Talk:Robert Peary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Military work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Does anyone know why we have April 6 and April 16 listed? I thought there was doubt that Peary thought he had got there on April 6/April... could the 16th have been a typo? And then someone added the correct date but didn't have the confidence to remove the first one? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:08, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A good Google hunt convinces me that it was indeed a typo - no doubt about the date. Updating the article. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:22, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What is this "A 1996 analysis of a newly-discovered copy of Peary's record indicates that Peary was almost certainly 20 miles (32km) short of the Pole"?

  • Who did the analyzing? How credible? I think it probably was a good analysis, so a little more information would help.
  • Are those 20 miles really 32 km, or are they the 37 km which would be normal use of "miles" in this context? I'm changing the conversion--prove otherwise if that is the case. (If the analysis was done by the fools at National Geographic, good luck in figuring out a definitive answer.) Gene Nygaard 14:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


If it is me that added the info, then the info came from "Ninety Degrees North", the book that should be referenced in the article. jfghfghhkgjfjhfj| Pete 00:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That book is mentioned with a quote later on, but there is nothing to indicate any connection between that book and the "analysis" under discussion. Furthermore, even if you were to make that connection now in the article, we still wouldn't know:
I think that the author might have confused two separate issues. First, I believe it was Wally Herbert who argued that Peary was at least 30 miles from the Pole, although all of Peary's major critics -- Dennis Rawlins, Pierre Berton, Robert Bryce -- pour serious doubt on the possibility that Peary got any closer to the pole than about 125 miles. Second, Peary's family kept Peary's personal records private and inaccessible until the late 1980's when even Peary's supporters demanded that they be made public.
There are two major difficulties with Peary's claim. One is the impossible sledging speeds he claimed to have traveled, sometimes over 50 miles per day, a feat which no else else has ever come close to duplicating on dogsled over the Arctic sea ice. The other is Peary's failure to take longitude readings. Without knowing his longitude Peary had no means of adjusting for compass variations or the shifting sea ice. Even if Peary had somehow been able to travel the distances he claimed, he had no way of knowing where he was or which way he was going, and would never have found the Pole except by some 1,000,000:1 fluke.
  • Whether that analysis was done by the author of that book, or whether he was citing someone else's analysis.
  • What those damn "miles" are. Gene Nygaard 02:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Robert Edward Peary

It seems unlikely that the 1996 analysis was Fergus Fleming's, since his book was published in 2002. Uncited is Robert Bryce's massive 1996 work, Cook & Peary which reaches a similar conclusion, but not based on any new analysis of any newly discovered Peary records. Cook & Peary does contain new analysis of newly discovered Cook records, which demolishes Cook's claim quite completely.

Lacking any source citation for the 1996 analysis, I'm going to remove that sentence in the text, and cite both Bryce and Dennis Rawlins' book, which should be sufficient.

[edit] When Peary left NY for his exploration

The article claims that the Roosevelt set sail from NYC in July '08. A World Book Encyclopedia Online article, however, states: "Peary sailed to Cape Sheridan on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic in September 1908." Which is correct here?

New International Encyclopedia was published after 1909, but before 1920 when the explorer died. New International Encyclopedia says that (quote) On his final expedition, Peary left New York on the Roosevelt July 6, 1908. Robert A. Bartlett was master of the vessel, George A. Wardwell was chief engineer, Dr. J. W. Goodsell was the surgeon, and there were the following assistants: Ross G. Marvin, Donald B. MacMillan, George Borup, and Matthew A. Henson, a negro. Etah (Canada) was reached August 11. A week later, having taken on 22 Eskimo and 246 dogs, and with renewed supplies of coal and fresh meat, the Roosevelt started for Cape Sheridan. Here winter quarters were established September 8, at a point a little north of that selected in 1905. Sledge work over a wide area extended geographical knowledge and in February the work of establishing a chain of depots began. As a base Peary had taken the land mass thought to be nearest the Pole. Seven members of the party on the Roosevelt (as named above), 17 Eskimo, 133 dogs, and 19 sledges (some of the improved Peary type) made up the strongest and best-organized expedition that had ever set out to attain the farthest north possible. In an unusual degree the men were familiar with and and prepared for the conditions they would meet. Superslum 13:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Upon leaving the Roosevelt behind, Peary set out for Cape Columbia and from there began the march over the ice of the Arctic Ocean, March 1. Within three days the party reached the "big lead," a strip of water of fluctuating width marking the continental shelf. This did not close up so that it could be crossed until March 11. From here (84° 29' N. Lat.) that section of the party which could best be spared returned, commanded by Dr. Goodsell. In five marches 85° 23' was reached, thence and thence the second section, led by Borup returned. The leader started on with 12 men, 10 sledges, and 80 dogs. Marvin, who was drowned on the return, went back from 86° 38', and Bartlett, with the fourth, from 87° 48'. This was the farthest north attained to that time. The commander now had with him only Henson (the negro assistant), four Eskimo, and the pick of his dogs (40 in number). The 125 miles (201 km) of the final dash were covered in five days' marches of equal length, 89° 57' was reached April 6. But on this day, when actually within sight of the Pole, Peary records that he was so exhausted he could go no farther. The next day the few remaining steps were taken and observations were made - 13 single or 6½ double altitudes of the sun at two different stations.
After remaining at the Pole 30 hours, the party started back. The return proved more perilous than the advance. Soundings showed that the party had traveled over ice on an ocean more than 1500 fathoms (9000 ft.; 2743 m) deep (the wire was exhausted at this point). Moreover, the clear weather disappeared and a north-northeast gale caused serious delay and raised the peril of opening leads. To the east Perry saw masses which he named Crocker Island. Although this land was reported nonexistent by MacMillan when later he made a search for it, Stefansson's observations (reported 1915) showed land beyond and tended to substantiate Peary's claim. The return to Cape Columbia was made in 16 marches and the Roosevelt reached Indian Harbor September 5. After his return to the United States, Peary was involved in a bitter controversy with Dr. Frederick A. Cook, who claimed to have reached the Pole first by nearly a year. Superslum 14:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


125 miles in five days is only 25 miles per day, not 50. Dogs can "mush" 25 miles in one day. They have the stamina that it takes to travel 25 miles in one day.

There are sources of information elsewhere, probably at the Smithsonian. The museum holds onto items such as records of heroic deeds. They may have possession of the instrument with which he measured the sun. It seems like he was successful, and that he slept there. Superslum 15:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avery's timed run

While the precision of it suggests (as it was intended to) Peary could have achieved the Pole, what evidence is there of Peary's actual time on the final leg? Absent that, Avery's is trivial. Trekphiler 07:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Peary's own records claim that he traveled the last 133 nautical miles to the pole in five days, which was incredible enough, as it was more than double Peary's daily average, and no one has been able to come close to matching even that feat. What makes Peary's claim to have reached the Pole totally preposterous, however, is that on the homeward journey he claimed to have traveled the same 133 miles in less than three days.
Avery's expedition probably disproves Peary's claims more than it reinforces them. Using similar equipment, Avery's one-way trip to the Pole took 36 days. While Peary claimed to have made the journey to the Pole in 37 days, he also claimed to have made the return journey from the Pole to Cape Columbia in only 16 days. Also bear in mind that Avery's was a one-way journey which was supplied by air on 4 occasions. Peary had to haul all of his supplies all the way to the Pole and all the way back, and he had to start earlier in the season, when the cold weather took a much greater toll on men and dogs.

[edit] How stupid Robert Peary is

Robert Peary is too stupid to do anything and never deserved tp be rear admiral

That's totally uncalled for. While Peary and Cook both lied about reaching the Pole, and about a number of other fictitious discoveries and accomplishments, they were still very, very great explorers. That is part of the tragedy in all this: that they felt that their own genuine accomplishments were never enough and that they had to fabricate things in order to gain public acceptance.

[edit] "Usually Credited"

Given the numerous recent well-founded doubts about Peary's claim, I am changing the initial sentence from "is usually credited with" reaching the pole to "claimed to have reached". It may well have been that during most of the 20th century, "usually credited" would have been correct. Today, the "claimed" verbiage seems a more correct statement. Bold text

[edit] peary

i thought it was stupid how he went to the northpole in the beginning. but there are some good things about the trip to the nortpole cause he went to alot of places and he got to see some new things. like greenland and other places. least he died in good arms and not gelt or sadness.im writing an report on him and its fun but some things are very cool about him.so why say bad things about him.

An man quoted in the article opines that Peary was exceptionally unpleasant. The article states that modern critics are unhappy with Peary's treatment of the Inuit, particularly Minik Wallace. Peary's quote about the north pole being "mine at last" reflects poorly on him. And the photograph (walrus moustache, military uniform) does him no favours. But there is no more detail to this; it casts an ominous shadow over the man. Was he a typical product of the age, or was he unusually nasty for a Victorian-era explorer? -Ashley Pomeroy 10:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What???

68.184.36.171 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Dear Reader,

 What did Robert Edwin Peary discover in 1909?E-mail me at mejessylord2yahoo.com.As soon as you get this message.

       From,
    Jessica Lord

[edit] What?

Tell me if I'm right: these sentences don't make sense. T/F

He intermittently indicated that Greenland's northern tip (still called Peary Land, though other explorers had reached it earlier) was not attached to Greenland, but the supposedly separating "Peary Channel" was actually a fjord. (Thus, the United States's claim to Peary Land was relinquished in 1917 in the Virgin Islands treaty.) (citation, grammar, meaning)

Essentially I'm reading, "Because of his intermittent indications about geographic matters, the US claim was relinquished in the Virgin Islands treaty."

[edit] Admunsen and Scott

I would like to add that there were deadly consequences to Peary's controversial North Pole claim. It is this: upon hearing about Peary's claim, Raoul Admunsen switched poles because he did not want to go to an achieved goal,i e the Peary claim, and that left the South Pole as virgin territory. It became a race between Admunsen with dogs and Scott with ponies. The dogs won because they could start out much earlier than ponies. Also, Admunsen began much closer to the pole at Whale Island. What it must have been like for Scott,when upon reaching the South Pole, he found the Norwegian Flag and a note from Raoul Admunsen requesting Scott post a letter from him to the Norwegian King! All this can be found in Robert Falcon Scott Journals, Scott's Last Expedition Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)