|
Polar
Research Today:
The
"Fake Peak"
Serials
1910-1998
|
|
............. |
 |
Belmore
Browne, 1910
Fake Peak I 1910 |
|
|
|
|
|
American
Alpine Journal,
1958
Fake Peak II 1957 |
|
As
shown in The New
York Times
Fake Peak III 1998 |
DIO's
Denali Denial & the
Media Campaign for a 'Final
Solution' to Cook as
Discoverer
1
The DIO Genesis
& One-sided Media
'Controversy'
by
Russell W. Gibbons
| On
November 22, 1998
this writer received
a call from a
reporter at The New
York Times asking
for materials which
would support the
claims of Frederick
A. Cook to the first
ascent of Mt.
McKinley in
September 1906. They
were interested, he
said, because of the
"recent"
article in the
Baltimore journal, DIO,
which had earlier in
the year proclaimed
that the
Cook-McKinley
controversy was
"closed"
because of the
research of a
contributor, Robert
M. Bryce. |
......... |
 |
It
was the "Final
Solution," declared Dennis
Rawlins,
founder and publisher of
the journal, a critic of
orthodox history of science
with a somewhat mixed track
record for accuracy and
timing (more on this
later). Heading the
cheering section in the
background was the
indefatigable Bradford
Washburn,
spiritual heir to Cook's
critic of his 1906 climb
and the creator of
"Fake Peak," the
89-year-old thesis that was
supposed to have demolished
the explorer, but never
did.
The
sense of urgency was
apparent in the request by
the reporter, John Tierney,
who asked that the
materials (the reprint
edition of To the Top of
the Continent, the last
five numbers of Polar
Priorities and a copy
of the balanced profile on
the controversy in the Baltimore
Sun in September) by
express mail to his home
the next day. With these,
the writer strongly
suggested that Tierney talk
to Ted Heckathorn of
Seattle, the leader of the
1994 Ruth Glacier
Expedition which determined
that Cook had been at least
7,000 feet higher than his
detractors at DIO
had declared.
The
timing was important
because Tierney
acknowledged their receipt
on November 24, had talked
with Heckathorn that day,
and was working on his
story. As it turned out, he
had to file his story early
on the 25th because it
appeared on Thanksgiving
morning, November 26 on the
bottom front page of the Times.
By any objective review of
the history of this story,
it had been written and was
waiting only for reaction
quotes, which were
selective and exclusionary.
Heckathorn,
leader of a party of five
seasoned-climbers who had
all summited McKinley, was
not quoted because, as
Tierney told him, "if
you don't speak for the
Cook Society, I am not
interested in what you have
to say." Heckathorn is
not a member and has always
remained an independent
scholar, as well as being
an alpine and arctic
traveler.
Thus
the Times, with its
vast syndication network
and prestige, had
participated in the DIO
mission to
"close" a
historical controversy
without even a semblance of
balance, refusing to quote
the climber, who along with
Washburn, has contributed
the most to the literature
of Cook and McKinley. They
declined to expand upon
Cook's pioneer role in
circumnavigating the
mountain, the 1994
expedition that determined
he had been at 11,500 feet
in 1906, and failed to
mention the previous
dubious "explorer
exposes" of DIO's
Rawlins.
The
media campaign would expand
on two other fronts: Times
syndicate pick-up stories
and an Associated Press
summary that also would
gain attention--both of
them at home and overseas.
Yet just a week previous,
another assault on Cook and
McKinley was published in
an Alaska newspaper, the
Anchorage Daily News.
While quoting the DIO
charges, its thrust was a
Washburn-commissioned study
touted as "global
positioning."
The
Anchorage newspaper at
least sought out and quoted
Heckathorn, but the article
repeatedly used
"debate" and
"controversy" in
its article yet failed to
present a balanced account.
Cook critics were
"experts" or
"researchers"
while his advocated became
"amateur polar
historians." The
piece, occupying the sports
section, was accompanied by
an editorial commentary by
the sports editor declaring
that the debate had
"ended."
Typically,
both newspapers declined to
publish responses from
members of the Society or
Heckathorn. This curious
practice of one-sided
journalism had its roots in
the DIO article of
early 1998. Thus reviewing
these origins has merit.
Rawlins,
a sometimes astronomer in
Baltimore, pricks the
underside of the scientific
establishment with an
occasional journal called DIO
which is subtitled The
Journal of Hysterical
Astronomy. Its contents
goes for both the funny
bone and the jugular. He
has been a critic of both
Cook and Peary, and has
consigned both to what he
feels is a historical
ashcan.
In
a Washington radio station
on February 25, 1997,
Rawlins teamed up with
newly-published author
Bryce, a librarian at a
community college in
Maryland, to discuss the
latter's new book about
both polar explorers, Cook
& Peary: The
Controversy Resolved (Stackpole,
1997). On the Diane Rehm
Show on station WAMU, a
match was made and two
would-be debunkers joined
forces to front for a third
party who has made his
lifelong obsession the
denial of Cook on the
summit of Mount McKinley.
Thus
did Washburn, defender of
the established truth of
Mount McKinley/a.k.a. Mount
Denali, find two converts
in his grand crusade to
"unmask the
exploration hoax of the
century."
Publisher
Rawlins sets the tone in
his editorial mission
statement: "Each issue
of DIO is printed on
paper which is certified as
acid-free. The ink
isn't." He also
cautions against the
"scientific mufia"
(Rawlins' version of
"mafia"?).
Nursing a 25-year-old
grudge against a pro-Cook
writer whose publisher
chose the same release date
as Rawlins' Peary at the
Pole: Fact or Fiction?
(Luce 1973), he has over
the years combined
scholarly papers with pure
vitriol against Cook and in
this latest tirade
supplements primary
contributor Bryce with a
summary that drips in
venom.
The
cover of DIO (vol. 7
nos. 2-3) is billed as a
special double issue,
December 1997 to July 1998.
The cover titles recall the
lurid conflict journalism
of the Cook-Peary era and
later tabloids.
Not
to let a good grudge to
rest--even if it is a
quarter of a century
old--he again trashes the
conclusion of Eames, whose
book Winner Lose All:
Frederick Cook and the
Theft of the North Pole
(Little, Brown, 1973)
disagreed with his thesis.
What Rawlins could not
tolerate was the fact that
his tome was relegated to a
"double title"
review with Eames because
of the similarity of book
subjects (in some instances
he was ignored completely
while Eames received
generally favorable
reviews). In an aside of
self-congratulation of the
efforts of his new DIO
contributor, Rawlins fawns
about Bryce's "epochal
recovery and analysis"
of Cook's "uncropped
summit photo" and then
proceeds to lay the seeds
of doubt about the veracity
of the historian of the
Frederick A. Cook Society,
which had since 1990 made
available every
uncatalogued scrap of
notes, data, clippings,
images and photos at the
Collection then deposited
at the Sullivan County
Museum to the same Bob
Bryce.
'HONEST
BROKERS' AND 'COOKITES'
In
the rarefied and teckie
world of Rawlins there are
but two camps: those who
agree with him and those
who reside in doctrinal
error and/or ignorance. In
1973 they were the
"Cook movement...of
decent, if overinnocent
folk" (Rawlins, 1973,
p. 93) to today's "Cookites"
who he suggests are now
folks who are not so
innocent when it comes to
records and photos
(Rawlins, 1998, p. 84).
That
is a variation of the
derision initiated many
years ago by Washburn,
whose zeal and passion to
discredit Cook--described
as "obsessive"
earlier this year in Climbing
(March 1998)--promoted a
1956 journey to the tiny
hamlet of Talkeetna at the
base of McKinley, designed
only to discredit the
expedition of Walter
Gonnason (the seventh to
summit McKinley), which had
sought to establish Cook's
route on the east ridge.
"Cookies" is the
tag which scholar Washburn
uses when seeking to deny
his opponents any
intellectual dialogue.
Those
who have attacked Cook on
McKinley over ninety years
of this century have become
in the lexicon of Rawlins
"honest brokers"
(Rawlins, 1998, p. 84),
referring specifically to
Belmore Browne, Herschel
Parker and Bradford
Washburn. Despite the
"smoking gun" of
the Peary Arctic Club in
the 1909–10 efforts to
discredit Cook (see Ted
Heckathorn in Polar
Priorities, numbers
14-15-16 and 17, issues
1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997
as well as this issue)
Rawlins and Bryce in the
current DIO assault
just think that was
"coincidental."
These "brokers"
deserve an apology from--we
may assume--the Cookite
folks, according to Rawlins
(1998, p. 84).
They
are going to have to wait.
The Parker-Browne legacy
was taken up by Washburn,
who has declined to face
Cook advocates on three
separate occasions since
1996 (Alaska Airlines
Magazine, 1998) and has
spent his retirement years
after leaving the Boston
Museum of Science in
securing anti-Cook
"resolutions" by
any and every group he has
had an association with
over the years. Just as
another 1930s--era
"scientist,"
William Herbert Hobbs,
busied himself securing
letters to deny Cook's
early release from prison,
so has Washburn sought to
deny any status of Cook as
an explorer (see Arctic,
1983).
'DR'
AS SHOWBOATER: SMOKING GUN
IN THE FOOT
Rawlins
(who prefers to be known as
"DR" in his
commentary) had a 1989
revival of his contention
that Peary was a hoaxer,
but his assertion that he
had found calculations in a
long-locked archives at
Johns Hopkins University
which would finally sink
the Peary claim proved to
be a bust. In an extensive
profile in Baltimore
Magazine (July 1989)
writer Kevin McManus said
that DR was someone
"who has practically
made a career...of trashing
other people's pet
theories." His Peary
charge, he said, was
"a smoking gun which
has...blown a hole in his
foot."
It
turns out that the
calculations which DR had
found and claimed were
navigational compilations
showing Peary had not been
near the Pole, were in fact
the serial numbers of his
chronometers. The blooper
prompted some in the
geographic community and
the extended fraternity of
planetary specialists to
suggest that DR was
somewhat of an
"obnoxious, glory-
starved showboater,"
McManus wrote.
That
may be unfair. After all,
DR has published on polar
topics in the Proceedings
of the US Naval Institute,
Polar Notes
and a variety of journals
known to those who deal
with sky and space. Yet he
also knows how to deal with
the media --as did Peary
and Cook in their day. And
he used "media
contacts" which have
given him notable headline
attention.
The
1989 DR statement, asserted
that the document he found
was presumed to have been
made by Peary at what he
said was the Pole,
demonstrated that the
explorer was actually 105
nautical miles from the
Pole. He went to the Washington
Post with the story and
soon got "egg on his
scientific face" when
a group hired by the
National Geographic Society
found that what DR said
were compass variations at
the Pole, were in reality
the serial numbers of
Peary's chronometer
watches.
The
case for Peary was falling
apart at the same time,
through Wally Herbert's
commissioned report to the
NGS and the opening of the
Peary Papers at the Library
of Congress --previously
having been restricted by
the family. Rawlins had
continued the arguments of
early Peary critics such as
Thomas F. Hall, J. Gordon
Hayes, Henshaw Ward and
others (with scant
acknowledgment) and the
controversy over his
blooper may have brought
greater attention to the
Peary question.
'RUSH-TO-JUDGMENT
RAWLINS': PEARY & BYRD
Indeed,
DR has continued his
pattern of finding
"smoking guns" in
polar history, again with
little more than his
opinion surviving a
dramatic announcement. The
latest instance was another
explorer as an alleged
fraud--Rear Admiral Richard
E. Byrd. In his 1973 book,
DR had concluded that
Byrd's 1926 aerial flight
to the North Pole had been
faked. In 1996 the
archivist of the Byrd Polar
Research Center at The Ohio
State University, Rai
Goerler, discovered Byrd's
1926 handwritten diary and
notebook when cataloguing
the papers of the
explorer's collection.
DR
insisted on examining the
diary, and concluded that
erased sextant readings
that differed from those in
the official report (also
to the sponsoring NGS).
Again DR rushed to the
press and declared that the
erasures proved that Byrd
had come no more than 150
miles from the Pole. (Washington
Post, New York Times,
May 9, 1996). The Ohio
State archivist and a
professor of astronomy
disagreed, as did a third
navigator.
This
year Ohio State University
Press published the diary,
which was edited by Goerler
(To the Pole, OSU
Press, 1998), which
included the following
footnote:
Dennis
Rawlins...inspected the
diary and the navigational
calculations and
notes...According to
Rawlins, the erased
readings prove that Byrd
came no closer to the Pole
than 150 miles. Rawlins
report is contained in a
15-page letter of May 4,
1996, now in the OSU
University Archives. Dr.
Gerald Newsom, professor of
astronomy at Ohio State,
also studied the diary. His
evaluation is that the
erasures are
inconclusive...but made by
a navigator who realized
that he had made an error
in his calculations.
According to Newsom, Byrd
at a minimum got within
"tens of miles"
of the North Pole and may
have reached it. (OSU
University Archives)
For
the second time in seven
years, the man described by
Baltimore Magazine
as an "intellectual
swashbuckler, an
intellectual gadfly"
was caught with his
academic pants down. It
would take less than a year
for the new anti-Cook axis
of Bryce, Washburn and
Rawlins to mesh with DIO--as
its forum.
Bryce,
who had observed in his
book that Rawlins had
"a general disdain for
those who did not agree
with him" and was
"flippant" in his
remarks and "put off
many of his readers...
(with his) rhetorical
excesses" (Cook
& Peary, p. 757)
now joined forces with the
swashbuckler and the
"obsessed"
Washburn.
It
would be a troika worthy of
the Parker-Browne-Peary
alliance of ninety years
ago.
NOTES
1 /
THE 'DIO' GENESIS
& ONE-SIDED MEDIA
'CONTROVERSY'
Bryce,
Robert M. Cook &
Peary: The Controversy,
Resolved, Stackpole,
1997.
Bryce, Robert M. "Mt.
McKinley Hoax
Exposed," DIO,
Dec. 1997-July 1998, 7:2-3.
Cook, Sheldon S.R.
"Concerning the Mt.
McKinley Diary of Dr.
Frederick A. Cook," in
To the Top of the
Continent, 90th
Anniversary edition,
AlpenBooks, 1996.
Donahue, Bill.
"Dissent on
Denali," Climbing
Magazine, May 1, 1998,
no. 176.
----. "Quest for
McKinley," Alaska
Airlines Magazine, July
1998, 22:7.
Eames, Hugh. Winner Lose
All: Dr. Cook & The
Theft of the North Pole.
Little, Brown & Co.,
1973.
----. "A Reply to
Dennis Rawlins," 1973.
Frederick A. Cook
Collection, Byrd Polar
Research Archives.
Gibbons, Russell W.
"Fatal Flaws in the
Author's 'fact, lack of
care or logic.'" Frederick
A. Cook Society Membership
News, July 1997, 4:2.
Goerler, Raimund E., ed. To
the Pole: The Diary &
Notebook of Richard E.
Byrd, 1925–1928. Ohio
State University Press,
1998.
Heckathorn, Ted. "Mt.
McKinley: Who Reached the
Top First?" Polar
Priorities, vol. 14,
1994.
----. "Belmore Brown's
Slippery Slope" and
"New Rumbles on Ruth
Glacier: McKinleygate
II." Polar
Priorities, vol. 15,
1995.
----. "Dr. Cook and
His McKinley Critics: A
Review of the Debunkers
from 1909 to 1996." Polar
Priorities, vol. 16,
1996.
----. "Sins of
Omission &
Contradiction: What Was
Ignored in 'Cook &
Peary' and Why." Polar
Priorities, vol. 17,
1997.
Rawlins, Dennis. Peary
at the Pole: Fact or
Fiction. Luce, 1973.
----. Commentary in DIO,
7:2-3, December 1997–July
1998.
Waale, Hans. Papers and
Correspondence,
1956–1984, Frederick A.
Cook Collection, Byrd Polar
Research Center.
|Washburn, Bradford. Letter
to the Editor. Arctic,
March 1984, 37:1.
| 2
Forgotten Prelude:
The 1903
Circumnavigation
by
Ralph M. Myerson, MD
IN
PHOTO: The 1903
Expedition Members
(from left): Ralph
Shainwald, Fred
Printz, Frederick
Cook, Robert Dunn
and John Carroll.
(photo by Walter
Miller) |
|
 |
By
the turn of the century,
Dr. Frederick A. Cook had
established a reputation
and was internationally
known as an experienced and
capable explorer. His
service as surgeon and
ethnologist for Robert E.
Peary's North Greenland
Expedition of 1891-92 had
earned him well deserved
honors and Peary's personal
praise for his exploratory
expertise and for his
"unruffled patience
and coolness in an
emergency." In 1897-99
he had served as surgeon on
the Belgian Antarctic
Expedition, the first to
winter in the Antarctic,
and he was generally
credited for having saved
the expedition by his
medical skills in
preventing and treating
scurvy and by the first use
of phototherapy in the
seasonal affective disorder
(SAD syndrome).
Additionally, he was
credited with having
devised the means of
freeing the ice-bound Belgica
after it had been trapped
in the antarctic ice pack
for about a year. While on
the Belgica, he
had formed a life-long
friendship with a young
Roald Amundsen who regarded
Dr. Cook as his arctic
mentor. In 1893 and 1894,
he had conducted private
"cruises" to
Greenland. Both trips had
encountered difficulties,
the 1894 venture on the Miranda
having ended in near
disaster when the ship
struck a reef off the coast
of Greenland forcing Cook
to travel over ninety miles
in an open boat to obtain a
rescue ship. There were no
casualties, in fact, the
survivors were so impressed
with their experience that
they formed the nucleus of
the Arctic Club of America.
Despite
a return to a successful
medical practice, Cook
could not resist the lure
of adventure and new
exploration. He turned his
attention to Mount
McKinley, North America's
highest mountain, whose
summit had yet to be
attained. As Cook
explained: "To
men of a polar turn of mind
it is easy to be diverted
from solitudes of the
Arctic ice fields to the
snowy slopes of great
altitudes. Polar
exploration and high
mountain climbing are twin
efforts which bring about a
similar train of joys and
sorrows."1
The
mountain had been well
known to the Alaskan
natives, who called it
Denali, "the high
one." The first
European sighting of the
great mountain probably
occurred in the spring of
1794 when the British
Captain George Vancouver
was exploring the upper end
of Cook Inlet, the large
bay on Alaska's southern
coast discovered by James
Cook in 1778. Vancouver
described the view to the
north, mentioning the
presence of "distant
stupendous mountains
covered with snow and
apparently detached from
each other...."2
He undoubtedly was
describing the range of
mountains known today as
the Alaska Range.
| After
Alaska became a U.S.
possession in 1867,
there had been a
relative lull in its
exploration under
U.S. government
sponsorship.
The
full appreciation of
Mount McKinley's
magnificence and
height was not
brought to public
attention until
William Dickey, a
Princeton student
turned gold
prospector in 1896,
made the following
report to the New
York Sun on January
24, 1897:
|
|
 |
"We
named our great peak Mount
McKinley, after William
McKinley of Ohio, who had
been nominated for the
Presidency.... We have no
doubt that this peak is the
highest in North America,
and estimate that it is
over 20,000 feet
high."3 Dickey's
estimate of McKinley's
stature was quite accurate,
its height being confirmed
at 20,320 feet after the
turn of the century. Until
that time, 18,000 foot
Mount Saint Elias was
believed to be the
continent's highest, and
Mount Logan was still
unknown.
After
Alaska became a U.S.
possession in 1867, there
had been a relative lull in
its exploration under U.S.
government sponsorship. The
full appreciation of Mount
McKinley's magnificence and
height was not brought to
public attention until
William Dickey, a Princeton
student turned gold
prospector in 1896, made
the following report to the
New York Sun on
January 24, 1897: "We
named our great peak Mount
McKinley, after William
McKinley of Ohio, who had
been nominated for the
Presidency.... We have no
doubt that this peak is the
highest in North America,
and estimate that it is
over 20,000 feet
high."3
Dickey's estimate of
McKinley's stature was
quite accurate, its height
being confirmed at 20,320
feet after the turn of the
century. Until that time,
18,000 foot Mount Saint
Elias was believed to be
the continent's highest,
and Mount Logan was still
unknown.
In
1898, more than thirty
years after the acquisition
of Alaska, the U.S.
Geological Survey began
extensive Alaskan
explorations. A series of
expeditions ensued,
including those of Eldridge
and Muldrow, Spurr and
Post, and Peters and Brooks
in 1898; Lieutenant Joseph
Herron in 1899, and Brooks
and Reaburn in 1902. In
1903, Judge James
Wickersham, the colorful
U.S. District Judge for
Alaska, and a party of four
others, made the first
serious attempt to climb
Mount McKinley. Following a
branch of the Peters
Glacier, the party reached
an altitude of about 8,100
feet, at which point they
were disappointed in
finding that the glacier
they were following did not
connect with the high ridge
they were attempting to
reach and the party was
forced to turn back.4
With
these explorations as a
background, Dr. Frederick
A. Cook planned and
undertook his 1903 planned
assault on the summit of
Mount McKinley. Harper's
Monthly Magazine
financed part of the
expedition. Robert Dunn,
then 26 years old, a former
reporter for the New
York Commercial Advertiser,
was chosen to serve as
geologist, having been
recommended to Cook by
Lincoln Steffens, the
editor of the Commercial
Advertiser. In 1898
Dunn had been a gold
prospector on the Klondike
Trail and in 1900 had
explored the Mount
Wrangell's volcano. He had
also served as a reporter
in Martinique two weeks
after the disastrous
eruption of Mount Pelée.
Also included in the party
were Fred Printz, who had
served as a horse packer on
the 1902 Brooks expedition,
and Jack Carroll as
assistant packer. Ralph
Shainwald of New York, a
fellow member of the Arctic
Club and a participant in
the Baldwin-Ziegler Polar
Expedition, was designated
as botanist. Shainwald's
wealthy father had
contributed $1,000 to
ensure a place for his son
on Cook's expedition. The
fifth member of the party,
Walter Miller, had been
recruited in Seattle as
photographer for the
expedition. None of the
party had had extensive
high mountaineering
experience.
On
June 9, 1903, the assembled
party boarded the Alaska
coastal steamer, Santa
Ana, its decks loaded
with gold seekers, dogs,
pigs, cattle, chicken and
horses. On June 24, the
steamer arrived at its
destination, Tyonek, on the
north shore of Cook Inlet.
In
addition to the endless
torment of the mosquitoes,
the pack horses were
attacked by hordes of horse
flies often resulting in
bleeding and loss of skin.
The strain of the journey
was continuing to tell on
the men. Tempers flared;
interpersonal relations
deteriorated and threats of
mutiny arose. Dunn
continued his written
tirade against Cook.
Progress continued,
however, and by August 3
they were in the drainage
area of the Kuskokwim
River. By this time there
were only four sacks of
flour remaining, but
fortunately, they shot a
grizzly bear and the food
supply was temporarily
restored. Caribou became
plentiful.
On
August 14, Printz led the
party to a Brooks campsite,
estimated to be 14 miles
from the summit of Mt.
McKinley. They had finally
reached the terminus of the
Peters Glacier on the north
side of the mountain--the
beginning of Alfred Brooks'
suggested climbing route.
They also stumbled on a
campsite of Judge
Wickersham's party,
salvaging a much-needed
container of salt. A
dedicated assault was now
made along what Cook termed
the "south-west arête,"
also called Cook's
Shoulder, and now known as
the Northwest Buttress of
the North Peak. On the
night of August 29, they
made a campsite clinging to
the steep icy slopes at an
estimated altitude of 9,800
feet. After reaching an
estimated altitude of
11,300 feet on August 31,
they were confronted by an
impenetrable wall with no
discernible passage around
it and were forced to admit
defeat.
Summarizing
his party's admirable
effort on the great
mountain's flanks, Dr. Cook
related: "Though
thwarted by an
insurmountable wall, we had
ascended Mt. McKinley far
enough to get a good view
of its entire western
face... Avalanche after
avalanche rush down the
steep cliffs and deposit
their downpour of ice,
rock, and snow on the
(Peters) glacier."5
Cook also took note of the
presence of two very large
glaciers that drained the
eastern slope of Mt.
McKinley. He named Fidele
Glacier after his daughter,
describing it has probably
the largest in interior
Alaska, taking the output
of several small glaciers
about the northern and
eastern slopes. It then
takes a northeastern
course, is joined by two
large glaciers, descends to
the Chulitna River where
its face is eight miles
wide. Ruth Glacier, the
second glacier, begins
among the amphitheaters
about the southeastern
slopes, takes a small
tributary from Mount
Foraker and others from
smaller mountains to the
east, descending southward
into the Chulitna River.
This he named after his
then three-year-old
daughter Ruth.
Cook
was reluctant to descend
the mountain by the route
that they had taken. "Our
purposes could be best
served if we could cross
the range and get into the
Sushnita Valley; but the
possibility of such an
effort seemed doubtful in
the time at our disposal,
unless we were fortunate to
find a pass within a few
days' traveling.
Accordingly, we resolved to
make a desperate attempt to
cross the eastern slope of
this great range, and, in
the event of failure in
this, our alternative was
to make the deep waters of
the Toklat and then by raft
to the Tanana River."
6
The
party moved east about 50
miles, fortunately locating
a pass that horses could
use and thus were able to
complete their
circumnavigation of Mount
McKinley. In its course,
the expedition passed the
tongue of the Muldrow
Glacier, and Cook appears
to have recognized it as
the "best way
to climb McKinley."7
The exhausted party, near
depletion, barely managed
to reach the Chulitna
River, where they built two
rafts and abandoned the
horses. After a wild and
reckless run down the
churning canyon waters, the
party finally met some
prospectors and returned
safely to Cook Inlet on
September 26, three months
after their departure from
Tyonek.
At
the Arctic Club's annual
dinner in December, 1903,
Cook presented an account
of his McKinley Expedition
illustrated with the
excellent photographs he
and Miller had taken.
NOTES
2 / FORGOTTEN
PRELUDE
1.
Cook, FA.
"Round Mt.
McKinley," Bull Am Geo
Socy, 36:321-327, 1904. 2.Vancouver,
G. Voyage of
Discovery to the North
Pacific Ocean, and Round
the World, vol. 3,
1798. Quoted by F. Beckey
in Mount McKinley: Icy
Crown of North America,
1993, Seattle: The
Mountaineers, p. 41. 3. New
York Sun, January 24, 1897.
4. Wickersham, J.
Old Yukon Tales, Trails
and Trials.
Washington: Washington Law
Book Co., 1938, pp. 288-89.
5. Cook, FA.
To the Top of the
Continent, London:
Hodder & Stoughton,
1908, p. 92. 6. Cook, FA.
"America's Unconquered
Mountain," Harper's
Monthly Magazine, 108:335,
1904. 7. Washburn B.
Letter to Warren B. Cook,
December 4, 1998
3
Ignoring the Pegasus Peak
Sketch in Cook's Diary
by
Sheldon S.R. Cook
Robert
M. Bryce, in his DIO
attack on Cook's account of
his ascent of Mount
McKinley fails to take
account of the significance
of the sketch on page 52 of
his Mount McKinley Diary.
The sketch depicts features
of the main mass of Mount
McKinley located beyond the
East Ridge which can only
be seen from the crest of
the East Ridge at 11,500
feet to 11,700 feet near
Traleika Col. These
features are not visible
from below in the approach
to the mountain up Ruth
Glacier because they are
hidden by the East Ridge
which towers between Ruth
Glacier and the central
massif. They were unknown
before Cook sketched them
in September 1906, no
climber or explorer had
reached that point before
him.
The
sketch on page 52 of the
diary is incontrovertible
proof that Cook reached the
crest of the East Ridge of
Mount McKinley near
Traleika Col at an
elevation of 11,500 feet to
11,700 feet. Hans C. Waale,
who had studied Cook's
climb in detail for years,
recognized in 1974 that
this sketch proved that
Cook reached this point and
that it was evidence of the
greatest importance,
explosive as he termed it.
The Ruth Glacier Expedition
of 1994 under the
leadership of Ted
Heckathorn, with climbers
Vernon Tejas, Scott
Fischer, Doug Nixon, Walter
Gonnason, Marty Raney and
James Garlinghouse, reached
the crest of the East Ridge
at 11,700 feet in July 1994
and verified the accuracy
of Cook's sketch. It is
appaling that both The
New York Times and the
Fairbanks Daily News
ignored this.
The
demonstration that Cook
indisputably reached the
crest of the East Ridge at
approximately 11,700 feet
through the verification of
his sketch on page 52 of
his diary proves that a
fundamental, primary
assertion of the Barrille
Affidavit is false. Ed
Barrille (also
Barrill) asserted in his
infamous affidavit that
Cook did not reach the
summit of Mount McKinley,
that he stopped at the
southern gateway to Ruth
Amphitheatre at about 5,000
feet and then returned to
his base camp. We now know
beyond a doubt that
Barrille swore falsely when
he alleged that Cook turned
back at 5,000 feet, and
this vastly increases the
possibility that he also
lied when he asserted that
Cook did not reach the
summit.
Bryce
may believe that Barrille's
Affidavit "makes more
sense" than Cook's
account of his ascent but
Barrille's Affidavit is
clearly false, at least in
part, and its credibility
as to the remainder of his
assertions is severely
shaken. Bryce ignores the
vital importance of the
sketch on page 52 of Cook's
Diary. This decisive and
obvious evidence is wholly
ignored.
In
the book, Cook &
Peary: The Polar
Controversy, Resolved,
Bryce concludes that Cook
did not reach the summit of
Mount McKinley in 1906, and
speaks thereafter of Cook's
claimed ascent as a
"fake." For his
conclusion Bryce relies
principally upon
photographs in Cook's
narrative of his ascent, To
the Top of the Continent,
bearing captions which
falsely state or imply that
the photographs in question
are of features at the
highest elevations on Mount
McKinley--including the
summit peak--when in fact
the photographs depict
features at low elevations
in the southeastern
approaches to the massif.
Bryce also relies upon the
relatively short time
within which the climb to
the summit was
achieved--eight days--which
he regards as impossible or
nearly so; and, upon the
assertion of Barrille,
Cook's sole companion on
the climb to the summit,
that Cook did not reach the
top nor indeed any
elevation above 5,500 feet
on the mountain (Cook
& Peary, pp.
795-844).
But
there is a body of evidence
which strongly indicates
that Cook did attain the
summit of Mount McKinley in
1906. Primary are his
descriptions in his book, To
the Top of the Continent,
of the physical features of
the mountain at the highest
elevations--the first given
to the world--some of which
cannot have been seen from
below, others of which in
their exact character can
only be known if seen at
close range and traversed.
| The
photographs bearing
erroneous captions,
declaring the
features portrayed
to be located at
high elevation on
the mountain when in
fact they are not,
if considered
separately and
independently from
the entire body of
the evidence
pertaining to Cook's
climb, place Cook's
claim in a negative
light.
Viewed
in isolation from
the evidence as a
whole, the
erroneously
captioned
photographs in
Cook's book would
tend to cause doubt
that Cook had in
fact climbed to the
top.The photographs
obviously do not
prove that Cook did
not climb to the
summit, but
merely--if indeed he
acted
deliberately--that
he falsified
captions.
|
|
 |
He
almost certainly was unable
to secure good, clear
photographs at the highest
elevations because of snow
conditions and bitter cold,
or, possibly because he
left his camera at his
6,000 foot camp in order to
lighten his load to the
greatest degree possible
for the last segment of his
climb.
It
should be pointed out that
it has not been proven that
the peak depicted in the
photograph captioned by
Cook as the summit is not
in fact the summit or a
peak in the summit
formation. But
even if it were positively
demonstrated that the peak
in Cook's summit photograph
is not the true summit but
another--even Fake
Peak--this fact would not
establish that Cook did not
reach the top. These
photographs may be,
probably are, substitutes
for the photographs he was
unable to take even though
he reached the summit, used
for purpose of
illustration. But it seems
unlikely that Cook's
photograph captioned the
top is "Fake
Peak."
Cook
asserted that his ascent of
Mount McKinley began on the
morning of September 8,
1906 and that he reached
the top on the morning of
September 16, 1906. His
Mount McKinley Diary and
his published account of
the ascent make it clear
that he climbed each day, a
full day's climb, on 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and
four hours on the morning
of the September 16,
attaining the summit at
10:00 a.m. of the 16th.
Cook therefore ascended
Mount McKinley from its
southeastern approaches in
eight days and four hours
of the ninth day.
Despite
the assertions of Cook's
adversaries, it has never
been proven that Mount
McKinley cannot be scaled
in the time within which
Cook claimed to have done
it. On the contrary, when
his account of his ascent
of Mount McKinley is
carefully examined and then
compared with later ascents
of the mountain, the
feasibility of the conquest
of the mountain in Cook's
reported time frame becomes
apparent.
Cook
deliberately traveled
light, carrying only the
food and supplies and
equipment which were
absolutely required for a
period of ten days or two
weeks. He and his
companion, Barrille, each
carried on his back a pack
having a weight of
approximately 50 pounds
which contained all that
was needed for the ascent.
No ponderous loads were
transported; no time was
wasted in double-tripping.
Cook
also accomplished his
ascent of Mount McKinley at
the very end of the summer
when snow at the lower
elevations had melted to
the maximum extent and he
was therefore not delayed
by deep snowdrifts at these
elevations as were other
expeditions who climbed
earlier in the summer. With
light loads and the most
favorable snow conditions,
Cook climbed much more
rapidly at the lower
elevations than other
expeditions which were
burdened with the
enormously heavy weight of
unnecessary provisions and
impedimenta. Segments of
the route climbed by Dr.
Cook at the higher
elevations of the mountain
have been climbed by later
climbers as rapidly as Cook
asserted that he did, and
in a few cases, have been
scaled at an even faster
pace.
Cook's
ascent of Mount McKinley
was accomplished in the
shortest time on record but
the number of days required
by him to scale the
mountain from its base to
its summit was not
impossibly short. On the
contrary, taking into
account all the relevant
factors, it was possible
and feasible for Cook to
attain the summit within
the time specified by him:
eight full days and part of
a ninth day.
THE
FEATURES AT THE HIGHER
ELEVATIONS
Cook's
correct descriptions of
features at the highest
elevations of Mount
McKinley in his book, To
the Top of the Continent,
and in the content, the
nature and character of
certain entries in his
diary compellingly indicate
that he reached the summit
in September 1906.
1.
Cook correctly described
the great glacier near
the top of Mount McKinley
which lies between Karstens
Ridge and Pioneer Ridge and
separates the ultimate peak
of Mount McKinley, South
Peak, the apex of Karstens
Ridge and the summit of the
mountain, from the
penultimate peak of the
mountain, North Peak, the
highest point of Pioneer
Ridge.
This
great glacier, which Cook
refers to as the Great
Median Glacier because it
lies between the two
overshadowing ridges and
the two peaks, is known
today as Harper Glacier.
This glacier rises from
15,000 feet at its outfall
over the eastern cliffs of
the mountain gradually to
18,200 feet–18,400 feet
at the foot of South Peak.
Cook accurately described
the gradual rise of the
glacier and he correctly
stated in his book that the
glacier presented no great
problems for the
climber--its surface was
negotiable and
climbable--no long delays
because of extensive
crevasses or difficult
seracs. He reported no
troublesome crevasses and
only short delays at a
couple of seracs. The only
difficulty, Cook reported,
was the high elevation
which made breathing and
climbing more and more
difficult as he ascended
the Median Glacier.
The
surface of the glacier
itself presented no
mountaineering
difficulties. And he
ascended the Great Median
Glacier from 15,000 feet to
the base of South Peak at
18,200 feet in a total time
of about 12 hours: 2 hours
plus on September 14 and
about 10 hours on September
15. The time consumed in
this segment of his ascent
reflects the glacier
surface traversed, its
nature and condition. The
time required for the
ascent of Harper Glacier by
Cook is consistent with the
condition of the glacial
floor and conforms to the
pace achieved by later
climbers. Cook accurately
described the character of
the glacier. And the time
within which he climbed it
has been shown to be
feasible.
Cook's
first description of the
nature and character, the
condition of the surface of
Harper Glacier between
15,000 feet and
18,200–18,400 feet at the
base of South Peak is correct.
It has been verified by
later climbers and
exploration. It is a
virtual certainty that Cook
accurately described the
surface of the Great Median
Glacier near the summit of
Mount McKinley because
he saw it at close range
and traversed it from
15,000 feet to
18,200–18,400 feet at the
base of South Peak.
2.
In his diary, Cook recorded
the elevation
in
Harper Glacier at the foot
of South Peak as 18,200
feet, determined by
barometer. In his book, he
adjusted this figure to
18,400 feet, probably
because he feared his
barometric reading at this
high elevation was
slightly, very slightly,
off. The elevation which
Cook records for the site
of his last camp of the
ascent, at the base of
South Peak in Harper
Glacier, the night of
September 15 and the early
morning of September 16, is
precisely correct. Modern
surveys and topographical
maps confirm his figures.
It is unlikely in the
extreme that Cook could
have achieved this degree
of accuracy with regard to
the elevation of Harper
Glacier at the base of
South Peak without having
reached that point and
measured its elevation.
3.
Cook described the slope of
the ultimate peak
of
Mount McKinley, South Peak,
as relatively gentle and
presenting no
mountaineering problems for
the climber. The only
difficulty was that of
breathing and climbing in
the very high elevation,
which was laborious and
somewhat painful. He
described outcroppings of
rock seen near the summit
and said that the ultimate
peak was of granite. But
Cook described the slope of
the final peak of Mount
McKinley as snow-covered
and at the top referred to
the glow of the rays of the
sun on the snow-clad slope
at his feet in the bitter
cold. All of this is
correct. At the top,
in his diary, he writes of
the snow-slope. This is
correct. The elevation of
the summit in his diary,
Cook gives as 20,400; in
his book, he specifies
20,390 feet. These figures
are correct, almost
precisely correct. The
accepted modern figure for
the elevation of the summit
of Mount McKinley has been,
for many years, 20,320
feet. Very recent surveys
have resulted, it seems, in
a new figure of 20,307
feet.
And
the character of the
writing in Cook's diary as
well as the data inscribed
in it strongly suggest the
reality of his ascent. At
the upper elevations the
script is labored, somewhat
disjointed, written with
great effort as would be
the case because of the
effect of the high altitude
on his lungs and mental
faculties, and of the
bitter cold and fatique.
From
Cook's long distance view
of Mount McKinley in 1903,
35 miles northeast of the
mountain, he could see the
ridges of the mountain and
Harper Glacier, but he
could not have
detected the nature of the
surface of the glacier. In
order to determine the
character of the glacier
and its surface, it would
be necessary to see it
at close range and traverse
it. It is also
extremely improbable that
he could have determined
the exact elevation of the
glacier at the base of
South Peak from long
distance views of 35 to 40
miles away in 1903.
In
1906, it would have been
impossible for him to make
these determinations in
Ruth Amphitheatre at 5,000
feet or from the crest of
the East Ridge at 11,500
feet. The course of Harper
Glacier from 15,000 feet to
the base of South Peak at
18,200 feet in the glacier
is not visible
either from Ruth Glacier or
Amphitheatre or from the
crest of the East Ridge.
The eastern end of Harper
Glacier and its outfall
over the eastern cliffs of
Mount McKinley would be
within view but, because of
the
southwesterly-northeasterly
axis of the top of Mount
McKinley, the course of
Harper Glacier beyond this
up to South Peak is not
visible from Ruth
Glacier, Ruth Amphitheatre
or the crest of the East
Ridge.
The
view of Harper Glacier from
the crest of the East Ridge
at 11,500 feet--its course
southwesterly from its
outfall to the base of
South Peak in Harper
Glacier and the slope of
South Peak upward from
Harper Glacier to the
summit--is obstructed by
the towering wall of
Karstens Ridge which lies
between and above the East
Ridge and Harper Glacier.
And even if Harper Glacier
were visible from the crest
of the East Ridge, the
distance from Harper
Glacier, several miles,
would be too great to
enable a determination to
be made concerning the
nature and condition of the
surface of Harper Glacier
and the exact elevation of
the glacier at the base of
the two peaks: South Peak,
the summit, and North Peak,
the ultimate eminence. In
1906, it would have been
necessary for Cook to climb
far higher and well beyond
the crest of the East Ridge
at 11,500 feet near
Traleika Col, which he
unquestionably reached, in
order to ascertain these
facts.
Lastly,
in his book, Cook asserts
that South Peak and North
Peak are about two miles
apart at the top of Mount
McKinley, separated by the
vast width of the Great
Median Glacier, the Harper
Glacier. For many years, it
was believed the two
culminating peaks were four
miles apart. Modern surveys
have determined that the
distance between South Peak
and North Peak across
Harper Glacier is two
miles--Cook's 1906
estimate!
When
one takes into account all
of Cook's other correct
descriptions of features at
the highest elevations of
Mount McKinley, his first
and original descriptions
of the upper heights of
Mount McKinley,
cumulatively and in the
aggregate, strongly
indicate that Cook attained
the summit of Mount
McKinley in September 1906.
4
Fake Peak I: Browne Blown
Away by Balch, 1910
"Fake
Peak I" had its
inception with
the subsequently-proven
false affidavit of Ed
Barrille (also Barrill),
Cook's 1906 McKinley
companion, who accepted
$5,000 from the agents of
the Peary Arctic Club for
"services
rendered." The
affidavit was published in
New York newspapers on Oct.
13, 1909 at the height of
the polar controversy.
Previously, for over three
years, Barrille would tell
all who asked in Alaska or
Montana that he had climbed
McKinley with Cook.
Belmore
Browne led an expedition to
McKinley in 1910 and
determined that he had
found the location of what
he declared was the
"false" photo of
the summit of McKinley. The
person who would, after
extensive research,
discredit the Browne thesis
was one with some standing
in both the alpine and
geographic community: Edwin
Swift Balch, an
attorney with a prominent
Philadelphia name.
Balch
was president of the
Philadelphia Geographical
Society, a founder of the
American Alpine Club, the
author of several books and
a climber who had ascended
some of the most difficult
European peaks. He was also
a frequent contributor to
the Bulletin of the
American Geographical
Society and the Journal of
the Franklin Institute. In
1914 Balch authored a
volume titled Mount
McKinley and Mountain
Climbers' Proofs--excerpted
here and illustrated--which
effectively demolished
Browne's "Fake
Peak:"
"In
Cook's photograph of Mount
McKinley and Browne's
illustration of Fake peak,
the outline of each
mountain to the right of
and below the flagman
presents what might be
called four steps in the
rock, which, beginning at
the top, may be numbered as
Rock Steps 1, 2, 3, 4. In
Browne's illustration there
is a distant range of
mountains. In Cook's
photograph there is no such
range of mountains; there
is, however, a snowy tooth
beyond the Rock steps, and
this snowy tooth looks as
if it were part of the
Mount McKinley massif,
possibly a snowy point of
the South arete. Now if
Cook's photograph of Mount
McKinley and Browne's
illustration of Fake Peak
are enlarged by photography
to the same size and a
tracing is made of the
outlines of the two
mountains in the
enlargements, it will be
found that, as shown in the
accompanying diagram, the
outlines are not identical:
they agree in some places,
but they disagree in others
"The
outlines of Mount McKinley
and of Fake Peak back of
the flagmen are wholly
different. The outlines of
Cook's and Browne's Rock
Steps 1, 2, 3, 4, are more
nearly alike, but they do
not coincide. The outline
of Browne's distant
mountain rises well above
the center of Rock Step 3
and abuts against the
center of Rock Step 3. The
outline of Cook's snowy
tooth on the contrary,
barely reaches the center
of Rock Step 4. Cook's
snowy tooth, therefore, is
way below Browne's distant
mountain
"There
are thus at least six
differences
or divergences between
Cook's photograph of Mount
McKinley and Browne's
illustration of Fake Peak.
- The
apparent tops of the two
mountains are not the
same.
- The
little rock rising
before the flagman in
Browne's illustration is
lacking in Cook's
photograph.
- The
rocks in Cook's
photograph are covered
or powdered with snow in
places where snow is
lacking in Browne's
illustration.
- The
values in Cook's rocks
are uniform throughout,
while the values in
Browne's braided rocks
vary in their planes and
their outlines.
- The
outline of Cook's Mount
McKinley is different
from the outline of
Browne's Fake Peak. The
distant mountain in
Browne's illustration
rises way above the
little snowy tooth in
Cook's photograph.
"These
various differences or
divergences between Cook's
photograph of Mount
McKinley and Browne's
illustration of Fake Peak
certainly strongly suggest
different peaks....
"After
tilting with the windmill
of Fake Peak, Browne
apparently thinks it
unnecessary to discuss
analytically Cook's climb
from Ruth Glacier to the
top of Mount McKinley. He
does not pay the slightest
attention to Cook's long,
detailed and careful
narrative of his ascent in
1906 of Mount McKinley by
the exact route above
12,000 feet which Browne
claims he himself followed
in 1912; he does not touch
on any of the points in
mountaineering, which must
be considered by any
mountain historian studying
the subject; he does not
examine the heights climbed
nor the distances traversed
daily; he does not speak of
Cook's description of the
Northeast ridge; he does
not refer to Cook's account
of the Upper McKinley
Glacier. Browne simply
ignores everything
connected with Cook's
ascent of Mount McKinley
from Ruth Glacier to the
top."
-from
Mount McKinley and
Mountain Climbers/ Proofs
by Edwin Swift Balch
|
5
Fake Peak II: East
Side of Mt.
McKinley, 1956
"Bradford
Washburn's picture
of the upper part of
the "Fake
Peak," taken in
August
1956--enlarged from
a part of a
photograph taken at
a considerable
distance."
by
Ted Heckathorn |
|
|
Fifty
years after Dr. Frederick
Cook first blazed the trail
up
the awesome Ruth Glacier on
his Mount McKinley quest,
three new expeditions
approached Mount McKinley
from the east. One team
sought to vilify Cook,
while another tried to
validate his route. The
third party operated to the
north on the Traleika
Glacier and apparently were
oblivious to the other two
groups and dispute about
the mountain.
When
Dr. Cook's daughter
returned home from Alaska
in 1956, she located her
father's 1906 diary. Also
that year, this writer
bought a new book that he
thought would bolster his
belief that Robert Peary
discovered the North Pole.
Little did he realize that
this new edition of Belmore
Browne's The Conquest
of Mount McKinley was
the opening barrage of the
next phase of the
mountaineering controversy.
BUILDING
THE WASHBURN TOWER
Bradford
Washburn, the Director of
the Boston Museum of
Science, led the anti-Cook
party. Washburn, who had
been Browne's friend, had
been an opponent of Cook
for many years. He planned
to revisit the lower Ruth
Glacier where Browne had
photographed a "Fake
Peak" that Cook
allegedly had used for a
summit photo. If Washburn
could substantiate Browne's
claim about the peak, he
contended that it would
permanently destroy Cook's
claim to have reached the
summit. The pro-Cook party,
led by Walt Gonnason,
believed that Washburn was
trying to negotiate a
lucrative contract from Life
magazine for an expose
story about Cook.1 Although
Washburn led Life
to believe that his 1956
photographs proved that
Cook faked his ascent, he
later admitted "they
did not duplicate Cook's
scene."2
In
1957, Washburn returned
with Adams Carter with a
plan to build a
photographic tower about 42
to 45 feet high to try to
duplicate the Cook photo.
After constructing this
fifty-foot alpine version
of the "Tower of
Babel," and moving it
to different positions, he
still failed to get his
photographic match.
Washburn decided that his
tower required another 10
feet of elevation, and
concluded his fieldwork.3
EAST
RIDGE & NORTH FORK OF
THE RUTH GLACIER
It
is interesting to note that
Washburn confined his
fieldwork to the lower Ruth
Glacier (where all agree
that Cook went) and made no
attempt to follow Cook's
route above the Gateway.
Yet Washburn claimed that
this was the point where
"the narrative ceases
to describe what Cook and
Barrille actually
did." If Washburn
really believed this
statement, then why did he
not travel up the North
Fork of the Ruth Glacier
and collect photographic
evidence that Cook had not
been there?
While
Washburn was playing with
his "fifty-foot
erector set" on the
lower Ruth Glacier,
Gonnason's 1956 expedition
was exploring the East
Ridge area on the Upper
Ruth Glacier. Gonnason knew
that the East Ridge matched
Cook's description as the
divide between the Yukon
and Pacific drainage
systems. Atop the East
Ridge, he could see the way
to the summit, but the
weakest two men of his
four-man party did not want
to attempt this corniced
segment of the ridge.
Although Gonnason wanted to
continue, he decided to
stop at that point and
return with a stronger
party the following year.4
James
Mills, a British military
officer, and three
companions led the third
expedition in the field in
1956. They approached the
East Ridge from the north
side via the Traleika
Glacier. Mills made the
first ascent of the unusual
double summit of Pegasus
Peak and reached the top of
the East Ridge near
Traleika Col.5 Mills had no
idea that Cook had visited
that spot half a century
before or had seen and
sketched Pegasus Peak in
his 1906 diary.
CONTROVERSY
IN THE 1990'S
During
the next 38 years,
Washburn's story received
considerable publicity and
attention, while Gonnason
and Mills were virtually
forgotten. Mills published
an account of his
expedition in 1961, but
died shortly thereafter.
Other than contemporary
newspapers, Gonnason's
account was published in a
small Italian book in
1970.6 As a result, most
Mount McKinley histories
ignore both Gonnason and
Mills while giving
Washburn's misleading
1955-57 work exaggerated
prominence.
In
1994, this writer's
expedition explored the
North Fork of the Ruth
Glacier and along the East
Ridge. We found documentary
evidence that Cook had
ascended the East Ridge
near the Traleika Col and
from there had a difficult,
but doable route to the
summit. Even more damaging
to Washburn was our
discovery that a number of
his pronouncements about
Cook were either highly
misleading or dead wrong.7
His 1958 article in the American
Alpine Journal, that
had long been accepted as
gospel truth in the
mountaineering and
exploring community, was
filled with factual errors
and distortions.
So
long as no one went up the
North Fork of the Ruth
Glacier and Peary's
personal papers were closed
to the public, one could
with impunity make
virtually any derogatory
statement about Cook's 1906
ascent. Cook supporters and
neutral observers had not
seen the area and often did
not recognize false or
misleading allegations. For
example in 1958, Washburn
stated:
While
Ruth Glacier does change
its appearance dramatically
above the great Gorge, the
details in Cook's
description on page 204 are
seriously in error. The
glacier does not turn
sharply to the southeast at
the point where it narrows.
It turns directly to the
west. On page 206, Dr. Cook
describes climbing the
lateral moraine of an
icefall (serac). This was
above his 8,000 foot
camp...no moraines are
visible along the sides of
any of the Ruth's valleys
above about 5,000 feet.8
Had
Washburn taken the trouble
to ascend the North Fork,
he would have seen what
Cook was describing. The
glacier makes a sharp bend
around Gunsight Peak as it
reaches the East Ridge.
Apparently Washburn
confused the West Fork of
the Ruth Glacier with the
West Branch of the North
Fork. The moraine that Dr.
Cook mentioned is on the
west side of the North
Fork. It is not a true
moraine, but it certainly
looks like one from ground
level.
The
disputed part of Cook's
route was above the Gateway
and Mt. Barrille and not
the site of Browne's Fake
Peak. If Cook's intent was
to make a false claim then
it made absolutely no sense
for he and Barrille to
continue up the glacier.
They could simply have
taken photographs of the
fake peak and slowly
returned down the glacier.
And why would Cook
instigate a false claim
without making an ironclad
agreement with Barrille to
insure his silence?9
THE
CONTROVERSY TODAY
| In
retrospect, 1956 was
a most significant
year in Mount
McKinley history.
Washburn's
photographic
evidence and
persuasive arguments
seemingly closed the
door on Dr. Cook's
1906 ascent. The
expeditions of
Gonnason and Mills
were reduced to
footnotes or less,10
and Cook's diary was
tucked away in the
family files.
For
nearly four decades
that remained the
situation, until the
diary of the dead
explorer and the
documents from his
enemies arose from
the archives. This
in turn led to a
renewed interest in
what really happened
on the mountain in
1906 and behind the
scenes in 1909 and
1910. It does seem
remarkable that
after all of these
years that Dr.
Cook's pencil might
prove to be mightier
than the Brad
Washburn's camera
tower.
|
|
PEGASUS
PEAK and TRALEIKA
GLACIER from further
west. Note the
relatively smooth
triangular side of
the west summit seen
at the upper left of
this 1996 photo. Dr.
Cook drew the sketch
on page 52 of his
diary from atop the
East Ridge seen at
the upper right in
this photo. |
NOTES
5 /
EAST SIDE OF MT. MCKINLEY,
1956
1.
Gonnason, Walter. Oral
communication to author,
July 1994. 2. Anonymous.
"The Camera Eye vs Dr.
Cook," Life,
vol. 48 (August 20, 1956),
pp. 86-92. 3. Washburn,
Bradford. "Doctor Cook
and Mount McKinley," American
Alpine Journal, vol.
11 (1958), pp. 1-30. 4.
Gonnason, Walter.
"Diary of Walter L.
Gonnason: 1956 Expedition
via Ruth Glacier and East
Buttress," Polar
Priorites, vol. 14
(October 1994), pp. 22-25.
5. Mills, James. Airborne
to the Mountains, New
York, A.S. Barnes and Co.,
1961. 6. Zavatti, Silvio. La
Prima Scalata del McKinley
(Alasca), Rome,
Instituto Geografico Polare,
1970. 7. Heckathorn, Ted.
"Reopening the Book on
Mount McKinley," in
the 1996 edition of To
the Top of the Continent
by Frederick A. Cook, pp.
249-262. 8. Washburn,
Bradford. AAJ, p. 10. 9.
Heckathorn, Ted. "Sins
of Omission &
Contradiction," Polar
Priorities, vol. 17
(September 1997), pp.
20-27. 10. Bradford
Washburn and David Roberts.
Mount McKinley: The
Conquest of Denali,
Harry N. Abrams, New York,
1991. In this large book,
Washburn mentioned Gonnason
only in a bibliographic
note. Mills got no mention
at all.
6
Fake Peak III: The Rehash
to Fit the Model, 1998
"Fake
Peak III" gained first
light through
the pages of DIO,
the creation of Baltimore
writer Dennis Rawlins, in
the summer of 1998. It was
essentially a
reconstruction of the
original Browne theory,
supplemented by the
Bradford Washburn journey
of 1956 that turned out to
be a Life magazine
sponsorship ("The
Camera Eye vs Dr.
Cook") despite a
version which appeared in
the Journal of the
American Alpine Club.
The
author was Robert Bryce,
who had set the stage for
his post-book sequel of
Denali doubt with several
reservations which he
expressed in Cook &
Peary. The greatest
challenge, he suggested,
was to determine if the
location of "Fake
Peak" was indeed that
which Cook said was the
summit picture:
Is
Fake Peak the same place as
Cook's summit? To this day
no one has ever been able
to make a picture from any
spot near Fake Peak that
exactly duplicates the
alignment of the distant
mountains across Ruth
Glacier so that one
coincides with the
"distant peak" in
Cook's summit photo. Even
Washburn associate Adams
Carter's elaborate attempts
in 1957 to erect a 50-foot
mast to compensate for the
depth of ice and snow that
had melted since 1906 fell
several feet short of
placing a photographer at
the conjectural point where
Cook stood when he took his
picture. But even had
Carter's experiment worked,
if the rock profile had
actually collapsed, there
would be no way to make an
exact duplicate. (Bryce,
1997, p. 818)
Those
familiar with the
controversy know that Cook
advocates have been trashed
as "conspiracy
buffs" when discussing
various aspects of the
case, yet Bryce
acknowledges links with the
acknowledged Peary Arctic
Club figures (General
Thomas Hubbard and later
Evelyn Briggs Baldwin) in
the original Browne
allegations. He even
suggests that a
"nagging
suspicion" surrounds
Belmore Browne because he
apparently held Cook's
original McKinley
negatives. That this
experienced researcher did
not ask why a onetime
companion, who was after
1906 a Cook adversary and
later his leading McKinley
antagonist, came into the
possession of these
critical negatives is
itself suspicious.
Bryce
observes that Bradford
Washburn, who considered
Browne his spiritual mentor
on McKinley, and had a
friendship which lasted
until Browne's death in
1954 "apparently
was never aware that Cook's
negatives had once been in
Browne's
possession...."
(Bryce, p. 819)
This is almost as
astonishing as how and why
the creator of "Fake
Peak" came into their
possession. Are we to
believe that for more than
two decades these two
debunkers of Cook on
McKinley never once
discussed the negatives?
So
this was the background
when Bryce penned his
Denali Doubt sequel for DIO,
knowing that his book did
not make the case and at
the urging of Browne's
debunking descendent, would
find a place for his
"Fake Peak III"
in the pages of DIO,
a journal destined for
obscurity to all who do not
follow the cryptographic
referencing of Dennis
Rawlins.
A
Bryce critic (amazon.com
Feb. 14, 1999) observed
that "issues
of faked photos are also
important to the
discussions of evidence.
While reproduced
photographs are apparently
correctly cross-referenced,
it is difficult for a
reader to compare when an
original and a 'fake' are
not shown on the same page.
At minimum, issues of page
printing press consistency
arise, along with questions
concerning how prints might
be altered from original
negatives (glass slides or
film) before the Digital
Age of computer imaging. In
general, important
landscape features are
difficult to locate from
text discussions of photos.
In particular, the entire
Mount McKinley series of
photos and maps of
glaciers, ridges and camps
is hard for a reader to
assess."
A
critical reviewer of
Bryce's book in Polar
Priorities (vol. 17,
September, 1997) suggested
that the author's
argumentation was "to
fit the model" of the
theory that he had
postulated. It could be
said that Fake Peak III was
done in the same manner,
with a third generation of
faulty reasoning, excessive
characterization and poor
inquiry.
Copyright
2005 - The Frederick A.
Cook Society
|
