The Lamar register., 1909-12-01
COOK DENOUNCED
AS AN lMPOST0R
WALTER WELLMAN, EXPLORER
AND JOURNALIST, DECLARES
COOKS STORY FALSE.
IIIEERA7ELY FAXED
SAYS THE JOURNEY HE CLAIMS
TO HAVE MADE is AN
IMPossIsILITY.


whose preparations for conquest of
the North pole In an airship were
abandoned. he says. upon the an
nouncement of the claims of DR.. Fred
erick A. Cook and Commander Robert
e Peary. has issued long statement
in which he analyses the narratives Of
the two explorers. declaring that Of
Peary precise. workmanlike, consist
emit, credible in every particular" and
denouncing that OF DR.. Cook as a self
evident and even deliberate impos-
ture."
Cooks story is suspicious both in
what 1t does tell and what 1t does not
tell" Mr.. Wellman declares. He 10
generally vague and indefinite. but.
like most men of his class. altogether
too precise at the wrong place. No
where does his story ring true. 1t is
always an approximation Of reality it.
self. This is true of his figures. his
descriptions of everything.
Those of us who have had q share
in Arctic work and who have felt anx-
iety that no blot of fraud should stain
the proud record Of effort and sacri.
flee had a first hope that DR.. Cook
would be able to demonstrate his good
faith.
This has dissolved in analysis Of
his own story. second hope. that he
was the victim Of some hallucination
or mental illness, and himself believed
he had been to the pole. though of
course he has not, vanishes In the
light Of earlier and subsequent events.
there remains. though. one says II
with keenest regret. only the wretched
alternative that the journey which he
did make. and the report which he
gave of 1t. were deliberately planned
from the outset"
The gist of Mr.. Wellman's finding IL
that with his meager party and equip
ment DR.. Cook could not possibly have
accomplished the feat for which he
claims credit. that his astronomical
data are too infinitely precise to have
been made under the claimed condi-
lions in the field. and that the ex-
plorers dash for the lecture platform
and his acceptance of crowns Of flow
ers placed upon his head by innocent
women and children" before submit
ting his field records to scientific ex-
animation all conspire to his discredit.
Mr.. wellman first attacks Cooks
story OF his journey. He points out
that Arctic sledging is not new ven
ture. nor an experiment. but has been
reduced almost to a science.
He says that the first thing to be
done In advancing over the ice fields
10 the reduction to the minimum of the
food and fuel to be carried. and, sec
ondly. the organization of supporting
parties that can be sent back from the
dwindling main body. until the few
who are hardest enter on the final
struggle to the goal
The longer the route. he sets forth.
and fuel. and in consequence a much
slower pace.
Basing his argument mainly on
these principles, Mr.. Wellman takes
up a comparison of the supposed
achievements of Peary and Cook. He
quotes from the records to show that
the former took his ship within 400
miles Of the pole. advishcing supplies
and his party four miles closer during
the autumn and spring. Cook. he
points out. started from Annatok. TOO
geographical miles from the pole, and
went 10 geographical miles westward
before turning northward. according to
his own story.
Peary. Wellman continues, mapped
out his plans carefully for the advance
and started with fifty or sixty men,
40 dogs and twenty-one sledges. He
divided his party SO that he had four
supporting parties who kept open the
back trail. and in leaving the main
body. lightened the loads the men and
dogs were compelled to draw.
DR.. Cook had no supporting party,
says Wcllman. except for the first
three days. His party consisted of
three men. twenty-six dogs and two
sledges in the long dash he made.
That which he claims to have
DONE" declares Mr.. wellman, refer
ring to Cook. with his equipment and
organization. was physically impos.
sible. 1t is beyond human power"