Outerra forum
Outerra Engine => Off Topic => Topic started by: RaikoRaufoss on July 18, 2011, 11:45:23 am
-
This year marks the 150th anniversary of the birth of Fridtjof Nansen and the 100th anniversary of Roald Amundsen reaching the South Pole. Here are some great sites:
http://www.frammuseum.no/
http://www.nansenamundsen.no/en/
And here's a short promo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCy4rnSAhZI
-
You really want to go to the South Pole/Antarctica, don´t ya? :lol:
-
You really want to go to the South Pole/Antarctica, don´t ya? :lol:
Yeah, sure wish I could go. If anyone else wants to go, give these guys a look: http://www.polarexplorers.com/expeditions/Southpole-flights.shtml
-
A Pullman railroad car named after Amundsen was a witness to history, and enabled several secret and pivotal journeys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGPTrBkYXXo
-
First ever exhibition about Amundsen in Britain now showing at the Scott Polar Research Institute Museum: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/uk’s-first-amundsen-exhibition-celebrates-extraordinary-explorer/ (http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/uk’s-first-amundsen-exhibition-celebrates-extraordinary-explorer/)
-
One of Amundsen's few mentions of British reaction to his triumph was that "the British are bad losers." Sadly, this piece of commentary just seems to prove him right:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sarah-sands/sarah-sands-captain-scott-ndash-romantic-wrong-but-a-winner-in-the-end-2364263.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sarah-sands/sarah-sands-captain-scott-ndash-romantic-wrong-but-a-winner-in-the-end-2364263.html)
It's a pile of muddle-headed garbage. Let's see the reasons why:
"... but our hearts are not with the successful Norwegian. Instead a British voice echoes: "Great God! This is an awful place... Now for the run home... I wonder if we can do it.""
She conveniently omitted the "and a desperate struggle to get the news through first", with its potentially sordid implications. Just like the heavily edited version of Scott's diary that was first published.
"The sentimental attachment to heroic failure over success drives the Amundsenites mad. The biographer Roland Huntford has made a career out of bringing the British to their senses. He now publishes The Expedition Diaries, which proves in the rival explorers' own words the virtues of a professional Norwegian over a British amateur. Huntford concludes that Scott was "an incompetent loser who battled nature rather than tried to understand it"."
"Heroic" failure is still failure, and in Scott's case, it may not have been heroic, since the science he did was almost lost with him for all time. Didn't know Amundsen supporters are now called "Amundsenites".
After grudgingly admitting Scott's screwups, she then gets to Amundsen:
"Amundsen was single-minded and empirical. Dress it up as you wish, but there was only one winner. As Amundsen sneered crushingly: "Victory awaits him who has everything in order – luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time. This is called bad luck.""
Amundsen wrote those words in "The South Pole" before Scott's death was known. And they're not sneering; they're matter of fact and plain. A good example of Amundsen himself, who vindicated his words by his actions.
"The irony for Amundsen is that it is Scott who has the legacy. For a start, Amundsen was too committed to take more than a couple of photographs, so we lack images of him. Then, the plants and rocks that Scott's men wasted time collecting, proved to be enduringly interesting. The use of technology was refined because of Scott's trials. Most of all, Scott wrote so movingly about the tribulations, that his diary entries have the power of Shakespeare. Amundsen's successful and uneventful journey lacks the power of language. Poetry tends to lie in the struggle rather than the achievement."
What legacy? Scott gets the legacy of getting himself and his entire party killed, Amundsen gets them all back alive. And we don't lack images of him. Olav Bjaaland took a camera with him, and because of damage to Amundsen's camera, his photos comprise most of the photos of the expedition. There are plenty of photos of Amundsen at Framheim and at the Pole. Like I mentioned before, those plants and rocks were almost lost for all time because Scott had to get his party killed. As for use of technology being refined, Helmer Hanssen, who went with Amundsen to the Pole, had this much to say: "What shall one say of Scott and his companions who were their own sledge dogs?... I don't think anyone will ever copy him." Scott's death was a good endorsement for dog teams if ever there was one.
As for language, Scott moves a person, but only on a superficial level, and even he is no match for Shakespeare. Amundsen's bland understatement is very easy to misinterpret as unreadable, but if one reads past the understatement, he can make you cry and laugh. I did both when I read his writings. Amundsen's journey lacks no power thanks to his language, and the poetry of his achievement is how well he set out to do what he intended to do.
"Compare "so we arrived and were able to plant our flag at the geographical South Pole. God be thanked" with "had we lived I should have had a tale to tell of the hardihood, endurance and courage of my companions which would have stirred the heart of every Englishman".
What is lovable is not the failure, but courage in the face of hopeless odds. Captain Oates "did not – would not – give up hope til the very end"."
Yes, compare Amundsen's unadorned relief and thanksgiving with Scott's writing for effect to pander to the public and to cover up his tracks. Very telling. As for Oates, Wilson ascribed no heroic motive to Oates' walking out of the tent. Also, poor Oates was unable to pull the sledge for some time before he walked out of the tent.
After an aside about qualities supposedly lacking in the British:
"Amundsen planted his flag, but there was no human resonance. He lacked the moral charisma of an Edmund Hillary. Without romance and honour, success can seem mechanistic. The best way to test this is to face death. This is why the end of Scott and his men means more: 15 December 1911 is not the end of the story."
Now another attack on Amundsen. Read Amundsen's writings about the dogs, or what he did when he unfurled Norway's flag at the Pole on 14 December 1911, and then try saying that he didn't have moral charisma. Amundsen may seem like nothing more than Scott's dour, machine-like nemesis, but he was so much more than that. His life too had human resonance. Then there's this aside about "without romance and honor". What romance is there in your entire party dying when it could have been prevented with better planning and decisions? And as for honor, looks like she's still sore about Amundsen winning. "The best way to test this is to face death." The line of reasoning used to motivate Tommies going over the top a few years later. Of course, they never achieved much of a success, but that's not the fault of the rank and file Tommies. Blame the bad officers and the medical examiners who let hordes of unfit men in during the rush of volunteers.
She did get one thing right: 14th December 1911 isn't the end of the story. What I fear now is that history will repeat itself, and like a dead latter-day Mark Antony, Scott will get his revenge from the grave.
-
Fram Museum opens all new exhibits on Fridtjof Nansen and a polar simulator, on the 150th anniversary of Nansen's birth on October 10th: http://www.frammuseum.no/News/FRAMMUSEET-IKKE-TIL-A-KJENNE-IGJEN.aspx (http://www.frammuseum.no/News/FRAMMUSEET-IKKE-TIL-A-KJENNE-IGJEN.aspx)
-
Rare archival footage of Amundsen's South Pole expedition: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/09/amundsen/antarctica-video (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/09/amundsen/antarctica-video)
-
http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20111017/NEWS07/710179930/-1 (http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20111017/NEWS07/710179930/-1)
"Mr Hadow said: “It really worked” explaining that Captain’s Scott’s son, Sir Peter Scott, went on to set up the world’s largest charity, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)."
Not. This. Again. Just read the WWF's history for yourself:
http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/history/sixties/ (http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/history/sixties/)
-
100 years ago today, Amundsen, Olav Bjaaland, Sverre Hassel, Helmer Hanssen, and Oscar Wisting set off for the South Pole: http://sorpolen2011.npolar.no/en/diary/south-pole/2011-10-19-the-day-we-should-have-set-off.html (http://sorpolen2011.npolar.no/en/diary/south-pole/2011-10-19-the-day-we-should-have-set-off.html)
-
The link doesn't work (404).
-
The link's been fixed.
-
When I read Huntford's Race to the Pole recently, I couldn't figure out why he was so critical of Cherry-Garrard's The Worst Journey in the World. Then just today, I found this: http://aphriza.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/worst-wednesdays-amundsen/ (http://aphriza.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/worst-wednesdays-amundsen/)
Here we go:
For an hour or so we were furiously angry, and were possessed with the insane sense that we must go straight to the Bay of Whales and have it out with Amundsen and his men in some undefined fashion or other there and then.
After that line from Scott:
The Norwegians are in dangerous winter quarters, for the ice is breaking out rapidly from the Bay of Whales which they believe to be in Borchgrevink’s Bight, and they are camped directly in front of a distinct line of weakness. On the other hand if they get through the winter safely (and they are aware of their danger), they have unlimited dogs, the energy of a nation as northern as ourselves, and experience with snow-travelling that could be beaten by no collection of men in the world.
The "nation as northern as ourselves" line may or may not be colonial racism as the blogger claims, but it's certainly too pretentious. And their ignorance is shown by their reaction to Amundsen's choice of the Bay of Whales. He had studied Ross' and Shackleton's visits to the Bay of Whales, and noticed that the bay had hardly changed from then to now. Amundsen correctly deduced that the Bay of Whales was a relatively stable section of ice which was formed by land. Thus he took a calculated risk.
Then came this racist slur disguised as a compliment;
The truth was that Amundsen was an explorer of the markedly intellectual type, rather Jewish than Scandinavian, who had proved his sagacity by discovering solid footing for the winter by pure judgment.
He. Did. Not. Just. Say. That. >:(
Another attack:The very ease of the exploit makes it impossible to infer from it that Amundsen’s expedition was more highly endowed in personal qualities than ours.
He then originates the excuse that Scott's apologists have used ever since:We were primarily a great scientific expedition, with the Pole as our bait for public support, though it was not more important than any other acre of the plateau.
Then a long string of fancifulness:The practical man of the world has plenty of criticism of the way things were done….
Why wouldn't he have any?
He is scandalized because 30 lbs. of geological specimens were deliberately added to the weight of the sledge that was dragging the life out of the men who had to haul it; but he does not realize that it is the friction surfaces of the snow on the runners which mattered and not the dead weight, which in this case was almost negligible.
In their starving state, 35 odd pounds makes a noticeable difference. As for friction, if Scott had been willing to learn from sources other than Britain, he could have learned a trick Amundsen learned from the Inuit. The trick is to warm up snow in your mouth, then spit it into your gloves and apply the water to the runners. The result is a thin layer of ice on the runners that will reduce friction noticeably. As for dead weight, Teddy Evans noted at the time that Scott was hauling 150 some pounds of unused clothes and empty bags as well. Of course, he covered this up after Scott's death came out and the coverup began.
Nor does he know that these same specimens dated a continent and may elucidate the whole history of plant life….
Which were almost lost because Scott had to get himself and his entire party killed. If Atkinson's party hadn't found them...
he has no patience with us, and declares that Amundsen was perfectly right in refusing to allow science to use up the forces of his men, or to interfere for a moment with his single business of getting to the Pole and back again.
Why should we have patience? By the way, while Amundsen's team was winning the race, Fram was conducting the first oceanographic survey of the ocean between South America and Africa.
Cherry-Garrard's The Worst Journey in the World started up the industry of Scott apologia, which is continued today by biased attackers (Fiennes), liars who falsified their research and used gambler's fallacies (Solomon), pathetic explainers with bad sources (Jones), revisionist sophists (Crane), hysterics (Barczewski), and incoherent, obvious liars (Larsen).
-
http://www.redbull.com/cs/Satellite/en_INT/Article/A-World-Apart-The-Polar-Adventurers-Inspired-By-021243113449075 (http://www.redbull.com/cs/Satellite/en_INT/Article/A-World-Apart-The-Polar-Adventurers-Inspired-By-021243113449075)
I did guess that this would happen: Scott is becoming a trendy topic. I know that Red Bull has to understand trends (they created one, after all), but the article doesn't have anything linking these men's inspiration to Scott. They could have at least showed how Scott inspired them.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15384729 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15384729)
Scott's media blitz continues. Four things Scott found, and one that found him:
1. Looks like the Herald told the BBC about all the smart alecks who said that the last time they checked, there were no crops in Antarctica. Now it's penguin skins as control specimens.
2. The Glossopteris fossil. Again. Of course, they still don't mention that because Scott got himself and his entire party killed, the fossil was almost lost for all time.
3. Nothing to complain about.
4. Again, Solomon's falsified "research" has been blown out of the water. See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.1272v3 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.1272v3)
And we all know what found him, don't we? At this rate, history's already repeating itself, and Amundsen is getting overshadowed by Scott. Again.
One final note: the idea that the "lost photos" that Scott took were lost until now is false. Watch Ponting's "90 Degrees South", you'll see at least 2 of them.90 Degrees South (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKBttUMKND4#)
-
Silly me, I forgot. 100 years ago yesterday, Scott and his 15 companions set off on the Southern Journey to reach the South Pole.
Amundsen was 200 miles ahead, and the gap would not get much narrower.
-
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/04/142024624/in-scotts-race-to-the-pole-science-beat-speed (http://www.npr.org/2011/11/04/142024624/in-scotts-race-to-the-pole-science-beat-speed)
Another interview with Larsen. More non sequiturs, anyone?
Fossils were very important. They were trying to document the connections between Antarctica and the other southern continents.
Wrong. The first work on plate tectonics was done after the expedition.
After David Wilson talks about the (not) lost photos:
No, I did not have that particularly in my mind. I know it's happening. You can read it in the different books. I'm - I take nothing away from Amundsen. Giving credit to the science of Scott's expedition actually does take nothing away from Amundsen's achievement. Only the Norwegians reached the pole and returned safely, and they did so over an unknown route in less than 100 days with food to spare.
After all the billing NPR did for your book said the opposite. Non sequitur, anyone?
But what Scott was also planning was a multifaceted, complex expedition. He had 32 men on the ice. He had teams going all over, where Amundsen had 30 and they were focused on one end. They did that one end better. But if you look at the overall expedition, actually, the British Terra Nova Expedition, Scott's expedition, was actually more modern and a marvel of planning, if not execution.
Actually, 16 were going to the pole, and Amundsen had only 5 going to the pole. Modern attitudes didn't save Scott, and his planning was last moment and haphazard. Compare Amundsen, who started his planning in 1909.
Then some rhetoric aimed at criticism:Well, you can certainly say that might have. I mean, their death was - you could have a lot of but for excuses they might not have died. But for the weather being colder. They might not have died, but for the fact that they stopped and collected geological specimens, very important geological specimens, on the way back at the Beardmore Glacier, when they were already highly stressed. But, on the other hand, if you take those things away, it wouldn't be Scott. It wouldn't be a British expedition.
Then more lies:Still, he thought he had a margin of safety, that he could do all this science, and with the margin of safety provided by the enormous amount of resources he brought down, that he could still make it back safely. And the surprising thing was that there was a combination of mistakes and chance, with the fuel leaking from the containers in the stores that they didn't expect so they ran out of fuel, and the extraordinary cold that - I know it's always cold in Antarctica - but it was even colder than it - than normal. And it was that combination of taking risks, trying to do science, making mistakes and misfortune. And it took them all combined, because they came so close to getting back, only 11 miles from their supply depot.
Margins of safety which were so great that Scott and his men started overrunning their rations after only 4 days of being stuck at the foot of the Beardmore Glacier. Fuel leaking which Scott had seen first hand during the Discovery expedition and had done nothing about in the meantime. Compare Amundsen, who had seen the same problem in the North-West Passage, and actually solved it. Solomon's already been discredited, as far as I'm concerned.
After hyping up Ponting as the forerunner of Walt Disney and David Attenborough, he gets asked a hard question: Why weren't the bodies of Scott, Wilson, and Bowers brought back? People who died on polar expeditions before had been brought back whenever possible:Well, there were various reasons for that, but that's, I mean, look where they all ended? Shackleton and Amundsen also ended up in polar realms, and that's where their bodies lie. They had - first, it would have been awkward and difficult because then they'd have to - once they got them back, they'd have to bring them back on the ship. But here, they found them in the tent where they died. In a dramatic pose, actually, Wilson and Bowers are at the side in the attitude of sleep, and Scott is open with his arm flung out.
His sleeping bag half open, arms flung out across Wilson. They had with them the rocks, the geological specimens that they had collected. They had brought those all the way back to where they died. They had their diaries. They had their journals, which were written up, almost ready for publication. And it seemed fitting that at that place, they build a large cairn of ice.
Beating around the bush, and deliberately obscuring Amundsen's and Shackleton's ends. Shackleton's body was brought back to Rio, IIRC, then it was returned to South Georgia Island. As for Amundsen, he disappeared while being a real hero, so they couldn't even find him. Way to mislead everyone, Larsen. Also, you go by the storybook version of Scott's last camp. Quit sugarcoating, and mention that there was evidence of scurvy.
Then Larsen launches his greatest non-sequitur:Oh, they were tremendously interested in global warming because they had - by this time, during the 1800s, they discovered that Europe had once been covered by glaciers and that the shape of Europe was shaped by these glacial retreats. And they very much - it was very much part of the itinerary for the Discovery expedition and then the Nimrod and the Terra Nova was that this is one place where they could study the glaciers that are still of the size that were in Europe.
They noted the retreat, and they documented the retreat of the glaciers in Antarctica. They were talking about - they were trying to study how much it retreated, how it moved out of dry valleys. Scott had discovered the first dry valleys in the Antarctic during his Discovery expedition. They were documenting global warming, climate change over time.
Glacial science most likely didn't happen in the 1850's, quit lying. The reason the McMurdo Dry Valleys are dry is because of low humidity, and mountains blocking the ice sheet. Again, quit lying. Global warming as we know it? Absolutely not.
Larsen's made even more of a fool out of himself than before.
-
http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Local/2011-11-07/article-2797177/Antarctic-explorer-buried-in-Corner-Brook/1 (http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Local/2011-11-07/article-2797177/Antarctic-explorer-buried-in-Corner-Brook/1)
A great article about how another guy on the Terra Nova expedition got stranded and kept his men alive. This part of the article really says it all for me: "If Capt. Robert Falcon Scott had not perished in his attempt to be the first explorer to reach the South Pole in 1912, the name of Capt. Victor Campbell probably would not have been so overlooked by history." Exactly, and the same can be said for Shackleton and Amundsen. In 2012, we should be remembering people like him, though sadly I doubt the Scott media blitz will let anyone know about this man.
-
(http://g.api.no/obscura/pub/728x1000r/04044/1320854133000_20111109-094_4044326728x1000r.jpg)
I can just imagine the caption:
"Hey Amundsen, where did you get the plane?"
"I got it at the airport. There's a store there."
-
The Telegraph's travel section on Norway and Amundsen: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/norway/8879509/Roald-Amundsens-Norway.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/norway/8879509/Roald-Amundsens-Norway.html)
To be frank, I'm not impressed.
A hundred years ago next month, on December 14 1911, man reached the South Pole. It was one of the last and most obsessed-over trophies in the "heroic era" of terrestrial exploration. To the vexation of post-Edwardian England, the pole's discoverer was not their countryman, Capt Robert Falcon Scott, but a Norwegian, Roald Amundsen.
He got this much right. Amundsen still vexes England, as we can judge from the rest of this topic.
The story of Amundsen's expedition exemplifies either the ruthless endeavour of the consummate explorer or the duplicity of a pole-bagging bounder. It was arguably both. Amundsen's relentless professionalism and quick temper, as well as the fact that he duped everyone about his expedition's true intentions, do not make him an endearing figure, even in Norway. In one of the definitive matches between Gentlemen and Players, the Gentlemen appeared to have lost. Today, though, the story of those who came second is as well – if not better – known than the winner's tale.
Here we go again, slagging Amundsen. I wouldn't call Amundsen ruthless, he did have feeling, but he also didn't let it interfere with what he had to do. For the record, Amundsen decided to go for the South Pole before Scott announced his intentions, not after. He did indeed dupe nearly everyone (he had to let a few of his men in on the secret), but at the time Britain practically thought it had a deed to the Ross Sea, and if the Norwegian government (who technically owned the Fram) had any clue Amundsen was heading for the South Pole, they would have stopped him rather than risk offending Britain. Furthermore, if he isn't an endearing figure, why has Norway officially declared 2011 to be the Nansen-Amundsen Year? Amundsen was a professional, and not everyone liked him, but he was a nice guy, in my opinion. I never thought anyone could mix pragmatism and humor until I read The South Pole. Scott wasn't much of a gentleman, making snide comments about Amundsen and Shackleton pretty much at will. As for their story, Britain sure is trying hard to make sure Scott's story is told, while neglecting the stories of those like Campbell.
In Britain, his lectures were unassumingly entitled "How we reached the Pole"; in the US Amundsen was billed as "Discoverer of the South Pole and Winner in the International Race for the Southern Extremity of the Earth".
Yes, he had to drop any pretense of winning to get an audience in Britain. We Yanks were happy to give him the credit he deserved. We would remember him better than Britain would.
In the living room is a monochrome photograph of the English explorer Sir John Franklin, who in 1845 led an expedition to chart the Northwest Passage. He and his 126 companions disappeared without trace or explanation. It was a story that hijacked the imagination of the teenage Amundsen, and supplied the first set of bearings for the course his life would take.
A bit of a factual inaccuracy. We have some idea of what happened to the Franklin expedition, from Inuit stories and some discovered notes. We also know from consistent Inuit stories and archaeological evidence that at least some of the members resorted to cannibalism. Moving on:
Trygve Gran was now in the invidious position of competing with his compatriots. According to his son, Trygve would never have accompanied Scott had he known Amundsen's true intention. "But he always talked about Scott favourably," Herman told me. "He was very loyal. He never accused Scott of anything."
In all the controversy that swirls around the two expeditions, one of the most moving and perceptive epitaphs for Scott came from Trygve Gran. He was in the search party that found the frozen bodies of the British explorers. He wrote: "I almost envied Captain Scott as he lay on the field of honour. He had achieved something great for his country, for his family and indeed morally for the whole of mankind."
Of course, these comments are made after Scott's death is known to the public and the cover-up began. Everyone (except for Meares) got involved, including Gran. Everyone just ignored their own diaries and wrote fairy tales. Gran may have wanted to help England by writing this: as Huntford recounts, he made a promise to Oates to be on Britain's side should she be forced into another war. He kept it by flying with the RFC in Sopwith Camels. I think he wanted to continue keeping that promise in spirit. Still, this cannot discard Gran's statement in his diary after finding the rock samples on the sledge: "I think they might have saved themselves the weight".
In the end, honour is all.
Rather poignant, when held against Scott's and Bowers' falsification of their weather logs, eh?
-
http://news.coinupdate.com/commemorative-coin-marks-centenary-of-terra-nova-expedition-1050/ (http://news.coinupdate.com/commemorative-coin-marks-centenary-of-terra-nova-expedition-1050/)
Famous explorer Robert Falcon Scott’s name is synonymous with the Polar Regions, as he was the first pioneer to reach Antarctica in early 1902. It is only fitting that the British Antarctic Territory should issue this numismatic tribute and memorial to Scott’s historic expedition, especially since the UK has a 100 year record of direct observations of Antarctica. They have paved the way for globally significant discoveries about the ozone depletion, climate change and ocean currents, to name but a few.
Noteworthy errors/falsifications include: Scott was not the first to set foot on Antarctica. The first people to do so were a crew from the whaler Antarctic on January 24th, 1895. Ozone was only confirmed to theoretically exist in 1867, I seriously doubt anyone at this time knew it was even in the atmosphere. Climate change as we know it didn't exist as an issue. If anyone wants to see what others set foot on Antarctica before Scott, check out the comment I left there.
Update: The person who maintains the article has not only corrected the error about Scott being the first, but has made some wonderful suggestions. It's good to see that's there are a few good apples left in Great Britain.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/10/peter-scott-wildfowl-wetlands-trust?newsfeed=true (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/10/peter-scott-wildfowl-wetlands-trust?newsfeed=true)
Scott had achieved much before he died of a heart attack in 1989, just before his 80th birthday. The son of the Antarctic explorer Robert Falcon Scott, who died when he was just two, and Kathleen, a sculptor, he was a successful artist at a young age, got a Distinguished Service Order medal for bravery in the Royal navy in the second world war, wrote books, presented early radio and TV programmes, got a bronze medal for sailing in the 1936 Berlin Olympics, helped set up the World Wildlife Fund, and campaigned successfully for the Ramsar treaty to protect wetlands,
I'm not able to confirm the circumstances of Sir Peter Scott's DSO: Wikipedia lists it as a DSC. Unbelievably, the story about winning a bronze medal in the 1936 Olympics is confirmed by the medal lists at the official Olympics website. But once AGAIN: He. Did. Not. Found. The. World. Wildlife. Fund.
Update:When I checked a while ago, the WWF's website's history section made no mention of Sir Peter Scott. Now it does, and lists the Morges Manifesto with his signature. Looks like the WWF is riding Scott's wave, like others.
-
http://etenews.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Herald-Scott-06.07.11.jpg (http://etenews.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Herald-Scott-06.07.11.jpg)
http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20111017/NEWS07/710179930/-1 (http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20111017/NEWS07/710179930/-1)
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/10/peter-scott-wildfowl-wetlands-trust?newsfeed=true (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/10/peter-scott-wildfowl-wetlands-trust?newsfeed=true)
When the first article came out (in June 2011), I checked the WWF's history page on this site to confirm it. Sir Peter Scott was not mentioned.
I do not know when the WWF's history page was updated to confirm these statements, but what I do know is that for the past 5 months, I have assumed that statements about Sir Peter Scott and his involvement in the WWF were bold-faced lies. I do not find it impossible that the WWF might only have made confirmation this late: for example, an assertion was made in the first link that Captain Scott's work on the Terra Nova expedition contributed to measuring pesticide levels in penguins. There was no qualification, and the average reader after reading this article would believe that Captain Scott was measuring pesticide levels in penguins. The wording led me to make the smart-aleck remark that the last time I checked, there were no crops in Antarctica.
It was not until November 2nd that the statement was qualified, and it was done by the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15384729 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15384729) As it turns out, penguin skins collected during the Terra Nova expedition were used as control samples during DDT testing of penguins in the 1960s, which is something completely different.
And even when the articles have an element of truth, they play loose with the wording: the first 2 clearly indicate Sir Peter Scott was THE founder, instead of one of the FOUNDERS. He did become the first chairman, but that's not the same as the founder (singular). As far as I'm concerned, WWF should contact the media and inform them that playing loose with the wording like they have is a disservice to the others who put their faith and effort into founding the WWF.
Does anyone here remember reading the link to the WWF's history page when I first posted it, and not recall seeing Sir Peter Scott anywhere in it? I know one thing for certain: the link to the Morges Manifesto with Sir Peter Scott's signature wasn't there before.
Update:I made a mistake: it's the first 2 articles that play loose with the wording.
-
http://www.varsity.co.uk/lifestyle/4047 (http://www.varsity.co.uk/lifestyle/4047)
Hoo boy.
Fate, sacrifice and death in an unbearable cold. The discovery of the sixth continent.
Not quite, Antarctica was discovered long before. Sir James Clark Ross, anyone?
Two leaders and two countries in a fierce competition. “For God’s sake look after our people”.
Melodramatic, anyone?
Having been both celebrated as a hero and deemed an incompetent leader, it is now time to take a fresh look at Scott and his expedition. Scott’s last diary entry ends with the sentence: “For God’s sake look after our people” – what else can we gain from looking at the happenings other than the upwelling of strong emotions?
How about a talent for melodrama?
Take their diet as an example. “We now think that each man consumed between 3000 to 4000 calories too little every day, as moving at an altitude of 3000m consumes more energy than being at sea level,” Ms Lane explains. Scott simply could not have known this in advance, as no one else had been on that territory before.
Pfft. Shackleton made it to the Polar Plateau in 1908-9, Scott was in fact following his route. The SPRI must be embarrassed. Somehow, altitude didn't stop Amundsen, did it?
What if Scott had calculated food rations more generously?
However, unlike Amundsen’s team which had their sledges pulled by dogs, Scott and his men mostly moved the sledges themselves. Scott wanted to save the dogs for scientific explorations after their return from the Pole.
Scott kept changing the orders, and they were contradictory. Dogs not to be risked, yet have to go farther than planned?
What if Scott had abandoned his scientific interest in favour of the security of more dogs?
“If anything, the fact that Amundsen was first had an impact on their morale,” Ms Lane thinks. “Maybe they would otherwise have moved just a bit faster on their way back, and reached safety before complete exhaustion.” Surely, Scott had broader objectives than being the first on the South Pole. He wanted to contribute to science, and did not move particularly fast towards the South. Instead, he stopped to map and take probes.
Utterly wrong. Shackleton had already pioneered the route, in fact Wilson had a detailed map of Shackleton's route made from a pennant for reference.
What if Amundsen had not been first?
For Scott, polar expeditions were jobs that would benefit his career in the navy. For Amundsen, the only thing that counted was being first on the Pole – any Pole.
Initially, his expedition was headed for the North Pole. While he was preparing it, however, two American explorers, Frederick Cook and Robert Peary, announced to have been the first men on the North Pole in 1909. Amundsen quickly decided to go south instead. It was only once he was on the sea, that he made his changed plans public to his backers – and to Scott. As Heather Lane puts it: “It was only when Amundsen landed on the continent that it became a race.”
The last sentence is garbage. Amundsen expected the British press to jump on his announcement. Their response was inexplicably delayed, so Scott's first indication was a short telegram Amundsen sent him. More news about his expedition finally got through just before Scott sailed from New Zealand. In any case, Amundsen's exact destination was unknown. Scott knew it would be a race before he left New Zealand.
What if Amundsen had not changed his plans?
Scott’s return from the South Pole was exacerbated by bad luck. He faced the worst weather in a hundred years. Enduring temperatures of up to –50°C, they had 850 miles to cover until they would reach their winter camp. Getting weaker and weaker, they realised that the fuel they had left at their depots at 100-mile intervals had largely evaporated. “This meant no hot meals, no heating for the tents, and no melted water,” Ms Lane explains.
I'll spell it out for you: Solomon's. Falsified. "Research". Has. Been. Blown. Out. Of. The. Water.
"Solomon’s argument was that because the streak-1988 was observed then the streak-1912 was also observed by Captain Scott’s party. Now, it is self evident that Solomon as well as
those readers who were persuaded on this matter by her book and article fell into the trap of the retrospective Gambler’s
fallacy. There is no logically sound argument that just because streak-1988 occurred, streak-1912 also occurred." (Source: Sienicki, 2010, p.11 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1272))
The fuel evaporating was Scott's fault. The caps used were faulty and allowed leakage. He knew this first hand and did nothing, lying about the matter in his "Message to the Public". Here's an interesting point: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26013/#comment-227664 (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26013/#comment-227664)
Apparently, Scott's fuel tins were soldered with actual tin. The cold caused the tin to undergo an auto-catalytic conversion commonly known as "tin pest". End result: the seams fell apart.
About a day’s walk from the next depot, the remaining three men were halted by a fierce blizzard. It is now known to have been the worst in a hundred years. Unable to continue the journey, they wrote farewell letters. Scott’s diary ends on 29 March 1912 with the words: “For God’s sake look after our people.”
The blizzard never happened: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5355 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5355)
“All the quotes were taken out of context,” Ms Lane defends Scott. “Reading the entire diaries from his men it becomes clear that they liked him, and thought he was competent.”
I seriously doubt that. What about the interviews Oates' mother had with Meares?
-
http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/11/15/2560935/chip-kelly-oregon-nick-saban-alabama (http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/11/15/2560935/chip-kelly-oregon-nick-saban-alabama)
Guess who A stands for in this week's college alphabetical!
-
http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Local/2011-11-21/article-2810074/A-drink-for-the-old-captain-Local-veterans-pay-annual-tribute-to-Capt.-Victor-Campbell/1 (http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Local/2011-11-21/article-2810074/A-drink-for-the-old-captain-Local-veterans-pay-annual-tribute-to-Capt.-Victor-Campbell/1)
Another great article from the Western Star about Captain Victor Campbell. Give it a read.
-
http://explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?id=20512 (http://explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?id=20512)
According to this, Amundsen's still the king. Hail to the king, baby. 8)
-
http://spiritofamundsen.com/ (http://spiritofamundsen.com/)
A wonderful project. They'll be giving a concert to penguins on December 16th, and you can be part of the concert. You can record yourself singing a 5 second tone, send it in, and it'll be part of the concert. I've already done it myself.
-
http://www.norway.org/News_and_events/Culture/Travel/Celebrating-Roald-Amundsen-/ (http://www.norway.org/News_and_events/Culture/Travel/Celebrating-Roald-Amundsen-/)
Now this is special. The Nordmanns-forbundet in San Francisco are having a celebration of Amundsen on December 4. If there are any members of Nordmanns-forbundet here that can make it, give it a look.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/books/review/the-antarctic.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/books/review/the-antarctic.html)
The New York Times review of The Lost Photographs Of Captain Scott: Unseen Photographs From the Legendary Antarctic Expedition. An brief, but excellent review, which is not afraid to point out Scott's amateurism, and confirms what I've said before; that not all of the photographs in the book were "lost" until now.
-
http://explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?id=20520 (http://explorersweb.com/polar/news.php?id=20520)
On this day 100 years ago, Amundsen feels at home in whiteout conditions, while Scott feels the heat of a warm spell where the temperature gets above 0 C. (Yes, technically Amundsen's diary entry in the article is for yesterday, but the people at Explorer's Web have decided to state his dates as he originally wrote them.)
-
100 years ago yesterday, Amundsen passed Shackleton's Furthest South. The reaching of the South Pole was only 1 week away...
-
Monument to the Norwegian polar party to be unveiled December 14 by King Harald: http://www.frammuseum.no/News/STORT-SYDPOLSMONUMENT.aspx (http://www.frammuseum.no/News/STORT-SYDPOLSMONUMENT.aspx)
-
http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/289344/Race-to-the-south-pole-Was-Scott-the-true-victor- (http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/289344/Race-to-the-south-pole-Was-Scott-the-true-victor-)
With the 100th anniversary of Amundsen's triumph fast approaching, the British press cranks up into propaganda mode. After emotional rhetoric: His Norwegian competitor had no such fine words. In his final Message To The Public, Scott said: “The causes of the disaster are not due to faulty organisation but to misfortune...”
Amundsen’s general view of fortune and misfortune was rather different: “Victory awaits those who have everything in order,” he wrote.
“People call this luck. Defeat awaits those who fail to make the necessary precautions. This is known as bad luck.”
That is what it came down to for these two men. The words themselves are fine and true, since they illustrate what happened to Amundsen and Scott perfectly.
Then the accusation of lying: Before comparing the two men – the one who got there first and back safely and the one who died–let it be remembered that Amundsen’s victory in “the race to the Pole” was partly the result of a trick and a lie.
Scott’s planned mission to Antarctica was well known; Amundsen was bound for the North Pole, or so he had told everyone including his crew.
Scott had even sent Amundsen instruments for comparative recordings of the south and north poles. Amundsen had presented his project to the world as involving science in the Arctic.
Instead he headed south and only when he knew Scott could not catch him up did he send a telegram: “Madeira. Am going south. Amundsen.”
I'd love to see the source saying Scott sending Amundsen equipment. Amundsen realized that the glory of reaching the North Pole was gone since others (Cook and Peary) had made claims on it. Instead, he decided to switch to the South Pole, for there would be a real achievement. He had to keep it secret: small countries like Norway were afraid of offending a globe-spanning empire (albeit one that was decaying) and if the Norwegian government had learned about his switching Poles (the Norwegian government technically did own Amundsen's ship, the Fram), they would have stopped him. So he had to keep it secret if he wanted to achieve it.
Then to the science:Though it has always been billed as a “race to the Pole” Scott’s objectives were very different from Amundsen’s.
The Norwegian had one ambition only – to get there first. That was only part of Scott’s aim.
He set sail with the most impressive collection of scientists ever assembled for such a voyage.
A mixture of acknowledged experts and keen youngsters, they went to find and return with material that would extend knowledge about the flora and fauna of Antarctica, its geography, glaciology, oceanography and meteorology.
He combined the twin ambitions of his era: to reach places nobody had reached before and to return with material that would increase human knowledge.
Amundsen’s expedition produced two photographs: Scott’s Terra Nova expedition included photographer and film-maker Herbert Ponting who filmed animals never before filmed and produced some of the most beautiful images of Antarctica ever taken.
EDWARD WILSON, Scott’s great friend who died with him, made breathtaking drawings of birds.
The expedition delivered examples of 2,109 animals and fish, 401 of which had never been seen before. They also collected a huge number of rock samples, Emperor penguin eggs and plant fossils.
The discovery of a fossilised fern-like plant called a Glossopteris, which grew on what was then known as the Southern Continent (Australia, New Zealand, India) suggested that at one time they were connected by land.
Fossilised wood and leaves collected by Scott and Wilson were found where they died – these proved that at one time (250 million years ago) the weather had been temperate enough to support trees.
Again, would love to see sources for the number of animals. The third Fram Expedition produced more than 2 photographs; in fact, it produced at least 266: http://www.flickr.com/photos/frammuseet/sets/72157625513387423/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/frammuseet/sets/72157625513387423/) I've said enough about the Glossopteris fossil.
To think of Scott as the loser in the race to the Pole is to ignore his scientific legacy.
It was Scott who connected Antarctica with the rest of the world – a connection we now understand as crucial.
And to focus on and exaggerate Scott's jeopardized research is to ignore Amundsen's even more important-if indirect-scientific legacy. Amundsen, with his example of careful planning, dog teams, and safety margins, showed all those who went after him how to live, thus making so many of the scientific achievements in Antarctica a reality. Scott merely showed those who went after him how to die-something that those people already had a good idea of how to do. Who contributed more to science in the long run?
But whatever Amundsen said about luck, Scott did seem to have been the victim of terrible misfortune.
On the return journey from the Pole he was hit by freakish bad weather that no one could have predicted.
It was at least 10 degrees colder than it should have been.
Those who speak worst about him are those who dislike the virtues that were held in high regard as particularly British.
There was a tendency in the late mid-20th century to regard him as an unheroic failure.
But as anyone going to the various centenary exhibitions will see – and anyone reading his journals will understand – he was a very brave man with lofty aims taking on forces at which the rest of us can only wonder.
The only misfortune Scott went through was in his falsified weather logs. No mention of Solomon? I'm surprised it didn't mention her: propaganda usually works best when it's based on distorted truth.
In other news: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-north-won-him-the-south/article2267447/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadas-north-won-him-the-south/article2267447/)
The Canadians are riding Amundsen's coat tails. And I say, why not? Their Arctic lands and peoples had much to teach him.
-
100 years ago today, the last of the great geographical goals on earth was reached.
"The mists were upon us day after day, week after week-the mists that are kind to little men and swallow up all that is great and towers above them.
Suddenly a bright spring day cuts through the bank of fog. There is a new message. People stop again and look up. High above them shines a deed, a man. A wave of joy runs through the souls of men; their eyes are bright as the flags that wave about them." Fridtjof Nansen, foreword to The South Pole.
"On days like this, everything is changed... It is more warmth and pride that we feel that we are all children of the same, happy country. Smiles are more frequent-in bold men's deeds we are richer and more united and happier.
Ay yes-at one blow, we are far forwards!" Oslo columnist, quoted in Huntford's The Last Place On Earth.
Roald Amundsen, Sverre Hassel, Olav Bjaaland, Oscar Wisting, Helmer Hanssen, you did it. Hail to all of you.
-
It was a feat .. humans should always have some goal like this in front of them, else we're zombies.
(like my eyes had fore-scanned your sentence initially: High above them shines a dead man. ... eh, what? :D)