Archive - Work in Progress

[john]

USAFpilot50,
So glad you are a self proclaimed expert and are highly successful in life, sure we are all glad to know this.

To bad you have misinformation.

Please, beings you seem to be good buddies with Cole, ask him these three easy questions, OK;

DO you realize that the mystery picture was and is #57, you state that it was missing a few parts, please, get some oxygen and rewrite, OK.

Next, PLEASE, ask your buddy how the damage and the BLUE EASTER egg came about on #57, then come back and tell us new stories that you may or may not believe, OK?

Next, PLEASE, ask your buddy how #57 was in two places at the same time, then ask Cole if anybody has verified that it was at Lencki's, we did !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please, post the answer's to the questions after speaking with Cole, plain and simple enough, isn't it ??????????

The other Easter eggs are being kept, a question to you sir, will you appoligize when proven wrong, I know we owned up and corrected a mistake in our posts herein when confronted?

Sworn testimonials sir, were they in a sworn deposition setting with unflattering questions being asked about their stories ?

We were just asked to do an interview about #57 by another source, funny, we were also asked to be interviewed by old car weekly and another source, what does Cole's public comments and heresay count for, your aggression on this site?

Seems quite a few writers, newpapers and magazine editors question the stories being told after reading Cole's side and the posts of Tucker enthusiasts herein.

Good luck on YOUR campaign sir,
John

[Tucker Fan 48]

Chris Hansen,... Dateline NBC,... Please go and look at the Tucker "convertible"!!!!!!
Let us all see what they uncover.

[TUCKER]

I know they like to put plugs on their ears and call us crazy but we know what we see and we do not see what they see. We are not crazy. Is anyone here that can say they believe in convertibles? Many did before all this but now many know it is all Mickey Alenland stories.

[Tuckerfan1053]

These people have a right to their doubts. However, they also have an obligation to join the Convertible site and review the documentation presented. Short of that they are doing a disservice to the car they love so much.

I signed up about a week ago and have yet to get "authorization" to look at the site. Kind of hard for me to look at their documentation if they won't let me.

I would suggest that you try again or look in your spam folder for their response.

I found a "Did you recently try to register?" query in my spam folder, dated today. No other messages from them at all. Its possible that something got fubar'd on their end, or they're not exactly in a hurry to approve people. Either one is equally possible, IMHO.

[Tuckerfan1053]

Thank you Tucker Fan. Look at this closeup now with it saying about it being a prototype and sow a convertible. It came with blueprints available to finish it!

Looks to me like it says "4 door sedan." Kind of strange it would say that, and yet have an illustration of a 2 door convertible on it.

[TuckerCar]

I was telling my wife about this. She looked at me and said....are you ready?

"Randy, it's obvious they are getting it ready to sell at the Barrett/Jackson Auction!"

Yep, that was the proclamation someone made on this site a couple years ago... Note that the correct serial number for the convertible is 1009c!

Here it is -> viewtopic.php?f=1&t=881

[TUCKER]

That is funny how the other person (Alen Reinert's friend) said 1009c like maybe the story was also used on another parts lot. It makes it sound like there were 9 convertibles or maybe the same story used 9 times. Remember there were many cars put together as parts lots and sold and then completed to make the cars we have today. Now look at this 1052 car and there is no 1009c but a diferent number which I can not make out. Do anyone know the owner of this 1052 car?? Not chure if it say 54 on it which is the other convertible parts lot he sold before this 1052 lot and maybe used the same picture.

[Prototype]

I was telling my wife about this. She looked at me and said....are you ready?

"Randy, it's obvious they are getting it ready to sell at the Barrett/Jackson Auction!"

Funny, I have been to Barrett-Jackson in Scottsdale many times, including just this past April when GM was selling off their Heritage Collection. They had some very interesting vehicles there that were sold on scrap titles or with a bill of sale only. Many of the cars were One-Off Prototypes, for example the 1984 Chevy Impala wagon with the Corvette drivetrain (I bid on it, but did not win!)that fetched "only" $40K +fees. Now, IF BM takes the "Con-Vera-Tible" to Barrett-Jackson, thinking he will get even $750,000 for it he is barking up the the wrong tree! Being around the Auction floor, Vehicle viewing lot and the VERY discerning and inquisitive people who are there to spend serious money, will not be willing to bid anywhere near $1M for a car that has such a questionable past, regardless if it is a Tucker or not! The only way that would happen is He had some Cronies to bid and drive up the price.(That's just my opinion)!!!

[Tuckerfan1053]

Okay, so in looking over the documentation on the 'vert site, it seems to consist of some statements, by persons unknown that the car is "legit," some drawings by someone at GM as to what a Tucker 'vert "might" look like, that were done in 1990, and a letter from an accountant who worked for the Tucker Corporation, written in the 1970s, asking if Reinert had finished the 'vert yet. Hardly conclusive, but it gets even weaker when you closely examine the documents.

In the one statement, the individual who is not named says, at one point, "Oh no no no, that was probably in 03 when I bought 43." I think that its been publicly stated here who bought 43 then, but I don't know. I'll leave it up to other folks to pin down that person on the matter. The owner of 43 goes on to state, "No, it was it was a sedan frame that was rusted to bits. . ." (bolding mine) Seems kind of funny that he would say "sedan frame" if the frame was supposed to be made for a 2 door 'vert. Then, when asked about the 'vert drawings he saw agrees with the questioner that they were dated "1980," yet all we have is a letter dated 1990, the actual drawings have no date on them. Nor does the letter mention when the drawings were made.

Justin then asks the owner of 43 about the frame affidavitt that Justin has, reads it to him, and the owner of 43 responds with a statement that had he known that, he would have bought the 'vert, and to his mind that makes the 'vert legit. Interestingly enough, there's no name given on the affidavitt, it having been blocked out, along with the signature of the person making the affidavitt. However, the person making the statement says that they owned [blank] Harley Davidson dealership and that they asked Dave Hollis to do the drawings of what a Tucker 'vert would look like. And when you look at that letter (dated 1990), you see that it is addressed to one "Jerry Renner."

I'm skipping the mention of the car in Tucker Topics since that's already been discussed. What we have is nothing from the 1940s or 50s about the car. The earliest documented statement we have is from the 1970s, and is meaningless since it doesn't state anything about the car being an official project, and we really don't have any context for the mention in the letter, since we don't see the letters which came before or after that one.

Next, we have statements, with the names obscured, from the owner of 43, and Jerry Renner (the drawing affidavitt has the remnants of a signature which looks like it could be someone signing their name "Jerry Renner" since there appears to be a "J" at the start of the first name and an "R" at the start of the second name) about the car. '43 says that it had an unmodified sedan frame and that he was dubious about the car's authenticity. When he's read the affidavitt given by Jerry Renner that a former Tucker Corporation employee, identified only as "Henry" saw the 'vert, he called it '57. Renner also states that the frame was reinforced, this directly contradicts 43, who said that when he saw the frame (presumably 13 years later, if the 1990 date is correct, or 23 years later, if the 1980 date is correct) it was unreinforced. It should also be noted that Renner says he had the 'vert in his shop (And why would you take such a car to a motorcycle shop? I'd think that there'd be better places to take it to.) in the "late 1980s." If it was after the 'vert arrived in his shop, that he had the drawings made up, it must have been 1990 that they were made and not 1980.

In short, I don't see how any of that documentation could be considered any kind of "proof" of the car's origins.

[Tucker Fan 48]

I looked at the same things and wondered how any of it proves anything. It's like they are trying to put up enough
"proof" so that people will be baffled into believing their story. If they had real proof then why not put it out where
everyone can see? If the car is real, then why aren't they bringing it to the TACA Convention in Reno next month?
Surely the best way to get 5 million dollars for it would be to have Tucker fans all drooling over it, telling all their
friends about the Tucker "convertible" they saw.

Is "Jerry Renner" the same Jerry Renner that owned the of House of Harley-Davidson in Greenfield WI. until 2000?
It would seem likely as the car was near there, they mention Jerry Renner, and a Harley shop.

[Prototype]

I, too, have seen the "Documents" regarding Con-Vera-Tible" and I still can't understand the F.B.I style secrecy surrounding the identities on them. If this is such an important subject that they need to "persuade" us into believing their story, they need to come clean with EVERYTHING! Throw it all on the table for EVERYONE to see, not only to people seriously interested in purchasing the car (or their lack of). This only adds to the "mystique" to a story that cannot and will not hold water until they are honest and upfront, just like they should have been in the first place! They obviously don't like being scrutinized, but are adding fuel to a fire they started to begin with. We here are not fanning the flames, just trying figure out why they lit it in the first place.

[Randy Earle]

If they plan to sell this thing when it is finished, what better way to get everyone interested is there than to have a mass of controversy that builds larger and larger until the car is finished? This car is being discussed all over the net. Thousands have been privy to the story. It all started with the 5M Ebay listing. The moneyed few will be more than eager to bring their checkbooks to vie to be the owner of this piece of controversy. How soon before somebody cobbles up that little combat car and insists it's an original?

[Tuckerfan1053]

If they plan to sell this thing when it is finished, what better way to get everyone interested is there than to have a mass of controversy that builds larger and larger until the car is finished? This car is being discussed all over the net. Thousands have been privy to the story. It all started with the 5M Ebay listing. The moneyed few will be more than eager to bring their checkbooks to vie to be the owner of this piece of controversy.

Not necessarily. Lots of things get hyped and then quickly fall flat. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that they do have much better documentation, and are holding back on it until the car is completed, they run a serious risk of undercutting themselves by showing the poor documentation they have so far. People will have the attitude of, "Why should I bother looking at what they're showing me now? The last stuff they put forward wasn't believable at all!"

How soon before somebody cobbles up that little combat car and insists it's an original?

I've heard that the car still exists, but I don't know if I believe that or not. (The movie prop, certainly does, however, from what I understand.) Fabbing the combat car is not as easy as putting together a Tucker from old parts. Someone familiar with metal fabricating techniques from that era could spot the differences if modern methods were used. Then you've got things like the electrical system they would have used. Finding the kinds of wires and motors needed can be tricky (and expensive). Plus, there's the issue of the .50 cal guns mounted on the thing, and aging everything, so that it looks like its been sitting for 60+ years. All for a vehicle, that were it genuine, would probably not bring as high a price as concours restored Tucker.

[USAFpilot50]

Tucker Fan 48: In response to: "First, I've spent a lot of time on the Benchmark site looking at their so called evidence. It's a joke. Anyone can notorize a document about anything. Second, I listened to both interviews posted on the site and what has been written there. Justin CLEARLY uses the June 94 Tucker Topics issue as a basis that his car is real." I believe that you are the joke. First of all you can’t spell. Buy a dictionary. Secondly, you clearly misunderstand the significance of a notarized affidavit. An affidavit is a formal signed sworn statement of fact, and witnessed (as to the veracity of the affiant's signature) by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public. If, after signing such a declaration, the information is found to be deliberately untrue with the intent to deceive, the applicant may face perjury charges. Perjury is a significant breach of law and is punishable by being remanded to a state penitentiary for months or years. Martha Stewart didn’t go to jail for her insider trading. She went to jail because she perjured herself. A signed affidavit is a significant document.



Your claims and counterclaims are beginning to ring hollow. You personally have not generated a single bit of credible evidence that challenges the authenticity of Justin’s car. You are just riding on someone else’s coattails and I believe your continued unmerited attacks blemish the integrity of the Tucker Club. You have nothing but speculation. Do yourself and other true Tucker enthusiasts a favor and either put up or shut up.


In response to: "The pictures prove 100% that the car is not real but somehow people should just eliminate their existence?" The pictures are admittedly real. They just are not pictures of the same car. Examine Justin’s car. The frames are not the same. The convertible frame was reinforced in a manner that could only be achieved in a heavy automobile manufacturing environment. If you examine the inside of the door panels you can see that they have never suffered any damage. You need to do your homework before you make your reckless insinuations. As far as the alleged damage to the windshield pillar is concerned I have no thoughts one way or the other on that. I don’t think that any similarity between the two cars is just a coincidence.



In response to: "I'll have to agree with you then and admit I am wrong. If I do as you ask and eliminate all the solid and documented evidence then I have no choice other than to agree that the car is the one and only factory "convertible" built at the Tucker plant. Eliminate the evidence. I would have never thought of that." I believe that more photographs are coming that will prove that Justin’s car is not #1027 or #1052 or a conglomeration thereof. That is why the comment was made regarding the elimination of the photographs for a moment – that is until the additional photographs can be added to the Benchmark website.



People are becoming enamored with this car. Will anyone ever be able to come up with enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this car was authorized and approved by both Preston Tucker and Alex Tremulis? Realistically I doubt it. Too much time has passed. But Americans love their heroes and stories of inspiration, imagination, courage and conviction. Preston Tucker and his cars embody all those traits. Just because the convertible was started doesn’t mean that it was ever going to go into mass production. It may have been something that Preston Tucker just wanted to see.



The convertible is charismatic and is something that the Tucker Club should consider embracing. Think of the positive aspects of making such a move. This convertible could ignite a revival of the country’s interest in the Tucker automobile. That’s good for everyone, including Preston Tucker’s legacy.

[TUCKER]

Hi, now on the pictures posted on their site of the front and back of the convertible. They were the front and back cover of a brochure sent out by Lee Wisniewski who was the owners agent at that time. The brochure had many photos of the convertible being put together along with 1043 that was being sold together. Now why don't they show the complete brochure of the car being put together. It really show a lot in there of the car being put together from parts being collected. It all started with a regualar tucker frame and they changed it at Alens garage. The photo is there that show the frame in his garage being reinforced.