Cook really stepped in it with Bradley Land.

I am just reading Bryce about Cook's photos of that marvelous land now. It is amazing how Bryce struggles to make it difficult to conclude positively that Cook did not at least think he had gone to the pole. Why would we take Cook's word that he went any distance over the ice when he pawns off a photo that could not have been taken anywhere beyond the first 5 miles of his reported track as land much farther north? The double standard continues to amaze me.

Must we acknowledge that Cook could have gone far enough to reach the pole (and maybe even have been close) despite phony sights, phony photos, total wrong compass variation data, and traveling companions that do not (at least consistently) support his story? Peary, on the other hand, obviously faked everything because sights can be faked, photos can be faked, depth soundings can be guessed, he didn't provide detailed data on the compass variation and his traveling companions could have lied too. What nonsense!

Doug