WHITE SPOTS OF Mt. McKINLEY
The article of Dmitry Shparo
was published in the September issue, 2005,
of the Vokrug
Sveta magazine.
Americans
are proud of Mt. McKinley, they say: "Our Mountain".
But they say this only now, when the commanding eminence of
the North America has become well-known and popular over the
world. Just one and a half century ago only aboriginals knew
about the existence of the transcendental silvery cap, which
arouse superstitious horror in them. Today the Mountain has
gained its fame. Everybody who has managed to overcome the
route from its foot to the summit can award oneself in one's
mind with an unusual V-sign "I have been at McKinley".
It seems that everything is known about McKinley. We know
the names of the youngest and the oldest winners of the altitude,
the dates of the first airplane landing on the glaciers and
the first ascent with dog sleds. Only one thing remains unclear
– who was the first conqueror of the legendary summit?
The President's Peak
Mt. McKinley is located almost at the centre-point of Alaska,
in the middle of a magnificent mountain range. It was when
Alaska was part of Russia that Russians became the first white
people, who caught sight of McKinley. The Governor of Russian
America, an outstanding navigator and scientist Ferdinand
Petrovitch Wrangell, charted the peak on the geographical
map. In 1896 a young gold-prospector William Dickey announced
to the world about the existence of the highest mountain in
America – more than 6,000 metres. Dickey suggested to name
the mountain in honour of William McKinley, who had recently
been elected President. Then the driving goal became the first
ascent on this transcendental mountain, located close to the
Polar Circle. In September 1905 Frederick Albert Cook, a forty
years old polar explorer, announced about his victory over
the summit. The first newspapers reports cited his telegram:
"We have reached the summit of Mount McKinley by a new
route from the North…" But soon the first sensation was
followed by the other – Dr. Cook had told a falsehood to Americans,
and the Mt. McKinley remained unconquered.
In 1913 the Reverend Hudson Stuck carried out a successful
ascent of the mountain. And it was he, who received an official
title of the first pioneer discover. The next expedition up
the mountain in 1932 ended tragically. The names of its two
participants established the existence of the Passional, which
is increased by the "mountain – killer" actually
every year. Mountaineers die as a result of extreme cold,
lack of oxygen; they fall in bottomless abysses or glacier
crevasses.
In 2002 the unique expedition of a young Russian Matvey Shparo,
made a successful ascent to the summit of McKinley. The team
consisted of eleven participants, including two disabled sportsmen
in wheel chairs, adjusted to skis. The greatest possible mountaineering
achievement is to make an ascent on McKinley in winter, when
the temperatures drop to -60°C. For Naomi Uemura, a famous
Japanese explorer, his winter ascent ended tragically – he
had perished. In January 1998 the two Russians: Artur Testov
and Vladimir Ananych reached the summit of McKinley and safely
returned back. The names of these and other courageous explorers
are well known and remembered in Alaska, the name of Dr. Frederick
Cook, almost forgotten. In the meantime his mystery still
remains unsolved. Had Dr. Cook reached the summit of McKinley?
And if not – what drove a professional doctor, an experienced
explorer, a renowned traveler, valuing his reputation, to
risk all with a false claim?
The first polar lessons
Doctor Frederick Cook was born in 1865. His father was a
German doctor Theodore Cox (Dr. Cook later Americanized his
surname). Frederick followed in his father's footsteps. After
graduating from the college he became a medical GP (general
practitioner) in New York. But in 1891 Dr. Cook's life changed
dramatically and he joined the North Greenland expedition
organized by Robert Peary.
The first portion of glory was gained by ambitious Peary
just during this expedition. He became the second person to
cross Greenland after the famous explorer Fridtjof Nansen.
But if it were not for Frederick Cook this might not have
happened. On board ship en route to the north Peary broke
his leg and then he wrote in his diary: "My complete
recovery was soon achieved thanks to professional skills of
my doctor Cook… The fact, that less then in ten months… I
was able to undertake and to carry out this 1,200-mile ski
journey without any serious consequences witnesses the professional
skills of Dr. Cook". This was the start of a close friendship
between Peary and Dr. Cook. Certainly Peary was very fortunate
to have had Dr. Cook with him on his expedition, as every
expedition should be lucky enough to have such an experienced,
self-confident doctor.

During the Greenland Expedition Dr. Cook not only provided
medical service, but he also participated in the boat and
ski trips. He was responsible to contact with the Eskimo people
and to carry out scientific ethnographic work. As a young
explorer, Dr. Cook had the opportunity to learn both from
the local people and his expedition colleagues. And he made
the best of these opportunities. Years passed and it had become
evident that he could easily spoke the Eskimo language. It
was nonrandom that a famous French ethnographer Jean Malaurie
cited the following words of the Greenland Eskimos: "Doctor
Cook was driving the dogs as an Eskimo man". This is
very high praise as it is generally recognized that a white
man could never compare with the driving skills of an Eskimo
dog team driver.
Commander Peary had to choose his companions for an unprecedented
sledge route across the Northern Greenland. He wrote: "Many
would think it dangerous and even crazy that two men would
travel into these unknown areas without having any other hope
for safe returning back but one's own resources and health…
The doctor was the first, to volunteer, followed by Gibson
and Astrup". Due to certain circumstances Dr. Cook did
not become a companion of Peary. Instead, Peary entrusted
Dr. Cook to look after the expedition's camp near the Red
Rock (the name of their wintering camp) for two months.
After returning home Dr. Cook soon realized he could no longer
live without polar expanses. In 1897 he joined the expedition
of the Belgian, Adrien de Gerlache to Antarctica on the ship
Belgica. The captain of the Belgica was Georges Lecointe and
the senior mate was 25 years old Roald Amundsen, who, at that
time, had little experience of the two Arctic sailings on
whale-boats. The expedition consisted of 19 people of five
different nationalities. In January 1898 Belgica entered the
cold Antarctic waters. At the beginning of March, when the
summer's warmth in these southern latitudes had already disappeared
the ship was caught in the clutches of ice fields. Amundsen
wrote: "Now the whole crew of the ship finds itself in
the situation of having to spend a cold winter without necessary
winter clothes, without sufficient supplies for so many people…
The prospects were really dire".
During this sailing expedition two people perished and two
went crazy. Everyone was ill with scurvy, including de Gerlache
and Lecointe. The last two were so ill that they wrote their
Wills. Under these desperate conditions the leadership passed
to Amundsen. When recollecting these tragic events the world-renowned
Norwegian wrote: "During all these thirteen months in
this horrible position, confronting constantly the death itself,
I came to know Doctor Cook more closely… He of all the ship's
company was the one man of unfaltering courage, unfailing
hope, endless cheerfulness, and unwearied kindness… And not
only was his faith undaunted, but his ingenuity and enterprise
were boundless".
Dr. Cook at Alaska
There are four polar top strings in the world: Greenland,
Antarctica, North Pole and the summit McKinley, and it is
natural, that the next goal in the career of Frederick Cook
was to reach the top of the Northern American Continent. His
first attempt to make an ascent of Mt. McKinley took place
in 1903. The summit was not conquered, but the team of Dr.
Cook, after performing miracles of courage and persistence,
carried out a circumnavigation of Mt. McKinley. This expedition
brought Dr. Cook new fame and recognition. Robert Peary sent
a warm telegram to his recent companion: "I congratulate
you on the work that you did on Mt. McKinley and I am sincerely
sorry that you did not attain the tip top. I hope you may
tackle it again and win out". Such warm wishes can easily
be explained: at that time Dr. Cook was already well-known
and people believed in and admired him.
In 1906 Dr. Cook organized his second expedition to Mt. McKinley.
Once again the explorers did not manage to find the route
to the top, but they did manage to investigate in their investigation
work a large region to the north of the summit. Dr. Cook reduced
the number of his team members from seven to three and with
his inherent persistence he again started a new journey despite
the forthcoming cold weather. One of his companions was left
at the upper reaches of the Chulitna River. And Dr. Cook and
Edward Barille began their route upwards, approaching their
goal every day from September 8 to September 16. According
to Dr. Cook's report, on September 16 at 10.00 a.m. he and
Barille ascended to the summit of McKinley, but already in
20 minutes hard frost forced them to start their descent.
In May 1907 Dr. Cook's article was published in the Harper
Monthly Magazine, the magazine having provided financial support
to the expedition. Alfred Brooks, Director of the Geological
Survey of the USA at Alaska, asked Dr. Cook to include a chapter
about the geology of this region in his planned book about
the ascent. Likewise, Charles Sheldon, a famous naturalist,
entrusted Dr. Cook to include a chapter about mammalogy and
ethnology of Alaska in his upcoming book. At the beginning
of 1907 Dr. Cook and Peary attended a state reception, organized
annually by the National Geographical Society. Graham Bell,
the Head of the Society, in his welcoming speech, addressing
his honoured guests, said: "I have been asked to say
a few words about a man who must be known by name to all of
us – Dr. Frederick A. Cook, president of the Explorers Club.
We have with us, and are glad to welcome Commander Peary of
the Arctic Regions, but in Dr. Cook we have one of the few
Americans, if not the only American, who has explored both
extremes of the world, the Arctic and Antarctic regions".
To destroy a rival
Now after McKinley Dr. Cook was hurrying to get the prize
of the century – the North Pole. On June 7, 1907 he sailed
from New York on the ship "John Bradley". On April
21, 1908 Dr. Cook became the first man in the world to conquer
the Great Nail (this was what the Eskimo natives called the
North Pole). Vladislav Koryakin, a Russian scientist said
about the return trip of Dr. Cook from the North Pole that
it was: "competing with the death". Dr. Cook and
his companions, Eskimos Ahwelah and Etukishook won this competition.
Harry Whitney, a wealthy New York sportsman, who was at that
time in Greenland, recounted the following story about his
meeting with the great explorer returning from the North Pole,
which took place on April 18, 2005: "I was sure it was
Dr. Cook, although I had never laid eyes on him before. Human
beings could not have looked more unkempt. They were half-starved,
very thin, and terribly dirty. Dr. Cook, like the Eskimos,
had hair reaching his shoulders".
On September 1 Dr. Cook reached a telegraph post and only
then the world learned about his victory. Five days had passed
– and what a surprising and fatal coincidence occurred! –
Peary announced that he had reached the North Pole on April
6, 1909, i.e. in a year after Dr. Cook. This was the fifth
attempt by the 52 years old Arctic fighter to reach the top
of our planet, and he had for a long time considered the North
Pole as his own property. Simultaneously with the victory
report the "owner" of the North Pole, Peary, attacked
Dr. Cook with coarse words, accusing him of fraud: "Cook
has simply handed the public a gold brick. He has not been
to the Pole…" Later Commander Peary wrote to one of his
friends: "I have put my whole life effort to accomplish
something which seemed to me to be worth doing, because it
had the great attraction of being a clean, manly proposition…
I pulled the thing off finally, and then to have the whole
matter soiled and smirched by a cowardly dog of an imposter…"

The influential and rich Arctic Club stood behind Peary's
back, and it used everything within its power to supported
their idol. They started to wreck Dr. Cook by all possible
means. As a part of this persecution there appeared a statement
that Dr. Cook has invented his ascent to McKinley. The purpose
was quite evident: to defile the life of Dr. Cook before the
day when he established his winning-post at the North Pole,
to declare that Dr. Cook was a cheater before the North Pole
as well. And if this was the case, then you could expect anything
from him, including the theft of the North Pole directly from
the pocket of the unmatched Peary.
But the supporters of Robert Peary in the USA and other countries
would have to admit to the fact that Doctor Cook was the first
to reach the Top of the World. This was proven by his magnificent
book-report "My attainment of The North Pole", which
was translated in Russian in 1987, as the explorer had discovered
not only the North Pole but also the environmental conditions
and nature, surrounding it. All striking descriptions, made
by Dr. Cook, were totally confirmed over the following several
decades. One could accuse Doctor Cook of anything but not
of the plagiarism. As when he was working on his book-masterpiece
there was not a single source in the world from which he could
have borrowed the data about the Arctic oceanic ice. If the
explorer had traveled to the North Pole in times he would
have written exactly the same information in his book, as
Dr. Cook did at his time. This fact radically changes the
whole situation. The authenticity of Dr. Cook's presence at
the North Pole becomes a strong argument in favour of the
explorer in his claim on ascending Mt. McKinley.
But at the beginning of 20-th century Peary had enough power
to annihilate his rival. Already on September 6, 1909, just
one day after the arrival of the Peary's ship in the Canadian
port Indian Harbour, the New York Sun newspaper published
a statement by Fred Prince, a horse driver from of Dr. Cook's
expedition to McKinley. The statement claimed: never has Dr.
Cook set his foot on the summit of McKinley. Prince complained
that Dr. Cook promised to give him money, if he confirmed
the description of the ascent, but as Dr. Cook did not pay
him, he decided to unmask the fraud. The evidence from the
remote Montana State was instantly delivered to one of the
New York newspapers where the statement's publication surprisingly
coincided with Peary's arrival. Later Prince wrote to Dr.
Cook that he would entirely support him, if Dr. Cook paid
the costs of his trip to New York.
On October 15 the New York Times published an affidavit,
made by Edward Barille, the companion of Dr. Cook during his
ascent to McKinley. Barille declared that he and Dr. Cook
climbed only to a small mountain, not exceeding 2 500 meters,
which was more than 36 km away from Mt. McKinley. He also
swore that he wrote false data in his diary under the dictation
of Dr. Cook. It is interesting that the co-owner of the New
York Times newspaper was general Thomas Hubbard, President
of the Arctic Club of Peary. The data of publishing of this
sensational information was not coincidental - at this time
Dr. Cook was in New York receiving honours as the conqueror
of the North Pole, and the people of New York City presented
him the keys of the city. The smear campaign was carried out
like clockwork. The conductor and financial supporter being
one and the same, the Arctic Club of Peary, that was carrying
out the order of the commander to destroy Dr. Cook.
Terris Moore, the author of the book: "Mt. McKinley.
Pioneer Climbs" and one of the most bitter enemies of
Dr. Cook recounted the following about Barille: Before the
start of the polar controversy with Peary "Barille is
described by neighbours as treasuring in his home… the copy
of "To the Top of the Continent". We can read the
same story in a book by Silvio Zavatti, Director of the Italian
Institute of Polar Geography: "He (Barille – D.Sh.) was
proud of gaining a victory. And after returning to Derby,
the State Montana… went from home to home… stating that he
was at the top of Mt. McKinley. Immediately after the publication
of Barille's statement, the New York Herald newspaper that
was defending Dr. Cook, sent its reporter to Montana in order
to meet with Barille. Barille told the reporter that he was
offered 5,000 USD for discrediting Dr. Cook. However he added
that he would agree to change his testimony if he was paid
5,000 USD more.
Our contemporary, an American journalist and explorer Ted
Heckathorn has produced new data. He mentioned the name of
James Ashton, the Peary's Arctic Club attorney-agent in Tacoma,
Washington, who, after receiving the testimony of Barille
on October 1, had immediately informed Hubbard about this.
Also Ted Heckathorn discovered in Peary's Archives, recently
opened to the public, the original of the bank receipt Club
in the name of Ashton for 5,000 USD from the Peary Arctic
Club. A photograph of this receipt is published in the latest
edition of the book "To the top of the Continent"
by Dr. Frederick Cook, reprinted in 1996. All this points
to the fact that the adherents of Peary had bribed Barille,
and that Barille's affidavit was actually false evidence.
Still it was difficult for Dr. Cook to clear himself of the
accusations. For some time he kept out of the public eye,
then he started a business in the oil industry, drilling oil
wellss in Texas. In 1922 he claimed discovery of the rich
oil fields and sold many stocks in his company. But Dr. Cook's
old enemies and detractors were on the alert and, once again,
accused him of fraud. The sentence of the court was very heavy:
fourteen years and nine months in prison. Soon after Dr. Cook
began his prison sentence, his claim of rich oil fields was
confirmed with the opening of numerous oil gushers on his
site. After four years and eleven months Dr. Cook was released.
In 1940 Dr. Cook died. He survived his persecutor, Peary,
by 25 years.
Shaky Arguments
So – was Dr. Cook at the summit of McKinley or not? His two
main accusers, Belmor Browne and Hershell Parker, members
of his 1906 summer expedition, could have explained much in
this regard. In their articles of that time they wrote about
the ascent of Dr. Cook to the top of McKinley in the most
enthusiastic tones. For example Parker wrote: "To any
one familiar with the conditions and topography on this side
of Mt. McKinley such a trip must certainly seem a most brilliant
achievement of mountaineering and exploration". And in
the words of Browne: "You have all heard of the Doctor's
ascent and of his conquest of old Bolshaia. As I have seen
the great mountain I can say that any one who goes through
the cold and exhaustion that he and Barille must have suffered
on the gleaming sweeps of ice and snow must indeed be of the
stuff men are made of". On December 6, 1906 at the Explorers
Club annual meeting Parker "declared that Dr. Cook's
work as the most brilliant as well as important in mountaineering…"
But in 1912 Belmore Browne's recollection of the memorable
days after the joint expedition related his view quite differently:
"I… knew that the time that Dr. Cook had been absent
was too short to allow of his even reaching the mountain…
I wrote immediately on my return to Professor Parker telling
him my opinions… I received a reply from him saying that he
believed me implicitly and that the climb, under the existing
conditions, was impossible". It is quite obvious that
one can have one opinion in 1906 and then, due to the newly
discovered truth, would think differently. But Browne and
Parker related not about how they apprehend Dr. Cook in 1912,
but recollected what they were thinking about him in 1906.
But if at that time they actually thought so badly of Dr.
Cook so badly, how could their extraordinary public ecstasy
about the ascent of Dr. Cook to Mt. McKinley be explained?
It appears that were insincere at least once. To be more blunt
– they lied.
In June 1910 Browne and Parker organized their own expedition
to follow in the tracks of Dr. Cook and Barille. At 36 km
to the south-east of McKinley they stopped near the hill at
a height of 2 438 meters, which they named "Fake peak".
In the book, written by Dr. Cook there is a good picture of
Barille with the USA Flag and a caption: "At the summit
of McKinley, the highest point of the North America".
Browne and Parker supposed that Dr. Cook took a picture of
Barille with a flag not at the summit of McKinley, but exactly
at the point on the hill, found by them. The "truth finders"
took a picture of one of the participants of their expedition
on this hill with a flag, posing like Barille and exulted
in triumph, as it seemed to them that the two pictures are
identical. Based on their personal assessments of similarity
of the photographs, they declared that Dr. Cook had not been
at McKinley.
Belmore Browne told about the expedition, which ended with
the taking of a picture of a "fake peak", in his
book "The conquest of Mount McKinley". The corresponding
chapter is named "The end of the Polar Controversy"
(i.e. a dispute between Dr. Cook and Peary), though there
is not a single word about the North Pole. Why is it so? The
answer is: the trivial arguments of the author: we have proved
that Dr Cook had lied about McKinley, thus he did not attain
the North Pole as well. We can only sympathize with poor Mr.
Browne. Really it was the end of the polar controversy, but
it happened not because of his efforts, but despite them.
History has brought its judgment: Dr. Frederick Cook is the
discoverer of the North Pole. And the common sense suggests
that the future conqueror of the top of our planet could not
have invented his victory on McKinley in September 1906.

Certainly the hostile camp would exclaim "Unconvincing!"
That's why we should return to the "False peak".
Even if it definitely turned out that Dr. Cook had made pictures
of Barille with a flag exactly on this false peak, this would
not prove anything. As it could have transpired that due to
very low temperatures it was impossible to take out a camera
at the top of the mountain, so Dr. Cook took a picture of
his companion when they were descending. Or vice versa – he
may have taken a victorious picture in advance, when they
were ascending, being afraid that they would not be able to
make a picture at the summit. The two statements: "Dr.
Cook and Barille were the first to ascend to the summit of
Mt. McKinley" and "Dr. Cook took a picture of Barille
with the USA flag during their ascent" are connected
with each other only indirectly.
The version of Browne and Parker, stating that they had found
the summit, where Dr. Cook took a picture of Barille with
a flag, had been dethroned. Ernest Rost, a topographer and
an expert in photography, was the first to carry out a comparative
examination of the pictures made by Dr. Cook and Browne. He
covered the phorographs, equally scaled, by a net of vertical
and horizontal straight lines and compared the content of
the homonymous squares. As a result of this research work
Ernst Rost concluded: "The above are only a few instances
which could be multiplied many times. Any of these, however,
is proof that the two pictures are not pictures of the same
summit or rock". Later, independently of Ernest Rost,
the photographs of Dr. Cook and Browne were analyzed by Edwin
Balch, a well-known lawyer, geographer, and mountain climber,
who published the book "Mount McKinley and Mountain Climbers'
Proofs". He comcluded: "These various differences
or divergences between Cook's photograph of Mount McKinley
and Browne's illustration of Fake Peak certainly strongly
suggest different peaks". And Ted Heckathorn in his article
"Belmore Browne's slippery slope" noted that the
financial source of the expedition of Browne and Parker 1910
was the cash deck of the Peary Arctic Club, thus the services
of Parker and Browne were paid by the same hand, which paid
for the false affidavit of Barille.
In summary, for the first three years after the ascent of
Dr. Cook and Barille to Mt. McKinley everybody believed in
and trusted Dr. Cook and applauded him. In September 1909
Peary launched his first attack at Dr. Cook. Immediately four
heralds, who claimed that Dr. Cook did not even approach the
mountain, appeared on stage. These four men. Prince, Barille,
Browne and Parker, are closely connected with the Peary's
Camp and it seems that there was not a single honest or selfless
person among them. The accusatory wheels of Peary were methodically
and ruthlessly rolling over Dr. Cook. Dr. Cook's reputation
was crushed and he was given a horrible title of the "liar
of the century". Now, though, when we know that Robert
Peary had definitely defiled Dr. Cook, it seems only right
that the reputation of the innocent sufferer should have been
rehabilitated. But the falsehoods of the adherents and admirers
of Peary had strengthened in the consciousness of people,
gained a new life, and continued to grow in the scandalous
historical myth , convenient for literary men. And this is
the reason it was widely replicated – please consider what
could happen! Unfortunately the clear evidence of the fact,
that Dr. Cook reached the North Pole and even a total aversion
to Peary's insinuations are not sufficient to confirm Dr.
Cook's achievement at the top of the North America.
A Mysterious route of Dr. Cook
There is no other choice but to address the scientific and
literary heritage of Dr. Frederick Cook, related to the epopee
at McKinley, which are: his article in the journal, the book
and the diaries, which the explorer was writing from July
to October 1906. The diary was printed and Mr. Sheldon Cook-Dorough,
the decoder of this diary says: "Dr. Cook's penmanship
under the best of circumstances is difficult to read, but
his Mount McKinley Diary is specially so… As Dr. Cook ascended
the mountain, the quality of his handwriting deteriorated.
At the higher elevations – 15,600 feet. 18,200 feet, and at
the summit – his writing and his figures are set down with
the greatest difficulty, with obvious effort and labour".
As it is impossible to forge the handwriting of shivering
frozen fingers, it is impossible to suspect that this diary
had been forged and written with the purpose of covering a
falsehood. By the way if this had been really the case, Dr
Cook inter vivos would have taken the pages of his diary and
demonstrated them for his own benefit. But the diary was unknown
during the life of the explorer. The diary was found only
in 1956 among Dr. Cook's personal effects at the home of his
deceased sister Lillian Murphy. Helene Cook Venter, the daughter
of the explorer, had kept the diary securely under lock and
key. Helene Venter offered the diary to the American Alpine
Club as an historical relic, but the Club refused to accept
it. After Helene's death the diary of Dr. Cook together with
his other papers, records and manuscripts, was passed into
the custody of her daughter Janet Cook Venter, who died in
1989. Under the terms of her Will, the 1906 Mount McKinley
Diary with other manuscripts and papers that belonged to her
grandfather were deposited in the Library of Congress, Manuscript
Division, in Washington, D.C., where they are now permanently
maintained.
This historical relic is important not only for its actual
contents - but it also serves as evidence (testimony) of the
authenticity of Dr. Cook's ascent. For example, on the page
52 of this diary there is a drawing of the Pegasus Peak, made
by Dr. Cook (Mt. Koven on the modern maps), which could not
be seen from the Ruth Glacier, and comes into view only from
the East Ridge, which is located more to the north. Before
1906 people did not ascend to the East Ridge, so it means
that Dr. Cook was unable to copy this Peak from any other
source. This is the definite and incontestable proof that
Dr. Cook really ascended to the East Ridge. This fact is of
fundamental importance, as it exposes Barril as a liar – a
liar who swore that they did not climb higher than the Ruth
Glacier. In 1913 Senator Miles Poindexter made the following
well-known statement: "Previous to the so-called Polar
controversy everyone who has ever been associated with Cook
in exploring expeditions spoke well of his character and ability.
When the Polar controversy arose and grew bitter, an attempt
was made to discredit Cook by attacking his account of the
ascent of Mt. McKinley. In this matter, as in his later Polar
trip, Dr. Cook published an account of his explorations… He
described the physical conditions and appearance of the ascent
to the summit of McKinley… Previous to these publications
no one had ever described the summit of McKinley. No one claimed
to know its conditions or appearance. He describer minutely
the northeast ridge, its sharp summit, and the route to the
extreme summit of the mountain; the great upstanding granite
rocks at the point of approach to the Median Glacier, or "Grand
Basin" lying between the north and south peaks; and that
the south peak is the higher of the two. No one had ever stated
these facts before Dr. Cook's publication of them".
There is nothing left but to agree with the Senator when
one looks at the present-day materials. The Great Glacier,
lying between the Karstens Ridge and the Pioneer ridge, separating
the South Peak from the North Peak, was named the Large Median
Glacier by Dr. Cook (Harper Glacier at the modern map). Dr.
Cook made an ascent along this Glacier from an altitude of
4,570 meters up to 5,550 meters over 12 hours on September
14 and 15. The explorer found that the surface of this Glacier
was accessible and passable. It was absolutely impossible
to know of about these characteristics – neither from the
north in 1903, nor from the east in 1906. In his diary Dr.
Cook specified more precisely the altitude of the Great Medial
Glacier near the base of the South Summit – 5,608 meters.
Modern data confirmed the observations of the ascender. Dr.
Cook described the slope of the South Peak as a gentle, presenting
no difficulties for a climber. At last he stated that the
two Peaks (the South Summit and the North Summit) are located
at a distance of 2 miles (3,700 m) from each other. Recent
measurements confirm. this… yes, this is correct!
There
are very interesting studies of Hans Cornelius Waale of San
Bernardino, California. He found the most detailed topographical
maps of Mt. McKinley and its vicinity, as well as aerial photography,
and had analytically and intensely scrutinized the mountain.
After reading Dr. Cook's book he reconstructed his route.
In 1972 or thereabouts Waale entered into correspondence with
Dr. Cook's daughter, Helene Cook Venter, and she sent him
typewritten copies of certain pages from Dr. Cook's Mount
McKinley Diary. Waale studied these pages and found that the
entries there confirmed essentially the route that he had
reconstructed from the book. Some additional data from the
Diary allowed him to refine certain points on the route and
Waale made a few slight changes as a result. On March 11,
1970 Waale published his article "Dr. Cook's Mysterious
Mt. McKinley Route" in the Anchorage Times with comments
handwritten on the map, establishing the identity of Dr. Cook's
observations and actually existing geographical objects. Waale
wrote: "The purpose of this article is to show where
Dr. Cook's McKinley route actually was after being an unfathomable
mystery to over 70 years… The facts show that Dr. Cook's descriptions
become more and more detailed and more confirmable as the
summit is approached and his elevations are amazingly accurate.
This is best revealed in Dr. Cook's unpublished notes, which
contain other pertinent data…"
Theoretically it is probably impossible to reconstruct the
route of Dr. Cook better than Waale. Now it only remains to
experience it in practice. Somebody has to repeat the route
of Dr. Cook to the summit of Mt. McKinley with his diary in
hand, and to do it during the same season – during the first
half of September. Only then can the mystery of the conquering
of the summit of the North America, 6,194 m, be guessed, and
the good name of Doctor Frederick Cook be cleared of suspicion
and slander.
|