Researching any info re: Paul Cunningham, Competition Cobra privateer

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[twobjshelbys]

So some new info. I'd like to see the next paragraph of the court doc page.

But after all of this there is nothing that shows Paul Cunningham even remotely in any chain of custody as the owner. Driver, absolutely. Custodian? Perhaps. But no copies or any hint of any official title or other paper work that supports ownership.

I'm not sure what would change anyway.

If I was Perry Mason, I'd ask Paul Drake this... Has anyone put together a time line of the history? There may be multiple versions of this based on different claims. There will also be some overlap. The gaps and discrepancies may tell something.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by USC_COWBOY

Looking at the two photos, I don't see any difference in the rear wheel well flares. What am I not getting?

In the first photo, the rear flare is the stock, flat flare that has been pulled out to prevent rubbing on the tires. It didn't work, as you can see damaged paint and a dent. In the second photo, with the alloy wheels, the flare has been rounded and now sits far enough out to prevent contact between the tires and the sheet metal. The front flares are unchanged.

[Nedsel]

[quote=CompClassics;1500164]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

So some new info. I'd like to see the next paragraph of the court doc page.


Believe me, if you saw all the information in the court documents you be scratching your head as to why “ownership” was granted. The only reason that the court granted ownership according to the court documents was that Fran Kress was not present to contest the case.

If Fran Kress had been there, and acknowledged that his possession of the 2049 chassis remains came via theft from a CA warehouse, he would never have been granted title either.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

In the first photo, the rear flare is the stock, flat flare that has been pulled out to prevent rubbing on the tires. It didn't work, as you can see damaged paint and a dent. In the second photo, with the alloy wheels, the flare has been rounded and now sits far enough out to prevent contact between the tires and the sheet metal. The front flares are unchanged.

Were the alloy rims the factory "kidney bean" style, or ???

Bill S.

[USC_COWBOY]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

I will have to check that out later.

I suppose that Michael may now suggest that newspapers.com, a subsidiary of ancestory.com, is an elaborate hoax website created solely to supply forged newpaper articles about CSX2049?

Why the open animosity?

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by USC_COWBOY

Why the open animosity?

I at least put a smiley on some of my sceptical statements.

I go back and forth on which way I think about this and I have proposed scenarios that could have your father owning the car that fit in with the paperwork we have seen. It seems that if there is anything that contradicts your memories that you tend to think that a forgery or a hoax is involved. You seem quick to suggest that Muth Ford could be photoshopped on those pictures if it does not fit your memory, so if there is a newspaper article that contradicts your memories, would you think the newspaper article is some sort of hoax as well?

I may check out the newspapers.com site, but it looks like I have to sign up for a free trial to do so. I get enough junk email already without signing up for a free trial to some website.

So if there is a newspaper article from April of 1963 that says that CSX2049 was Al Abidin's car, would that contradict your memory of the situation? It seems that you don't think the Abidin family ever had anything to do with the car. Is it possible that you father purchased the car from the Abidin family sometime between April and August of 1963? At what date in 1963 do you think your father acquired the car? Would that date contradict the April 1963 newspaper article or not?

[USC_COWBOY]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

I at least put a smiley on some of my sceptical statements.

I go back and forth on which way I think about this and I have proposed scenarios that could have your father owning the car that fit in with the paperwork we have seen. It seems that if there is anything that contradicts your memories that you tend to think that a forgery or a hoax is envolved. You seem quick to suggest that Muth Ford could be photoshopped on those pictures if it does not fit your memory, so if there is a newspaper article that contradicts your memories, would you think the newspaper article is some sort of hoax as well?

I may check out the newspapers.com site, but it looks like I have to sign up for a free trial to do so. I get enough junk email already without signing up for a free trial to some website.

So if there is a newspaper article from April of 1963 that says that CSX2049 was Al Abidin's car, would that contradict your memory of the situation? It seems that you don't think the Abidin family ever had anything to do with the car. Is it possible that you father purchased the car from the Abidin family sometime between April and August of 1963? At what date in 1963 do you think your father acquired the car? Would that date contradict the April 1963 newspaper article or not?

I have no problem with Abidin ownership prior to Paul's first Cobra entry at Cotati 7/27/1963 the car is listed as #246. My quest is after that date wherein there is not one reference ever to Abidin, Nada!

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

I at least put a smiley on some of my sceptical statements.

...

I may check out the newspapers.com site, but it looks like I have to sign up for a free trial to do so. I get enough junk email already without signing up for a free trial to some website.

...

Oh man! I have to give them a credit card number for my free trail. Cancel in 7 days to avoid the $74.90 annual fee!

Would I be an idiot to sign up? I guess I am that idiot.

Alright, I didn't read all the fine print. There was something about copyright in there. Maybe it is not a good idea to just put up screen shots of the newspaper page on the internet.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

Oh man! I have to give them a credit card number for my free trail. Cancel in 7 days to avoid the $74.90 annual fee!

Would I be an idiot to sign up? I guess I am that idiot.

Alright, I didn't read all the fine print. There was something about copyright in there. Maybe it is not a good idea to just put up screen shots of the newspaper page on the internet.

OK. I was going to just make this image available temporarily, but I went back and looked over the newspapers.com website and apparently, it is ok to search, clip and share things that you find. There are options to download images. So I think it is fine that I leave this image of the newspaper page here.

[1ntCobra]

Before I thought it was OK to share the newspaper page, I was going to put up a legible copy of it temporarily, but then replace it with this:

[Alfa02]

Did anyone else notice that that race would be televised on Sat. A 90 min segment started @ 2;30PM ?? (Middle center) of this page. Any footage maybe ?? That's pretty cool in 1963. Cheers TommyRot.

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by USC_COWBOY

Paul did drive others cars on a rare occasions, sometimes to shake the car down, or to assist someone in solving a setup problem, possibly to qualify a car, but never on a full time schedule like with our personal cars, namely the Sprite, the Terrible Tempest, the white Kurtis/Pontiac, and the Cobra.

The change in ownership/sponsorship/driver/entrant/etc. began post Pomona, as for a "Muth Ford" sponsorship I do not recall that ever to be the case, I will look back at a Riverside race program and photos. The Henry Ford collection has many photos of the battle during the one hour race including #37, #211, #96, and others.

It is possible that someone did a photoshop job on it.

Hi Michael - the question I have is why in the article I linked did you refer to the Cobra in your own words as "a privately owned Ford Cobra" when you named the cars that Paul drove? That certainly doesn't sound like you believed it was his own car.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

Seriously, what do you think “privately owned” means?

Stuff your condescension up your a$$

In listing the cars Cunningham drove, Michael made no reference to the ownership of the other vehicles but referred to the Cobra as "a private owned Ford Cobra" which is what distinguished it from the team Cobras under the ownership of Al Abidin. In that context it comes across to me as just one of the cars that Cunningham drove for someone else.

[Buzz]

In contrast (and to show I've always been rooting for Michael), on pages 107/108 of INSIDE SHELBY AMERICAN, author John Morton describes an interaction with Cunningham on the fateful day at Willow Springs as follows:

I happened to be standing beside the cobra driver, Paul Cunningham. I asked him about his car and told him I worked at Shelby's. He said Monday he was going to take the car to Doane Spencer and have a number of improvements made. ... It's morbid, but when Paul said, "I'm going to take my car to Doane Spencer on Monday", I couldn't help but think You cant be sure you'll be alive on Monday

While non-conclusive and only reflective of what the author believed at the time, it does give the impression that the Cobra indeed belonged to Cunningham.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by Buzz

In contrast (and to show I've always been rooting for Michael), on pages 107/108 of INSIDE SHELBY AMERICAN, author John Morton describes an interaction with Cunningham on the fateful day at Willow Springs as follows:


While non-conclusive and only reflective of what the author believed at the time, it does give the impression that the Cobra indeed belonged to Cunningham.

Oh come on. When in casual conversation the person that has possession of a car is going to use the possessive "my" (my car) instead of the adjective "the" (the car).

And even that is an interpretation of what someone who heard something someone said, so even that is only a recount, not a quote.

That in no way implies any sort of ownership. Again, he was a curator. And only that.

There is no mass conspiracy that starts in the 60's to deny the ownership. In all of the multiple claims of ownership and history, Cunningham's name only appears as a driver.

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by twobjshelbys

Oh come on. When in casual conversation the person that has possession of a car is going to use the possessive "my" (my car) instead of the adjective "the" (the car).

And even that is an interpretation of what someone who heard something someone said, so even that is only a recount, not a quote.

That in no way implies any sort of ownership. Again, he was a curator. And only that.

There is no mass conspiracy that starts in the 60's to deny the ownership. In all of the multiple claims of ownership and history, Cunningham's name only appears as a driver.

You obviously missed this in my post:

While non-conclusive and only reflective of what the author believed at the time, it does give the impression that the Cobra indeed belonged to Cunningham.

To reiterate in simpler terms - it definitely does not prove anything, but yes, as recounted it does in fact imply ownership.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by Buzz

You obviously missed this in my post:


To reiterate in simpler terms - it definitely does not prove anything, but yes, as recounted it does in fact imply ownership.

No, I didn't miss it. I just don't put any credence in it. There's only ONE such statement. Unstbstantiated by any corroborating written evidence. This is hearsay at best.

In any case, lacking written documentation to the prove it, it's a nice story.

Not showing up a single time in any paper trail says something.

And even if by some miracle, a proven title shows up. 50+ years later, what will change?

There are lots of reporters that claim to have seen UFOs too.