[escepticos] Aniversario de Peary

[Miguel Martínez Estremera]

Ayer, (cambiando de tema) , EL PAIS publicaba una carta al director  
de un agudo lector que recordaba, a propósito de que este mes es el  
centésimo aniversario de la supuesta llegada de Peary al Polo Norte,  
que tal llegada no existión, y que los americanos no llegaron los  
primeros al Polo.
Sorprende que el chauvinismo americano es tal que o que es un secreto  
a voces en los círculos escépticos americanos...haya sido tan atacado  
hasta evitar que llegue al gran público...
Miguel A
--------------------------------------------------------
In the years following "sTARBABY", Rawlins has continued to receive  
publicity by making sensational charges of scientific coverup and  
fraud. In 1988 he made national headlines by renewing an earlier  
charge he had made before CSICOP's founding, this time supposedly  
supported by a new- found document: that Admiral Peary never actually  
reached the North Pole during his famous expedition in 1909, but  
instead fabricated his navigational records to make it appear as if  
he had. A New York Times article of October 13, 1988 carries the  
headline: "Peary's Notes Said to Imply He Fell Short of Pole." It  
begins: "New evidence based on navigational notes by Robert E. Peary  
indicates that the Arctic explorer fell short of his goal and  
deliberately faked his claim in 1909 that he was the first person to  
reach the North Pole, according to an analysis by a Baltimore  
astronomer and historian ... Dennis Rawlins, an independent scholar  
who trained as an astronomer and who has a long-standing interest in  
Peary's expedition, said yesterday that his analysis of the  
navigational notes, mainly sextant readings of the sun to establish  
geographic position, indicated that Peary knew that he had come no  
closer than 121 miles from the Pole." Officials of the National  
Geographic Society promised to examine Rawlins' data, but added "We  
believe Mr. Rawlins has been too quick to cry fake."

After a three-month investigation of Rawlins' charges, a press  
conference was sponsored by The Navigation Foundation at which they  
dismissed his "sensational claims". As reported in a Baltimore Sun  
story syndicated Feb. 2, 1989, "Since October [Natl. Geographic]  
Society President Gilbert M. Grosvenor and others had quietly endured  
Rawlins' public calls for debate and unconditional surrender on the  
Peary issue." The Society was willing to take seriously an analysis  
by the British explorer Wally Herbert, based on other evidence, that  
a navigation error may have caused Peary to miss the pole by about 45  
miles. "Suggesting that Peary might not have reached the Pole is one  
thing," said Grosvenor. "Declaring Peary a fraud is quite another."  
Rawlins held his own "informal press conference" afterwards, reports  
The Sun, in which Rawlins "admitted he had confused time readings for  
chronometer checks with altitudes of the sun and had mistaken serial  
numbers on the chronometers for navigational observations." Rawlins  
conceded, "My interpretation has some problems, and I acknowledge  
that. It's fair to say that, if I'm saying Peary was a fraud, I think  
I have not yet met the burden of proof."

Finally, in December, 1989, a 230-page report commissioned by the  
National Geographic Society was released, concluding that Peary  
actually did reach the Pole. As reported in a story on p.1 of the New  
York Times, Dec. 12, 1989, a new analysis of Peary's records by  
professional navigators concluded that Peary's final camp was not  
more than five miles from the Pole. "The report said, there was no  
evidence of fraud and deception in the explorer's records. But one  
critic, Dennis Rawlins, a Baltimore astronomer and historian, said he  
remained convinced, despite the new study, that Admiral Peary did not  
reach his goal and had faked his claim."

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/resources/articles/klass-crybaby.htm