Ancillary 1. Accusations.

Renovations are in progress; the completion date is well in the future.
Thanks for your patience. Allan

Ancillary 1. Accusations.

Foreword.
This Ancillary lists, then examines, every accusation known to have been of Moffatt.
Each accusation fades away to nothing when exposed to the light of the evidence, with the sole exception that the party did not carry a radio (which would not have averted Moffatt’s death).
In the following, the accusatory material and my responses are sorted by date.
Much of the following is provided also in the nine Appendices; a renovation in progress brings material provided here into agreement with that provided in the Appendices.

The accusatory literature.

Primary sources of the accusatory literature.
I define these to be publications with some basis in the writings of trip participants.
1. The Sports Illustrated article (1959), which contains selections (some edited) from Moffatt’s journal.
2. Participant Grinnell’s Canoe article (1988).
3. Grinnell’s book (1996); I possess no evidence that later editions (2005 and 2010) influenced the literature.
These are the only primary sources to have been used in the literature.
Much of the accusatory literature is based not on these sources, but rather on publications of previous defamers. In the process, errors were propagated, accusations were embellished.
The prime example of embellishment.
The Sports Illustrated editor’s game grows scarce, an untruth in its own right, is the only possible source for Kingsley’s the caribou were long gone, discussed below.

Primary sources unlikely to have been available to Moffatt’s accusers.
1. LeFavour’s four newspaper articles (1955).
2. The Kesselheim-Pessl article in Canoe&Kayak (2012).
3. Pessl’s Nastawgan article (2013).
4. Pessl’s book (2014). Contents include excerpts from his journal and that of Franck.
Comments.
Even now, only LeFavour’s third article is available, thanks to correspondence from him.
The evidence of Pessl (and so Franck) was almost certainly published too late to influence the Moffatt literature.
I corresponded extensively with Pessl, less with Lanouette and LeFavour, only a little with Grinnell.

Items of the primary accusatory literature.
1. The Sports Illustrated article (1959).
This is the second most influential item of the defamatory literature.
Contents include
material (in cases severely edited) from Moffatt’s journal, and
derogatory editorial insertions with no basis in evidence, but
a faithful condensation of Lanouette’s journal for the day of Moffatt’s death.
I point out that the editor redacted a key passage from Moffatt’s last journal entry, that of 13 September.
2. The book of Inglis (1978).
Inglis omitted mention of (rather than redacted) evidence that Moffatt was only following J B Tyrrell’s advice when he chose to run the fatal rapids where he died.
I found no mention of the Inglis book in other items of the Moffatt literature.
3. Participant Grinnell’s Canoe article (1988).
A significant contribution to the accusatory literature.
4. Grinnell’s book (1996).
The most influential contribution to the accusatory literature.
Contents include much material with no basis in evidence, indeed some with no basis in truth.
Like the SI editor, Grinnell redacted evidence, in his case that Moffatt was only following J B Tyrrell’s advice when he chose to run the fatal rapids where he died. And so it concerns me that the two had corresponded.
5. Accusations (defamers’ names unknown, sources unknown) quoted by Luste in Grinnell’s book.
6. The Murphy-MacDonald reviews of Grinnell’s book (1996).
These are reviews in name only, for they contain defamatory material with no basis in evidence.
7. The Mahler-Thum article/s (2005).
8. Kingsley’s articles (2012 and 2013) and book (2014).
Reference. Bibliography.

The Sports Illustrated article (1959).

Reference. Sports Illustrated, issues of 9 and 16 March 1959 (pp 68-76 and 80-88).

Comment.
The actions of the SI editor set the stage for the defamatory literature that followed. Indeed, some of that literature consists of little but rephrasing of the editor’s defamations.
The article is the second most influential item in the defamatory literature; only Grinnell’s book surpasses it in this respect.

Contents of the Sports Illustrated article.
Excerpts from Moffatt’s journal, Moffatt’s prospectus for the trip, photographs and a map, thumbnails of the participants, an excerpt from the New York Times, a condensation of Lanouette’s journal for the day of the tragedy, an Epilogue, plus several editorial assertions.
1. I recognize it to be unlikely that the editor personally took the actions that I ascribe to her/him.
But s/he bears ultimate responsibility for the content of the article, and who knows what actions s/he expected of subordinates (the staff writers of Pessl’s letter). And so the reader may wish to replace editor by editorial staff in what follows.
2. The editor omitted mention of items that falsify her/his accusations; the prime example is the shooting of the first caribou, this on 5 August.
3. Yet more objectionable are editorial assertions, such as
Food was becoming the question now. [p 76, top left, 8 August],
Already nine days behind schedule, the Moffatt party races against winter on the Barren Grounds. The days grow colder, provisions dwindle, game grows scarce. In desperate haste, they take an ultimate chance. [p 76, lower right, 15/16 August],
Increasingly, the men were taking chances. They now shot down churning chutes of white water which, a month earlier, they would have scrutinized with a doubtful eye. [p 82, top right, 7/8 September].
The evidence provided in the Appendices disagrees: no part of all three assertions has a basis in truth (save that the party was travelling in the Barren Grounds, and that the days were growing colder, on average).
I suggest it to be no great insight that provisions dwindle as they are consumed. But the editor omitted to mention here that a great resupply of provisions was obtained from the cache, this on 7 September.

Pessl comments on some content of the SI article.
Hello Allan,
Your previous inquiry re the source of Grinnell’s quotes Aug. 15 & Aug. 20 nudged me to take a further look at SI quotes and the Moffatt journal sources.
That was a rather depressing exercise resulting in my conviction that the SI article is composed of heavily edited paraphrases of the Moffatt journal. In no way an accurate nor objective account of that journey. I probably shouldn’t have been surprised, but I really hadn’t taken a close look before.
The staff writer committed two journalistic sins throughout the article. Paraphrasing under the guise of direct quotation. And then just adding random phrases included in the quotation format. The Aug. 20 entry I have already sent you is an example.
Here are a few more examples of staff-writer add ons which do not exist in the Moffatt journal.
Aug.15: “And anyway it is too late for that now. We will have to live with what we have.”
Aug. 24: “Still haven’t moved since the 21st.”
“It turned out a great day for a change.”
“An ominous note crept in, however.”
“Summer is definitely over.”
Sept. 8: “…despite the dangers we haven’t much time left.”
Sept. 10: “But we are going on anyway. There is no time now to sit around waiting for the niceties of weather.”
“Even a little item of that sort is becoming vitally important to us.”
And the staff-writer comment between entry Sept. 7 and Sept. 9 is unsubstantiated nonsense.
“Increasingly, the men were taking chances. They now shot down churning chutes of white water which, a month earlier, they would have scrutinized with a doubtful eye.”
So it goes, Skip.
[email message, 29 May 2017]

Pessl comments on “The Aug. 20 entry” mentioned above.
Re Grinnell’s quotes from Moffatt’s journal, both are direct quotes from SI. And both are problematic.
The Aug. 15 “quote” is more of a paraphrase than an accurate quote. Here is the Moffatt entry “All along it was it was very heavy current and big waves. I was tired + hungry – it was now 5 pm. – and knew it was no time to make decisions -…”.
The Aug. 20 “quote” doesn’t exist in the Moffatt journal. Closest approximation is: “Off at 11 in am. Up little lake against head wind, into river, and down with swift current to couple of heavy but short rapids, of which I looked over the 2nd only. Shot both.” Absolutely nothing about “…Not very smart of me. I probably should be more careful.”! Outrageous!!
Hope some of this might help, Skip.
[email message, 25 May, 2017].

Moffatt’s journal entry for 13 September.

Moffatt’s complete journal entry for 13 September, as written.
Comment. The tragedy occurred the next day.
Off at 10:15 across outlet bay, Skip caught 3 trout, then down 15 foot very swift rapids, no rocks but very rough. Took water, had to bail. Following Tyrrell’s route, down 6’ rapid, back in (?) map, lunch 2 fish chowder, 2 hardtack. Then along island, water in channels, very fast, no looking it over, about 5 miles of it. Sun out more than for 6 days, but spotty. Pulled into bay by esker, I found good dry portage while canoes unloaded above last very rough + rocky part of rapid. I carried canoe across to little valley below bay, where we camped. Others portaged while I cooked huge glop, fish and bully, pudding + tea. Then, in darkness, I made last portage trip for load of wood, (?), 2 poles. Thought of wolves. Saw none!
Good distance today, Marjorie Lake tomorrow.

Note. The above was kindly supplied by Pessl [private correspondence].

The Sports Illustrated editor’s version of that entry.
After a portage around rapids, Art Moffatt wrote “I cooked fish and bully, pudding and tea. Then, in darkness, I made the last portage trip for a load of wood, my packsack and two poles. I thought of wolves on the way back but saw none. Good distance today. Marjorie Lake tomorrow.” And this was the last entry Art Moffatt was to make in his diary. [SI article, p 82, lower right column]

Comparison of the two versions.
One sees that the SI editor redacted the phrase Following Tyrrell’s route from her/his version of Moffatt’s journal for 13 September.
The interpretation of that phrase is problematic.
It could mean that Moffatt had detailed advice from J B Tyrrell regarding Dubawnt rapids, and that he followed it, to his death, in the rapids above Marjorie Lake. The phrase would then be exculpatory.
On the other hand, it could mean only that the Moffatt party chose the east/rightmost exit (of two) from Wharton Lake; I believe this to be the correct interpretation.
The matter of the interpretation aside, Moffatt had certainly obtained route advice from J B Tyrrell, and was following that advice.
Summary.
Whatever the correct interpretation, only the most credulous could believe the redaction to have been an accident, a slip of the pen.
Possibility?
The redaction and Accusations 1, 2 and 3 (discussed below) were intended to discredit Moffatt, perhaps to make interesting copy.

Accusation 1 of the SI editor.
Food was becoming the question now. [top left of p 76, date 8/9 August].
Responses.
1. The editor failed to mention that the first caribou was shot on 5 August (at most 4 days earlier), as I document in Sub-Appendix 4a. Moffatt’s journal and the Sports Illustrated article. of
2. On 8 August, the Moffatt party ate the last of first caribou [Pessl, p 79]. That event was recorded in Moffatt’s journal, but the editor made no mention it.
3. The editor failed to mention that four more caribou were shot before 14 September (the day of the tragedy), for a total of five.
4. The editor failed to mention the bounty of other food from the land: many ptarmigan, fish (three species), blueberries and mushrooms.
5. The party had provisions remaining from the initial supply, and it had liberated provisions from the cache, as mentioned elsewhere in the SI article.
Summary.
The evidence, in the first instance that of Moffatt’s journal (the editor’s only source), later that of Grinnell, Pessl, Frank, Lanouette and LeFavour, begs leave to disagree with Accusation 1.
At times the party was hungry, at others it was gorged. On the whole, food (in the form of both provisions and food from the land) was bountiful in the six weeks before the tragedy.
Reference. Appendix 6. Food.
Conclusion.
The editor’s assertion Food was becoming the question now has no basis in truth.

Accusation 2 of the SI editor.
Already nine days behind schedule, the Moffatt party races against winter on the Barren Grounds. The days grow colder, provisions dwindle, game grows scarce. In desperate haste, they take an ultimate chance. [bottom right of p 76, for the period after 16/17 August].
Preliminary response.
The accusation is false, from first word to last.
Correction 1. The days did indeed grow colder, on average.
Correction 2. The party was indeed travelling on the Barren Grounds.
Comment.
My response to Accusation 2 being so lengthy, I split it into four parts:
Response 2a. The item schedule.
Response 2b. The item provisions dwindle.
Response 2c. The item game grows scarce.
Response 2d. The items races against winter, desperate haste and ultimate chance.

Accusation 2a of the Sports Illustrated editor.
The Sports Illustrated editor asserted (that is, provided no evidence) that the Moffatt party was nine days behind schedule. [bottom right of p 76, for the period after 16/17 August].
Responses.
1. The Moffatt party had no day-by-day schedule. Given the vagaries of the weather, no recreational party can have such a schedule in the barrens.
2. The Moffatt party was not following the schedule of the Tyrrell party or anything close to it.
(a) The Tyrrell party reached Baker Lake on 2 September 1893 [Robertson, p 162], continued to the coast of Hudson Bay (at Chesterfield Inlet), then went down it to Churchill (the last part by sled) and beyond.
(b) Moffatt had planned to reach Baker Lake (the endpoint of the trip) on 15 September; and he had arranged a grace period of seven days before a search was started.
Indeed, in late August, the Moffatt party was on track to Baker Lake, certainly within the grace period arranged by Moffatt with the RCMP station there, perhaps even by 15 September.
The dates for Dubawnt Lake; an example.
On his page 129, Pessl provides the following actual (not scheduled) dates for Dubawnt Lake.
The Tyrrell party of 1893. 7-17 August.
The Moffatt party of 1955. 21-27 August.
Conjecture. The dates for exiting Dubawnt Lake were the unspecified source for the editor’s nine days days.
Conclusions.
The editor falsely represented the schedule of the Moffatt party (1955) to be that of the Tyrrell party (1893).
That matter aside, the assertion that the Moffatt party was nine days behind schedule has no basis in truth.
Reference. Appendix 7. Schedule.

Accusation 2b of the Sports Illustrated editor.
The assertion (only that, since the editor provided no evidence for it):
provisions dwindle. [bottom right of p 76, for the period after 16/17 August].
Response.
I suggest it to be no great insight that provisions dwindle as they are consumed.
But the SI editor failed to mention here that, as documented in her/his own article, the supply of provisions was augmented considerably by those from the cache, as evinced by the passage 24 one-pound tins of dried Beardmore vegetables… The guys went crazy. [SI article, 7 September, bottom of left column, p 82]
Conjecture.
The supply of provisions in the evening of 7 September was greater than that on 16/17 August, the date corresponding to Accusation 2b.
Conclusion.
The editor’s provisions dwindle misrepresents the evidence regarding the supply of provisions.
Reference.
Appendix 6. Food.

Accusation 2c of the Sports Illustrated editor.
The assertion (only that, since the editor provided no evidence for it):
game grows scarce [bottom right of p 76, for the period after 16/17 August].
Response 1.
Moffatt’s journal, available to the editor in its totality, documents that caribou were shot on 5 August, 11 August, 20 August, 26 August and 5 September, for a total of five. And many ptarmigan were killed. As well, other food (three species of fish, blueberries and mushrooms) was obtained from the land.
Response 2.
At lunch on 14 September (the day of the tragedy), the party had on board enough caribou meat that it no longer had need to hunt; as well it caught 20 lb of trout at lunch. [LeFavour].
Conclusion.
The game grows scarce part of Accusation 2 is an untruth.
Reference.
Appendix 6. Food.

Accusation 2d of the Sports Illustrated editor.
The assertion. …the Moffatt party races against winter on the Barren Grounds… In desperate haste, they take an ultimate chance. [bottom right of p 76, for the period after 16/17 August].
Responses.
1. The passage is an assertion only, for the Sports Illustrated editor provided no evidence in support of it.
2. In mid-September 1955, the weather was certainly cold at times, at others comfortable. But it was certainly not life-threatening at any time. I refer the reader to the evidence of the participants, especially that provided in Pessl’s book.

3. Lest the passage be interpreted as an assertion that the party was behind schedule [SI article, bottom right of page 76], I point out that, on 14 September, the Moffatt party was on track to reach Baker Lake on about 22 September (when the air search was started); indeed, despite the tragedy, it reached Baker Lake on 24 September.
4. One interpretation (the editor declined to be specific) of the phrases races against winter, desperate haste, and take an ultimate chance is that the Moffatt party realised only very late that winter was coming on and so had to hurry in order to reach Baker Lake before freeze-up.
Line 1 of enquiry regarding the possibility of freeze-up.
I examined the record of the Tyrrell-Tyrrell trip for evidence regarding freeze-up.
Without encountering any ice, the party reached salt water (tidal water from Chesterfield Inlet) downstream from Baker Lake in the evening of 6 September 1893 [J B Tyrrell book, p 78F, lower part].
But it is possible that the river could have frozen above Baker Lake by 22 September, some year; this is unlikely, given that the Thelon is reported to be a race course for many km above Baker Lake, but a possibility nevertheless.
Conclusion. The evidence from the 1893 trip does not illuminate the matter.
Line 2 of enquiry.
I return to the matter of the schedule.
Again, the RCMP detachment at Baker Lake had agreed to begin an air search on 22 September should the Moffatt party not have arrived by that date.
Are we to believe that the RCMP detachment there did not know that freeze-up was possible by 22 September?
Or are we rather to believe that it knew that freeze-up was possible by that date but did not inform Moffatt of the fact?
5. The evidence of participant LeFavour.
Referring to the period immediately before the tragedy, he commented as follows.
We traveled, and traveled hard. … Hurrying as we were, no foolish chances were taken.

Conclusion.
Given that there was no chance that the river would freeze before 22 September, I conclude that the assertion the Moffatt party races against winter on the Barren Grounds… In desperate haste, they take an ultimate chance has no basis in truth.
I suggest that the editor’s redaction of the phrase Following Tyrrell’s route… from Moffatt’s last journal entry (that for 13 September) is perhaps relevant here.
Reference.
Appendix 9. Fatal rapids.

Summary of the evidence regarding Accusation 2.
(a) The accusation regarding the schedule has no basis in truth.
Reference. Appendix 7. Schedule.
(b) The accusation regarding the supply of provisions is misrepresents of the evidence.
(c) The accusation regarding the availability of game has no basis in truth.
References for (b) and (c). Appendix 6. Food
(d) The editor’s races against winter, desperate haste, and an ultimate chance have no basis in truth.
References.
Appendix 8. Rapids in general.
Appendix 9. The fatal rapids.

Accusation 3 of the Sports Illustrated editor.
Increasingly, the men were taking chances. They now shot down churning chutes of white water which, a month earlier, they would have scrutinized with a doubtful eye. [top right of p 82, 7/8 September].
Comments.
0. The accusation was likely intended to prepare the reader’s mind for the fatal rapids.
1. That matter aside, given the date of 7/8 September, the reference is to rapids above the fatal ones.
2. The accusation is falsified by the evidence of the participants, especially that of Moffatt himself, whose journal was possessed in its entirety by the Sports Illustrated editor.
3. The truth is rather that the Moffatt party exercised great caution in its approach to rapids on the Dubawnt, in every instance.
4. I repeat that Moffatt possessed J B Tyrrell’s guide to Dubawnt rapids, and that he followed it without exception. Every rapid (no exception) known from Tyrrell’s guide to be dangerous was portaged.
5. Early on 14 September (after 11 weeks on the water), the party had passed many rapids on the Dubawnt (some highly dangerous) without a wrap, without a dump, but with two swamps (only one in rapids).
6. The first and last dumps of the entire trip occurred in the fatal rapids.
7. A minor point in comparison, but still a major one. The evidence of Moffatt’s journal (which the editor possessed in full) is clear: Moffatt exercised extreme caution in running rapids (in part to protect the film and the photographs, the very reasons for undertaking the trip).
Particulars.
Given the context, there are three and only three candidates for the editor’s churning chutes. As I document in Appendix 8. Other rapids, they are
1. The rapids below Nicholson Lake.
The party spent literally days scouting them, before running them.
2. The rapids (indeed a gorge, not just a chute) immediately below Dubawnt Lake.
The party spent literally days scouting and portaging them. Most of the party ran the last reach; Moffatt portaged that reach, in part to protect the film and cameras.
3. The falls above Wharton Lake.
The party portaged the falls in its entirety, I believe without a scout.
Conclusion.
Accusation 3 is falsified by the evidence of Moffatt’s journal, the Sports Illustrated editor’s only source.
Reference. Appendix 8. Other rapids

Comment regarding Moffatt’s We’re all running scared.
This Moffatt quote appears on page 82 (middle of the right column) of the SI article. It was repeated by Kingsley, whose undocumented source can have been only that article.
In the following, I provide Pessl’s transcription of Moffatt’s journal entry for 10 September, the day that the party entered Wharton Lake. The question and quotation marks are his insertions. I deleted some personal material. Pessl kindly provided also a copy of the original.
Finished portage across sand beach about 200 yds. this am by 10:30. Then on – everybody running scared now; third day of snow, strong north wind, freezing all day. Frozen feet a real worry, our boots being porous as blotting paper.
By noon, across lake + in river again, lunch on north shore opposite place where Tyrrell met 1st eskimo. Brewed tea, …
[personal material deleted].
In spite of strong winds + snow squalls, made it with help of strong current, down to (?) falls above Wharton Lake, ice on paddles, hills still white, no sun.
Finished portage 5:30, I cooked caribou, beets, pudding + tea, Made portage north side – should be on south but this side easier to get to–can’t risk an upset now.
Saw caribou mother + calf swim icy river ahead of us today, also one rough leg hawk, 1 (?) loon, several herring gull, small birds “abent”?
Several signs of eskimo about – stones piled one on another mainly.
Skip exhausted tonight – cramped tent made him sleepless last night.
10 days sugar left, about same amt hardtack, 10 days oats, 5 days cornmeal, Joe broke 2 of 3 remaining peanut butter jars tonight on portage.
Food situation poor, but we mean to get out of here fast as possible now, about 200 miles to go.
Piss calls at night tough to (?) in this bitter, freezing weather.
Still snow squalls tonight
Hope tomorrow clear, warm + sunny – could get past Wharton Lake with good break in weather.

Comment.
Moffatt’s handwriting can be difficult to interpret. The first letter of the word that the editor transcribed as “scared” could equally be an “r” or an “n”, but neither of these makes sense in the context of the letters that follow. In short, I see no plausible alternative to “scared”.
A request.
Please note the passage Made portage north side – should be on south but this side easier to get to–can’t risk an upset now and consider its significance regarding the Sports Illustrated editor’s assertion …the Moffatt party races against winter on the Barren Grounds. … In desperate haste, they take an ultimate chance.
Given that the above passage was written four days before Moffatt died, is it then likely that, on 14 September, he decided to risk an upset, to take the ultimate chance in desperate haste to reach Baker Lake

Conclusions regarding the Sports Illustrated article.
1. All three major accusations made by the SI editor are falsified by the evidence; I found literally no support for any of them in all the evidence known to me.
2. The Sports Illustrated editor) possessed Moffatt’s journal and so its evidence that food was plentiful in the six weeks before the tragedy. In particular, the editor redacted mention of the shooting of the first caribou and of three others, thereby severely misrepresenting the supply of food in the six weeks before the tragedy.
3. The editor redacted the phrase Following Tyrrell’s route… from Moffatt’s last journal entry, that for 13 September.
4. Given the editor’s actions as described above, I conclude that I must not trust any content of that article unless it is confirmed by another source.
That is, I consider Moffatt to the author of the article in name only.
5. Lacking full access to Moffatt’s journal, I am unable to state whether it contains other exculpatory evidence. But I think it likely that the editor would have reported any evidence of Moffatt’s guilt in any matter.
6. In fairness, I point out that the article does contain two truthful items.
(a) The New York Times article.
(b) The faithful condensation of Lanouette’s journal for 14 September.
7. Perhaps a more important consideration.
Given the editor’s actions, I am led to wonder whether other evidence important for the understanding of tragedy, especially evidence of Moffatt’s innocence, is contained elsewhere in Moffatt’s journal but was redacted/omitted by the Sports Illustrated editor.
Only Moffatt’s journal can enlighten us on this matter, but it is not available.
Conclusions.
The evidence convinces me that Sports Illustrated editor set out to fabricate a case against Moffatt.
Whatever the intention, the actions of the editor poisoned the Moffatt literature for 55 years, and counting.

Inglis’s book (1978).

Inglis, Alex. Northern Vagabond. The Life and Career of J B Tyrrell – the Man Who Conquered the Canadian North. McClelland and Stewart. (1978).

Inglis’s source for the professional part of the book.
Comment 1.
Inglis’s primary source was obviously J B Tyrrell’s book for the trip of 1893.
Tyrrell, Joseph Burr. Report on the Doobaunt, Kazan and Ferguson Rivers and the north-west coast of Hudson Bay and on two overland routes from Hudson Bay to Lake Winnipeg. S E Dawson, Ottawa (1897).
Ancillary 3. Tyrrell excerpt provides the relevant text for the rapids where Moffatt died; my point is that Tyrrell’s journal makes no mention of those rapids.
Thanks to the helpful staff of the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library (University of Toronto), I possess a copy of all pages for the reach from Black Lake to Chesterfield Inlet. I provide excerpts as appropriate.
Comment 2.
In his Epilogue (pp 246&247), Inglis refers to the Tyrrell Papers held in the Thomas Fisher Rare Books Library of the University of Toronto. These papers contain Tyrrell’s correspondence….
I possess evidence that some of the Tyrrell-Moffatt correspondence known to have occurred had been held there at one time, but my thorough search of mid-2017 found none of it.

The Inglis book and Moffatt’s death, Introduction.
1. The Inglis book, and so his remarks regarding Moffatt, escaped mention in all the Moffatt literature. I thank Mike Gray for informing me of it.
2. Inglis’s primary source was, of course, J B Tyrrell’s book. His comments regarding the Moffatt expedition are confined to his pages 52 and 54.
3. But Inglis omitted mention of his second source, namely the Sports Illustrated article of 1959. In particular, his INDEX does not mention that article; I suggest later a reason that he failed to identify this second source.
There existing nothing else publicly available in 1978, Inglis’s only possible source regarding Moffatt’s death was the SI article. In confirmation, I note that Inglis mentions Moffatt’s diary (I call it his journal), which even now is inaccessible to the public.
4. In the following passage, Inglis confirms that Moffatt had a schedule for arrival in Baker Lake:
…when Moffatt was overdue by five days planes went out in search of his party. [p 54]
The only possible source for Inglis’s overdue is the New York Times article reproduced on page 71 of the SI article.
Comment. I consider this item worthy of explicit mention because several Moffatt defamers asserted that he had no such schedule. That is, the truth regarding the schedule was known in 1978.
A trivial correction. The air search began on 22 September, at the end of the seven-day grace period allowed by Moffatt.

The accusations of Inglis, confronted by the evidence.
And so to the meat of the matter.
Referring to differences between Tyrrell’s party and Moffatt’s, Inglis states … Never during the Tyrrell expedition were depression and anxiety allowed to dominate. … the luxury of self-pity was never permitted. From the first Moffatt’s diary has words like “apprehensive” and “gloomy”. Then it degenerates into “worrying”, “edgy” and “angry”. At the outset paddles were left behind. In the middle, arguments raged. And in the end, on September 14, 1955, misjudging Tyrrell’s descriptions of the rapids they would encounter before entering Marjorie Lake, the Moffatt diary is silent. [p 54]
Response 1.
What is the name of that little red fruit?
Response 2.
Inglis declined to provide his source for the passage Never during the Tyrrell expedition…the Moffatt diary is silent.
The source is easily seen to have been the SI article. I say this because Inglis’s “apprehensive” and “gloomy” appear (in that order), on pages 68 and 72 of that article. His “angry” appears on page 80 (middle of the left column). As well, the only source known to me (and available to Inglis in 1978) for the paddles comment is the SI article, this on page 72. And so I thought it unnecessary to attempt to identify explicitly Inglis’s source for “worrying” and “edgy”.
As well, some Inglis comments mirror closely (aka parrot) those of the SI article.
Conclusion. Inglis’s unidentified source for his remarks regarding the Moffatt expedition was the SI article.
Response 3.
And so I think it worthy of explicit comment that Inglis omitted mention of the SI article in his INDEX (which functions also as a Bibliography) [pp 248-256].
Comment. I can understand that a professional historian would be reluctant to mention that a publication like Sports Illustrated had played a significant role in his research.
Response 4.
Inglis’s remark Tyrrell’s descriptions of the rapids verifies that Moffatt had possessed J B Tyrrell’s descriptions of the rapids they would encounter before entering Marjorie Lake, and so likely all Dubawnt rapids. That crucial piece of evidence went unmentioned by every defamer, in particular
(a) by the SI editor (who possessed Moffatt’s journal in full), and
(b) by Grinnell;
in fact, both the SI editor and Grinnell redacted the corresponding evidence.
Response 5.
I consider it necessary to repeat that Inglis had full access to J B Tyrrell’s book. The evidence of that book regarding the rapids they would encounter before entering Marjorie Lake is provided in Ancillary 3. Tyrrell excerpt.
My point is that Tyrrell’s book makes no mention at all of the rapids where Moffatt died. I suggest Inglis’s omission of that fact to have been a conscious one.
Inglis went yet further. He not only failed to acknowledge that truth, he also asserted that Moffatt had misjudged Tyrrell’s descriptions of the rapids they would encounter before entering Marjorie Lake, this in full knowledge that Tyrrell had made no mention at all of the rapids where Moffatt died.
On 14 September, Moffatt followed faithfully Tyrrell’s descriptions of rapids on Dubawnt (as he had done throughout the trip). That is Inglis’s misjudged assertion is falsified by evidence known to him.
A comment.
On page 243, Inglis provided the following. The biographer claiming otherwise and pretending, God-like, to weigh the life in the balance of eternity…
Perhaps Inglis acted in God-like fashion in judging Moffatt.

Conclusions.

Inglis concealed the identity of his source for his cherry-picking comments regarding Moffatt, namely the Sports Illustrated article. I can understand that a professional historian would be loath to admit having used such a source.
More importantly, Inglis knowingly misrepresented the evidence, by concealing the fact that Tyrrell had made no mention at all of the rapids where Moffatt died. That is, Moffatt had only followed J B Tyrrell’s advice he ran the fatal rapids without a scout.
That is, Inglis’s assertion misjudging Tyrrell’s descriptions of the rapids they would encounter before entering Marjorie Lake has no basis in truth.
The evidence leads me to conclude that Inglis set out to fabricate a case against Moffatt; perhaps this is behaviour inappropriate for a professional historian.

Recommendation.

Let a special place in the history hall of shame be reserved for Alex Inglis, who knowingly misrepresented the evidence regarding the death of Arthur Moffatt.

Grinnell’s Canoe article (1988).

Grinnell, George J. Art Moffatt’s Wilderness Way to Enlightenment.
Canoe, July 1988, pp 18-21 & 56.
Comments.
1. In his book of 1996, Grinnell repeats some accusations made in his article of 1988; the corresponding accusations are addressed later. That is, I discuss here accusations made only in the article.
2. That matter aside, the article belongs to the accusatory literature because of the inquest/holidays assertion quoted below.
3. As best I know, the article escaped the attention of all but Kingsley, who mangled Grinnell’s text in the paragraph that follows, asserting instead that For half of August, they voted to take “holidays” and went nowhere.

The inquest/holidays assertion.
At the inquest held by the mounties, it was disclosed that we had taken holidays on more than half the days of the trip.. [Grinnell article, p 56, right column]
Grinnell’s assertion has two parts:
(a) That the RCMP had held an inquest (at some unspecified place and date) into Moffatt’s death.
(b) That the Moffatt party had taken holidays on more than half the days of the trip.

Summary.
The evidence presented in Appendix 2. Holidays is conclusive.
1. Grinnell’s statement regarding the inquest is pure fabrication. On the other hand, I found no evidence that it influenced the later accusatory literature.
2. Not a single “holiday” (in the too-lazy-to-paddle sense) was taken. Given that Grinnell’s holidays statement was the basis for Kingsley’s accusation (that is, it contaminated the later literature), I state explicitly it is falsified by the evidence.
3. As a result of this experience alone (the reader will find other examples), I trust only material (in both Grinnell’s article and his book) that is verified by independent evidence.
4. More generally, I consider Grinnell to be an untrustworthy witness. This assessment of his credibility is fully justified by his later behavior. The most egregious of all his acts was the redaction (in his book) of Lanouette’s exculpatory evidence regarding the running of the fatal rapids.

Conclusion regarding Grinnell’s article.
The evidence suggests that Grinnell set out to fabricate a case against Moffatt.
The content of his book is discussed below.

Undated accusations quoted and commented on by Luste.

Source. Grinnell book, pp 293&294, 1996.
Comments.
1. I know not
authors’ names,
or dates when the accusations were made,
or whether the accusations are documented elsewhere,
or to what extent (if any) they were influenced by the Sports Illustrated article,
or to what extent (if any) they influenced the later literature (because not even one defamer cited a source).
2. Given Inglis’s diligence, I doubt that he knew of the following. Indeed, had he done so, he surely would have used them in his campaign.
3. I use a separate paragraph to state that I have no reason to believe that Luste knew of the Inglis book when he wrote the following.
The accusations.
Over the years, a number of unfounded versions or representations of the Moffatt accident have made their way into the canoeing literature. I’ve read statements like
“After some discussion, there came a momentous decision. To save time the party would run any rapid which looked safe from the top.” and
“Everyone was rescued quickly so there should have been no problems.” or
“Increasing desperation made them run rapids without careful checking,” or
“…to speed progress they would run any rapid that looked passable from the top…” and
“On Moffatt’s trip, the canoeists surviving the mid-September swamping first picked up all the packs, then the swamped members, a fatal mistake.”

Luste’s opinion of these accusations.
It seems as if a liberal amount of imagination has been invoked by these writers to change the facts so they fit their preoccupations and desires for culpability.
Comments.
Luste did not provide defamers’ names. Neither are their sources known.
These representations have no basis in truth, but they contain too much detail for them to have been fabricated in toto. Given that neither the Sports Illustrated article (1959) nor Grinnell’s article (1988) provides such information, the authors of the representations must have had access to a trip participant, perhaps his writings; I can only speculate regarding that person’s identity.
Because not one Moffatt defamer identified a source, it is unknown whether these accusations influenced the later accusatory literature.
Opinion.
Both the unfounded and the representations remarks of Luste apply equally well to nearly every assault made on Moffatt, beginning with the Sports Illustrated article of 1959 and continuing to 2014, inclusive.
Assessment of the accusations.
The accusation To save time the party would run any rapid which looked safe from the top
has no basis in truth.
The accusation Increasing desperation made them run rapids without careful checking has no basis in truth.
The accusation …to speed progress they would run any rapid that looked passable from the top… has no basis in truth.
Conclusion.
The evidence convinces me that the authors of these accusations set out to present a case against Moffatt.
References.
Appendix 8. Rapids in general.
Appendix 9. The fatal rapids.

Grinnell’s book (1996).

Grinnell, George. A Death on the Barrens. A true story. Northern Books,
Toronto (1996).

Introductory comments.
The reader might reflect on the fact that Grinnell’s book appeared 41 years after Moffatt’s death.
No bibliography is provided.
Contents include much personal material, plus important comments by George Luste.
My research is based entirely on the 1996 edition. In private correspondence, Pessl mentioned editions of 2005 and 2010, and remarked that there exist differences from that of 1996. Moffatt’s defamers don’t identify their sources and so I don’t know whether any of them used the later editions.
I recently purchased the 2010 edition.
Grinnell, George. Death on the Barrens. A True Story of Courage and Tragedy in the Canadian Arctic. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley (2010).
No bibliography is provided here either.
As noted by Pessl, there are indeed differences from the 1996 edition.
I lost interest in reading further when I saw that Grinnell had redacted also in the 2010 edition (p 207) the exculpatory passage This surprised us … the first rapids and replaced it by an ellipsis.
Reviews of the 2010 edition.
https://www.amazon.ca/Death-Barrens-Courage-Tragedy-Canadian/dp/1556438826

Item 1.
The evidence tells me that Grinnell did not keep a journal; that is, he relied on memory when writing the book. For that reason alone, I advise caution in reading it. A lesser consequence is that his dates are unreliable.
The evidence regarding Grinnell’s keeping of a journal.
An incomplete search found only two comments regarding Grinnell’s recording of events.
Early in the trip, I had traded my ration of chocolate bars, which Art sometimes distributed at lunch, for paper to write on. [book, p 26].
I retired to my tent and wrote in my journal a diatribe against self-righteous “altruists” in general and Skip in particular. [book, p 84].
Comment. I am aware of the apparent contradiction.
Further evidence that Grinnell did not keep a journal is provided in Appendix 2. Holidays. I refer here to differences between his dates and those of Pessl (whose book provides thorough documentation of the trip, except for later events).

Item 2. The comments of Luste.
Grinnell’s book includes Luste’s Introduction (pp iii to v) and his Thoughts on the Moffatt Tragedy, Wilderness Canoeing, and Safety (pp 279-302).
It includes also the following Luste comment (quoted also above) regarding the pre-1996 accusatory literature. It seems as if a liberal amount of imagination has been invoked by these writers to change the facts so they fit their preoccupations and desires for culpability. [Grinnell book, p 294].
Unfortunately, this first known defence of Moffatt was ignored in the flood of accusatory literature that followed publication of Grinnell’s book.
Also ignored in that flood was Luste’s comment Art Moffatt, following Tyrrell’s notes, was not expecting the rapid in which he swamped and then died. [Grinnell book, p 284]. The source of Luste’s information is not known.
Interpretation of the latter Luste comment.
Moffatt possessed information regarding the fatal rapids, and that information had told him that the rapids were not worth a scout.
To me, that comment, alone and in itself, falsifies every accusation regarding running of the fatal rapids without a scout.
Summary.
Had Moffatt’s defamers not ignored both these comments of Luste, had they not so eagerly joined the mob attack on a dead man, likely the later literature would have differed considerably. Moffatt’s family might thereby have been spared two more decades of abusive literature.

Item 3.
Grinnell had access to the Sports Illustrated article, as evinced by his acknowledgements [p 308] and his reference there to Quotes.
As best I know, Grinnell lacked access to Moffatt’s journal per se, only to the excerpts published in the SI article.
Unfortunately for Moffatt’s reputation, Grinnell did not address the following accusations made by the SI editor.
1. Food was becoming the question now. [top left of p 76, date 8/9 August].
2. Already nine days behind schedule, the Moffatt party races against winter on the Barren Grounds. The days grow colder, provisions dwindle, game grows scarce. In desperate haste, they take an ultimate chance. [bottom right of p 76, for the period after 16/17 August].
3. Increasingly, the men were taking chances. They now shot down churning chutes of white water which, a month earlier, they would have scrutinized with a doubtful eye. [top right of p 82, 7/8 September].
Summary.
Grinnell had the opportunity to defend Moffatt from accusations that he knew to be false, but he chose not to do so.
Neither did Grinnell object to the editor’s redaction of the phrase Following Tyrrell’s route… from Moffatt’s journal entry for 13 September [Sport Illustrated, page 82, lower right column].
And so it concerns me that Grinnell and the SI editor had certainly been in contact (perhaps even met in person), as evinced by the Epilogue on page 88 of the SI article; I refer in particular to the discussion of death from hypothermia.

Item 4.
In his book (and also in his article), Grinnell made unfortunate statements, and made unfortunate omissions, regarding important matters; most of his actions are highly prejudicial to Moffatt.
On pages 163-174 of his book, Pessl addresses multiple unsubstantiated and damaging accusations made by Grinnell of Moffatt (who, I need say, was unable to respond to them).
My Main text and my Appendices address other troubling statements made / actions taken by Grinnell; some are addressed below.
Of greatest concern to me is his redaction of an exculpatory passage from Lanouette’s journal for 14 September, as I document in the next paragraph.

Item 5.
I provide first the full relevant passage from the Sports Illustrated condensation of Lanouette’s journal for 14 September. That condensation is a faithful one, as one can verify by consulting Lanouette’s full journal for that day, as provided in Ancillary 2. Lanouette excerpt.
Then I provide the full relevant portion of Grinnell’s book.
Then I compare the two versions, then comment.
1. The full relevant passage from the Sports Illustrated condensation of Lanouette’s journal.
After a fine lunch of fish chowder, we shoved off again at around 2:30. The weather was still dismal, although the wind had dropped. In a few minutes we heard and saw rapids on the horizon. This surprised us. Art had figured we had already shot the last two rapids before Marjorie Lake. Actually, what we had gone down were only riffles, and what lay ahead was the real beginning of the first rapids. At the top, the rapids looked as though they would be easy going, a few small waves, rocks—nothing serious. We didn’t even haul to shore to have a look, as we usually did. The river was straight and we could see both the top and foot of the rough water quite clearly, or we thought we could. We barreled happily along. We bounced over a couple of fair-sized waves and took in a couple of splashes, but I didn’t mind, as I had made an apron of my poncho and remained dry enough. I was looking a few feet in front of the canoe for submerged rocks when Art suddenly shouted “Paddle.” [Sports Illustrated, p 85].
Comment 1. The above is a faithful condensation of the passage in Lanouette’s journal, as I document in
Ancillary 2. Lanouette excerpt.
Comment 2. Please note in particular the passage
This surprised us. Art had figured we had already shot the last two rapids into Marjorie Lake. Actually, what we had gone down were only riffles, and what lay ahead was the real beginning of the first rapids.
2. The full relevant passage from Grinnell’s book.
After a fine lunch of fish chowder, we shoved off again at around 2:30. The weather was still dismal, although the wind had dropped. In a few minutes we heard and saw rapids on the horizon….
At the top, the rapids looked as though they would be easy going, a few small waves, rocks—nothing serious. We didn’t even haul to shore to have a look, as we usually did. The river was straight and we could see both the top and foot of the rough water quite clearly, or we thought we could. We barreled happily along. We bounced over a couple of fair-sized waves and took in a couple of splashes, but I didn’t mind, as I had made an apron of my poncho and remained dry enough. I was looking a few feet in front of the canoe for submerged rocks when Art suddenly shouted “Paddle.”
[Grinnell book, 1996 edition, p 202]
3. Comparison of the two versions.
One sees that Grinnell redacted the three-sentence passage
This surprised us… real beginning of the first rapids and replaced it with an ellipsis.
Analysis.
To my mind, the redacted passage is the key to understanding the tragedy, for it demonstrates
first that the Moffatt party had prior information regarding the fatal rapids, and
second that that prior information was incorrect.
That passage told me that Moffatt, in choosing to run the fatal rapids without a scout, was only following J B Tyrrell’s guide to rapids on the Dubawnt. Surely Moffatt would not have followed Tyrrell’s advice that day, had it proved unreliable at any time in the previous 10 or so weeks.
Does any rational mind believe Grinnell’s redaction of that passage to have been an accident, a slip of the pen?
Consequences of Grinnell’s redaction.
Jacobson was misled for sure.
So was Luste, specifically into making the comments on Grinnell’s p iii.
It is then not surprising that later writers continued in the same vein.
Conclusion.
Grinnell redacted exculpatory evidence (three key sentences) from Lanouette’s journal (condensed version) for the day of Moffatt’s death.
The later accusatory literature might have differed considerably had that redaction not have been made.
Opinion.
The subtitle A true story of Grinnell’s book has no basis in truth.

Item 6.
The pace of the accusatory literature accelerated markedly with the publication of Grinnell’s book, for three reasons, as I see things.
(a) It was the first publication of a trip participant to attract the broad attention of the paddling community; Grinnell’s article of 1988 did not do that.
(b) It provided a rich source of material for accusations of Moffatt; indeed, the flood of accusations based on it ebbed only in 2014 (perhaps only temporarily even then).
(c) It is no fault of Grinnell, but false accusations made by reviewers Murphy and MacDonald of his book were uncritically accepted and promulgated, even embellished.
(i) No part of reviewer Murphy’s triple-header assertion Lack of food, proper equipment and most importantly, lack of a planned itinerary, contributed to his Moffatt’s demise is encumbered by a basis in truth.
(ii) Reviewer MacDonald asserted first that there was a schedule, then that there wasn’t one; the latter is falsified by the evidence.

Item 7.
Important for our understanding of the tragedy is Grinnell’s food-related evidence for the period immediately before the tragedy.
Example 1. Caribou! … hundreds of caribou, then thousands more. … The hunters returned to lead me to their kill… We carried the butchered caribou back to camp and that evening gratefully ate forty-two steaks. [5 August, Grinnell book, pp 97&98].
Example 2. Over the ensuing weeks… we killed our third, fourth and fifth caribous… [p 156].
Grinnell’s evidence that food (both from the land and from provisions) was abundant in the six weeks before the tragedy was ignored by every accuser who wrote later on the topic of food, including those whose only source was Grinnell’s book.
Case 1 in point.
Worthy of special mention in this respect is James Murphy, who (in his review of Grinnell’s book no less), asserted that Lack of food…contributed to his demise. The truth is rather that the land was one plenty in the six weeks before Moffatt’s death, as evinced in Grinnell’s book itself.
Case 2 in point.
Kingsley (whose major source was Grinnell’s book) nevertheless asserted that the caribou were long gone, this when Grinnell documented the shooting of five caribou in the period from 5 August to 14 September. [Grinnell book, p 156].
Summary.
Had Grinnell’s evidence regarding food not been ignored (the possibility that it was willfully ignored deserves consideration), the later Moffatt literature regarding that item would have differed considerably.
Reference. Appendix 6. Food.

Interjection.
Because more important matters need the reader’s attention, I refer her/him to the section Lesser statements by Grinnell. provided at the end of this Ancillary.

Summary.
1. An opinion. Grinnell’s book is the most important contribution to the accusatory literature; only the Sports Illustrated article comes close in that respect
2. Again, I contest the subtitle a true story of the book.
3. Grinnell failed to address the Sports Illustrated editor’s actions in either his article or his book. That is, Grinnell had the opportunity to rescue Moffatt’s reputation but he did not do so. Instead, he made multiple false accusations of Moffatt.
4. Grinnell redacted exculpatory evidence that Moffatt was only following Tyrrell’s advice when he did not scout the fatal rapids. I refer here to Grinnell’s version of Lanouette’s journal for the day of the tragedy and the ellipsis therein. [Grinnell book, p 202].
5. A general comment by Pessl.
There’s a fine line between poetic license and documentation. Unfortunately, I think Grinnell crossed that line with fabrications and misrepresentations. It’s too bad that Art’s reputation was based on that. [Pessl, in Canoe&Kayak, p 52 (2012)]
6. Given Grinnell’s redaction of key evidence in Lanouette’s journal, and his other actions, I trust only content in his book that is verified by independent evidence. That is, in the first instance, I believe nothing that Grinnell writes unless it is independently confirmed.
7. But some of Grinnell’s evidence is independently confirmed, in particular that regarding the food supply in the period from 5 August to 14 September. For example, he mentions the shooting of five caribou in that period, as does Pessl. And so I make much use of Grinnell’s evidence in
Appendix 6. Food, for it is much shorter than the evidence of Pessl, Franck and Lanouette (which I provide also, but in a Sub-Appendix).
Conclusion.
The evidence (especially the redaction of that exculpatory passage from Lanouette’s journal) convinces me that Grinnell set out to fabricate a case against Moffatt.
A personal comment.
Grinnell comes across as a highly intelligent individual with a fertile imagination, but perhaps haunted by personal tragedy, namely the loss of two sons and their companions on James Bay in 1988 [Grinnell book, pp 272&273].

The Sports Illustrated article, Grinnell’s book and the fatal rapids.
The Sports Illustrated article.
1. The editor redacted the phrase Following Tyrrell’s route in Moffatt’s last journal entry (that for 13 September). As discussed above, the interpretation of that phrase is problematic.
It could mean Moffatt possessed detailed information from J B Tyrrell, and that he followed it when he chose to run the fatal rapids without a scout. It could mean only that Moffatt chose the east/rightmost exit from Wharton Lake.
Exists there anyone, anywhere, who believes the redaction of those three words to have been an accident?
Why was this redaction made unless it was part of a campaign to discredit Moffatt?
I suggest that the same applies to Inglis’s later failure to mention the same passage.
2. I document above the following accusations of the editor, all major parts of which are demonstrated by the evidence to have no basis in truth; I agree though that the Moffatt party was travelling in the Barren Grounds, that the days were growing colder on average, and that provisions dwindle as they are consumed.
(a) Food was becoming the question now. [top left of p 76, date 8/9 August].
(b) Already nine days behind schedule, the Moffatt party races against winter on the Barren Grounds. The days grow colder, provisions dwindle, game grows scarce. In desperate haste, they take an ultimate chance. [bottom right of p 76, for the period after 16/17 August].
(c) Increasingly, the men were taking chances. They now shot down churning chutes of white water which, a month earlier, they would have scrutinized with a doubtful eye. [top right of p 82, 7/8 September].
3. Conclusion. The totality of the evidence convinces me that the editor set out to fabricate a case against Moffatt.
Grinnell’s book.
As I documented above, Grinnell redacted the exculpatory passage
This surprised us. Art had figured we had already shot the last two rapids before Marjorie Lake. Actually, what we had gone down were only riffles, and what lay ahead was the real beginning of the first rapids from Lanouette’s journal entry for 14 September, as faithfully condensed in the SI article.
This redaction, together with much other material in Grinnell’s book, convinces me that Grinnell set out to fabricate a case against Moffatt.
The Sports Illustrated editor and Grinnell.
1. To repeat, it was no accident, no slip of the pen, that the Sports Illustrated editor redacted the phrase Following Tyrrell’s route from Moffatt’s last journal entry (that for 13 September). The only interpretation that occurs to me is that the redaction was a conscious effort to discredit Moffatt.
2. Again, it was no accident, no slip of the pen, that Grinnell redacted three sentences of exculpatory evidence (from the condensation of Lanouette’s journal) regarding the running of the fatal rapids without a scout. The only interpretation that occurs to me is that the redaction was a conscious effort to discredit Moffatt.
3. I possess no evidence that the two redactions were not independent events.
4. I possess no evidence that Grinnell had any knowledge of the bulk of the Sports Illustrated at any time prior to its publication.
5. But Grinnell, whose first Moffatt publication appeared in 1988, certainly contributed to the Epilogue of the Sports Illustrated article of 1959, as I now document.
Evidence 1.
Death by exposure, contrary to the popular myth, is not an easy thing. George Grinnell, writing later of the ordeal in the water, noted that “one does not simply go to sleep. He passes out from pain… [Epilogue on page 88 of SI article].
Evidence 2.
The Epilogue contains also material regarding events after the tragedy, namely the traverse of Aberdeen Lake, the encounter with the Inuit family, etc. The only plausible source for that information is Grinnell.
Aside. Pessl’s comments regarding the crossing of Aberdeen Lake; the reference is to the Epilogue of the SI article.
Pessl comment 1 regarding the traverse. …the account of our south to north traverse of Aberdeen Lake is … in error. A map of the lake shows a N-S oriented peninsula extending from the south shore, effectively dividing the lake into a west basin and an east basin. The only exposed, open water passage separating the two basins is less than 3 mi. wide. During our crossing we initially hugged the eastern shore of the peninsula, protected and ready to go ashore if conditions became adverse which they didn’t…
The epilogue account of this crossing is just … melodramatic b…t! Grinnell?? Curiously, there is no mention of our Aberdeen crossing in the 1st edition of “Death…”, only in the later editions.
[Pessl, private correspondence]
Pessl comment 2 regarding the traverse. With a strong south wind at our tail, we managed to reach the north shore of the lake before dusk.” [Pessl book, 19 September, p 136].
Summary.
The Sports Illustrated editor and Grinnell had certainly corresponded, perhaps met in person, before the publication of the SI article.
I possess no evidence that they had acted in concert regarding the redactions.
Their redactions may have misled the paddling community for decades regarding Moffatt’s decision to run the fatal rapids without a scout.
References.
Appendix 8. Other rapids.
Appendix 9. The fatal rapids.

The tipping point.
The publication of Grinnell’s book in 1996 marked the tipping point for the accusatory literature, not least because his book provided fresh and bountiful material for accusations.
But his book provided also much evidence of Moffatt’s innocence regarding accusations made later as well as before.
A prime example of the latter is his documentation of an abundance of food in the six weeks before the tragedy, especially the shooting of five caribou in that period. Over the ensuing weeks… we killed our third, fourth and fifth caribous…, the last on 5 September [Grinnell book, p 156]. In full defiance of that evidence, one defamer (whose primary source was Grinnell’s book) nevertheless asserted that The caribou were long gone.
Perhaps it bears repeating that the exculpatory evidence of Lanouette (as provided in the SI article) regarding Moffatt’s death was ignored
most notably by the SI editor her/himself,
indeed by every defamer who wrote later.
These matters aside, the Moffatt literature took off after the publication of Grinnell’s book.
Opinion.
The evidence suggests to me that it was both the content per se of Grinnell’s book, and also the accusatory reviews made of that book by James Murphy and Andrew MacDonald, that are largely responsible for much of the defamatory material that appeared in the years from 1996 to the present.

Summary of the evidentiary basis of the accusatory literature.

Opinion.
To me, the only material meriting the term evidence, reliable or not, indeed truthful or not, is that provided by the trip participants. The remainder is hearsay at best, unfortunately often less than such.

1955.
The exculpatory evidence of participant LeFavour was published in four newspaper articles. I possess only the third; I have full confidence in its contents. As has been the case for over 60 years, these articles are still inaccessible to the general public. That is, no Moffatt accuser could not have been expected to know of this evidence; indeed, I learned of them only through LeFavour and Pessl.
In short, LeFavour’s articles made no appearance in the Moffatt literature until I was able to publish contents of the third.
Summary. The accusatory literature has no evidentiary basis in LeFavour’s publications, which indeed exonerate Moffatt.

1959.
Given the SI editor’s actions documented only in part above (especially the redaction of the phrase Following Tyrrell’s route from Moffatt’s last journal entry), I have learned to place no confidence in any content of the SIarticle, except as verified in sources known to be reliable.
I comment that even passages alleged to be quotations from Moffatt’s journal cannot be trusted. Indeed, elsewhere I compare such passages with the originals, as provided by Pessl; to put the matter gently, the editor’s versions all too frequently fail to survive confrontation with the truth.

1959.
Some evidence of participant Lanouette was provided in the form of the condensation of his journal for 14 September 1955. [Sports Illustrated, p 85].
Given that (thanks to Lanouette) I possess his full journal for that day, I have full confidence in the SI condensation.
But not one defamer, most noteworthy of all the Sports Illustratededitor, mentioned this exculpatory evidence of Lanouette.
Summary.
The accusatory literature has no evidentiary basis in Lanouette’s journal, which indeed exonerates Moffatt.

1988.
Publication of Grinnell’s Canoe article.
Summary.
Given his actions as documented only in part above, I have learned to place no confidence in any content of Grinnell’s article, except as verified in sources known to be reliable. Indeed, much content of the article fades away to nothing when exposed to the light of the truth.

1996.
The publication of Grinnell’s book marked the tipping point in the accusatory literature, for it provided an abundance of material on which to build accusations. Even more so than in his article, truth is intermingled there with fabrication.
Moffatt’s later defamers made much use of the latter, little or none of the former.
Summary.
Given Grinnell’s actions as documented only in part above, I have learned to place no confidence in any content of that book, except as verified in sources known to be reliable. Indeed, too much content of his book fades away to nothing when exposed to the light of the truth.

1996.
But Grinnell’s book provided also the following two evidences of George Luste, who is a reliable source by any standard.
Item 1.
Moffatt’s later defamers ignored the following Luste comment (quoted also above) regarding the pre-1996 accusatory literature.
It seems as if a liberal amount of imagination has been invoked by these writers to change the facts so they fit their preoccupations and desires for culpability. [Grinnell book, p 294].
Comment. This is the first known defence of Moffatt regarding the running of the fatal rapids.
Item 2.
Moffatt’s later defamers ignored also the following Luste comment, an exculpatory one, regarding the running of the fatal rapids without a scout.
Art Moffatt, following Tyrrell’s notes, was not expecting the rapid in which he swamped and then died. [Grinnell book, p 284].
Comment regarding item 2. I suggest that Luste’s comment It seems as if a liberal amount of imagination…desires for culpability applies equally well to much of the post-Grinnell accusatory literature regarding the fatal rapids.
Question.
How would the later Moffatt literature have differed had these two Luste comments not been ignored?

2012, 2013 and 2014.
Publication of Kesselheim’s Canoe&Kayak article (with contributions from Pessl), Pessl’s Nastawgan article, and
Pessl’s book (which contains also the evidence of participant Franck).
I have learned to place full confidence in the evidence of both Pessl and Franck.
I believe that these three items appeared too late to influence the Moffatt literature.

Conclusion.
Given that the entire evidentiary basis of the accusatory literature (primary and secondary alike) consists of only the SI article (1959), Grinnell’s article (1988) and Grinnell’s book (1996),
and given that I have no confidence in any of the three (in the first instance),
it follows that I have no confidence in any of the accusatory literature (in the first instance).
In passing, I note that some Moffatt defamers made liberal use of their imaginations and of alternative facts.

Opinion.
Given the conclusion provided above, I suggest that the entire accusatory literature (primary and secondary alike) has no more substance than a house of cards.

The Murphy-MacDonald reviews of Grinnell’s book (1996).

Che-Mun, Canoelit section. Moffatt, Myth & Mysticism. Spring 1996, pp 5 & 11.
Comment.
These are not reviews in the usual sense, in that their authors express personal and highly negative opinions of Moffatt and his competence. And their remarks are not entirely relevant to the matter, in that reviewer Murphy devotes an entire paragraph to a discussion of whether Moffatt was a bodhisatva.
More importantly, much content of the Murphy-MacDonald “reviews” has no basis in evidence; indeed, much of that content has no basis in truth.

The assertions of James Murphy.
Grinnell and four other young men were led on a poorly planned and lackadaisically executed trip by Arthur Moffatt, an old and more experienced canoeist … Lack of food, proper equipment and most importantly, lack of a planned itinerary, contributed to his demise. As a canoeist, I enjoy cautionary tales and would recommend this one as an excellent example of how not to conduct a canoe trip.
[Che-Mun, Canoelit section. Moffatt, Myth & Mysticism. Spring 1996, pp 5 & 11.
Online version. http://www.canoe.ca/AllAboutCanoes/book_deathbarrens.html ]
1. Murphy’s assertion regarding food.
The evidence of all six trip participants (including Grinnell) regarding the food supply is provided in Appendix 6. Food.
Grinnell’s book (Murphy’s only source), it alone, documents a plethora of food (from the land as well from provisions) in the six weeks before Moffatt’s death.
Conclusion.
2. Murphy’s assertion that Lack of food contributed to Moffatt’s death has no basis in truth.
Murphy’s assertion regarding equipment.
The evidence is provided in Appendix 3. Equipment.
Personal comment. I believe that Luste, whom I knew reasonably well, would have been much angered had he known that his equipment recommendations for paddlers circa 1996 had been used to defame Moffatt, who died in 1955.
Conclusion.
Murphy’s assertion that lack of proper equipment contributed to Moffatt’s death has no basis in truth.
3. Murphy’s assertion regarding schedule (aka planned itinerary).
The corresponding evidence is provided in Appendix 7. Schedule.
Conclusion.
Murphy’s assertion that lack of a planned itinerary contributed to Moffatt’s death has no basis in truth.

The assertions of Andrew MacDonald.
Both assertions concern only the schedule (aka a pragmatic plan of travel).
Assertion 1.
As the summer-length trip wore on, and the progress of their three Chestnut canoes lapsed further and further behind schedule…
[Che-Mun, Canoelit section. Moffatt, Myth & Mysticism. Spring 1996, bottom of p 5.]
Assertion 2.
One of the implications of a quasi-religious resistance to a pragmatic plan of travel was the death of Arthur Moffatt.
Che-Mun, Canoelit section. Moffatt, Myth & Mysticism. Spring 1996, pp 5 & 11.
Comment.
I interpret MacDonald’s first passage as a statement that the Moffatt party had a schedule, the second that it did not. Given the apparent self-contradiction, I suppose that I could have dropped the matter, but I decided that I must address the second, lest it be accepted by the paddling community.
The corresponding evidence is provided in Appendix 7. Schedule.
Conclusion.
The assertionOne of the implications of a quasi-religious resistance to a pragmatic plan of travel was the death of Arthur Moffatt has no basis in evidence.

The Mahler – Thum articles (2005).

Texts identical at first glance were published both in
1. Che-Mun. Outfit 122, Autumn 2005, starting on page 4.
http://www.ottertooth.com/che-mun/122/chemun122.pdf
and in
2. Feature Story in the Advanced Paddler section at canoeing.com.
http://www.canoeing.com/advanced/feature/deadmansriver.htm
Comments.
In the following, Charlie Mahler (the author of the article/s) quotes comments of Thum. I don’t know whether those comments were made orally or in writing; neither do I know whether Thum approved the text.
For no particular reason, I quote passages from the Che-Mun version.

The Mahler-Thum sources.
Mahler (I consider him to be Thum’s sychophant) made no mention of sources.
Thum (the primary defamer here) provided the following.
There was nobody you could rely on… I had two things I could look forward to on the Dubawnt. One was Moffatt, and you couldn’t really get anything out of that, and the other was Tyrrell. I got a copy of his 1893 report and you could actually get a great deal of assistance out of his writing. And that was it. [p 5, lower middle and top right columns]
1. It is unclear what Thum meant by Moffatt.
Was he was referring to the Sports Illustrated article or to Moffatt’s journal (which survived the trip)? In response to Thum’s request for information, Pessl gave him the address of Carol Moffatt and suggested that he write her for a copy [Pessl, private correspondence]. I don’t know whether Thum followed through on Pessl’s suggestion.
Interpretation. Thum meant the Moffatt excerpts provided in the Sports Illustrated article.
2. It is unclear also what Thum meant by Tyrrell’s 1893 report.
I assume
first that Thum refers to Joseph Burr Tyrrell’s book (rather than James Williams Tyrrell’s book),
second that Thum had obtained a copy of JBT’s book (not easily accessible but much more accessible than JBT’s journal, which is known to contain important material not provided in the book; I refer especially his comment regarding the fatal rapids).

Thum, excerpt 1.
“Moffatt is precisely why we took the trip…I thought experienced trippers could cover Tyrrell’s route safely and skillfully, which we did.
Those guys had no business being up there… They were a bunch of guys who didn’t know what they were doing and led by a guy with poor leadership skills. They fooled around and did a lot of crap and it finally came back to bite them. This was simply a group of novices led by someone more interested in film than travel, which squandered its time and resources and then made some tragic mistakes…
[p 4, lower middle column and top right column]

Thum, excerpt 2.
That was kind of our approach to the trip—to get a lot of miles under the belt, get a lot of experience—and prepare ourselves accordingly… We wanted to avoid the situation that Moffatt got himself in where he had some experience, but not much. And he went with a bunch of guys that had very little experience. I think he’d gone down the Albany maybe two or three times. That’s a nice river, but not a terribly difficult trip. [p 4, lower right column]

Responses to excerpts 1 and 2.
1. From Moffatt is precisely why we took the trip, one gathers that Thum’s sole motivation in making the trip was to show up a dead man. If the reader will excuse a comment: such grace, such courage.
2. Moffatt was no novice, given that he had paddled the Albany six times (he guided five trips on it). As well, he had paddled the Allagash, Androscoggin and Penobscot rivers.
Neither were Pessl and Franck, for both had participated in those Albany trips.
Independent of their previous experience, was the party still a group of novices after having spent 11 weeks on a challenging river?
3. I suggest it relevant that the first and only dumps of the entire trip occurred in the rapids where Moffatt died.
4. The matters of experience and leadership are more fully addressed in Appendix 4. Experience.
Conclusion.
Thum’s gratuitous remarks no business being up there, some experience, but not much, poor leadership skills, group of novices and squandered its time and resources and then made some tragic mistakes misrepresented the cause of Moffatt’s death.

Thum, excerpt 3.
One of the canoes went over a rapids on the Churchill… We hadn’t scouted—a classic mistake—and there was a ledge that went about three-quarters of the way across the river. One boat went over. I thought that’s a pretty good lesson as far as not feeling better than the woods. [p 5, middle column]
Comment. I respect Thum for acknowledging the classic mistake</em; it was unnecessary for him to do so and it took guts.

Thum, excerpt 4.
We didn’t take a lot of chances… When we got on the Dubawnt trip, we took even fewer chances … There’s lots of opportunities to screw up there, and when you screw up like Moffatt did, when the water’s that cold, that can be the end of you…
There was nobody you could rely on… I had two things I could look forward to on the Dubawnt. One was Moffatt, and you couldn’t really get anything out of that, and the other was Tyrrell. I got a copy of his 1893 report and you could actually get a great deal of assistance out of his writing. And that was it.
[p 5, lower middle and top right columns]
Response 1.
As I remarked above, I assume that Tyrrell…1893 report, Thum means J B Tyrrell’s book.
Comment. Thum, being a lawyer, must have learned to read very carefully indeed. And so it beggars belief that Thum did not notice that Tyrrell’s book makes no mention of the rapids where Moffatt died. In the full face of that evidence, Thum nevertheless wrote when you screw up like Moffatt did.
Reference. Ancillary 3. Tyrrell excerpt.
Response 2.
As I remark above, I assume that the second Moffatt refers to the SI article.
Indeed, that article provides little information on the Dubawnt river, especially rapids.
But Thum learned there that the rapids just above Marjorie Lake are dangerous in the extreme, for Moffatt died in them. Had Thum paddled the Dubawnt with only Tyrrell’s book to guide him, he might have easily died in those rapids, just as did Moffatt.
Conclusions.
1. Given that Moffatt was misled by Tyrrell, Thum’s screw up accusation has no basis in truth.
2. It is perhaps no accident that Thum omitted mention of the fact that Moffatt died because he had been misled by Tyrrell.

Thum, excerpt 5.
Comment. Thum also approached members of the Moffatt group.
Graciously as always, Thum wrote I didn’t view them [the members of the Moffatt group] as being any kind of model for a tripper. Because of the historical perspective, I wanted to talk to them. Moffatt was gone. I found several of them. I tried to get a perspective on what they had done. [p 10, left column].
Background.
Thum failed to specify which members of the Moffatt party he had approached. As I document in the following, he had certainly been in contact with Lanouette and Pessl.
Lanouette.
Thum speaks to the matter. I … had read Joe Lanouette’s complete diary at his DC home in the spring of 1966… [Johnston, Brian (editor). On Top of a Boulder. Notes from Tyrrell’s Cairn., Johnston Pursuits (2014); p 21]
Response. Given Lanouette’s meticulous documentation of events even in the exceptionally trying circumstances on the day of Moffatt’s death, I (perhaps also the reader) should be much surprised if Lanouette’s complete diary had not provided Thum with like information for the entire trip.
Reference. Ancillary 2. Lanouette excerpt.
Pessl.
Because of its length (three and a half single-spaced pages), I provide below Pessl’s written response below, in Sub-Appendix 1.
Summary.
It was more than disingenuous of Thum to claim to have obtained only a historical perspective from Lanouette and Pessl.
Sub-Appendix 2 provides a personal opinion of Thum.

Mahler.
The contrasts between the Moffatt trip, as gleaned from the 1959 Sports Illustrated story and from the 1996 book “A Death on the Barrens” by Moffatt party member George Grinnell, and that of the Voyageurs Canadiens [sic!], could hardly be more stark. While the Moffatt story unfolds as a tragedy just waiting to happen – indifferent leadership, an inexperienced party, short rations, bad chemistry, a plodding pace, and an apparent apathy toward the season closing on them, — the Voyageurs Canadiens trip plays out like the final stage of the methodical, multi-year build-up that it was. [p 4, right column]

Response 1.
Mahler provided no evidence in support of either accusation indifferent leadership and an inexperienced party. The evidence presented in Appendix 4. Experience leads me to conclude that neither accusation is encumbered by a basis in truth.
With respect to experience, I mention explicitly only that the only two dumps of the entire trip occurred in the rapids where Moffatt died.

Response 2.
rations, in the form of both food from the land and provisions, were indeed short in the period from 3 July to 5 August, for two reasons.
(a) Moffatt had intended that the party live entirely off the initial supply of provisions (as I document elsewhere, his personal experience was that this could be done even on such a long trip).
(b) But he had severely underestimated the appetites of the five younger men.
The caribou.
Mahler made no mention of the fact that five caribou were shot in the crucial period from 5 August to 14 September, as documented in one of his two primary sources, namely the 1996 book “A Death on the Barrens” by Moffatt party member George Grinnell.
Other food from the land.
Neither did Mahler mention that many ptarmigan were shot, many fish were caught, and blueberries and mushrooms were harvested, in that crucial period, again all as documented in Grinnell’s book.
The following was not known to Mahler.
On 14 September, the party had so much caribou meat on board that it had no more need to hunt; as well, at lunch that same day, it caught 20 lb of lake trout.
Summary.
Mahler’s assertion regarding food has no basis in truth with respect to the cause of Moffatt’s death.
Reference.
Appendix 6. Food.

Response 3.
The accusation regarding pace is addressed in Appendix 5. Pace and weather.
I note here only that, on 14 September, the Moffatt party was on track to reach Baker Lake on or about 22 September (when the air search would have begun, indeed began).

Response 4.
Mahler provided no evidence to support his accusation regarding apathy.
The accusation has no basis in any evidence known to me.
Again, I refer the reader to Appendix 5. Pace and weather.
Perhaps I should mention explicitly that freeze-up would not occurred until well into October, as evinced in Appendix 5.

Response 5.
(a) I agree completely with Mahler on one point, namely that
The contrasts between the Moffatt trip on the one hand and that of the Thum trip on the other could hardly be more stark.
(b) Let Moffatt speak regarding why he chose to retrace the central portion of the Tyrrell-Tyrrell trip of 1893.
My purpose in going is to make a film in color, for lecture purposes—and I believe that with luck we shall have something unlike anything that has been done before. [Moffatt letter to J B Tyrrell, 14 December, 1954]
(c) Let Thum speak regarding why he chose to repeat the Moffatt trip.
Moffatt is precisely why we took the trip…I thought experienced trippers could cover Tyrrell’s route safely and skillfully, which we did.
Conclusion.
Thum’s sole purpose in making the trip was to show up a dead man.
Such grace, such courage!
(d) Moffatt was the very antithesis of the conquer-the-wilderness types, the ego-trippers, the self-promoters, the peak-baggers, the river-baggers, in short all those go into the wild with something to prove. [Grinnell article, p 20, left column; Grinnell book, pp 18-19].
Moffatt respected the land.
Moffatt was the very antithesis of Bob Thum.

Response 6.
Most importantly of all, Mahler got the cause of the tragedy completely wrong, as I document in Appendix 9. The fatal rapids.

Miscellaneous responses.
1. I expect that James Murphy would not approve of Thum’s decision not to use spray covers. Best that I not record my conjecture regarding Murphy’s possible response had that decision proved to be fatal.
Reference. Appendix 3. Equipment.
2. Thum does not accept that some of us paddle for reasons other than to prove themselves to themselves and others, that some of us actually respect the land. Moffatt, a pacifist who volunteered to serve in the war as an ambulance driver in a combat zone, had nothing but contempt for the likes of Thum, as I document in the Main text.
3. Moffatt’s goal was rather to document the barrenlands, perhaps to protect it, perhaps to establish himself as a writer and photographer. Unlike Thum, ego had no place in Moffatt’s thinking. Each was the very antithesis of the other. I respect Moffatt highly.

Summary of Mahler’s comments.
False accusations made of a dead man, fawning statements made of a live one.

The matter of Moffatt’s note at the cairn on Carey Lake.
Comment. This matter is addressed here in order not to break the flow of what follows.
Reference. Johnston, Brian (editor). On Top of a Boulder. Notes from Tyrrell’s Cairn., Johnston Pursuits (2014); p 21.
Begin Johnston passage, gently edited.
On the back side of the “Operation Thelon” note Moffatt wrote, “Moffatt party, August 8, 1955. First all-white party to follow Tyrrell’s route from Athabasca and Black Lake to Baker Lake—or at least this far. All is well—enough food—or almost enough.” [Sports Illustrated, top left of p 76],
Robert Thum’s 1966 first-hand experience recorded in his journal differs. Nearly 50 years later, Thum stated.
“I am certain that there was no writing on the Armstrong/Eade note other than what I copied into my diary. Given the care with which we generally proceeded and my close familiarity with details of Moffatt’s trip (I knew the SI article well and had read Joe Lanouette’s diary at his DC home in the spring of 1966), I would have surely photographed it and copied the text down in my diary. If, as the SI says, he wrote his note on the reverse side of Armstrong’s note then it had faded into oblivion by the time we arrived. More likely, I suspect, is that SI was wrong. Moffatt’s note was not mentioned in Lanouette’s diary or, for that matter, in George Grinnell’s later book.
End Johnston passage.
Pessl responds to Thum’s comment.
I am still troubled by Thum’s quote: “More likely, I suspect, SI was wrong.” Is he suggesting that the Moffatt party did not stop at the cairn? I have several minutes of 16mm. color film recording our visit, writing the note, just in case Thum has inspired doubt in the minds of some readers. [Pessl, private correspondence].

Thum and the fatal rapids.
1. What did Thum do when he came to those rapids above Marjorie Lake, the ones where Moffatt died?
He didn’t say.
2. If Thum had run those rapids successfully, I expect that, given his personality, he would have announced the fact, proudly and loudly.
He must have portaged them.
3. Why did Thum portage those rapids? After all, Tyrrell’s book says nothing about them, as the Moffatt party so sadly learned. Reference. Ancillary 3. Tyrrell excerpt.
He must have known them to be dangerous.
4. How did Thum know them to be dangerous?
Because Moffatt died in them.
Conclusion.
Given that Moffatt’s death perhaps saved his life, Thum was less than forthright when he accused Moffatt of incompetence.

Conclusions.
The evidence suggests to me that Mahler set out to construct a case against Moffatt.
The evidence convinces me that Thum set out to construct a case against Moffatt.
Neither Mahler nor Thum is a credible source with respect to the Moffatt story.

Kingsley’s publications and sources.

Preliminary comments.
Kingsley published two articles plus a book in which the Moffatt trip is mentioned.
None of three provides or refers to evidence in support of the accusations; that is, all contain nothing but selected phrases and assertions.
Some content appears in more than one of the three publications. I such instances, I file it and my response/s under the later publication only.
Kingsley’s publications.
Publication 1.
In a most dreadful sort of paradise. Up Here. May 2012; pp 88, 90 & 91.
http://www.jenniferkingsley.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/looking-back-May-2012-Moffatt-pdf-.pdf
Publication 2.
Back and Beyond. Lake. Issue 6 (2013); pp 12-14.
http://www.jenniferkingsley.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Lake_Back-and-Beyond_2011pdf.pdf
Publication 3.
Paddle North. Adventure, Resilience and Renewal in the Arctic Wild. Greystone Books, Vancouver/Berkeley (2014).
Kingsley’s sources.
Sources were not identified in any of the three publications.
The primary source is easily identified to have been Grinnell’s book (1996).
The second source was the Sports Illustrated article (1959), this from the running scared quote that appears in SI article [entry for 10 September, middle of the right column, p 82] and also in Kingsley’s Up Here article [toward the top of p 91].
The third source was Grinnell’s Canoe article (1988), this primarily from Kingsley’s assertions regarding holidays.
The fourth source, a minor one, was Kesselheim’s Canoe&Kayakarticle (2012), this from the remark at the top of p 220 of Kingsley’s book.

Kingsley’s Up Here article.

Source. In a most dreadful sort of paradise. Up Here. May 2012; pp 88, 90 & 91.
http://www.jenniferkingsley.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/looking-back-May-2012-Moffatt-pdf-.pdf

Up Here. Assertion 1.
When Arthur Moffatt set off for the Barrenlands, he envisioned a land of plenty. He was plenty wrong. [Up Here heading, left column on p 88].
Comment.
Kingsley provided neither source nor evidence for the assertion that Moffatt had envisioned a land of plenty.
Rebuttal 1. Moffatt’s planning.
The following is excerpted from Moffatt’s letter of 14 January 1955 to J B Tyrrell.
I believe that by restricting our diet to oatmeal, hardtack, bully beef, dried potatoes and macaroni, we ought to be able to feed four men well enough for the three months we expect to be on the barrens. I’ve eaten worse food longer and survived.
Reference. Ancillary 7. The Moffatt-Tyrrell correspondence.
That is, Moffatt had planned to obtain no food at all from the land.
Comment. Although fish were caught, food was often short in the period before 5 August (when the first caribou was shot), the main reason being that Moffatt had severely underestimated the appetites of the youngsters.
Rebuttal 2. Food from the land after 5 August.
Although short at times, food from the land was abundant on the whole in the period from 5 August to 14 September. I refer the reader to the evidence of participants Moffatt, Grinnell, Lanouette, Pessl and Franck, as provided in Sub-Appendices 4a, 4b and 4c of Appendix 6. Food.
In particular, Grinnell’s book (Kingsley’s primary source) documents the shooting of five caribou (the first on 5 August, the last on 5 September), plus a plethora of other food (three species of fish, many ptarmigan, mushrooms and blueberries) from the land, in this period.
But Kingsley made no mention of Grinnell’s documentation of this copious supply of food from the land. Indeed, Kingsley asserted elsewhere that the caribou were long gone.
Rebuttal 3. Provisions.
The need to conserve provisions for the entire trip of ~11 weeks is the very reason for the many concerns regarding provisions that Moffatt expressed in his journal, as reported in the Sports Illustrated article (possessed by Kingsley).
That need to conserve provisions for the entire trip is of course one reason that food was short in the period before 5 August, when the first caribou was shot; the other is that Moffatt had underestimated the appetites of his five younger companions.
The need to conserve provisions vanished on 7 September, when the cache was discovered and its considerable contents (24 one-pound tins) were added to the supply.
This addition in the supply is documented in both the SI article (lower left column on p 82) and in Grinnell’s book (p 180).
But Kingsley, who possessed both the SI article and Grinnell’s book, made no mention of this major addition to the supply of provisions.
Summary.
1. A reminder of Kingsley’s assertion 1.
When Arthur Moffatt set off for the Barrenlands, he envisioned a land of plenty. He was plenty wrong.
Response 1. Moffatt had planned to obtain no food at all from the land.
Response 2. Nevertheless, the Moffatt party found the land to be indeed one of plenty, on the whole, in the six weeks before 14 September, as evinced by both of Kingsley’s primary sources, namely Grinnell’s book and the Sports Illustrated article.
But Kingsley made no mention of this plethora of food from the land. Indeed, Kingsley asserted the very opposite, as I document also in Assertion 2 (especially regarding the caribou) below.
2. Moffatt did not expect the major resupply of provisions obtained on 7 September, as documented in Grinnell’s book [pp 180-181], Kingsley’s primary source.
But Kingsley made no mention of this resupply of provisions.
Conclusion.
Neither part of Kingsley’s assertion When Arthur Moffatt set off for the Barrenlands, he envisioned a land of plenty. He was plenty wrong is encumbered by a basis in truth.

Up Here. Assertion 2.
After the first two weeks, the crew grew hungry before, during and after each meal. [upper right column on p 90].
Response.
I refer the reader to my discussion (below) of the similar passage in Kingsley’s Lake article (Assertion 1 there, at last count).

Up Here. Assertions 3a and 3b.
Assertion 3a.
I refer the reader to the paragraph (above) Up Here, assertion 1. for a discussion of the comment regarding lack of provisions [lower right column on p 90].
Conclusion.
Assertion 3a is unencumbered by a basis in truth.
Assertion 3b.
I refer the reader to the paragraph (below) Paddle North. Assertion 7… for a discussion of the assertion The caribou were long gone [lower right column on p 90].
Conclusion.
Assertion 3b is unencumbered by a basis in truth.

Up Here. Assertion 4.
On September 10, he [Moffatt] wrote “We’re all running scared.”. [Up Here, middle of p 91].
Responses.
1. Kingsley did not identify the source, which was the Sports Illustrated article, page 82 (middle of the right column).
2. The quote is faithful but the interpretation of it is unclear, as I document in the paragraph Comment regarding Moffatt’s We’re all running scared. of Ancillary 1.
3. As remarked also above, the quote evinces that Kingsley had access to the SI article as well as to Grinnell’s book.

Kingsley’s Lake article.

Comments.
No Bibliography was provided.
Most of the article describes the author’s Bailey-Back trip of 2005; a part is devoted to an incident involving the loss of a canoe by a Widjiwagan party that year.
Comments regarding the Moffatt trip appear on pages 12-14; the unspecified source for them can be only Grinnell’s book.

Lake. Assertion 1.
As the summer wore on, the men grew hungry before, during and after every meal. Hunting kept the party fed through August as supplies ran down. [Lake, p 13; a variant is given in Up Here, top of right column on p 90]
Response 1.
The statement As the summer…each meal. is a faithful but unreferenced version of the passage As the days passed into weeks…we felt hungry before, after, and during meals. [Grinnell book, p 23].
Response 2.
This remark of Grinnell was made with reference to the period before 5 August, when the first caribou was shot. In that period, food was indeed short, first because Moffatt had planned to complete the entire trip solely with provisions on board from the very first day, second because he had underestimated the appetites of the five younger men.
Response 3.
But from 5 August to 14 September, food from the land (five caribou, many ptarmigan, many fish, blueberries and mushrooms) was bountiful on the whole in the six weeks before the tragedy.
But Kingsley omitted all mention of this evidence of Grinnell’s book.
Response 4.
Provisions (aka supplies) indeed ran down as they were consumed; they could scarcely do otherwise. But Kingsley omitted mention of the bounty of provisions obtained from the cache, this on 7 September, this evinced in Kingsley’s primary source, Grinnell’s book [p 180].
Summary.
Kingsley suggests that a shortage of food was responsible in part for Moffatt’s death.
In rather sharp contrast, Grinnell’s book (Kingsley’s primary source) evinces that food, in the form of both provisions and food from the land, was bountiful in the six weeks before the tragedy.
Aside./strong>
The following was not known by Kingsley, nor could it have been known, but at lunch on 14 September the party had so much caribou meat on board that it had no need to hunt again; and, to that supply, it added 20 lb of trout.
Conclusion.
Kingsley misrepresented the evidence regarding the food supply (both from the land and from provisions) in the crucial six weeks before Moffatt’s death.

Lake. Assertion 2.
Group dynamics became increasingly strained, and the men grew suspicious of each other. [Lake, p 13]
Response 1.
Because food was short (due to the need to conserve provisions) in the period before the shooting of the first caribou on 5 August, I think it entirely fair to state that relations were strained in that early period.
Response 2.
But I know no evidence that relations were strained in the vital period between 5 August and 14 September.
Response 3.
Perhaps many readers have been on trips where group dynamics became strained at one time or another.
Conclusion.
Should it be applied to the crucial period between 5 August and 14 September, Assertion 2 misrepresents the evidence.

Lake. Assertion 3.
By August 29th, three days before they were due to arrive in Baker Lake, they had travelled barely half the length of the Dubawnt. The men were hungry and hundreds of miles from their destination. [Kingsley, in Lake, p 13]
The evidence regarding hunger on that very day.
Bruce and I cut up the caribou meat and cooked dinner for Art as he was still out with his camera. [Franck, 29 August; in Pessl, p 110].
General response regarding hunger in the six weeks before Moffatt’s death.
I refer the reader to Appendix 6. Food for the evidence, in particular that of Grinnell’s book (Kingsley’s primary source) that food was plentiful in those weeks.
Response regarding the time remaining.
In his book (Kingsley’s primary source), Grinnell asserted repeatedly and incorrectly (perhaps knowingly) that arrival in Baker Lake was scheduled for 2 September.
But Kingsley made no mention of contrary evidence in her/his secondary source, namely the Sports Illustrated article. I refer here to the evidence of the New York Times article, namely that the party had been expected to arrive in Baker Lake on or about 15 September.
Reference. Appendix 7. Schedule.
Response regarding the distance remaining.
Kingsley was misled by multiple incorrect statements that the length of the trip from Black Lake to Baker Lake was almost 900 miles; that distance was actually ~680 miles (~1,100 km).
The prime example of the incorrect value is Moffatt’s Prospectus [Sports Illustrated, p 71]
In fact, the distance yet to be travelled on 29 August was ~255 miles, rather than the ~450 miles justly believed by Kingsley.
Reference. Ancillary 4. Distances.

Lake. Assertion 4.
The Moffatt expedition was clearly unprepared in the material sense. Not enough food–neither in quantity nor quality. [Lake, p 14]
Conjecture.
The unspecified inspiration for the passage Not enough food–neither in quantity nor quality was Luste’s comment The Moffatt party was woefully short of provisions and caloric energy sustenance… [Grinnell book, p 288].
The quantity of the food.
Provisions.
The Moffatt party started out with as much in the way of provisions as it could carry, given the need to carry the film and the camera equipment (filming and photography were the very reasons that the trip was undertaken!), not to mention stay afloat. Based on his experience (which was considerable, the assertion of defamer Bob Thum to the contrary) in outfitting trips, Moffatt had reason to believe that the provisions on board from the beginning would suffice for the entire trip.
I believe that by restricting our diet to oatmeal, hardtack, bully beef, dried potatoes and macaroni, we ought to be able to feed four men well enough for the three months we expect to be on the barrens. I’ve eaten worse food longer and survived. [Moffatt letter to J B Tyrrell, 14 January 1955]
That is, Moffatt had reason to believe that he had provided enough in the way of food for the entire trip. But in this he was indeed plenty wrong, for the appetites of the five younger men far exceeded his expectations. I address this matter below, in Sub-Appendix 1. Food planning and supply, plus general remarks.
And so Kingsley is correct in stating that not enough provisions had been provided initially. The boats could have carried little more in the way of provisions, as indeed recognized by Kingsley. The weather kicked up, and the overloaded canoes took on water every time the group tried to embark. [Kingsley book, top of p 185; also Up Here, p 88, top of right column].
In the period before 5 August, provisions were rationed and food from the land, though acquired, was insufficient to make up the difference. That is, before 5 August, members of the party were just plain hungry much of the time.
But, in all three publications (the two articles and the book), Kingsley made no mention of the massive resupply of provisions from the cache on 7 September, as documented in both of Kingsley’s major sources, the Sports Illustrated article and Grinnell’s book.
I suggest this to be an important omission.
Food from the land.
Nowhere in those three publications did Kingsley mention the massive supply of food (five caribou, many fish, many ptarmigan, blueberries and mushrooms) acquired from the land in the period from 5 August to 14 September, all as documented in Kingsley’s primary source, namely Grinnell’s book.
I suggest this to be an important omission.
Conclusion regarding the quantity of the food.
The quantity part of Kingsley’s assertion Not enough food… has no basis in evidence.
The quality of the food.
Kingsley doesn’t enlighten us in what respect the food was insufficient in quality. In the evidence known to me, I see nothing at all clear regarding the quality of the food.
Let me speculate that Kingsley alleges a lack of fat.
Reference. Sub-Appendix 2. Fat and other food with high caloric content of
Appendix 6. Food.
Comments.
I doubt that the provisions provided much in the way of caloric energy sustenance.
I don’t know that the importance of fat was known to paddlers in 1955.
I lack the background in nutrition science to assess whether sufficient fat was obtained from these sources.
I don’t know whether Kingsley has the professional qualifications to judge the matter.
I don’t know whether early expeditions, for example the Tyrrell-Tyrrell trip of 1893, suffered from lack of fat.
In the period from 3 July to 4 August, the Moffatt party caught a good many fish. More importantly, in the period from 5 August to 14 September, it obtained many more fish and it shot five caribou. Certainly some fat was obtained from those sources.
Conclusion regarding the quality of the food.
The quality part of Kingsley’s assertion Not enough food… has no basis in evidence.
Conclusion.
No part of Kingsley’s assertion The Moffatt expedition was clearly unprepared in the material sense. Not enough food–neither in quantity nor quality has a basis in evidence.
The question.
Why did Kingsley make this assertion if not to suggest that both lacks played a role in Moffatt death?
The sole cause of the tragedy was rather incorrect information provided by J B Tyrrell.
Reference. Appendix 9. The fatal rapids.

Kingsley’s book of 2014.

Paddle North. Adventure, Resilience and Renewal in the Arctic Wild. Greystone Books, Vancouver/Berkeley (2014).
Both Endnotes and a Bibliography are provided. Remarks regarding the Moffatt expedition are confined to pages 185-189 and page 220.
Again, Kingsley’s sources were the Sports Illustrated article (1959), Grinnell’s Canoe article (1988), Grinnell’s book (1996), and Kesselheim’s Canoe&Kayakarticle (2012).

Paddle North. Assertion 1. Every possible day.
They would need every possible day if they were going to make it down the Dubawnt River to Baker Lake, 1,400 kilometers distant, before cold and hunger overtook them. [Kingsley book, middle of p 185]; also Up Here, p 88].
Responses.
1. The assertion They would need every possible day is but hyperbole. Even with the days spent filming and photography, even with the bad weather and so the forced layover days, even with the tragedy, the party reached Baker Lake on 24 September, two days after the outer limit set by Moffatt, as I document in Appendix 7. Schedule.
2. The distance of 1,400 kilometers is too large by ~300 km, as I document in Ancillary 4. Distances.
But no fault attaches to Kingsley, who was doubly misled here.
(i) The incorrect figure of 900 miles (~1,400 km) appears in both the New York Times article and Moffatt’s Prospectus [Sports Illustrated, p 71], and elsewhere. Moffatt had originally intended to continue down the Thelon River (past Baker Lake) to Chesterfield Inlet, a distance of ~900 miles (my measurement gave ~860 miles, ~1,380 km). But, well before the trip started, he decided to exit instead at Baker Lake. The distance to be travelled was then ~680 miles (~1,100 km).
(ii) Kingsley was misled also by Grinnell’s frequent and false statements that the party was scheduled to arrive in Baker Lake on 2 September. It was well known to all members of the party (including Grinnell) that Moffatt had scheduled arrival in Baker Lake on 15 September, with a grace period of seven days.

Paddle North. Assertion 2. The challenge.
Privately, he [Moffatt] wondered if his group was up to the challenge. [Kingsley book, lower part of p 185; also Up Here, p 88].
Response. Kingsley identified no source for this remarkable insight into the workings of Moffatt’s mind, and I found no corroborating evidence in all my reading.
Conclusion..
Excessive imagination.

Paddle North. Assertion 3. The insurance policy.
The remark he had doubled his life insurance policy [Kingsley book, p 186] is an unevinced assertion for which Grinnell is entirely responsible, this in connection with his suggestions that Moffatt was suicidal.
The assertion is addressed in the paragraph Lesser statements by Grinnell, below.

Paddle North. Assertion 4. Hunger.
They weren’t far from Black Lake … when the hunger began. [Kingsley book, bottom of p 186; also Up Here, top of the left column on p 90].
Responses.
1. The Moffatt party was indeed hungry from the start of the trip (or very close to it) until 5 August, but the hunger was never serious.
2. But Kingsley failed to mention that the hunger all but ceased on 5 August, when the first caribou was shot. As documented in Grinnell’s book (Kingsley’s primary source), five caribou were shot in the six weeks between 5 August and 14 September, and a plethora of other food (fish, ptarmigan, blueberries, mushrooms) was obtained from the land.
3. And Kingsley failed to mention also that a bountiful supply of provisions was obtained from the cache, this on 7 September. That evidence was documented in both Kingsley’s major sources, Grinnell’s book and the SI article.
4(a). The party suffered from hunger on 22 August?
I was not feeling too well today, probably from eating too much caribou yesterday, … [Franck, in Pessl, p 99].
4(b). The party suffered from hunger on 28 August?
We … were so full we could hardly move. [Franck, in Pessl, p 108]
4(c). The party suffered from hunger on 30 August?
…I had prepared such a huge breakfast that none of us could have moved much further than the tents anyway. I felt as if I would have crashed right through the bottom of the canoe and sunk like a stone if we would have been loading. [Pessl, p 110]
5. But there were times when bellies were not full in the period between 5 August and 14 September.
6. Hunger returned after the tragedy, for most of the plentiful supply of food on board was lost then; thereafter, food was short and less than appetizing until the Inuit party gracefully provided caribou stew.
Request.
Let the reader to decide whether the evidence of Appendix 6. Food is fairly represented by Kingsley’s They weren’t far from Black Lake … when the hunger began.

Paddle North. Assertion 5. Paradise.
Assertion 5a.
By August, Grinnell and most of the others had succumbed to a sort of delusion. They felt they were in paradise. [Kingsley book (bottom of p 187); also Up Here (middle of right column on p 90)].
Assertion 5b.
He [Grinnell] wrote that “Death in paradise seemed preferable to life in civilization.” [Up Here, top of p 91].
Kingsley’s source
for both items can have been only the passage …death in this beautiful paradise had seemed preferable to life in the seven deadly sins of civilization… [Grinnell book, middle of p 168]
Response to Assertions 5a and 5b.
Perhaps, perhaps not, Grinnell had succumbed to a sort of delusion.
But Kingsley provided no evidence to support the assertion that most of the others, especially Moffatt, had done so. Indeed, that assertion has no known basis in truth. Should delusion exist, it lies not with Moffatt.
Assertion 5c.
Referring to Moffatt, Kingsley wrote He’d passed though paradise and found something darker on the other side. [Kingsley book, top of p 189; also Up Here, middle of p 91].
Response 1 to Assertion 5c.
Given that Kingsley provided neither source nor evidence for this remarkable insight into the workings of Moffatt’s mind, and that I have found none in all my reading, I conclude that Assertion 5c has no known basis in truth.
Response 2 to Assertion 5c.
Should the source have been The reality I had discovered was the reality of the Garden of Eden, the most beautiful reality I have ever experienced [Grinnell book, p 156], I point out that these are the words of Grinnell, referring to himself. I suggest it to misrepresent the evidence to suggest that they are the words of Moffatt, referring to himself.
Reference. Appendix 1. Reality.

Paddle North. Assertion 6. Holidays.
For half of August, they voted to take “holidays” and went nowhere. [Kingsley book, middle of p 188; also Up Here, lower right column on p 90].
Kingsley’s unidentified source is likely to have been Grinnell’s article (1988). The assertion appears to be an amalgam (albeit a strange one) of the following comments:
(a) …last days of August…averaging one every other day [Grinnell article, p 21, left column] and
(b) holidays on more than half the days of the trip. [Grinnell article, p 56, right column].
Comments.
The evidence of Pessl falsifies both Grinnell accusations, and so falsifies Assertion 6.
The truth is rather that not a single holiday, in the too-lazy-to-paddle sense, was taken on the entire trip. Every non-paddling day was occasioned by the weather or was taken to accomplish the very purpose of the trip, namely to document the barrenlands.
Conclusion.
Kingsley was misled by Grinnell.
References.
Appendix 2. Holidays and also Pessl’s book, pp 181&182.

Paddle North. Assertion 7. three days…half the distance.
By August 29, three days before they’d planned to complete the trip, they had travelled barely half the distance. The caribou were long gone, the weather changed overnight, and the men were trapped on the land. Dreams of plenty were a thing of the past. [Kingsley book, middle of p 188; also Up Here, lower right column on p 90 ].
This is a major expansion of Kingsley’s statement in Lake, middle of p 13.
(a) For a discussion of the passage three days…half the distance, I refer the reader to my discussion of Kingsley’s assertion 3.
With respect to the time, Kingsley was misled by assertions of Grinnell. I mention though the evidence of the New York Times article (in Kingsley’s secondary source, the Sports Illustrated article), that the party had been expected to arrive in Baker Lake on or about 15 September.
The distance.
Kingsley was misled by assorted such statements in the literature, including that in Moffatt’s Prospectus (as published in the SI article).
(b) Kingsley’s primary source was Grinnell’s book. There, he records the shooting of five caribou in the six weeks before the tragedy: Over the ensuing weeks… we killed our third, fourth and fifth caribous…, the last on 5 September [Grinnell book, p 156].
Conclusion. Kingsley’s assertion that The caribou were long gone has no basis in truth.
(c) More generally, Grinnell’s book (again, Kingsley’s primary source) documents that the land was indeed one of plenty (caribou, ptarmigan, three species of fish, blueberries and mushrooms) in the six weeks before the tragedy.
(d) The Moffatt party still had provisions left over from the initial supply, and it acquired more from the cache on 7 September [Grinnell book, p 180].
But Kingsley made no mention of this acquisition in her/his primary source.
(e) Kingsley did not know the following. At lunch on 14 September, the party enough caribou meat on board that it had no need to hunt again; as well, it added 20 lb of lake trout at that time. [LeFavour, Sub-Appendix 4c of Appendix 6].
Reference. Appendix 6. Food.
(f) A minor item. That the men were trapped on the land is gratuitous hyperbole.

Paddle North. Assertion 8. grubs and cysts.
The remaining caribou steaks were “full of grubs and cysts of one kind or another…”[Kingsley book, p 188].
The unidentified source.
We cut up the loins for steaks. They were full of grubs and cysts of one kind or another, but who cares about tapeworm or worse when fresh meat as good as this is on hand and has not been for 30 days?” [12 August, Sports Illustrated, p 76, left column].
A minor point. Kingsley’s August 29 is incorrect.
Response.
I agree completely with Kingsley; that is tacky food indeed.
Interpretation.
Given that the second caribou was shot on 11 August, Moffatt must refer here to the first (shot on 5 August); I gather that it had not aged gracefully.
Opinion.
The 30 days is an exaggeration on Moffatt’s part, given that the first caribou (shot on 5 August) must have tasted mighty good.
For the record,
caribou were shot on 5 August, 11 August, 20 August, 26 August and 5 September.
Reference. Appendix 6. Food.

Paddle North. Assertion 9. Taking blame.
He [Moffatt] refused to take blame for their food situation. [Kingsley book, later on p 188]
Response 1.
Moffatt refused to take blame
for the plethora of food obtained from the land in the six weeks before the tragedy? [Kingsley’s primary source, Grinnell book, p 156, etc.]
Response 2.
Moffatt refused to take blame
for the massive resupply of provisions obtained from the cache on 7 September?
Kingsley omitted all mention of this resupply, which was documented in both Kingsley primary sources, Grinnell’s book (pp 180 & 181) and the Sports Illustrated article (p 82].
Response 3.
Moffatt refused to take blame
for the fact that, on the day that he died, the party had so much caribou meat on board that it had no need to hunt again? And, for good measure, the party caught 20 lb of lake trout at lunchtime. [LeFavour, private correspondence, 2015].
In fairness, I point out that Kingsley could not have known of this evidence of LeFavour.
Reference. Appendix 6. Food.

Paddle North. Assertion 10. The death of Arthur Moffatt.
(a) …All three boats plunged over a waterfall the paddlers hadn’t bothered to scout. [Kingsley Up Here article, middle of p 91, 2012]
(b) The men talked less and took more risks. On September 14th,… all three boats plunged over two sets of waterfalls the paddlers hadn’t bothered to scout…. [Kingsley book, top of p 189, 2014]
Comment.
In fairness, I mention the possibility that Kingsley was misled by Grinnell (who redacted those three key sentences from Lanouette’s journal) and by the SI editor (who redacted the phrase Following Tyrrell’s route from Moffatt’s journal for 13 September).
Kingsley possessed both these sources.
Response 1.
Nevertheless, Kingsley (whose primary source was Grinnell’s book) made no mention of the following exculpatory comment of Luste.
Art Moffatt, following Tyrrell’s notes, was not expecting the rapid in which he swamped and then died [Grinnell book, p 284]
Response 2.
Nevertheless, Kingsley made no mention either of Luste’s opinion of accusations made of Moffatt, this also with respect to the fatal rapids, this also in Grinnell’s book (again, Kingsley’s primary source).
It seems as if a liberal amount of imagination has been invoked by these writers to change the facts so they fit their preoccupations and desires for culpability. [Grinnell book, p 294].
Reference. Appendix 9. The fatal rapids.

Paddle North. Assertion 11. Reality.
When the five young men stumbled into Baker Lake, an RCMP officer made a quick assessment. “So”, he said, “you lost your sense of reality.” [Kingsley book, bottom of p 189; also Up Here, bottom of p 91].
Responses.
The passage is a faithfully edited (but unreferenced) version of Grinnell’s remarks in both his article [1988, p 56) and his book (1996, pp 2 & 44)].
But the context (omitted by Kingsley) is significant. In particular, contrary to what one might conclude from the quote, no member of the Moffatt party lost…sense of reality at any time.
The evidence provided in Appendix 1. Reality suggests that it is a misrepresentation to quote the phrase lost…sense of reality out of the context provided in Grinnell’s publications.

Closing remarks.
1. Although Kingsley’s publications have yet to impact the accusatory literature, I thought it necessary to address them in full, lest they be accepted and used by later defamers.
2. In fairness, I point out that Kingsley made no mention of the passage …the impending disaster which Art and the rest of us were so obviously courting [Grinnell book, p 167]

Conclusion.
Both the number and the character of the accusations convince me that Kingsley, in both articles and also in the book, made a conscious effort to construct a case against Moffatt.

Lesser statements by Grinnell.

General items.

A general comment by Pessl regarding accusations in Grinnell’s book.
There’s a fine line between poetic license and documentation. Unfortunately, I think Grinnell crossed that line with fabrications and misrepresentations. It’s too bad that Art’s reputation was based on that. [Pessl, in Canoe&Kayak, p 52 (2012)]
Jacobs comment.
Grinnell’s redaction (this not known by Pessl; documented above) of exculpatory evidence in Lanouette’s journal is considerably more serious than a fabrication or a misrepresentation.

Was Moffatt suicidal?
Noteworthy items in Grinnell’s book are multiple suggestions, thinly veiled, that Moffatt was suicidal.

General response 1 by Pessl.
(a) Art Moffatt was not suicidal as Grinnell suggests. Throughout the summer he made frequent reference to plans for the future and the anticipated pleasure of seeing his family again. On July 23, Peter’s journal describes a conversation in which he and Art discussed Art’s plan for an outdoor film project in the Sierra two years after the Dubawnt project.
(b) On August 12, Moffatt wrote: “Cold too, now, but I love these evenings alone by the fire, later at night and early in the morning I smoke, drink tea, think of home, Carol, Creigh, Debbo…of my new study and of the children there with me when I get back, and the stories I’ll be able to tell them about all my adventures in the North…shooting rapids and the time I saw the wolves, white ones, and the caribou and moose and fish and birds.”
Certainly not a suicidal state of mind.
And I cannot imagine ever having said, “You were right all along, George.”

[Pessl’s Nastawgan article, pp 8&9]
Comment. The last item (“You…George”) refers to page 224 of Grinnell’s book.

General response 2 by Pessl.
On the end pages of his journal book Art compiled a to-do list of plans and chores upon his return:
“Wire Carol from Churchill or Winnipeg, probably Winnipeg, after seeing Wilson of the Beaver. Sell him an article or two, plus a cover and talk to him about film. Ask Carol to come to Mount Royal, Windsor or Laurentides…get reservations, bring me clothes. Have a long weekend up there… If I get Toronto in a.m., can see Star during day… see John Coleman, CNR public relations…suggest press conference. Get him to notify Time-Life Bureau, or do it myself.”
Clearly, these are not the thoughts of a man who has abandoned hope and does not expect to see his family or associates again.

[Pessl book, p 166]
Jacobs comment. The Beaver is the former name of what is now the magazine Canada’s History.
http://www.canadashistory.ca/Community/PresidentsMessage/February-2010/Happy-90th-Birthday-Beaver-magazine.aspx
Jacobs speculation. Wilson and Moffatt had arranged to meet in Winnipeg, on Moffatt’s way home, and discuss a Beaver article describing the trip.

General response 3 by Pessl.
Before we left the States,…Art and Carol had recently completed a remodel of their…home…He was anxious to return from the Dubawnt journey with as much raw material as possible and then get started with the professional preparation of his journey accounts.
[Pessl book, p 167]

The filming/photography.

Grinnell’s comments.
1. The movie was not working out. To be a good wildlife photographer, one has to sit and wait like a hunter; and we did not have time to sit and wait. If we waited, we would be caught in the autumn freeze-up. …Art had not captured on film anything that would pay enough to feed his family when the expedition was over. [Grinnell book, p 50]
2. Winter was closing in; and as yet, Art had captured on film nothing that would feed his family. … His only hope was to stall around waiting for something to photograph. The more he stalled, the more likely he would be able to feed his family one way or another, for he had doubled his life insurance before coming on the trip: and what people pay money to watch on television is not so much life as death. … The movie provided hope for Art, …but failing that, he preferred death in the wilderness to life in the rat race [book, p 176]
3. If his movie failed, he was as good as dead anyway. [book, p 180]

Pessl’s response.
Grinnell’s suggestion that “the movie was not working out: and that …Art had not captured on film anything that would pay enough to feed his family” is curious and seriously misunderstands the objectives of the film project. Our photographic mission was not to film wildlife in the traditional professional strategy of sitting concealed, waiting for the perfect shot as Grinnell asserts. We were filming a canoe journey along a transect that reflected remarkable changes in the wildlife and natural history of the region. It was the journey that mattered and it was the context of that journey that we were committed to record. As even the most amateur moviemaker knows, exposed raw film footage is just the beginning of the moviemaking process. It is true that we didn’t get a shot of a grizzly’s ear or some other spectacular wildlife close-up, but to suggest therefore that the film was a failure and thereby contributed to some deadly depression is absurd.
More importantly, the unsupported assertion that Art was consciously “stalling” so that he could chance on some remarkable wildlife photography is outrageous. Art and I were transparently committed to filming the entire journey; we were not “waiting for something to photograph”. Art was out with the camera whenever he had the opportunity, often in the morning before others were up, or while I was cooking breakfast. And throughout the day, traveling or not, our priority was to get that shot, record that moment, preserve that feeling of being on this amazing adventure. To suggest that Art was stalling is unpardonable.
[Pessl book, pp 166-167]

Jacobs response.
Where is the evidence,
first that Moffatt had captured nothing yet (Grinnell provides no date),
second that Moffatt was stalling, waiting for something to photograph (also no date),
third, and by far most important, that Moffatt had pinned his entire life to the success of the film and so that he preferred to die rather than return empty-handed?
Did not a dead man (a trip companion no less!) deserve better than these gratuitous assertions? Did he not deserve that some evidence be provided for them?

Response.
There exists no evidence to support the three accusations
(a) The movie not working out,
(b) His only hope was to stall around waiting for something to photograph…he preferred death in the wilderness to life in the rat race and
(c) If his movie failed, he was as good as dead anyway.
In fact, Pessl provides evidence that falsifies them. I must add however that they had no known effect on the later accusatory literature.
In short, the evidence leads me to conclude that all three accusations have no basis in truth.

Other items in Grinnell’s book.

Item 1.
Art put a brave face on our situation, but inwardly he was not laughing.
“I felt sad, apprehensive and gloomy,” Art wrote on the eve of our departure, while the rest of us followed him around with smiles on our faces, believing he would carry us through all adversity.
[Grinnell book, p 10. The date must have been 2 July, for the party started out on 3 July, as evinced on p 27 of Pessl’s book]
Pessl’s response.
Actually that quote was from Art’s journal entry for June 16 … in which he describes his feelings as he stands on the station platform … at White River Junction, Vermont… The quote had nothing to do with our situation at Black Lake. [Pessl, pp 164-165]

Item 2. The canoe.
Comment. This not-so-important item is mentioned only for completeness.
The passage from Grinnell’s book.
”Rather a clear dream,” he had written in his diary.
The day he had had the dream of his broken canoe resting on the bottom among caribou bones, we were camped before another gorge…
[Grinnell book, pp 176 & 177]
Comment.
Here, he refers to Moffatt.
Pessl’s response.
Grinnell’s account of the dream sequence that Art had described in his journal entry of September 2—“and in the clear water below, I could see a gray canoe (mine?) broken and resting on the bottom among caribou bones”—ends with a positive statement: “Must get out of here soon and will.” But that statement was not part of the dream. It was written the following day, September 3, expressing concern about the cold and another nontravel day, clearly a positive commitment in the face of deteriorating weather and in spite of the previous night’s dream. [Pessl, p 164]

Comment regarding Items 1 and 2.
And so Grinnell had access to Moffatt’s journal by at least 1996, when Grinnell’s book was published.
But Moffatt’s journal was never published and even today it is not publicly available.
What was his source if not the Sports Illustrated editor, who possessed that journal? This is yet more evidence (another is the Epilogue of the SI article) that Grinnell and the SI editor had at least corresponded, perhaps even met in person, before that article was published.

3. The toll.
Art dreamed that there was at toll at the end of the lake which he could not afford to pay. [Grinnell, p 11]
Comment.
Grinnell provided no source for the above statement.
Pessl responds.
There is no mention of this “dream” in Art’s journal. [p 164]

4. The swamping on 26 August.
In both his Nastawgan article [p 9] and his book [pp 168-169], Pessl rejects Grinnell’s version [his book, p 139] of the event.

5. The bear.
Grinnell’s book [pages 178-180] provides a very different account of the grizzly encounter (on 6 September) from those provided
in Pessl’s Nastawgan article [p 9] and
in Pessl’s book [his pages 170-172 provide both his account of the event and Moffatt’s].
Especially noteworthy are the differences regarding shooting the bear.

6. Franck’s stammering.
Grinnell quotes multiple instances of Franck’s stammering [two on p 38, top of p 70, bottom of p 80, top of p 179, two on p 185, two on p 187, p 188; search incomplete].
Pessl’s response. I cannot recall a single instance in which Peter [Franck] stammered. Peter’s wife, Fay, insists that she never heard Peter stammer, “not even an ‘um’ or an ‘er’”. [book, p 168].
On page 8 of his Nastawgan article, Pessl makes similar remarks.

7. The exit date.
Grinnell gives the scheduled exit date as 2 September [p 58 and many places elsewhere].
The origin of 2 September: The Tyrrell party arrived in Baker Lake that day [Pessl, private correspondence]
Response. I do not understand why Grinnell disagrees with the ten other sources (which give 15 September, with a week’s grace period), as provided in Appendix 7. Schedule.
Comment.
Given that Grinnell’s statements regarding the exit date are falsified by the evidence
and given that they that they misled later accusers (Kingsley in particular),
I suggest it fair to consider them to be a significant misrepresentation of the evidence.

8. The United Bowmen’s Association.
(a) In his article of 1988, Grinnell remarks We bowmen went on strike… [right column, p 20].
(b) In his book of 1996, Grinnell devotes much of Chapter Seven. The United Bowmen’s Association to the UBA. [pp 53-64].
Pessl’s responses (from his p 168).
(a) He had no memory of the UBA.
(b) Franck (who sterned one canoe) doesn’t mention the UBA in his journal.
(c) LeFavour (a bowman like Grinnell; the third such was Lanouette) responded at follows: The very idea [of the UBA] is ridiculous. …the name…was a joke, a way for us to vent our frustrations with some of Art’s actions. [LeFavour, private communication to Pessl].
Similarly, Pessl rejects Grinnell’s claim that we bowmen … had taken effective control of the expedition… [Reference lost, to be found].
On page 8 of his Nastawgan article, Pessl makes similar remarks.
Conclusion. The The United Bowmen’s Association never existed.
Comment. Given that Grinnell’s remarks regarding the UBA are falsified by the evidence and that they misled several later accusers, I suggest it fair to consider them to be a significant misrepresentation of the evidence.

9. The broken cup.
The suggestion that Art was suicidal and indifferent to the well-being of the other party members…has been expressed by some reviewers and correspondents within the wilderness community. This assumption of Art’s mental instability, I believe, derives from Grinnell’s brief description of Art’s reaction to his broken tea cup. [Pessl book, p 163]
Grinnell’s assertion 1.
“With his broken tea cup lying shattered at his feet, Art became convinced that he would never see his wife and children again, and so he sat, and so we waited.” [Grinnell book, p 50]
Grinnell book, passage 2 p 175).
Grinnell’s assertion 2.
…his sacred tea cup (the one that Carol had given him…) had broken on a rock, Art had had his first premonition of his approaching death… [Grinnell book, p 175]
Pessl’s response to both assertions.
I know of no evidence in support of this analysis of Art’s mental condition. How did Grinnell get into Art’s head to know what Art was “convinced” of? Actually, Art considered the incident of the broken tea cup as an “omen of bad luck” (journal entry, June 21), not as a moment of final abandonment. [Pessl book, p 164]

10. The insurance policy.
Before coming on the trip, Art had been faced with three choices. He needed money to feed his family. He could either go down to New York and do as others in Western Civilization were doing…; or he could double his life insurance policy and buy a one-way ticket to the Great Beyond; or he could gamble on a wildlife film. He chose the last two. [Grinnell, p 49].
A later defamer parroted part of the accusation: Before he had kissed his wife and two daughters goodbye for the summer, he had doubled his life insurance policy.
Pessl’s response.
Many people increase life insurance coverage anticipating some special travel or experience. The presence of insurance policy kiosks at major airports suggests that this is a fairly common transaction. I have no evidence that Art did, indeed, increase his life insurance coverage prior to the Dubawnt trip…[Pessl, p 164]
In later private correspondence (7 August 2016), Pessl remarked
There is no mention in Art’s journal of an increase in life insurance and I have no idea what policy company he may have used.
Jacobs’ response.
Given
(a) that Grinnell provides no evidence to support his assertion that Moffatt had doubled his insurance policy, and
(b) that the evidence of Pessl negates that assertion, and
(c) that a later accuser used that assertion to discredit Moffatt,
it is perhaps fair to consider Grinnell’s assertion to be a significant misrepresentation of the evidence.
A comment regarding Grinnell’s
He chose…to buy a one-way ticket to the Great Beyond.
So flippantly to speak of the death of your trip companion (your leader, your mentor, perhaps your friend), the person who accepted you for the trip, with whom for over two months you shared meals, hardship, hunger (at times), danger (including a storm of perhaps hurricane force), and, most of all, the beauty of the barrens (“The reality I had discovered was the reality of the Garden of Eden, the most beautiful reality I have ever experienced” [Grinnell book, p 156]).

Sub-Appendix 1. The Thum – Pessl correspondence.
The item is presented here solely because its bulk would have disrupted the flow of the main text.
The context (provided also above) for the item.
I didn’t view them [the members of the Moffatt group] as being any kind of model for a tripper. Because of the historical perspective, I wanted to talk to them. Moffatt was gone. I found several of them. I tried to get a perspective on what they had done. [Che-Mun, p 10, left column].
Again as documented above, Thum had corresponded with Pessl and he had read Lanouette’s journal.

Thum’s letter to Pessl.
Comment. I counted 34 question marks in the two pages (~70 lines) of Thum’s letter of 3 October 1965. One passage suffices to document the level of the information requested.
What are the general weather conditions during the summer months? Is there a great amount of rain? At what point in the calendar did the early winter rains set in? When did it start to get cold in the mornings and evenings? during the daytime? and how cold did it get to be? When did your first snow fall and how steadily did it continue afterwards?
Did you have much trouble with high winds and consistent long storms; about how many days in the summer were you wind-storm bound and not able to move from your campsite?

Pessl’s reply of 26 November 1965.
Dear Bob:
I am very pleased to hear that you are still interested in the Dubawnt trip, and especially that you and your friends have accumulated such an impressive history of successful long distance canoeing. You are certainly far better prepared now than the Moffatt party was in 1955. Your questions also reflect experience and concern for careful planning, so crucial for such an effort as tracing Tyrrell’s route.
I was sorry to have missed Dave Wilson in Boston, but just recently received your letter after having been out of touch with my office while doing field work in Connecticut, and, during the first week of November, attending a conference in Kansas City. However, I strongly advise that we try to arrange a meeting in Boston sometime this winter to discuss at leisure and at length the many questions that you pose, and to view the Moffatt expedition films. From 1 Dec, until April or May ’66 I will be stationed in Boston and would be happy to accommodate your schedule for a visit to Boston. In the meantime I will try to answer some of your questions, or indicate other sources of information.
The best source of “precise trip notes” is the journal that Art Moffatt kept during the 1955 trip. It contains, in addition to more subjective musings, notations of portages, rapids, campsites, wood supply, food lists, equipment needs, etc. If you would like to see this document, I would be happy to write Mrs. Moffatt and ask her permission.
For detailed weather and freeze-up data the Meteorological Branch of the Dept. of Transport is an excellent source. Mean daily air temperatures and spring break-up, autumn freeze-up data are readily available. A resume of temperature normal, averages, and extremes in NWT, 1931-1960 is also available. The address for inquiry is:
[Address omitted, being from 1965]
The specifics of wood supply are best learned from Moffatt’s journal, but in general sporadic stands of stunted alder and pine extend much farther north along the major drainages than is usually shown on vegetation distribution maps. These northerly stands, however, are neither consistent enough nor large enough to supply a large party on a daily basis. Driftwood is not sufficient to supply fuel for continual use. Thus a stove (or stoves) with sufficient fuel is necessary. The Moffatt party used one twin burner Coleman stove with five gals. of fuel. In our experience, the stove was sufficient for cooking needs, but the fuel supply proved insufficient (partly due to a small leak in the fuel can). From the 1955 experience and subsequent experiences in high latitudes, I would suggest taking 2 or 3 Primus stoves and ca. 10 gals. of fuel. These stoves have certain advantages over a two burner Coleman, namely:
1) they can be used individually in tents for heating and drying equipment.
2) they are collapsible and hence more easily packed.
3) they can be carried in separate canoes to minimize the possible loss of all stoves.
4) they are of the most simple construction, thus facilitating repair and cleaning.
5) they are universally used in the Arctic, thus fuel is easily available.
Wind does occasionally constitute a problem with the stoves, but this usually can be overcome with a stone or sod windscreen, or by using an overturned canoe or a cook box similarly.
Fish are continuously available throughout the canoe route (pike and wall-eyes in the southern lakes; grayling trout, char in the northern river and lakes). The successful meat producer was a dare-devil type lure or similar spoon or spinner. In the shallow riffles and tributaries trout and grayling took flies readily. One caution: during the late season freezing air temperatures frequently clog fishing reels with ice (from water droplets on the fishing line); hence some sort of hand line for manual retrieving of the lure is necessary.
For the latest information concerning aerial photo coverage of the Dubawnt river route write [Contact information outdated and hence omitted]
I advise securing as much photo coverage as you can afford (stereo coverage is probably not worth the considerable extra expense). Index maps of photo coverage are available at $1.50 per index map. From these you can select appropriate flight lines. Contact prints of individual photos cost $.60 each.
The 8:1 maps re only marginally useful for canoe navigation in areas of complex river channels and where many large islands obscure the distant lake outlets. I would advise using 4:1 maps wherever possible. Scheduled air flights are of circumpolar nature and usually are at altitudes too great for ground to air contact. Unscheduled bush pilot flights probably exist, but coordination is most difficult. Best bet in this regard is to inform all parties concerned of your route and schedule, and request that air checks be made when possible. This is uncertain to be sure but just might make a crucial difference in case of emergency.
General equipment needs fall into two categories, summer and winter. I presume from your past experiences that summer equipment need are well known. For the cold weather some sort of insulated, but light weight, foot gear is important. For extended periods in a canoe at near freezing temperatures, the lower body must be specially protected. Thus insulated underwear and some sort of wind-proof trouser are crucial to reasonable comfort (we used caribou skins as lap robes). While on the river an occasional stop for exercise along the shore helps circulation in legs and feet. Light weight insulated parkas should be included and some sort of protection for the hands devised. The frequent wetting of the lower hand on a paddle is a pleasant sensation during the summer, but a serious mistake in freezing conditions. For sleeping comfort I would advise a foam mattress rather than the usual air mattress (foam is a much better protection against ground cold than is the rubber of an air mattress).
The Moffatt party carried both a 30/30 and a 30/06 rifle. Both were sufficient for killing caribou. If only one rifle is carried by your party, I would advise using the lighter 30/06 with Magnum loads (the Magnum loads as insurance against the difficulties with an aggressive grizzly). This firearm proved successful in Greenland where we were similarly concerned with polar bear. One or two Magnum loads in a clip provide adequate protective firepower while not being expended for every caribou kill. Ducks and geese were plentiful in 1955 and a light shotgun would certainly provide additional variety to the menu. The Moffatt party carried firearms under the condition that they be used only when “starvation was “imminent”. This condition was rather subjectively defined and was invoked in something other than the ultimate deprivation. In any case this is probably the most liberal condition under which you will be able to carry firearms.
A Scientists and Explorers License is required for travel in NWT. This can be obtained from [Contact information outdated and hence omitted].
The Moffatt party also carried a separate Scientific Collection permit, obtained from the National Museum in Ottawa.
I strongly advise contacting the RCMP authorities at Stony Rapids and Baker Lake. Also notify the agent for the Hudson Bay Co at Stony and Baker; invaluable for logistical support and public relations, to say nothing of the only source of assistance in case of emergency.
To ship supplies to Stony Rapids, I think your best bet is to contact the Hudson Bay Co. agent at Stony Rapids and work back from there according to his advice.
I know this doesn’t hit all the questions you pose in your letter, Bob, but it is a starter and I hope it will provide a basis for future conversations. Let me know if you and/or some of your party can visit Boston sometime this winter.
Sincerely yours,
Fred Pessl Jr.

Summary.
Let the reader decide whether Pessl’s letter provides more than the historical perspective claimed by Thum.

Sub-Appendix 2. Thum rant.
I ask the reader to excuse the following.
Let us admire, nay praise, the courageous, the forthright, the frank, the generous, the gentle, the gracious, the honest, the humble, the kind, the meek, the modest, the unsmug, he with nothing to prove, in short the renowned eco-paddler sans pareil Mr Robert (please, call me Bob) Thum, the legend in his own mind, the self-proclaimed Voyageur Canadien.
Long live his fame, and long live his glory, and long may his story be told.

Internal URLs.

Foreword and Forum.
Main text.
Appendix 1. Reality.
Appendix 2. Holidays.
Appendix 3. Equipment.
Appendix 4. Experience.
Appendix 5. Pace and weather.
Appendix 6. Food.
Appendix 7. Schedule.
Appendix 8. Rapids in general.
Appendix 9. The fatal rapids.
Ancillary 1. Accusations.
Ancillary 2. Lanouette excerpt.
Ancillary 3. Tyrrell excerpt.
Ancillary 4. Distances.
Ancillary 5. Loose ends and the future.
Ancillary 6. Addenda.
Ancillary 7. The Moffatt-Tyrrell correspondence.
Ancillary 8. Evidence regarding the tragedy.
Bibliography.

Notice.
With the exception of quoted material, copyright to the above belongs to Allan Jacobs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *