CORMORANT EDITORS ANSWERS WANTED

[Guest]

To the editors of the Cormorant: Since Mr. McKeehan seems unwilling to answer the questions. I have asked about the photos submitted with the 1965 V12 story the was published in the summer of 2002.

I am now going to ask you the editors of the Cormorant the following questions about the photos that was published with the story. I really think this controversey should be cleared up, silence on this matter for almost two years

serves noone any good.

These are the following things that I have found in the photos that seem to make them very questionable as to being authentic in nature.

1.On page 14 the picture of the Park Avenue prototype from the windshield on back has the same roof line, winshield angle and general rear quarter panel shape, and door style, as a late 90's Caddy Sedan DeVille. Upon close examination of the photo there is no right rear wing vent window. There is a rear vent window of the left rear door.

2. On page 17 the photo of the Park Avenue has a right rear wing vent window and as noted the Park Avenue on page 14 has none. To the left of the right rear wing vent window there is a dark spot that blocks out the center post and a portion of the right front door glass.

3. The blue car next to the Park Avenue seems to have only one headrest and none on the passengers side. There is also no center post or windshield pillar of any kind on the right hand side. From the angle at which the picture is taken there should be some of the interior visible and the lower tops of the passengers side doors. If you follow the upper roof line on the right side side part of the upper right windshield is blacked out. Looking at the left side of the blue car at the rear quarter panel and the rear of the door, you see the door edge opening. Now if you look at the center post there are no door edges visible.

4. The photo of the Caribbean prototype bring up some other interesting things.

Looking at the right side wing vent window of the Caribbean there is a black out

area that extends over to the trunk area of the car to the left seen through the left sidewindow of the prototype. The second area in question appears on third car to the left of the wall that has the fire sign on it. Look at the trunk area around the back window there appears to be another blacked out area that blanks a portion of the rear window. Then on the same car on the drivers side there is another blacked area blocking off a view of the drivers door and front fender. On the trunk of the same car appears to be some kind of rear wing wind device of some type, commonly know as a rear wing spoiler. The rear spoiler almost looks like that used on a late 80's to early 90's Mustang.

5. There is one thing that I found in all three prototypes they all have something in common. I find that the same reflections shows up on the hubcaps on all three prototypes.

After what I have found with the photographs, this leads me to doubt the quthenticity of the photos. I believe the same can be said of the story submitted with the photos.

[Peter Gariepy]

Packard53,

I suggest you contact the Cormorant Editor via phone, email or snail mail. They obviously do not frequent this forum.

They can be reached at: http://www.packardclub.org/ I'm sure they can be of much more assistance to you than posting in this forum.

Peter Gariepy

Webmaster - AACA

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

The 'clubs' frequent this forum quite often. AND have posted several times.

[Guest imported_PackardV8]

I would like to recommend to all of the Packard posting 'regulars' that we be vigilant and caje altho nonetheless direct in our posts on this topic by not making any personal judgement posts about any individuals in particular. The world is against us on this topic and plotting to shut this topic out. Don't give them any excuses (not they need any).

[55PackardGuy]

Packard53 has made a straightforward, itemized list of observations. It's worth having it here and seeing what happens without a whole lot of commentary. The ball's in their court now.

A post now and then to keep the topic current in the list for a reasonable amount of time to be noticed (don't know how long that would be) could help.

[Guest BillP]

I recall reading this article and studying the accompanying photos. I consider myself a fairly astute car guy, but I'm certainly no expert. When I finished reading the article, I glanced back at the pictures, and easily saw by a number of obvious clues that they were fake. I glanced back through the article, decided it was all fiction and put the magazine on the stack. I don't know why the guy wrote it, why the magazine accepted it or won't retract it. Maybe it's all just a big joke that nobody gets. Maybe there were irretrievable payments and a complex publishing contract involved. It really does not matter.

The point is, it has been published and it is part of the historical record and even a retraction at this date will not change that. Some future historians will more than likely read this bit of apparent nonsense and it will become part of Packard lore.

I'd much rather read speculation, or even the real story, on what happened to Alvan Macauley's Brewster Sport Sedan, the one with two spares on the back and the beautiful woodwork interior.

[Guest BillP]

Good points Brian.

I guess it gets into what you expect from membership in a car club, and in this case, their publications. Contrary to my blatherings here, I'm not much of a joiner. I'm in various marque clubs primarily for the magazines and I read those somewhat for the historical articles but I really enjoy the old photos which the Cormorant has in spades, largely thanks to the John Conde collection.

This particlar article was not of great interest to begin with because my interest is in pre-war cars. By the time this V12 business allegedly happened, Packard was effectivey dead.

The publication of the article and its subsequent tacit support by the magazine (by their silence) only indicates sloppy journalism has reached this remote hobby. The popular press from The New York Times on down (or up) has been making hay on fabricated stories for years. On the rare occasion that the "reporter's" invention is too audacious to pass as truth, he gets fired, is made a media darling, writes a book, goes on Oprah and buys a condo on Maui.

But you are correct. There is no reason to support a group that does not stand for its members. I can find old pictures somewhere else.

[Guest]

Brian: Here is the last of the 1965 V12 topics

[Guest BillP]

I eventually concluded that the club acted poorly in this and let my membership lapse. I think their disclaimer is a little soft and for sure it's late, but I'm an outsider now so not entitled to make those remarks.

[Packard8]

Just received the latest Cormorant. I would characterize the comments re the 1965 Packard article as about as close to an apology as one can get without saying ?we apologize for printing B? S??.

I would advise the article?s author not to spend too much time sitting by the phone waiting for the next Cormorant assignment?? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Yes it was a well written apology and I hope a hoax article like this won't happen again.