|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Scotsman claims North Pole for self | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Herbert's conspiracy theories make him seem paranoid. It is hypocritical to portray Peary as a 'weather beaten old fanatic'...given Herbert's own appearance & fanatical theories. This photo of Peary, after he had returned from the Pole shows a man who appears stronger & more physically fit than Herbert did at the Pole. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The encyclopedia Britannica concise offers this
misinformation as a result of the success of Herbert's book: "Examination of Peary's expedition
diary and new documents in the 1980s suggested he may only have reached a
point 30-60 mi (50-100 km) short of the pole." • "Who examined Peary's diary?" Wally Herbert examined it. And do you know what? Wally Herbert lied about what he found. Let me say that again so there is no mistake. He lied. Oh, yes, people who don't know what they are talking about parrot the dust jacket remarks that Noose of Laurels is "well researched." It was not. • "What new documents are the Britannica referring to?" There were no new documents; only the infamous Dennis Rawlins blunder. But that was a mistake. So the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong again? (Yes, that too is a fact.) The Cook Society ran a budget item called "The Encyclopedia Project" to pay graduate students to author material for submission to the best know encyclopedias. Let me say this again, clearly, so you understand. Herbert did not perform any research that is any different than what was required in my college freshman English composition class for a basic term paper. I am not exaggerating. Maybe so few people have gone to college or somehow never took English composition 101 (the basic requirement for all freshman) that this is not understood. In fact, Herbert did not even pass the basic requirement of telling the truth. He lied. He faked his term paper. Research is simply going to a library and making bibliographic notes (on file cards is a common method) while reading appropriate sources. This is freshman level stuff. True, Herbert has persuasive writing skill and that is why his book was so successful. But we are discussing the foundation of his work here; the facts obtained by research. Those facts are false. Do you doubt this? Peary's diary mentions reaching the North Pole in several places. That is a fact you can verify for yourself. Now read Herbert's book. Herbert says the diary does not mention reaching the Pole. That is false. Herbert lied, or Herbert was so sloppy he never found any of Peary's notes about the "North Pole." If the latter than he is merely a sloppy researcher. If Herbert is innocent of malice, he is guilty of unprofessional research. He claims there is something "wrong" with Peary's diary because Peary did not write "North Pole" on the cover. No, that proves it is authentic! If Peary were alive he would simply say "Ok, Mr. Herbert, here—let me write "North Pole" on the cover. Now are you happy?" Herbert similarly made research mistakes by overlooking the complete wind data from notes made by Peary's team. If he had been more thorough, as Doug Davies has been, he would have realized that his major theory of westward drift has no basis in fact. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Herbert made his most foolish assertion when he contradicted himself over the westward drift. His other theory was that it was impossible for Peary to have traveled 133 miles to the Pole after leaving the last supply camp. But Herbert's drift theory has Peary going the 133 miles, only off to the west. Thus one theory makes his other theory impossible. Herbert did not have Peary's ocean depth measurements data correlated to the actual ocean floor depth. This was impossible back in the days of those "polar controversy" books he told Eames are out of print. This is new information obtained from submarines. Herbert shunned it. Why? Because it disproves his westward drift theory.  Herbert also knew that the ocean depth measurements lined up in a vector pointing to the North Pole. So in the final analysis Herbert had nothing. No evidence that Peary did not reach the Pole. The obvious conclusion is that Peary simply did what he said he did and what everyone on his expedition said they did. Making money by writing a book requires something sensational that will sell in large enough quantities that royalties will be lucrative. No one can do that with a dull, matter of fact book. Thus Herbert embellished the old anti-Peary arguments set down by colossal fraud Cook; what Herbert referred to as "...the general public could easily be fooled that what you have to say has never before been said..." Do you understand the significance of this letter? Herbert is boasting that you, the American public, "could easily be fooled." Notice how Herbert advises Eames to "let the reader form his own conclusions." But keep in mind that those conclusions will be deliberately predetermined by the author as he crafts his text. This letter is simply one of many in the Cook Society Archives between Vetters, Gibbons, Eames, and Herbert. If you want to understand this long standing vendetta of anti-establishment, anti-Peary sentiment you may order copies of the files yourself. You will see that I am not exaggerating. But who is Wally? "Sir" Wally sells watercolors from his website somewhere in the Scottish fairy tale country called the United Kingdom. (Kingdom? What "Kingdom"?) In 1969, while America landed on the moon, Herbert went on a marathon luxury-camping trip across the Pole. It was generously air supplied by the British and Canadian air forces. But no one paid much attention to his trip in that time of the Vietnam War and the Apollo Moon landing. Literally, when the USA went to the moon, England camped out on the North Pole and now claim they, not the USA, were first to reach it. What the...? Yes, this is true. 17 years after the camping marathon, Herbert struck gold with his controversial anti-Peary conspiracy theory book, Noose of Laurels (1989), the media gave it the kind of sensational attention that profession is so well known for. Who put Herbert up to this book? The National Geographic Society in the tradition of upper-class excess they are so well known for. By the way, did you know that the National Geographic Society was founded by Gilbert Grosvenor and has been run by Gilbert Grosvenor since the 1880's? It is true. Only the middle initial changes from generation to generation. In its haste to investigate the Peary matter the National Geographic hired Wally Herbert to examine Peary's diary and other records at the National Archives and commissioned him to write an article for the NGS magazine. They should have read the beginning of Herbert's 1973 book Across The Top of The World in which He sides with some unnamed "critics" who stated Peary was 60 miles short of the Pole (P.35). He references Peary's "incredible distances" as "physically impossible"(P.30). Instead the NGS gave Herbert a paid opportunity to concoct his best shot at Peary, a shot that ended up in the British encyclopedia as: "...new documents in the 1980s suggested (Peary) may only have reached a point 30-60 mi (50-100 km) short of the pole."
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
