The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

When did JG acquire the chassis from Piper? How long ago did Piper acquire any spares or chassis parts from Ferrari? If it was long enough ago, It could have been just a broken used race chassis and if Piper was only interested in racing them, it was of no value. Was he only making the replica chassis to race? Just asking. Can anyone answer definitively?

Perry

 

search this thread and you find all answers

 

Sig. M.R. possibly or someone else?

 

You keep making references to lawyers, and our judicial system ... but you don't have the first clue about either.

Point #1 (again): Only one side in a legal case has the "burden of proof". In this case, the "burden of proof" rests squarely with the side making the unusual and surprising "claim of authenticity", about a car sold and bought as a replica (!)
Point #2: You are surely free to discount, or disregard altogether, pictures from 50 years ago. Expert testimonies and memories from 50 years can be argued as "unreliable" as well. BUT ... this argument applies to BOTH sides of the debate. If we remove pictures, memories and testimonies from BOTH sides of the debate ... what "evidence" remains, to even suggest a connection to 0846?
Point #3: The concept of "reasonable doubt" argues against the side with "burden of proof". IF "reasonable doubt" exists, THEN the "burden of proof" has NOT been met. In this case, IF "reasonable doubt" exists regarding any claims of authenticity, THEN the car is a replica.

Is there "reasonable doubt" about this car's authenticity?

The side arguing against authenticity has NOTHING to "prove". The side arguing against authenticity, needs to only cast "reasonable doubt" about the car's authenticity. One side, has the "burden of proof" ... the other side, has the "burden of casting reasonable doubt AGAINST that proof".

Has Steve succeeded, in casting "reasonable doubt" against any "proof of authenticity"? Please remember ... for tenth time ... Steve has nothing to "prove".

We don't know Steve's motivations for conducting his thorough research. We don't know Glickenhaus' motivations, for continuing to advertise and parade this car as "authentic" (without even a footnote or asterisk).

But such motivations do NOT detract from "objective evidence" ... unless you are suggesting that Steve, or Glickenhaus, actually "manufactured" evidence, "created" photos out of thin air, "paid off" experts to lie, etc etc. But gain ... such concerns apply to BOTH sides of the debate.

Do you have any direct knowledge that EITHER side falsified evidence? Please share, if you do!

 

Point #1. Burden of proof only matters if someone cares to prove it or is legally required. My guess is JG could care less if you and Miura believe him or noty, I think if he did, he'd be here beating down the doors like Steve.

Point #2. If you read my prior post I stated neither has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt IMO. I am not here saying it is #0846, that is honestly probably a long shot at this point, but again, not proven beyond reasonable doubt with pictures from 50 years ago as anything could change in that time and the frame shows signs of repair and modification as is.

Point #3. The car is what is was used as in the past. It is no longer recognized by Ferrari just as #0858 is no longer recognized as a P4 but both (if 0846 is real) were P4's at one time. Reasonable doubt will have to be satisfied for the public to believe that, but it doesn't change if that metal was raced in '66 and '67.

Is there "reasonable doubt" about this car's authenticity?
Again, no one has to do anything. This is not a court of law. Tell me when it is.

Has Steve succeeded, in casting "reasonable doubt" against any "proof of authenticity"?
Again, A car cannot be expected to look exactly like it did decades ago. All Steve's Pictures prove is that the chassis today does not match the ones in the pictures exactly. They neither prove that it is or is not 0846. IMO, there is reasonable doubt on both sides.

Do you have any direct knowledge that EITHER side falsified evidence? I do not know if Steve has falsified any evidence. I do believe that Steve is only willing to go down those roads that will prove his case and will spin and accept only evidence that will prove his case and will not go down the roads that may not. He is not an objective researcher and thus why this petty vendetta is SO obvious. This is not a real a real investigation that follows the facts, IMO Steve only considers what will give him his much coveted win and thus why the grudge is so obvious and why his research is flawed IMO.

 

I always get a grin when so called researchers discount information that does not fit their narrative. In JG's words, it speaks volumes.

Tom Meade gave a deathbed confession. Was it credible? I don't know? But what I do know is it was never seriously considered or looked into and was discounted as Tom's a quack who is just looking for attention, it's all lies. Was it? Or did it not fit the narrative? His apprentice tried to come here and tell what he believed to be true but he was treated terribly and laughed out of town by those that already had their answer in mind. To me that shows that people have chosen their answer, whether it's correct or not, and that kills any credibility their investigation may have had and that this is not objective research that follows the facts. Anyone that knows anything knows that Meade did have access to these parts BITD but hey, it doesn't fit the narrative, so that guy is a quack. Ok. Sure....

This is from a Facebook post where a friend of Meades explains that he thought Meade was trustworthy but believes Glick was lying. Which I find funny as if you find Meade to be trustworthy, then you probably believe he is telling the truth that the chassis is 0846 But on the flipside you also believe that Jim is lying that it is 0846?

"
Gregg Feldman
I questioned James about that car because he told me that Tom Meade some kind of deathbed confession that authenticated it.. along with another of things we were chatting about in Facebook messenger. When I questioned him further about that car, he unfriended me and blocked me and deleted our whole conversation. I wish I screen captured it but I didn't think James glickenhaus was a ******** artist until he did that. I'm at Tom in 2006 and he told me a lot of stories. Tom told me a few stories about himself and David Piper...
Exchanging of bodies and chassis... kind of stuff. James Glickenhaus contradicted one of Tom's stories.
When I "called him out"... He didn't like it one bit. I've been lucky enough to meet a lot of people way up high in the automotive stratosphere but some of them can be trusted and some of them cannot. I knew Tom very well but I only met James through Facebook and we kind of became friends until I questioned him about one of his cars. I'm not the only one that questiond James and got blocked and deleted because of that car. and two other Ferrari belonging to James have a couple details that are 'questionable' as well. James has a lot of pull because he owns the earliest Ferrari that exists.
That being said, I don't trust him but I always trusted Tom Meade."
"

 

Nope. "Burden of proof" matters, and extends, FAR beyond an internet message board! Let's say a person is actively advertising and representing a car as "authentic" ... when there are SERIOUS questions, and lots of VALID evidence, to suggest otherwise. Let's say a person even "represents" a car as authentic, at a prestigious car show ... do you think "burden of proof" regarding authenticity applies, or not? What if that car happens to come up for auction? Are these discussions on this topic relevant?

One side has EVERYTHING to prove. The other side has NOTHING to prove. It's kind of shocking ... with all of your legal references ... that you still refuse to acknowledge this simple point.

LMAO

Have you, or have you not, been making legal references and analogies over the past several posts?

But, when legal references and analogies immediately expose the fatal flaws in your arguments ... then, suddenly, we're not in a "court of law"

Do you really think that Glickenhaus is an "objective researcher" ??? WoW. I mean, seriously ... WOW. Your own personal bias in this debate is EXTREME.


YOU have made several legal references and analogies. Perhaps you're familiar with the concept of "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Let's explore that briefly, and extend the legal analogies that YOU have recently embraced:

A suspect is on trial for murder. The prosecution must PROVE his guilt, beyond "reasonable doubt". The defense must prove NOTHING. After all, it is guilt ... not innocence ... that must be "proven". IF the defense casts enough "reasonable doubt", THEN the "burden of proof" is not met ... and the suspect is declared "not guilty". The jury doesn't get to say "well, we are still on the fence because neither side has proven their case." It should be abundantly clear, by now, why that is NEVER the outcome in a jury trial: if both sides "fail to prove" in some confused minds, that means the one side with something to prove has failed, and that means the verdict is "not guilty". Innocence NEVER needs to be "proven".

A claim has been made, that a car bought and sold as a replica is, in fact, an authentic vintage Ferrari race car. The person making this claim, is the person with the "burden of proof". Authenticity must be "proven" in this case, not the "replica status". IF the side arguing for "replica status" casts enough "reasonable doubt" against the claims of authenticity, THEN the car is determined to be a replica. If you're still confused about "who has to prove what", I'll clear it up for you: If neither side has "proven their case", then the car is a replica. Period.

Again ... YOU have made several legal references and analogies recently. You don't get to side-step them now, just because things aren't going your way.

Based on the legal references and analogies that YOU have embraced ... what's the "verdict"? Is the car an authentic vintage Ferrari, or is it a replica?

 

Somewhere in this thread there is a letter from Ferrari saying 0846 no longer exists.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

To: Vincent Vangool

You continue to make the mistake that all knowledge of this car is going to be published on Ferrari Chat.

You continue to make the mistake that silence from some of the most noted Ferrari experts on this topic indicates something. Having had a personal conversation with one of those international experts (also an original outside consultant to Classiche) he indicated that for himself and a couple of the others they would not participate on forums like FerrariChat because the neophytes and purely ignorant made it pointless for those that actually new what they were talking about.

You have completely missed the message when there is mention of legal threats having been made by JG. The threat does not have to become an actual filing to be real. The threat from someone with deep enough pockets to wage an ego driven fight is sufficient. Look at what happened with 0799GT to see what deep pockets can do. And, do note from that actual case that JG was going to be an expert witness and his aim was to exact personal revenge upon two publications.

You claim that JG doesn't care. Utter BS. What he has done is move to other places where he can control the narrative to a pool susceptible fanboys like you.

You one of the reasons why this thread does not die. There is no hairbrained possibility that can't be used to justify why this recreation can't have a possibility of being something that it isn't.

 

Jeff, thank you so much. Slowly, but surely, the truth is coming out.

 

This is massively harsh for this offense. I submit that this should be put under a larger group review to understand this in its reasonable context.

 

Not even close to harsh, let alone "massively harsh".

Thread bans are considered a step above a warning. An attack on another user normally draws a 2-7 day site ban, not an easy thread ban (user can't post on one thread for the duration, but still have the rest of the site still accessible to them). Also, this action was posted in the moderator log, as most are, and several mods commented on miurasv's history here; but none considered the action objectionable or unwarranted.

 

You guys are wrong on this one. Still waters run deep. Let it play out.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

This thread has been going on since 2003! It's been "playing out" for 19 years! A 7-day delay of participation by one user is not going to change a thing. If it's that big a deal to him, then he can avoid denigrating another user's "mental capacity" in the future.

 

Comparing F-chat members to mass murderers is acceptable here,……degrading a members metal capacity is not. Interesting….

 

I understand. But please understand there are people who are just now stepping forward. Jim Glickenhaus threatening to sue people would have gotten him banned in today’s FerrariChat, but it didn’t get him banned back then. Steve was brave enough (or stupid enough like me) to stand up even when FerrariChat would not. I think he deserves a little slack. There’s a lot more to this thread than what has been said.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

The appropriation of a Jim Jones photograph to mock the zealotry of proverbially “drinking the cool-aid” Jim Glikenhaus has served up over the years is hardly a comparison to the mass murder component of his history. Apologies if the illustration was lost on you.

 

An sincere explanation, and a sincere apology.

Grazie.

Ciao Ciao!

 

Salty.

So your belief is that Jim will go to a court of law against the greatest Ferrari expert in the world, who can clearly prove him wrong, beyond all reasonable doubt, and he will still win the case.

Yours truly

A neophyte and purely ignorant fanboy.

 

It is bad form to put words in people’s mouths they didn’t say.


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

The reality is that the person who hides behind the persona of a character from Scooby Doo, and claims to live in all sorts of places around the world but is actually from the UK only ever pops up on this thread now and again, and no others on fchat, as he has a long standing personal beef with Steve.

When Steve was getting lambasted on this thread and only a few of us backed him up, this person jumped on the bandwagon, he has little interest in the actual back story of the claims regarding 0846.

The real reason he dislikes Steve is based on a totally non related clash they had many years before regarding Lamborghini where Steve came out on top.

However the tide has turned in more recent times, and Steves research work on 0846 is generally now accepted, which clearly still riles this character,

As they say "Do not feed the troll" he will move on again soon enough.

 

I am appalled at your misconstruing of what I said. It is the threat from someone that has the financial resources to fight an extended battle that counts. The example of 0799 GT shows how even when deep pockets loses, they can keep up a fight with rounds of appeals.

Have you ever been a part of a HNWI battle? The billings and consumption of time are immense; they can crush someone not on equivalent financial ability.

 

Thank you for explaining the backstory of the personal animosity involved. It explains why Scooby Doo is his self-admitted "neophyte and purely ignorant fanboy".

This further demonstrates why the 7-day ban on Steve was undeserved by Yin. I question Yin's understanding of the whole DP003 story and what has gone on outside of his FChat view. Likewise, I question if those other moderators that may have weighed on in the ban have the requisite understanding either.