Page 6
|
Our final and most conclusive examination was of the photographs taken by Peary near Camp
Jesup. Since an inadequate attempt
by merchant captain Thomas Hall in Has The North Pole Been Discovered? (1917), there seems to have been no real analysis of
Peary’s photographs; accordingly our efforts represent new evidence. Techniques of photographic analysis that were pioneered
during World War II developed into a fine craft during the Cold War years of satellite observation. One technique, called photogrammetric rectification, can produce the angle of the elevation of the sun from the shadows in pictures. This angle
can be compared with the sun angle calculated from the Nautical Almanac to confirm a specific location and time. Certain prerequisites must be met. There must be shadows that begin and end within the frame of an uncropped negative; there must be a horizon to determine the orientation of the camera; and the focal length of the camera must be known. Thus not every photograph can be so analyzed. Establishing the focal length posed an initial problem because the only Peary camera we found was the 1906 camera at the National Geographic Society. With the help of the International Museum of Photography in Rochester, New York, however, we determined the focal length of the type of camera Peary was using in 1909. The technique is one based on simple perspective. Imaginary lines drawn through each object and the end of its shadow would be, in the real world, parallel to the sun’s rays. Such lines drawn on a two-dimensional picture coverage at a vanishing point (often outside the picture). This vanishing point is also the point at which a ray of sunlight through the camera would cast a shadow of the camera. Thus the vanishing point defines the angle of the sun’s rays relative to the optical axis of the camera--which may be pointing up or down, as shown by the location of the horizon. The mathematical method used to fix these relationships is spherical trigonometry, much like that used in the reduction of a navigation sight. The Nautical Almanac gives the declination of the sun at the Pole or the date, and the time (taken from Peary’s account or other sources) tells which meridian the sun is on. The altitude of the sun measured from the photographs was used to establish a rough “line of position.” We were able to analyze several pictures in the vicinity of Camp Jesup and concluded that Peary was probably within four or five miles of his reported position, and certainly no more than 15 miles away. Since we had the 1906 camera, and since the 1906 “farthest north” location has also been questioned, we applied the rectification technique to Peary’s photograph taken at noon on April 21, 1906, on his misfortune-plagued expedition. Though many critics maintain that he faked his speed and distances to surpass the record established by the Italian Cagni we found that he was at least as far north as the 87° 06' latitude that he claimed, and perhaps a little farther. Herbert’s conjecture as to Peary’s track is based on a westward drift of the ice just north of Cape Columbia of about 20 miles in the first thee days, caused by easterly winds. He asserts that from the outset of the polar assault Peary was always to the west of where he thought he was because he had failed to take this phenomenon into account. However, Herbert overlooked the fact that after returning to the land base for supplies during this period, Marvin and fellow expedition member George Borup recorded that westerly winds (also noted by Peary) were moving the ice north of the shore lead rapidly back eastward. To their surprise the outbound trail, which earlier had been driven 15 miles west of Cape Columbia, had drifted back nearly to its original position. We have thus concluded that during the entire northward trip, Peary would have experienced only a slight westward drift due to the net effect of wind. Moreover, modern data on prevailing ocean currents show that he would have experienced a slight eastward ice movement as he got closer to the Pole. The net effect of ice drift that would be predicted from these two causes is negligible. Continued... |
 |
|
| Photogrammetric Studies | |
 |
|
| Peary could not have known he was recording proof of his position when he made this photograph about 18:00 hours local time on April 7, 1909, of expedition members making their last sounding near the pole. Photogrammetric analysis based on the positions of the center target, horizon line, and vanishing point confirms that Peary was very close to his claimed position—about five miles south of Camp Jesup. | |
 |
|
| Farthest North photo | |
| Another disputed claim of Peary’s, that in 1906 he had traveled farther north than any other man, was confirmed as a result of the photogrammetric analysis of a photograph he made at his “farthest north.” The Foundation’s examination places Peary very close to the 87° 06' he claimed. | |
| Steger | |
| Triumph at the Pole in 1986 was photographed by National Geographic assistant director of photography Kent Kobersteen on May 3, as members of Will Steger’s expedition raise their arms in victory. A satellite fixed their position a few hundred yards from 90° north. Photogrammetric analysis by the Foundation confirmed that position within five miles. | |