Stuff "Experts" and "Researchers" will never know....

I get tired of self-proclaimed experts being belligerent and belittling anyone who disagrees with them. Just because you read it in a book or on the internet doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Legendary shootist Elmer Keith-who helped Smith&Wesson develop the .44 Magnum-said it best with the title of his autobiography. "Hell, I was There!"  Well I was for the majority of the muscle car era. My dad was a gearhead, and I could swap valvesprings in a small-block Chevy cylinder head before I could ride a two-wheel bike. My dad worked for GM, Ford and Chrysler, and I spent my life in car dealerships, speed shops and race tracks. So it really irritates me when some "Know it all" tells me that somkething wasn't available on a certain car, or that I'm lying. A couple examples- I was talking fondly about the "Rock Crusher" in one of the 77-78 Trans-Ams my dad and I owned. This idiot tells me I'm wrong because after 1974 all T/A's had BW T10 4-speeds. He continued to argue even after I said that I went to to the dealer with my dad to order it, and watched the salesman put "M21" in the transmission box, and that when we got the car six weeks later we put it up on the rack, and it did in fact have a Muncie M21! Other customers of ours had same-year T/A's. Some of them had T10s, and some had Muncies. Car and Driver even wrote it in one of their  1977 road test articles about how the T/A was the last "Real Man's car" and that the "blonde in the Corvette" "Couldn't handle the Rock-Crusher" and wouldn't dream of blowing chickens out of barnyards on country roads. He also argued that the T10 was the only four-speed used in Camaros of that vintage. Again-Wrong! The T10 was the only 4-speed used in the Z/28 from 1977-82. However 1970-74 Z/28s had Muncies. Further, from 1970-79 you could get a base-model Camaro or a Rally Sport Camaro with a 350 and a 4-speed. These cars used a Saginaw 4-speed. I know because my best friend bought one brand-new when we were in high-school, and my wife's sister did the same-I saw both of these cars when they had less than 10 miles on them , saw the window stickers and build sheets, and serviced them! NO one swapped the trannys on these cars!. Guess what? what some researcher puts in a book 30 or 40 years after the fact isn't always accurate!  Another fool argued with me when I said a guy I knew put a brand-new LS6 454 in his 1980 Camaro as soon as he got it. This jerk went on and on about how only 4 thousand LS6 Chevelles were built, and there was no way he could have a brand-new LS6 in 1980. When I commented that the LS6 was sold by GM as a crate engine until 1991, he called me a liar. When I produced an old, 1989 GM Performance Parts catalog that clearly listed the LS6 engine assembly-he said they weren't "the same thing" and refused to admit defeat. The all-time best was the Olds "Expert" that argued with me that Oldsmobile never had a Tri-Power option on the 442. When a friend showed up with his rare, pristine, Tri-power L69, 1966 442, this genius said my friend had used a 1950s J-2 setup off a Rocket 88. When we said that 1965 and later Olds 400 and 425 engines have different heads and a different bank angle than the old 394 engines and that the intakes don't interchange he said we had "Adapted" a Pontiac setup! When we pointed out that Pontiac and Olds intakes do not interchange now way no how, he says-"I don't know what you did-but that car's not original!!." Talk about not giving up in the face of irrefutable facts!  So do some checking before you start arguing with someone about what their own car did or didn't have!!  Mastermind