View Full Version : Earl Shaffer's missing sections in 1948
I just clicked on the blue link to James's W McNeely's 164 page report on the actual route of Earl Shaffer's reported thru hike and was taken aback by the amount of research that went into the project, and the level of detail he provides. Are there any on-line discussion here on WB or elsewhere regarding this project? Given the many, many miles of Trail that Earl Shaffer seems to have missed, and the rides he is said to have accepted to move further down the AT, I would imagine this research has garnered a great deal of attention.
CrumbSnatcher
06-27-2011, 09:04
Earls the man! put that in your report
Cookerhiker
06-27-2011, 09:20
I recently re-read Walking with Spring and there's no doubt that Earl missed some sections in places where the Trail was completely obliterated. This raises the question - how can you have "missed" the section if the section in effect doesn't exist because of non-blazes, total overgrowth, logging, development?
I don't recall Earl accepting many rides per the book, especially northbound rides that were tantamount to skipping the "trail" such that it was.
Let's not start digging up dirt on Earl's trip. He was a quality guy that never touted the fact that he was a thru-hiker. He just did the deed first. Something we all should respect.
vamelungeon
06-27-2011, 09:44
It is an interesting report and is the result of some exhaustive research. I personally don't fear truth and don't see research as "digging up dirt" but simply digging up facts. Facts aren't dirt.
Cookerhiker
06-27-2011, 09:56
It is an interesting report and is the result of some exhaustive research. I personally don't fear truth and don't see research as "digging up dirt" but simply digging up facts. Facts aren't dirt.
I agree totally with you - if only "facts" were so cut-and-dry. If the map at the time shows the "trail" going from Point A to Point B and Earl missed it because there really was no trail, then what's the "fact" - the by-the book line on a map or reality on the ground?
It is an interesting report and is the result of some exhaustive research. I personally don't fear truth and don't see research as "digging up dirt" but simply digging up facts. Facts aren't dirt.
"leave a sleeping dog lie."
Beachcomber
06-27-2011, 11:08
If the map at the time shows the "trail" going from Point A to Point B and Earl missed it because there really was no trail, then what's the "fact" - the by-the book line on a map or reality on the ground?
Well, seems to me both are "facts," and like so much in real life and history, incompatible facts can be reconciled, or we can accept ambiguity. The witness says the mapped trail didn't exist in walkable condition and he found a way around it, so we have a better understanding of that factual conflict was resolved.
max patch
06-27-2011, 11:46
How long did Earl's speed hike record last?
hikerboy57
06-27-2011, 11:51
as I recall from the book, he never took rides that put him further along the trail, so i still consider him the first true thru, even if he may have to have detoured in a few places.The trails been rerouted a number of times since then, so whats the "true" route?I think its a moot point. He also accepted trail magic, so i guess crucifixion is in order.
Majortrauma
06-27-2011, 11:56
Facts aren't dirt.
Well said.
Rain Man
06-27-2011, 12:31
I just clicked on the blue link ...
The "blue link"??? You already lost me.
Rain Man
.
This raises the question - how can you have "missed" the section if the section in effect doesn't exist because of non-blazes, total overgrowth, logging, development?
Sounds like many a day on the CDT, in which case the route you walk is the trail.
Sounds like many a day on the CDT, in which case the route you walk is the trail.
Indeed. And if he did 'skip' sections, it is like the PCT and CDT in recent years. Sections of the trail are closed due to fires and a hiker has to hitch around them.
The "blue link"??? You already lost me.
Rain Man
.
under articles>reports
http://www.whiteblaze.net/index.php?page=Earl_Shaffer_hike
The document doesn't wrap right for me when viewed within WhiteBlaze. If anyone else has the same issue, I recommend downloading it to a local drive. I was able to view it as expected when I opened the *.pdf with Acrobat.
Sounds like many a day on the CDT, in which case the route you walk is the trail.
Indeed. And if he did 'skip' sections, it is like the PCT and CDT in recent years. Sections of the trail are closed due to fires and a hiker has to hitch around them.
Yeah these things do happen on the CDT BUT there are also those who will SKIP/AVOID hiking available open blazed mapped CDT tread just too shorten their trail mileage too in the quest of "Gettin er dun."
Indeed. And if he did 'skip' sections, it is like the PCT and CDT in recent years. Sections of the trail are closed due to fires and a hiker has to hitch around them.
Of those who have posted in this thread, I am thinking only me and perhaps one other have bothered to look at that 164 page report.
And I am sure we only skimmed the surface.
It is a remarkable piece of research.
hikerboy57
06-27-2011, 18:55
It IS a remarkable piece of research(I havent read all of it yet, still sifting through), but it diminishes what he was able to accomplish. Anyone whos read WWS can clearly see that he "blue-blazed" quite a bit, and its obviuos he did not walk every mile oif the AT. The lack of maps and guides, using road maps as his only guide, it makes the journey even more remarkable.Keep in mind, when he set out, a thru hike was considered to be absolutely "impossible". Earl showed us it aint.
I expect to spend more time studying McNeely's report because I am interested in how the A.T. has changed over time and what it will offer to future hikers.
His effort doesn't serve to diminish Shaffer's accomplishment at all. Some may be surprised to learn Shaffer himself didn't think of his 3rd long hike as a through hike in the strictest sense.
It may be somewhat off-topic, but I am concerned about the excessive emphasis on through hiking I see today. McNeely's report is more interesting to me as an attempt at reconstructing the 1948 route.
People seem quick to forget the fact that Myron Avery was the 1st 2000 miler and without his contributions there wouldn't have been a through hike in 1948. Avery's accomplishments were no less impressive and should be remembered along with Shaffer's by today's hikers.
hikerboy57
06-27-2011, 19:53
Thank you, Emerald, I had completely forgotten about Avery(not easy to do). And in a sense you're right, in some ways, the report even enhances the difficulties that Earl had to overcome to complete his hike,"thru" or not. It is an interesting report,I need to print it out so I can go through it a little slower.
Of those who have posted in this thread, I am thinking only me and perhaps one other have bothered to look at that 164 page report.
And I am sure we only skimmed the surface.
It is a remarkable piece of research.
I would go further and say it's incredible. I'm on page 26 and can't put it down. Great detective work.
"leave a sleeping dog lie."No fun in _that_. Let's rybeck the dead guy!
... better yet, ryback him.
TJ aka Teej
06-27-2011, 22:17
I read it when showed up on the top of this horrible new version of WB. It seems the writer's sole intent is to debunk Earl's hike. The writer's point of view - "if I can't prove it didn't happen" - is absurd.
I read it when showed up on the top of this horrible new version of WB. It seems the writer's sole intent is to debunk Earl's hike. The writer's point of view - "if I can't prove it didn't happen" - is absurd.
By my reading the author wasn't saying there was a lack of proof regarding the nature of Earl Shaffer's hike, as much as he was saying that the proof points in a different direction than some haven take as gospel.
Then, McNeely lays that proof out in painstaking detail for the reader to draw his own conclusion as to the import of such things.
It's GREAT STUFF to see someone have a wild eyed unrealistic impractical vision that others think is crazy and impossible and ACHIEVE it! Shaffer had the
"Right Stuff!"
TU!
vamelungeon
06-28-2011, 06:26
I downloaded to my hard drive and read it. Again, it is a very well researched report. It highlights a lot of things, like the difficulties of following the trail in those days and the lack of a trail in places. For those who think it's wrong to do this kind of research, anything historic is going to be examined and picked apart.
It highlights a lot of things, like the difficulties of following the trail in those days and the lack of a trail in places.
I found the research regarding what happend AFTER Earl Shaffer's hike to be much more eye-opening than what happened during the course of his journey.
From the articles author....
The term “white-blazer” is used to describe an AT hiker who is “particular” about walkingevery foot of the AT – a “purist.” :p
From the articles author....
The term “white-blazer” is used to describe an AT hiker who is “particular” about walkingevery foot of the AT – a “purist.” :p
I would go further and say it's incredible. I'm on page 26 and can't put it down. Great detective work.
I've read about 30 pages so far myself. Interesting reading.
Of those who have posted in this thread, I am thinking only me and perhaps one other have bothered to look at that 164 page report.
And I am sure we only skimmed the surface.
It is a remarkable piece of research.
Wanna pull that foot out of your mouth before you post next time? :)
AS noted above, I've read about 30 pages (And will probably read more tonight).
I just finished the 137 page main body of the report. I only read some of the ref. and note material where I had particular interest. So I am not a thru-reader. Anyone who is interested in the history of the AT should read this report, not to try and debunk anything that Shaffer did but just for informational purposes. Conclusions about E. Shaffer and his 1948 hike that any reader might draw are irrelevent in my opinion. I certainly have my opinion but it too is unimportant to anyone else but me.
Lone Wolf
07-05-2011, 10:50
a fellow blue/yellow blazer :cool: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/291803
..., and the rides he is said to have accepted to move further down the AT,...
what do you mean, someone actually remembers a ride he suposely got back in 1948? Who's memory is that good?
Panzer
After reading the report, I still stand by the assertion that he did it CDT-style. Hurray for the corridor approach...esp on a trail in 1948. While the lawyer may not recognize the corridor approach, ALDHA-West does. :)
As for the short rides, agree with the assertion above... Did he do it to purposelessly avoid sections of the AT? Was he confused and did not realize he was skipping? Or was the recollection from 60+ yrs ago not 100% correct.? It is quite possible he did not know about the ferries (as one quick example at New River).
Some people like to point out the feet of clay...even when it does not exist.
Yeah these things do happen on the CDT BUT there are also those who will SKIP/AVOID hiking available open blazed mapped CDT tread just too shorten their trail mileage too in the quest of "Gettin er dun."
No doubt you've heard of the term, "hike your own hike".
a fellow blue/yellow blazer :cool: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/291803
Great article, now I don't have to read the silly report.
WingedMonkey
07-05-2011, 14:53
It's obvious what happened. Earl was confused upon leaving Damascus. Almost all hikers are.
;)
When the dust settles, it will fall in its proper place and little will change.
Remain calm, log off and report back to work.
Thousands of hikers have claimed to have thru-hiked the AT and have been reconized by the ATC for having done so. You say you did and they believe you. In my estimation at least 50% have not did an honest thru. That is passing every white blaze while on foot. The point I want to make is; Why should we question Earl?
Kaptain Kangaroo
07-05-2011, 18:13
HYOH....but at least be honest about what you hiked....
What struck me about the report was not what Earl actually hiked (it was still a great achievement) , but some of the actions afterwards that seemed to be actively aimed at hiding the truth.........
Jack Tarlin
07-05-2011, 18:44
Grampie's figure is generous. The actual completion rate for the A.T. in recent years (i.e. the number of folks who set out to hike the Appalachian Trail in its entirey and actually end up doing so) is, in my opinion, between one and a half and three per cent. In other words, the vast majority of contemporary thru-hikers have, in fact skipped part(s) of the Trail, either accidentally or more likely, intentionally. This is also true of other Trails. I can think of at least half a dozen well-known "Triple Crowners" who have also skipped good chunks of the AT, PCT, and CDT. (And before I get irate posts saying "Prove it!" or "How do you know this?", well it's pretty easy: I know this is true because they've unashamedly told me this). So the phenomena of hikers claiming completion status for trips that were not in fact complete is not new, it is not rare, in fact, it's almost universal, so unless Rick wants to start a thread accusing 97% of the thru-hiking community as frauds, I personally think we should let this matter rest in peace, just like the late, great Earl Shaffer.
Lone Wolf
07-05-2011, 21:27
i always left broke, sticky AND confused
communist propaganda
Panzer
Wise Old Owl
07-05-2011, 22:04
I expect to spend more time studying McNeely's report because I am interested in how the A.T. has changed over time and what it will offer to future hikers.
His effort doesn't serve to diminish Shaffer's accomplishment at all. Some may be surprised to learn Shaffer himself didn't think of his 3rd long hike as a through hike in the strictest sense.
It may be somewhat off-topic, but I am concerned about the excessive emphasis on through hiking I see today. McNeely's report is more interesting to me as an attempt at reconstructing the 1948 route.
People seem quick to forget the fact that Myron Avery was the 1st 2000 miler and without his contributions there wouldn't have been a through hike in 1948. Avery's accomplishments were no less impressive and should be remembered along with Shaffer's by today's hikers.
Well I would sign up for that as the trail has changed over time for the better, As I understand it the trail went down lots of farm roads and towns, later to be moved to the woods and not pass though so many towns. In past discussions there are wonderful unmaintained sections that are cut offs from the primary trail. Unfortunatly the maps in Nat Geo are not good enough to see the differences.
As for Earls book, I enjoyed reading it, but to scientifically understand the piece for a interpretation? well maybe I will get to it in January.... Cold Weather Fodder!
So the phenomena of hikers claiming completion status for trips that were not in fact complete is not new, it is not rare, in fact, it's almost universal, so unless Rick wants to start a thread accusing 97% of the thru-hiking community as frauds, I personally think we should let this matter rest in peace, just like the late, great Earl Shaffer.
If we accept Jack's premiss that 97% of the thru hiking community is a fraud (I think he is nuts on that point, but have no desire to debate it), there is something larger to be gleaned from this painstakingly detailed report.
To wit, life is rarely black and white. I'd suggest that we accept and embrace the shades of gray. And recognize that the greatness of Earl Shaffer's hike had nothing to do with honor and the modern-day concept of "trail purity" that some people project upon it-- and claim for themselves.
Its an excellent piece of research, and is what it is.
Lone Wolf
07-06-2011, 07:28
earl did it "CDT style". from now everyone else can do it that way and still get a certificate. cool
Grampie's figure is generous. The actual completion rate for the A.T. in recent years (i.e. the number of folks who set out to hike the Appalachian Trail in its entirey and actually end up doing so) is, in my opinion, between one and a half and three per cent. In other words, the vast majority of contemporary thru-hikers have, in fact skipped part(s) of the Trail, either accidentally or more likely, intentionally. This is also true of other Trails. I can think of at least half a dozen well-known "Triple Crowners" who have also skipped good chunks of the AT, PCT, and CDT. (And before I get irate posts saying "Prove it!" or "How do you know this?", well it's pretty easy: I know this is true because they've unashamedly told me this). So the phenomena of hikers claiming completion status for trips that were not in fact complete is not new, it is not rare, in fact, it's almost universal, so unless Rick wants to start a thread accusing 97% of the thru-hiking community as frauds, I personally think we should let this matter rest in peace, just like the late, great Earl Shaffer.
I was being generious, just to make my point. Jack, what you say is so true.
I was being generious, just to make my point. Jack, what you say is so true.
Yeah, I remember that guy in Maine that took one blueblaze into a shelter and another one out, missing a whiteblaze or two. What a shame, no longer a thru-hiker or 2000-Miler. :rolleyes:
I'm going to file this under "Do Not Care", like I do all other questioning of the "validity" of anyone's thru hike. If someone says they thru-hiked, that's good enough for me. And even that I don't care about.
I was one of a handful of folks who chatted with Jim McNeely during Trail Days and I've since read all of his report -- I got a copy right after Trail Days -- and I'm not convinced he has made his case at all. I've also read the complete (humongous is more like it) story that appeared in Sunday's Roanoke Times (Page One, July 3).
Mr. McNeely makes a big deal out of Earl resorting to road walks around sections of the trail and casts doubt on Earl's claims that those stretches were overgrown, etc. The truth is, Mr. McNeely, you weren't there, and Earl is dead, so a lot of your conjecture is just that: pure B.S.
Also, by hoofing it around those sections of the A.T., Earl actually walked more miles from Georgia to Maine than he would have, had the real trail been in better, more recognizable shape. You don't give the man one iota of credit for that. It's not like he was deceitfully trying to cheat. Hell, the poor guy seemed to hike all the toughest sections of that old A.T., including the "hell on earth" known as the Pinnacles of Dan, while the stretches he had to skip would have been relative walks in the park had they been clearly marked and easily found. Again, you give the man no credit whatsoever for that.
It seems to me it boils down to a couple of car rides. Again, you weren't there, Mr. McNeely. Could it be Earl was sensitive to an offer of kindness and Southern hospitality from strangers? Would it have been rude back then to turn down such offers? I don't know and neither do you. I would also take great care in extrapolating your findings and applying them to the rest of the trail through to Maine. It seems like you're trying to apply your statistics from that one stretch in the South to the whole A.T., implying that Earl didn't hike a full quarter of the entire route. I hope I misinterpreted your writing toward the end of the report... Please tell me you weren't trying to make that leap.
I also heard recently a multiple repeat thru-hiker wants all the record books rewritten and Earl's name tossed as the first thru-hiker, based on the McNeely report. I ask you this: If, since the late 1980s, the official route of the A.T. across the Kennebec is clearly defined and well marked as being in the seat of a canoe, and you have decided all these years to "eschew the canoe" and ford the river, doesn't that also make all of your thru-hikes these past 20-plus years incomplete and therefore invalid?
If I were you, I would be awfully careful about casting any stones. Especially without Earl here to defend himself.
--Bill O'Brien
P.S. Confidential to the Roanoke Times: You committed an error of fact in your report, yet you fixed it by calling it a "clarification" ??? Get it right: it was a "correction." You correct mistakes. Plain and simple.
Jack Tarlin
07-06-2011, 22:54
Just want to say two quick words to Bill O'Brien:
Thank you.
I like Bill O'Brien's post.
Seems that if you are a 2,000-miler you can take 179.2 miles of yellow blazing. :)
Jack Tarlin
07-07-2011, 11:23
Don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but I see that there's an advertisement, presumably a paid advertisemen, here on Whiteblaze in regards to this guy's research/writings on Earl's hike. I realize the author of this scholarly work wants to get the word out, and he's clearly at great pains to do so, but forgive me for saying this.....I'd be very curious to know his true motives in pursuing this matter, and if he sees this thread and discussion, I certainly hope he joins it.
i'm trying to figure out why anybody would give a flying pig's arse whether or not anyone, anyone at all, passed every single one of the white blazes on the at. nobody died. skipping a blaze is not going to resurrect nazi concentration camps. volcanoes all over the world are not going to simulatneously erupt, spewing lethal gases throughout the atmosphere, killing everything on the planet. the loch ness monster is not going to eat all of the fishermen on the lake that day. if somebody wants to be a purist and pass every blaze, fine, but why should they give a **** what anybody else does eludes me. those of you who are up in arms about this need to get a life. or some drugs for your severe ocd.
SGT Rock
07-07-2011, 11:34
In the opinion of this hiker, Earl still made it. Anyone that sweats the details needs to get a life.
those of you who are up in arms about this need to get a life. or some drugs for your severe ocd.
Serious question:
Of the people who have posted in this thread, can you name one who is up in arms about this?
Can you name anyone anywhere who is up an arm about this? Other than those who are up in arms refuting the report, I mean.
Serious question:
Of the people who have posted in this thread, can you name one who is up in arms about this?
Can you name anyone anywhere who is up an arm about this? Other than those who are up in arms refuting the report, I mean.
I've read most of the report and I found it very interesting. Certainly a lot of effort was put into the research.
I don't have a dog in this fight - doesn't change my life one way or the other. But, in general, I don't have a problem with someone taking a closer look at a story/myth/legend and subjecting it to scrutiny.
You know, I haven't noticed anyone dare contest any specific claims. There do seem to be some who have taken offense and rejected the research outright or the conclusions drawn.
Surely, we all know it would be foolish to expect any agreement across-the-board on what constitutes a through hike.
I contend ATC ought to get out of the business of recognizing 2000 milers. Even if they aren't yet ready to take that step, they might consider modifying what's on their website somewhat and mentioning Gene Espy as an early through hiker.
It shouldn't be too difficult to bend a bit and make everyone happy. Maybe all it takes are some carefully chosen words.
no, i can not name a single person who is up an arm about this..http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-bounce005.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
but seriously, weren't we just talking about a multi-thru hiker that was up in arms about this? or was it just the voices again?
i don't either. i found the report, or as much of it as i could get through, very interesting. it's amazing some of the stuff that he has found out. i just don't see the point in trying to get earl's thru status knocked out. seems petty. he was a pioneer and someone the hiking world looks up to. i think the effort he had to go through to hike a relatively not so established trail over 2,000 miles is incredible and a billion times harder than what the spoiled brats that hike it now have to go through.
i hate the new whiteblaze. why is it not letting me quote?
hikerboy57
07-07-2011, 20:35
I kind of think its a moot point. I found the research very well done, and it certainly points to earl not being a real thru from the purist sense, but I felt that it diminished his accomplishment, being able to do something that at the time was deemd impossible.But sometimes we all get a little to caught up in labels, and forget about the accomplishment itself.Most 2000 milers are reported on an honor system, and until GPS tracking is used for every potential thru, almost anyones record can be disputed, that every step of the AT was actually hiked.. But the hiker himself will always know what he accomplished I still havent totally finished sifting through the entire report. It's a phenomenal piece of research. But i still consider earl the original thru.
fiddlehead
07-07-2011, 20:45
Lawyers have so screwed up the freedoms we had in America.
Now, they are trying to screw with Earl's famous hike.
Shame on them (and us for paying this kind of attention to them)
Why is it so important to some who was 1st? What Earl Shaffer did after his hike was much more important. That ought to be the take home message.
I'd like to see if I can make a point by going a bit off-topic. Yesterday, I read one of the most beautiful tributes I ever read. It's short, but it says so much.
Be right back with the lnk.
http://www.wqed.org/birdblog/2011/06/28/we-miss-her-already/ (http://www.wqed.org/birdblog/2011/06/28/we-miss-her-already/)
(http://www.wqed.org/birdblog/page/2/)
Lone Wolf
07-07-2011, 20:52
earl is just another guy that took a long walk. he wasn't no god or anything special.
k2basecamp
07-07-2011, 21:09
Well i just learned some things about grandma gatewood that i didn't know:She had 11 children ! That's pretty good preparation for a thru.
Well i just learned some things about grandma gatewood that i didn't know:She had 11 children ! That's pretty good preparation for a thru.
I think that Earl Shaffer had a great deal to say about Grandma Gatewood as well.
I forget some of the details.
;)
Lone Wolf
07-07-2011, 21:17
kinda hypocritical too
Hikerhead
07-07-2011, 21:41
i hate the new whiteblaze. why is it not letting me quote?
How did you feel about the old whiteblaze?
I can't figure out why somebody would lie about hiking the whole trail (any trail). That's just dumb..
The only person you're lying to is yourself. I'd lose all sense of self-respect if I told a lie like that.
Majortrauma
07-18-2011, 09:19
Agreed but some people just have "no code" and will lie about anything. Sort of like miscreants posing as OIF or OEF vets to include the fake decorations/medals.
I have read the report and yeah, Earl had a rough time of it but based on the rigor applied to the research in that report it would appear that Earl was not thew first "thru hiker".
And like 10-K said earlier, it doesn't affect my life one bit but the data presented by the author makes it clear that Earl was not the first "thru-hiker."
The AT was much different back then. Easier, or harder?? Who is to say, unless they followed Earl every step of his journey.
max patch
07-18-2011, 13:40
The AT was much different back then. Easier, or harder?? Who is to say, unless they followed Earl every step of his journey.
Your'e kidding, right?
Easier or harder? I'm going to go way out on a limb and say harder. Much harder. And I didn't follow Earl because I was still a figment of my mother's imagination waay back in 1948.
Earl Shaffer was the first person to attempt a through hike. Whether or not he accomplished his objective is a matter of opinion still debated by those who care about such things more than 60 years after the fact.
hikerboy57
07-18-2011, 14:43
Put it in the books with an asterisk, along with Barry Bonds home run record.
Earl Shaffer, Myron Avery, Jean Stephenson and students of A.T. history have always understood there is an asterisk.
hikerboy57
07-18-2011, 15:44
could we still agree that the concept of a thru hike originated with earl's attempt?
vamelungeon
07-18-2011, 15:44
Earl Shaffer, Myron Avery, Jean Stephenson and students of A.T. history have always understood there is an asterisk.
That's a very good point. It's true of any branch of history, not just the AT.
Could we still agree that the concept of a thru hike originated with Earl's attempt?
The concept originated as someone's private thoughts prior to the first attempt. Who first considered such a hike and when is more difficult to ascertain than when the first attempt occurred.
I believe I recall reading Gene Espy wasn't aware of Earl Shaffer's hike when he first began making plans for his own hike. If so, it wouldn't be correct to claim the concept of an A.T. through hike came into being as a result of Earl Shaffer's climbing Katahdin in 1948.
k2basecamp
07-18-2011, 17:11
The concept originated as someone's private thoughts prior to the first attempt. Who first considered such a hike and when is more difficult to ascertain than when the first attempt occurred.And that person probably was myron avery as he finished wheelin ' the last few miles of the trail.
The record would seem to indicate otherwise since Avery apparently thought Shaffer's claim incredulous initially.
southpaw95
07-18-2011, 18:24
What blows my mind about Earl's hike is that he did it without zip-locks!
I contend ATC ought to get out of the business of recognizing 2000 milers. Even if they aren't yet ready to take that step, they might consider modifying what's on their website somewhat and mentioning Gene Espy as an early through hiker.
I mystified on why you think either idea has merit. There's certainly nothing wrong with recognizing 2000-Milers. Gene was second, why mention him and not the 1st dozen?
earl is just another guy that took a long walk. he wasn't no god or anything special.
Same can be said for the record attempting speed hikers you seem to admire so much. Why bother helping.
max patch
07-18-2011, 18:34
I contend ATC ought to get out of the business of recognizing 2000 milers. Even if they aren't yet ready to take that step, they might consider modifying what's on their website somewhat and mentioning Gene Espy as an early through hiker.
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/who-we-are/news/2011/06/21/appalachian-trail-conservancy-pioneers-among-inaugural-inductees-to-appalachian-trail-hall-of-fame
Others honored as members of the inaugural class included the first and second individuals to ever hike the 2,000-mile Trail in a continuous effort, the late Earl V. Shaffer and Gene Espy, respectively, as well as the late Edward B. Garvey, author, trail maintainer, and volunteer leader for both the ATC and the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club. Shaffer, active in two Pennsylvania trail clubs, served three years on the ATC board; Garvey, 16 years.
There's certainly nothing wrong with recognizing 2000-milers.
ATC's resources would be better spent on resource management issues than worrying about who's hiked the A.T. They shouldn't allow themselves to get sucked into arbitrating disputes over who has and hasn't hiked it either. There are other organizations that could go on about that ad nauseam. WhiteBlaze.net is but one example.
Gene was second, why mention him and not the 1st dozen?
Maybe whether Gene hiked the entire A.T. isn't as controversial. There are many other early through hikers ATC has chosen to mention by name. Let me see once as we do here in the Land of the Pennsylvania Dutch whether they have now chosen to list him along with the others they singled out.
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about-the-trail/2000-milers
First reported thru-hiker.
In 1948, Earl V. Shaffer became the first to report a thru-hike, walking the entire Trail from Georgia to Maine. He hiked again—this time from Maine to Georgia—in 1965. On his third thru-hike, 50 years after his first, he became the oldest thru-hiker at age 79, a distinction he held until 2004.
The question is a fair question and a good one I must acknowledge and ponder before attempting a better answer.
Lone Wolf
07-18-2011, 21:24
Same can be said for the record attempting speed hikers you seem to admire so much. Why bother helping.cuz through hiking doesn't require much athletic ability. just a big block of time and money. it's just walkin'. have i ever mentioned that?
ATC's resources would be better spent on resource management issues than worrying about who's hiked the A.T. They shouldn't allow themselves to get sucked into arbitrating disputes over who has and hasn't hiked it. There are other organizations that could go on about that ad nauseum. WhiteBlaze.net is but one example.
Maybe whether Gene hiked the A.T. isn't as controversial. There are many other early through hikers ATC has chosen to mention by name. Let me see once as we do here in the Land of the Pennsylvania Dutch whether they have now chosen to list him along with the others they singled out.
http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about-the-trail/2000-milers
2000-Mile acknowledgment by the ATC is based on the honor system, it doesn't arbitrate disputes. Anyone could claim Gene missed a whiteblazed section and given the time of his hike would most likely be right. Only a purist would care.
warren doyle
07-18-2011, 21:57
1) Columbus discovered America
2) The earth is the center of the universe
3) There are WMD in Iraq
4) Earl Shaffer was the first person to walk the entire trail.
I only knew Earl from 1973 until he passed on. I talked with him at least a dozen times and met him on his third hike four times. He always seemed to crticize Grandma Gatewood when her name came up. He also seem to have misinformed, critical opinions of the motives behind the circle expeditions. I remember my father taking him to task on these comments once at a Gathering. Also, he knowingly took a ride around a major part of the Bigelow range on his third hike (ironically a section that proved so strenuous for Ed Garvey that he terminated his 2nd thru).
It is true that he was honest about his trail route in the first printing of Walking With Spring. There have been some questionable cover-ups (or revisionist history) since that first printing and into the present because this research surely will cast a new light on all the posthumous Earl merchandise being sold to the public by the Shaffer Foundation.
It reminds me how some folks at Mt.Washington reacted when the highest recorded wind was verified in another place.
Happy trails!
BAG "o" TRICKS
07-18-2011, 21:59
Panzer I've talked with people who met Earl on his first hike up the 'AT' in 48, and they recalled their meeting with 'The Crazy One' pretty much as Earl himself described it in his little black book.
Only a purist would care.I care. I think this is important stuff. These old dead people are trying to take some of the rightful accomplishment away from real thru hikers.
IMO every inch of the trail must be hiked or the self-proclaimed thru hiker is a fraud.
Obviously, this entails heel-to-toe foot placement so that no portion of the trail is missed. We can accept no less.
BAG "o" TRICKS
07-18-2011, 22:07
It's not 'just walking' if you have a pack on your back. Sure you're walking alright, but with a pack on your back its not the same as 'just walking'. When you are 'just walking' do you have a backpack on your back?.., if you do you're probably backpacking;).
2000-Mile acknowledgment by the ATC is based on the honor system, it doesn't arbitrate disputes.
ATC's recognition program (http://www.appalachiantrail.org/about-the-trail/2000-milers/2000-miler-application) and the statistics it generates reflect the number of complete hikes reported, not necessarily the number of complete hikes. Although the language is pretty clear about what's intended, it's up to each hiker to determine when to apply for recognition.
The notion that ATC is the closest thing to an arbiter regarding who should be recognized as the 1st through hiker was language from the linked Roanoke Times article. ATC accepted Earl Shaffers' hike as the 1st through hike.
It doesn't meet the standards of the current recognition program, but that came along years later. I doubt the majority of hikers believe it would be good use of ATC's resources to attempt to rewrite history or open that can of worms.
double d
07-19-2011, 01:42
Earl was a great man, who also thru-hiked in 1998! As many others have already discussed, the AT was much, much different in 1948 then today-for those who have read his book, he had to use an ax and hack his own AT trail when none existed. LW says its "just walkin", but it was much different in 1948 then today.
Kaptain Kangaroo
07-19-2011, 06:19
-.......for those who have read his book, he had to use an ax and hack his own AT trail when none existed. .......
Yes, this is a repeated situation in Earl's book...however the report seems to indicate that in many of these instances there was an AT trail, Earl just wasn't on it....
Regardless of exactly how he got to Maine it was still a great achievement, but is was kind of disturbing to read the report when it points out the differences between Earl's private notes (his notebook) and what is written in the public documents (report to the ATC & his book). You get a strong feeling that there was some effort to hide details of the actual route....the starting point for example. It is hard to read the report & not think that Earl didn't actually start at Mt Oglethorpe & despite being aware of this at a later time, did not state so in his book.
Oh good grief. Who cares? Worry about your own hike, not someone else's. Seriously. :rolleyes:
Oh good grief. Who cares? Worry about your own hike, not someone else's. Seriously. :rolleyes:
Not sure "worry" is the best word to use in this context, but the curators atthe Smithsonian Institution have cataloged a great deal on Earl Shaffer's historic hike, and even created a display.
So they cared about the hike.
Not sure "worry" is the best word to use in this context, but the curators atthe Smithsonian Institution have cataloged a great deal on Earl Shaffer's historic hike, and even created a display.
So they cared about the hike.
Semantics. It's a thread with a bunch of people nattering like little old gossips about someone else's hike.
paistes5
07-19-2011, 08:40
This is a great thread for all the tim foil hat wearing crowd. How about we debate whether we landed on the moon or not?
Did the fellow who wrote his analysis of Earl's hike care enough that it got out there that he paid AT Troll for the blue link?
vamelungeon
07-19-2011, 09:23
If you make a claim of something and if you write books about it, your claim and writings become open for discussion. Why this is problematic for some I don't know. This IS a discussion forum after all.
Jack Tarlin
07-19-2011, 09:27
I doubt there's anyone on this board who liked and respected Ear Shaffer as much as I did (and still do), but Vamelungeon's comment above is absolutely correct. On open discussion forums, things get openly discussed, and that's how it should be.
Kaptain Kangaroo
07-20-2011, 05:38
If you make a claim of significance.......the first, the fastest etc. then you must expect your claim to undergo close scrutiny & also to be held to a high standard.
Earl's hike was a not some random, non-significant hike like mine (well not significant to anyone but me). It was a milestone in the history of the trail. Earl claimed that his was the first thru-hike & it is entirely appropriate that such a claim is open for discussion.
Seems to me the ATC has chosen its words carefully when it states that Earl Shaffer was the first to REPORT a thru hike.
If Earl Shaffer did not hike the entire Trail, that hardly diminishes his accomplishment. The same can be said for many hikers who walk (mostly) from Georgia to Maine on something less than a rigorously defined path.
In Shaffer's case his accomplishment was something special not so much for the physical feat or blazes passed, as because it inspired others to not only walk the AT but to love it.
Another accomplishment (and a far greater one, I am sure all will agree) is that the AT got completed at all. Obviously this was the work of many-- it was the result of not only hard work but represented the alignment of different visions all coming together.
Central to all those visions was the idea that the trail would be a defined and marked footpath however. It was always to be more than a collection of separate trails running up and down the Appalachians. Even those sections running through towns had to be blazed and became part of the AT.
In other words, when it comes to the AT, the whole is and always has been more important that than the sum of its parts.
As such, I think there is something inherently cool about someone walking the entire marked trail. Not so much because of what it says about the person hiking it, but for what it says about all the volunteers who put their time an sweat into buliding it and what THEY accomplished. And for what it says about the trail itself.
How much of the Trail that Earl Shaffer hiked may not be important at this point. But I do think it is important that there was person out there who really did thru hike the entire AT. It would be cool to know who he was, and to celebrate the trail thought that "first" as well.
On the other hand, perhaps its more poetic that that the first person to thru hike the ENTIRE trail remains anonymous to history. Like most hikers.
I'm still waiting to find out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....
:)
I do think it is important that there was person out there who really did thru hike the entire AT. It would be cool to know who he was.His name was Earl Shaffer. You may have heard of him.
In the context of that time, he hiked the entire AT. Things have changed. Did Columbus land on the American continent in 1492? No. But he is celebrated nonetheless, properly, as is Earl Shaffer. Life is too short to spend time quibbling.
MedicineMan
07-21-2011, 05:28
My first thought was ~~humorous ok so dont freek~~ strip him of the gold and give it to Gene, but then some lawyer will be picking through ever turd he dropped.
Then I remembered what Sgt.Rock said one day (paraphrase so help me here Rock) that anyone who walks from Ga to Me even on an interstate deserves a round of applause.
So I have to wonder-was 'thru-hike' even defined until Earl defined it? Do we name (or did the hikers of the times) name something that was considered impossible?
After reading the article and enough of the report to get the ghist if anyone asks me who was the first I'm still going to say Earl....but I was glad to be reminded at Avery was the first 2000 miler :)
Great thread overall.
...So I have to wonder-was 'thru-hike' even defined until Earl defined it? Do we name (or did the hikers of the times) name something that was considered impossible?
That's what I was thinking what was the accepted definition of AT Thur Hike in 1948? Pheidippides ran the first marathon without a shoe tag so how do we really know for sure if he ran the whole thing, maybe he caught a ride on an ox cart for a few miles, maybe he cut a switchback or two :rolleyes:
While we are at it I would like to reevaluate every home-run in Major League baseball that was hit on a field with less than 400 feet in center field.:rolleyes: (Sorry Boston)
Historic events should be evaluated in the context of the time they occur. The concept of an AT purest did not exist in 1948.
MedicineMan
07-21-2011, 06:01
I'd like to hear HammockHanger chime in....memories tells me on the ECT she dealth with huge road walks and trail that really wasn't trail....
The concept of an AT purest did not exist in 1948.
I wish it didn't exist now either. :rolleyes:
Seems to me the ATC has chosen its words carefully when it states that Earl Shaffer was the first to REPORT a thru hike.
How much of the Trail that Earl Shaffer hiked may not be important at this point. But I do think it is important that there was person out there who really did thru hike the entire AT. It would be cool to know who he was, and to celebrate the trail thought that "first" as well.
Isn't that what every thru-hiker since Earl has done, REPORT their thru-hike?
Gene Espy? I doubt it, he had many of the same obstacles as Earl. Chester? No way, I doubt it was marked for southbounders. Wait, wasn't Myron Avery a southbounder? Grandma Gatewood? Earl said she was a fraud, and it takes one to know one. Ed Garvey? Wasn't he partial to blue?
Who knows, it was probably Warren Doyle that was first to hike the ENTIRE trail.
rgarling
07-21-2011, 11:31
...Grandma Gatewood? Earl said she was a fraud, and it takes one to know one....
Perhaps we can cut each of these characters some slack. I found this comment by Jack Tarlin:
According to the late Earl Shaffer, who was absolutely in a position to know, Ms. Gatewood's accomplishments, especially in so far as actually hiking all the miles she claimed, are actually open to debate. In the presence of a roomful of witnesses at the Ruck hiker Gathering in January of 2002, when overhearing a discussion of her travels and subsequent fame, Earl had this to say: "Grandma Gatewood was a fraud!"
I am credibly informed that while his listeners were shocked, no one dared dispute this at the time, and Earl provided several examples to corroborate his remark. Apparently, on more than one occasion, even tho he was far ahead of her on the Trail, she magically managed to beat him to camp or town, and there was no question in Earl's mind how she managed to do so.
I include this not to slam Ms. Gatewood, but merely to provide another perspective. According to Earl, at any rate, the phenomena of blue-blazing, trail-skipping, and mileage padding is not limited to recent times.
Given the information we now have about how Earl approached his hike, it is possible that this could be explained this possibility: He was off the trail a bit, bushwacking his way along the 'missing' trail, while Grandma Gatewood actually knew where the trail was because she had the guidebooks.
Perhaps we can cut each of these characters some slack. I found this comment by Jack Tarlin:
Given the information we now have about how Earl approached his hike, it is possible that this could be explained this possibility: He was off the trail a bit, bushwacking his way along the 'missing' trail, while Grandma Gatewood actually knew where the trail was because she had the guidebooks.
Ummm, it was meant as a joke, but do we know Grandma Gatebook had guidebooks, never got lost and never missed sections of trail? It's impossible to know for sure so this entire conversation is meaningless.
MedicineMan
07-21-2011, 17:22
Sly I enjoyed your post #115 but meaningless, nah, all this reinforces that the concept of a 'thru' is like religion and honor-a very personal decision and reminds me of a hike with my 82 year old Scoutmaster 4 or 5 years ago to a peak near my house....from there you can see points along roughly 70 miles of the trail...I said 'well Earl came right through here' and my Scoutmaster replied 'he was nowhere near here' then explained to me where the trail was at the time relative to the present location. So some readers of this thread may be completely new to the huge history of the trail and are now getting some insight into its placement over time despite the wonders of purism.
hikerboy57
07-21-2011, 17:53
medicine man, I think you're right. The report is excellent from a historical context, and seeing how much the route has changed over time..I think at this point it no longer matters who was the first pure thru hiker. Im not sure we can ever be sure who walked every step of the AT without GPS tracking.But the thread has introduced quite a few characters that few were aware of before.Theres almost as much reserach on this thread as the report itself.
MedicineMan
07-21-2011, 19:26
An emphatic yes that this thread has been a fantastic learning opportunity for us that are in love with this trail and like all the details (good and bad)...and personally I felt quite happy and justified blue blazing to Humpback Rock in SNP knowing it was the old trail (in fact under the blue you could still see remains of the white blazes). And a lot of us old timers remember hiking the Iron Mtn trail when it was the AT. Now in Vermont I missed a 3 mile section due to a creek that was transformed into a 20 yard class IV river-had to hike back to the nearest road and hitched to the next road crossing.....and yes I'm going back to fill that in!
Earl was a pioneer, to me just as much kin to the first who walked on the moon...space blazing? I don't care how they got there since there were creating a route as they went, just glad they got back and just as glad Earl had the guts togo for it.
Yeah, I suppose. I think my own sense of adventure has spoiled me. There was at least one time on the AT I recall and several times out west, where I knew I had lost the trail and rather than do the prudent (and purist) thing, and retrace my steps, I'd look at the terrain, or my map, and start bushwhacking, or strike out cross country, to where I thought the trail had to be. Never quite sure, with the adrenaline pumping, there's nothing more satisfying than reaching the ridge, or plopping your foot in the narrowing clearing, and seeing the blaze or trail proper.
Sly I enjoyed your post #115 but meaningless, nah, all this reinforces that the concept of a 'thru' is like religion and honor-a very personal decision and reminds me of a hike with my 82 year old Scoutmaster 4 or 5 years ago to a peak near my house....from there you can see points along roughly 70 miles of the trail...I said 'well Earl came right through here' and my Scoutmaster replied 'he was nowhere near here' then explained to me where the trail was at the time relative to the present location. So some readers of this thread may be completely new to the huge history of the trail and are now getting some insight into its placement over time despite the wonders of purism.
hikerboy57
07-21-2011, 20:01
Ah, the joys of bushwacking!! I cant think of anything better than being "lost", and finally finding out you know exactly where you are and know how to get to where you're going.Myself, Im just not that goal oriented. If I hiked from GA to ME, Id still feel some sense of accomplishment, even if I blue blazed a bit and couldnt call myself a true thru. although I've wanted to thru hike the AT since 76, I finally decided to break it up into two trips.I met too many thrus in NH and ME, and many have told me its too long to be "out of it", although some were sad to finish, others couldnt wait to get back home to their families. Im hiking 3 months NOBO next year, and my boss already has been told that, depending on how I feel at the ned of 3 months, he may get a call from me that I need to finish(and hes cool with it if I do). But for now, I think Id rather enjoy more of trail, and worry less about getting back to my other life
southpaw95
07-22-2011, 11:50
What blows my mind about Earl Shaffer's first hike is that Gatlinburg had only ONE store!
thepathsproject
07-24-2011, 22:39
I've been reading with interest this thread and thought I'd become a member of Whiteblaze to join in the discussion. As the author of the Report on Shaffer's 1948 AT hike that triggered this thread, I'll be glad to answer any questions or respond to comments about the Report from Whiteblaze members.
I would encourage those interested to read the Roanoke Times article about the Report (found at http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/291803 ) and read the actual Report (available on this site). I know its a long document, and isn't easy reading. But reading Chapters 1-3 and 19 will give a reader a good feel for the Report.
My intention is to respond to any specific responses to this post, and perhaps make general comments about existing posts on the thread in reference to the Report.
I wrote the Report in hopes of encouraging a discussion about the old AT and early thru-hikers. I hope my joining in this thread will further that discussion.
I do want to initially comment about the lack of convenient public access to the text of Shaffer's 1948 hike journal. That is the "Little Black Notebook" that Shaffer frequently cited in Walking With Spring. I refer to it as the "LBN." Lack of public access to LBN severely hinders the study of his hike. While LBN is now available for review and copying (at 0.20/page) at the National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., it has not, as far as I know, been published or made available on-line. As a person who has read and studied the text of LBN as it reports Shaffer's hike from its beginning to Rockfish Gap, VA, I can confidently state that a discussion of Shaffer's 1948 hike would involve a lot less speculation if everyone could conveniently read LBN.
What I don't know, and wonder about, is how many people (other than myself) have ever actually read LBN? Several posters allude to knowing Shaffer during his lifetime -- I wonder if those who knew him ever got the chance to read LBN? Who out there had the opportunity to examine or read LBN during Shaffer's lifetime?
I guess that is my first question to the Whiteblaze community. Who has actually read LBN? I'd appreciate your response.
There are other important sources of information as well about his hike that I found during my research. I detail those in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Report. But LBN is a primary source for information about his '48 hike. I hope if there are sources of information I was not aware of, that will be noted in this discussion by those who are aware of such information.
Now, do you have questions for me, or comments I can respond to, about the Report?
Jim McNeely
Now, do you have questions for me, or comments I can respond to, about the Report?
Jim McNeelyWhen is Earl going to release his birth certificate? The long form. Also I heard he was dead, but have never actually seen a death certificate published. Would you look into that, please. This conspiracy may be larger than any of have imagined and Earl may very well, at this moment and in secret, be being pushed along the trail in a wheel chair to establish still another fraudulent "hiking" trip.
If your mother (or daughter or son or someone who loved and trusted you) asked you, "Why are you doing this, and are you proud of it?" and let's suppose she had a short/moderate attention span and a built in BS-detector, how would you sum it up?
Captain Blue
07-24-2011, 23:22
When is Earl going to release his birth certificate?
Jim - Thanks for posting. You can see the intellect of some of the people who post here.
thepathsproject
07-24-2011, 23:34
I suggest you read Chapters 1 and 19 of the Report if you are interested in how I came to be interested in the subject of the early thru-hikers and my reasons for writing the Report.
I suggest you read Chapters 1 and 19 of the Report if you are interested in how I came to be interested in the subject of the early thru-hikers and my reasons for writing the Report.I did. It reads like any expose intro and conclusion I have ever read. Open minded; looking for something else, with the best of positive and honorable intents, and just _happened_ to stumble across the scandal.
I was probing to see if there were something real there that I could respect.
thepathsproject
07-25-2011, 00:44
I did. It reads like any expose intro and conclusion I have ever read. Open minded; looking for something else, with the best of positive and honorable intents, and just _happened_ to stumble across the scandal.
I was probing to see if there were something real there that I could respect.
If you read Chapter 19, you read that the whole thing was about my long-term plan to walk the old AT through southern Virginia in the footsteps of the first AT thru-hiker to have done so. Would it be "real" enough for you to respect to know that I just finished, on July 20, that hike? I left the current AT near Sugar Grove (Va. 16) and rejoined the current AT on Catawba Mt. (Va. 311). I followed, in general, the AT described in the 1950 Guide To Paths In The Blue Ridge, with a number of modifications in the route to accomodate modern conditions. It was a hike of about 220 miles.
I based the timing of my hike on my walking into Galax, Virginia, on July 2, 2011, 60 years to the day from the date that Gene Espy walked into Galax on July 2, 1951. If you read Chapter 19, you know why I based that hike not on Shaffer's 1948 hike, but on Espy's 1951 hike.
So I've hiked the old AT route up the New River from Byllesby, through Galax, over the ridge of Fisher Peak, through Fancy Gap, over Groundhog Mt., over "the Buffalo" (Buffalo Mt.) in a route modification substituting Buffalo Mt. for the Pinnacles of Dan, across Rocky Knob, through Smart View Park, across Poor Mt. and Ft. Lewis Mt., and finally walking up Catawba Mt. under a blistering sun on July 20 to rejoin the current AT on Catawba Mt.
And, by the way, when I hiked from Georgia to Maine in 1985 on the AT and other trails, I started not at Springer Mt., but at Mt. Oglethorpe. Did you read my Oglethorpe chapters -- Chapter 6 and 16. I walked the old route, so its not theory. In 2008, I rode a fully-loaded touring bicycle to the base of Oglethorpe and pushed the d___ thing the rest of the way up just to get on the summit. So I've been there. In fact, I took so many old sections of the AT during that 1985 hike that my motto was "If it was good enough for Grandma Gatewood, its good enough for me!"
And so far, I have found, or been there when it was found, six old rusted AT metal markers still hanging on trees on long-abandoned sections of the AT -- and one "ghost" shelter, still standing. And several old bridges. And one old sign, on Big Walker Mt. in VA, still pointing the way to the
Long Spur" Trail many decades after that side trail, and the AT, disappeared from that mountain.
And did I tell you about my camp in that gap near Perkins Knob along the old AT route on Iron Mt. during my old AT hike -- on June 26. I was very tired and desperately needed water, which there is little of on Iron Mt. So I went looking for that spring in the hollow described by the 1934 Guide To Paths In The Blue Ridge and found it, with the iron pipe described nearly 70 years ago still there. It wasn't just drinking amazingly cold water -- it was touching history.
Is that kind of study and labor over many years to find and travel the old AT, to preserve the record of its features, and to demonstrate that it can still be traveled today, "real" enough for you to respect, Wil? And that, you understand, was the genesis of the Report -- just like I explained in Chapters 1 and 19.
And that, you understand, was the genesis of the Report -- just like I explained in Chapters 1 and 19.No. I don't understand that. I don't respect it. I don't believe it.
All the things you talked about in your post (and in much of the report) are admirable. I have no reason to think that you are not an admirable person, on balance. But you have done a worthless, useless, and (until I learn otherwise, which was the purpose of my probing) a basely-motivated character assassination of a man not here to defend himself.
Now historians character assassinate all the time (e.g. Vidal's Lincoln bio). But claiming to have hiked the MYTH of the AT when it really didn't even exist and everyone, including Shaffer agreed with that, is not the same as presenting yourself as a public figure like the President of the United States. Yes Earl did a few slide shows for meetings; but hiking the AT does not rise to that level of public figuredom. I'm sorry: you present a pitiable figure in attacking an old dead man.
My God man, if you looked at my hiker notes (not talking about the AT here but less-charted "trails" more like the AT of Shaffer's day) scribbled in the rain, fatigued beyond what 99.9% of the human race would be insane enough to subject themselves to, barely knowing what YEAR it was most nights much less the day, my notion of exactly where I was mostly a fantasy, just wanting to scribble a few notes for my PRIVATE reference and get some sleep, you'd conclude I was hiking on Edgar Rice Burrough's version of planet Mars. If I took rides (for a break or to get back in sync or for whatever reason and forgot or didn't record it correctly), and later decided to make my notes available, for whatever they were worth, for people to glean a few nuggets from, I'd have to worry about vultures picking on my remains? This is insane.
You make the fundamental error of judging history by today's standards. Accurate maps; GPS's; trails groomed, blazed and documented by legions of volunteers and professionals, wall-to-wall shelters. Communications: other hikers, the internet. Earl Shaffer's AT experience is as foreign to us as trying to understand Stanley seeking Livingston.
I would like to reevaluate every home-run in Major League baseball ... The concept of an AT purest did not exist in 1948.How many home runs did Babe Ruth hit in his career. You're saying 714, aren't you.
But today, a number of those so-called home runs would be judged ground-rule doubles (balls bounced into the stands were HRs for much of Ruth's career).
I think whasisnamehere should write a baseball expose report about the Babe Ruth home run fraud.
Actually, Ruth probably "lost" a lot more HRs compared to today's standards because the times are different. Hit a walk-off home run (say tied bottom 9 and you hit a grand slam home run?)? Sorry, Babe, you get credit only for driving in the winning run, a single. Hit a ball inside the foul pole (HR today) but it then curves foul? Foul ball, sorry, Babe. Hit a ball off the foul pole (inside it) but the ball lands in foul territory? NO HOME RUN for YOU, Babe, only a double by the standards of the time. Some ballparks in Ruth's time had center field fences 560 feet from home plate. 559 foot shot? Sorry Babe, fly ball out.
Why would the Shaffer "dubunker," a hiker, a person who seems to have some understanding of what we do, **** directly into our collective water supply? I am trying to understand this person and give him some benefit of the doubt. It is very hard.
Kaptain Kangaroo
07-25-2011, 03:50
If you disagree with the report, how about you put forward a rational, reasoned argument.
It's OK to disagree, but a rant just makes a person look ignorant.
MedicineMan
07-25-2011, 04:29
uncomfortble. hmmmm. thinking about my blood pressure 2 weeks ago and the doc's statement 'new tables say your too high' but of course tables of a year ago said i'm good to go. Earl had no tables. Why compare yesterdays performance with what is standard today when the standard is/was yet to be defined then or now? e.g. remember when Sgt.Rock set out on a thru using the BMT from Springer to Davenport Gap...post hike I would easily and congratulatorily said 'how was your thru-hike'.....
Yet I think it totally cool to hike the old AT and even cooler to research and find it. That is seriously walking in footsteps of old.
You make the fundamental error of judging history by today's standards.
To my reading there was little or no judgement in the report, just an exposition of facts.
Any judgement seems to be a projection of those who are uncomfortable with the what the report says.
The first thru hike has and always will be a combined accomplishment. An accomplishment on the part of the individual who concieved and executed the trip to be sure. But also an accomplishment of those many people who worked so hard to build, map and promote a connected footpath from Maine to Georgia. And make no mistake about it: creating a connected, continuous footpath was very important to the ATC right from the beginning.
That it looks to have been an anonymous hiker that was the first to hike the entire connected footpath should be embraced as a wonderfull thing, given that hiking is not about awards, aclaim and recognition.
That the first person to hike the entire connected footpath was not Earl Shaffer does not diminish Shaffer's role in the history of the AT even one little bit. From the reading of the report it seems clear that Avery understood the importance of Earl Shaffer's journey to the promotion and protection of the Trail, and that has been born out by history.
k2basecamp
07-25-2011, 08:05
Mcneely admits that he didn.t hike the existing trail in 1985 so if he has a thru-hiker's certificate It should be revoked by the ATC. He also feels it's okay to trespass in his quest to follow the 1950 trail so keep this in mind when you evaluateHis self-serving comments.
Majortrauma
07-25-2011, 09:16
The comments directed against jwmcneely are stunning because of the vitriol and the lack of logic. Instead of criticizing his work, people here seem to be more interested in criticizing him because he has dared challenge the God like status bestowed upon Earl Shaffer.
Earl seems to have achieved the status of a deity and his journal (LBN) is the equivalent of some type of infallible, holy scripture and those who dare question that are heretics worthy of being burned at the stake.
I did read the report and it's a fact that he did not actually thru-hike by current standards so why is this such an issue? I guess if the ATC were to decide to revoke his status as the first thru-hiker because of jwmcneely's article he wold have to do what Salman Rushdie did and go into hiding for 10 years.
vamelungeon
07-25-2011, 09:18
The comments directed against jwmcneely are stunning because of the vitriol and the lack of logic. Instead of criticizing his work, people here seem to be more interested in criticizing him because he has dared challenge the God like status bestowed upon Earl Shaffer.
Earl seems to have achieved the status of a deity and his journal (LBN) is the equivalent of some type of infallible, holy scripture and those who dare question that are heretics worthy of being burned at the stake.
I did read the report and it's a fact that he did not actually thru-hike by current standards so why is this such an issue? I guess if the ATC were to decide to revoke his status as the first thru-hiker because of jwmcneely's article he wold have to do what Salman Rushdie did and go into hiding for 10 years.
Thank you! You summed up my thoughts as well and expressed them better than I could have done.
read it, I understand your reason to put it together, I get WWS (Walking With Spring) and LBN (Little Black Notebook), both of which I find you spellec out in the beginning......but I don't find where you ever say what "SR48" is? I concluded it was what Earl wrote and turned in to the ATC?
thepathsproject
07-25-2011, 09:53
read it, I understand your reason to put it together, I get WWS (Walking With Spring) and LBN (Little Black Notebook), both of which I find you spellec out in the beginning......but I don't find where you ever say what "SR48" is? I concluded it was what Earl wrote and turned in to the ATC?
Right. SR48 is my short-hand for Shaffer's 1948 report to the ATC. There is some confusion about the document because the Shaffer Foundation "Walking With Spring" DVD presents the daily record included in SR48 as Shaffer's daily hike journal. That is LBN, not SR48. SR48 was prepared by Shaffer after his hike for submission to the ATC in support of recognition of his hike as a thru-hike. For that reason, it is very interesting to compare what Shaffer noted in LBN, what he reported to the ATC in SR48, and what he published decades later in WWS (Walking With Spring).
thepathsproject
07-25-2011, 10:26
Mcneely admits that he didn.t hike the existing trail in 1985 so if he has a thru-hiker's certificate It should be revoked by the ATC. He also feels it's okay to trespass in his quest to follow the 1950 trail so keep this in mind when you evaluateHis self-serving comments.
What is a thru-hiker's certificate? Ain't got one, never asked for one. Since my hike in 1985 wasn't an AT hike, but instead a hike that followed, at times and only when necessary, the modern AT, I doubt I'm listed as a 1985 thru-hiker. I certainly never asked to be listed. In fact, I might suggest that I walked about as much of the AT during my 1985 hike as anyone did who was constantly trying to figure out a way to stay off the modern AT while walking from Georgia to Maine.
And as for trespassing --- the route for my old AT hike was planned to be one available to the public. I intended it could be followed by other hikers with sufficient experience and independence to leave the rather artificial "bubble" of the modern AT to explore on foot the features of the old AT corridor along the Virginia Blue Ridge. That is why there were a number of modifications to the actual old AT route. For instance, I crossed Ft. Lewis Mt. (near Salem, VA) not on the old AT route, but instead through the Havens WMA. I substituted "the Buffalo" (Buffalo Mt.) for the Pinnacles of Dan because, first, the spectacular nature of that summit and, second, because the modified route stayed on public lands or rights-of-way. So the route I followed is one other hikers could follow as an alternative to the modern AT.
Jack Tarlin
07-25-2011, 10:54
Actually, Majortrauma, Earl wasn't the kinda guy to go into hiding, and in any case, this would be a neat trick, as the man's been dead for almost a decade. (Meaning he's also not around to respond to any of this, which is kind of a blessing). And while there have ineed been some unkind and regrettable things said about Mr. McNeely, there have also been some equally unpleasant things said about the late Mr. Shaffer, who, as anyone lucky enough to have met him can attest, was a plain-spoken, unassuming, modest man, who for many, many years neither sought out nor expected the "Godlike status" that Majortrauma talks about. I hope it's possible to have this dialogue and discuss these matters in a civil way; neither McNeely nor Shaffer deserve some of the harsher comments I've heard here and elsewhere, especially Mr. Shaffer, who is obviously not in a position to respond.
warren doyle
07-25-2011, 11:23
For several decades, many in the ATC community took great pride in acknowledging that the AT was the longest, continuously blazed footpath in the world. Many of the hiking clubs used this as a prime motivator/mission behind all the hours of volunteer work they put it maintaining a clear and continuously blazed trail. I have walked 34,000 miles of continuous white blazes to honor these hard-working, good-intentioned volunteers and to also honor the person I see in the mirror.
Mcneely admits that he didn.t hike the existing trail in 1985 so if he has a thru-hiker's certificate It should be revoked by the ATC.
Ummm... there's no such think as thru-hiker certificate. The ATC awards 2000-Miler certificates, which are given if you honestly attempt to hike the entire whiteblazed trail. If you get lost, and find yourself up the trail, missing a few white blazes, only a purist would give you **** for not going back.
Though this new research is extensive for the section of Trail it covers, it does beg the question on how Earl Shaffer's journey may have deviated from the marked AT farther to the north-- if in fact it deviated at all.
I recall reading in what you call SR 48 (as published in an ALDHA directory some years back) Shaffer made a particular point about informing the ATC that he had not walked all the official Trail in the Whites because his maps had not arrived on time-- but that he walked substitute trails of equal or greater length. That impressed me.
So the ATC was clearly OK with the notion that one need not walk the entire footpath as such iconic AT walkers like Warren Doyle and Jack Tarlin might define it today.
But were there any other indications in either Earl Shaffer's contemporaneous journal or his later writings that he walked or rode around any other stretches of the marked trail in New England? Or even indications that he did so based on the distances traveled?
Do you think that it would have even been possible to walk the blaze-defined trail in 122 days (I think) in 1948 with the state of Trail as it existed at the time?
thepathsproject
07-26-2011, 10:12
My Report did not address what standards the AT community might apply to claimed thru-hikes. In Chapter 19, I noted that such an issue was beyond the scope of the Report. But several commenters have raised the issue of standards, and I'd like to comment.
Majortrauma (#136) noted that Shaffer's hike would not be ". . . a thru-hike by current standards . . ., but I wonder if that is true. As I understand it, the ATC now accepts claimed thru-hikes by a report only, with no inquiries as to the claim. That is what I got from the ATC comment in the Roanoke Times story, and from comments like that of Sly (#141). So if in the modern era a thru-hiker is recognized solely on the basis of a claim, then Shaffer's 1948 hike would have been accepted on his claim to have done so.
However, the problem for the Shaffer hike is that under those same modern standards his thru-hike was not the first, but rather ranks after the boy scout hike of 1936, based on that claim alone. So Shaffer can be listed as the first AT thru-hiker only by applying the more rigorous standard of requiring a claimed thru-hike to have a record that can be reviewed. As I understand it, that was the standard in 1948.
Shaffer's hike was, of course, accepted by the ATC in 1948. But that acceptance was based on Shaffer's report to the ATC in SR48, and SR48 did not disclose the full extent of Shaffer's voluntary off-AT travel. That can be seen by comparing his trip narrative in LBN, his narrative of decades later in Walking With Spring , and SR48 as he prepared it for the ATC. So when the ATC accepted his 1948 hike as a thru-hike, it did not know the full extent of his off-AT travel, his two motor vehicle rides in Virginia that carried him ahead on the AT, or of his apparent failure to start his hike at Mt. Oglethorpe (although if he made that error he problably didn't know about it until 1949).
So, would the ATC Board have approved Shaffer's 1948 hike if it had been aware of all the information Shaffe did not disclose in SR48, but that was contained in LBN? Folks who know more about the makeup and attitudes of the ATC Board back in that era could address that better than I can, but what appears certain is that the standards in 1948 were more stringent than the "report on the honor system" standards of today. In his latest post (#142), rickb notes that the ATC seemed o-kay with Shaffer skipping part of the AT in the White Mountains and instead walking alternative trails. Since writing my Report, I've seen information suggesting that the standards of that era where not perhaps as demanding as one might have expected.
So perhaps Shaffer's 1948 hike would have been accepted even if he had disclosed the full extent of his off-AT travel. The way in which Shaffer wrote SR48, and his post-hike actions in which he apparently "backfilled" the record of that hike, all suggest that he was concerned that his hike would not be accepted if he fully disclosed what was in LBN and the actual state of his photographic record in 1948. As I discuss in Chapter 15 of the Report, what exactly was Shaffer doing on that automobile trip in 1950 along the AT? Was that when he finally reached the summit of Mt. Oglethorpe? That is my finding, and it is yet to be factually challenged.
What we do know to a high degree of certainty is that Shaffer took photographs in 1950 that he included in the "record" of his 1948 hike. In fact, what is very surprising is the number of photographs even now represented to be 1948 Shaffer hike photos that appear to be (from the dating of film mounts, film numbers, foliage development in the views, and Shaffer's 1950 report to Avery) either 1950 Shaffer photographs or even photographs from other sources. I didn't get into the photography in any detail (except for the Oglethorpe photographs), but I think a person with knowledge of photography would find the Shaffer photography collection at the NMAH a fascinating subject for study.
I'd like to bring up again the issue of whether Shaffer allowed anyone to read LBN during his lifetime. Was LBN held as a "secret" document by Shaffer, even as he cited it repeatedly in WWS as his source document? Or did close associates, hiking companions, friends, family, etc., have access to it? I say again that if LBN was put on-line, or otherwise published (as the records of his other two AT hikes have apparently been), interested folks in the AT community could read it for themselves. Many of thos posting cite Walking With Spring as their source for Shaffer information, but that was a book writtern and rewritten , edited and reedited, over many decades. It is really more a literary work than hike documentation. LBN is the trail journal -- if you are really interested in what Shaffer actually went through on his hike, and where he actually traveled, LBN is the best place to start. So I'm frankly surprised there is not more intellectual curiosity about LBN, and more expressed interest in reading it, within the AT community. It is a fascinating document, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in AT history. I think it would be a great service to the AT community for it to be put on-line.
Jack Tarlin
07-26-2011, 10:47
Mr. McNeely, in his extended post above, expresses surprise that people aren't as fascinated with this as he seems to be, and I have to say, after following this debate for some time, that Mr. McNeely's pathological interest in the tiniest detail here (i.e details from 1950 photos, etc.) doesn't merely display "intellectual curiousity." If Mr. McNeely is genuinely intersted in pursuing this for scholarly and historical reasons, that is fine and good. That being said, his earnestness in pursuing this matter is starting to look more like some sort of obsessive quest to destroy the memory and good name of the late Earl Shaffer. It would be unfortunate if Mr. McNeely's research and scholarship gets lost or disrespected because people start misunderstanding his motives here. It would be even more unfortunate if they are not misunderstanding his motives at all, but instead, understand entirely what he seems intent on doing.
k2basecamp
07-26-2011, 12:28
You should get a new hobby and let Earl be since he is no longer here to defend his record.
thepathsproject
07-26-2011, 12:53
Though this new research is extensive for the section of Trail it covers, it does beg the question on how Earl Shaffer's journey may have deviated from the marked AT farther to the north-- if in fact it deviated at all.
I recall reading in what you call SR 48 (as published in an ALDHA directory some years back) Shaffer made a particular point about informing the ATC that he had not walked all the official Trail in the Whites because his maps had not arrived on time-- but that he walked substitute trails of equal or greater length. That impressed me.
So the ATC was clearly OK with the notion that one need not walk the entire footpath as such iconic AT walkers like Warren Doyle and Jack Tarlin might define it today.
But were there any other indications in either Earl Shaffer's contemporaneous journal or his later writings that he walked or rode around any other stretches of the marked trail in New England? Or even indications that he did so based on the distances traveled?
Do you think that it would have even been possible to walk the blaze-defined trail in 122 days (I think) in 1948 with the state of Trail as it existed at the time?
My research did not extend beyond the Rockfish Gap area in Virginia, so I can't address the extent to which Shaffer followed, or failed to follow, the AT north of there. However, I suspect he more carefully followed the AT as he headed north because he was no longer anonymous as he was south of Rockfish Gap. By the time he got to PA, more folks knew about his hike, so he would likely have been more aware of the need to follow the AT. Also, I don't think there was any parallel highway like the Blue Ridge Parkway/Skyline Drive through the middle and northern states to offer what to him was apparently a more certain and attractive route to walk than the AT through Virginia. But that is all speculation on my part.
As far as mileage is concerned, the rapid pace of Shaffer's hike certainly suggests he wasn't "hacking his way through" with his hachet as some commenters have suggested. I know there is a persistent myth of Shaffer strugging through the tangled forest on a non-existent AT in 1948. As romantic a literary image as that may be, that is not what he reported in LBN or SR48 in 1948. I made a point in my Report to recount the only instance of extended "bushwhacking" reported by Shaffer in the south, which was the Snowbird Mt. section (Chapter 9). It should be noted that I did not count that section as non-AT travel even though my finding was that he likely just missed the AT by making a wrong turn at the river, failing to backtrack when the blazes disappeared (Shaffer just didn't seem to believe in backtracking when he lost the AT), then wandered around parallel to the AT until he stumbled onto Max Patch Road later that day. But even then he did not report "hacking his way through," just navigation by compass, probably on what was likely a web of woods roads or trails through that area in that era.
Anyway, a study of Shaffer's narratives and looking at his mileages suggests that trail conditions did not appear to be a serious impediment to his travel in the south. However, I can't speak of conditions in New England. What I've read is that a 1930's hurricane had, in fact, pretty much wiped out the AT in some areas -- I'd defer to more knowledgeable folks on that. So the stories of Shaffer hacking his way through may be true in parts of New England. My study was of the south, and I found no evidence of any such substantial "obiteration" of the AT in the south. In fact, the southern Virginia section (where Shaffer skipped a lot of AT mileage in walking Va. 97 and the Parkway) had reportedly been reblazed in 1947, and there is evidence of those bright white blazes in Shaffer's own photographs during the rather brief periods he was on the AT in that area. In fact, Shaffer probably had better conditions in southern Virginia than the 1950's hikers who followed, since it is likely the 1947 reblazing and maintenance was the last general maintenance on that section before abandonment in the mid-1950's (although one can assume that John Barnard probably continued to loyally maintain the Pinnacles of Dan section to, and perhaps beyond, abandonment).
It is doubtful that Shaffer would have made the time he did if he was struggling along a non-existent AT. At least in the south, the answer appears to be that he, or the legend of his hike as it developed over time, greatly overstated the degree to which he was slowed by either an unmarked or overgrown AT. Like hikers of today who travel semi-maintained or unmaintained trails, hikers of that era were much more accustomed to navigating over and around downed logs and through undergrowth. Shaffer, like other hikers of the era, was no "tee-shirt and shorts" modern hiker expecting a "groomed" AT. Gene Espy has a photograph in his book of the type of AT he hiked -- it is a footway with vegetation encroaching from either side -- and lots of blow-downs, I'm sure. But like those of us who hike unmaintained trails today, hikers of that era were dressed, equipped and expecting to just "plow through" such undergrowth without really slowing their pace. Those folks were a tough bunch of hikers, so plowing through underbrush was probably the norm for them in many areas of the AT -- thats why AT blazes wer put high on trees, so as to be visible above the undergrowth. I recall back in the early 60's as a teenager on an AT hike standing on stumps along the AT north of the James River in order to see AT blazes above the head-high nettles obstructing the AT, so even in my lifetime I guess I go back far enough to have been experienced the "old AT." It wasn't groomed, but you could still make good time plowing your way along.
Also, I'm not sure modern AT hkers appreciate just how fast early AT hikers were on the many road sections of the AT in that era. Having just hiking extended sections of those same roads on the old AT route in southern Virginia, I understand just how fast a conditioned hiker could travel those roads. I am out-of-shape and slow, but even I covered 3.6 miles in less than an hour in one case (had a store with a Mt. Dew ahead). The best hike to see that in is probably Gene Espy's 1951 hike, as he was more consistent (and having actually followed the AT, now more easily traced). He put in 20 - 30 mile days through that area as he pushed ahead to reach Mt. Katahdin before the snows set in. Espy had been delayed in beginning his hike by waiting for a companion, who quit almost immediately.
It was, incidently, that delay that made Espy the first person to travel a connected, continuous AT from Georgia to Maine. The AT was not a continuous trail in 1948, with two gaps not yet constructed after the AT's continuity had been severed by Parkway construction in the late 1930's -- Cloverdale to Black Horse Gap and "The Priest-Three Ridges" section. So regardless of whatever else he did, Shaffer could not have hiked the AT from Georgia To Maine in 1948 because the AT was not then a continuos trail (the same can be said for the boy scoputs, since there was a much smaller uncompleted gap in the AT in 1936). By 1951, the Cloverdale-Black Horse Gap section was complete, and the last section over Three Ridges was apparently completed just a week or so before Espy hiked through in July 1951.
So Espy, as a factual matter, was the first to hike a continuous AT. Its a shame more attention hasn't been paid to Espy's hike in all the frenzy over Shaffer. Espy was a state-of-the-art hiker for the time and hiked the AT in a very matter-of-fact manner. And he was, as a matter of fact, the first thru-hiker to hike the AT from one end to the other. Regardless of any other issues, both the boy scouts and Shaffer hikes ought to have an "*" noting they hiked a non-continuous trail.
Shaffer was a very fast hiker, but much more inconsistent than Espy. His mileages tended to "bounce" a lot, with short days followed by long days. In an early draft of my Report, there was a running calculation of Shaffer's success at maintaining a 4 month schedule. I edited it out because it was too tedious and space-consuming in an already overlong document. But I can say that with several very low-mileage days in the south due to his rather stubborn refusal to backtrack when he lost the AT (the Doublehead Gap, GA, and the Hampton, TN, situations being prominent), Shaffer was way behind a four-month hike schedule as he left Hampton, TN. He made up a lot of time by Galax, and made up enough time to be on schedule by Rockfish Gap. So I suspect that a lot of his short-cuts and Parkway walking through Virginia, and acceptance of motor vehicle rides to move him ahead on the AT, was likely motivated by his need to make up time.
In the case of the Fries - Galax situation, I think Shaffer just didn't want to wait until the next morning to find his way across the New River -- he wanted to get to Galax that evening. He was well set up in Fries to spend the night (with an early case of "trail magic" having found him a warm meal and dry porch), so he had no reason to push on that evening except for impatience to get to Galax. So I think that a fairly straightforward case of being in too big a hurry to continue hiking.
In the case of his decison to not return to the AT after visiting the Peaks of Otter by motor vehicle on May 14, but to instead continue north on the Parkway to Apple Orchard Mt. (thereby skipping about 18 miles of well established AT), I suspect he was pushed by both the need to make up time and his running low on food (he was hoping, I think, for a hand-out of excess food at the Apple Orchard Mt. tower as he had received at the Peaks of Otter tower, but was disappointed to find the Apple Orchard Mt. tower unmanned).
It is interesting to note that Shaffer and Espy seemingly set the standard for two respective schools of AT hikers. Shaffer was the "free-form" hiker with a rather casual atitude about actually following the AT, or even walking the entire distance. Espy was the "white-blazer," actually following the AT. While Shaffer wandered around on and off the AT, Espy just ticked off AT miles like you would expect of a well-organized, matter-of-fact, young engineer.
I do think that comparing Shaffer's mileage to his reported trail conditions would be an interesting study. I can say that one of the first things that clued me to "problems" with Shaffer's hike in southern Virginia was his reporting in WWS that he hiked from Galax to the "Puckett Cabin" (an exhibit on the Blue Ridge Parkway) in one day. First of all, the 1948 AT didn't pass that cabin (although the '34 AT had). More importantly, that was an AT distance of more than 40 miles. That clued me to look more closely, and I found Shaffer had taken a short-cut on Va. 97 out of Galax that cut off something like 20 miles of AT (and the Fisher Peak trail section) -- again, he was in a hurry at that point and not focused on the AT. So it is true that a mileage chart can offer early clues to possible cases of short-cuts or other non-AT travel.
It would not be difficult to set up the data base for a study of his hike through New England. The closer a person lived to D.C., and the National Museum of Americam History, the easier it would be to study the Shaffer material in that collection.
Hope this is helpful.
So what concrete evidence do we have that Gene Espy was methodical purist that never missed a white blaze?
thepathsproject
07-26-2011, 14:08
So what concrete evidence do we have that Gene Espy was methodical purist that never missed a white blaze?
Espy missed a number of blazes, according to his accounts of his hike. He took a wrong turn near Fontana Dam, I believe, and ended up on the old AT. I believe he had to detour any number of obstacles requiring that he leave the AT. So I think he made a number of detours along the way. But his listing of his nightly camps was highly regarded by the ATC in '51, and continues to be today, as far as I know. With his trail data sheets tucked in his hat, I believe, Gene Espy followed the AT from Mt. Oglethorpe to Mt. Katahdin, including those disclosed detours and missteps. So as far as I know as an outsider to the AT community, his 1951 hike has always been regarded as a highly authenic thru-hike by the ATC and the AT community. But I admit I'm an outsider -- if you have information challenging that impression, I'm sure it would be of interest to a lot of folks.
If I were voting on standards to be applied to a thru-hike (which I won't, not being an ATC member), I'd vote for a "substantial compliance" standard for acceptance of a thru-hike in which the hiker does not voluntarily fail to follow the AT. I wouldn't much care about counting blazes, although I might get concerned when the number of blazes missed exceeded 10,000 as Shaffer's record reflected (as I calculated in Chapter 19, according to ATC data as to the number of blazes on the AT). Instead, I would just want to see the hiker focused on and following the AT in good faith, exercising what what one might call "due diligence" in staying on the AT (i.e., backtracking and looking for it when one strays rather than just forging ahead with no regard for AT location other than relocating it somewhere ahead), not ever accepting motor vehicle rides that advance them on the AT (that would be a "big deal" for me), generally experiencing the AT environment, not some other environment (like the Blue Ridge Parkway, as nice as it is to travel), and -- very importantly -- the hiker being entirely candid and honest about the route followed, with no post-hike "back-filling" of his or her record. But without a vote, my opinion doesn't frankly mean much.
Anyway, if you just accept at face value both Shaffer and Espy as ATC "certified" thru-hikers -- which both are --Espy is nevertheless the first thru-hiker to travel a continuous AT from one end to the other by virtue of the AT not being a complete, continuous trail in 1948, but complete and continuous in 1951 when Espy hiked it. That seems pretty simple to me -- you can't "thru-hike" hike the AT from Georgia to Maine if its not a continuous trail. If I were voting, I'd put an "*" beside Shaffer and the boy scouts on that basis alone, recognize the factual reality that Gene Espy was the first actual thru-hiker of a continuous AT, and give everyone due credit for their respective accomplishments as reflected in the available record.
But thats not up to me. Its just my impressions, based on my research. You could read my Report if you wanted to know more.
Thanks for the question.
max patch
07-26-2011, 14:22
I haven't read your report, but I can tell you that if you spent 5 minutes researching the "boy scouts thru-hike" you'd stop referring to it. Affects your credibility.
thepathsproject
07-26-2011, 15:00
I haven't read your report, but I can tell you that if you spent 5 minutes researching the "boy scouts thru-hike" you'd stop referring to it. Affects your credibility.
As far as I know, the 1936 boy scout hike it is accepted by a thru-hike by the ATC under modern "report it on the honor system" standards of the ATC. In Chapter 19 of my Report, I note that, according to December 2000 ATC correspondence found in the NMAH Shaffer collection, Shaffer personally requested that the ATC remove the name of Max Gordon from the ATC "2,000-miler registry." As I understand it, Gordon was one of six boy scouts who reportedly hiked the AT in 1936 and who are listed (with some names unknown) on the "2,000 miler registry" by the ATC. When the ATC Board of Managers refused to do so, he renewed his request a second time. The Board refused that second request as well. So as far as I know, they remain listed on the registry as "2,000 milers."
That hike was generally described in a 1994 ATN article.
So I don't see how noting the existence the first "thru-hikers" listed on the ATC registry hurts my credibility, particularly in light of Shaffer's unsuccessful attempts to have them removed from the registry. As has been noted by other commenters, Shaffer also questioned the completeness of the hikes of other thru-hikers, including perhaps the best known and best-loved AT hiker in history -- Grandma Gatewood. As I note in Chapter 18 of my Report, Shaffer, in a December 27, 1955, letter to a Richard Lockey, stated his personal opinion that Martin Papendick (of Michigan) supposedly did it [thru-hike the AT] "but not too meticulously (taking some shortcuts, etc.)." He noted that "Gatewood supposedly did it this past summer but I suspect her trip was similar to Martin’s." So by those precedents, Shaffer’s 1948 hike could appropriately be subject to the same reexamination that he requested of the 1936 Gordon hike or by his critical comments about Grandma Gatewood and Papendick. I think that lends weight to a new look, in turn, at Shaffer's 1948 hike, but that is a decision for the AT community.
If the ATC Board of Managers has removed Max Gordon and the boy scouts from the registry, then I'll stand corrected as to the record. Otherwise, the boy scouts remain recognized as thru-hikers, as far as I know, under the "no questions asked" modern standards of the ATC. Shaffer is, I think, the first thru-hiker with a record -- or the first one "certified" by the ATC under the old, more strict, standards (as are Papendick and Gatewood, as far as I know).
But I'm really not up on all that internal ATC stuff -- as far as I know, the scouts are on the 2,000 miler registry and that is why I reference them.
--Espy is nevertheless the first thru-hiker to travel a continuous AT from one end to the other by virtue of the AT not being a complete, continuous trail in 1948, but complete and continuous in 1951 when Espy hiked it. That seems pretty simple to me -- you can't "thru-hike" hike the AT from Georgia to Maine if its not a continuous trail. If I were voting, I'd put an "*" beside Shaffer and the boy scouts on that basis alone, recognize the factual reality that Gene Espy was the first actual thru-hiker of a continuous AT, and give everyone due credit for their respective accomplishments as reflected in the available record.
Of course, you're entitled to your opinions but this is the type of AT mentality that really annoys me.
People have been hiking the CDT for some 30 some odd years now even though it's not a "officially" completed trail. It's kind of you to give them their due credit for their respective accomplishment, but in all honesty it takes a lot more skill, stamina and determination to complete that trail than the whiteblazed AT. Everything about it is harder. I suppose it takes a certain type of rigidness to blindly follow the white blazes and return to the spot where one may lose the trail, rather than making a correction, but IMO, it also seems almost cultist with a lack of individuality.
You take the YO out of HYOH.
So what concrete evidence do we have that Gene Espy was methodical purist that never missed a white blaze?
i don't know, but i'm betting he's glad he's dead so he's missing these long-winded posts about nothing. the writer should be a politician. that's how they get most of their crap passed. they make it so blatheringly boring that no one can get through it all.
i don't know, but i'm betting he's glad he's dead so he's missing these long-winded posts about nothing. the writer should be a politician. that's how they get most of their crap passed. they make it so blatheringly boring that no one can get through it all.
Gene Espy isn't dead!
I'm not trying to belittle Gene, and hated to use him as an example, it's just that I don't think it's fair to examine Earl's hike without making a a similar examination of everyone's hike that followed.
Gene Espy isn't dead!
I'm not trying to belittle Gene, and hated to use him as an example, it's just that I don't think it's fair to examine Earl's hike without making a a similar examination of everyone's hike that followed.
sorry. didn't fully read what i quoted. i'm still on the whole shaffer "debacle". little spacenut trolls need to rotate back out of our galaxy.
sorry. didn't fully read what i quoted. i'm still on the whole shaffer "debacle". little spacenut trolls need to rotate back out of our galaxy.
Yeah, I'm not sure of Jim's intentions, maybe he doesn't himself. He seemed to turn from an interest in the "lost" sections of the early AT, to an expose of Earl's hike.
Of course, you're entitled to your opinions but this is the type of AT mentality that really annoys me.
People have been hiking the CDT for some 30 some odd years now even though it's not a "officially" completed trail. It's kind of you to give them their due credit for their respective accomplishment, but in all honesty it takes a lot more skill, stamina and determination to complete that trail than the whiteblazed AT. Everything about it is harder. I suppose it takes a certain type of rigidness to blindly follow the white blazes and return to the spot where one may lose the trail, rather than making a correction, but IMO, it also seems almost cultist with a lack of individuality.
You take the YO out of HYOH.
Sly,
One thing that sets the AT apart is the enormous amount of effort that its supporters expended to scout and mark and maintain and protect to insure that it was a continuous and marked footpath.
In one sense that's kind of dumb, I will agree. What difference would it make if the trail stopped at one edge of Hanover and then started up again at the other, right?
But for whatever reason, ensuring the continuity of the Trail has been central to what its all about. And I can't help but think that it a very cool aspect of the AT. How many people have first walked on the Trail and marveled in the knowledge that in one direction it heads to Maine, and in the other Georgia? Without a break.
After reading McNeely's report, I cant help wonder if the reason why Avery seems to have accepted Shaffers' report without and asterisk or qualifier was that made for better public relations and helped further the success of the AT project.
Gene Espy isn't dead!
I'm not trying to belittle Gene, and hated to use him as an example, it's just that I don't think it's fair to examine Earl's hike without making a a similar examination of everyone's hike that followed.
he's a sensationalist looking to stir up **** to get notice for himself.
he's a sensationalist looking to stir up **** to get notice for himself.
I think that is completely off target- laughably so really. While his manner may be slightly off-putting, all I've seen are sincere, well researched replies from jwmcneely that politely answer questions and scurrilous attacks. He's discovered something that is upsetting to many people, but that doesn't make it untrue.
vamelungeon
07-26-2011, 19:34
Do you all get this stirred up when someone writes about George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt? I guess all study of any "historic" people should be stopped, especially when if it uncovers information that challenges long held beliefs or uncovers facts that might be less than flattering.
WingedMonkey
07-26-2011, 20:09
A poll should be conducted. It seems those that have tru hiked don't mind a discussion on the subject while those that haven't scream any doubt of Earl Shaffer is an unspeakable subject.
It's only a report, it's only a discussion.
It's not a crucifixion.
Tuckahoe64
07-26-2011, 20:16
he's a sensationalist looking to stir up **** to get notice for himself.
OK I havent read the report, but I have read the writers posts here responding to folks questions about his report. I have found his comments rather interesting reading and they may cause me to sit down and actually read the report. I also have to say that its a good thing that many of yall are not historians, because all we really do is write nitpicking papers and talk about the minutiae of long ago events and long dead people. These sorts of examinations are very necessary to better understanding our past.
What if anything has anyone ever discerned from a WhiteBlaze.net poll? Just boot kanga from the thread and any others who engage in ad hominem attacks and let's get on with the discussion.
k2basecamp
07-26-2011, 22:06
You're a lawyer so you're used to it and you like the attention.
Captain Blue
07-26-2011, 22:17
I am interested in what Jim has to say and write. It is rather fascinating. It would be great to see the LBN put online. Jim has put forth a set of facts he believes is correct based on the LBN. Most everyone here who are disputing the facts reply with emotion, disbelief and name calling. So put forth some facts to counter his claim.
Vamelungeon:
I know it must be embarressing for Whiteblaze folks to have Kanga go off like that, but don't worry about it. I believe in frank communication, and I reckon that is the way Kanga communicates. I take no offense, but I'm sorry Kanga had to insert such offensive sexist vulgarity into what I thought was an interesting discussion. Lets not let such stuff distract from the discussion.
Jim
If one is being frank, your report does accuse Earl Shaffer of being a liar, and a man who not only purposefully omitted relevant facts in his report to the ATC but actually fabricated evidence to support things he did not do for his own benefit.
Seems to me you make a strong case, and I thought it was a remarkable piece of research. Superb, in fact. Even so, I have got to figure that calling a good man a liar and a fraud has probably provoked far stronger responses in your years as a prosecutor.
Whether you had truth on your side on not.
As for Kanga. There is something to be said about standing up for a friend, which is hardly embarrassing.
Sly,
One thing that sets the AT apart is the enormous amount of effort that its supporters expended to scout and mark and maintain and protect to insure that it was a continuous and marked footpath.
Sets the AT apart from what, any other trail?
Come on Rick you can do better than that. Granted it's the Grand Daddy of long trails, but both men and women sweat just as much in building and protecting the CDT, or the PCT, as they do the AT. The AT is lucky in the fact they have half the population of the US within a days drive to care for it.
The AT isn't unique that it's blazed through Hanover. If you want to see interesting blazing through town, I suggest you try Grand Lakes, CO.
After reading McNeely's report, I cant help wonder if the reason why Avery seems to have accepted Shaffers' report without and asterisk or qualifier was that made for better public relations and helped further the success of the AT project.
Pure conjecture, which there seems to be quite a bit of in this thread.
thepathsproject
07-26-2011, 22:42
If one is being frank, your report does accuse Earl Shaffer of being a liar, and a man who not only purposefully omitted relevant facts in his report to the ATC but actually fabricated evidence to support things he did not do for his own benefit.Seems to me you make a strong case, and I thought it was a remarkable piece of research. Superb, in fact. Even so, I have got to figure that calling a good man a liar and a fraud has probably provoked far stronger responses in your years as a prosecutor.Whether you had truth on your side on not. As for Kanga. There is something to be said about standing up for a friend, which is hardly embarrassing. O-kay, so I now understand that from your point of view it is not embaressing for Whiteblaze folks to have such offensive language used in a public forum. I understand your position.Nevertheless, no offense taken by me from Kanga's outburst, and I still hope it doesn't distract from what I thought was an interesting discussion.
I am interested in what Jim has to say and write. It is rather fascinating. It would be great to see the LBN put online. Jim has put forth a set of facts he believes is correct based on the LBN. Most everyone here who are disputing the facts reply with emotion, disbelief and name calling. So put forth some facts to counter his claim.
I'm not disputing his "facts", I'm disputing he took the time from his fascination with the "lost" AT segments to examine Earl's thru-hike, and then not the second thru-hike, or the third and so on. He also calls into Earl's motive for attempting the AT and practically questions each turn he took.
thepathsproject
07-26-2011, 22:59
Lets try the "Little Black Notebook" question one more time.
I take it some of the commenters were friends, hiking companions, admirers, etc., of Earl Shaffer. To you, and everyone else, I ask: Did any of you, or anyone else that you knew of, ever get to read the "Little Black Notebook" during Shaffer's lifetime? Did you ever see it, get to examine it, or talk to him about it? Did any of you ever ask him about it? What can any of you tell us about the status of the Little Black Notebook during Shaffer's lifetime?
What if anything has anyone ever discerned from a WhiteBlaze.net poll? Just boot kanga from the thread and any others who engage in ad hominem attacks and let's get on with the discussion.oh, sog, all upset...
Okay, this is going to seem way out there.. just remember I am from California..
In Arthurian Legend, before the meal could be served an adventure must take place.
Indeed an adventure did take place; They beheld the Holy Grail covered only by a thin veil.
The Grail withdrew and Gawain declared a quest: They would behold the Grail in it's pure form, unveiled.
Each man went into the forest alone, at a point of his own choosing, where the forest was darkest and there was no path.
The quest failed as each knight failed to act out of his own center. They only knew what it was to be a knight, and a knight does not ask questions.
At last, seeing the sickened king, a knight asked: "What ails you my king?"
The man's compassion for his fellow man brought forth the grail and the king and the land were healed.
This is mythology and much abreviated but it has a lot to say regarding this thread.
The early pioneers of long distance hiking were acting out of their own center. They went into the forest alone where it was "darkest" and there was no "path"(figuratively speaking)
There is an element to the hikes made by Eric Ryback and Earl Schaeffer that is remarkable and timeless regardless of how those efforts compare to modern standards.
Finally, let us have compassion for those that have gone before and lit the way for us.
Alas! A Poetic soul with respect, awe, and admiration for our forebearers! May you be blessed.
Kaptain Kangaroo
07-27-2011, 01:17
Jim,
Thanks for coming onto the forum & discussing your report. I found it a very interesting read. It is a shame that the discussion has descended into name calling.
I found myself thinking about the trail maintainers of the 40's. A reading of Walking with Spring, & Earl's repeated comments about being off trail & bushwacking due to "poor marking" give you a strong impression that the standard of trail maintenance in 1948 was quite poor. However after reading your report I have offered a silent apology to the volunteers of the time, as it would seem that the trail was much better maintained that WWS would imply.
What struck me most about your report was not what Earl hiked or did not hike, but what appears to be a deliberate effort to disguise the aspects of his hike that might have been called into question. (eg. the issue around his actual starting point). If the conclusion you reach in your report is correct, missing the starting point was an honest mistake, covering up the fact was not.
With regard to the question of the details of Earl's hike, I do believe in the concept of HYOH, after all it is just hiking. However, I also believe that if you make a claim to some significant achievement ie. to be the first or the fastest, then you should expect your claim to be subjected to some scrutiny & to be held to fairly high standards of compliance. (I'm sure that the current 'speed record' attempt would not be given much recognition in the AT community if it was found that the hiker had skipped parts of the trail). And so I think your report is an entirely appropriate discussion of a significant event in AT history.
Jack Tarlin
07-27-2011, 09:40
This discussion is fascinating, and in terms of Trail history, it's important. It'd be a shame to see the thread shut down, so I'll go back to what I said in Post #141 above: Let's try to keep this civil. Neither Mr. Shaffer nor Mr. McNeely deserve the dis-respect they're getting. If you disagree with what someone did, or disagree with what someone wrote, then please concentrate your comments on their deeds and writings; that being said, I must repeat that Mr. McNeely's work seems to have become something of an obsession. Perhaps he'll take a moment and tell us what his real motives are here; it seems to me that this has gone beyond a mere interest in scholarship or the "historical record". I also re-iterate that in recent years, the ATC itself realizes that the vast majority of folks who've claimed thru-hiker status and recognition have, in fact, not hiked the Trail in its entirety, but instead, intentionally skipped sections or walked "alternative" sections." If Mr. McNeely hasn't cared to comment on this phenomena, which encompasses thousands of people, I have to wonder why he's chosen to spend so much time and energy concentrating on just one individual. It pains me to say this, but it really is starting to appear that the animus towards the late Mr. Shaffer (and Shaffer alone) seems to be almost a personal crusade of some sort, and this perception is undoubtedly starting to affect how many folks will come to view McNeely's research. Sorry, but this is starting to resemble a vendetta more than it resembles scholarship, but I look forward to him commenting on this himself, and I hope he does.
thepathsproject
07-27-2011, 10:38
Captain Kangaroo:
Perhaps the most strking contrast between Shaffer's reports as to trail conditions and the actual state of the AT in 1948 was southern Virginia. Here was a long section of AT already slated for abandonment, yet it was reportedly reblazed and, in the case of the Fisher Peak section of foot trail, cleared in 1947 -- all with no maintaining trail clubs in the area (with the exception of the ever-faithful John Barnard, who personally maintained the Pinnacles of DAn section for a couple of decades). The trail data was even revised in 1949 for inclusion in the 1950 Guide To Paths In The Blue Ridge . The results of that work could even be seen in one of Shaffer's slides of a point at which te AT (following a secondary road) intersected the Blue Ridge Parkway. That slide featured in the view a very bright, very exact, white AT blaze on a tree beside the road.
The reblazing project represented a tremendous amount of labor by folks who had to have traveled long distances to visit that section of the AT. I get the impression it was organized by the ATC, but really don't know any details. And I suspect that was the end of maintainance or marking for that section -- it was abandoned in the mid-1950's.
Its true -- if you read Shaffer's account in Walking With Spring (WWS), you get the impression it wasn't marked at all. Between the record of the reblazing versus Shaffer's claim it was only "faintly" marked, I found his own photograph (with the bright white blaze) strong evidence that the AT was, in fact, marked. Further evidence is found in the fact that whenever he chose to follow the AT, he seemed to have no trouble finding and following it.
So it is not as though there are no victims to the unquestioned acceptance of Shaffer's version of AT conditions in 1948 -- to accept his story of a virtually non-existent AT in the south is to write out of history the dedicated work of the volunteers as well as the Forest Service and Park Service workers who did the best they could to keep the AT open during WWII and who returned to it after the war to renew more actiove maintenance. As I have noted before, there is no question that the AT was in pretty rough shape in many areas during that era. But it did exist, it could be followed, it was being and had been worked on by dedicated maintainers, and Shaffer benefitted in 1948 from that work.
So, yes, one of the motivating factors in my writing the Report was that the "Shaffer version" of the 1948 AT through the south, and particularly through southern Virginia, should not be permitted to continue to stand unchallenged. That old AT route, and the folks who worked so hard to establish and maintain it, deserve better treatment than that in the history of the AT.
Jim
(I'm sure that the current 'speed record' attempt would not be given much recognition in the AT community if it was found that the hiker had skipped parts of the trail). And so I think your report is an entirely appropriate discussion of a significant event in AT history.
Fine, but is Jim going to scour Jen's journal to see that she passed every white blaze? Or Gene's, or Chesters, or Grandma Gatewood's.
It's already been reported Jen got lost, it only makes a difference to some whether she returned to the actual place she got lost before continuing. But then, do we actually know Andrew covered the entire Whiteblaze trail?
I just think it's ridiculous (read: pathetic) to spend this much time worrying about someone else's hike. It doesn't matter, at all.
SGT Rock
07-27-2011, 12:48
I think you are operating on a flawed assumption that he did intentionally misguide the ATC. Your basing it on the book he wrote a few years after he hiked, and wrote from his notes. I can attest that a couple of years after I got shot at or blown up, it was hard for me to remember the exact details two when trying to write them down although you would think something like that would stick out greatly in my mind. If you asked me why I took some of the routes I did in 2008, or stayed at the campsites I stayed at then, or who exactly I met and ran into later I couldn't get the details right either. In fact, when I re-hike some of these sections I am amazed at how poorly I remembered a section I have hiked 2 or 3 times.
Add also you are trying to assess the marking and state of the trail by looking at a few pictures and relying on what a few trail maintainers may have said over 60 years ago. As a trail maintainer on a much wilder trail than the AT, we constantly have people getting misdirected in places we agree is well marked. Luckily for those hikers the BMTA could care less about purism. I can also say that if you talked to hikers that did the AT only 3 decades ago, many of them have told me even then, without all the problems they had in the 1940s, that most every hiker they knew had problems staying on the AT. The AT of 60 years ago in its best state is probably nothing like what we have now. Assuming that it was well marked enough that Earl had to like to justify some of his choices is assuming he is some sort of fraud. Everyone I have ever met that knew Earl would say you are on thin ice with that assumption.
At the time he finished and reported his hike, he was probably questioned more than any other hiker, and the people that new the trail and new the condition of it at the time said he did what he claimed. That is enough for me and many hikers. Only a purist would spend this much time trying to validate ever mile and every decision someone made over 60 years past. Fortunately we don't let the purists determine the validity of other people's hikes.
thepathsproject
07-27-2011, 13:12
I think you are operating on a flawed assumption that he did intentionally misguide the ATC. Your basing it on the book he wrote a few years after he hiked, and wrote from his notes. I can attest that a couple of years after I got shot at or blown up, it was hard for me to remember the exact details two when trying to write them down although you would think something like that would stick out greatly in my mind. If you asked me why I took some of the routes I did in 2008, or stayed at the campsites I stayed at then, or who exactly I met and ran into later I couldn't get the details right either. In fact, when I re-hike some of these sections I am amazed at how poorly I remembered a section I have hiked 2 or 3 times.
Add also you are trying to assess the marking and state of the trail by looking at a few pictures and relying on what a few trail maintainers may have said over 60 years ago. As a trail maintainer on a much wilder trail than the AT, we constantly have people getting misdirected in places we agree is well marked. Luckily for those hikers the BMTA could care less about purism. I can also say that if you talked to hikers that did the AT only 3 decades ago, many of them have told me even then, without all the problems they had in the 1940s, that most every hiker they knew had problems staying on the AT. The AT of 60 years ago in its best state is probably nothing like what we have now. Assuming that it was well marked enough that Earl had to like to justify some of his choices is assuming he is some sort of fraud. Everyone I have ever met that knew Earl would say you are on thin ice with that assumption.
At the time he finished and reported his hike, he was probably questioned more than any other hiker, and the people that new the trail and new the condition of it at the time said he did what he claimed. That is enough for me and many hikers. Only a purist would spend this much time trying to validate ever mile and every decision someone made over 60 years past. Fortunately we don't let the purists determine the validity of other people's hikes.
Top (it probably dates me, but that is what we called 1st Sergeants in the 60's army):
I'm glad you posted because yours is a name I've seen before on Whiteblaze, and you seem pretty experienced and knowledgeable abouut AT matters.
I'll address the substance of your post later on, but right now I hope you don't mind my asking you a couple of questions.
Did you during Earl Shaffer's lifetime ever see or read his 1948 trail journal -- the "Little Black Notebook" (or LBN)? I take it you know a lot of folks in the AT community, including those who knew Earl Shaffer. Did you ever hear the LBN discussed, or hear of anybody who had seen or read it. I'm trying to determine how open Shaffer was with LBN, and whether it was available for reading during his lifetime, and am having a hard time finding anybody on Whiteblaze who can discuss it.
I'm sure you agree that at the very least, any person claiming a record hike ought to make their trail journal available for inspection. I think LBN, which is now only available for reading at the National Museum of American History, ought to be put on-line for everyone to read. If you don't mind me asking, how do you feel about that?
Thanks
I just think it's ridiculous (read: pathetic) to spend this much time worrying about someone else's hike. It doesn't matter, at all.
Earl certainly cared.
What appears to be pervasive in the record of Shaffer’s 1948 hike is that casual, even cavalier,
attitude on his part about skipping sections of the AT. From his planning of his trip in late 1947 and
early 1948 through his arrival at Rockfish Gap on May 18, 1948, and then once more between
Bootens Gap and Milan Gap on May 21st, Shaffer seemed satisfied with merely following the general
route of the AT. When he found it inconvenient to follow the AT, he made his own way by non-AT
travel with little apparent concern as to AT miles missed. What is remarkable is that he apparently felt no contradiction in his repeatedly identifying himself as an AT thru-hiker even while traveling the BRP instead of the AT.
...
The term “white-blazer” is used to describe an AT hiker who is “particular” about walking
every foot of the AT – a “purist.” It is obvious from the record that Shaffer did not have a “purist”
or “white-blazer” attitude during his 1948 hike up to May 21, 1948.
My hero! lol....
The ATC, acting on only the limited narrative of Shaffer’s hike presented in SR48, accepted
his 1948 hike as a thru-hike – the first thru-hike of record – even though it was known at the time that
Shaffer did not, in fact, follow the entire AT during that hike. Acting pursuant to Chairman Avery’s
strong suggestion that Shaffer’s hike be afforded that recognition despite Shaffer’s failure to hike the
entire AT, it is therefore apparent that Shaffer’s explanations, rationalizations and excuses for his
failure to hike the entire AT were accepted by the ATC at that time. In effect, therefore, the ATC
apparently accepted Shaffer’s assertion that he completed in the course of his 1948 hike an
“equivalent hike” to one that actually followed the AT.
Beginning with that ATC recognition of Shaffer’s hike as the first thru-hike of record in
1948, through several decades of Shaffer telling and retelling the story of his 1948 hike in his slide
presentations, and finally through publication of WWS in the 1980‘s, Shaffer’s “bushwhacking” his
way north following as he could a virtually nonexistent 1948 AT became a matter of universal
acceptance in the AT community.
.... and that's the bottom line.
Earl certainly cared.
No kidding, because it was his hike. For other people to be spending this much time on someone else's hike? :rolleyes:
A personal account and journal is just that. Personal. If Earl wanted his journal to be public record, Im sure he would have put it out there. Just as my hiking journal I keep to myself, I will share with those close to me, but it is not for public dissemination. Since you seem to have so much time on your hands, please gather up the clothes, gear, technology (or lack of) and hike the exact trail that Earl hiked so many years ago. Im sure you can do it! You will get lost, you will miss a few parts. But you did it. Thats all that matters. I hope one day someone puts out a public record of all your faults too. From what I see of you so far, it will far outweigh your little report on Earl...
No kidding, because it was his hike. For other people to be spending this much time on someone else's hike? :rolleyes:
I was replying to the part where you said "It doesn't matter, at all." It obviously mattered to Earl a great deal as he went to great pains to have it recognized as the 1st through hike. It also matters a great deal to many people on Whiteblaze as witnessed by the ummm passionate comments on both sides of the issue.
I was replying to the part where you said "It doesn't matter, at all." It obviously mattered to Earl a great deal as he went to great pains to have it recognized as the 1st through hike. It also matters a great deal to many people on Whiteblaze as witnessed by the ummm passionate comments on both sides of the issue.
Yes, and I was replying that it mattered to him because it was his hike. That others care so much about his hike I find ridiculous.
SGT Rock
07-27-2011, 14:30
Top (it probably dates me, but that is what we called 1st Sergeants in the 60's army):
We still use top, or at least we did when I retired in 2008
I'm glad you posted because yours is a name I've seen before on Whiteblaze, and you seem pretty experienced and knowledgeable abouut AT matters.
I'll address the substance of your post later on, but right now I hope you don't mind my asking you a couple of questions.
Did you during Earl Shaffer's lifetime ever see or read his 1948 trail journal -- the "Little Black Notebook" (or LBN)? I take it you know a lot of folks in the AT community, including those who knew Earl Shaffer. Did you ever hear the LBN discussed, or hear of anybody who had seen or read it. I'm trying to determine how open Shaffer was with LBN, and whether it was available for reading during his lifetime, and am having a hard time finding anybody on Whiteblaze who can discuss it.
Not to my knowledge. As I understand it, Earl was a very private man that had a hard time with being famous. I imagine it would be like asking my wife to read her diary because you wanted to prove something she said had happened was supported by her diary. Most people would have the respect not to ask, and those that did would probably get a non answer anyway. Sort of like asking a veteran if he ever killed someone.
I'm sure you agree that at the very least, any person claiming a record hike ought to make their trail journal available for inspection. I think LBN, which is now only available for reading at the National Museum of American History, ought to be put on-line for everyone to read. If you don't mind me asking, how do you feel about that?
Actually I don't agree. I've never worried about anyone's claims to be whatever or to have done whatever. If someone claims to be the King of England or to have thru-hiked the trail by walking backwards, I know that they are either deluded. Or if they did do it, they probably had to walk forward at least one or twice. Whatever - it is their doing. The ATC doesn't keep records of speed hikes, so I will just take it as true that Ward Leonard did it unsupported and held the record for a while even though there is no perfect way (or imperfect) to verify it. Same with Jennifer - if she hikes the trail faster than anyone else (and I am rooting for her now) there is no perfect way to verify it. The one standard that seems to fit the trail culture is general consensus. If Many people agree Ward did it and he was a hiking machine, then I'll accept that. If Jennifer crosses Katahdin as she plans, and folks can seem to agree that she did it, then that is good for me as well.
Earl Schaffer walked to Katahdin.
He may have missed a few miles, he may have missed many miles. Other trail organizations (PCT, CDT, BMT) allow that sort of bypass when the trail is not passable, unsafe, or has reverted to a natural state or was logged out. I've hiked in Louisiana and discovered how hard it is to find a trail in a place that is logged out, or even logged out and re-grown. I've had to jump up miles on roads, pipeline, or power-lines trying to find a trail that was "well marked". I wouldn't walk miles back on the suspect trail to try and make my hike perfect and risk getting lost again just to satisfy someone down in history that wanted to check the accuracy of my hike along the Wild Azalea Trail. I personally don't give a fart for what others think of my hikes.
But to the AT in 1948: the people around at the time that knew the state of the trail, how hard or easy it was to follow, and were most capable to determine the validity of his hike - they questioned him probably more thoroughly than any other thru-hiker since and decided that he had done it. You've mentioned that we are doing a disservice to the maintainers of the time to believe that the trail was as FUBAR as Earl says it is, while backhand doing a disservice to the people that decided to accept Earl's claim knowing how the trail was at that time. Going back to the general consensus, the honor system, the opinion of those that knew Earl, and the belief that it is truly only hiking - I accept that Earl did what he claimed to have done, and the folks at that time accepted as true. Any attempt to try to recreate the knowledge those people had, their opinion about state of trail affairs, and their scrutiny of his hike is like trying to figure out if Cain slew Able from the back or the front by reading the bible now.
Thanks
Your welcome. I feel you probably devoted a lot of time to this and are sure in your beliefs. While I can respect the amount of work you put into it, I really am amazed that it has gotten this much discussion.
From where I sit the whole premise is the problem: The ATC is the governing body on this and they don't care. Only people that have decided everyone has to walk every mile and can't skip any care. You find out you missed a trail turn off and decided not to go back and hike the "right" trail and suddenly your hike doesn't exist.
Purists come to WB all the time talking about fakers and liars and such, and refuse to accept the fact that the purist hike only matters to them and their small group. They can't seem to get past the fact that someone could miss miles and their hike can still count. They assassinate the character of anyone that doesn't hike pure and still claims a hike, and at the same time justify their rudeness by saying that the false claims of others somehow takes away from their hike. I still haven't figured that one out. I guess it is like saying gay people will make my marriage meaningless if they get the right to marry. My marriage is good or bad based on it's own performance, and folks' hikes are their hikes however they do it and count it. If they decided it is meaningful then it is, and if they let themselves believe that their hike is now meaningless - then it is. But the fault is all in their own head.
The fortunate thing on this is you have decided to pick on a trail icon that people respect and look up to. Maybe the fact that in the details, his hike wasn't pure but was still a great hike that set precedence for many to follow and inspired thousands of other hikers to try - maybe it will cause some purists to loosen up. I hope it does, but I doubt it.
That is the longest post I have made on WB in months.
hikerboy57
07-27-2011, 14:43
it was worth it sgt rock. very well thought out and expressed much better than Ive been able to.as a historical record, the article is great, but as you say, the only people who care about whethr he hiked every foot of the trail are the purists.
great post, sgt rock.
Yes, and I was replying that it mattered to him because it was his hike. That others care so much about his hike I find ridiculous.
You seem to be missing the point. Earl definitely cared a great deal that others cared about his hike- hence going to the trouble of getting it certified, doing slideshows, and ultimately writing a book. Of course a great many people care a great deal about Earl's hike. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.
You seem to be missing the point. Earl definitely cared a great deal that others cared about his hike- hence going to the trouble of getting it certified, doing slideshows, and ultimately writing a book. Of course a great many people care a great deal about Earl's hike. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.
No, I'm not missing the point at all. I just don't agree with your point. Big difference. :rolleyes:
It's fine that he cared, or even wanted other people to care. But for other people to actually get all up in a tizzy about someone else's hike... ridiculous. Like Rock said, he walked from Georgia to Maine. Historically it's interesting for sure, but in the end it's his hike and not yours.
[QUOTE=jwmcneely;1184499]Captain Kangaroo:
So, yes, one of the motivating factors in my writing the Report was that the "Shaffer version" of the 1948 AT through the south, and particularly through southern Virginia, should not be permitted to continue to stand unchallenged. That old AT route, and the folks who worked so hard to establish and maintain it, deserve better treatment than that in the history of the AT.
I don't think anyone should be questioning what Earl reported. It was not ment to be a record of what he accomplished but a journal of an adventure he took. It is a tale of what he saw and did, looking through his eyes. For this reason I think that is why his black book has never been officialy published.
Earl is who he is. He was so much more than the first thru-hiker. He will always be remembered as a try friend of the AT.
So, yes, one of the motivating factors in my writing the Report was that the "Shaffer version" of the 1948 AT through the south, and particularly through southern Virginia, should not be permitted to continue to stand unchallenged. That old AT route, and the folks who worked so hard to establish and maintain it, deserve better treatment than that in the history of the AT.
Jim
At one point, you say Earl couldn't have hiked the entire AT because certain southern sections were abandoned during the war, and that Gene was the 1st because by 1951 it was a continuous path.
Which is it?
max patch
07-27-2011, 15:54
Did you during Earl Shaffer's lifetime ever see or read his 1948 trail journal -- the "Little Black Notebook" (or LBN)? I take it you know a lot of folks in the AT community, including those who knew Earl Shaffer. Did you ever hear the LBN discussed, or hear of anybody who had seen or read it. I'm trying to determine how open Shaffer was with LBN, and whether it was available for reading during his lifetime, and am having a hard time finding anybody on Whiteblaze who can discuss it.
I'm sure you agree that at the very least, any person claiming a record hike ought to make their trail journal available for inspection. I think LBN, which is now only available for reading at the National Museum of American History, ought to be put on-line for everyone to read. If you don't mind me asking, how do you feel about that?
Thanks
No one has ever read my journal nor will they ever. Shaffer, a very private individual, would certainly never have let anyone read his private and personal thoughts in his LBN. Keeping his LBN private has nothing to do with whatever sections of the trail he may or may not have missed.
At one point, you say Earl couldn't have hiked the entire AT because certain southern sections were abandoned during the war, and that Gene was the 1st because by 1951 it was a continuous path.
Which is it?
Both. A niggling point, but you brought it up in your effort to discredit Mr. Mcneely
From page 8, post 148
"It was, incidently, that delay that made Espy the first person to travel a connected, continuous AT from Georgia to Maine. The AT was not a continuous trail in 1948, with two gaps not yet constructed after the AT's continuity had been severed by Parkway construction in the late 1930's -- Cloverdale to Black Horse Gap and "The Priest-Three Ridges" section. So regardless of whatever else he did, Shaffer could not have hiked the AT from Georgia To Maine in 1948 because the AT was not then a continuos trail (the same can be said for the boy scoputs, since there was a much smaller uncompleted gap in the AT in 1936). By 1951, the Cloverdale-Black Horse Gap section was complete, and the last section over Three Ridges was apparently completed just a week or so before Espy hiked through in July 1951. "
Both. A niggling point, but you brought it up in your effort to discredit Mr. Mcneely
It wasn't my intention to discredit Mr McNeely, but to reveal his hypocrisy.
thepathsproject
07-27-2011, 16:47
At one point, you say Earl couldn't have hiked the entire AT because certain southern sections were abandoned during the war, and that Gene was the 1st because by 1951 it was a continuous path.
Which is it?
You might check with an AT historian for all the details, but as I understand it the original continuous AT opened in 1937 didn't last long as a continuous Georgia-Maine trail. In the south, construction of the Blue Ridge Parkway north of Roanoke caused abandonment of much of the AT in that section. By publication of the 1941 Guide To Paths In The Blue Ridge, the trail data for the Rockfish Gap - James River section (66.01 miles) and the James River - Lee Highway section (51.68 miles) was ommitted as not yet having been constructed. That is the "gap" in the AT that broke its continuity.
By the time Earl Shaffer hiked the AT in 1948, much of that gap had been closed by construction of a new AT. However, two gaps remained: U.S. 11 (at Cloverdale) to Black Horse Gap (13.05 miles) and the section over The Priest and Three Ridges (about 12 - 13 miles or so).
The Black Horse Gap - Cloverdale section was completed in 1948-49, but apparently too late for Shaffer to travel as he reported finding his way to the Blue Ridge Parkway and then following it to Black Horse Gap (I descibe that in Chapter 13 of my Report). Given it was a gap, I didn't count that as skipped AT miles.
The section over The Priest and Three Ridges was not complete until 1951. Shaffer ran into that gap and just had to bushwhack his way along to Love. Again, I didn't count that as skipped AT miles either.
So in 1948, there was no continuous AT to hike from Georgia to Maine. There were the two gaps in Virginia that were yet to be constructed.
When Gene Espy came through in 1951, both gaps had been closed by new construction. In fact, I understand he hiked the new section over The Priest and Three Ridges within a couple of weeks of construction being completed. So his thru-hike quite literally opened the "new" AT that was again complete and continuous after more than a decade of being a non-continuous trail.
In southern Virginia (south of Roanoke), the existing AT was much less disturbed by the Parkway, so it continued in existence. In the mid-1950's, it was abandoned in what I believe was the biggest abandonment of AT mileage in the history of the AT and moved north into the Jefferson National Forest. That abandoned AT through southern Virginia is the section I'm particularly fond of, and actually walked in a modified version earler this Summer.
So, if a thru-hike involves hiking a trail from one point to another, nobody could have thru-hiked the AT from Georgia to Maine between 1941 and 1951 because there was no continuous AT to walk.
Hope that helps. Sorry for all the words.
thepathsproject
07-27-2011, 16:50
It wasn't my intention to discredit Mr McNeely, but to reveal his hypocrisy.
Sly:
I don't mind being revealed for whatever it is you think I am, but at least call me "Jim." I'm not that damned old (yet).
Jim
Sly:
I don't mind being revealed for whatever it is you think I am, but at least call me "Jim." I'm not that damned old (yet).
Jim
I have to admit, I love this response. :)
It wasn't my intention to discredit Mr McNeely, but to reveal his hypocrisy.
Which you completely failed to do since you did not even read his previous comments accurately.
Sly:
I don't mind being revealed for whatever it is you think I am, but at least call me "Jim." I'm not that damned old (yet).
Jim
Sorry about that Jim, I was playing off bobqzzi words.
Honestly, although I totally disagree with most of your sentiments concerning Earl's hike, hiking the AT in general and whether it's necessary to hike past every whiteblaze, you did do a remarkable job recreating Earl's hike.
As others have said, it's a different world now, and Earl, if anything else, was a pioneer with regards to long distance hiking.
thepathsproject
07-27-2011, 17:22
Sorry about that Jim, I was playing off bobqzzi words.
Honestly, although I totally disagree with most of your sentiments concerning Earl's hike, hiking the AT in general and whether it's necessary to hike past every whiteblaze, you did do a remarkable job recreating Earl's hike. As others have said, it's a different world now, and Earl, if anything else was a pioneer with regards to thru-hiking.
The fact that the AT was not a continuous trail in 1948 is not a sentiment -- its a fact, as far as I know. And since, as far as I know, not one single finding in my Report has been challenged since I first distributed it in late April, I would suggest those findings are facts, not sentiments, for purposes of this discussion.
The sentiments -- the myths of Earl Shaffer hacking his way through the wilderness, compass in hand, pioneering his way along a non-existent AT -- is your sentiment, and perhaps the sentiment of a lot of the AT community. But that sentiment is not, I regret having to tell you, based in fact. In fact, its a myth, and doesn't fit well against Shaffer's many, many miles of "yellow-blazing" state highways and the Blue Ridge Parkway through southern Virginia in 1948. As far as I know, the Parkway could be navigated without the need for axe or compass in 1948, as could the quiet rural roads featuring those bright new 1947 AT blazes through southern Virginia that he pretty much ignored during that hike.
But if you guys want to believe, or need to believe for whatever reason, Shaffer was a pioneer hacking his way through the wilderness of the 1948 Blue Ridge Parkway, compass in hand, then believe it. But that is a sentiment, not a fact.
WingedMonkey
07-27-2011, 17:35
So, if a thru-hike involves hiking a trail from one point to another,
You will never convince a large amount of members of that simple point.
You will never convince a large amount of members of that simple point.Number; "large number."
So, if a thru-hike involves hiking a trail from one point to another, nobody could have thru-hiked the AT from Georgia to Maine between 1941 and 1951 because there was no continuous AT to walk.
As I mentioned earlier, I've been spoiled by doing most of my hiking out west. It was rather refreshing after hiking the AT and having to deal with all the purist. Some are so bad you can't take one blue blaze into a shelter and another out if it means missing a white blaze or two.
Again, take the CDT. It's not yet completed with an "official" route, but it's been hiked for the past 30 years from Mexico to Canada or visa versa. You can start in three places in New Mexico and end at two in Montana. When people reach the San Juans in CO and there's too much snow to navigate, they road walk. Through the Wind River range many hikers take high route rather than the lower official route. Up and down the trail there's alternates, even when there's official trail, that hikers use.
The PCT is much the same although it is a completed trail. It's also a horse trail, so when you reach places like Crater Lake, the official trail diverts from the lake area, while the hikers take the narrow and fragile rim trail, closed to horses. Same with Tunnels Falls. The guidebook also describes resupply routes, and routes with water to take rather than official trail without water.
Each and everyone hiker that hikes from Mexico to Canada is considered a thru-hiker even though they haven't hiked the entire "official" trail.
If you want to be absolutely anal about it, since there was no continuous AT, than no, perhaps Earl wasn't an "AT thru-hiker" but IMO, he was a thru-hiker.
All this is probably the reason why I really don't like using the terms thru-hiker or even section hiker. It's all long distance hiking to me.
YMMV.
thepathsproject
07-27-2011, 19:14
A personal account and journal is just that. Personal. If Earl wanted his journal to be public record, Im sure he would have put it out there. Just as my hiking journal I keep to myself, I will share with those close to me, but it is not for public dissemination. Since you seem to have so much time on your hands, please gather up the clothes, gear, technology (or lack of) and hike the exact trail that Earl hiked so many years ago. Im sure you can do it! You will get lost, you will miss a few parts. But you did it. Thats all that matters. I hope one day someone puts out a public record of all your faults too. From what I see of you so far, it will far outweigh your little report on Earl...
When reading Walking With Spring, one finds frequent references by Shaffer to entries in his trail journal -- the "Little Black Notebook" ("LBN"). Yet even while being cited by Shaffer as the apparent primary source for information about his 1948 AT hike, LBN was apparently never published during Shaffer’s lifetime. In fact, from what I’ve been able to gather, Shaffer held LBN as a private document during his lifetime. If anyone got to see or read it during his lifetime, I’ve not heard about it, and would appreciate them speaking up if they exist.
The other two primary documents prepared by Shaffer that described his hike were available for study during his lifetime, and still are widely available. The first was his 1948 report to the ATC that he prepared in support of his hike being accepted as a thru-hike. I refer to that document as SR48. The other is his book, Walking With Spring (WWS) which was first privately published in the early 1980's then published by the ATC.
After his death in 2002, LBN became a public document. In fact, it became a very public document, with its donation to the National Museum of American History ("NMAH"). It is now part of the Shaffer collection at the NMAH, with a copy available for public reading or copying. That is where I got my photocopied copy of the LBN entries covering Shaffer’s hike from its beginning in Georgia to Rockfish Gap, VA.
A number of commenters, including Cuffs, have said it is a private document and ought to remain so. But that is now a moot point. While that was apparently true during Shaffer’s lifetime, it is a very public document now. So it can be read, and copied. But I don’t think interested members of the AT community who want to read LBN for themselves should have to drive to the NMAH in Washington D.C. and pay 20 cents a page to use a single sheet copier to make a copy. So why not put it on the internet, or otherwise publish it, for all to read?
As I understand it, rights to LBN are held by the Shaffer Foundation. Because of that, an individual (such as myself) probably cannot make more copies from a copy made at the NMAH and distribute them. Anyway, why use photocopies when sites like Whiteblaze are available at which to post a copy on-line? All it would take to put it on the internet would be the permission of the holder of rights to the document, which I understand to be the Shaffer Foundation.
What do you think? Should the "Little Black Notebook" which is now on display at the NMAH be made widely available for reading? Would you, or other members of the AT community, like to read Shaffer’s own words, written during his 1948 hike, as I have? After all, it is on display right now, at the NMAH.
Majortrauma
07-27-2011, 19:36
The truth is out there. Post the LBN!!! What does anyone fear from this?
This is by far the most interesting and enigmatic threads I've ever seen on WB.
If the Shaffer foundation wants to charge for this I'd put that in the "You're kidding right?" category.
I can see no logical, reasonable explanation reason for this to remain a private document except for monetary reasons.
I don't begrudge anyone making a few bucks off of this but Shaffer has made his "thru hike" a very public event so why not make his testimony of that event equally public?
If the Shaffer foundation wants to charge for this [copying and of Earl's papers] I'd put that in the "You're kidding right?" category.Could you please explain to me what the hell you're talking about? Virtually all of the documents we're talking about are at the Smithsonian, not at the Foundation.
What exactly are you complaining about the Foundation charging for?
And if you do want something from the foundation (maybe a copy of one of Earl's poems?) I don't know any foundation like this that doesn't have a per page copying charge.
Everybody has manpower problems and volunteers are appreciated. Here's my guess: Write a letter to the Smithsonian establishing some bone fides. Experience with handling delicate historical documents, computer scanning experience; present and prove yourself as a capable, careful responsible person. Volunteer to spend a few days learning their procedures and then scanning the Shaffer documents in question. I bet they'd be glad to have you. But this is not a ham-handed type of operation; they won't want any risk to the original documents, they won't want scrambled scan files with missed or misordered pages that are going to cause problems down the line.
If there is such concern about this, maybe WhiteBlaze itself can make the contact and organize a volunteer effort with a number of people sharing the work.
Kaptain Kangaroo
07-27-2011, 23:30
It's interesting to note that even before the publication of this report, 'everyone' already understood that Earl did not hike every part of the trail. As far as I'm aware, that has never caused any (significant) objection to his hike being recognised as the first reported thru-hike. This report does not change that , it merely gives us a better understanding of what Earl actually did & the trail he experienced in 1948.
I am kind of ticked off though at the way several posters are using "purist" as a derogatory term. When I set out to thru-hike in 2006 I set myself a goal to walk past every white blaze. So I guess I am a purist . Didn't quite make it though. (missed the turn off the summit road going up Bear Mtn in NY). , however that was my goal for my hike & I have never tried to force my standard on others.
The only standard I expect of a person is honesty.............................
I am kind of ticked off though at the way several posters are using "purist" as a derogatory term. When I set out to thru-hike in 2006 I set myself a goal to walk past every white blaze.I don't think any of those talking about "purists" (not me BTW) mean it as derogatory in terms of your _personal_ choice, how you choose to do your hike. In a sense it's like the term "creationist." I don't think anyone has any issue with those of that personal belief. It's when they try to impose those beliefs on others that hackles are raised and the terms tend to be used with a sneer.
I think passing every blaze is a fine personal goal. Me, when I go off-trail (in the Whites that may be as much as 1/4 mile) for a flop spot at night I make my way back to the trail however the footing seems easiest at the moment. Sometimes that means repeating dozens or in extreme maybe even hundreds of yards of Trail, sometimes "skipping" as much. I would never think to impose my notion that this is OK on others, that's just _my_ hike my way. I'd like to think that each of us can hold these personal approaches and as long as we don't try to dictate that everyone adhere to the same standards, we're fine.
OK?
WingedMonkey
07-28-2011, 00:01
As I mentioned earlier, I've been spoiled by doing most of my hiking out west. It was rather refreshing after hiking the AT and having to deal with all the purist. Some are so bad you can't take one blue blaze into a shelter and another out if it means missing a white blaze or two.
That's a fable that has been around almost as long as the trail.
SGT Rock
07-28-2011, 01:00
I am kind of ticked off though at the way several posters are using "purist" as a derogatory term. When I set out to thru-hike in 2006 I set myself a goal to walk past every white blaze. So I guess I am a purist . Didn't quite make it though. (missed the turn off the summit road going up Bear Mtn in NY). , however that was my goal for my hike & I have never tried to force my standard on others.
The only standard I expect of a person is honesty.............................
I don't think any of those talking about "purists" (not me BTW) mean it as derogatory in terms of your _personal_ choice, how you choose to do your hike. In a sense it's like the term "creationist." I don't think anyone has any issue with those of that personal belief. It's when they try to impose those beliefs on others that hackles are raised and the terms tend to be used with a sneer.
I think passing every blaze is a fine personal goal. Me, when I go off-trail (in the Whites that may be as much as 1/4 mile) for a flop spot at night I make my way back to the trail however the footing seems easiest at the moment. Sometimes that means repeating dozens or in extreme maybe even hundreds of yards of Trail, sometimes "skipping" as much. I would never think to impose my notion that this is OK on others, that's just _my_ hike my way. I'd like to think that each of us can hold these personal approaches and as long as we don't try to dictate that everyone adhere to the same standards, we're fine.
OK?
Agreed. I don't have a problem with anyone hiking every mile. I applaud it. I've hiked with a purist, I even once was one - until I got back from my first tour in Iraq and realized it was just hiking and all I cared about was hiking and enjoying that hike as it happened. At the end of your hike you have to live with yourself and how you did it.
What I do have a problem with is the folks that then take that next step and assassinate the character of others because of the way they hiked, and the way that they see that hike as being just as valid as a "pure" hike. They call people liars, and use the excuse that these folks are lowering the standards which subtracts from their "pure" hikes. It only detracts if one thinks it detracts. Every hike stands on its own and the hikers opinion of their own hike. I find doing this sort of thing just plain rude.
WingFoot once took it as far as to say he was going to create a group of volunteers to monitor the trail and the hikers every year so they could tell the ATC which hikes were valid and which weren't. That is some arrogance.
Today I was reading through another article about legal challenges to gay marriage. The judge decided the plaintiffs didn't have legal standing to bring a challenge. They couldn't show how allowing gays to marry would damage them in any way, so they couldn't bring suit. The writer of this article is a lawyer, so I am sure he knows more about the law than I do. But as I see it, he is like these people trying to challenge someone else's right to get married: He may have a very well written and documented challenge to Earl Shaffer's hike. But like these other guys - he lacks legal standing. There is no reason for his challenge to even go forward because he is not the ATC who is the body that recognized Earl's hike, and he isn't Earl Shaffer nor represents him.
In the end he is someone that has decided he has a problem with how someone else hiked, and doesn't like the fact that the ATC recognized it. To me, and others apparently, he is just as offensively disrespectful as the Purist I do have a problem with. He has decided to pick on the hike of a good man, an inspiration to many, and a man that isn't around any more to defend his hike even if he would. No wonder there are deep emotions and name calling. I have harsher things I could say as well but choose to try and stay somewhat polite. And I also choose to end my involvement in this conversation.
Have fun picking on a dead icon.
thepathsproject
07-28-2011, 01:36
Folks:
I didn't really explain the situation with the Shaffer documents at the NMAH very well, so I'll try again.
There is a collection of Shaffer documents and photographs at the NMAH Archives, including the LBN. While available for public review and copying, publication rights to the documents and photographs are still, as I understand it, reserved to the Shaffer Foundation. So while I copied a part of LBN and even had one photograph scanned, as I understand it I cannot further reproduce or distribute more copies.
What I understand that to mean is that the only way the LBN could be copied for distribution, published, or put on the internet is with permission of the Shaffer Foundation. And that is exactly what I'm driving at -- if folks in the AT community are interested in reading LBN (and I will tell you it is an absolutely fascinating document regardless of your position on Shaffer's hike as a complete AT thru-hike), it would, as I understand it, require the permission of the Shaffer Foundation. That is my strictly amateur take on the situation, and I could be mistaken. But I'm sure the Foundation could explain the legal situation with the documents, and its position as to internet posting, if someone contacted it.
Hope this helps.
thepathsproject
07-28-2011, 01:55
Agreed. I don't have a problem with anyone hiking every mile. I applaud it. I've hiked with a purist, I even once was one - until I got back from my first tour in Iraq and realized it was just hiking and all I cared about was hiking and enjoying that hike as it happened. At the end of your hike you have to live with yourself and how you did it.
. . . But as I see it, he is like these people trying to challenge someone else's right to get married: He may have a very well written and documented challenge to Earl Shaffer's hike. But like these other guys - he lacks legal standing. There is no reason for his challenge to even go forward because he is not the ATC who is the body that recognized Earl's hike, and he isn't Earl Shaffer nor represents him.
In the end he is someone that has decided he has a problem with how someone else hiked, and doesn't like the fact that the ATC recognized it. To me, and others apparently, he is just as offensively disrespectful as the Purist I do have a problem with. He has decided to pick on the hike of a good man, an inspiration to many, and a man that isn't around any more to defend his hike even if he would. No wonder there are deep emotions and name calling. I have harsher things I could say as well but choose to try and stay somewhat polite. And I also choose to end my involvement in this conversation.
Have fun picking on a dead icon.
Sgt:
You've now taken two "cheap shots" at me, while not displaying any indication that you have ever read any of my Report, and now you are going to flee from the conversation before I can get around to responding -- as I told you I intended to when you took your first cheap shot, again not apparently having any idea what my Report actually says. I'm frankly disappointed in you, having got the impression from watching Whiteblaze that you might a good guy to get into a discussion with. I particularly wanted you in the discussion, so now that you are here I wish you would stay.
So, having taken a couple of cheap shots and called me a few names, why don't you consider standing your ground for a day or two to see how well I handle your posts? I promise, I'll get around to you by tomorrow evening -- I assure you I haven't forgotten your first cheap shot! And it won't be nearly so much fun "returning fire" if you're not around.
So, stick around. It might be fun.
Thanks.
Sgt ... having taken a couple of cheap shots and called me a few names, why don't you consider standing your ground for a day or two to see how well I handle your posts? I promise, I'll get around to you by tomorrow evening -- I assure you I haven't forgotten your first cheap shot!Having proved ... proved with geometric logic that Earl Shaffer stole the strawberries, our resident Captain Queeg is bringing out the marbles and starting to unravel before our eyes.
I wonder if any of his earlier supporters on this thread are starting to have second thoughts. Character will out.
thepathsproject
07-28-2011, 10:28
Having proved ... proved with geometric logic that Earl Shaffer stole the strawberries, our resident Captain Queeg is bringing out the marbles and starting to unravel before our eyes.
I wonder if any of his earlier supporters on this thread are starting to have second thoughts. Character will out.
I'm not in a good mood. Some (and I stress "some') of folks on this site have been so uncivil, vulgar, disrepectful and insulting to me as well as one another on this thread, as well, I am told, other threads, that a friend of mine who was monitoring the discussion anticipating a good debate swears she will never again view this website -- and moreover, now wants to stay away from the Appalachian Trail to avoid whatever "cult" or bunch of potentially dangerous freaks that seems to her to have taken over what she thought would be a civil community of hikers. I tried to tell her that you folks were probably very nice in person but just adopted "over-the-top" personas on the web, but she is not convinced. She told me that one poster with "moderator" under their name even joined in, and was encouraging the behavior.
Which reminds me of one the the best comments I ever read about AT thru-hikers -- it was in a PA shelter in '85 (Antietam Creek, or something like that), apparently by a local person. It read " AT hikers are like professional wrestlers -- both adopt stange names and brag a lot." Now it appears some of you also scream, throw chairs, and abuse anyone who differs with you.
I like to be liked and appreciated. But popularity is of no concern to me on this site. I'm just a guy who stumbled onto what I think is some very interesting and important information about AT history. And I just want to share it with the folks I would think would be the most interested -- and maybe find a real writer or researcher to take my best-I-can-do work and address the subject in the comprehensive, professional manner it deserves. Thats it. I just thought if you were interested in the AT, you be interested. I didn't mean to disturb the sacred relics of your Earl Shaffer cult shrine, or disturb your obviously delicate emotional hair-triggers. Jeez --- I'm sorry, really.
Anyway, I want to address two more lines of comments, if you are interested.
The first is the "why are you picking on Earl Shaffer" line of comments. The second is the "why are you calling Earl Shaffer a liar and a fraud" line of comments. Sgt. Rock well represents that group, and seems a guy of influence. That is why I don't want him to flee the discussion, but instead stand his ground and hear what I have to say.
I'm going to try to get all that done by tomorrow night -- if you are interested.
I'll check back this evening -- I'm sure you will let me know in your typically subtle manner whether you have any further interest in hearing what I have to say in response to the Rock and others who have made such comments.
a friend of mine ... now wants to stay away from the Appalachian Trail to avoid whatever "cult" or bunch of potentially dangerous freaks that seems to her to have taken over what she thought would be a civil community of hikers.Seem. "Seem to have taken over." Collective noun.
Not a slam dunk: "a cult of potentially dangerous freaks" could well take a singular verb, but as "a bunch of potentially dangerous freaks" we require a plural verb.
thepathsproject
07-28-2011, 10:45
Seem. "Seem to have taken over." Collective noun.
Not a slam dunk: "a cult of potentially dangerous freaks" could well take a singular verb, but as "a bunch of potentially dangerous freaks" we require a plural verb.
Wil:
I told you a need a real writer to take over my work. Maybe you are the one.
So edit the post for me. I'd appreciate it.
I also mispronounce a lot of words.
But folks generally get my meaning, despite it all.
I gotta go. I'll check back this evening.
Jim
As I mentioned earlier, I've been spoiled by doing most of my hiking out west. It was rather refreshing after hiking the AT and having to deal with all the purist. Some are so bad you can't take one blue blaze into a shelter and another out if it means missing a white blaze or two.
.
That's a fable that has been around almost as long as the trail.
Bull****. I'm sure there are purist here willing to say you need to pass every single white blaze, including those in such a situation. Just because you never experienced it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I also had one person criticize me for taking the fork to Clingman's Dome (heading north) and cutting back to the AT without retracing my steps. I missed all of about 50 yards of whiteblaze trail that time. The worst part was they were serious.
I'm not in a good mood. Some (and I stress "some') of folks on this site have been so uncivil, vulgar, disrepectful and insulting to me as well as one another on this thread, as well, I am told, other threads, that a friend of mine who was monitoring the discussion anticipating a good debate swears she will never again view this website -- and moreover, now wants to stay away from the Appalachian Trail to avoid whatever "cult" or bunch of potentially dangerous freaks that seems to her to have taken over what she thought would be a civil community of hikers. I tried to tell her that you folks were probably very nice in person but just adopted "over-the-top" personas on the web, but she is not convinced. She told me that one poster with "moderator" under their name even joined in, and was encouraging the behavior.
Which reminds me of one the the best comments I ever read about AT thru-hikers -- it was in a PA shelter in '85 (Antietam Creek, or something like that), apparently by a local person. It read " AT hikers are like professional wrestlers -- both adopt stange names and brag a lot." Now it appears some of you also scream, throw chairs, and abuse anyone who differs with you.
I like to be liked and appreciated. But popularity is of no concern to me on this site. I'm just a guy who stumbled onto what I think is some very interesting and important information about AT history. And I just want to share it with the folks I would think would be the most interested -- and maybe find a real writer or researcher to take my best-I-can-do work and address the subject in the comprehensive, professional manner it deserves. Thats it. I just thought if you were interested in the AT, you be interested. I didn't mean to disturb the sacred relics of your Earl Shaffer cult shrine, or disturb your obviously delicate emotional hair-triggers. Jeez --- I'm sorry, really.
Anyway, I want to address two more lines of comments, if you are interested.
The first is the "why are you picking on Earl Shaffer" line of comments. The second is the "why are you calling Earl Shaffer a liar and a fraud" line of comments. Sgt. Rock well represents that group, and seems a guy of influence. That is why I don't want him to flee the discussion, but instead stand his ground and hear what I have to say.
I'm going to try to get all that done by tomorrow night -- if you are interested.
I'll check back this evening -- I'm sure you will let me know in your typically subtle manner whether you have any further interest in hearing what I have to say in response to the Rock and others who have made such comments.
Just more Lawyer talk. Can't wait for tomorrow night..I guess the real truth will come out.
Alligator
07-28-2011, 11:12
Please try to be a little more civil folks. Thanks.
Please try to be a little more civil folks. Thanks.Was it McNeely calling us "a cult of potentially dangerous freaks" or was it Grample calling McNeely a "lawyer"?
I would agree that calling someone a lawyer is _way_ over the line.
atraildreamer
07-28-2011, 15:23
I just clicked on the blue link to James's W McNeely's 164 page report on the actual route of Earl Shaffer's reported thru hike and was taken aback by the amount of research that went into the project, and the level of detail he provides. Are there any on-line discussion here on WB or elsewhere regarding this project? Given the many, many miles of Trail that Earl Shaffer seems to have missed, and the rides he is said to have accepted to move further down the AT, I would imagine this research has garnered a great deal of attention.
I tried to download the report 3 times and all I ever get is the cover page! :mad: Need some help here. Anyone have a good link to this report? :confused:
hikerboy57
07-28-2011, 15:26
I tried to download the report 3 times and all I ever get is the cover page! :mad: Need some help here. Anyone have a good link to this report? :confused:can I assume you've clicked on the link in the lower left corner of the WB homepage?
WingedMonkey
07-28-2011, 15:44
I tried to download the report 3 times and all I ever get is the cover page! :mad: Need some help here. Anyone have a good link to this report? :confused:
http://www.whiteblaze.net/index.php?page=Earl_Shaffer_hike
Am I the only person who thinks it strange that people who supposedly hold Earl Shaffer and his 1948 hike in such high esteem act as though reading LBN is an invasion of his privacy? It was offered to SI by Shaffer's heirs and deemed by them to be of sufficient significance to warrant making it available to everyone.
In reading some of the more recent posts, it seems some people who ought to attach more value to LBN than the general public apparently do not value it at all. It may be the most important piece of evidence supporting the facts surrounding Shaffer's 1948 hike. I am glad these people are not its custodians.
Maybe these people fear LBN would destroy the long-standing myths surrounding this hike to which they cling and value more highly than the hike itself. I can't help but note some of these same people live vicariously ferreting out the most intimate details surrounding contemporary speed hikes of others.
Jim's folly is rooted in his decision to go to law school and earn a living as a prosecuting attorney which encouraged him to look for a crime where there was none.
Add my name to the list of those who believe carrying on as some have here is no way to go about fund-raising or recruiting volunteers.
sheepdog
07-28-2011, 17:17
looks like Earl may be "blue blazing, hiker trash"
who couldn't like and respect a guy like that??
Am I the only person who thinks it strange that people who supposedly hold Earl Shaffer and his 1948 hike in such high esteem act as though reading LBN is an invasion of his privacy? It was offered to SI by Shaffer's heirs and deemed by them to be of sufficient significance to warrant making it available to everyone.
In reading some of the more recent posts, it seems some people who ought to attach more value to LBN than the general public apparently do not value it at all. It may be the most important piece of evidence supporting the facts surrounding Shaffer's 1948 hike. I am glad these people are not its custodians.
Maybe these people fear LBN would destroy the long-standing myths surrounding this hike to which they cling and value more highly than the hike itself. I can't help but note some of these same people live vicariously ferreting out the most intimate details surrounding contemporary speed hikes of others.
Jim's folly is rooted in his decision to go to law school and earn a living as a prosecuting attorney which encouraged him to look for a crime where there was none.
Add my name to the list of those who believe carrying on as some have here is no way to go about fund-raising or recruiting volunteers.
What are you babbling about?
The truth is, apparently much to your, and Jim's chagrin, most don't care. Earl was a pioneer in the terms of long distance hiking and thru-hiking, who hiked from Georgia to Maine. That he didn't absolutely follow the official whiteblaze trail doesn't matter.
Kaptain Kangaroo
07-28-2011, 17:48
looks like Earl may be "blue blazing, hiker trash"
who couldn't like and respect a guy like that??
As Sgt Rock stated earlier, Earl Shaffer is an inspiration to many people. He was an inspiration to me. On my thru-hike I bought a copy of Walking with Spring in Damascus & spent the next couple of weeks reading a page or two aloud each night in camp for the group of hikers I was with at the time. It was a great way to live both the trail that I experienced in 2006 & the trail that the first thru hiker lived in 1948.
Personally I don't care how much of the trail Earl actually hiked. He walked from Georgia to Maine. For me that counts as a thru-hike.
However, the report & this thread have put forward information that I was not aware of about Earl's supposed activities after his hike. Some of his actions are not what I would expect of a fellow hiker. In particular...
1. Earl seems to have denigrated the efforts of early trail volunteers by blaming poor trail maintenance as the reason for many of his off trail excursions when this does not appear to be true.
2. Earl tried on multiple occassions to have other peoples hikes de-listed by the ATC as he did not consider them "pure" enough. (Ironically this is exactly the "crime" that Jim McNeely is accused of.)
3. Earl appears to have deliberately fabricated evidence to support the completeness of his hike.
I would be very happy if anyone who knew Earl personally could tell me that none of this is true.
When I look to people for inspiration I want to see examples of honesty & integrity that I can aspire to . However, I would much prefer to know the truth, no matter how unpleasant, than to believe in some comfortable myth.
If Earl had cared about what a bunch of purists thought of his hike he wouldn't have asked to be buried face down. :D
1. Earl seems to have denigrated the efforts of early trail volunteers by blaming poor trail maintenance as the reason for many of his off trail excursions when this does not appear to be true.
2. Earl tried on multiple occassions to have other peoples hikes de-listed by the ATC as he did not consider them "pure" enough. (Ironically this is exactly the "crime" that Jim McNeely is accused of.)
3. Earl appears to have deliberately fabricated evidence to support the completeness of his hike.
I would be very happy if anyone who knew Earl personally could tell me that none of this is true.
I don't believe any one that knew Earl could tell you if it were true, partly true or completely false, but the opinion I got from reading what I did in Jim's paper is that much of it could very well be pure conjecture. Many times it appeared to me, Jim assumed he knew what was going on in Earl's mind when he did, what he did.
When I read Walking With Spring, I could tell Earl wasn't a purist and may have taken a short ride or two. It certainly didn't lessen my respect for the man, nor did it make a difference to me that the ATC recognized his hike
Skidsteer
07-28-2011, 18:27
looks like Earl may be "blue blazing, hiker trash"
who couldn't like and respect a guy like that??
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd238/acsskidsteer/Hobo/blueonblack.png
Am I the only person who thinks it strange that people who supposedly hold Earl Shaffer and his 1948 hike in such high esteem act as though reading LBN is an invasion of his privacy? It was offered to SI by Shaffer's heirs and deemed by them to be of sufficient significance to warrant making it available to everyone.
In reading some of the more recent posts, it seems some people who ought to attach more value to LBN than the general public apparently do not value it at all. It may be the most important piece of evidence supporting the facts surrounding Shaffer's 1948 hike. I am glad these people are not its custodians.
Maybe these people fear LBN would destroy the long-standing myths surrounding this hike to which they cling and value more highly than the hike itself. I can't help but note some of these same people live vicariously ferreting out the most intimate details surrounding contemporary speed hikes of others.
Count me among those who don't think that Earl Shaffer's notebook should be made widely available to the public. Even thought I would like to read it myself.
Earl Shaffer (by most accounts) was a very private person. Had he wanted to share the contents of the book with everyone, he had ample opportunity to do so in his lifetime. He didn't. He didn't put it on ebay to make a buck. He didn't make copies.
In addition to trail stuff, the book is reported to include personal remembrances, including those of a friend lost during the war.
Given the historical nature of Earl Shaffer's trip I think its great that he left the book behind, and that it is held by the Smithsonian. I think its great and entirely appropriate that it is available to historians -- professional and amateur alike-- who care about his trip.
I think that he may still have something to teach us. In ways that are not all that apparent in this discussion.
In the end, his was a hike that really mattered, and we should all be grateful that he shared it.
the opinion I got from reading what I did in Jim's paper is that much of it could very well be pure conjecture. Many times it appeared to me, Jim assumed he knew what was going on in Earl's mindWhile McNeely finishes preparing to "return fire" and "deal with" Sgt. Rock (who is clearly quaking in his boots right now, I expect), I'd remark related to your point that in the McNeely report you find (according to my word count software) the word "probably" 110 times, "perhaps" 25, "approximately" 71, and "if" 110 times. Those are just a couple of words I tried out because I had the feeling this was a little bit slippery.
"probably" 110 timesMistype, meant "apparently" 110 times.
Whiteblaze could use a "like" button, not for the threads that they all ready have, but for individual posts. :)
thepathsproject
07-28-2011, 19:50
While McNeely finishes preparing to "return fire" and "deal with" Sgt. Rock (who is clearly quaking in his boots right now, I expect), I'd remark related to your point that in the McNeely report you find (according to my word count software) the word "probably" 110 times, "perhaps" 25, "approximately" 71, and "if" 110 times. Those are just a couple of words I tried out because I had the feeling this was a little bit slippery.
What does your word count say for the entire Report? I assume you would have run that to put your numbers in perspective, so maybe you could share it with us.
thepathsproject
07-28-2011, 23:52
In the end he is someone that has decided he has a problem with how someone else hiked, and doesn't like the fact that the ATC recognized it. To me, and others apparently, he is just as offensively disrespectful as the Purist I do have a problem with. He has decided to pick on the hike of a good man, an inspiration to many, and a man that isn't around any more to defend his hike even if he would. No wonder there are deep emotions and name calling. I have harsher things I could say as well but choose to try and stay somewhat polite. And I also choose to end my involvement in this conversation.
Have fun picking on a dead icon.
Why did I pick on the hike of a dead icon in my Report?
Or did I?
In order to understand why the Report was written, it is necessary to read the Report. Chapters 1 and 19 explain the origin of the Report, and what conclusion I drew from the Report. The Report was written to stand on its own, without need for further explanation. So I would first say to Sgt. Rock, and others making various claims as to why the Report was written, to the Report. If Sgt. Rock stated in his comments that he read the Report before making his comments, I don’t recall it. In any event, he cites no part of the Report in his comments. Moreover, he makes no reference to my addressing this same issue earlier in the thread. So apparently (there is one more for your count, Wil) Sgt. Rock is in a one-way conversation: he makes rather emotional charges about a Report without any indication that I noticed of having read it or any of the previous posts addressing exactly the same subject.
So, lets say it again: the Report makes it clear that it’s origin was not in my interest in Shaffer or any other hiker. It came about because of my interest in the old AT, particularly in southern Virginia. I was planning a route for a hike of the old AT, and I decided to base it upon the hike through southern Virginia on the old AT of the first AT thru-hiker of record. I came to understand that was Earl Shaffer. And when in the later 1990's I got his book (Walking With Spring) and researched his 1948 hike to follow it through southern Virginia, things didn’t add up – well, those who read the Report know the rest.
Now, how did I, down in southern West Virginia and unaffiliated with any AT group, know that Earl Shaffer was the first AT thru-hiker? Did I pick him out myself? No, certainly not. The record is clear on this point: Earl Shaffer intended his hike to be the first AT thru-hike, he fully intended to promote and market it as the iconic first AT thru-hike for monetary gain, he did in fact attempt to market and promote it as such (though with little success), and he went to a great deal of effort to achieve and retain that iconic recognition. So Earl Shaffer wasn’t some private person who accidently become the iconic first thru-hiker. He wanted it very much, and he was very public in seeking and achieving it.
So Shaffer was successful in at least part of his goal. He did, as Sgt. Rock and other commenters note, become an icon in the Appalachian Trail community.
And I think most folks agree that as an icon -- and particularly an icon who has promoted himself into the role – one is fairly subject to historical study. And remember, the reason I did study on Earl Shaffer was only because he was recognized as the first AT thru-hiker – a recognition that he very actively sought and promoted for himself.
So it is not as though I discovered some person unknown to history had claimed in a private letter to have thru-hiked the AT. Nope. Shaffer wanted very, very much for me, and anybody else interested in the AT, to know he was the iconic first thru-hiker. So the fact that I identified his hike as the hike to follow along the old AT in Virginia was because Shaffer actively promoted his 1948 hike as the first AT thru-hike.
So Earl Shaffer was a self-promoted icon. If Sgt Rock , or any other commenter, wants to argue that self-promoted icons should be immune to scrutiny as to the claims they so actively promote, lets hear it.
Are you out there, 1st Sgt.? Lets hear it.
But Sgt. Rock asks: why pick on -- why study -- a dead icon?
Generally, as I understand it, that is when it is most easily done. Iconic figures who know themselves to be an icon during their lifetime -- like Earl Shaffer -- often have documents (like LBN – although I do want to interject that it is purely a trail journal, contrary to some folks’ impression on this thread) that are private during their lifetime but that after their death become available for public review. So research that wasn’t possible during that person’s lifetime becomes possible after their death. I don’t think that is uncommon. And that is the case with the Shaffer documents and photographs at the NMAH. Shaffer retained the it all during his lifetime, it was all donated to a museum for public display after his death, and I did what one would assume Mr. Shaffer during his lifetime and the Shaffer Foundation after his death intended -- because he was the first thru-hiker, because I wanted to follow the first thru-hiker along the old AT in southern Virginia, I read the documents, studied the photographs, and wrote a Report.
I would assume that if my Report had been a public relations piece restating the Shaffer legend in glowing terms that Sgt. Rock, and other "don’t ever question Earl Shaffer commenters" would have been fine with it. After all, Shaffer, his various claimed thru-hikes, his other writings, and for that matter his legend have been actively promoted and marketed since his death. He may have been a very private person in the latter years of his life, but just about every aspect of his life is no
w the subject of one form of marketing or another -- in effect, he has become a "brand." There is nothing inherently wrong with that. In fact, the Shaffer Foundation DVD’s on Shaffer that feature his photographs were important to my research – so I was a customer of the Foundation in that respect. But I’m not sure one can assert Shaffer is a "private person" not subject to scrutiny when he is at the same time the subject of so much promotion and marketing.
So, my Report is not about Earl Shaffer. It is about a study of the hike of whoever it was that claimed the status of the first AT thru-hiker, its is about whoever promoted himself and his hike in that iconic role, and it is about a person who during his lifetime promoted himself as the iconic first AT thru-hiker after who after his death has been even more promoted and marketed as that iconic figure.
As I explained in Chapter 19, the only conclusion I came to in my Report was that with the exception of the Pinnacles of Dan AT section, Earl Shaffer didn’t follow the AT through southern Virginia. Read the Report. That is my only conclusion. Other than that, I just got curious as to other AT sections I was familiar with in the south. The results are in the Report.
And earlier this summer, I did take my old AT hike through southern Virginia – I think they call that walking the walk as well as talking the talk. And to Cuffs -- I was very high-tech with my 1963 Kelty Pack and a cell phone that wouldn't even work from the top of Fisher Peak (I know you modern AT types don't understand that comment, so I suggest you go climb Fisher Peak and see the view to understand). About 220 miles of old AT and modified routes along the Blue Ridge. And the AT hike I based it on: it was the first AT thru-hike of record that did follow the AT through southern Virginia – the 1951 hike of Gene Espy. That is why I walked into Galax, Virginia, on July 2, 2011, 60 years to the day that Gene Espy hiked into Galax.
Which was, after all, what it was all about all along.
Hope this is helpful and, again, sorry for all the words.
What does your word count say for the [total number of words in the] Report?I tried to get the total, but the software just threw up an animated character on the screen running around in circles with its hands in the air screaming "Too many words! Too many words!"
I ran a diagnostic and the resulting analysis was that never in the history of mankind had so much effort been put into NOT proving that a man had gotten car rides for a total of around 23 miles when he was supposed to be walking.
I notice in a subsequent post here you sure toasted Rock. He'll never dare post here again.
thepathsproject
07-29-2011, 00:50
I tried to get the total, but the software just threw up an animated character on the screen running around in circles with its hands in the air screaming "Too many words! Too many words!"
I ran a diagnostic and the resulting analysis was that never in the history of mankind had so much effort been put into NOT proving that a man had gotten car rides for a total of around 23 miles when he was supposed to be walking.
I notice in a subsequent post here you sure toasted Rock. He'll never dare post here again.
That's funny -- my out-of-date WP12 did it in seconds: 96,645 words.
And I'm sure I frightened off a retired 1st Sgt. The word "fright" is not in those guy's language. I just kinda wish he had stuck around to discuss the matter.
Ad I wanted to tell him my 1st Sgt. joke. You see, I was an officer in the U.S. Army as well as the WV National Guard (in the artillery) a number of years ago. I know -- that and a lawyer as well is just more fodder for jokes on me. But as a unit commander, I knew the NCO's had all kinds of officer jokes (kinda like lawyer jokes). So I had one -- just one -- 1st Sgt. joke.
You see, 1st Sgts. weren't known for their kind and gentle demeanor. So the story goes that the unit commander is out one day watching his 1st Sgt. with the men. 1st Sgt. is making annoucements, and says "Jones, it says here your mother died yesterday!" Well, Jones just fell apart from the shock.
The unit commander pulls his 1st Sgt. aside and says "Top, you've got to be more diplomatic with this kind of thing." Top says, "Yes, Sir, I'll work on it."
Next day, the unit got a message that Smith's wife had died. 1st Sgt. walked out to the formation and said, "Attention. All you married men take one step forward. Not so fast, Smith!"
Anyway, I just wanted to share my one, pretty pitiful, 1st Sgt. joke with the Rock.
And tell you it is "probably" (there is another one for you) "approximately" (and another) 96,645 words, 4,379 sentences, and 1,603 paragraphs, "assuming" (there's another assumption) my WP12 program is accurate and the version I counted is exactly the same as the PDF version, which "perhaps" (and another) it is not because of format changes. You see just how many words it takes to be completely transparent in one's reasoning so others can follow along and critique you.
Anyway, I just wanted to share my one, pretty pitiful, 1st Sgt. joke with the Rock.Jim, one thing I have learned from this thread that really surprised me from what I expected from the report: you're not a bad guy. You're intelligent, you've got a sense of humor, and I now do believe you went into this thing with good intentions. But (in my judgement) you got distracted and obsessed with something that's simply not there.
I realize the logistics of this might be formidable, but I think it would be great if you, Sgt. Rock, myself, and a couple of those who have supported you on this thread, Capt. Kangaroo maybe, someone else, got together for a 5-6 day hike somewhere in your area of interest on the AT. Talked about this off and on during the day and at camp. In the context of the woods and hills, maybe sorting out what's important and what's not.
I'm an opinionated SOB and not real flexible but I'd commit to listen and refrain from being a smartass, for awhile.
Of course maybe only one or two of us would come out alive, but maybe it would be worth the risk as a sociological experiment. In terms of my commitments I'd be thinking maybe very late Fall.
Maybe a silly notion, I just throw it out there.
thepathsproject
07-29-2011, 01:52
Jim, one thing I have learned from this thread that really surprised me from what I expected from the report: you're not a bad guy. You're intelligent, you've got a sense of humor, and I now do believe you went into this thing with good intentions. But (in my judgement) you got distracted and obsessed with something that's simply not there.
I realize the logistics of this might be formidable, but I think it would be great if you, Sgt. Rock, myself, and a couple of those who have supported you on this thread, Capt. Kangaroo maybe, someone else, got together for a 5-6 day hike somewhere in your area of interest on the AT. Talked about this off and on during the day and at camp. In the context of the woods and hills, maybe sorting out what's important and what's not.
I'm an opinionated SOB and not real flexible but I'd commit to listen and refrain from being a smartass, for awhile.
Of course maybe only one or two of us would come out alive, but maybe it would be worth the risk as a sociological experiment. In terms of my commitments I'd be thinking maybe very late Fall.
Maybe a silly notion, I just throw it out there.
Wil:
You, opinionated? No way! That is about as ridiculous as suggesting I am inflexible. Thats silly. I accepted a new idea about life just the other day -- or was that 1986? Well, seems like yesterday.
Anyway, what I'd be glad to do is give a few day day-hiking tour of the old AT features along the Blue Ridge. I did that already on July 9 and 10 with a bunch of local folks in Rocky Knob Recreation Area and we had great fun. I'll be glad to discuss it once the weather gets cooler. I doubt I'll be on Whiteblaze by then (I'm just passing through), but my email is thepathsproject@hotmail.com.
And one more thing, Wil. Sorry, but it is there. Its definitely there, all in the record, and much more than I could ever begin to address. My last post, unless someone asks a question or brings up a new issue, will be tomorrow evening, if I can get it done.
I'll try to post it at about 10 P.M. for anyone interested. That will be the one addressing the issue of whether I'm accusing Shaffer of lying or being a fraud. The answer is, of course not. Such a suggestion could only come from someone who either didn't read the Report or is ignoring or disregarding it. My Report very deliberately stopped short of getting into anything like that. But I want to say that in a post, and suggest, to the extent I feel comfortable, what actually happened in the 1948 - 50 period in the Shaffer situation, and what historical context I see Earl Shaffer and his role in AT history. Its not like I have any credentials for anyone to pay much attention to, but what I hope is out there there is a serious researcher or writer with the talent and resources to sort it all out, do the research and interviews, and tell the true story of Earl Shaffer and the Appalachian Trail. What I seem and I don't think those who so admire him have yet to understand, is that when you release Earl Shaffer from the confines of being the AT community's icon, the full scope of his personality and experiences emerge in an absolutely fascinating story.
I like what a number of commenters have said. What I hear is that Earl Shaffer does not have to be, technically, the first person to have thru-hiked the AT to be a fascinating, inspiring person worth an important role in AT history. And his 1948 hike, like his 1998 hike, don't have to pass muster as a true thru-hike to deserve respect and admiration in the AT community for as long as those blazes stay on those trees -- regardless of whether he managed to follow them or not. I want to talk a little about that as well.
So I'm sure there will be too many words. Sorry in advance.
Anyway, I appreciate your patience and courtesy. I'm sure you folks are weary of all this, and I'm a little tired myself. So its time to wrap it up.
But maybe we can get together for a tour. I'm always ready to show off the old AT (that's the real one, you know -- how's that for ultimate purist?) along the Virginia Blue Ridge.
Jim
Kaptain Kangaroo
07-29-2011, 03:45
I realize the logistics of this might be formidable, but I think it would be great if you, Sgt. Rock, myself, and a couple of those who have supported you on this thread, Capt. Kangaroo maybe, someone else, got together for a 5-6 day hike somewhere in your area of interest on the AT. Talked about this off and on during the day and at camp. In the context of the woods and hills, maybe sorting out what's important and what's not.
.
Hey Wil, as much as I would enjoy that , it is kind of hard since I live on the opposite side of the planet. But a nice thought & it would be an experience !! Can't express how envious I am of anyone who lives close to the AT & can go hiking on it regularly. My AT hike was a high point in my life & it can be tough not being able to discuss the experience over here with anyone who even knows what the AT is, let alone what it is like to spend 4 months in the woods.
As I previously posted, Walking with Spring was an inspiration during my thru-hike & I was really just sharing how my own personal views were evolving as a result of information I was not previously aware of.
It would have been nice if the discussion could have been a little more civil at times, but people are passionate about the AT & the community surrounding it. Suppose that's what makes it great.
Lone Wolf
07-29-2011, 07:10
earl shaffer almost peed on me once. back in 98 shortly before his anniversary hike he was in hot springs for trailfest as was i. we were staying at Elmer's. i was sleeping on a couch in an upstairs hallway. about 1am i hear a door open then someone shuffling towards me. i could see it was earl coming towards me and he was fumbling with his britches like he was gonna take a pee. i kinda jumped up. it startled him and i said this wasn't the bathroom and directed him to the proper place.
i guess it wasn't blazed properly
I'll try to post it at about 10 P.M. for anyone interested. That will be the one addressing the issue of whether I'm accusing Shaffer of lying or being a fraud. The answer is, of course not. Such a suggestion could only come from someone who either didn't read the Report or is ignoring or disregarding it.
That was my take away from reading the report.
hikerboy57
07-29-2011, 08:27
As I previously posted, Walking with Spring was an inspiration during my thru-hike & I was really just sharing how my own personal views were evolving as a result of information I was not previously aware of.
It would have been nice if the discussion could have been a little more civil at times, but people are passionate about the AT & the community surrounding it. Suppose that's what makes it great.[/QUOTE]
I think this statement sums up nicely how i and many others feel. earls book was an inspiration to so many, and although theres anger over Jims analysis to be just too filled with too many darn facts, and we get defensive over someone elses hike. but the book will continue to inspire. earls adventure in itself is just as great even though we may not be able to call him a pure "thru".