[at-l] What I hope to be my last post on the 1st Thru (long)

[saunterer@jimbullard.org (saunterer@jimbullard.org)]

rafe:
>Last year (if memory serves) I had to turn back during a planned overnight 
>hike in the Whites, on Memorial Day weekend -- due to VERY deep snow.

moi:
I hear ya!  When climbing the Adirondack 46 (which have a climate similar 
to the Whites and Northern Maine) I saw ice storms in late June, a blizzard 
on the summit of Seymore on the 1st of June, and snow patches as late as 
mid June.  The 1st year I was a lean-to adopter I post-holed in wet snow to 
my crotch (wearing shorts even) but that was mid May and was limited to 
sheltered high areas.  I have never seen the trails mostly covered with 
drifted snow in June.  I know that doesn't mean it was impossible and I 
wasn't trying to "prove" that it was.  I was looking for "evidence" (one 
way or the other) regarding Max Gordon's claim.  The evidence I found 
suggests that while there was slightly more snow than average, it was not 
an unusually high snow year and there was an unusually warm March with 
accompanying rains and record flooding with negligible snowfall in 
April.  That 'suggests' to me that unless it is common for the AT to be 
snow covered in June, the report is questionable.

R&R:
>You have to be careful here. I'm sure the Maine records are taken at the 
>capitol or Portland at a very low altitude

moi:
That's an assumption unless you have evidence.  I presented the evidence I 
found in my research.  Discounting evidence with assumptions is not 
furthering anything.  Even if that's true the charts compare weather data 
from 1936 to weather data up through the present.  How often is it true 
that there is snow on most the AT in June that is drifted and requires 
breaking trail?

R&R:
>Besides that, a mean temperature of 34 degrees means it got down to 24 at 
>night, in the mountains maybe even 7 degrees.

moi:
True, the temperatures undoubtedly were colder at night but they also had 
to be warmer during the day.  When the mean temperature is above freezing 
snow melts, it does not accumulate.

Weary:
>I try to avoid these purism debates, but I remember once reading an 
>analysis of
>Eric's accounts that were pretty persuasively negative.

moi:
This isn't about "purism".  It's a question of whether or not Max Gordon 
and 5 other scouts actually hiked from the summit of Katadhin to the summit 
of Oglethorpe thereby being the 1st "thru-hikers".  I couldn't care less if 
they road walked around a flooding Kennebeck (it would be nice if he at 
least remembered the Kennebeck & Katadhin) or if they missed white blazes 
(which weren't white blazes then but metal diamond markers).

Rami:
>I believe that this is the right approach to take but lets take it from 
>*both* perspectives.
>Yes there isn't enough proof to say that they didn't set foot on the trail
>There also isn't enough evidence to say that they did.
>One photograph from Bear Mtn. and the recollections of one, now deceased, 
>man.
>Lets not go overboard on the "devil's advocate" approach.

moi:
Exactly!  He says his scout troop hiked on the AT in NY prior to the 
alleged thru.  When was the photo taken?  Is it dated?  What other evidence 
can be found for or against the claim?  Being a 'devil's advocate' is just 
speculation.  We're talking about evidence for or against.

Bryan:
>I was rather skeptical but I haven't seen anything that
>definitively proves that they didn't do it. You have to allow some
>wiggle room for someone who is recalling something that happened more
>than 50 years prior to the telling.

moi:
Like the wiggle room the ATC allowed Earl?

Sloetoe:
>As I've said before, Max & Co. are like Lief Erikson: whether
>they hit North America before Columbus is immaterial: it was the
>other guy who made the splash last. Earl is our Columbus, and
>whether there's a Lief out there or not, Earl changed history.

moi:
And I would be happy to grant Max and his 5 friends the same historic 
status as Lief (for whom there is more evidence than Max has left us).

Jim:
>Y'all want to keep in mind that there's no question that Max Gordon spent 
>time on the Trail, so the purpose of the exercise isn't to prove that he 
>wasn't there or even that he WAS there.
>The only useful purpose would be to PROVE that he and the other Scouts 
>actually hiked from Maine to Georgia. Nothing else would be sufficient to 
>meet the ALDHA statement -
>"UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVEN, Earl is the first thruhiker."
>That statement was written deliberately and with malice aforethought to 
>require actual proof - as opposed to opinion. Eyewitness accounts, 
>journals, pictures, newspaper articles, Scout records, ATC records, 
>shelter registers, etc -- any or all of these or other sources -- 
>independent of Max Gordon's statement would be required. Speculation, 
>supposition, guesswork, probability and/or circumstantial evidence are not 
>sufficient.
>And yes - I believe it WOULD have to be "proven" - Earl had to "prove" his 
>hike, as did others who followed him over the next 20+ years. There's no 
>logical reason to apply the later ATC standards of "we'll take your word 
>for it."

Hear, hear!  The ATC told Earl (in essence) 'We don't believe you.  Prove 
that you did it'.  Earl did and went on not only be an inspiration to 
future thru-hikers, he gave much of his time in service to the trail.  Now 
Max Gordon comes along and says 'I actually did it first with 5 friends' 
and the ATC says (in essence) 'we can't be bothered to verify your 
claim.  We will credit you with being first unless someone can prove you 
didn't'.  In other words they applied the exact opposite standard to Max 
Gordon from what they required of Earl.  If anyone wants to believe Mr. 
Gordon's claim sans proof, they are perfectly entitled to, however I think 
that the ATC's actions in accepting the claim are wrong.

Although they list the alleged hike as the 1st with a footnote of 
"unverified", it is never-the-less listed as the 1st thru in the ATC 
records and it is their records that count to future researchers of AT 
history.  I have no problem with ATN publishing the article.  I do have a 
problem with their applying a principle of "disprove it" (which is 
virtually impossible) to Mr. Gordon after requiring Earl to "prove it".

sAunTerer