[John V.]

Kurt, yes, that is the only pic. Perhaps Dave can get a sharper pic of it for us.

If it is NOT D80 then perhaps B80. Since it is a Convertible, that really doesn't make it any more logical. Although, it would then be very consistent with the other B80 Convertible I mentioned in the earlier post.

IIRC, Ric only collected the data for the AEE, did not save a pic of it, didn't think it was interesting at the time, it was just part of a collection of data he shared with me after he learned about my own VIN log.

Dave reported the BD4 and I asked him for the VIN in a subsequent post, but he did not respond.

There is enough hard evidence IMO to prove without doubt that unexplained codes exist on some 03B & 03C Lordstown 'bird Data Plates.

I do NOT believe the codes point to anything very unusual and pretty certain they are specifically connected to the Roof Drip Rail Molding along with other specific changes from standard content to optional content that was announced on March 13.

Dave, to echo Kurt, it isn't a matter of "pleasing" anybody. The data you posted simply doesn't jibe with what is claimed. More importantly, those of us like Kurt & Ric and to a lesser degree, myself, can immediately spot the errors because we can see how it "fits", when for instance for the one Kurt fleshed out, if we simply change "LOR" to "LOS", then it becomes consistent with what we have already know.

If you don't immediately recognize the flaws in that data, it suggests your own cognitive skills are weak or you simply haven't researched to the necessary depth others have in order to support what you are claiming. Insisting that these are Lordstown Data Plates only makes you look foolish.

You cannot wish what you posted to represent Lordstown Data Plates. This isn't rocket science, but if you hope to analyze '69 'bird Data Plate codes, you at least need to be able to distinguish codes that represent a Lordstown Data Plate vs. a Van Nuys Data Plate vs. a Norwood Data Plate.

Kurt, in case you don't already have it, attached is the Data Plate showing B80 from the 350 Convertible with Decor Group that I referenced in the earlier post.

[1969T/A]

Originally Posted by John V.

Dave, to echo Kurt, it isn't a matter of "pleasing" anybody. The data you posted simply doesn't jibe with what is claimed. More importantly, those of us like Kurt & Ric and to a lesser degree, myself, can immediately spot the errors because we can see how it "fits", when for instance for the one Kurt fleshed out, if we simply change "LOR" to "LOS", then it becomes consistent with what we have already know.

If you don't immediately recognize the flaws in that data, it suggests your own cognitive skills are weak or you simply haven't researched to the necessary depth others have in order to support what you are claiming. Insisting that these are Lordstown Data Plates only makes you look foolish.

John & Kurt what looks foolish is you both are so called experts on data
But you never had any idea about these lordstown cars with codes.
Until I told you about them. I have been told I was wrong before
about lordstown cars with coded tags and have proved you
and many others wrong and they do exist.
So please before you point a finger at me saying
I look foolish remember the hand your are pointing
with has three fingers pointing back at you.

[John V.]

Dave, my skirt is clean. You may recall that I never challenged you about the code on your Data Plate. In fact, I openly chastised others who did so without attempting to research the subject more thoroughly.

I do not claim to be an "expert", so called or otherwise. Please refer to the 1/22/07 email that I sent to you offering to help. In a lengthy email, at the outset, I wrote, "I am not a Firebird expert by any stretch of the imagination."

I am an amateur car hobbyist with an interest in resolving any sort of mystery associated with Pontiacs in general. I took it on faith that the code on your Data Plate was legit and set about to document evidence to support that faith and with a fair bit of legwork, I believe I found the necessary evidence to put that question to rest.

At the time I first contacted you, I had only been recording '69 'bird VINs for reasons having nothing to do with codes on Data Plates. I was intrigued by the code on yours, offered to help research it, and began doing just that. Kurt aided me immensely, I also suggested you enlist his help. Unbeknownst to me, Kurt had already been introduced to your quest, I learned that later.

I know you have taken grief from others. IMO, some of it you brought upon yourself by an antagonistic attitude (that's an OPINION). In some ways, you have frustrated rather than helped to resolve the issue.

But it IS an interesting little mystery, so I began to collect data to see what I could learn and have always been willing to share it with you and anybody else with an interest in the topic.

It was NOT Kurt who called you foolish, I did.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. You have an opinion about how your car was equipped. I am entitled to my own opinion, but since it is not my car and since I am not interested in acquiring it, and have not been asked my opinion by anybody that might be interested in acquiring it, I have largely kept my opinion about the car to myself.

I have attempted to establish some facts that may resolve the story about the codes such as appears on your Data Plate. As I mentioned earlier, I AM surprised that so much progress has been made to date. And STILL we don't know WHY the codes are on some Data Plates.

What is needed is good, complete data. In a post a couple days ago, I outlined what specific info was needed from you.

Instead of offering up the requested facts, you attempted to defend the nonsense that you posted about a series of Data Plates that were obviously not related to the issue and not even from '69 Lordstown 'birds. As I say, you are not entitled to your own facts.

If you want to continue to believe that the Data Plates you posted are from '69 Lordstown 'birds when it has carefully been explained to you that it simply cannot be, then you are no longer dealing in facts. This is what I mean by you frustrating the effort that some of us are seriously trying to resolve, myself especially.

I know that some folks believed you photoshopped the pic of your Data Plate. I can't help that. That was all water over the dam before I ever became aware of the topic. Although, I can't explain why you have chosen not to post a much sharper image of it.

INDEPENDENTLY, by my own efforts, I was able to establish that certain 03B & 03C Lordstown Data Plates do have certain codes. That is now an indisputable FACT in my view.

Now I am trying to find out WHY they have such a code. I have speculated a couple of scenarios, but I need more evidence.

You can help by finding the evidence I asked you to present. Or you can bog us down by insisting that certain Data Plates are from Lordstown cars when I know they are not. And even if they were, without the additional evidence, we would still be no closer to resolving the remaining question.

If I tell you I have never seen a certain thing, so that in my experience it doesn't exist, and you then show me that certain thing, backed up by supporting evidence, I can then take it as fact. If instead, I deny that what you show me is real and continue to claim that thing doesn't exist, then I suggest I would look foolish.

In this case, you have suggested a certain thing is so. My experience (and that of others) tells me you are mistaken and I presented (as did others) evidence and facts that should have proven to you that you were mistaken. But rather than realizing that you were mistaken, you rejected the facts you were given and steadfastly contended you were not mistaken. That is why, IMO, you are looking foolish.

If you want to hold to your opinions and not be bothered by the facts, you are free to do so.

If you want to enlighten me, present the evidence. I already told you that I would like to add the Van Nuys cars to my VIN log. My VIN log serves my own purpose beyond the codes on the 03B & 03C Lordstown Data Plates. So the data is still useful to ME, even if it is unrelated to the Lordstown builds.

As it happened, I already had logged the VIN for Body No. LOS512710 from before I started recording associated Data Plate info. With Kurt's input, I now have a more complete record for that car although I still am missing the Invoice data that I now record whenever possible (Date Shipped & Identification No. in case you have that, Kurt).

You ARE correct, before I learned of your Data Plate, I knew NOTHING about the EXISTENCE or LACK of codes on Lordstown Data Plates. Such a thing was never even on my radar. You did not PROVE ME WRONG, I never claimed one way or the other. And, if anything, it was ME who provided to YOU the supporting evidence to PROVE that the code on YOUR Data Plate was legit by providing evidence of others that were consistent with your own on the basis of when built and with what options. I don't say this to grab credit. Just pointing out that you have demonstrated a seeming inability to uncover or present useful evidence and facts on your own and if others hadn't taken up the task, you might still be grasping at straws trying to convince the 'bird hobby that your Data Plate is legit. I'm not pointing fingers, just trying to get you to open your eyes and start helping, not hindering. It's your choice.

[1969T/A]

Originally Posted by John V.

You ARE correct, before I learned of your Data Plate, I knew NOTHING about the EXISTENCE or LACK of codes on Lordstown Data Plates. Such a thing was never even on my radar. You did not PROVE ME WRONG, I never claimed one way or the other. And, if anything, it was ME who provided to YOU the supporting evidence to PROVE that the code on YOUR Data Plate was legit by providing evidence of others that were consistent with your own on the basis of when built and with what options. I don't say this to grab credit. Just pointing out that you have demonstrated a seeming inability to uncover or present useful evidence and facts on your own and if others hadn't taken up the task, you might still be grasping at straws trying to convince the 'bird hobby that your Data Plate is legit. I'm not pointing fingers, just trying to get you to open your eyes and start helping, not hindering. It's your choice.

You have a funny way Of asking someone for the info they have by calling them "foolish"
You may want to look at your post earlier that states you only had two of the nine cars that I listed earlier. For you to think you have been some big help to me on the search for info on my car thats a joke. By the way you may want to put a note in your data that theres two cars with the same body number Body No. 512710
one seems to be "LOS512710" and the other is "LOR51270"
I have the pics of the cowl tags and vins to the data I listed.
I would post them but once again Im being told I dont know What Im talking about
I sure you will find out Im right just like the other info in "TIME".
Remember before you point fingers and start insulting people theres three fingers pointing back at you showing the true fool.

[Kurt S]

Wow.
Dave,
I never said your tag was anything but what it was. So I'm not really sure how you proved me wrong. I helped find other data (full-size and Firebird) that showed it wasn't limited to one or two cars.
I didn't call you foolish, but I think your recent posts are.

Present data. Tag pics, VINs, and PHS. That's data. Anything else isn't going to help shed light on this tag anomaly.
You own one of the datapoints and you can't even post a clearer pic of the tag.
You have a funny way of helping people help you.....

[Kurt S]

Originally Posted by 1969T/A

By the way you may want to put a note in your data that theres two cars with the same body number Body No. 512710
one seems to be "LOS512710" and the other is "LOR51270".
I have the pics of the cowl tags and vins to the data I listed.

22367 LOR 512710 202 73 12 G479

OK, so can you post that LOR tag?
Here's the LOS tag with exactly the same body #, colors, date, etc.

[John V.]

Okay, now I realize I am the true fool.

[Transamric]

John, if you are the "true fool", may we all be such a fool.
Some just don't want to get it.

[John V.]

No doubt 1969T/A has collected his info directly from each Owner since he has the tag pix and matching VINs for the ones he posted. But if you want to know where the same erroneous Data Plate info has been posted, look here:

http://www.transamworld.com/1969%20Body%20Tag.php

This is a site run by John Wallace. He may be following this thread.

He has already corrected this one:

22337 LOR vn5164 207 5151 01 D N037

This is exactly how it read on the document I printed from John's website on 12/12/2008, so I know it was corrected sometime after that date. I would post a copy of the document I have, but no point in posting info that has now been properly corrected, IMO.

It now reads:

22337 VN 5164 207 5151 01 D N037

The Body No. is still incomplete possibly because the input field was limited to 6 characters and when the Owner inputted "vn5164" there was no room for the last 2 digits. I found a pic of a Body Tag on John's Body Tag Form input page that I first thought was for this same build. It shows the full Body No. of VN516414. I've attached the pic here, but you can also view it here:

http://www.transamworld.com/69bodytagform.php

Turns out the pic is for a build that has the same schedule code N037 and undoubtedly, a Body No. that is very close to the incomplete one, but two different 'birds, both built at Van Nuys.

Input for Plant code is by pull down menu, obviously several guys have carelessly selected the wrong Plant code, incorrectly choosing LOR instead of the correct LOS. I spoke to John in '07 about his data. He helped me by providing some specific contacts, unfortunately, that was a dead end. I'm guessing he added the VIN & Invoice ID No. inputs afterwards based in part on the additional data I was collecting and looking for and the suggestions I made to him.

22337 LOR 21519 253 7r2 02 E 2wg has been removed. I'm sure because John saw that we identified it as a '67.

22367 LOR 503001 200 87A 09 B V118 still appears as LOR but undoubtedly should be changed to LOS.

22367 LOR 529750 203 72B 01 C N037 still appears as LOR. The Body No. would not be valid for a '69 Van Nuys (way too high), may not be a '69 or perhaps some erroneous codes inputted. Definitely not Lordstown if the N037 was coded on the Data Plate as indicated.

22337 LOR 537617 208 6565 05 E U430 still appears as LOR. The Body No. would not be valid for '69 Van Nuys AND I do not think any '69 Van Nuys and certainly not any '69 Lordstown was coded 05E for the Time Built code, so this one is either not a '69 or may have some erroneous codes inputted by the Owner.

22367 LOR 512710 202 73 12 G479 still appears as LOR and still with the incomplete codes. From the pic of this Data Plate posted by Kurt, should be changed to LOS, Paint code changed to 73A and Time Built code changed to 12B.

John told me at the time that he did get some submissions with bum info, he tried to only post those that "seemed" correct. I'm sure he will correct any that are obviously wrong, perhaps some that are mentioned in this post will soon be changed or removed.

But I thought it would be useful to some of you to be aware of this source material.

[johnta1]

I have been trying to verify some of the discrepancies John has shown.
All of these submissions, I tried to email the original submitter.

I just recieved one back on the 537617 tag.
He said he doesn't have any 69 Birds, all 68's.


I'll drop that one.

I have changed some of them already as John noted.

[John V.]

John, many thanks for jumping in here.

I also saw that

22337 LOR 540618 200 5353 03 B BD4

is listed at your site, another one that Dave has referred to and claims to have VIN info for.

Since it doesn't look like Dave will be forthcoming with all of what he knows about this Data Plate, could you try to contact the submitter? Maybe get a VIN and pic of the Data Plate. Maybe even find out if the car was equipped with Decor Group?

[johnta1]

The submitter didn't leave a name or email on that submission.
The IP on it is from a Bellsouth address.