View topic - The journal of Moffatt-party participant Ed Lanouette

It is currently August 10th, 2020, 2:46 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 221 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: April 28th, 2019, 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: September 19th, 2003, 8:46 am
Posts: 780
It could be argued that the Moffatt sojourn was done by a ship of fools. A disparate group of people, most of whom were immature in the required skills and unappreciative in its latent dangers, not a place for on the job training. Lead by someone who chose or ignored a critical factor in the success/failure of their endeavor - time and the passing of the seasons. It is remarkable that they commenced this journey by having to raid the local store for cans of Klick and glass jars of peanut butter etc when their logistics went awry. Scrapped skins when they should have been paddling. Wasted precious time contemplating their great adventure when they should have been working at surviving in it. Religiously following their tour guide as if he were a god. The leader Moffatt relying on the limited value of his tree lined Albany River experience, ignoring the fact that the Barrens had no trees. "And So Much More".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 29th, 2019, 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: September 19th, 2003, 8:46 am
Posts: 780
The use of "bullying a dead man" to shut down argument needs to be explored. This is a heads up to Alan Jacobs to sharpen is argument and pencil. I will also explore his use of the word deceit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 29th, 2019, 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 19th, 2003, 8:46 am
Posts: 780
It is a serious to charge someone with deceit . It needs to be supported by strong evidence.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 30th, 2019, 8:26 am 
Offline

Joined: September 19th, 2003, 8:46 am
Posts: 780
david demello wrote:
The use of "bullying a dead man" to shut down argument needs to be explored. This is a heads up to Alan Jacobs to sharpen is argument and pencil. I will also explore his use of the word deceit.


I have addressed the potency of the word deceit, now I address Jacobs maxim "bullying a dead man" as it applies to Moffatt. It could be argued that it is a cheap trick used to shut down argument. Critical review of past events often requires comments about the deceased. If it is forbidden, how can one learn from history? Do we not learn from others mistakes so that we can avoid them? To summarily dismiss them by claiming we are "bullying a dead man" would be to kill valuable discourse.

"First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility." John Stuart Mill - On Liberty


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 30th, 2019, 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: August 11th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 5639
Location: Sunny Wasaga Beach
I have to agree on that. Surely people have criticized Franklin for his poorly led expeditions, as one obvious example.

_________________

Old canoeists never die---they just smell that way.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 30th, 2019, 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: April 16th, 2003, 1:50 pm
Posts: 336
Location: Toronto
A good point; in another example the essence of many fields in science and engineering is to learn from past mistakes. Some great technology gets done right the first time. A lot doesn't, but it doesn't take 10 tries either. Just try to imagine what's going on at Boeing these days. Some very difficult conversations I would imagine. As along as there is no profanity aspersions slurs or other cheap shots, I don't see much of a case for bullying. In fact the profusion of citations and other supporting evidence here in this thread could teach a billion-odd post-phpbb facebook users a thing or two about reasoned argument (the other billion-odd are in reasonably good shape I'm sure).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 6th, 2019, 12:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 19th, 2003, 8:46 am
Posts: 780
Since Moffatt was relying on 50 year old data, it begs the question of how reliable that data was. Cyclic variations, either seasonal or longer term or even variations within a season can affect water levels. Using myself as witness, I know this to be the case. I have paddled Nueltin Lake many times and I remember talking to the people at Nueltin Lake Lodge about how the water levels affect fishing and on one specific year the lake was especially low with areas of the lake bottom being exposed. The measurement was in feet and very noticeable and no doubt affected the outflow of the Thlewiaza River and thus the characteristics of the river flow. I cannot imagine what was happening when the high and dry "raised beaches" were beaches. A bit of a hyperbole but still a demonstration of the changing dynamics of the area.

example from news:

Great Lakes water levels surge, some record highs predicted
...........................................

Corps hydrologist Keith Kompoltowicz (Kom-POHL-to-witz) says coastal flooding and shoreline erosion will pose threats, especially during heavy storms.

It's a remarkable turnaround from early this decade, when lake levels were slumping and some hit record lows.

So if it cam happen to the Great Lakes in a decade, what might happen to the watershed to the Dubawnt in 50 years. To not consider it is remarkable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 7th, 2019, 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: August 11th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 5639
Location: Sunny Wasaga Beach
Fluctuations happen quicker in smaller watersheds.

_________________

Old canoeists never die---they just smell that way.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 8th, 2019, 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: January 22nd, 2005, 12:16 pm
Posts: 4044
Location: Toronto
I saw no evidence in the reports of the participants that the water level in the neighborhood of Marjorie Lake was significantly different from that encountered by the Tyrrell party.

Higher water level?
In private correspondence (source to be provided), it was suggested that the water level may have been much higher for the Moffatt trip; as many of us know, such can convert a placid river into a dangerous one.
My reading of the reports of the trip participants found no evidence of the much higher level that would seem to be have been so required. In particular, their descriptions of the rapids below Nicholson Lake and those below Dubawnt Lake do not differ greatly from those of J B Tyrrell. Again (please forgive me), JBT's book mentions not at all those between Wharton Lake and Marjorie Lake.

The gorge above Dubawnt Lake and the evidence of Pessl. 16 August.
We spent the entire morning scouting this very difficult rapid...large breaking waves...wind and pulsating currents...finally decided on the alternative of shooting to the left bank into an eddy, lining the canoes down to another eddy, portaging behind the cliff and around difficult curves, and then shooting the last part of the main rapid. The protection of our supplies dictates our caution. [Pessl book, p 90]

The gorge and the evidence of Franck. 16 August.
Skip and I walked all the way down and took a careful look at the rapid. Art thought...we couldn't shoot the whole thing... Skip and I still thought we could shoot the whole thing...
Art thinks that the river may be lower now than when Tyrrell went through as Tyrrell didn’t have much trouble with any of these rapids.
[Pessl book, p 91]
Given the following, I don't understand Moffatt's comment in the context in which it was made.
My experience is that
higher water means faster water and so less time to react and so more trouble (aka danger), whereas
lower water means slower water and so greater likelihood of having to get out and drag.

The evidence of Pessl regarding the rapids where Moffatt died on 14 September.
The much more important question, clearly answered by your detailed research, is WHY we didn’t scout the rapids? And the answer: because we were following Tyrrell’s journal description of the river conditions approaching Marjorie Lake. Tyrrell’s river descriptions had proven dependable previously and indicated benign conditions entering Marjorie Lake following the last portage. [private correspondence].
Comment. The last portage is that completed in the morning of 14 September.

The corresponding evidence of LeFavour.
At 3 p.m. we were again on the river. Gone was the wind, and we hoped to get a good way up Marjorie Lake in the calm before dark. A mile downriver the roar of the next rapid reached our ears, a roar which had become familiar and comforting in this quiet land, a roar which in the past had promised excitement. As we coasted into the top of it all appeared to be well. You could see the bottom, the water, though white, was apparently shootable. Tyrrell had indicated by his neglect that the rapid was an easy one, and it seemed to be just that. [Evening Recorder, 1955]
Opinion. The key passage is Tyrrell had indicated by his neglect that the rapid was an easy one.

_________________

A literal mind is a little mind. If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all. Good enough isn't.  None are so blind as those who choose not to see. (AJ)



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 8th, 2019, 10:25 am 
Offline

Joined: September 19th, 2003, 8:46 am
Posts: 780
I will comment upon various sections provided by Alan Jacobs. It will require several posts to avoid confusion.

Alan Jacobs: "I saw no evidence in the reports of the participants that the water level in the neighborhood of Marjorie Lake was significantly different from that encountered by the Tyrrell party."

Alan Jacobs: "Higher water level?
In private correspondence (source to be provided), it was suggested that the water level may have been much higher for the Moffatt trip; as many of us know, such can convert a placid river into a dangerous one."

It could be argued that because Jacobs did not provide the correspondence that supported "the water level may have been much higher for the Moffatt trip", then it is disingenuous to say that no evidence exist. Why? Because that correspondence may have provided important evidence/argument supporting " the water level may have been much higher for the Moffatt trip".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 8th, 2019, 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 19th, 2003, 8:46 am
Posts: 780
now for a short conversation:

from Alan Jacobs post: "The gorge and the evidence of Franck. 16 August.
Skip and I walked all the way down and took a careful look at the rapid. Art thought...we couldn't shoot the whole thing... Skip and I still thought we could shoot the whole thing..."

So Art and Skip have a difference of opinion about a certain section of the river as to being doable. Assuming that Tryell opined and advised on it as doable and assuming Tryell acceded to it being done or at least did not forbid its being done then we have a tension between Art and Tryell. If after scouting the rapid Art was of one opinion and Sip was of another opinion and Tryell was of whatever opinion, one could argue that the argument between Art and Skip exposed a disagreement with Tryell by at least one of them. Given that Tryell's advice was contested thus subject to doubt. Tryell was faulted by one of them. Would that that sobering experience as to the limits to Tryell's immutability carried over to Sept 14 perhaps Art's floating assessment would have become a scouting assessment by foot. IE that there was doubt was evidenced by Art/Skip disagreement otherwise they would have faithfully followed Tryell's advice whatever it was. There are several possible explanations. Water levels (high/low), experiential differences between any and all and tolerance to risk by both parties, and the not inconsequential variable, the relative positions as it relates to the changing season and the emergent mindset of the Moffatt Party.

Pg 129 of Pessl's book

"From here until 9/17 our daily chronologic journal entries ended.
The days after 9/8 were filled with such horror and suffering that it
was impossible to write anything at all. In one moment, this grand
adventure had become a nightmare beyond my comprehension...."

So while Tryell was well fed and warmed in Barker Lake (Sept 2), Moffatt's party was living a Pessl "nightmare beyond my comprehension"

It is in that light that we need to view Pessl's entry on page 173 of Pessl's book: "The deteriorating weather exacerbated our concerns about our dwindling food supply, threatening frostbite and unknown downstream river conditions, and it changed our modus operandi from cautious land-based scouting of rapids to a floating assessment as we were sucked into the headwater Vs of each successive rapid. It worked for several days and many rapids, except for one."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 8th, 2019, 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: January 22nd, 2005, 12:16 pm
Posts: 4044
Location: Toronto
Review of relevant comments made above by Demello.

Alan Jacobs: "I saw no evidence in the reports of the participants that the water level in the neighborhood of Marjorie Lake was significantly different from that encountered by the Tyrrell party."

Alan Jacobs: "Higher water level?
In private correspondence (source to be provided), it was suggested that the water level may have been much higher for the Moffatt trip; as many of us know, such can convert a placid river into a dangerous one."

It could be argued that because Jacobs did not provide the correspondence that supported "the water level may have been much higher for the Moffatt trip", then it is disingenuous to say that no evidence exist. Why? Because that correspondence may have provided important evidence/argument supporting " the water level may have been much higher for the Moffatt trip".


Review.
It was suggested by some person that the water level was higher on the Moffatt trip.

Response.
Surely suggested means that no supporting evidence was supplied.
Please get a grip.

_________________

A literal mind is a little mind. If it's not worth doing to excess, it's not worth doing at all. Good enough isn't.  None are so blind as those who choose not to see. (AJ)



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 8th, 2019, 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 19th, 2003, 8:46 am
Posts: 780
Alan Jacobs statement:
"Higher water level?
In private correspondence (source to be provided), it was suggested that the water level may have been much higher for the Moffatt trip; as many of us know, such can convert a placid river into a dangerous one."


was morphed by Alan Jacobs:
Review.
It was suggested by some person that the water level was higher on the Moffatt trip.

Response.
Surely suggested means that no supporting evidence was supplied.
Please get a grip.


Alan, you are the one who supplied the original tantalizing correspondence. And it was you who said "(source to be provided)"

To which I posited: "It could be argued that because Jacobs did not provide the correspondence that supported "the water level may have been much higher for the Moffatt trip", then it is disingenuous to say that no evidence exist. Why? Because that correspondence may have provided important evidence/argument supporting " the water level may have been much higher for the Moffatt trip"."

I think Alan Jacobs is providing a diversion. It is absurd to use today's witness to justify what yesterday was about. Thus using the participants in Moffatt's simulation of Tryell voyage of exploration and expect a one to one correspondence is fraught with complications. Water levels comes to mind. That Moffatt paddled when Tryell said paddle and portage when Tryell said portage is complicated by an excerpt found in Jacobs post. "Alan Jacobs post: "The gorge and the evidence of Franck. 16 August.
Skip and I walked all the way down and took a careful look at the rapid. Art thought...we couldn't shoot the whole thing... Skip and I still thought we could shoot the whole thing..." and other evidence such as Pessl's admission that mistakes were made which contradicts Jacobs assertion: "It is a deceit that Moffatt had made a mistake in the afternoon of 14 September. [BT] " Remarkable hubris! If {BT} commited a deceit by asserting that moffatt made a mistake on the afternoon of September 14, then surely Pessl commited the same deceit . In Pessl's Preface, pgXVII: "... and ultimately we made a fatal mistake. We approached the rapid entering Majorie Lake with caution, but without an onshore look. ......."

Evidence that water levels may have been different for Tryell and Moffatt is hiding in plain sight. The rapids Moffatt died in were not marked by Tryell. To assume a one to one correspondence for between conditions for both parties is contested by indirect evidence concerning the water level changes in the Great Lakes. If those large water bodies can run from record breaking extremes of high and low in ten years surely it cannot be summarily dismissed for the Dubawnt in a 50 year period.

So in summary I have shown that Moffatt and Pessl had conflicting opinions about a rapid, thus calling into question the clarity Tryell's clarity. IE when to paddle and when to portage. The reason for this tension needs to be explored. Might it have been enough difference in the water level? And if it were, then might that water level have changed the river's characteristic just above Majorie Lake?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 9th, 2019, 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: September 19th, 2003, 8:46 am
Posts: 780
Pessl on water levels and the effect on river conditions.

Pg 91 "Art thinks that the river may be lower now than when Tryell went through as Tryell didn't have much trouble with any of these rapids.

Fast forward to Sept 14. If more rapids were exposed on Aug 16 because of lower water levels, then would not even lower water level exacerbate water levels almost a month later on Sept 14? Thus manifesting a rapid for the Moffatt group that simple didn't exist for the Tryell group?

Back to Pessl on same page, but a little lower. "This ice at Spring breakup can change things a lot in seventy five years too.

Think about it and it is evidence that the party knew that Tryell's experience didn't translate into what Moffatt would experience on Sept 14. They knew this because of what Pessl said about August 16 on the effect of water levels on river conditions. Moffatt ignored it on Sept 14. There is strong argument that the fatal event of Sept 14 was of Moffatt's doing. Pessl's "nightmare" had a victim.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 9th, 2019, 2:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 19th, 2003, 8:46 am
Posts: 780
Alan Jacobs: "Moffatt had used JBT's rapids advice for all of July, all of August and two weeks in September.
Over those 11 weeks, surely he would have noticed significant differences between JBT's descriptions and his experiences, and so he would not have trusted them in the afternoon of 14 September. "

Alan Jacobs: "I saw no evidence in the reports of the participants that the water level in the neighborhood of Marjorie Lake was significantly different from that encountered by the Tyrrell party."

Pessl: August 16, DUBAWNT RIVER

Pg 91 "Art thinks that the river may be lower now than when Tryell went through as Tryell didn't have much trouble with any of these rapids."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 221 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group