@winterwind.

First, I had read the book more than once before I saw the movies. I've also read most of Ms. Rand's other works both fiction and non-fiction.

I watched the movies knowing that they would not BE THE BOOK [your phrase].. Movies are seldom adequately able to convey the thoughts and feelings of characters with the same clarity as the original author nor do time and medium allow movies to include every detail and nuance of a book. But a comparably lesser production is still a comparably lesser production.

Second, what you choose to like and dislike are your prerogatives. How you choose to convey your likes and dislikes are also your prerogatives. I reserve the same prerogatives and will express them MY way. You are welcome to take what you like and leave the rest. I do that all the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by a, "clean" discussion. But I'm also not particularly interested in reading your explanation either because even if I did, you can make book that I'd take what I like and leave the rest.

"AND what does your answer have to do with the question?"

....Probably about as much as the snarky comment to rainman suggesting that he might need to read the book again [implication=shallowness and lack of reading comprehension] and then pointing out that her child was an extra in the movie [ elitist insider?] I mean as long as there is leeway to drag in extraneous facts revolving around a specific question, shouldn't that privilege be extended equally?

I've spent a long life doing important work. I've done my part to save the f-ing world one person at a time. I relax now. I've discarded my cape and tri-cornered cap. I make bad jokes. I use omnibus words, cliches, homespun humor, stereotypes, and generalizations...among all kinds of other mental and semantic sins against logic and exposition.

If it bothers you ignore me. But never, ever try to tell me how to think or what to say.
.

RE: "Do you have any rational explanation for him actually registering a motor vehicle with the Colorado DMV?"
You have to remember that the Gulch residents didn't live in the Gulch full time from the beginning. It was only a one month a year vacation. They all had lives, jobs, apartments, etc., in the outside world. They didn't build their vehicles in the Gulch. They drove them into the Gulch from the outside world. The vehicles of course were registered.

RE: "...why would he risk being involved in a traffic accident? There could be rock slides, or washouts caused by rain, or he could get snowbound, or he could have car trouble. Or some small town cop with a thing for anyone not from his small town could pull him over, just because. Why would he risk any of that by driving?"
Risk what? Gulch residents were always hiding in plain site when they were in the outside world. Other than Ragnar's crew, they weren't criminals. They just refused to give the best of themselves to the world any longer. And it wouldn't have mattered if they got pulled over. They were normal people when in the outside world. Galt was a simple rail worker for TT for 12 years.

RE: "I don’t know how he came and went every time. But my assumption is by airplane."
The correct assumption is that if they could mask the valley from the air, they could probably just as easily mask it from the ground. Long trips, plane. Short trips, car.

RE: "I think it’s logical and reasonable to assume he didn’t drive his car outside of the Gulch."
I'm sure they did local supply runs once in a while. No big deal. They weren't personally hiding from anything. It was their vacation spot that they were hiding, not themselves necessarily.

EDIT: A statement for clarity.