Marlin,

I have always been interested in drag racing and reading about the old school guys that started it all. DH was one of those guys and his cars are certainly historically valuable and interesting. I can remember reading John Hooper's book on 1969 Camaros and seeing Bill Porterfield with what I think is one of Kelly Chadwick's old cars, and thinking how cool it would be to see that thing run again..not sure where that car is now, but super cool nevertheless. I think I also developed an interest as a result of Bill Porterfield and his dedication to researching his cars..and keeping them the way they were raced. Also there is/was a guy that I used to know (not very well..only in passing from the local dragstrip) who ran a place called "Gold Dust Classics" (at least that is what I believe it was called..)that had tons of old period photos..I used to look at his stuff and wonder how cool it would have been to be there in the "heyday" of a hobby I have been associated with since 14 or so.(20 years I guess..). Since I'm a student of history and always researching something it seems, I took an interest in this topic..that is all..nothing more nothing less..

To be honest I was very much under the impression that TC had done a massive amount of research on his car, as he has/had made some very definitive statements about what the car is. This car has been represented as a very valuable and historically significant car. Statements that I took for fact as I'm sure many have. Having owned a car that has some uniqueness about it, I know first hand how diffulct it can be to find info. that isn't "mainstream" Also I guess after reading the post here and on the other site (not supposed to name it..lol)I was curious as to what research went into the car as you have to admit it has been marketed in such a way that would make you think it was heavily documented. Upon seeing some evidence, and reading the post I began to wonder. In my experience when people make definitives there is usually valid research that back up their conclusion. I wasn't seeing the direct point to point answers from Tom (actually IMO the opposite..a lot of deflecting the questions..) so I posted what I feel are direct, research minded questions to him in a public forumn. Whether researching an old race car, an old car, a warbird, an old battlefield, etc. there are generally common accepted research methods..I wanted to see which ones Tom used to form his answer..That's all.


I'm not trying to start anything but your line of questions imply that there are more "sinister" reasons to my interest..if that is your opinion then I'm sorry..as you would be mistaken. If you read a post (only my 2nd) on the "other" site..who will find I was/am truly disappointed with the research Tom used to make his staements and the way he handled the last thread. I honestly think he believes, as I'm sure many here do, that he has a DH car and that there were 2 FC DH used. I hope in a lot of ways that he is correct as a DH funnycar IS a valuable piece of racing/musclecar history. While I'm leaning slightly to a different hypothesis it has nothing to do with Tom the guy, the SYC, or anyone here, on the other site, etc..Stop looking for some ridiculous conspiracy between "those guys" and me and this website or this car..If I have any problems with Tom it is IMO he applied very definitive statements, and led others to believe them, to something right now that is more speculation than fact.

Respectfully,

G S Carlson

BTW..Frank see above...you maybe watch too much conspiracy tv..Can we get back to either proving this is or isn't a DH car..and if not what car it is..I'm sure there are plenty of people (as evidence by the number of "hits" on both sites) that would like to keep it both civil and germane..as I've told you before it seems..if you don't have anything germane to say...don't post..Thanks and have nice day.

BTW..Marlin I also posted on the "pilot" 1967 Chevelle thread...another interest I guess