Editing Robert Peary (section)

===Criticisms===
{{see also|Peary Channel (Greenland)}}
{{more citations needed|date=April 2019}}

====Omissions in navigational documentation====
The party that accompanied Peary on the final stage of the journey did not include anyone trained in navigation who could either confirm or contradict Peary's own navigational work. This was further exacerbated by Peary's failure to produce records of observed data for steering, for the direction ("[[Magnetic declination|variation]]") of the compass, for his longitudinal position at any time, or for zeroing-in on the pole either latitudinally or transversely beyond Bartlett Camp.<ref>Herbert, 1989; Rawlins, [http://www.dioi.org/cot.htm#wpst Contributions]</ref>

====Inconsistent speeds====
[[File:PearyBartlett.png|thumb|alt= Photograph of Peary and Robert Bartlett | Peary and Robert Bartlett at [[Battle Harbour]] in 1909]]
The last five marches when Peary was accompanied by a navigator (Capt. Bob Bartlett) averaged no better than {{convert|13|mi|abbr=on}} marching north. But once the last support party turned back at "Camp Bartlett", where Bartlett was ordered southward, at least {{convert|133|nmi|abbr=on}} from the pole, Peary's claimed speeds immediately doubled for the five marches to Camp Jesup. The recorded speeds quadrupled during the two and a half-day return to Camp Bartlett&nbsp;– at which point his speed slowed drastically. Peary's account of a beeline journey to the pole and back—which would have assisted his claim of such speed—is contradicted by his companion Henson's account of tortured detours to avoid "pressure ridges" (ice floes' rough edges, often a few meters high) and "leads" (open water between those floes).

In his official report, Peary claimed to have traveled a total of 304 nautical miles between April 2, 1909, (when he left Bartlett's last camp) and April 9 (when he returned there), {{convert|133|nmi|abbr=on}} to the pole, the same distance back, and {{convert|38|nmi|abbr=on}} in the vicinity of the pole.{{citation needed|date=November 2016}} These distances are counted without detours due to drift, leads and difficult ice, i.e. the distance traveled must have been significantly higher to make good the distance claimed.{{citation needed|date=April 2013}} Peary and his party arrived back in Cape Columbia on the morning of April 23, 1909, only about two and a half days after Capt Bartlett, yet Peary claimed he had traveled a minimum of {{convert|304|nmi|abbr=on}} more than Bartlett (to the Pole and vicinity).{{citation needed|date=April 2013}}

The conflicting and unverified claims of Cook and Peary prompted [[Roald Amundsen]] to take extensive precautions in navigation during [[Amundsen's South Pole expedition]] so as to leave no room for doubt concerning his 1911 attainment of the [[South Pole]], which—like [[Robert Falcon Scott]]'s a month later in 1912—was supported by the sextant, [[theodolite]], and compass observations of several other navigators.

====Review of Peary's diary====
[[File:Diary of Robert E. Peary - NARA - 304960.jpg|thumb|upright=1.0|alt= Photograph of Peary's diary entry for his arrival at the North pole | Peary's diary entry for arrival at the [[North Pole]]]]
The diary that Robert E. Peary kept on his 1909 polar expedition was finally made available for research in 1986. Historian [[Larry Schweikart]] examined it, finding that: the writing was consistent throughout (giving no evidence of post-expedition alteration), there were consistent [[pemmican]] and other stains on all pages, and all evidence was consistent with a conclusion that Peary's observations were made on the spot he claimed. Schweikart compared the reports and experiences of Japanese explorer [[Naomi Uemura]], who reached the North Pole alone in 1978, to those of Peary and found they were consistent.<ref>{{Cite journal | url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24447539 | first=Larry | last=Schweikart | authorlink=Larry Schweikart | title=Polar Revisionism and the Peary Claim: The Diary of Robert E. Peary | journal=The Historian | date=May 1986| volume=48 | issue=3 | pages=341–358 | doi=10.1111/j.1540-6563.1986.tb00698.x | jstor=24447539 }}</ref> However, Peary made no entries in the diary on the crucial days of April 6 and 7, 1909, and his famous words "The Pole at Last!", allegedly written in his diary at the pole, were written on loose slips of paper that were inserted into the diary.

====1984 and 1989 National Geographic Society studies====
In 1984, the [[National Geographic Society]] (NGS), a major sponsor of Peary's expeditions, commissioned [[Wally Herbert]], an Arctic explorer himself, to write an assessment of Peary's original 1909 diary and astronomical observations. As Herbert researched the material, he came to believe that Peary falsified his records and concluded that he did not reach the North Pole.<ref name=Doubts/> His book, ''The Noose of Laurels'', caused a furor when it was published in 1989. If Peary did not reach the pole in 1909, Herbert would claim the record of being the first to reach the pole on foot.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/13/books/not-quite-on-top-of-the-world.html | title=NOT QUITE ON TOP OF THE WORLD | first=Katherine | last=Bouton | work=[[The New York Times]] | date=August 13, 1989}}</ref><ref name=Noose/>

In 1989, the NGS also conducted a two-dimensional photogrammetric analysis of the shadows in photographs and a review of ocean depth measures taken by Peary; its staff concluded that he was no more than {{convert|5|mi|abbr=on|0}} away from the pole. Peary's original camera, a 1908 #4 Folding Pocket [[Kodak]], did not survive. As such cameras were made with at least six different lenses from various manufacturers, the focal length of the lens, and hence the shadow analysis based on it, must be considered uncertain at best. The NGS has never released Peary's photos for an independent analysis. Specialists questioned the conclusions of the NGS. The NGS commissioned the Foundation for the Promotion of the Art of Navigation to resolve the issue, which concluded that Peary had indeed reached the North Pole.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/12/us/peary-made-it-to-the-pole-after-all-study-concludes.html | title=Peary Made It to the Pole After All, Study Concludes | first=Warren E. | last=Leary | work=[[The New York Times]] | date=August 13, 1989}}</ref><ref name=First/><ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/06/09/pearys-polar-mystery/7655c951-fb71-423d-a6c7-c5b75f9817fe/ | title=PEARY'S POLAR MYSTERY | first=Boyce | last=Rensberger | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=June 9, 1991}}</ref>

====Review of depth soundings====
Supporters of Peary and Henson assert that the depth soundings they made on the outward journey have been matched by recent surveys, and so their claim of having reached the Pole is confirmed.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://matthewhenson.com/northpoleproofDEPTH2.htm | url-status=usurped | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020603060320/https://matthewhenson.com/northpoleproofDEPTH2.htm | archive-date=June 3, 2002 | title=Proof Henson & Peary reached Pole (1909 Depth Soundings) | date=August 16, 2022 | publisher=[[Matthew Henson]]}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Since only the first few of the Peary party's soundings, taken nearest the shore, touched bottom; experts have said their usefulness is limited to showing that he was above deep water. Peary's expedition possessed 4,000 fathoms of sounding line, but he took only 2,000 with him over an ocean already established as being deeper in many regions. Peary stated in 1909 Congressional hearings about the expedition that he made no longitudinal observations during his trip, only latitude observations, yet he maintained he stayed on the "Columbia meridian" all along, and that his soundings were made on this meridian.{{citation needed|date=October 2013}} The pack ice was moving all the time, so he had no way of knowing where he was without longitudinal observations.{{citation needed|date=October 2013}}