Researching any info re: Paul Cunningham, Competition Cobra privateer

[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.

[Buzz]

We pretty much agree that nothing seen or presented so far validates the assertion of Cunningham owning the car.

[twobjshelbys]

Originally Posted by Buzz

We pretty much agree that nothing seen or presented so far validates the assertion of Cunningham owning the car.

This is all the child's prayer:

I wish I may, I wish I might...

[CompClassics]

Ok, I’ll correct my edit, Buzz off.
Debunking is what this post is about, it all revolves around 2049.

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

Ok, I’ll correct my edit, Buzz off.
Debunking is what this post is about, it all revolves around 2049.

Now that's more like it! Man up and don't be that chicken$hit punk who posts something antagonistic and then edits it out in an act of pu$$ification when your true nature kicks in.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Buzz

Now that's more like it! Man up and don't be that chicken$hit punk who posts something antagonistic and then edits it out in an act of pu$$ification when your true nature kicks in.

Dang, I couldn't have written a better incendiary post if I tried.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

Sorry Buzz,
But it really seems like people are jumping all over UC Cowboys butt, let’s not forget the most important thing that everybody seems to be forgetting, UC Cowboy was there! Not one of us on this forum and on this post can state that, and it’s not like he was a kid at the time. I agree nothing has been proved yet that Cunningham owned the car but we should be giving some benefit of the doubt.
It is my belief that the car was essentially abandoned at SAI and a mechanics lien was secured, possibly because Cunningham’s widow did not want to see it, from there the car went to a salvage yard, possibly the “storage facility” noted in the court documents. From there the car was stripped by whomever and the parts were scattered to the wind. When the cars became more valuable and people figured out what they had in there possession with numbers on them people got greedy and started trying to see if they could claim a title to it. It is my opinion that Hasselrig my have bought something, possibly the cars trailer.

It's all good. I've stated from the beginning that Michael seems sincere and I'd love his story to be true. I just wish something could be found to justify changing the currently accepted chain of ownership.

[Buzz]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

Buzz off

Lol! - I'm soooo offended!
As suggested earlier you're grinding an axe that is not directly related to the subject of this thread, so you really ought to pi$$ of and start your own thread.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[Buzz]

No apology offered, other than to the OP and others here for being part of this unpleasant back and forth in an otherwise very interesting thread. I responded in kind to your overtures, one of which you edited out after I responded - a big no-no on this forum, lol!
You clearly have some insight and knowledge of the issue but up til now your focus has been on debunking the current title to the car. I really didn't know your position on Cunningham's ownership. Myself and 1ntcobra have been the most sympathetic towards Michael throughout. Ned has been factual and dispassionately objective.
I do accept your apology, however.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[Buzz]

So that's it - you're all butthurt because nobody is treating you as the big, important expert witness?? You want this thread all to your petty self?
Ok Karen - we'll just sit back and watch you solve this all by your lonesome.

Now get to it! Hurry up - we don't have all day

[Nedsel]

To my thinking, there are too many loose ends that have yet to be tied up. USC Cowboy said in one post he was 75, then later that he was going on 78. So I'm accepting of the idea that he allows a little leeway in the details. He said that his mom was inconsolable when Cunningham was killed, yet someone from Shelby American brought her over some things in a cardboard box from the car and they still had them. Yet all he has shown us is a rusty Ace chassis. Is that what was delivered in a cardboard box? Damn big box. And how did a 3 year old chassis from southern CA get so rusty? Why would anyone at Shelby American have had an Ace chassis lying around anyway? Was the chassis kept by his mother in the storage unit? She was inconsolable, but kept this reminder for over 40 years? And if it was stored instead in CA, it took Michael almost 50 years to start asking questions about it? And why does Comp Classics continue to dispute the possibility that Lanse Hasselrig - who owns a respected body shop in LA and has a few Pebble Beach winning paint jobs to his credit - ever owned the car? He is IN several of the photos from 1967 bringing the car to his storage space, but we should simply dismiss that he ever owned the car? Lots of details here simply don't add up.

[CompClassics]

Deleted

[Nedsel]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

Ned, I have been keeping our conversation between us and mostly confident up until your last post but it appears you want to open this door.

Why is the SAAC Registrar taking it for granted that someone owns a car that has been reported to him as being built with parts belonging to cars other than 2049? Why is it that the SAAC Registrar is not questioning irrefutable testimony that the parts inspected during the court case were not from 2049 and were in fact from something other than a Cobra, to be more precise an AC Bristol. This was sworn testimony by Dave Dralle, someone SAAC acknowledged as an “Expert in all things Cobra”. Why is a SAAC Registrar not questioning a car that has been criticized by an expert in a court case when that Registrar has a copy of the courts findings in front of him and the Registrar has ample opportunity to digest and scrutinize the questionable information in that court case document? Why is it that a specific CSX number used in an “owner” fishing trip (page 377 of the 2019 SAAC Registry) was conducted and parts related to that CSX number were provided as parts for the current 2049 build, these parts with the CSX number (CSX2582) were reported to the SAAC Registrar (by me) as being included in the build by Hasselrig? They were more than provided, they were cut from an existing original door and grafted into the replacement door of the new body chassis that was obtained after the court case. This by the owner of a “respected body shop”. I still have photos of the grafting in of the CSX number and the piece that was cut from the new door to make room for it. Why does it appear that California DMV paperwork has been tampered with from the court case, to the point of removing a state seal, this doesn’t raise red flags? By the way which person in the photos is Lanse? Did Lanse get the trailer with the purchase? Have you ever met Lanse or Wesselink in person? I have.

As far as I am concerned and or at least until the information comes to light that proves one way or the other that UC Cowboy can lay claim to the car is up in the air at this point and I have stated this in my posts previously. As far as I am concerned 2049 met it’s fate in a salvage yard after SAI obtained a mechanics lien. After that 2049 was scattered to the wind until there seemed to be a mad rush by a few individual to lay claim to the title. I will quote a line from the SAAC Registrar’s own statement in the 2019 Registry page 377 entry related to CSX2582, “certain lower life forms that generally takes shape in the question, “ Can I build a Cobra from junk parts and no title?” I guess we don’t have to worry about the “title”, do we?

John, you are apparently stuck on the idea that if someone restores a former race car they legitimately own, they are limited to the use of original parts from the original car. Of course, if those have been stolen, that's a difficult trick. The purpose of the court case in CA was to verify Haselrig's ownership of the CSX 2049 VIN. He presented enough evidence to convince the court he owned the rights to the car. I am not in a position to refute their findings, nor has anyone else stepped forward with a credible claim to ownership of this car. We all know it can't be rebuilt with its original chassis (which is in Europe) or body work (which is destroyed) but he says he has miscellaneous mechanical parts from the car. As the Cobra Registrar, I accept the findings of the court and allow Haselrig to lay claim to the title/ ownership of the 2049 VIN. And just like many other wrecked race cars, 2049 is being rebuilt with a lot of new parts. Yet that does not alter the fact that Haselrig retains the right to identify it as CSX 2049. There is no hiding the fact that it will be a new car. Should it be called something other than the car to which Haselrig holds the legal CA paperwork and title? If so, why?

[peterpjb]

Originally Posted by Nedsel

...We all know it can't be rebuilt with its original chassis (which is in Europe)...

when you confirm that David Harts 2049 has the original chassis, why then call it an Air Car?