[Brian Baker]

Don's right...he showed the proof of legitimacy. I'm still interested in finding out the answers to my other questions though, as I feel that information just adds to the interesting perspective of the cars history.

[CH3NO2 Pontiac]

My questions have still not been answered.

Regarding the title presented:

Public records.

Microfiche. Nothing sneaky about it. Or, more likely, one of the previous/current owners supplied it to you. No matter.

Only one problem: That title proves legitimacy of nothing.

Getting a title issued doesn't require that the person issuing said title visually inspect the car for authenticity or for the existence of a VIN. Any notary can notarize anything they want to. Nothing requires that they ever see what they're swearing to. Happens all the time.

I have titles that I obtained for cars that nobody in the new title State has ever seen. I simply presented the bill of sale and the VIN.

"Sorry, Mr. Title/Notary guy; that car is disassembled and in storage in "XYZ" County and there's no way possible for me to have it here for you to verify the VIN. Besides, how much is a $75 '61 Pontiac really worth anyway?"

How about THIS one?

"Gee, Mr. Title/Notary guy; Connecticut never issued titles, but I'd like to get one in this State. Here's my Bill of Sale......"

Voila! New title. Of course, in my case the cars actually existed before I had the titles issued.

Nowadays, it's even easier; $150 and Titles Unlimited does all the rest. And THEY don't even require proof that the car exists!

This 40 year old title proves nothing.

[Scarebird]

why does it matter to you? are you going to buy it?

[CH3NO2 Pontiac]

Nobody was going to buy Gartzman's car, either.

Your point?

[Tom Vaught]

Quote:

"Did anyone happen to notice that George Hoge's address was the same as Doug Willey Pontiac's? Could it be that he was the salesman there who transferred it to Bill Blair from Union Park?"

Yes, Don, I noticed that too! Good job posting the documentation by the way with the security additions. I would never have been able to do that as well as you did it.

Brian, I have no problem with discussing the mystery of the car when it was in "Hippos" hands up until he "lost it" due to the repossession process. The deal is that has little to do with the original claim by Scott of a manufacturered vehicle or fake title vehicle. Don has resolved those issues publically for all on the internet to see.

Brian,

Scott probably read a book somewhere that a good interrogator keeps asking the same question
over and over. What he fails to understand is that we are trying to be patient with his 2nd
Grade type response of "Why", "Why" , "Why" as at some point you just ignore him and quit
trying to make an attempt at giving the "Child" a valid explaination.

By the way, Sonny, I have observed pros like "Fred" doing interrogations and your deal needs a lot of work.

Tom V.

[CH3NO2 Pontiac]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Don Keefe:
First off, I never said anything about "A DIFFERENT white wagon with blue bucket seats and "Instant" lettered on the side was the suspected car on Passyunk Avenue." You added the extra detail. I only mentioned that there MAY have been another white '63 Tempest wagon and I only said that was a theory that was based on the fact that I could find nothing tangible to suggest the Union Park Pontiac was ever there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Don, here's what you said:

" Scott- Exactly when do your sources place the wagon at the Passyunk Ave. salvage yard?

I've said it to you before and I'll say it again, my research doesn't support your theory that the Union Park Wagon was ever there. My research suggessts that it was another white '63 Tempest wagon.

Please clarify this point for me.

Don Keefe "



So, now. What "research" suggests that it was another white '63 Tempest wagon?

Of course, you see my point in taking poetic license to add the "blue bucket seat interior and "Instant" lettering on the car" piece, do you not?

[CH3NO2 Pontiac]

Originally posted by Tom Vaught:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Scott probably read a book somewhere that a good interrogator keeps asking the same question
over and over. What he fails to understand is that we are trying to be patient with his 2nd
Grade type response of "Why", "Why" , "Why" as at some point you just ignore him and quit
trying to make an attempt at giving the "Child" a valid explaination. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom: I don't know dick about interrogation. Honest. What I do know is that nobody has proven a thing here.

How about this, Tom:

People have stopped "trying" to give me a "valid explanation", because they are unable to.

Every question I ask is met with silence. Days go by before the opposing parties can circle their wagons and talk offline about strategy. Yet, no definitive, undefeatable, logical explanation has yet been offered.

My questions have gone unanswered for two days now. Nobody wants to answer the questions surrounding repossession and supposed re-titling of the car. Why not? Because it takes a LOT of research to answer those questions with a solid, uncontestable, verifiable response.

Does that tell you something? anything?

[CH3NO2 Pontiac]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Vaught:
Quote: Good job posting the documentation by the way with the security additions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

May I ask why the license plate number was whited out after you posted it here initially and after I saved the copy to my hard drive?

What could you possibly want to hide?

After all, how important could a 40 year old license plate number be?

[CH3NO2 Pontiac]

The funny thing is that, a year after Gartzman's '62 SD GP fake was "restored", I would have been shouted down as a heretic and portrayed as the "heavy", in much the same manner as I'm being now.

Why?

"Whisper Down The Line", that's why.

Listen to enough of the supposed "ex-spurts" tell the story often enough, based on what somebody ELSE told them, and it becomes gospel, with the legend just becoming bigger and bigger.

I wonder how many of the inner circle would stand here and defend Gartzman NOW. Now, they just walk quietly away from THAT wreckage.

Just picture the movie "Caddyshack."

The priest gets struck by lightning.

Falls down.

What's Bill Murray do? Puts the pin down, puts the clubs down. Looks around. Slinks quietly away.

Same thing with the Gartzman fan club.

That car was unveiled amidst fanfare and jubilation. Photos. Magazine articles. POCI conventions. Nobody said dick. Of course HE was NEVER going to sell IT either...

And what does the inner circle say about Gartzman NOW?

Crickets chirping.....

[Don Keefe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blown Nitro Pontiac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tom Vaught:
Quote: Good job posting the documentation by the way with the security additions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

May I ask why the license plate number was whited out after you posted it here initially and after I saved the copy to my hard drive?

What could you possibly want to hide?

After all, how important could a 40 year old license plate number be?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No particular reason- other than to wind you up a little. It obviously worked!




Scott, I provided documentation on YOUR terms, signed by a Notary Public. If that isn't good enough now, why was was it good enough when you posted? Because you didn't think it was possible. So now, you're backed in a corner, and with nowhere left to go, you raise the bar to a level that no one, not even you, can reach. OK- live it up.

As far as my "research" went, I think I already explained it in a fashion that everyone else seems to understand. Go back and re-read it to get your answer.

And no, I really don't know why you "took poetic license" regarding my statement. You simply misquoted me and admitted to it later.

Yes, I agree. I don't think you have read any books on interrogation.

This is starting to bore me....

[CH3NO2 Pontiac]

Originally posted by Don Keefe:

"No particular reason- other than to wind you up a little. It obviously worked!"

C'mon, Don. There's precisely a reason why you edited the document.

Please admit what it is.

Your attempt to alter documentation does nothing to either bolster your case or to support your claim of impartiality.

"My terms?"

Please show me where I stated what "my terms" of proof were.

I raised the bar all right; to where somebody who's invested $300,000 in the restoration of a car should be able to answer some basic interrogatories.

At this point, they are unable.

I'm not backed into a corner. I'm simply saying that your photstat of an altered title proves nothing.

I didn't misquote you, Don. I merely embellished your claim, simply to prove how virtually impossible it is to mistake a smashed, lettered in black with the word "INSTANT" on the side, VERY LOW PRODUCTION factory race car with any thing else.

Yet, you claimed your research supported this thin hypothesis.

I was simply asking your what your "research" was.

I still am.

And it's becoming painfully clear that NOBODY has researched the car's history involving it's repossession and alleged resale by Union Park; they've all just simply believed the "Whisper Down The Line" story.

In the equities market, that's called "The Bigger Fool" theory.

And no, I have not read any books on interrogation. Interrogation involves leading the subject and ultimately tricking them into admission of guilt.

I don't need to learn how to uncover answers using those methods; it's obvious that my current tack of asking simple, heretofore unanswered questions has already borne fruit.

Just not the right fruit.

[Don Keefe]

"My terms?"

Please show me where I stated what "my terms" of proof were.

From the bottom of page 9. I call your attention to Item 2:

"Tom:

1. Ken did not sell the car at auction for $70K. The subsequent owner did.

2. Show me notarized proof that the car is question IS the Union Park car.

2a. Show me notarized proof that, once the car was repossessed from Joe DeNick, that its title was reassigned from Joe's Pennsylvania title to Union Park Pontiac Delaware title. Joe lived in Southwest Philly at the time.

2b. Show me notarized proof that, once the car's title was reassigned to Union Park, the car was rebuilt, repainted, had a new correct motor installed (to replace the one DeNick swiped out of it before it was repossessed) and resold with a GMAC financing package. I tried to contact Harold Ramsey about this. As mentioned previously, he was unable to speak, due to a recent stroke. Mighty convenient, wouldn't you say? This could possibly be documented by Union Park, if the right folks were contacted and if they were asked nicely.

2c. Show me notarized proof that this car was titled in subsequent States where Bill Blair allegedly owned it, as well as owners subsequent to him and prior to Garfinkel. Hint: The notarized proof must contain photocopies of titles of those States containing the Union Park VIN."

OK- That's largely covered...


"'No particular reason- other than to wind you up a little. It obviously worked!'

C'mon, Don. There's precisely a reason why you edited the document.

Please admit what it is."

I did...Can't you see that I'm playing with you?

With over 7,000 views, I can tell you that that there are way more people than just the PY regulars watching this. I have gotten calls from Buick guys, Mopar guys, Pure Stock guys. They've heard about this thread and they're all saying the same basic thing- you are whipping a very dead horse. Some of them aren't saying it that politely though...Some are comparing you to the horse, well part of it anyway.

"Your attempt to alter documentation does nothing to either bolster your case or to support your claim of impartiality."

I never made any claim of impartiality. You pissed on my friend's grave and I took it personally. You have the earlier "unaltered version?" Post it- even you said that the license plate number meant nothing. If it meant nothing, it didn't hurt my argument. You can't have it both ways...


It's official- I'm bored. I'm going to bed now...

[pont406]

Brian, Bruce didn't sell the alumnium front end to Blair, he sold it to Randy willams, this was in the mid 90's, before/during the car restoration,as I imagine Randy wanted "perfect alumnium" on this resto!as the older parts would have to be reworked ,straighten,etc, plus the hood had been cut for different scoops, Bruce bought this NOS front end from a guy in Salt Lake city, who had a 63 Tempest, that was a salt flats race car in the 60's, he bought it over the counter at the dealership, then never used it! hung in the rafters of his garage for 20+ years. Bruce told me that when he was at Randy's he saw a front fender that was "mashed flat " and a damaged nose piece, could have been the parts that were taken off the car when Joe,or Bill Blair wrecked it back then? as Dave Johnson said it had an alumnium clip on it when he had it. maybe the guys that owned it for 7 years, prior to Dave buying it back in 81, wrecked it? the picture of the car in Pete Mcarthy's book (pg 147) appears to show an undamaged front end, but it could be a steel clip? hood scoop is different from when Dave had it. I've talked to a guy who had the Royal 62 SD car in 63 to 65, one front fender was damaged in a pit accident, he got a new one from the dealership, but had to supply the VIN# to get the alunimum fender.

[cat tracker]

Blown Nitro Pontiac:

I have read every post in regards to this matter and I am very concerned that you are going to get bit by some "Circle Flys". - Tex the Investigator

[Brian Baker]

Thanks for clearing that part up, pont'.

Scott, I think it's time to get off the horse...it's dead. It's tough to fake such a title, printed out on paper that hasn't been used since before I was in high school (we used this type of paper when I had a COBOL class in high school and even then it was ancient history), with a type font from a 40+ year old printer, and a notary that's 40+ years old.

It's funny how when you put words in someone elses mouth, you call it "poetic license" yet when someone else does it on another thread (like SpartanMSU), it's just simply "putting words in someone elses mouth".

I missed the address of Hoge/Hage matching the dealership address. So now, Scott, we have two instances, from two different dealerships halfway across the country from one another, where they titled the car in the dealerships name before passing/selling it off to another buyer. It would be interesting to know why they did this, but it really doesn't matter on proving the cars authenticity.

It would still be interesting to be able to document the cars history when DeNick owned it and lost it, and perhaps in doing so, it would shed some light on why these dealerships entered the practice of titling the cars in their names before resale.

Based on testimony going back 35 years through the various owners, it's obvious that this car is not a rebody, and it seems pretty obvious now with Don's posting of the title that it's not a VIN swap. The only questions remain are the ones surrounding DeNick's time of possession (and loss of possession) of the car.

[CH3NO2 Pontiac]

Who said the title is fake?

Dwight:

No need to be concerned.

Really.

[cat tracker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blown Nitro Pontiac:
Who said the title is fake?

Dwight:

No need to be concerned.

Really. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But I am concerned, in fact I am very concerned that you are going to get bit by "Circle Flys" - Tex the Investigator

[CH3NO2 Pontiac]

See above.

[Brian Baker]

Nobody said it was fake, Scott. You said it proves nothing, but it does. It proves that Union Park had the car for a few months in 1964 before selling it to Willey's.

Your insinuation all along, as was mine, was that the car could possibly, COULD POSSIBLY, be a rebody or an out-and-out VIN swap (ie - fake). I can admit my summations were wrong, why can't you? To what benefit would Don gain by covering this up?

[CH3NO2 Pontiac]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brian Baker:It proves that Union Park had the car for a few months in 1964 before selling it to Willey's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the altered title posted here is authentic, it proves only that Union Park had a title.

My questions regarding why Union Park would have lost money on a car by buying it back (assuming they bought it back) are still unanswered.

Car dealerships don't exist to lose money.

Why did Don alter the title after posting it?