Camping | Wally 1 | Wally 2 | Wally 3 | Noose | Royal | Bartlett? | Diary | Rawlins | Peary | Home
Quotes about Wally by his royal friends and by his royal self!

Below are actual quotes taken from the official Wally Herbert website that we find rather odd...





 
"...'the greatest polar explorer of our time', according to Sir Ranulph Fiennes"
What did Wally explore? No matter; Fiennes himself failed numerous times to reach the North Pole, ending when he cut off his fingertips. Is he an explorer? He says he is not. Yet he was quoted asserting Henson could never have reached the Pole. How would he know? (Photo, right,  from MIND OVER MATTER)
"...a 'phenomenon' according to the late Lord Shackleton"

Shackelton, a dramatic failure in classic British Polar style, died years before Wally was born. So apparently one of Shackelton's descendents said this? But does that count?
"... we should have him stuffed..." says Prince Charles
Many people are interested in stuffing Wally. Please donate money to the "Stuff Herbert Fund"; contact this website for details.
"... What does modest Wally say about Wally?
(from his website keywords)...says he is an 'Artist, Painter, Portrait, Writer, Writing, Author, Guinness Book Of Records, Record Breaker, Record, Who's Who, Last Great Journey On Earth, Rear-Admiral Robert E. Peary, Dr. Fredrick A. Cook, Dr. Fridtjof Nansen, Sir Ernest Shackleton, Captain Robert Falcon Scott, Captain Roald Amundsen, Scott, Shackleton, Amundsen, Peary, Cook, Nansen, Herbert, Wally, Wally Herbert, Complex Web Design" Wow.

(above) Herbert on his 1969 polar camping marathon.
British man-haulers on the Capt. Scott death march to the South Pole in 1913. Scott's bungling was much criticized during the investigations that followed this tragedy. Scott is nevertheless a hero for reasons only the English can explain.
18 of Shackelton's men worked for a week to move 2 boats 7 miles. Shackelton was a miserable failure, yet he is loved in Britain for his efforts to save his men.
Herbert concocted his "evidence" that Peary failed to reach the Pole through his description of Peary's diary. This is an old trick that is used by politicians, and by lawyers in court. Basically you do not let the other side see the evidence, but instead give them your interpretation or "spin" on it. What Herbert did with the Peary diary in the US National Archives was an egregious mischaracterization of an historical document. To repair this damage the entire Peary diary is being prepared for web viewing so that this dirty trick can never be attempted again. (V. R. 2002)
Did the National Geographic Society (NGS) know that Herbert had a correspondence history with Cook-Peary vendetta chieftain Helene Vetters? No? Here is a summary of a Cook Society file on the writer the NGS choose to study Peary. Don't laugh, now. We wouldn't want Gil Grosvenor to feel stupid, right?
COOK SOCIETY FILE: Herbert, Wally, 1966, 1968-1972 note: he was head of the British Trans-Arctic Expedition. The purpose of the expedition was to retrace Cook's route from N. W. Greenland...to the Northern tip of Axel Heiberg Island correspondence between H. Levin and W. Herbert, re: the above expedition, which Levin forwarded to H. Vetter correspondence between Herbert and others clippings by or about Herbert H. Vetter's notes excerpts from Across the Top of the World, Herbert's book, re: the British Trans-Arctic Expedition In Amundsen's Track on the Axel Heiberg Glacier, by Herbert, and autographed by him to H. Vetter, 1966 (reprinted from Geographical Journal, vol. 129, part 4, December, 1963

As bizarre as all this sounds, it really happened.

1) First, the NGS was upset about the Peary damning TV movie, Cook & Peary, then hired a writer who schmoozed with Helene Vetters (Cook Society) to investigate Peary. (akin to letting the anti-Peary Cook Society investigate Peary)

2) Herbert was paid by the NGS and, making the most of this opportunity, tried to topple Peary with much more than a mere magazine article. He produced a full length pseudo-history book that appeared to be based upon research.

3) Noose of Laurels was on the way to publication when the NGS had no choice but to print the Herbert article in a 1988 issue. (They say, figuratively, "he put a gun to their head") BANG! Peary had been shot down with a weapon given him by the geniuses at the NGS.

4) When Noose of Laurels came out it delighted English people (as well as the Cook Society), outraged Gil Grosvenor of the NGS, perverted American history, and alienated numerous people who had innocently helped Herbert.

Wally Herbert is a British citizen.
He realized that if he pushed Peary off the American North Pole pedestal he could claim his own 1969 (British) dog sledge trip as first to reach the North Pole. So he wrote a book comprised of a mass of slurs & innuendos towards Peary (his mother dressed him as a girl, he was too obsessed with fame, he took the "unreliable witness" Henson (a Negro) to the Pole, Peary was a "weather beaten old fanatic, etc.) and a theory that the expedition drifted west. It was all sensational, but wrong.

How could Herbert try to repudiate the findings of the Royal Geographical Society of Great Britain from 75 years ago? Think about that for a moment. Those men had first hand access to Peary, Bartlett, and all their records. Everyone knew Bartlett had traveled to within 133 nautical miles of the Pole. Peary left Bartlett's camp for the North Pole in good weather with their most skilled Eskimos, his reliable (but Negro) assistant, with dogs in the best physical condition, plenty of supplies, etc.

Peary and his elite team had let all the advance teams, including Bartlett's, work themselves to exhaustion building a virtual highway over the Arctic Ocean with igloo camps loaded with supplies. All Peary's team had to do was dash (no, not "dark", Wally) the final bit. It was a great plan, and by all accounts it worked. How can anyone 75 years later "disprove" all this? Is it because there is no one left alive to tell Wally he's dead wrong?

Continued...
 


Email Page  |  Forum  |  Book store  |  Contact  Home

2002. To use our material: Terms