America went to the moon while Wally
camped on the Arctic Ocean
The introduction (below) from Wally Herbert's 1971
book Across The Top Of The World clearly reveals the
Royal support behind his strange 1968 - 69 arctic adventure.
Britain could not afford another embarrassing polar disaster like
Franklin, Shackelton or Scott. While America went to the moon, the
British tried to establish pride in conquering a Pole if not by
priority then by sheer length of time on the ice. So they spared
no expense air supplying their team with everything it desired for
16 months. But one must appreciate the deep seated British love of
polar bungler Scott and their similarly strong negative feelings for
Peary. The later because he did not take British citizen Bartlett to
the Pole. The British also hated South Pole conqueror Amundsen.
There are numerous, and rather startling, stories that illustrate
this. |
 |
 |
|
(above) Editor's Note: Any polar affair is rather sad because
of the deep feelings the English have for the terrible deaths that
occurred during the Scott expedition. But the Herbert adventure
becomes absurd when British royalty claims it was "...the greatest
triumphs of human skill and endurance." Relative to the 1909
Peary expedition that ranks as an international insult. |
 |
| The polar adventurers get a Royal
lift home. |
Herbert already hated Peary in 1968
It is interesting to read what I see as a deliberately negative
portrayal of Peary in this work that preceded Noose of Laurels
by 17 years. Herbert obviously 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). This proves that
Herbert had already taken sides in something he actually knew
nothing about. In point of fact, he was probably believing the
writing of 1929 author Reverend Hayes - a classic, and totally
inaccurate, "arm chair" expert. Note that Hayes, like other early
Peary haters, were merely reiterating and trying to amplify the
criticisms from Frederick Cook, but they had virtually nothing to
work with - so this genre of writers would claim speeds and
distances were impossible because Cook or others had said so. All of
this speculation,
in fact, has been
disproved by skilled dog sledge handlers.
An equally suspicious mischaracterization in Herbert's book are
his statements about Frederick Cook. He inaccurately describes Cook
as having "...considerable fame as an explorer, a
scientist...further increased his stature as an explorer by making
the first ascent of Mount McKinley, the highest mountain on the
American continent..."(P.28) (Note: Herbert mistakenly
used "American continent" instead of "North American continent") But Herbert fails to note that
Cook faked climbing McKinley. He additionally claims Cook was "a highly experienced
polar explorer" - yet Cook had only been a seasonal
volunteer on other men's expeditions.
He had never even seen the Arctic Ocean, let
alone tried to travel across it.
Cook was such a phony that in 1903 Robert Dunn, on the McKinley
camping trip, wrote "This is a story of failure...(Cook) has the
feat accomplished before starting. He will hear of no difficulties,
and when his unreasonable dream of success balks, or turns out a
nightmare, he is all weakness and dependence." So while Herbert
offers the naive reader the possibility of Cook being capable of a
North Pole expedition that impression is absolutely false. Herbert
only does this to insult Peary with an illusion of Cook as a
legitimate rival. This is very suspect and makes one wonder if
Herbert can be trusted at all in his later work, Noose of Laurels.
Herbert then concludes, in a manner so biased it is insulting, that
"Neither Peary nor Cook were able to produce conclusive proof of
their attainment of the Pole.." Herbert obviously does not wish
to dismiss the fraud Cook because he, in typical British fashion,
can use Cook to make Peary look bad. The fact is that Cook only
hoaxed going to the Pole. Peary really did go, but "some people",
and Herbert is one of them, like to make the racist statement that
when Peary left Bartlett and took "the Negro in his place" he
(Peary) left behind his
last reliable witness. This is
obviously a highly offensive thing to say about
Matthew Henson.
Herbert is clearly just another "British Peary hater". |
|
|
The following is from an email we received
from Douglas R. Davies.
Many of the Bryce
reviews
(Cook
& Peary) bow down to Herbert. One refers to him as a navigational
expert. He was
not the navigator on his own trip and frankly admits he doesn't
know anything about celestial navigation.
Herbert can be blasted on a couple of very broad, simple concepts before
going into the details. First, he keeps harping on "proof" but his own
1968 book has a nice passage about how, when he (little Wally) got to the
Pole, they took some pictures holding flags, because, "what other proof
could we offer" or something like that.
Second, he is a conspiracy theorist. He is constantly looking for
some ulterior motive. For example, and entire chapter on the 1906
farthest
north is entitled "The first day of dark." This title comes from a
typescript of Peary's diary (original lost). What does first day
of dark mean, Wally wonders? The sun was continually above the
horizon, so it cannot mean plain old dark. It must refer to some
mood that came over Peary, because he knew he wasn't going to make
the Pole, or even a farthest north, and would have to fake it.
Buzzzzz. Wrong, Wally. It is a typo.
Anyone familiar with Peary's handwriting knows that he leaves the
bottom of cursive s's open, so they look like cursive r's. Put a
little curve in the
last part of a letter h, and first day of dash becomes first
day of dark.
The diary starts on the first day of the final northward dash,
after all
supplies and all hope of re-supply was left behind due to a six day
storm.
Back...
Wally's error
lingers on...
(below in red) Wally's mistake is still in the
encyclopedia, March, 2002. That is 14 years after his book and 12
years since his theory was proved wrong.
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.So who is
going to tell the encyclopedia folks? Wally? US citizens? No one? |
|
 |
| Wally couldn't tell
"dash" from "dark". That was one of his mistakes. That is an error
any student could make but the professor would catch it. Herbert was
not an historian and had no peers to oversee his work. As a result he
rushed a book into print that is based on errors. Not errors of
opinion, but errors of demonstrable fact. |
Facts
Herbert "ice drift theory" is wrong.
Herbert's racist
"unreliable witness" theory
Herbert's
impossible speed theory wrong
In
1988 a morbid
book by failed Polar adventurer turned writer Wally Herbert claimed that Peary had missed the North Pole by
about 60 miles. But the author had no proof. Instead he concocted a
pseudo-history novel in which I believe Herbert tried to project his own
life's failures and shortcomings (he is only 62 inches in stature) onto
Peary. Herbert's dreary book
of innuendos might be viewed as an effort to make his candle burn brighter by
blowing out Peary's. The Noose of Laurels author cast doubt on Peary's "sledging speeds"
because Herbert had been an inappropriate traveler with his grossly
overloaded sledges during a 16 month Arctic camping trip. (The
Canadian Air force flew in supplies for his crew that included fresh dogs,
a bathtub, music tapes, etc.) This polar stunt was overshadowed by the USA
landing on the moon.
Twenty years later little Wally
compensated by publishing his book, although it revealed he had no concept of what Peary's
disciplined army could do in a forceful dash of relay teams employing
lightly loaded sledges. However, the British people found solace in Noose of Laurels.
Brits have long harbored anti-Peary sentiment because Peary did not take British citizen Bartlett to
the Pole.
But now Peary's travel methods have been duplicated by
Paul Landry and Paul
Crowley with their powerful dog teams. They attained the Pole
April 13, 2000 at a speed unmatched since 1909. This is a
remarkable event that makes fools of all the self-proclaimed experts who
decided that it was so hard to reach the Pole that Peary could not have
done it. Instead, the opposite is true. Adventurous men and women
regularly walk to the Pole, ski, use snowmobiles, and occasionally dog
teams which require the most expense and skill. All of this happened since
Wally floundered about for 1 1/2 years on the ice. But no one is holding
their breath for Herbert to apologize. Such people never have the
integrity for that. Thankfully my copy of his work is library stamped
"DISCARDED".
|
|
|
