>>As you say it had to be! Ford did lots of it. I'm sure we could learn a
lot about our cars if accurate records could be found.
And there it is: "Accurate records." I do not doubt the existence of Rootes
records, nor do I doubt that they contain the evidence that Norman claims.
Further, without physical evidence of cars such as mine, his conclusion is
logical and, as any lawyer will profess, without physical evidence,
documentation becomes legal fact. Not truth; legal fact.
I still have not heard from any 1A owners with machines built after mine,
B3820002539. I realize that one perky bloke in Berkeley making claims about a
289 is hardly evidence enough to warrant changing a documented opinion. It
wouldn't convince me, either.
And hey! No flames, yet. (I'll have to try something else next time. <g> )
This, despite my erroneous subject heading of "Apocryphal." There is evidence,
even though it's inaccurate.
dig ya later,
Eddy - CA
|