.

 

Are you referring to the JG document that supports his claim that the chassis is from 0846 ?

What we do know is that David Piper sold a replica to JG. What we also know that the car has been given the identity 0846 on the strength of the evidence disclosed in the JG document. If the facts within the document are wrong then the conclusion they support is wrong.

In short, if Sparling did not repair the damage from the Targa Florio then the statement in the document is wrong and we are left with a damaged tube with no link to 0846 other then the opinion of Hadjuk having read a book on the crash

 

I am referring to everything. I doubt that everything in the 0846 document is spot on correct as I doubt that everything to the contrary is spot on correct.

I feel the opinion of Hadjuk has to do with a lot more then just a book.

I feel it has to do with him having the frame in front of him and analyzing the events of the crash and how that would play out into the frame.

I think it has a lot to do with years of hands on experience repairing race cars.

I think the answer to the question you keep asking is the basis of why Hadjuk believes this damage is a result of the Targa Florio crash.

I don't think he saw random damage and just assumed it related to Targa Florio. I think he is familiar with the crash and assessed that the damage in the frame would be a possible result of a crash that distributed force in that manner.

I don't think it was random at all. But the analysis of a man that is qualified to be an expert in how a crash such as that would impact a frame.

I think to just base if it is true or not based on Wayne Sparling is pre-mature.

The supposed Sparling statement only backed up Hadjuk's assesment.

Sparling was not where the belief first came from. It cam from Hadjuk.

This is one of the many things that I don't feel has been fleshed out enough to have a real decision either way.

 

Jesus Christ, you're really obsessed. Why dont you start with big picture?

- did DP really sell JG a car called 003?? -> maybe this is all a great hoax to keep us busy?
- maybe the identities of 0846 and 0856 were switched???

Sorry, but no. This is another one of those casually made statements that get completely blown out of proprotion and are presented as hard facts when in reality JH just made JG aware that there are mods and repairs to the 003 chassis, which is true. This usually ends with the person who made the statement getting annoyed and upset that a multi $$$MM theory gets based on those comments and quickly retracting from the whole matter....see Sparling.

The whole Sparling/TF damage episode has been proved untrue 10 YEARS AGO. Just let it go. He was not there. He confused the car.

Its VERY detracting to JGs case that its still featured in the 100 pages.

 

Email has been sent ...
Pete

 

For what it's worth:

A few years ago Jim G sent me a book he created about the history and details of 0846. I passed it on to my vintage Ferrari owning friend who is in the top-tier of the FIA. He has deep motorsports roots back to the 60's and there is no reason for him to be biased either way re: Jim's car. He was very impressed and had no criticism.

It seems some have an agenda here that is driven by something that is less than upstanding and honorable.

 

Nice seeing so many FChatters in Monterey. In response to MF I had a nice
exchange with him and in writing he confirmed "To be perfectly clear"
that his department sent damaged no longer needed chassis to the scrap yard
and did NOT physically destroy them. After being shown THE entire PDF
he also stated in writing that the P 3/4 chassis modifications currently on
my car today could "Of course" been done by Ferrari.

Cross is a wonderful thing.

For those who may care 0846 has been invited and will be at Sunday In The
Park with cars from RL and at Manhasset.

I'm glad that KB recently reported in Cavallino that 0846 owned by me
appeared at Amelia. Perhaps John was away from the office hat day.


Things with me are good. We sold our first customer car and will be a two
possibly Three car team (another sale pending) at the 24 Hours of Nurburgring
next May and with these sales have started down the road to Le Mans.

Best

 

Thanks for stopping by, Jim. Nice to hear about your chat with Forgheri.

Hope you will be back to tell us about your newest acquisition, too!

Best from Brazil.