Jump to content

OPEN LETTER TO PAC BOARD MEMBERS


Guest

Recommended Posts

How is that such a stupid article could be printed in PAC publication? A Packard V12 prototype in 1965 HOG WASH. Anyone of you GULLIBLE persons that let that article be printed care to comment. I will say right now that NO ONE from PAC has the courage to respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Randy: Over the weekend I am going to email Marshall about the article. I will see if I can rattle his chain alittle. Maybe Stewart and Stella might also get an email about this. If I can I am going to start pressing some PAC board members on this rubbish that was published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, <A HREF="http://newsone.net/nnr/listl/alt.autos.studebaker/26" TARGET=_blank>http://newsone.net/nnr/listl/alt.autos.studebaker/26</A> the Studebaker forum has about a hundred postings relative to it, but I haven't yet seen but a few about the V-12. When I get time, I'll see what they say. You have to request a password to get into the site but it is quite active. How's the '53 doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am encouraged to see that most of the 'Club' members are a bit riled by this event.<BR>Its about time too! If it goes unchecked it will only get worse. I beleive this fabrication is a warning signal to members that has been a Loooooooong time comming. Doesnt it make any of u wonder about their previous claims and advice??????? Or for that matter, even their expertise???<P>THIS '65 Packard' thing is a WAKE UP CALL!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OPEN LETTER TO GULLIBLE<P>NOW you are starting to catch on....at the rate you are going...you are going to make a damn good Packard buff...John....you are all right in my "book"...you are starting to get suspicious of the horse droppings that appear in so many hobby publications, then get repeated by well-meaning but ignorant enthusiasts.........then re-published down the road........can we also say "Super Eight and V-12 Packards are on the same chassis...? " and "straight Twelve" Packards......? or how 'bout "Russian Zis's were stamped out of dies President Roosevelt secretly sold out from under Packard...to give to his buddy "Uncle Joe" Stalin...? <P>Next thing you know...John...you are going to start questioning "sacred cows" like "President Roosevelt heard the secret messages from the Japs that they were going to attack Pearl Harbor"... !<P>Anyone want to buy a carbuertor that gives 173.2 miles per gallon...? Or how about a used bridge in Brooklyn...? Or "sure..honey..of course I am a virgin.."<P>Pete Hartmann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter: First of all I have been a dam good Packard buff lng before you ever where part of these chatrooms. Second of all if you and I where to meet face to face you wouldn't be calling me gullible anymore. Tje reason I don't believe this article is that I just got done reading a book on the history of Studebaker. I believe that the dies where shipped to Stalin. What happed tothe dies while ther is anybody guess. Knowing history like I do I have pretty good idea. No they weren't used in stampings of the ZiZ. They copied aspects of the dies they liked converted these to metric stampings. The Russians where very good a copying other peoples works. Hell a B29 landed in Russia they copied the whole thing while it was inpounded in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fellows: The first salvo has been fired. Just got done emailing Taccone and Katz on the V12 article. I invited Taccone to make his responce in this forum. Its tie to put the heat on these people. I hope some of you others do the same thing as I have done. Randy: I am hoping that the 53 is done this fall sometime. I am well pleased with the work they have done. When I get it back the trans comes out. I found a fellow in his 70's who rebuilt ultras at onetime. He is going to redo the ultra for me at a very reasonable price as far as labor goes. I supply all the parts he needs. The ulra works fine but leaks real bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter; It would be hard to prove either way some of the issues you mentioned other than the 8 vs 12 chassis, which I know nothing about and doesn't really seem to be an issue in the Packard community compared to the other ones you noted. In any event I would assume it would be easy enough to park an 8 and a 12 side by side to compare, which I figure you've done, so I believe that you know the differences.<BR> <BR>When the monoblock twelve story was published in the 74 Cormorant it was backed up by several named Packard employees, who were alive at the time of the story, as well as a photo of a unique car even though it didn't show the engine. You can be skeptical of that story but I don't think you can prove it wasn't built. When it took place Packard was flush with money so it's not far fetched that they would have allowed that experiment to happen.<P>I guess we might never know who the ignorant enthusiast is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JT<P>John is correct about the "B-29 look-alike" story. But we dont have to "guess" about the "Packard dies" story. There is nothing to debate about dies. They are mounted in presses or forges, and produce EXACT products. EXACT. There is no practical way to alter a die once it has been treated for hardness. <P>That Joe Stalin loved his Packards is clear. That the ZIS from the time-era we are discussing LOOKS sort of like a Packard "180", at least from a front quarter view, is clear. From a rear-quarter view, obviously they liked GM styling better...!<P>That SOMEHOW, in a way no-one seems to know, some Packard trim PARTS wound up on a ZIS, is baffiling. <P>Incidentally, there is noting to discuss about my criticism of portions of Beverly Rae Kime's excellent books. She does NOT represent herself as knowleable about automobile mechanicals. SHE is a great editor, and in THAT capacity, has done a wonderful service to us car-buffs by bringing together excellent photographs, and the WRITINGS of various car buffs and "self styled experts", in some charming books.<P>BUT - the FACT remains ( as you can see elsewhere in this and related sites ) that car buffs are HUMAN, and as such, have human failings. Wanting desparately to sound important is part of the human condition. Unfortunately, there will be always people who want SOO desparately to sound important, they focus more of their efforts on SOUNDING important, and be less involved in the accuracy of what they are saying.<P>It is VERY important to some car buffs, to depreciate the tremendous differences between the ordinary cars of the 1930's, and the big, powerful, arrogant super-luxury cars of that era we now call "classics". ONE of Beverly Kime's books contains a nonsensical statement that in the late 1930's, Packard cheapened the Twelve by reducing its size and weight, and using the same chassis in the Super Eight, as the Twelve. I UNDERSTAND where that particular author, and the people who want so desparately to believe he is correct, are coming from.<P>But, as is the case with the nonsensical article about the so called 1965 Packard Twelve, there ARE people who DO know what they are talking about. And, as much as the "fanatics" object to free speech, people who KNOW what they are talking about, do, from time to time, have good fun making short work of the phonies. I happen to know just a bit about Packard products (at least up to but NOT including the V-8 era). <P>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that all sorts of threats and charges are flying around and that most of you do not put your names on your messages. In any event, feel free to email me directly at <Bud Juneau> cbjphoto@goldstate.net with your comments. <P>It appears we should have been more careful. The circumstances were unusual, the photos went directly to the printer and were not seen by us until printed. Unfortunately we were trying to fill an issue and goofed big time.<BR>Previous editors would have run the article past the same people we ran it past and got an OK on it. If we could recall all of the issues and start over we would. We accepted the article in good faith. <P>Sorry. We can only go forward and try to do better. But don't you think the blame really belongs on the person who wrote the article? Why aren't you going after him and not the clubs who were fooled? <P>I am: Bud Juneau. <BR>Who are you?<P>(edit by Mr. Juneau's request)<p>[ 08-18-2002: Message edited by: peterg ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bud,<BR> Thank you for your straightforward admission that the 1965 Packard article was a hoax. Frankly, I found it to be fascinating reading! I guess I have always wished for the reincarnation of Packard. Unfortunately those persons who have a grievance for one reason or another seem to be the ones who are most vocal. I find the Cormorant to be an excellent publication. Keep up the good work!<BR>jnp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bud J wrote:"But don't you think the blame really belongs on the person who perpetrated the hoax? Why aren't you going after him and not the clubs who were fooled? I am: Bud Juneau. Who are you? '<P>Ok. OK. WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES!!!!!!<BR> OH, i know, some innocent well meaning member probably just found that article under a bus station seat somewhere and gave it to the club to print????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Bud Juneau: How much compensation do YOU get from the club for your position????? Is it enough to worry about loosing because YOU did not proof read???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" I am: Bud Juneau. Who are you? "<P>He is UNREGISTERD! Wants to know who WE ARE???? Hey Bud!!!!!! Have u ever looked at any of the various Packard posting boards and forums over the last 3 years or so????????? There are and have been about 3 or 4 of them at least. IF U DID then u would KNOW who WE are!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response, I admit I am new to participating in forums. I believe I am registered, at least I filled in the form last night. But at least I am willing to put my name on my words and not hide behind an online name. As far as payment goes, I am so embarrased by this issue, that I will take none. The officers of the club can put in for reimbursement of expenses - but many of us don't and we do pay our editors. I accept full responsibillity for the issue and ask that readers not blame to club, or the other officers. I took some bad advice, the author had a reasonable past track record, and I am embarrased by the result. The club provides 16 issues per year to members and any member who wants to return the summer issue to me will receive a refund from me personally. I have a name, I am: Bud Juneau.<BR>If you belong to the club you have my address.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back from vacation so missed much of the discussion. Yes, it is obviously a put up job and thanks Bud Juneau for being a stand up guy and taking responsibility. If nothing else it has gotten people talking and thinking about the "if onlies . . ." Usually I'm very pleased with the Cormorant (wish it were called the Pelican, tho) It is one of the better produced of the national hobby mags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bud Juneau - <P>Posting at this forum, thankfully, does not require anyone to "sign" their posts, and even unregistered users are kindly permitted to post here (they just can't edit or delete their posts). Frankly, I think most of us do pretty well for an unmoderated exchange.<P>I can't speak for everyone who posts here, but in this age of increasingly annoying assaults by SPAMmers and telemarketers, I would like to think that this is one site that isn't skimming my personal info. I view not having to "sign" my name as a real plus - a good second line of defense. Those who need to know who my name already do, and those who would like to know it can ask (nicely).<P>Funny, I don't recall any threats or charges made against PAC in this forum, but there was a lot of open-minded and honest discussion here regarding that story. It was the kind of talk that you'll find "out in the lot" at any car show in the real world.<P>Now, surely, you can remember all the hub-bub about the Request when it first resurfaced (at least a couple of decades ago). As I noted in another thread, Richard Langworth did an excellent job of questioning its authenticity. It was his journalistic duty. Yet, when it turned out to be the real McCoy, he stood behind it. I don't expect anyone to be able to fill Langworth's shoes completely (he was one of a kind), but it seems to me that things are getting pretty darned sloppy in the publishing world - and not just PAC. (Too often, these days, it seems like our society does not question authority.)<P>Though I am glad to learn how this happened, any club that merely tries to "fill an issue" is doing its members a great disservice. Granted, it seems like recreational time is a lot scarcer for a lot of people than it was even ten years ago, and this is a hobby - not a business. Yet, dues-paying members deserve better than this hoax.<P>For every "old car" which is no longer supported by the factory, the respective club must take over the role of providing support to keep the cars on the road. Regardless of the profit motive, parts suppliers can't do it alone. Armchair reminiscing about what was and what could have been is nice (provided any fairy tales are appropriately labelled as a such), but it is all rather pointless if you can't keep the remaining cars on the road and in the public view. Although clubs are not just about cars, but people, how long do you think any car club could survive without fully-functioning, driveable cars?<P>Of course, PAC is not the only one who published this story, but someone at each club had to OK publication of this submitted story. It just seems odd that both clubs published the same exact article at the same time - with no authentication, whatsoever.<P>It wasn't just the obviously fake photos that gave away the hoax, but, thankfully, the knowledge among informed people that so much of the corporate record of Packard and Studebaker actualy survived - plus the input from a few good people with some engineering savvy. Above all else, there was no real corraborating evidence provided to support this "plan."<P>Now, this is not the first time anything like this ever happened in the histroy of the wirtten word, and it probably won't be the last. Yet, I hope both clubs fess up to their flaws, in public (as hard as that may be to do), learn from their mistakes, and grow to become something better (rather than resting on their collective laurels).<p>[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: BH ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether or not people on this forum sign their posts or not does not negate the point that many of us on this discussion forum are dues-paying members who received the Cormorant with the bogus article in it. All of us here questioned the legitimacy of the information presented, and I don't recall much at all in the way of threats, but much in the way of confusion. Why shouldn't the organization be held responsible for what is published in its magazine? While they might not directly run it (that's what editors are for) when a hoax like this is perpetrated it is the responsiblity of all people involved to own up to their mistakes. I ran the college newspaper as an undergraduate, and nothing got published without my looking at it. My confusion is how such a large amount of article space got outsourced, and why it wasn't looked at before being published. I echo the previous sentiment about PAC and the Cormorant owning up to the mistake publicly. I look forward to reading the Cormorant each month, and hope that the editorial board will live up to its responsiblities to its members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will you guys just STOP it...this is a HOBBY...not a religion...! O.K..so Bud was "taken advantage" of...who amongst us has not been the victim of a little tomfoolery down thru the years....!<P>As I noted in a "post" above, from time to time nonsence DOES get printed in a hobby-related publication. What do you guys WANT...some kind of "govt. truth-checkers"..?<P>We all had a good bit of fun at the publication in question's expense...and as the years go on...with less and less of us who were around in the early days to "ride herd" on the clowns, stuff like this IS going to happen. Was anyone actually injured by this article ? Anyone spend bus fare going down to their nearest Packard agency to try and order on..? Send me the reciept, and I will reimburse you up to a full quarter......... GET OVER IT !<P><BR>Pete Hartmann<BR>Big Springs, AZ<P>Pete Hartmann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOU get over it Pete!! If that kind of scam goes on without complaint then it will only get worse. YOU know that better than anyone. What would be next??????? An IPO or ar a Bond Float????? If the 'clubs' need to fill space then let them start an Xref column, give more detailed Tech advice. Yeah, noone got hurt, but maybe ONLY because some folks complained and got it stopped.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....So, does this mean that we will not get to read about the 'special van study ... that so impressed Mr Egbert' as noted by the editor on page 16???????? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PFH wrote: '...a hobby, not a religion'.<BR>i will remind u of that next time u rag someone else about their classic car that does not fit your (and to some extent my) definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Unregist.<P>It is a free country. We are all free to be as ignorant as we like. We are all free to publish any ignorant trash we like. And we are all free to comment aggressively on someone ELE'S ignorant trash. That is how freedom works ! It is the "crucible of ideas" in action.<P>Unfortunately, it is a perfectly normal part of the "human condition" to not want one's own pre-conceived ideas questioned. You should see how angry John Shinerman got when I explained to him that however valuable Bevery Rae Kime's contributions as a publisher/editor are to our old car hobby, SOME of the stuff that got into her EXCELLENT books was just as silly as the nonsence Bud got "taken" with. <P>The TRICK is...try to keep a cool, dispasionate head on your shoulders, and see what you can LEARN...not what you can argue about !<P>I suggest we all benefit by the exchange of ideas. Those ideas that are silly, get challenged. That is the American way. I have not found too much "junk" in the publications Bud supervises. So..big deal..something got away from him and got published. I BET you Bud wont let that happen again !<P>Pete Hartmann

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Randy Berger

The opening post to this thread claimed that nobody from PAC would respond. Mr. Juneau's measured response and chagrin at the article getting by because of trust in an author obviously proved the opening post to be written in haste. It's easy to condemn - hard to stand up and take responsibility, particularly when you weren't in the direct line of blame. Mr. Juneau's name does appear first on the title page and he quite properly stood up to be counted. We've all had a good rant and the editorial staff (probably mostly volunteer) has enough red faces to last the year. blush.gif" border="0 <BR>As a personal preference I always sign my name. wink.gif" border="0<BR>YFAM, Randy Berger tongue.gif" border="0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if anyone thinks participants in this forum have been overly harsh in their criticism, they should look into the hundreds (and I mean HUNDREDS) of posts that have been made over numerous threads about this matter at the Studebaker newsgroup, which appears to be hosted or archived at Google Groups:<P><A HREF="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&group=alt.autos.studebaker" TARGET=_blank>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&group=alt.autos.studebaker</A><P>(You can even search their message base for posts by keywords.) <P>While there has been no call there for a public lynching, the responses have a broad range of emotion. (Gee, not everyone signs their posts over their, either - again, a matter of personal preference that seems to be accepted and respected.)<P>Seems like the article currently in question is just one of several stories by Paul McKeehan that have been published or reported over the years in Studebaker circles. Imagine the questions that raises now among the rank and file of the SDC.<P>Most importantly, the President of the SDC posted a thread advising of his own skepticism and that the matter would be fully investigated and reported on. He also acknowledged the danger of such a story, now that it is in print, becoming part of the historical record.<P>It will be intersting to see PAC's official response in print. Coincidentaly, I just received my memebership renewal notice in the mail this week, but I think I'll be holding off on that for a while.<p>[ 08-20-2002: Message edited by: BH ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if anyone caught it. Not sure that anyone see's FUTURE INTENT. BUT look at P16 ((Turning Wheels) at the editors note in a box just under the car pic. It indicates a '...future article ' about a van. Had noone bitched about it then the shine-on would have continued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

someone refresh my memmory please: WHICH one of those Club websites is it that restricts Packard topics and posts to strictly production issues???? And, does not allow the downloading of pics from its web site?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Berger: I never pull any punches and say what I think . First of all my post wasn't made in great hast. Upon learning of this story in this chatroom I knew the story was a hoax. Why because I had just completed the reading the history of Studebaker. After being able to read the article just made me all the more angry that something like this could be published. I made a few email enquiries to Katz and Taccone. Katz to his credit answered my email. Taccone couldn't be bother. One of these two people forwarded my email to Bud. He contacted me right away and asked to identify myself. He has my full name and address and phone number. He had the courage t come into this chatroom and admit the blundered that had happen. In my email to Taccone and in this chatroom I challenged Taccone to make some comments. The little boy backed out and had somene else do his dirty work. Bud even gave me the email address of the jerk who wrote the pack of lies. I email the fellow but have recieved no reply from him, which I doubt I will. The bottom line is that if someone like myself doesn't put the preasure on the people at PAC for printing rubbish like this, there would have been no one from PAC answering the question WHY. To Buds t credit he came into the chatroom and admitted the mistake and that things where going to be done so that something like this wouldn't happen again. After getting getting some answer as t why this happened I was satisfied and decided not press the issue any more. The only reason that I am repsonding to you, is that I am defending my actions because I am right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Randy Berger

Packard53, I made the statement that you started the thread with a statement made in haste by immediately stating no one would respond. You were wrong in that assessment as Mr. Juneau's post proves. Don't assume because I didn't agree with you 100% that I was taking issue with you personally - I wasn't. <BR>The hoax certainly doesn't add any credibility to the PAC Cormorant and as I said would not have been published by R. Langworth. You were right to question the article - as many did, myself included.<BR>Marshall Katz has always responded to any email I sent him - seems to be an upstanding guy. I don't know Taccone, but calling him names serves no purpose except to let you vent and if that is the manner in which you emailed him, it certainly would not encourage him to respond.<BR>You don't need to defend your actions to me, or anyone else. This forum is open to all and you said your piece.<BR>I believe (even though no one has said so) that other people in PAC probably made phone calls to the staff and said the article was so much baloney. Folks like Stuart Blond and Dwight Heinmuller, just to name two, probably groaned when they read their Cormorant. <BR>Gathering information and articles to fill a Q publication like the Cormorant is a daunting task and while PAC is probably trying to recruit a full-time editor to replace Mr. Langworth, it still has to issue a magazine with x number of pages and pictures. This one slipped by - I bet they are more diligent in the future. blush.gif" border="0<BR>I always sign my name. When I say that, it is not intended to be a slight to those who don't. Just a matter of personal preference.<BR>YFAM, Randy Berger grin.gif" border="0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is probably a good time for the Rank & file to put pressure on the club to publish or make available via I'net such things as a Cross reference parts listing, STB and SC reprints and things like that. If they r having trouble filling space, then what better way to fill space than with good (or even just plausable and un-tested) tech info and ideas These type of things r MUCH NEEDED.<P>Some of my previous posts were a bit poignant toward Bud. Quite frankly, it is my guess that Bud is probably only guilty of not proof reading. No big deal on that one. Probably one of his bosses calling the shots is the real culprit here. You all know how it goes: someone has to be the fall guy for guilt and rarely is it ever the REAL crooks.<P>What ever the plot, this is a good time to initiate change for more helpful information. I wouldnt cancel any memberships YET. Give Bud a chance to go back to the sponsors and twist their arms for a better publication.<P>If no improvement, then hit 'em where it hurts ... in ThEIR WALLET. HEY, its not like we cant live without them!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...