Follow up on Knots Claim

[Just Bill]

For those looking for the headline- Result of review- ' Inconclusive with documentation supplied' This hike cannot be verified as a valid FKT.

For those looking for a bit more information about Dan's claim specifically. I completed the review and notified Dan of the results late last week. I promised him I'd give it a few days before posting here. I believe Peter plans to post it at his site as well if needed. There were several people in the community at large who helped out, and while I don't plan to look into it any further at this time the 'private' portion of the review is complete so anyone who would like to look into it further or discuss it publicly is welcome to.

I have attached the full report for those who prefer to avoid links- or for those who prefer them here is the link to the PDF- https://1drv.ms/b/s!Apygyt54yYPwg5cj9lQl8BTEOKjBeg

For those curious... I helped out some last year. This year Peter asked my opinion and I gave it- there were a lot of open issues and it needed a review. I got a simple policy personally- If you're going to call somebody out- do it to their face or not at all. So I reached out to Dan, told him what I thought and that I'd look at the hike to see if it could be verified with what he did have and that he'd hear it from me or Peter when it was done. So that's how I ended up reviewing it.

As a result I also had the honor of working with Peter Bakwin a bit more directly this year and wanted to pass something along I think some here may appreciate.

Peter may be quite a badass, but even he hasn't had the chance to set foot on every trail on the planet. Having pioneered FKT's on the John Muir trail personally... that was one he felt comfortable reviewing for example. Having not hiked the AT... he reaches out to others who have hiked it like Doyle, Horton, and others who can assist when he's not intimately familiar with them. He involves the current FKT holders whenever possible for true peer review. Sometimes he works with a loud mouth jackalope... but otherwise his judgement seems to be fairly sound.

Peter sees himself as the recorder of FKT's. Not the judge, jury, or referee. It's his goal to never review one, but for each participant to turn in documentation so solid that there is no need for review at all. He feels that it is the communities job as a whole to review that documentation and dispute or verify a claim as needed. That's not to say it's an open vote or popularity contest. But it is up for discussion. If someone clearly violates a rule, it's an easy call for Peter or others to make. If not, then the goal is to document and record what happened as best we are able. From there... the community can then make up their own minds. Report, not Judge.

The initial review of the hike was done privately not for any real secrecy; but after last year it became obvious that when we review these openly right off the bat... stories can change. Mags got some flak here and in other places for shutting down the discussion thread last year. But his choice was wise. As each 'hole' in the story last year was discovered on WB... it was being plugged by Ninja and Meatballs... and the story changed. So if there is going to be any dishonesty, best to look into things quietly first. If a hostel owner trying to help her out hadn't inadvertently screwed up her revised timeline and a kindly fella named Billie Beartooth hadn't chimed in then that mess may have continued even further and got uglier than it did. Nobody wanted another ugly public debate.

To Dan's credit- he did release a trip narrative early on.
He put it in writing and we did not have to deal with a fully shifting story along the way. Getting all of Dan's photos in a timely manner did prove to be an issue.
There was no smoking gun... nor was there enough documentation to plug the holes in his hike.

And to everyone here and generally- thanks for patiently waiting while his hike was reviewed.
Thanks to those of you who did help out when asked.

Best of luck to Dan on his ongoing calendar year triple...

For further reading- Looks like Outside's piece came out over the weekend. https://www.outsideonline.com/223460...alachian-trail
Featuring the usual suspects(Doyle and Peter Bakwin) as well as some words from Matthew D. Kirk. It was a good general article on the overall issues with verification for those interested in the topic.

I hope more folks discuss this... and hopefully this off season some more information can be put together to avoid anyone else going through this in the future- Matt's final line sums it up really well.