422 replies to this topic

[REDA9X]

I gather you think the car is 05 that PC has, well you better go speak to Larry Perkins, Neil Burns and John Harvey, even Phil Brock will tell you. Aaron Noonan did a write up on this car and the facts came out, 05 is and always has been in Bathurst. It's just a shame the log books were thrown out a few years ago which had the final proof, but I had a 3 hour phone call with the lady who threw those log books out and she stated that 05 went to the museum in 85. I'll take her word over anyone else's speculation.

[Balfizar]

I gather you think the car is 05 that PC has, well you better go speak to Larry Perkins, Neil Burns and John Harvey, even Phil Brock will tell you. Aaron Noonan did a write up on this car and the facts came out, 05 is and always has been in Bathurst. It's just a shame the log books were thrown out a few years ago which had the final proof, but I had a 3 hour phone call with the lady who threw those log books out and she stated that 05 went to the museum in 85. I'll take her word over anyone else's spectulation.

What I think after reading alternative information is that the information presented by the investigation is on very shaky ground as far as the much misused "facts" goes.
The interesting shift in supportive evidence has moved from physical evidence back to what people have said. The alternative information focusses on not what "any" people say but physical evidence and it calls into question the paint gauge readings. If you cannot find non-factory paint thickness on the doors what credibility do you have on finding "factory" level paint thickness on a rear Qtr panel. I think it went "origional" factory paint, no sign of repair on rear qtr panel, so it must be 05.
Some items below are even discussed in this thread are contentious to the 05 untouched at bathurst theory:-
Harveys headlights
Harveys Grill
VH mirrors on the "05" Bathurst car when it went to Bathurst and when it returned to HDT in 88
2 nd hand broken Brock Air dam.
Unaccountable obvious paint differences guards,bonnet,doors etc (that could not be seen or detected by the investigation)
the front guards have been removed????

Interesting you quote support from people! that you say support 05 at Bathurst.
Perkins was sacked 24th June 1985, 4 months before the car was donated to the museum, what would he know that was first hand info he wasn't there at the time?
Neil Burns ...... went to work for Perkins!
Harvey could not remember what colours the first brock road cars were! (Red/White/Black)
Phil Brock, was involved with the sale of some race cars, I wonder if that was also the sale of "2" # 10's 1987 bathurst winners,
there is a premium for selling Bathurst winning race cars and if HDT paint up 2 you get twice the premium!
Noonan a journalist :- never let the facts get in the way of a good story - or notoriety, what "facts" came out? he only read and agreed with the investigation.

Case closed - I don't think so.

Cheers
Balfizar

Edited by Balfizar, 19 March 2013 - 10:29 AM.

[REDA9X]

I Can tell you right now, the facts are there, I have seen some of the actual evidence.

There are close up photos of the car from Bathurst 84 after the race that show particular items that are still there on the car today.

By the way, if you're going to mention mirrors, get the facts straight, Harveys car ran a VH mirror, Brock ran the small aftermarket mirror. The car after being sold to the guy in WA had the VH mirror and the Black Commodore decals, and it turned up as 25, he changed it to 52. I know for a fact if it ever comes to anything he has a written statement ready to go saying the car he bought was 25.

The Brock car was changed to a standard VK mirror for display.

Brock wasn't even there at Bathurst when the car went to the museum.

Anyway, wasting my time, the facts are there, but believe what you want to believe, never let facts get in the way of a good story.

[Balfizar]

I Can tell you right now, the facts are there, I have seen some of the actual evidence.

There are close up photos of the car from Bathurst 84 after the race that show particular items that are still there on the car today.

By the way, if you're going to mention mirrors, get the facts straight, Harveys car ran a VH mirror, Brock ran the small aftermarket mirror. The car after being sold to the guy in WA had the VH mirror and the Black Commodore decals, and it turned up as 25, he changed it to 52. I know for a fact if it ever comes to anything he has a written statement ready to go saying the car he bought was 25.

The Brock car was changed to a standard VK mirror for display.

Brock wasn't even there at Bathurst when the car went to the museum.

Anyway, wasting my time, the facts are there, but believe what you want to believe, never let facts get in the way of a good story.

Peter Brock unvailing 05 at Bathurst in the handover ceremony.

 

 

05 in 1988 at HDT, as it came from the museum it was returned (even with the VH mirror)

 

Cheers

Balfizar

[REDA9X]

Yep Brock was there for the ceremony, but as I said he was not there the day the car was delivered

That looks like a VK mirror to me, not VH.

[enderwigginau]

Looks like a VK mirror from here too.......
Very soon we'll have the ability to radar scan the paint........but it won't matter.......
You think that two doors may never have been changed between the car being built and Bathurst?

The reason this became such an issue was because of so many lounge room geniuses, and one owner who wanted to actually own at least one Brock car........
Who really cares? It's not a Torana, and it has already been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the one at Bathurst is the 05 car.
If all those who still want to go on like galahs had any sense, they would be calling for the Champion Car to be restored to its true 25 guise, and the deference and respect paid to John Harvey that he deserves.
JH and CB have wider and more impressive racing records than PB ever did, and I for one think it is disgusting that people want to ignore these and all the others who were involved in those heady days.........

Grant..

[enderwigginau]

As per the Fraud GT court cases, I imagine PC has a very good case (if he wishes)) for a lawsuit of any monetary difference between 05 and 25.

Not really....the seller never said it was 05 did he?

[REDA9X]

I know John Harvey doesn't care, however, I also know John knows the car PC has is the 25 car. John should know above all others as after Brock came back to HDT in 78, John only ever had one new car, the VK big Banger.

With that simple fact in mind, it does not take a genius to work out Brock would have his car built first, chassis number 6.

I know for a fact the car came back from England painted as 05 and the buyer thought he had 05, but was told straight up by Neil Burns it was 25. Whether it was sold to PC as 05, I don't know.

Personally, I think it's disrespectful that it seems more important to represent both cars as 05 rather than their correct identities. John will be 76 next year, his famous racing number. It would be nice to see something happen by then.

[eyepeeler]

Well said. Loved watching John Harvey race and although he lived in the shadow of the Brock PR machine he was every bit his equal imo.
 
Hell its a dunnydore (like every 2nd taxi - LOL)  lets talk about the stunning cars they used 77, 78 and 79.
Real cars for real men ..... the mighty mountain taming fraud crushing "Torana's".
What legendary machines.  

What about 75 and 76!!!!! Not to forget the little Torana as well.

[Balfizar]

Looks like a VK mirror from here too.......
Very soon we'll have the ability to radar scan the paint........but it won't matter.......
You think that two doors may never have been changed between the car being built and Bathurst?

The reason this became such an issue was because of so many lounge room geniuses, and one owner who wanted to actually own at least one Brock car........
Who really cares? It's not a Torana, and it has already been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the one at Bathurst is the 05 car.
If all those who still want to go on like galahs had any sense, they would be calling for the Champion Car to be restored to its true 25 guise, and the deference and respect paid to John Harvey that he deserves.
JH and CB have wider and more impressive racing records than PB ever did, and I for one think it is disgusting that people want to ignore these and all the others who were involved in those heady days.........

Grant..

Perhaps an owner of both a VH and a VK could help us out here with an informed opinion.

I am interested in the logic behind "You think that two doors may never have been changed between the car being built and Bathurst?
And I'll try and follow it if I can:-
The doors were swapped between 05 and 25 sometime between the build and Bathurst?
So what about the guards withBrock/Perkins and the guards with Harvey/Parsons did they get swapped too?
And what about the bonnets 05/25?
O' I almost forgot what about the 05 and 25 on the roof did they unbolt that and swap those too?
O' and while I am at it the chassis number! everyone says that Brock got the first so that would be Com 6 wouldn't it?
We can see it being built in the build article photos (with 05 on the door)
So that would mean that 05 was swapped on to Chassis Com 7
now the investigation " it has already been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the one at Bathurst is the 05 car" also says
correct me if I am wrong here, "none of the signage or paintwork has been changed or tampered with" as measured by micro thickness of the paint
still being to factory spec and we can detect any repair or respray.

Damn, I am starting to loose it here, now let me see, the 05 doors were re-sprayed and re-sign written before the photo shoot, so it does not matter what car they were put on or swapped to
the investigation could find no evidence of the " signage or paintwork has been changed or tampered with" unless the 05 doors are not on the car at bathurst.
Now I am really confused, its your theory maybe you could clarify?

A wider (Maybe)and more impressive racing records than PB ever did. If it was more impressive how many times did Harvey:-(compared to Brock -same track)
Out qualify Brock on the grid.
Set a lap record
Harvey ATCC races won.
Harvey ATCC pole positions
Harvey ATCC podiums

are you getting the picture!
How about this one, how many times did Brock get out of his broken car and take Harveys car from somewhere in the top 10 to WIN?
Harvey was a great guy but not within a bulls roar of Brock on the track.
And you are right Harvey does deserve better, but false evidence and claims will not solve this mystery

Claiming 05 is at Bathurst will not find and reunite JH with 25 and that is the saddest part.
Claims that PC has acknowledged that he has 25 won't help either.

Cheers
Balfizar

Edited by Balfizar, 19 March 2013 - 11:48 PM.

[enderwigginau]

Go here - http://www.gmh-toran...re/#entry740356 for a VH with std mirror....they are quite different. VB to VH are the same. changed for VK

Hahaha, who said doors were swapped between the two cars?
Stop making things up to suit your argument. What parts do you keep as spares for a race car? Hmmmmm, that'd include ALL hanging panels......
Why would your repaint a set of doors, when you could pant up a spare set and throw them on......
You need to spend more time out helping racers.

And don't compare any HDT drivers results while at HDT in the same races as PB.
One driver got the pick of the litter, was pandered to vociferously, and didn't want for anything.
The others got the left overs...........

PB was good n production car races and GrpC, and somewhat in A......
Harvey and Bond (and others) won and were competitive across many categories.
If you can't see past PBs narrow record, don't continue this argument.

Grant..

[Collo]

Interesting you quote support from people! that you say support 05 at Bathurst.
Perkins was sacked 24th June 1985, 4 months before the car was donated to the museum, what would he know that was first hand info he wasn't there at the time?
Neil Burns ...... went to work for Perkins!
Harvey could not remember what colours the first brock road cars were! (Red/White/Black)
Phil Brock, was involved with the sale of some race cars, I wonder if that was also the sale of "2" # 10's 1987 bathurst winners,
there is a premium for selling Bathurst winning race cars and if HDT paint up 2 you get twice the premium!
Noonan a journalist :- never let the facts get in the way of a good story - or notoriety, what "facts" came out? he only read and agreed with the investigation.

Case closed - I don't think so.

Cheers
Balfizar

 

 

Peter Brock unvailing 05 at Bathurst in the handover ceremony.

 

 

 

 

Cheers

Balfizar

 

Not taking sides as I don't have access to the info you guys do, but isn't that Perkins at the unveiling with Brock?
 

[REDA9X]

Flogging a dead horse, or something here for sure.

Lots of speculation, thats all you have. You're going off trying to put holes in the investigation with some paint comparisons alone based on some pictures you have and your conspiracy theory.

lets face it, one bloke said the PC car was 05, Peter Brock, thats it. This is where all this crap came from. People think because Peter could steer a car he could do no wrong.

No one else was willing to speak against Peter at the time. If it ever comes to a head, John Farrell will show the proof he has when he bought the 25 car. Heres an interesting fact for you, HDT kept the log books for both of these cars when they were sold.

Who was there at bathurst in 2004 when he told everyone if the A9X had it's correct 2.6 diff he would have done better in the comparison race? Wrong-they used the 3.08 diff at Bathurst. He said plenty of other things over the years that were just wrong too. Peters involvement with building the cars in the first place was next to zero, he was great with the ideas, not so great with follow through.

Peters own brother says the 05 car is in bathurst, I'm sure Phil would be interested to know your theory on two Bathurst winning number 10 cars being sold.

PC has certainly told people he knows now it's 25, I seem to remember someone on the forum being told to their face by PC.

Anyway, we all know JFK was shot by the CIA and 911 never really happened too.

[Balfizar]

Not taking sides as I don't have access to the info you guys do, but isn't that Perkins at the unveiling with Brock?
 

Perkins was there for the Bathurst Civic Centre "victors walk" placard unveiling (top photo)

the 05 car (bottom photo)was under a cover outside that Brock unveiled.  Perkins never knew or could have known what was under the cover. " he wasn't there at the time" the car was packed up and shipped off to bathurst.

and the only way he could know was to look under the bonnet and that did not happen.

Cheers

Balfizar

Edited by Balfizar, 20 March 2013 - 10:28 AM.

[A9X]

is this the wrong time to mention the moon landing s ??

[Balfizar]

Flogging a dead horse, or something here for sure.

Lots of speculation, thats all you have. You're going off trying to put holes in the investigation with some paint comparisons alone based on some pictures you have and your conspiracy theory.

lets face it, one bloke said the PC car was 05, Peter Brock, thats it. This is where all this crap came from. People think because Peter could steer a car he could do no wrong.

No one else was willing to speak against Peter at the time. If it ever comes to a head, John Farrell will show the proof he has when he bought the 25 car. Heres an interesting fact for you, HDT kept the log books for both of these cars when they were sold.

Who was there at bathurst in 2004 when he told everyone if the A9X had it's correct 2.6 diff he would have done better in the comparison race? Wrong-they used the 3.08 diff at Bathurst. He said plenty of other things over the years that were just wrong too. Peters involvement with building the cars in the first place was next to zero, he was great with the ideas, not so great with follow through.

Peters own brother says the 05 car is in bathurst, I'm sure Phil would be interested to know your theory on two Bathurst winning number 10 cars being sold.

PC has certainly told people he knows now it's 25, I seem to remember someone on the forum being told to their face by PC.

Anyway, we all know JFK was shot by the CIA and 911 never really happened too.

Lots of speculation, thats all you have.

 

I have a photo, that shows different paint work that the investigation says does not exist because they could find NO evidence of the signage or paintwork being repaired, resprayed or tampered with.

and you and others choose to ignore it, call it speculation and a conspiracy, go off at a tangent, refer to he said/she said as a diversion amongst many other diversions. All because you cannot explain it.

If you can't tell the difference between a VH and a VK rear vision mirror than I am really flogging a dead horse trying to get open,rational and honest debate on this subject.

 

Funny on another website with thousands of members and thousands of views on this subject , no one has challenged that the photo is a VH mirror (perhaps they know what a VH mirror looks like) and even more intriguing is the most vocal of opponents (an experienced Panel beater) against the "conspiracy" theory of paint change, who opposed every non-status quo (05 at Bathurst) discussion could only come up with "(....)" as the only comment/rebuke to the paint change conspiracy. 

 

Its not a waste of time or flogging a dead horse, it has an up side, it flushed out all the zealots with a position to defend, a case to argue, exposes their depth of knowledge, exposes their weakness in rational debate, shows that they are prepared to attack the person and not the subject (even by subtle innuendo or open hostility)forces them into diversion as a last resort. It also shows that they will try and shut the discussion down because it does not suit their pre-conceived ideas,  "lets just nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand and people start thinking for themselves and begin to question the evidence as presented".

 

Yep, Case Closed, if you say so.

 

Cheers

Balfizar

Edited by Balfizar, 20 March 2013 - 11:33 AM.

[eyepeeler]

is this the wrong time to mention the moon landing s ??

 

Nah mate, perfect timimg................

[REDA9X]

Lots of speculation, thats all you have.

 

I have a photo, that shows different paint work that the investigation says does not exist because they could find NO evidence of the signage or paintwork being repaired, resprayed or tampered with. Your Photos are poor quality for starters. If you were to look at all the build photos you would also not the car had GTX covers on the headlights not Castrol. There were probably some changes between the build and the final product. The investigation was based on the car as last raced, not as built.

and you and others choose to ignore it, call it speculation and a conspiracy, go off at a tangent, refer to he said/she said as a diversion amongst many other diversions. All because you cannot explain it. I don't care about the paint investigation, there is enough other evidence to prove which car is which

If you can't tell the difference between a VH and a VK rear vision mirror than I am really flogging a dead horse trying to get open,rational and honest debate on this subject.

I don't think I have a problem there at all, it's quite obvious the car has a VK mirror fitted, like it has the whole time it's been in the museum. I certainly can tell the difference.

YOUR PICTURE

 

NOW A VH FROM THE SAME ANGLE

NOW A VK FROM THE FRONT

AND A VH FROM THE FRONT

 

 

Funny on another website with thousands of members and thousands of views on this subject , no one has challenged that the photo is a VH mirror (perhaps they know what a VH mirror looks like) and even more intriguing is the most vocal of opponents (an experienced Panel beater) against the "conspiracy" theory of paint change, who opposed every non-status quo (05 at Bathurst) discussion could only come up with "(....)" as the only comment/rebuke to the paint change conspiracy. 

 

Its not a waste of time or flogging a dead horse, it has an up side, it flushed out all the zealots with a position to defend, a case to argue, exposes their depth of knowledge, exposes their weakness in rational debate, shows that they are prepared to attack the person and not the subject (even by subtle innuendo or open hostility)forces them into diversion as a last resort. It also shows that they will try and shut the discussion down because it does not suit their pre-conceived ideas,  "lets just nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand and people start thinking for themselves and begin to question the evidence as presented".

 

Yep, Case Closed, if you say so.

 

Cheers

Balfizar

[Balfizar]

Lots of speculation, thats all you have.

 

I have a photo, that shows different paint work that the investigation says does not exist because they could find NO evidence of the signage or paintwork being repaired, resprayed or tampered with. Your Photos are poor quality for starters. If you were to look at all the build photos you would also not the car had GTX covers on the headlights not Castrol. There were probably some changes between the build and the final product. The investigation was based on the car as last raced, not as built.

and you and others choose to ignore it, call it speculation and a conspiracy, go off at a tangent, refer to he said/she said as a diversion amongst many other diversions. All because you cannot explain it. I don't care about the paint investigation, there is enough other evidence to prove which car is which

If you can't tell the difference between a VH and a VK rear vision mirror than I am really flogging a dead horse trying to get open,rational and honest debate on this subject.

I don't think I have a problem there at all, it's quite obvious the car has a VK mirror fitted, like it has the whole time it's been in the museum. I certainly can tell the difference.

YOUR PICTURE

 

maybe this will help you out

 

O and this one is the all original paint that you don't care about ( never been tampered with........blah..blah  ...blah)

 

Cheers

Balfizar