More North Cascades trivia

[Cpt.Caveman]

Beck said:

...nice gully on that bastard, caveman...crux low, cruising higher up, loooks like...

 

schweet!

 

We slogged the left skyline. Class 2.

 

This peak is just south of Mount Vera:

 

http://bivouac.com/MtnPg.asp?MtnId=5854

 

http://bivouac.com/JavaMap7/JavaMap.asp?rq=PrepareApplet&DLat=51.898&DLng=125.958&Radius=5.5&EntType=Mtn&EntId=5854

 

 

We considered a climb on Mount Vera via the nice looking fluted slopes of the east face. But we got lazy. Mount Vera is likely unclimbed to my knowledge. It can easily be obtained from the summit of the Turtlehead via a ridge of rock climbing. Mount Vera appears to have 2 summits of nearly equal height (9300+ feet). They are very close to each other.

 

T0 climb mt Vera would not be that hard if you were in the right position.

 

From the Turtelhead the south face appeared to me something like the SR of Ingalls with good rock.

Edited October 12, 2003 by Cpt.Caveman

[HarryMajors]

Dru --- Yes, the "peak totals" also include those which Fred has not made a first ascent on.

 

For instance, he has done Mount Si three times that I know of: in 1937, with the Boy Scouts (Challenge, p. 258, it was the third time in his life that he had ever climbed a mountain). He was up Si for a second time in April 1939 with the Basic Climbing Course, with Lloyd Anderson (this is not listed in Challenge, Lloyd told me this.) The third time up Si (and last time I know of) was on March 29, 1942, when he did the Haystack with Walt Varney and Tom Strizek.

 

As for the accuracy of the Totals --- This is a first-order approximation only, just enough to give us an idea of how the figures are beginning to line up.

 

The principal data base is the "Chronology of Climbs 1936-1968," that Fred includes on pages 258-280 of "Challenge of the North Cascades." On the whole, this list is fairly accurate and complete. There are a number of errors and omissions --- the Index North Peak ascent was on July 1, 1945, not in 1941 --- his first ascent of the West face of Mt. Thomson in 1940 is omitted --- the first ascent of the southwest face of The Tooth was on Oct 25, 1942 with Lewis Graham (not in 1941) --- it omits the 1959 first ascent of Classic Crack on Eightmile Boulder, with Don Gordon, which has never been published --- and so on. But, on the whole, the list is fairly complete.

 

I have also taken into account his reported climbs since 1968: such as Jack Mountain (1978) and White Chuck (1988). My tabulations incorporate these corrections and additions, but there are probably others which I am unaware of (such as Sitting Bull Mtn., which John has mentioned -- Thanks, John, I will add it to the records). Nonetheless, until someone has a chance to go through his diaries and prepare a new, revised list of climbs, these are the best data we have available to work with at present, and for some time to come. Yes --- according to what he told me years ago, he did at one time keep diaries .

 

The percentages presented in my last post use the peaks listed in the indices of CAG as the basis for selection. This yields a total of 192 peaks that he has climbed, using CAG as the basis. The 192 figure consists of major/prominent peaks, as well as minor technical crags/towers. These are peaks and crags/towers for which he has a first-hand knowledge of.

 

Again, this is a first-order approximation. It is unlikely that he has climbed 500 or 600 peaks in the North Cascades. The actual number is closer to 200, probably less than 300. With what data we have access to at present, this is about the best that we can come up with. Keep in mind that, although the base list is more than 30 years old, since then many, if not most, of his climbs (as Ray has just mentioned) have been done in ranges other than the North Cascades.

 

Peaks which Fred has not climbed --- There are some surprises here. In order of decreasing elevation, the unclimbed peaks are (to the best of my knowledge at present): Bonanza Peak (Poncho&Lefty is correct), Mt. Buckner, Mt. Logan, Seven Fingered Jack, Black Peak, Copper Peak, North Gardner Mtn., Gardner Mtn., Boston Peak, Mesahchie/Panther, Peak, Oval Peak, Mt. Lago/Lage, Robinson Mtn., Colchuck Peak, Star Peak, Remmel Mtn., Mt. Holyoke/Katsuk Peak, Fortress Mtn., Cannon Mtn., Mt. Custer, Kimtah/Gendarmes Peak, and Ptarmigan Peak. (Several of these are Lage Wernstedt peaks.)

 

This brings the list down to 8600' (400-ft prominence rule).

 

There are also some surprises among the lower-elevation unclimbed peaks --- Tomyhoi, Terror, Degenhardt, North Hozomeen, Formidable, Booker, McGregor, Lemah, Summit Chief, Daniel, Hibox, Cashmere, Argonaut. To my knowledge, he has not done the Ptarmigan Traverse, nor has he visited the Snowking area.

 

This, however, is an open category. He can easily narrow this list down after one summer's season of concentrated climbing.

 

First ascents of major/prominent peaks in the North Cascades --- This is a closed category. Lage Wernstedt holds a commanding lead here, with a total of 77 known first ascents of major/prominent peaks in the North Cascades. Fred comes in second with 52 peaks, followed by Hermann Ulrichs with at least 23 major/prominent peaks. At this point, there is a sharp drop-off, as the next climber has 12 peaks. Again, this is a closed category. There are simply no more unclimbed Silver Stars left in the North Cascades. No person can ever hope to surpass the record of Lage Wernstedt.

 

[Cpt.Caveman]

Let me just say that I think the dude got around a little more than you have information on. But in the end I dont think he will be compared to Lage Wernstedt except by you it seems. They came from 2 different eras and climbing was a lot different in both their times.

 

What is "your" definition of prominent peaks?

 

While Mr Beckey may not have climbed all the prominent peaks in a given range I think is really unimportant to the discussion.

 

Firt of all he is an expert in the range through nothing more than first hand experiences and climbs across many areas. It has nothing to do with his research skills or technique. From many vantages trails approaches and climbs it is possible to identify in person and also collaborate successfully gathering information for a guidebook or written history. ALthough some here may have climbed more summits his unique eye for a route or specific mountain feature to climb remains in agreement with many others as they repeat them. Of course there will be other reasons as well.

 

Having said that as we all know no one person is capable of making zero errors when compiling the information that he has gathered and sought publication on such a large volume. THis included dealing with numerous editors, climbers, hikers, photographers etc. There are bound to be errors or disagreements, including possibly conflicting reports and information.

 

After all this I also notice Harry spent a page or more criticizing Mr Beckey in one of his own writings. Although based on facts I am sure - there is still a hint of dislike or competition.

[wayne]

Its amazing to discuss his ascents in terms of what he hasnt climbed!. Some astounding peaks not visited though. of course he had rivals, it was prolly one of the things that spurred him on.

[Cpt.Caveman]

I understand that Mr Majors is also responsible for making the name of the "Quest Alb Glacier" for instance back into Indian name - 3 Fingers Mountain. Discuss - My guess - Harry never set foot on the glacier.

 

On the things that Fred hasnt climbed- well he was busy climbing Mt Hunter and Deborah and all the ton of things in the Rockies and Coast Range. Tehipete Dome in california, Lone Pine Peak, routes in Zion, climbing in Baja california, Bugaboos, Selkirks, and elsewhere...

 

I am sure he could have cared less about a chosspile like Bonanza or the technically easier Logan for instance.

 

 

How about this one?- How many things has Smoot written up and likely never even seen?

Edited October 13, 2003 by Cpt.Caveman

[John_Roper]

I think we all agree that Fred Beckey has been the premier pioneer in identifying and completing classic climbs of many of the great peaks in all of North America. His Cascade Alpine Guides cover a small area of his interest and expertise, and are the finest guides ever written on a mountain range for accuracy, thoroughness, and clarity.

 

That he has compiled most of this information by research, map study, and interviews, rather than by personal hands-on experience (summiting 8-28% of the peaks in these guides), is notable. I think Harry is trying to make the point that when people say something like, "Beckey says this, or Beckey says that, or Beckey was off base here," it wasn't necessarily Beckey's experience. He simply wrote down what someone told him.

[JoshK]

Harry, numeric comparisons for something like this seem really stupid. I think more important is the answer you'll get when you ask anybody, climber or lay-person, what personality they would associate with the exploration of the north cascades. 99 out of 100 people will say fred beckey, not Lage Wernstedt. I only read the last few posts on this thread, as I have no interest in wasting my time reading the entire lengthy thread. Maybe something else went on, but it simply seems as if you have something against Fred and are trying to belittle his accomplishments.

 

John's comments see spot on. His expertise about the range as a whole is really interesting, along with the fact that he put in the effort to compile the guides. I know I, for one, will often say "beckey says..." but I simply mean that as shorthand for "the beckey guide says..." as I never actually was under the impression that his guides were all first hand knowledge.

[Cpt.Caveman]

John Roper said

I think Harry is trying to make the point that when people say something like, "Beckey says this, or Beckey says that, or Beckey was off base here," it wasn't necessarily Beckey's experience. He simply wrote down what someone told him.

 

Mr Roper I understand you were an explorer in your own right. I definitely respect that and think that is outstanding. I have not climbed as extensively as you have in the Cascades and maybe never will. But I admire your persistance and climbing accomplishments as a fellow climber. What is your favorite route if I may ask?

 

Beside the point I agree with Josh in the comments that Mr Majors seems intent to argue (although many times with facts) anything written by Mr Beckey. Let it be first identified that I have not seen such a complete guidebook for any other range than our home range. Also let it be known my facts I stated above. Furthermore I think that many authors for guidebooks admittingly have errors and changes to make and most books are not as complete.

 

Fred is a clever man and when I say that he includes much more history references to mountains in his books and much more interesting reading not related to climbing or "historical facts now and then" that it gathers a person's attention. He knows how to write a good book that people may want to read. - Simplified-

 

If there are errors then fine. But to approach them in the manner in which I am seeing by another here I can only identify with Mr Beckey's work and response. Fred does not respond with resentment, anger, or disprespect. He responds with work.

 

Another note is that Mr Beckey has (as I tirelessly note) compiled much of the information for anyone to criticize. IN short he has done most of the work for anyone to do or look at. To criticize is good and maybe easy if you burrow into archives but to do so in a manner in which fosters a workable environment or respect does not always seem evident according to Mr Majors reports.

[mattp]

Josh, this has been a pretty good thread. Probably more than most others on this board, it may even be worth a go-back-and-read. And I'd say that Harry's contributions here have been very interesting. If he is in some kind of personal competition with Fred or if he said something slanderous, that may be regrettable. I pretty much agree with Cavey about Fred's accomplishments, but there's been a lot of interesting stuff reported here -- stuff you won't find in Climbing Magazine -- and Mr. Majors has been a real contributor in this thread.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Let me re-iterate that Lage Wernstedt was a tremendous explorer of the North Cascades. This is all noted in Fred's Range of Glaciers where he makes numerous tributes to Lage and his explorations and surveys. Not once do you enter the Fred era where climbing changed and he makes a spectacle of himself.

 

Although he is an authority to write on this era it is VERY unfortunate that he DID NOT!

 

He has first hand communications with Herman Ulrichs and Lloyd Anderson as well as dozens of others.

 

It appears to me comments made by Harry might retard this sort of idea or effort unfortunately. He will or may likely argue that it may surface in some diary but it is also my opinion that he is also a impeding historical reports.

[John_Roper]

Ray asks...

 

What is your favorite route if I may ask?

 

That's easy. The Wild Hair Crack on Himmelgeister Horn (red CAG, p.110). The route drawn on the photo in the guide is in error. The lower section is correctly drawn, but we stayed out on the face all the way to the top of Himmel Point ("subpoint").

 

Incidentally, the Firey's name for this peak was Himmelgeister Horn, or Himmelgeisterhorn, which means "Horn of the Sky Spirit." To shorten it to Himmelhorn takes the spirit out of this name.

 

[forrest_m]

Caveman – I, for one, appreciate that you defend your friends, but in this case I’m not sure what you are getting so upset about. The fact that Beckey is a very competitive person is hardly a secret. His secret black book, all night drives with blindfolded partners, and scooping first ascents in the Tetons, Sierras, the desert and the Cascades are the stuff of legend. If I were writing a biography – and it seems that Harry is – this is what I’d really be interested in: what drives a man to dedicate his life to a relentless quest for the unexplored. With regard to the Ragged Ridge names, is it simply an oversight or is an anomaly that reveals something about his character or some episode or relationship? This is what makes a biography an interesting read and not a boring hagiography.

 

Asking these questions does no disrespect to Fred’s unparalleled legacy. Nothing could do that.

[forrest_m]

Harry – I think your list of peaks Fred Beckey has not climbed is interesting, though speculative… interesting, mostly because like most people, I simply assumed that Fred had climbed everything. (That’s a joke, by the way). However, when you start throwing around statistics about how many peaks he’s climbed, you sound a little ridiculous. You’re counting solely from the published record? That would be like saying that the only climbs any of us have done are the ones that we write TRs for on this website. It implies a level of precision that it doesn’t sound like you can attain without Fred’s journals or cooperation. Just to take one of your examples, how can you definitively say how many times he’s climbed Mt. Si? And the last time was in 1946? Come on, get real. More than likely, he’s been up it dozens of times over the years, but hasn’t felt the need to publish it in the AAJ.

[Tod]

John_Roper said:

Incidentally, the Firey's name for this peak was Himmelgeister Horn, or Himmelgeisterhorn, which means "Horn of the Sky Spirit." To shorten it to Himmelhorn takes the spirit out of this name.

 

John, is this another oddity in Beckey's seeming legacy of renaming peaks or was Himmelgeister Horn shortened before the publishing of the CAG?

 

I seem to remember that the Chopping Block (Pinnacle Peak) was another peak that originally had a different name, but through the CAG was renamed? Am I making this up or was there a story to this peaks name(s) also?

 

BTW - To those reading this incredible thread, I don't mean to bring up or dwell on the topic of Beckey changing names. I've never met him, yet believe he has left the cascades an incredible legacy of exploration and documentation that we all will forever be indebted to. My reason for dwelling on his tendancy to rename peaks is that it seems like the original names have great importance in the history and legacy of the original exploration and ascents. Beckey's legacy may be more important as a whole, but these significant details (the original names) may be lost if they are not preserved and are important to the documentation of the original exploration and climbs of the North Cascades.

[mattp]

I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing for a guidebook author to try to change some names of features in their book. In the Enchantments, I believe that Fred once adopted a few of the names proposed by Peg and Bill Stark even though the local District Ranger favored more institutional names like "Inspiration Lake" and such. There are enough "inspiration" lakes, points and peaks around, in my book, so some fantasy mythology naming scheme as proposed by the Starks (Gnome Tarn, Troll Sink, Naiad Lake, Sprite, Brynhild Lake, Lake Freya, Valhalla Cirque ...) is just fine by me. If Dru goes out and pulls down something really rad on some E. Peak of Mount Whatsit and he wants to add a Spraylord Spire to the next edition of the CAG, who around here would complain?

 

[gnibmilc]

Tod said:

John_Roper said:

Incidentally, the Firey's name for this peak was Himmelgeister Horn, or Himmelgeisterhorn, which means "Horn of the Sky Spirit." To shorten it to Himmelhorn takes the spirit out of this name.

 

John, is this another oddity in Beckey's seeming legacy of renaming peaks or was Himmelgeister Horn shortened before the publishing of the CAG?

 

I seem to remember that the Chopping Block (Pinnacle Peak) was another peak that originally had a different name, but through the CAG was renamed? Am I making this up or was there a story to this peaks name(s) also?

 

BTW - To those reading this incredible thread, I don't mean to bring up or dwell on the topic of Beckey changing names. I've never met him, yet believe he has left the cascades an incredible legacy of exploration and documentation that we all will forever be indebted to. My reason for dwelling on his tendancy to rename peaks is that it seems like the original names have great importance in the history and legacy of the original exploration and ascents. Beckey's legacy may be more important as a whole, but these significant details (the original names) may be lost if they are not preserved and are important to the documentation of the original exploration and climbs of the North Cascades.

 

In a similar vein, I am fascinated by the transition of published route difficulty from Class 6 to Class 5 in the series of CAGs as a function of time. I'll bet I'm not the only guy that has run into an old aid bolts or pins that don't seem to have been considered when the change from the Tahquitz system (Class 1 to 6)to the Class 5 decimal system occured. It is really interesting to me to speculate as to how Mr. Beckey made the transition...to Class 5. Has that ever been discussed (besides the technical transition in the 70s CAGs)? How the heck did he figure out what the new free grades should be for all those now seemingly moderate climbs that were once listed as Class 6? Did competition for 5.x first ascents get involved in the text? I wonder if and/or what Harry might know or think about that.

 

[klenke]

Matt: I would complain. I would complain because I'm only a bumblygumby.

 

Good point about the fantasy names for the Enchantments. I've often wondered: why are there so many Deer Creeks and Bear Creeks and Goat Lakes and Crater Lakes? Talk about unimaginative feature namers. What, the people first in the valley saw six deer and decided to call it Deer Creek? Deer are everywhere, so calling a creek Deer Creek says nothing in particular about that creek.

 

I've been in Swamp Creek. The ground is indeed swampy quite a distance away from the banks of the creek. That's a good creek name, then.

 

Another peeve: naming a peak after a valley that is below it, as if to say the valley is way cooler than the peak. Example: Rock Creek Butte in The Elkhorn Mountains of NE Oregon. The valley ought to be called Rock Butte Creek in my opinion.

 

There's a humorous example out there too:

In the Pasayten just east of Mt. Lago, there is a Butte Pass. This Butte Pass is right next door to a Pass Butte. I suppose we've got Mr. Wernstedt to credit for this whimsical application. Is that the case Harry?

[Dru]

There are hundreds of Red Mountains, many White and Black mountains, lotsa Green and Brown mountains; quite a few Blue Mountains; how many Purple Mountains are there? Or Pink Mountains? Or even Polka Dot or Plaid Mountains?

 

There are lots of Deer Mountains and Bear Mountains and Goat Mountains but only one Kangaroo Temple, one Snafflehound Spire and no Platypus Peaks. Quite a few Unicorns and Dragons but not any Heffalumps or Pushmipullyus.

[HarryMajors]

Forrest --- I personally am pretty much in agreement with what you say. I myself don't care that much for the "statistics" approach to a sport/recreation/pastime such as climbing, which attracts many different types of people, with diverse outlooks on life and approaches to mountaineering. I would prefer to write an historical or biographical study on a narrative level, with occasional pauses to offer critical commentary or insight or evaluation, both positive and negative. Numbers can get pretty dry and dull in quick fashion.

 

 

(1) People differ. There are those types who by nature are interested in quantifying things, and examining things from a statistical viewpoint. Most sports lend themselves to being quantified. Listen to any broadcast of a game. Numbers can sometimes provide us with insights into a situation which purely descriptive words cannot. Science cannot exist without quantification.

 

Indeed, climbs themselves are rated --- so climbing itself, to some degree, is subject to quantification.

 

Other types of people prefer a descriptive approach to things. This, too, is an acceptable approach. There are some things, particularly artistic, musical, and literary creations that simply cannot be properly comprehended by taking a numerical approach to them. The arts can be appreciated without quantification.

 

Now --- I can totally ignore a quantifying approach to climbing. But there are other individuals out there, with a mathematical or statistical bent of mind, who will, on their own, take to quantifying mountaineering data.

 

A problem then arises if I were to encounter such individuals. If they have the numerical data at their disposal, and I do not --- then I am placed at a disadvantage in trying to engage in a conversation with them. If they make a statement, and back it up with numerical data, I am thus in no position to dispute the point with them, or evaluate the correctness of that point.

 

If I myself am not familiar with the numerical data --- all I can do is (a) accept their assertions; (b) dispute their assertions, but offer no proof of my own; © tell them that numbers do not mean anything, belittle this approach, and refuse to discuss the matter any further; or (d) remain neutral or uncommitted in the matter.

 

As an historian and a biographer, I feel that both approaches to a matter are important --- the scientific (numerical), and the narrative (literary). I need to put things in a proper perspective. I am not dealing solely with things of the present. I am also looking at things over a long period of time, seeing how they develop, and how they compare with one another. Numbers and statistics do provide some insights that otherwise would not readily be evident.

 

 

(2) I entirely agree with you as to the lack of "precision" we have at this time, with respect to certain climbing matters. I thought I had made this clear, when I stated that my figures were "a first-order approximation only," and by my use of such qualifying comments as "to the best of my knowledge at present."

 

 

(3) I have observed that, in this forum, the topic of Fred, and any critical commentary concerning his achievements, appear to be rather sensitive topics among some individuals. It would appear that it is unacceptable (among some individuals, at least) to speak of him and his achievements on this forum, unless it is in a very positive and praiseworthy light.

 

The same appears to be true in pointing out errors or omissions in CAG.

 

I think that what I shall henceforth do is to avoid the topics of Fred and CAG entirely. This means that a lot of interesting information will not appear here that otherwise might have, but this approach (keeping certain information concealed at present) should also serve to keep the most vocal and persistent persons happy and quiet. Yes, they have succeeded in "silencing" this line of discussion. (This may be too strong a term, but I think that many readers who have been following this thread understand what has just happened here on cc.com over the past few days.) The information will, instead, first appear in published form, in historical and biographical studies that eventually will be forthcoming.

 

 

(4) I knew many of the pioneer climbers of the past.

 

I myself do not climb. But what I do represent is a direct link between the climbers of today and the climbers of the past. Right now, Fred and I are really the only living major direct links with the past. When we both are gone, this link between the present and the past will be entirely severed.

 

I knew Lage Wernstedt's widow. I knew Hal Sylvester's daughter. I knew the members of the Winder-Farr-Grigg-Blair-Strandberg-Martin group. I personally knew Hermann Ulrichs for many years. On two or three occasions, Dick McCollum and I drove down to San Anselmo in California to visit with Hermann for two or three weeks. We helped him out by doing repairs on his home, re-roofed part of his house, and fixed his car up so that he could sell it. On one of those trips, we brought Norval Grigg with us, so that he and Hermann, two of the greatest pioneer climbers of the North Cascades --- who once had been rivals --- could be reconciled.

 

In some instances, I represent the only living link --- I personally knew Harlan Trumbull (The Brothers 1912), Charles Hazlehurst (The Tooth 1916), J. Mills Winram (Slesse 1927), Lionel Chute (North Index), along with a number of others.

 

These, and other pioneer climbers, told me many things; many interesting things. Some things will eventually be published; some things are perhaps best reserved for private communication to friends, in confidence; and some things are perhaps best left in silence.

 

 

[Cpt.Caveman]

Forrest said

 

Caveman – I, for one, appreciate that you defend your friends, but in this case I’m not sure what you are getting so upset about.

 

I'm not upset

[Dru]

I used to know Mills Winram but he didn't tell me many secrets about Slesse.

[mattp]

Harry, I don't think you have to worry so much about offending the name of the great Fred Beckey. You've drawn minor flame, but nothing like the full wrath of the Caveman, and we've managed to keep a good discussion alive.

[HarryMajors]

Dru --- You continue to amaze me. I stand corrected. At least two of us, and probably several others, knew J. Mills Winram.

 

No. No great secrets associated with either him or with Slesse.

 

Mills did mention to me that his son also climbed Slesse about 1970, "and he was apparently as scared at times as I had been, on the first ascent. He has been much more respectful towards me ever since then."

[klenke]

Yes, Harry, I would recommend you disregard non-objective commentary from certain individuals on this site. Though they may think they do, they do not speak for the majority of this site's users--especially those interested in this thread.

 

For what it's worth, I have generally found your posts to be objective and fact-based (or mostly so). I have not seen you slight FB in any way. You have only presented information about him based on what you know of the man (statistically or otherwise). However, it is probably true what others have said that FB has no doubt done many things he fails to mention for himself. Of course, I say this not knowing how thorough he is/was in that regard. If he's like me, then he has logged EVERY mountain climb he has ever undertaken. Albeit, I do not log crags I've climbed at Leavenworth, for example.

 

Regardless of its meaning, I was very surprised to see FB has not climbed Bonanza Peak, the non-volcanic high point of the Washington Cascades. To each their own.

 

Your well-thought-out inputs to this thread are more important whatever the subject matter than the posts of the naysayers or contentious personalities. It takes a little time to develop a thick cc.com skin. It takes time to realize or get over those cyber personalities on this site that rub you the wrong way. This has no doubt scared off many a lurker who had at one time thought about regularly posting on this site. With this site, you have to wade through the quag to get to the fruit-laden tussock at center.

 

Keep up the good work.

[Cpt.Caveman]

For Klenke. Forrest and . Harry,

 

As I have repeated before I never endorsed any sort of silence. My arguments produce known facts and information as well as opinion. To decipher between is easy.

 

If you disagree with the above then an argument or discussion should or might take place. As this has happened. I have targeted my arguments and comments. Most of them come ignored unless it is to Harry's advantage. Let this be known too.

 

Within my comments a thing called an opinion as I mentioned. You might need to look that up again.

 

My opinion is that Mr Majors is readily prepared to argue anything Fred writes. That is a known right. THis also produces facts and sometimes falseness. It should be accepted to argue.

 

Also my opinion is that Mr Majors has a beef with FB in such a way he feels compelled\intent to degrade his research at any chance without any recognition to the fact that he would have nothing to dispute if Mr Beckey had not compiled most of the information for him.

 

That said Mr Majors has stated many facts and introduced many gray areas of information here. But the way he goes about it is like he is now the master of history in the N Cascades with disregard to anyone else's previous work whether they were complete truth or not. Only time will tell. My responses in effect were only for people to recognize what I stated above and that is all.

 

All you so called people that claim or imply I am trying to silence Mr Majors including harry yourself need to look yourself in the mirror and read a little closer.

 

A major flamboyance of facts that have been previously been published are presented here by Mr Majors including much that has not been printed and is interesing I must add. Although he sometimes is the discoverer sometimes he is not. THis puts readers at "awe". It seems sometimes this is a clever way to persuade the readers here into believing Mr Majors has done much of the work that has been done for him. Including leads and who climbed what and who Mr Who is.

 

I must appluad some of the facts and acknowledge his research about the Ptarmigans. This is new to me..

 

I reconginize and acknowledge he is an outstanding historian and writer. I am simply some dude. I respect the writings and research. But I dont have to listen and agree to what I may believe are half truths or snide attacks sometimes- whether they are implied or expressed.

 

PS my final stage of this comment is that I was The ONE Person that suggested this come to a stage that was called a sticky note- Meaning worth reading. IF I WAS TRYING TO SILENCE HARRY MAJORS (READ) THEN I WOULD HAVE NOT DONE SO.

 

It's fantastic the research that has been done by Mr Majors. But to keep it in perspecitve I have mady all my comments. That is all and it is simple.