Could Captain Scott have been saved? Cecil Meares and the ‘second journey’ that failed

A response to Bill Alp

Bibliographic Data

ID13640926
AuthorsKaren May (0000-0003-3862-4305, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, corresponding author)
Year2018
Volume54
Issue2
Pages183-187
Publication date2018-03-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolar Record (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0032-2474 • E-ISSN: 1475-3057
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0032247418000244
OpenAlexW2809412043
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited5

Alp makes some factual corrections regarding the ‘second obfuscation’ and ‘third obfuscation’ identified in the article. Regarding the ‘second obfuscation’, Alp is correct that the man-haulers (of the 3 X.S. supplies) had not yet returned from base on 17 January 1912, and would not return until 23 January. However, Alp's objection does not exonerate Meares. On 31 January 1912, expedition member Apsley Cherry-Garrard recorded that Meares supposedly had considered departing on the ‘second journey’, but had been assured by the man-haulers that there was already ‘plenty for all parties’ with ‘what they had left at 1 Ton’. The key date was 17 January 1912, when Meares still had time to either leave (for the ‘second journey’, a projected two-week depot run) or remain at base. Meares’ inaction on that date therefore cannot be excused by reassurance from the man-haulers on what they ‘had left’ at One Ton, as on 17 January the man-haulers had not yet returned to base to deliver such reassurance

Advertising · Art · Art history · Business · Computer security · Obfuscation · Political science · Computer Science · Historical Geography and Cartography · History · History and Developments in Astronomy · Law · Maritime and Coastal Archaeology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub