[at-l] Boy Scout Debate

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

Jim Lynch:
>Its very difficult (impossible?) to prove a negative. That's why we ask
>for evidence (factual, repeatable, verifiable...) that someone *did*
>something. We don't ask others to gather evidence that they did not.

Yep!  TO BE ON RECORD AS THE 1ST PERSON IN HISTORY TO HAVE DONE SOMETHING, 
THERE SHOULD BE A "RECORD" (beyond your own word) THAT YOU ACTALLY DID 
IT.   Seems like basic logic to me.

R&R:
>I've re-read the ATN article and it suddenly struck me that maybe aging
>Max remembered the hike dates incorrectly. ....

I've considered that he might even have had the year wrong but how far are 
we going to make allowances for his lack any supporting evidence?  Note 
that Weary has told us that the answer to how often is the AT in Maine 
mostly snow covered in June is "never".

More R&R:
>I suspect that even some of Max Gordon's worst critics are bugged by some
>of his background and comments about his hike. There's definitely a conflict
>here where something has to be wrong one way or the other. My thoughts here
>are that Max wasn't written off as a nut immediately because he provided us
>just enough facts to make us wonder. His background raises questions of
>whether what he is saying is actually true or not. Let's look at some of the
>reasons we have trouble dismissing Max:

But the other hiking exploits he tells about (50 out of 52 weekends, 72 
miles in 18 hours) that are quoted as lending credence to his claim also 
require that we believe what he says in the absence of evidence.  I don't 
think he was deliberately lying or a nut but I don't think reversing the 
burden of proof is a fair or accurate way to record the early history of 
the trail.  Note: It was not immediately accepted for inclusion on the list 
after publication of the article.  Read "Paper Trail" on page 7 of the 
March/April 2001 ATN for an explanation of why it was added to the list 6 
years after the article.

Rami:
>For NO ONE to have tried to claim this prize, would have required all 6 of 
>the scouts plus Mr. O'Grady (described as always there when needed, and 
>very persuasive) and the Vet support crew plus all of the associated 
>family members to go against this nature.
>Had this been described as a "communal nature walk" rather than a 
>publicity event, I would have no difficulty with the fact that it never 
>came to light until nearly 60 years after the fact. I'm not saying it 
>couldn't have happened, look at the Navajo Code Talkers as an example 
>where dozens of people kept a secret for decades, but we're not talking 
>about a secret are we? We're talking about an *event* which was organized 
>as being for publicity not secret.

Very true.

Rami:
>8) The pin given to him in North Carolina is material evidence and it has
>a memory attached. One is left to ask, "how did they get to NC if indeed they
>were trying to hike down the AT? Maybe Mr McQueen's descendants could
>elaborate?
>
>[Rami:] Is this really material evidence? Does it have an inscription 
>which identifies it as being from Mr. McQueen from NC in 1936? Could it be 
>a trinket which has no connection at all?

Also true.  We have only his word that is where and when it was given to him.

R&R:
>*** WWll was so psychologically traumatizing that it caused the Trail to
>go unattended for almost a decade. This same societal tumult that took at
>least two of the hike partcipants lives was probably a big shock back then
>and set many things back or even erased them from immediate concern. Coming
>so close to the alleged hike it probably overwhelmed it and made it
>insignificant in their memories.

But the hike happened before WWII while the AT was still being built, not 
during a decade of neglect.

Weary:
>Possibly the original goal was to do "all" the trail. The fact that they 
>didn't
>may explain why the adventure -- planned as a promotion -- never was 
>publicized.
>Nor, does the fact that his school mates suddenly looked on him with new 
>respect
>upon his return tell me anything about the the nature of the adventure. If 
>they
>spent 121 days, the Scouts had hiked at least 1,000 miles -- certainly far
>enough to win the awe of Bronx compatriots.
>I occasionally tell the story of Tux, who I met in 1993. After hiking 800 
>miles
>and losing 50 pounds, his doctor told him to throw away his heart 
>medicine. He
>did so, and then quit the trail.
>Thru hikers who hear the story aren't impressed. Others are amazed. "Wow," 
>they
>say, "he actually hiked 800 miles!"
>At age 15 in 1944, I was by far the youngest of several kids who rode our 
>bikes
>on a 250 mile round trip to a campground in the shadow of the 
>Presidentials. We
>spent two weeks hiking daily. I have but the vaguest memories of the 
>trails we
>took. I remember watching a sunrise on Mt. Washington. I know we did a 
>traverse
>of the range, but the trails to the summit are a complete mystery. I was just
>tagging along. Wherever others went, I went.
>My suspicion is that Max was in the same boat. It may not be fading memory 
>that
>blocks the details. He may have never bothered to notice in the first place.

I think Weary has pegged it.  They set out to do it all and quite probably 
did a lot of it, perhaps even most of it.  When they didn't do it all "Pop" 
O'Grady put the best face on it to make the boys feel good about their 
achievement as something to be proud of (as well they should) and 
undoubtedly the schoolmates would be duly impressed by a hike of 800, 1000 
or even 1500 miles.  It would have the effect on his classmates, teachers 
and his self confidence that he reports but would not have rated reporting 
to the ATC or to the media as a BSA thru-hike coup.

FACT: So far there is nothing that constitutes a record of Max's alleged 
thru or even objective anecdotal evidence that supports his claim.  All we 
have is his story which doesn't mention Katadhin or the Kennebeck (the 
start of his alleged epic journey and the first major obstacle) and spotty 
memories that include some extreme weather that is unlikely to have 
happened according to weather records and the norms of weather in Maine and 
NH during the period of time he alleged the hike occurred.

Yes, one can quote all kinds of unusual weather possibilities that might 
have gone unrecorded but it's twisted logic to say that one possible but 
unlikely and  unrecorded event is 'evidence' in support of another 
undocumented and somewhat questionable alleged event.  It is even possible 
to demonstrate that the claim might be credible if we assume that he was 
mistaken about the month (or perhaps the year) but we are back to the 
illogic of using one factual error regarding one detail to support the 
credibility of other questionable details.

The ATC may wish they never set themselves up as keeper of the 'who 
thru-hiked first' records but the fact is they did when they demanded proof 
from Earl.  When they decided to cease requiring evidence in 1973 it was 
because the possibility of a thru had not only been demonstrated but was 
being to become relatively routine and reviewing the evidence was taxing 
their resources.  I wonder if they actually contemplated (in 1973) applying 
that policy retroactively to claims that would predate Earl's hike?  I 
seriously doubt it, but in doing so they have effectively applied a 
standard that is the complete reverse of what they applied to Earl.  The 
burden of proof should be on those advocating its inclusion.

I do not believe that Max's claim can be either proven or disproved at this 
late point in time.  I think the ATN article was entirely appropriate but 
it was absurd for the ATC to list it on their database of thru hikes by 
applying the 1973 policy retroactively and now suggesting that those who 
fault them for their absurd decision should undertake the impossible task 
of disproving it.  When they asked his thoughts on the matter Earl's 
response that he considered his thru as secondary to his WWI service 
demonstrated what a great (and humble) soul Earl was.  I only wish that the 
ATC had chosen to honor his service to the country  and the AT by requiring 
an equal standard of evidence for any claims of thrus that allege to 
predate his.

sAunTerer