Volume VII, Number 1 Spring 2002
In this Issue:
- President's Message
- Ed Stafford's Tours
- A Geograhy Lesson, by Harry Rich
- Fire Protection System Update
- Peary Reached the Pole, by Douglas R. Davies
Dear Friends,
As we, the Friends and state authorities, endeavor to maintain and preserve a national historic treasure, we confront a number of interesting and at times controversial policy issues. Often they generate debate, at times heated, over what should be done, how it should be done, and how much it should cost. One overall chaJlenge is to be reasonably consistent. Four examples illustrate this difficulty .
First example: when we advise about replacing the roof on the caretaker's cottage, should we say that it should be restored to its exact original state (probably untreated cedar shingles) without any preservative at all or only with the preservative originally used (notwithstanding the fact that better preservatives are available)? Further, should the application of the preservative, if used, be on the surface only or should the shingle be dipped? If no one can see the repair, should the sole criteria be life cycle cost (i.e., the total cost including purchase price, installation, and maintenance over the estimated life of the roof)? How much should be spent for historic preservation reasons over and above the most cost-effective and modern solution? Should historic preservation be confined to what you can see and should economic and maintenance considerations govern what can't be seen? Probably.
Second example: the Friends under the leadership of vice president Harry Rich have been working with Steve Curtis, BOPL Southern Regional Manager, to implement a thoroughly modern fire protection system. The fire protection sprinkler heads are visible but not so visible as to materially affect the experience of visiting the house. Is this modern exception to the historic house's appearance a small price to pay for added protection? Does this inconsistency make sense? We think so.
A third example: The ceiling boards in the kitchen are in poor shape. How do we respond? Do we advocate the replacement of all the boards with exact replicas of the original boards as was done in the case of the west porch ceiling? Or do we replace and refinish only the damaged boards? Does it make sense to compromise on having some old and some new boards because it is historically preserving as much as possible of the original boards? We think the esthetics dictate that the whole ceiling should be replaced with duplicate boards regardless of the need for preservation.
Finally, the fourth example: the replacement of the old outhouse with a solar powered, composting toilet eliminates the problem of pollution on the hillside and in the tidal area on the west side of the island near the caretaker's cottage. It also eliminates the smell from the outhouse, which was used by 7,000 to 8,000 visitors over the summer. Obviously, the outhouse is more historically accurate, but for practical reasons, the composting decision is a better solution, all things considered. The compromise was made to address safety concerns, environmental problems, and comfort of the visitors. At times, should these considerations (environmental, comfort, and safety) override every other consideration? We think so.
Perhaps, there is a way to reconcile these responses with a clear-cut statement of policy. For example, one such overriding policy could be that all potential projects undergo a comparative life cycle cost estimate so it is clear that if a more expensive option is chosen, the costs in terms of other projects that are delayed or eliminated are clear. So, as is quite evident, from the proceeding, we are not very consistent in our views. On the other hand, we try not to be foolish in our consistencies either.
Oliver S. Brown, President
Ed Stafford returns to lead the memorable tours of Eagle Island
We are most fortunate to have Ed Stafford, the Admirals grandson, back to lead these extraordinary tours of Eagle Island. An accomplished writer and speaker, Ed will tell us about life on Eagle Island and anecdotes of the Admiral and his family. We feel this tour is so important that we are recording the tours on video.
All the tours are scheduled for Tuesdays in August. The dates are August 6th, 13th, 20th, and 27th. The boat captained by Tom Ring will leave Cook's Lobster House at 9:30 AM and return at Noon. You will have time to explore and walk the trails of this beautiful island. The price is $30.00. Book early as these tours are very popular. Write to Friends of Peary's Eagle Island, P. O. Box 70, Bailey Island, ME. 04003 for ticket information or print out a ticket application from our web-site <pearyeagleisland.org> and mail it to us.
Herring Gulls in a tree on Eagle Island. This is the only place in Casco Bay that Gulls have been seen doing this. Come see. (Photo to be added)
The Antarctic has been described as "a continent surrounded by oceans" and the Arctic as "an ocean surrounded by continents". It's clear, however, that not everyone understands the geography of our planet and even less about ocean currents. " why didn't Peary just plant a flag at the North Pole like Amundsen did at the South Pole." With modern electronic navigation equipment, like GPS, it would be easy to go back, find the flag, and prove conclusively that he did or did not make it. The answer is that Amundsen had an advantage; his flag was planted on solid ground 9300 feet above sea level on the continent of Antarctica and it never moves.
Peary on the other hand, planted his flag on the ice pack floating 1400 feet above solid ground at the North Pole. Now everyone knows the oceans of the world have many currents including the Arctic Ocean, and it can be observed most everywhere that objects floating on the surface, including ice, "drift" with the wind and are "set" with the current. It was obvious to early polar explorers that the ice was moving, but there were many unanswered questions. As William Molett states in his book "Robert Peary and Matthew Henson at the North Pole", the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen , provided answers to many of the questions with one of the most remarkable voyages ever conceived and successfully executed. Nansen deliberately locked his sturdy ship, strengthened and shaped to withstand ice pressure, into the ice of the East Siberian Sea. He theorized that the ship would drift across the Arctic Ocean and break free near Spitzbergen . He estimated the voyage would take about three years and the track would be close enough to the pole (50 to 100 miles) to allow an over ice trip to the pole by dog sled. He calculated correctly for the most part. After three years his ship broke free of the ice near Spitzbergen and sailed to port in Norway. Unfortunately, his track was not close enough to the pole and he was unsuccessful in completing the dog sled trek to the pole. He reported strong southward drift that was robbing the distance that he traveled north by as much as 3 to 4 miles in a 24 hour period.
Thus Peary's flag could have moved towards Norway 3 to 4 miles every 24 hours, and was probably no where near the pole by the time he reached Eagle Island.
A related story that tends to confirm my suspicion that not everyone understands the geography of our planet, was told by Commander James Calvert (now Vadm . ( ret )) during a lecture at the Naval War College in 1958. He had recently returned from the North Pole in the nuclear submarine USS Skate. He reported Skate's small post office was very busy when they were at the pole stamping collectors envelopes with a special North Pole stamp. After his return and the word got out, he received hundreds of letters from collectors asking to have their envelopes stamped when he took Skate under the South Pole. He stated that the embarrassing part was that several of the letters were from Naval officers. I was not one of them. Honest.
Harry Rich
Because of "inflationary creep" in the power requirements we ended up with a solar system design that required more solar panels than we could accommodate and still comply with the town of Harpswell's shoreline zoning ordinance and the moratorium on changes to historic sites. We were trying to anticipate future requirements and design accordingly, but existing constraints forced us back to the drawing board. At the suggestion of Peter Talmage of Talmage Solar Engineering (the contractor), we plan to measure the actual load on the equipment installed on Eagle Island and design our solar power system to meet the minimum requirement. Weare convinced we can do this and comply with all the current shoreline zoning rules and moratorium constraints. We expect to have this completed this summer. Future power requirements will be addressed at a later date.
Harry Rich
By Douglas R. Davies, May, 2002
Over the years, a number of critics have attacked the credibility of Peary's Polar claim, some even claiming to "prove" that Peary did not reach the pole. A study that my father (the late Radm . Thomas D. Davies, USN) and I worked on in 1989 concluded that, in all of the diaries, photos, depth soundings and witness accounts relating to the 1909 trip, there is not one shred of evidence that contradicts Peary's claim. In fact, the evidence taken as a whole, provides compelling proof that Peary did reach the pole.
The critics focus largely on the supposed impossibility of Peary's daily distances and of navigating to the pole without observations for longitude. With the exception of Wally Herbert, (who himself claims Polar priority among dogsledders based on his 1968 trip), critics have no dog-sledding experience on which to base their conclusions. On the other hand, at least twelve experienced arctic dog- sledders , ranging from contemporaries of Peary to the present, have published their views in support of Peary's claimed distances. These include Peary colleagues Matt Henson, Donald MacMillan , Bob Bartlett, and George Borup , four Peary contemporaries who were among the most accomplished dog- sledders of that era, as well as Gunnar Isaachsen of Sverdrup's 1900 expedition to Ellesmere Island, Knud Rasmussen, Peter Freuchen , and Vilhjalmur Stefansson ; and later Arcticl dogsledders h Edward Shackleton , Geoffrey Hattersley -Smith, Will Steger, and Paul Landry.
Experienced navigators and surveyors have concluded that Peary could reasonably rely on means other than the longitudinal observations normally used in lower latitudes to reach the pole. These include the Coast and Geodetic Survey experts who reviewed Peary's navigational methods with him shortly after his trip, USAF Col. William Molett , who navigated by air to the pole more than 90 times, and my father. These alternative methods essentially come down to estimating the time at which the sun is at its highest (and thus very nearly due south). My own experiments with a sextant, plate glass artificial horizon, and apparatus that allows conditions at high latitudes- to be duplicated by tilting the artificial horizon, indicate that such determinations can be made with reasonable accuracy.
One of the innovations of the 1989 study was the use of photogrammetric methods to analyze the sun's altitude (the navigational term for elevation angle above the horizon) in the photos that Peary took at his north pole camp. Although there is not (and could never be) positive proof that Peary reached the pole, we concluded that these all showed altitudes consistent with the sun's altitude at the north pole on the date in question, within a 15 to 20 mile accuracy. Two photographs that were found after the original report provide additional and particularly strong affirmative evidence that Peary was at the pole, or at least very near to it. These photos (figures 1 and 2) clearly show the sun (enlarged to greater than its normal diameter by a bright "halo") and the horizon. ( ed . Note: photos will be added later)..
Ample evidence contained in the various photos that Peary took at the pole camp, and in the narratives of Peary and Henson themselves establishes that these photos were taken at the pole camp at about 8:00 to 10:00 PM on April 6, 1909. (The exact time is not terribly important, since at the pole the sun would circle at nearly the same altitude, increasing only about 1/3 of a degree per day at that time of year).
The sun's altitude in these photos can be determined by comparing the photos to the images made by a camera of the type Peary used of objects with known angular separation. The result is that the sun's altitude is essentially identical to the sun's altitude that would have been observed at the pole. Peary's most outspoken critics agree with this conclusion. Of course, the same solar altitude would be obtained anywhere along a "line of position" extending through the pole along the 100th meridian of west longitude.
Peary's original diary and Henson's accounts indicate that they believed they had covered approximately the necessary distance to the pole. If one accepts this, the only issue is whether they traveled in the right direction, and the line of position generated by the photos conclusively fixes Peary's position very close to the pole.
To me, the mere fact that Peary took and retained these photos is convincing evidence that he did believe he had covered the distance to the pole, and further that he was confident that he was at least reasonably on track. If he was far short, and making up phony distance estimates, he certainly would have known it, and he would have known that a photo of the sun potentially would be a smoking gun. For example, 60 miles from the pole, the sun could potentially have been a full degree too high or too low. (At a point 60 miles from the pole, the sun would be one degree too high when it was due south, about the right altitude when it was due west or east, and a degree too low when it was due north.) This amount of error would be readily measurable in a photo knowing only the general dimensions of Peary's camera.
The critics, of course, are not persuaded. According to them, Peary stopped far short of the pole and then determined his longitude through observations, the records of which Peary apparently destroyed (since they no longer exist). Armed with his longitude, Peary could safely take a photo of the sun when it was due east or due west (six hours before of after the sun passed his meridian), since at that time the sun would be essentially at the altitude that would be observed at the pole.
There is of course no evidence that Peary did any such thing. And there is no rational explanation why Peary, having successfully produced a couple of photos showing exactly what he wanted them to show, decided not to submit them as evidence that he had reached the pole or even to publish them at all. True they would not constitute absolute proof, but why not use them for support? The critics' argument just doesn't hold up. Our conclusion in 1989 stands stronger than ever. There is no evidence that Peary failed to reach the pole, and strong affirmative evidence to support his claim that he did reach it.
Ed. note
Mr. Davies served on the Navigation Foundation Commission of 1989 which found that Admiral Peary reached within 5 miles of the North Pole. Since then he served for a time as the President of the Navigation Foundation. He has had a lifelong interest in celestial navigation and is a collector of all types of navigational instruments. With the aid of a modern digital scanner and a #4 folding pocket Kodak camera of the type used by Peary, he has been able to increase the precision of his photographic measurements.