Hi Michael, enjoying this series (as I do with all your videos). It's great to hear someone do a lot of research into this topic that goes against the received wisdom that is so readily accepted in fields with a "mythos" (for want of a better term) like high altitude climbing. I have a question though, about something that has bothered me about this series. Why is your interpretation of 'Into Thin Air' something the author claims to be a truthful account, and that he largely attributes the tragedy to the presence of inexperienced climbers? My feeling was always that Krakauer did not intend this to be a factual account, and that he places plenty of blame on the lead guides not following their own rules (turn around times, etc), and even considers himself as responsible in the death of Andy Harris. I agree there is a narrative being spun by Krakauer, but I don't think that's to the detriment of the book. I am interested in hearing how you came to your interpretation of the book Cheers
This is a good question, but I will need to break it down to put it in the comments. Let me start with whether Krakauer intended it to be a factual account.... "My intent in the magazine piece, and to an even greater degree in this book, was to tell what happened on the mountain as accurately and honestly as possible, and to do it in a sensitive, respectful manner." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 303). I do not feel his account is accurate nor sensitive nor respectful. He refers to Sandy Pittman as "a millionaire socialite-cum-climber." (p. 119) Hey, I get it. Very funny, yes. Respectful? No. Does he introduce other people as, for example, "physician-cum-climber." No. The only people he uses that little verbal banter with are women. I do not consider that respectful. So, right off the bat I had the impression that this was a boyish book. I have detailed some of the inaccurate items in his book and future videos will detail more. It is the pattern in them that brings me to the conclusion that he blames it on inexperienced climbers. I am going to break the comments up...
In terms of him blaming inexperienced climbers, Outside Magazine was nice enough to tell us that his assignment ws to go to Everest and write a piece about how inexperienced climbers were a disaster waiting to happen on Everest. (www.outsideonline.com/adventure-travel/destinations/asia/everest-year-later-false-summit/) " What might it augur on a peak already swarming with too many climbers too inexperienced to save themselves-let alone others-if caught by one of the Himalayas’ frequent storms? It seemed a foregone conclusion that reality would soon strike home with a vengeance. The only question was when. By the time we asked contributing editor and lifelong climber Jon Krakauer to examine firsthand the circumstances that might lead to a disaster, things had only gotten worse. Swelling ranks of amateur climbers were paying ever fatter sums to be escorted up the peak, and some outfitters seemed to be all but guaranteeing the summit." Ok, so that is why Outside Magazine paid him to go there and obviously they didn't know the disaster would strike, but all his background that he was gathering would likely support the narrative that Outside Magazine instructed him to tell. And when the disaster did strike, he did not take a fresh look at things. Although he does blame himself for the death of Andy Harris, he does not explain why that is. I will get into in a future video. I do not blame him for not delving too far into it, so on that point I will give him a pass. If that was the only issue or there were not a large number of other issues, I would not be making these videos. But, just because Outside Magazine sent him to write a piece that inexperienced climbers were going to cause a disaster, that does not mean there is support for that in his book. Is there anything in the book that supports this? Next comment....
Yes. First, the blames the "inexperienced" Montenegrins for screwing up the rope fixing... "The Montenegrins, who’d got even higher, had installed some fixed line, but in their inexperience they’d used all they had in the first 1,400 feet above the South Col, wasting it on relatively gentle slopes where it wasn’t really needed." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 182). The only problem with that is it is absolutely not true. They did not fix the first 1400 feet above S Col and if they had, it would have been the most useful rope ever put on the mountain that day. Worthless when there is no storm, but a lifesaver during a storm. They did fix the ropes higher up. In fact, they climbed to the base of the Hillary Step. I will cover this in an upcoming video because it is such a big deal. Krakauer just says a bunch on inexperienced screw ups fixed the rope all wrong. When Krakauer's climb is delayed, he blames the lack of fixed ropes and, of course, Sandy Pittman. ("And now Lopsang had just towed Pittman on a short-rope for five or six hours above the South Col, substantially compounding his fatigue and preventing him from assuming his customary role in the lead, establishing the route." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 177). and see page 182). So, I hope you can see the problem. If the "inexperienced " Montenegrins could get to the base of Hillary Step with just the ropes they fixed on May 9, why couldn't Krakauer get there on May 10? No ropes needed to be fixed on May 10 below the Hillary Step. But Krakauer solves that by saying the ropes needed to be fixed up the Hillary Step and that caused him all the delay. That is why he fudged the 1PM time in this video. As soon as you take his actual time he was at the foot of Hillary Step, you see there was no delay beyond a couple minutes. He left South Col at 12PM and was on summit at 1:12PM. That is a great climb time. But shows there were no delays. That doesn't work, so he inserted the delay. Fortnately, there is a photo take at about 1PM and it shows the base of the Hillary Step. Krakauer is nowhere to be found -- and he says as much in his Illustrated Edition. Here is what his own book says, "...looking up from South Summit at 1:00PM [at the Hillary Step]. Three Climbers -- Deal Beidleman, Martin Adams, and Klev Schoening -- are visible above the Hillary Step, en route to the summit. Anatoli Boukreev, Jon Krakauer, and Andy Harris are out of sight above, just below the top." (p.241) And yet, in the very same book, he is at the base of the Hillary Step at 1PM. And the reason for the delay, according to Krakauer was the inexperienced climbers tiring the Sherpa out. Not only is it not true -- there was no delay. No ropes were ever fixed between South Summit and base of Hillary Step. They just used last years. He just makes the whole thing up to blame other people for his own mistakes. The reason why they all waited at South Summit was not the lack of fixed ropes. It was that the porter sherpas had not brought the oxygen up yet. Smart climbers would wait to get a fresh bottle before going to the summit. Krakauer was trying to be the first one to reach the top for the entire season, so he goes at first chance and his bottle is there yet. So, he runs out of oxygen. Does he blame himself for making a rookie mistake because his ego wanted to be the first to summit? Nope. It was caused by the delay coming down the Hillary Step -- also which he completely describes incorrectly. Fortunately, there is a photo (same one above) that will allow us to determine what really happened at the Hillary Step. Next comment...
But there are also Krakauer's words.. Later-after six bodies had been located, after a search for two others had been abandoned, after surgeons had amputated the gangrenous right hand of my teammate Beck Weathers-people would ask why, if the weather had begun to deteriorate, had climbers on the upper mountain not heeded the signs? Why did veteran Himalayan guides keep moving upward, ushering a gaggle of relatively inexperienced amateurs-each of whom had paid as much as $65,000 to be taken safely up Everest-into an apparent death trap? (Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 8). ) Why not say "Why did a Himalayan guide convince an experienced climber who had already turned around and was heading down the mountain to re-turn back around again and head up the mountain when everything about the situation told that experienced climber his climb was over? Had that guide not convinced his client to stop his descent and just let him return to the safety of camp, this entire disaster would have been avoided." Well, that would have been the truth. Doug Hansen turned around. Doug Hansen was headed down the mountain. Krakauer white-washed the incident. This is how Krakauer reports it... Not long after that, Doug stepped aside as well, “He was a little ahead of me at the time,” recalls Lou. “All of a sudden he stepped out of line and just stood there. When I moved up beside him, he told me he was cold and feeling bad and was heading down.” Then Rob, who was bringing up the rear, caught up to Doug, and a brief conversation ensued. Nobody overheard the dialogue, so there is no way of knowing what was said, but the upshot was that Doug got back in line and continued his ascent.K rakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (pp. 173-174). And this is Lou's account .... "Now on summit day, Doug decided, based on his own judgment, that the best thing for him was to turn around. Again, this was the individual decision making Rob expected from each of us. Doug was the best judge about his own readiness. As Doug moved below me, the rest of us continued to climb." Kasischke, Lou. After The Wind (p. 146). I do not find Krakauer's account accurate. There is a big difference between standing there and waiting and turning around and heading down. Kasischke's account is clear that Doug turned around and was headed down. And again, we have Krakuer's version of what Kasischke said as opposed to what Kasischke wrote in his book. Now, is there any mystery why Doug Hansen died? And thus Rob Hall? And thus Andy Harris? Obvious when it is highlighted, but where is it in any of his analysis? Was this caused by Boukreev not using oxygen? Sandy having a coffee pot? What does this have to do with the "gaggle of relatively inexperienced climbers?" Thus, based on Krakuer repeated reference to "inexperienced" climbers causing problems while ignoring that Doug Hansen -- an experienced climber with prior Everest experience -- turned around and was then convinced to push on to the summit by Rob Hall means it was not close to a fair or reasonable assessment. I would ask readers to comment if you even knew Doug Hansen had made his own decision to turn around only to be convinced to press on my Rob Hall.
@@michaeltracy2356I am finding on my recent video where I mention Doug turning around, that most people had no clue he did that. Or was pretty sick in the lead up to the summit attempt, according to both Lou and Beck. Love your detailed analysis. I didn’t notice that small point of Krakuer mentioning Doug just stepping out of line while completely leaving out him turning around and walking by Lou!
You might find it interesting that Krakauer's account was/is taught in English class for year 10 students in Australia. Quite ironic as it was used to explore themes of perspective (with the focus on Krakauer being correct and everyone else not). And of course too the themes of "Man v Nature" (the pollution of Everest and too many climbers notions). I only learnt that most people with anything to do with Everest thought it was a load of nonsense in year 12 from a substitute teacher we had for history, one Judy Tenzing. I remember her being especially aggrieved by what he wrote of Boukreev, so it's great to learn about the inaccuracies regarding Sandy Pittman and everything else too. It's good you're covering this for us laymen, and if your videos get swarmed by Australian high school students, you'll know why! haha Anyways keep up the great videos mate, can't wait for the following parts.
It also looks like from the photos that Krakauer trashed the mountain by leaving an oxygen bottle. There are a number of issues around his rescue and what happened with the bottle he received to rescue him. The photos show no oxygen bottle at the rescue location prior to Krakauer's rescue and then a bottle is there afterwards. It appears, in his desperation to save his life, he just left the empty bottle there -- thus explaining the mystery of why so many bottles remain on Everest. Even well intentioned people leave their trash when it is a choice between their own life and keeping the Mountain clean.
@@troopieeeeee Yeah, pretty much what oliverreno up there said. Look at Jon Krakauer and how he got into desperate, life threatening trouble long before the storm hit. He failed to plan his oxygen use, and did not understand the basics of oxygen equipment use at high altitude. I'll detail his numerous "rookie mistakes" in an upcoming video, but the largest mistake Krakauer made was thinking his high degree of skill in technical climbing would compensate for a lack of understanding of oxygen equipment. You don't need really any mountaineering skill to climb the mountain. You do need to know how to operate your oxygen equipment and plan your climb so that you don't break down like Krakauer and need a guide to rescue you. Other people made other mistakes, but largely the same thing -- just poor planning. Doug Hansen was smart and turned around. But Rob Hall had a chat with him and convinced him to climb back up the distance he had given up and keep going to the summit. So, listening to a motivational guide can also be deadly -- for both the client and the guide. Had Hall just let Hansen stick to his original well thought out decision to continue down the mountain, things would be very different. Hansen planned well and knew he was too far behind extremely early and did the right thing -- turned around. Rob Hall changed his mind. The exact content of that conversation remains a mystery. Beck Weathers was suicidal before going to Everest -- turned all this guns into the police, etc. Family thought he was just going to finish it. In the middle of the storm, we have the following... "when all of a sudden Beck mumbles, ‘Hey, I’ve got this all figured out.’ Then he kind of rolls a little distance away, crouches on a big rock, and stands up facing the wind with his arms stretched out to either side. A second later a gust comes up and just blows him over backward into the night, beyond the beam of my headlamp. And that was the last I saw of him." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 226). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. So, I suspect that Beck Weather's situation is a little different from other peoples. Obviously, he changed his mind about things sometime after he figured it all out. Exactly what he figured out also remains a mystery.
@@troopieeeeeeI don’t think most were in trouble before the storm hit. They were too late on the mountain but if not for the storm i think all may have survived with the exception of Fischer. Or put another way. I wonder how many client guided expeditions end to too late on the mountain but get away with it because the weather stays manageable. Climbing mountains is inherently risky to begin with then you add in guiding 5 or so amateurs
Well done. I have also written about problems with Krakauer's narrative in False Summit. Other published versions of what happened, such as Lene Gammelgaard's and Lou Kaschiske's, also shed light on problems with what Krakauer says.
To me the narrative I saw in the book wasn't "inexperienced climbers bad" but that the system of paying customers added pressure to make poor choices by the guides in order for the company to maintain business. Really enjoying your videos.
It's difficult to consider that any first-person accounts would be reliable, considering the known dilution of memory accuracy over time, combined with the oxygen-starved conditions in which the memory was first laid down.
It is more a question of why Krakauer chose to ignore the photographs and instead rely on those problematic accounts. One tells the story he wants and one tells the story he does not want.
@@michaeltracy2356he knows how to sell books and has sold millions of them. He might respond and say he retold first hand accounts as he was told them and wasn’t trying to do a detailed factual expedition account as such as it likely wouldn’t have sold near as many copies,
I think the problem is pictures also can be misinterpreted and the times they were taken because again you are depending on people’s recollection of traumatic events under not only the regular stress of what was happening but brain function above 8000m. I love your attention to detail but unfortunately we don’t know whose accounts are correct and never will. It became a big game of he said, she said and as we know with human nature, personal interest tends to warp ones memories (as you are very correctly doing with Krakauers timeline). I agree with your basic premise that there is a complicated set of factors that contributed to the deaths but you have to also agree the commercialization of Everest from a climbing exercise to an adventure tourism opportunity is resulting in the mountain being more dangerous than it likely should be.
@@RetroHondo67 it does feel like yet another version from someone who was not there as much as I respect the detail and effort Michael has gone to. As Michael always says, you get a narrative repeated enough times it becomes assumed to be fact, even if it started as speculation or exaggeration or outright made up.
@@davidgeisler9885 Yeah in the end we will never really know the truth, I will say Michael is the best at trying to unravel all the narratives but it is a mystery, wrapped up in enigma. Look Krakauer is no innocent and he gets way too much praise simply because he is an excellent writer, but I think you need to look at this from all perspectives and try and not judge any of them, from him to Sandy, to the guides, to Scott and Rob. In the end it is a compelling human story, a tragedy mostly because Mother Nature can be incredibly cruel and punish the unprepared. The challenge with Everest now is you have to risk that someone else’s incompetence and selfish behaviour can end your life. Hard know where the balance needs to be where the mountain is respected but also open to those who deserve to try and challenge it.
I attended an event where Beck Weathers talked about the tragedy. He has no malfeasance against Krakauer except to say he was not an asset to the climbing teams that day. Beyond that he also said take his books/ account of details as you like because everyone was suffering physically and emotionally before, during and after this happened. One last thing, he said he would never risk his life for glory or ego ever again. Very interesting hearing him speak and I’ll never forget it.
HIs book was all about how he was suicidal. Did he talk about dealing with that and answer the big question--- whether his entire trip to Everest was an attempted suicide?
@@michaeltracy2356 He said he realized on the mountain that he had friends and loved ones at home that loved him. He said he felt he was so selfish to risk his life by doing something in which the odds are against you in such a way as the possibility of death on Mt. Everest. That’s what he meant when he said he would never do anything because of his selfish ego or pride.
Wow, that is pretty messed up. Groom assisted him rather than Yasuko, he lives, she dies. And he was just there to do what he couldn't do on his own. Very sad. Glad he made it, but too bad he didn't think about the others and someone else who didn't go there to kill themselves had to die in his place. Also, did he given any reason he didn't specifically thank Mike Groom for saving his life? Groom lost a couple toes assisting Weathers, and in his book he just says the guides were doing their jobs --- thanks others for saving him, but not Groom. Did he given any reason for this?
For other investigations I wanted to write a software tool to allow a group of online sleuths to built precise timelines of where people were, along with any supporting documents, in part to allows the detection of incoherent narratives.
@@zadieb5273 still at the design phase. I want to be absolutely sure it is useful to web sleuths, journalists, etc. People who have to run investigations in a decentralized way.
I read the book years ago when it first came out and haven't paid much attention to the incident since, but the feeling I came away with THEN after reading Krakauer was that the guide companies' pushiness to up the exploitation was the problem, not the inexperienced climbers. That was the impression the book gave me, reading just that and knowing nothing else about it.
I read Krakauer book but good lord I didn't pay for it. I have been fascinated by the 96 disaster. Personally, I see climbing Everest as an empty pursuit. The mountain is littered with bodies and trash. It's an insult to nature and makes us humans look really bad. The commercialization of a magnificent part of Earth is responsible. Everest brings out the worst in us. I wish people would leave it alone and stop climbing it.
Ya I am not a Fan of John Krakauar. He singled out and lied about Sandy Pittman from the start. First saying that she brought a cappuccino maker with her not to mention painting her as an amateur climber which she was not at that time she had already climbed 6 of the 7 highest Mountains which left only Mt. Everest to complete that coveted title. The reason John Krakauer did this was to hide his own inabilitys and incidents of failure during the Expedition.
If the 2 guides (Hall and Fischer) stuck to the 2pm turnaround rule no one would of died and we wouldn't even be talking about that day. The delay in the fixed ropes from the Hillary step to the summit, Antonoli not using o2 when he was supposed to be guiding others, Hall pushing Doug to make the summit, Sandy being short roped to the summit, none of that would of mattered if they all would of turned around at 2pm. I've read both The Climb and Into Thin Air numerous times and they are both good takes buy 2 people that were there with different perspectives. Antoloni saved the lives of 4 or 5 climbers that day, he was the real hero as selfish as he may have been climbing without O2. The guides failed their clients that day. RIP peace to all that died that day ✌️
Even with the "2 pm" turn around time, Krakauer is manipulating it. 3 other people on Adventure Consultants turned around because they insisted it was a "1 pm" turn around time. However, even the "1 pm" is manipulated by Krakauer. What was told to the team was that they would leave at 11PM and have 12 hours of oxygen to each the summit and 6 hours of oxygen for the return. Thus, the time to summit safely was 11AM the next day. For delays and fudge factors, two hours were build in with the absolutely turn around time being 1 PM. However, simply changing the time did not solve the problem of oxygen. Thus, the 2 hours "fudge factor" was to cover things like you waiting and you turned your oxygen down, so your oxygen would last longer. Or your regulator was just giving you slightly less than 2LPM, so your bottles were lasting longer. Krakauer takes this and turns it into this idea that they would climb until 2PM and then turn around. That was never the plan. At South Summit, if you didn't have time to make the summit, you would turn around. That is why 3 people from AC turned around at South Summit well prior to 12PM. Krakauer ignored all this, climbed up, ran out of oxygen, needed to be rescued by a passing guide, and was able to stumble into camp and fall asleep while Boukreev was out in the storm dragging people back to the tents.
@@michaeltracy2356 Wether it was 1 or 2pm turnaround time if all involved were to honor that I feel the tragedy would of been avoided. Krakauer was obviously delusional because of his own issues with his decent and being a writer certainly attributed to his inaccuracies of what was happening around him, most journalists wouldn't make themselves look bad. I've always wondered what would of happened if that storm didn't come, I'm sure there would of still been casualties but maybe only 2 or 3. Too many who weren't there try to put the blame on one thing but for me the turnaround rule was key. Unfortunately Krakauer puts a lot of the blame on Anotoli and that is unfair. The guides failed their clients and their greed for success cost them dearly. 🍻
How did Boukreev not using oxygen impact the outcome? He fixed ropes, summited, came back down and rescued three members of his team. No one could rescue Scott.
I'd believe Anatoli Boukreev version before I'd believe Krakauer any day of the week. Boukreev actually put his own life on the line to save others, Krakauer only saved himself.
I’m not a climber, but these videos are just great. Mr. Tracey, you’re a great story teller who does the now rare thing of privileging actual facts and unanswered questions, rather than coming up with the overall narrative first, and then cherry picking whatever bits that fit.
I’m enjoying your takedown of Krakauer. When I read Into Thin Air I found it quite enthralling which led me to read more of his works. Unfortunately the more of his works I read, the more I saw him as a petty soulless man.
That’s interesting to know. I also loved the book and I believed it until I heard he published the conversations between Rob Hall and his wife against her consent. Made me go ‘hmm’. Then I found other accounts as well.
@@kamakaziozzie3038 it’s looking that way, yeah. It’s just not matching up to the evidence. With your current pov on the subject are you finding this expose easy to follow? I’ve listened to and read a few things now but this detail is next level!
@@williammorris4419 His ‘mistakes’ only appear to go one way in that they paint him in a better light and those he obviously dislikes in a worse light. That’s journalistic malfeasance which I’ve long suspected from him and for which Michael has clearly shown.
@@Jay-zl6jm it’s hard to find reports now but she was very upset when he did it and called him media scum. There is a little in Rob’s Wikipedia page and some in a German journal about the incident. It’s not where I first heard it though but I am unable to find that in order to offer it here. I wonder if by now she might be beyond worrying about it as the recording was used in the Everest film which she was very happy with and JK’s transcript is so many years old now.
When humans perform high risk activities, they perform a risk assessment on the specifics of that activity and mitigate the risk by implementing controls. The procedure is then followed to achieve a safe and successful outcome. If there is any deviation from the agreed and approved procedure, then the level of risk rises and it is no longer acceptable. 2pm means 2pm, no matter who you think you are.
With this viewpoint, I would recommend you not engage in outdoor activities that last for more than a couple of hours. Your rigid engineering framework is not applicable to human beings in highly variable and unpredictable settings. I've flexed turnaround times a few minutes on plenty of occasions when conditions, including my own, were perfect and it was clear that some of the standard unpredictable possibilities that are accommodated by a prudent turnaround time were not going to happen. And I've turned around early when the opposite was the case. It's called good mountaineering judgment which supplements a predetermined turnaround time. Not by several hours on Everest, but by part of an hour in less extreme settings. But I agree, you only do this if you have the ability to judge reliably that the level of risk is still acceptable.
Jon Krakhaur was very jealous of Bourkeev. 1. Bourkeev got on the summit first. 2. Bourkeev did not fix the ropes because his team clients did not have oxygen yet and if he fixed it the Jon and his team would get their first. 3. Jon refused to go help others when Bourkeev asked him to. 4. Jon slept through the storm in which he famously reported on (the irony) while Bourkeev was saving lives 5. Eventually Bourkeev team had one casualty and he even went back for that one causualty to make sure that he could save him. 6. Boekeev was a hero. Jon was a jealous journalist. 7. Remember Jon was paid by Rob’s company to report on it, he had to find someone to blame that was not in his team. Who better than the man he was jealous of.
Someone linked me this video after I mentioned how much i enjoyed (enjoyed is not the right word for this kind of book) Into Thin Air. Halfway through the video I've completely changed my tune. Wow, his narrative is incredibly manipulative! I looked into the backlash to the book and the different narratives right after i finished reading it, but none of it convinced me in the way this video did. I already knew he was after reading Inti the Wild, but, damn, Krakauer is a terribly unethical journalist!!
This is a great video. If Krakauer blanked out from exhaustion and didn’t remember anything, then he should have done what he did in ,”Into the Wild.” Writing what other people remembered and not destroying reputations and manipulating the truth to save himself. Thanks.
I'll have to open up the cupboard and go over these books again. I remember being left with a lot of questions but will have to reacquaint myself with the finer details once more.
I get lost in all the details, and I can't tell you which books, articles, videos, and interviews I've gotten this info. from, but Krakauer said that had Rob told him (and maybe others), not to go up ahead of others on their own. At certain points, he described standing/sitting there waiting for Rob to come up. At the point where ropes were needed, he got the green light from Rob to go ahead and fix ropes with Neil and Anatoly. I also read somewhere that Scott had a lingering health problem from ...a fall he had taken when he was younger? ...some illness that flared up occasionally (like malaria, but not malaria), and that he had been having trouble with that. That, coupled with his taking his client back to camp 1 that day, added to his lack of energy and slowed speed? I'm wondering why you think JK would have been aware of the prank Scott and Lapsong were planning, given that he wasn't on that team and that the prank was supposed to be some kind of surprise (i think you said in a previous vid)? Thanks for all you do!
That there was a "prank" was published in a best selling book. Krakauer would be aware of it either because he spoke to Gammelgaard and she told him, he read the book himself, or one of the thousands of people who read the book told him about it. He claims to be an "investigative journalist," so typically such people ask questions and follow up on leads. His source for most things is Beidleman -- who is on the Mountain Madness team, so if he is not concerned the the MM team, why did he interview its guide? He interviewed Lopsang multiple time. In any case, it does little use to point out things Krakauer said. As I will get into in an upcoming video, Krakauer changed his own story multiple times on major events. So, what you read in Into Thin Air, the book, is his carefully crafted version of things that differs significantly from what he said immediately after the incident and even from what he wrote in the magazine article. The book was published in May of 1997 -- a full year after the events, and either Krakauer invented his original version of what happened that he told back in May of 1996 or he invented the version in the book in 1997 -- or, far more likely, both. Given that Krakauer outright invents things, you have to ask whether Rob Hall really told him that. First, it would not make any difference if he did or didn't. The reason you can't just run out in front of everyone is because, although Krakauer was climbing with oxygen, he was, of course, not carrying it all on his own. Instead, a sherpa was carrying a bottle up for him. Krakauer blatantly misrepresents how climbers switch their bottles climbing. You can go through the math and see that he blatantly misrepresents it. You can look at photos that show other climbers had no problem understanding how the system worked. Now, Krakauer ignored all of this and wanted to just run to the summit and have the sherpas or someone else save him. So, he did it his way, ran out of oxygen, and needed to be rescued. His story of running out of oxygen changes between May 1996 and May 1997 -- dramatically. In fact, his version of just about everything changes dramatically between May 1996 and May 1997. Then major things change again between May 1997 and 1999 where he invents a new version of what happened at the Hillary Step. The main thing is that no one was waiting on ropes to be fixed for any significant amount of time. They were waiting on the oxygen to be brought up. The majority of the route never had fixed ropes on it. There was some misunderstanding with the clients, including Krakauer, that there would be fixed ropes the whole way. While this is the way it is done now, that is not the way it was done then. Instead, Krakauer has presented this myth that everyone was a bunch of inexperienced climbers that were incapable of moving unless they could pull their way up a fixed rope. As the photos of the mountain show, that was not the case. Krakauer invented the whole thing. You can climb as fast as you want, but if you climb faster than the sherpa carrying your oxygen, then you will eventually run out of oxygen. As an inexperienced climber, Krakauer learned this the hard way. Everyone else waited for the oxygen -- not the fixed ropes. To some extent, Krakuer puts that in the book, but it is in the section where he blames the sherpas for not leaving early enough to get his oxygen in place for him. Although the Sherpa was melting his snow for him and other clients at the time, the entitled Krakauer treats the sherpa like dogs and expects them to just magically be able to cater to his every whim. Sure, they had to set up his tent, carry his oxygen, and melt his snow for him all at high camp, but why couldn't they just work faster and climb faster so that Krakauer can have his oxygen in place? Curiously, in the 1996 article, he mentions the sherpa doing some of this. In the book, he deletes the part about the sherpa. Many other sections are cut-and-paste verbatim. And that section is cut-and-paste and well. But the sherpa doing the work got cut -- didn't get pasted. While he pays lip service to "thanking" the Sherpa, he completely disrespected them by deleting that line about the sherpa doing the work and then blaming them for not leaving earlier when they were gather snow and melting it so that Krakauer didn't have to. Whenever Krakauer needed a key fact to support his narrative, he simply invented it -- key "facts" that were missing from his earlier versions and frequently contradicted his earlier version. Ultimately, he settled on the set of facts that told the best story and was easiest for people to believe. For instance, " At the point where ropes were needed, he got the green light from Rob to go ahead and fix ropes with Neil and Anatoly." That is what Krakauer told you. However, the photo on page 237 show Jon Krakauer and everyone else climbing the section just above where Krakauer just told he was waiting for the ropes to be fixed. There are no fixed ropes so he was not waiting for them to be fixed. As soon as you understand that Krakauer invents everything From Thin Air, his whole book will make sense.
@@michaeltracy2356 Excellent discussion. My 2c would be, knowing Everest is a zoo, I'd want to be able to go at my own pace, and carry my own damn oxygen so I could do that without dependence on anyone else.
Like every one else I read Into Thin Air and took that story to be completely factual and never questioned any of it. How could I? I’m no expert! I took the Basic Climbing course at The Mountaineers in Seattle a decade after 1996 and no one I climbed with back then ever questioned anything either. Makes me wonder what other pile of lies I have swallowed in the past…
I always taken Krakauer's version of what happen during the event of 1996 to be as close to the truth as possible regarding the whole situation with lack of oxygen, bad weather, the fusion of many members memory, etc... It's one of my "favorite" books, describing the tragedy of what happened in 1996 on Mt Everest. It sadden me a lot when pictures like Scott's show a different story and Krakauer have done nothing to correct his story. Many of the people participating in the event have been interviewed about what happened. Listening to what Sandy Hill Pittman and Charlotte Fox both says about the "needle situation" makes me want to believe Fox over Hill Pittman. One's memory isn't really a source of truth but if one write a book about something and new evidence and facts appear the misinformation should immediately be corrected, in my opinion.
For me, it is more about the important lessons that were ignored by Krakauer. There is a lot of useful "things learned" if you really look at this disaster -- I will in the near future. Rather than helping the mountaineering community learn from this, Krakauer engaged in petty squabbles and trivial nonsense. I really think that his negative comments toward Boukreev were just that Krakauer was set to be the first to summit that season and Boukreev passed him at the last minute. You can sort of see Krakauer positioning himself to take the first spot, and then all of a sudden -- denied. Whether that is the true motivation or not I do not know.
@@michaeltracy2356 I have Boukreev's book as well and never realized that could be Krakauer's intention. I love to listen to books when trying to sleep so I will relistening to Boukreev's book again with your thoughts in mind, thank you!
Ok. I've been obsessed with 8000m peaks since this tragedy. I've read em all. I have always had a bad taste in my mouth for krackauer. Very few alpinists, climbers, or researchers criticise him which is extremely frustrating to me. I may just join your channel & become a member. Now I must catch up on all of your videos. Great work!!!!!
An enduring and interesting story. Trying to piece together the tragic climbs seems to have the same difficulties you have when trying to exactly reconstruct battles. Even with an arm load of eyewitness accounts conflicts in the narrative abound. In these life and death situations there is almost as strong a survival instinct for ones reputation afterwards as for ones life during the event.
What kind of "Stunt" would warrant the halting of clients on the summit for hours, especially with word from the IMAX crew that things seemed off and they were pushing their summit attempt back until the weather settled, not to mention Scott Fischer and his guides all aware that Scott had been struggling? I find the "Stunt" that nobody detailed, a bigger stretch that purely losing track of time while celebrating an accomplishment many had dreamt of their whole lives.
And who would detail the stunt? Scott Fisher knew the details. Lopsang knew the details. Perhaps the reason we don't have the details you desire is because they are both dead. Instead, you wish to believe that Lopsang lost track of time. That is ridiculous -- he was an experienced Sherpa. Lopsang did not say he lost track of time. He told Gammelgard he was remaining on the summit to pull the prank with Scott. It says so in Gammelgaards book --- which I have shown in both videos on this subject. Any reason you do not want to believe Gammelgaards account? If you can't think of at least 10 "stunts" that would benefit from halting clients on the summit to participate, you lack any creativity.
@@michaeltracy2356 it is convenient that both people who knew of the stunt shared it with nobody else before, during or after the terrible event, ended up dying taking it to their grave when it would have done nothing but clarify things and explain their actions, giving them a defense against Krakauer’s book. Lopsang would not find himself in any additional trouble if he revealed it, and in fact would only help explain his actions since Scott was his boss and in charge. Would you decide to carry out a stunt on the top of the highest summit, making your employees and clients wait there with oxygen, daylight and weather dwindling or deteriorating? As far as I know nothing was ever found on Scott Fischer’s body that would be deemed a surprise once it was revealed. What was the big secret stunt going to be, his congratulations cause there isn’t anything tangible that fits the bill that was ever found. In fact, what other stunts have been done by their guides on the summit of Everest? I would like to hear about them since they apparently aren’t that hard to fathom. What it sounds like to me is an excuse for mistakes made that had clients on the summit for too long and way past the turnaround time in order to have the best chance to get back to Camp IV safely. Attributing the details to those already dead helps ensure that the truth can never be known, which is why we are discussing it now. To answer your question, I can’t think of one stunt/prank worth delaying clients on the summit of Everest for a second longer than is necessary and safe. Your job is not to entertain them on the summit, it’s to get them down safely. Nobody is going to miss a prank that nobody knows about. Was Scott so inept or just a dedicated prankster that he would risk his clients lives for what I imagine must of been one hell of a joke cause they failed to find any props to fit the bill. It just about cost him a few of his clients lives, but if he were here he would say that, despite knowing the dangers, it was worth it? I would be quite upset if I ended up on the summit for much to long, putting myself and others in danger, so the person I paid lots of money to to keep me safe, did the opposite for some prank that would never be worth my or anyone else’s life.
@@michaeltracy2356 by the way, I say all this with the utmost respect as I think you are a fascinating person who puts out quality content that is hard to find. I respect you and your opinion and absolutely admit that you are an expert in this field and I am not even a novice when compared to you. I am only speaking to the actions of the players, as a human being who is trying to square the circles and figure out the motivations of those involved in this tragic event. However, I am only speaking for myself and what makes sense to me. I absolutely see where you are coming from and am open to the fact that you may even be right, which would make me happy and only increase my admiration for you. I say all this because it’s important to me that you know that I believe you are acting with integrity and honesty and that your heart is absolutely in the right place. That is as rare as it is admirable and is something that I realized early on and is why I will continue to subscribe to your channel. I also share your opinion as to the character of others that put out mountaineering content, specifically those focused on the historical aspects, in particular Mallory and Irvine. I also appreciate you responding to me and being respectful, it doesn’t go unnoticed or unappreciated as I am a fan of your first and foremost. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
They did mention it. It says so right in Gammalgaards book. While I appreciate the respect you show, you are just "talking past" me. That is, you ignore what I say and just continue to repeat your initial idea. This has become such a part of our modern society, it appears you don't even know you are doing it. I did a different video and discussed the "stunt." No one talked about the stunt because it would ruin Fischer memory and that is all the media would talk about for 50 years. Pittman didn't talk about it. Lobsang didn't talk about it. Gammalgaard did, but it just didn't get wide traction -- because she initially wrote the book in Danish. And no one else wanted to push it. It would be "respectful" to start by displaying that you understand these issue and then address them and explain why Gammalgaard might have made it all up. If she didn't make it up, then you should address what would have happened if Lopsang same down the mountain and said, "We waited for Scott so we could pull a stunt. A lot of people almost died and Scott died just over a silly prank." Well, for one, there would be no best selling book blaming things on "inexperienced" climbers. If you were a western climber, would you want to climb with the sherpa that was going to play the stunt and got someone killed? Krakauer claims that other sherpa didn't like him because he was a "showboat." If that is true, would saying "Oh, we were going to play a big stung on the summit" endear him with his fellow sherpa? Or make him more disliked? ("It was possible, though, that he was simply angry at Lopsang, whom he regarded as a showboat."Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 183)). If you address those issues rather than just repeating your opinion about what happened, then it is a dialog.
HELP MICHAEL!!. I have just started to watch your videos about Mallory and Irvine, learning a lot about the subject that i didn't know before. I have also seen some videos of Thom Pollard but in other videos you say (if i understood correctly) that they hide information from us, drone photos, accounts on the body of Irvine being taken to Lhasa etc, that if i understand correctly are not true. English isnt my mother language so your videos are a huge challenge for me to understand because of the difficult vocabulary so would you (or anyone please) mind to explain to me with the least words posible things like where you think Irvine is, whether the camera is with him in Lhasa, why hasnt he been found yet and other stuff? I will watch all your videos but if you explained those things to me here you would make the process for me much easier...
The main point of my channel is that people should not trust RUclips. Not me. Not Thom. You will need to work through this on your own. You might look at how the information is presented --- does it have sources that you can check? Or is it just a talking head telling you to believe him because he is a super nice guy? You should also explore things on your own and see if that person's version makes sense. This is also a popular enough channel that if you post something in your native language, probably someone here can answer you that speaks the language fluently. My videos are about educating people so that they can answer their own questions. Likely they can answer yours as well. This is an Everest 1996 video, so probably post Mallory and Irvine questions on an appropriate video. In terms of where Irvine is, he is likely visible in the photo show in the Final Resting Place video. ruclips.net/video/I_vx9CbD7rk/видео.html That video was released in 2017. I went to Everest in 2018 but there was too much snow and we couldn't get over to that ledge. Two teams went in 2019 and Mark Synnott searched that ledge. There was very low snow and he has not released a single photo of what is there. But there are plenty of other places he could be.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you Michael. I posted my questions on this video cuz it is the most recent so it was more likely that you replied to me here, you have, so i feel very grateful about it. I just got the Third Pole, hoping to learn more because watching your great videos i dont get all the information because you speak too fast for a non native english speaker hahaha. Talking about the photos that Synott hasn't released...the 100th anniversay of the mistery will be in less than two months. Maybe these people that probably know more than they show are waiting for the 8th of june to release breaking news or something, could this be possible?
I read Into Thin Air (more than once, actually. LOL) I don't doubt anything you are pointing out given your obvious expertise and photo evidence, but I'm wondering what prompted this expose so many years later. It's just curious to me. Did Jon Krakauer do something else recently to irritate the climbing community?
This pains me to say, but I don't think JK was saying he went from the Hillary Step to the summit in 12 minutes. I think what he was saying, using way too many random words and explanations, was that he switched to his second O2 bottle on the Balcony, and in a 7 hour time period he would have to go from the Balcony, to the summit, but to the South Summit to get his 3rd bottle. And he was apparently concerned at some point at or near the summit he would have to get to the South Summit in less than 45 minutes, which I'm guessing is not possible. I could be wrong though...I did read that paragraph like 10 times trying to understand it. Lol
He said he was below the Hillary Step "after 1PM." "But now it was already after 1:00, and I was beginning to have serious doubts."Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 188). And he is on the summit at 1:12PM .."FOURTEEN SUMMIT 1:12 P.M., MAY 10, 1996 • 29,028 FEET" Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 193). I realize you are giving him the "benefit of the doubt." But he routinely modifies times and locations to benefit himself and make Boukreev look worse. Here, is is claiming it took Boukreev too long to scale the Hillary Step which slowed people down. "But it was a slow process, and as he painstakingly ascended toward the crest of the Step, I nervously studied my watch and wondered whether I might run out of oxygen." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 188). Other people report Boukreev climbing it very quickly and given the times of the first groups to reach the summit, it appears the accounts of Boukreev climbing quickly were all correct and the single account of him being slow (Krakauer's) is contradicted by Krakauer's own timeframe.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you for taking away the pain of having to give him the benefit of the doubt. I can't stand what he did and has done, and continues to do, especially the money he has made off of it, and making others who were up there the villain. I appreciate people who tell the truth, despite how unpopular it might be to some, so I definitely appreciate your videos. I found them last night and binge watched a few already about what happened with my notes app open trying to make a timeline to understand everyone's actions a little more. Do you think he has always had it out for Boukreev because he beat him to the top by a few minutes, or because he was on the Mountain Madness team, or just a combo of things? I had to laugh when I saw the quote of his saying how people's stories change over time to make them more favorable to themselves and how it's all about ego and self importance. I mean the definition of self-projection right there. I had to rewind the quote just to make sure I didn't mishear who had said it because I thought someone had said it about him and I missed the name.
The title of "guide" in any wilderness "adventure" implies substantial relevant and local experience as well as skill, resourcefulness, good judgment, and a dedication to the safety of the clients. Compiling some sort of report card on the guides might show they were long on individual climbing experience but short on the other qualities. For just 2 examples,, sensing the gathering storm, and finding camp in the storm might have been better accomplished by guides with more Everest experience.
What do you think of Messner defending Krakauer regarding the the Boukreev controversy? And adding "a great description of reality"? This interview: ruclips.net/video/yaWHdHPwkV0/видео.html
There is little factual difference between what Krakauer says Boukreev did and what Boukreev said he did. First, Krakauer claims to have been asleep the entire time of the storm. Thus, Krakauer never says anything himself about what Boukreev actually did. Krakauer heard it from other people. There are a few minor variances between what Krakauer reports he heard from other people and what Boukreev says he did himself. The main difference is at the Hillary Step. As I will get into, Krakauer changed his version 3 times about what happened. So, if Messner happens to agree with one of the versions, please ask him which one it is. The main difference between Krakauer and Boukreev is the interpretation of what should have been done. Krakauer claims that guides should climb with oxygen and not descent before their clients. Boukreev points out that of the three guides who died, all climbed with oxygen and did not descend before their clients. None of those three rescued anyone. For the other two guides, Mike Groom climbed with oxygen, but gave it up to John Krakauer. After that, perhaps he had some more, but we know he ran out of oxygen and abandoned his clients, Yasuko Namba and Beck Weathers. Not blaming him for this. Had he not, there would be 4 dead guides who used oxygen and did not descend in front of their clients. Thus, I do not see the point in much of what Krakauer is saying. Sure, guides should climb with oxygen and not descend in front of their clients. Great idea. It didn't work. There is also the problem of the realities of the climb. Ok, Boukreev is supposed to climb with oxygen. Where does this oxygen come from? He carries all 3 bottles? (None of the other guides did). That means, you now need an additional Sherpa to carry the bottles for him. That means more sherpas through the ice fall. That means more sherpa deaths. The largest single group of people who die climbing on the South are sherpas carrying through the ice fall. And Krakauer's "solution" is to have more sherpas carrying more oxygen. Yes, that might reduce western deaths. Overall deaths? In any case, all the guides do climb with oxygen and the number of sherpa deaths in the icefall have skyrocketed since 1996. So, it is not a theory. You want all the oxygen, great. It means sherpas will die. Now, do you really want all the oxygen?
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks for your reply Michael. My first thought was that overcrowding and making the summit a tourist destination for amateurs was, and still is, very unpopular. Even more so amoung accomplished climbers, resulting in widespread support for Krakuar. I would have to listen to more from Messner and others but I can just imagine that Fischer's yellow brick road, and that kind of stuff really set them off.
I would love to follow a youtube video with step by step trail on Google earth or whatyamacallit, through the timelines up and down the whole disaster on summit day and the day after in 1996. You seem to be the one who could do it! I ”return” to these 96’ expeditions every year, I don’t know why. I am not a climber.
Another question to this photo: My understanding was that Hall during his descent encountered Hansen and accompanied him on the last stretch to the summit. Why is he not to be seen on that picture?
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks. So that means that Hansen and Hall really just met right below the summit, right? Because if Hansen is 40 minutes away from the summit on this photo and if he and Hall met 20-30 minutes later (as you stated) that can only mean that they encountered each other just a couple of meters away from the summit. At that point would it really have made a difference whether they turned around immediately? And is it likely from psychological point of view that somebody who is literally just a few steps away from the summit already far above the Hillary step, that such a person would turn around? I am just asking all that, because until now my understanind was that Hall and Hansen lost hours because of summiting together, but now knowing that there encounter was so close to the summit, it seems I have to change my perception. Probably Hansen was basically doomed already when this photo was taken, right? Hall maybe could have made it, if he had left him behind and not summited again.
It looks like Hall descended just a little bit to assist Hansen as in this photo, he is about 1/4 the way there. Hansen would not be visible from the summit at this point, so probably Hall went down after Hansen. was visible -- which is just a short way before the summit. Tough to say when the impossibility of returning occurred. So much depends on the oxygen situation and Andy Harris. There was plenty of oxygen, but Harris was having problems. Had Harris been able to think clearly and operate, he could have used an extra bottle himself, turn it to 4 lpm and climb back up taking 2 bottles for Hall and Hansen. Would that be enough? Possibly. Or it could have beeb a waste. Without extra oxygen being brought up by Harris, Hansen not little to no possibility of returning at this point. Hall could drag him down the summit ridge, but very tough to lower someone down Hillary Step if they can't move.
Climbers and the truth don't seem to mix too well. Not the first time that eyewitness reports from various persons don't match up at all. Which leaves me to the conclusion that there is a certain common psychological component to people who aspire the to get to the peak of the mountain, and preferrably be the first ones to do so.
I’m glad you’re covering this. I’ve read Lene, Michael, Anatoli, Scott Fischer’s, Ed Visteurs’ accounts. I say Scott but it was pieced together from his Mountain Madness biog. I want to know your theory on this stunt. Are we sure it isn’t just Lene’s turn of phrase?
She references it twice and stated that Lopsang said something was planned but he wouldn't say what it was. It is unlikely this was some group photo. She later calls it a "boyish prank" while English is not her first language and it is possible she meant something else, but there is also the issue that Krakauer never mentioned it -- nor did anyone else. Krakauer went out of his way to respond to just about every little thing from his critics -- frequently just inventing stuff. And not once is the numerous emails, talks, postscripts or anything else does he mention it. That is, why didn't he say. "Gammelgaard said a stunt was planned, but this was just her broken English and no such stunt was planned."? Because as soon as there is a "stunt" Krakauer's analysis goes out the window. Things were not caused by Pittman. They were not caused by Boukreev. The whole story of these "complex problems" disappear. As other commenters have noted, Gammelgaard's account explains everything that happened with the MM team remaining on the summit for so long. It explains why Lopsang said there. It explains why Fischer had to reach the summit. It explains the whole thing. Gammelgaard's books is not riddled with errors and inconsistencies such as Krakauer's. Scott's account is by far the most accurate. It is not written anywhere. It is in his photos. Using his photos, Scott is speaking from beyond the grave and telling us the Jon Krakauer is full of yak dung. Gammelgaard's account matches up with Fischer's photos. Krakauer's does not come anywhere close.
I’m going to read To the Summit and Safe Return next, in the hope of finding out more. Thanks for giving your reasonings. I agree on Krakauer’s account. It’s trying to do something and that something is at the expense of just the play by play to the best of his recollection.
Legitimate question, is the focus on the 1996 disaster and especially your assessment of Krakauer, because you suspect lying, perhaps even foul play on Krakauer’s part? As it seems he is trying at the very least to hide something. Is he thought to be responsible for other climbers death in 1996?
I've never read his books, but he's always rubbed me wrong in the documentaries I've seen him in. Confirmation bias or not, I feel vindicated by this video.
If human beings did not seek the thrill of certain actives -- sexual intercourse for instance, then human beings would not exist any more. Pretty simple to understand why people might seek such thrills -- even when it frequently ends up in disaster, unintended consequences, and even death.
Where does it say that the Mountain Madness team received 4 bottles of oxygen for the summit bid? From Charlotte Fox's article "At the Balcony we had our first change of oxygen (each of us carried a second bottle)" ..... "It turns out I had plenty of time to contemplate our next move. We waited again while more people arrived at our small sheltered nook under the South Summit. All were due for a last bottle of oxygen at this point (which we would use to summit and descend to the South Col) to be delivered by Sherpa staff." Am I reading that incorrectly? That sounds like they only had 3 bottles of oxygen each. The two they carried and the one the sherpa staff delivered to the south summit.
I discuss it in the Yellow Brick Road video. It is in Gammelgaard's account. Boukreev provides a detailed inventory in The Climb. The actual analysis is a little more complicated, and I'll get into the details about how they received 4 bottles, but why some of them thought they received 3 bottles. And why, Fox probably did indeed receive only three bottles -- it has to do with 2 of the bottles going missing. So, if 2 bottles go missing, that means 2 people will receive only 3 bottles.
I will have to watch that video. I read the Climb, just don't remember it talking about 4 bottles each. Do you think Charlotte Fox's description in that article makes it sound like they only had 3 bottles each?
What a crock. Krakauer was there and he questioned everybody who was there. His is the most comprehensive account. Everybody who had something to say was included. He gave full disclosure.
No, he didn't. As I go over in these videos, he left out any account that didn't agree with his and fooled people like you into believing he provided "full disclosure." “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Here's an interview with Neal Beidleman that contains answers to some of the questions, such as why he spent so much time on the summit: ruclips.net/video/jL9UHk1zTeY/видео.html
The problem with "history by quotation" is that it assumes that people always tell the accurate version of what happened. Beidleman has told several different versions of what happened. So, I'll give you a homework assignment. Beidleman said a very different version in that interview about why he took the long way around to get back to South Col. First, what. is the reason he states in that interview? What is the reason Krakauer said Beidleman told him back in 1996? Which version is the "answer"?
@@tdurb0 He wants people to think, if they are really curious about the topics presented on this channel. That is a main purpose of this whole channel.
As I state in the video, I am still not done setting you straight. So, the next couple videos will continue to straighten you on the 1996 Everest Disaster. Then I have some more Mallory and Irvine content. You are no doubt such a smart person, link the videos you made here so we can all benefit from your profound wisdom.
If I can chuck my two penn'oth worth into this...Graham Ratcliffe in his book - A Day to Die For, suggests that one of the main teams, I forget which, were getting 'accurate' local weather predictions, via satellite, from the Netherlands (?), novel at the time, and not sharing this info with other teams...sorry to be vague, but it goes with the 'territory'.
When I climbed in 2013, you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement for your weather forecast. It would not make any sense for a weather forecasting service to allow one person to pay for an extremely expensive forecast and then give it to anyone else. However, the issue with the alleged forecast is overrated. The Japanese team on the North managed to summit on the day Rob Hall was stuck on South Summit and dying. So, the storm is one factor -- and a major one, but even if the teams were provided with any allegedly "accurate" forecast, I doubt it would have made much difference.
@michaeltracy2356 thanks for that, my unqualified opinion is that they placed a lot of faith on that forecast to achieve their aims, 2 large guided teams, rivals until they decided to 'join' forces, lack of a clear plan understood by all, pressure drop, personal fitness, personal self reliance....a compounding of errors.... I'm no mountaineer, and I'm not interested in the blame game. If I was, I would say poor leadership. Many thanks for your reply. NE England.
When you say “what’s left of the Hillary steps” what is that referring to? Erosion? Thanks loving this story, your deeply researched videos & pithy clapbacks in the comments lol
No one forces you to watch them. And if you have to point it out to other viewers, then perhaps it is not as obvious a "personal vendetta" as you think. Not sure why you bothered posting this.
It’s amazing how jealousy can drive you crazy to a point in which you have to attack a story that took place 28 years ago in an attempt to feel, superior. You weren’t there, just deal with it already.
Amazing that jealousy has driven you to criticize a video which you claim is completely irrelevant. Everyone knows this is 28 years old. You don't need to be a "Cather in the Rye" protecting innocent children from videos talking about events that took place in the past. But, since you do, there are a whole bunch of World War 2 and Civil War videos on RUclips. None of the creators were there. So, you have your work cut out for you.
What would this have to do with “jealousy”? It’s about the truth, and respect for those who lost their life and aren’t here to tell their story. They deserve for the real story to be understood, especially given it’s an event where, despite it being 30 years on, people are still profiting from telling “their version” of the story. Heck, there was a multimillion dollar movie about it just a few years ago
just found this and its fascinating to hear your analysis . To hide my identity so this does not become a thing of personalities I can make real comments. I knew many of the guides on this expedition and I have slept on the south col of Everest without oxygen. The speeds of accent that you speak of is related to the volume of oxygen they are breathing. When I was there we did not use oxygen although myself tried and had systems freeze. We could easily climb 400 feet per hour without oxygen at least up to 27,500 feet. Krakaur went to Everest to write for Outside magazine on the moral question of Everett guide expeditions. when there it seems his attitude changed to legitimise guide expeditions USING OXYGEN. I agree with memory loss over the years but have to think Krakauer massaged his narrative to suit his own ends.
I’m not sure why it matters so much WHO is telling the most accurate remembrance. The entire thing took place at altitudes that human beings are not meant to function well at. Maybe NOONE is lying, but telling the story in the way that they remember it. Oxygen deprivation can do a job on human memory and people’s ability to make good judgment calls. It was no ones fault. Krakauers retelling may be to the best of ability to remember accurately
Krakauer was not telling the story the way he remembered it. That you even think so is a good indication you have never read his book. Krakauer, as you can probably figure out on your own, is only one person. His book covers multiple groups on both sides of the mountain. And yet, you somehow think Krakauer is telling the version he "remembers" about climbers he never met on a side of the mountain he never saw. Even on the side he was on he is reporting events that others experienced. For the majority of the storm, Krakauer states he was passed out in his tent. If he did write an account of the way he remembered it, it would be a very very very short book. Obviously, he didn't do that. Instead, he gathers informations from different sources, makes judgement decisions about who is telling the truth, and then packages that for his reader. It is not clear how you missed that he was doing his -- considering he comes right out and says that is exactly what he is doing. Given is judgements and decisions about other people, you can look at the exact same underlying facts that Krakauer had and think for yourself about what might have happened. Ultimately, your comment says more about you than about these videos, Jon Krakauer, or climbing. A weak ideology in which "everyone is right" even when the people you are "defending" say the exact opposite of what you wish they were saying. This type of "religious" thinking is annoying -- just as listening to religious preachers go on about what they claim is the "true" interpretation of what some book says. So, please, take your religion somewhere else. Comments that are imaginary inventions of reality are not welcome here.
@@michaeltracy2356 actually I DID read his book back in 2013. Not sure why u have such a hate campaign raging against the guy, but hey, that just says a lot about YOU. Peace ✌️
Why would you read a book about an actual event if it didn't matter if the author was telling the truth of not? Anyway, I can see you can't be challenged about things and are just repeating platitudes some "social influencers" have programmed you to repeat. Good luck with that, but you are not welcome in this channel.
You don't care about the actual facts that lead to people dying? Imagine you were those people's kin and some guy publically makes up stuff about your loved ones to suit his agenda and make money off it. He could've said "inspired by real events" and it would've been fine/ethical if formulaic as a piece of storytelling. If he was too impaired to remember he could've interviewed the survivors. That's what journos do.
@@michaeltracy2356In reply to a cogent question composed without umbrage you choose to attack the writer personally. You seem to have fallen into the same crevasse of moral turpitude you claim Krakauer resides.
The truth is allways beckoning. I think it's important to understand no individuals account is ever perfect. And that's history. Be open to reinterpretation by others. The Everest debacle is an adventure event. Not really ground breaking history. Even this guy needs corroborating. For me it's a waste of time all this analysis. But anyway I'm listening.
If it is a waste of time, why are you listening? No one said an account needs to be perfect. But there is a difference between faulty memory and outright fabrications. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference, but issue comes up over and over again. If you follow the Royal Post scandal, you will see the exact same thing --- "faulty memories." Most people can see through that nonsense, but there will always be people like you willing to believe whatever they are told. Ignorance is bliss.
Ever hear of a camera? Krakauer can look at the photo just as well as you -- in fact, he did and he put it in his book with the commentary about it. Krakauer doesn't have any problem looking at photos and using those to state what happened when it fits his narrative. And when it doesn't people who have been taken in by him argue it is "faulty memory." “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
person in the foreground is in absolutely unnatural position- it does look as if it is running uphill… even with its right arm straightened it would be impossible to support itself just by ice pick standing upright like that. one more thing- I could be wrong, but: if they were climbing from nepali side the shadows are all wrong?! all considering the whole “photograph” does look tempered with to say the least…?
Once again this guy plays Mt. Everest super detective ---- and for what??? *WHAT IS THE FRIGGIN PURPOSE OF THESE VIDEOS?* So his timeline is off.......*WHO CARES??* Again, these vids are filled with innuendo, etc......without ever making a friggin' point. Annoying.
I find their purpose quite obvious and each of them has a very significant, pretty clear cut point. Even if you just watched them for a little lesson on critical thinking and logic, without any interest for the facts of the topic at hand, they would be interesting. So I don't get your point.
@@Clanner666 The point I'm making is - there is no point to these videos. Example: > Is Jon Krakauer going to be arrested for getting his timelines wrong? Did anyone die because of Jon Krakauer's messed up timelines? Is Jon's messed up timelines covering up a crime? ---- Of course not, so *WHO FRIGGIN CARES?* - What is the point of these videos other than mud slinging and baseless innuendo that never leads to anything. So Krakauer is a liar. Who cares?
@@Mike_Baldwin On a broader interpretation. To deconstruct a narrative, that is out there, blaming people for stuff they are not to be blamed for. To deconstruct the narrative, the facts and their connections have to be shown and Michael has an odd talent to be extraordinarily pedantic and precise about them. That would probably not be necessary, if people wouldn't make money by pushing a story, that never happened like they keep portraying it, dragging other people's name through the mud. As long as people keep reading those books and articles, they are relevant. So why would a rebuttal of those books and narratives be irrelevant? Calling it "mud-slinging" to point out the facts is kinda of odd and calling a pretty straight forward attack on a topic "innuendo", makes me wonder what you are even trying to say. Do you want to say the truth doesn't matter or you question his conclusions or methods and find the accusations about a false narrative to be baseless? On a very meta level: The truth matters. Facts matter. Proper logic and critical thinking matters. And the truth does not only matter if it directly leads to somebody getting arrested or harm being prevented orwhatever your condition for "having a point" is. And as far as I can see, Michael is trying to build a community, where people push each other to develop those skills/values. Some videos are functional to do that, some are about the topics at hand, some are both.
Exactly.. I couldn't agree more. I was the guy who dropped Scott off at the airport for this expedition having been helping him with his business for not quite a year before. Everything I've seen and read concerning "into thin air" I keep thinking Krakauer is portraying himself above that of Scott's abilities and decency. Which knowing Scott I always find as quite the stretch. As far as this so-called stunt I would like to ask Lene directly. Frankly I don't feel any woman should climb that mountain unless it's a all woman team.. plenty of examples of them not doing well. Sure there are exceptions but certainly not the rule. Further if I was on a group climb I would want the strongest climbing men as part of the team.
@@1unsung971 Sorry I don't subscribe to your gynocentric views. Look into Lenin Peak and Annapurna . And of course there are men like my friend Scott because extreme mountain climbing has always been dominated by men. So of course there are plenty of dead/frozen men on these 8km + peaks. Endurance.. haha in made up BS games not in real existence like physical labor.. your welcome to show up and work 60+ hours a week with me painting.. same thing I was doing in the 90's and why I was able to help out Mountain Madness with collecting supplies while I was self-employed. Further in 40 years of physical labor I've seen less than my 10 digits of women actually doing everyday real labor work. So it's quite obvious to me that men build this existence and always will.
I'm confused. If women don't do well, how would having an all women team work? Wouldn't that be a bad idea? Three of the four women involved in this drama climbed well. Two of them needed rescue, but men did as well.
@@Tenebarum Yes it is a bad idea but if women that think they can do anything a man can do want to let them. Further if you were climbing a mountain would't you want someone stronger than you to be your climbing partner??
@@jjzap2935 This had nothing to do with a climbing partner. It was a paid group. Contrary to all the stuff out there, the groups had competent climbers. Most of them made good decisions.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Hi Michael, enjoying this series (as I do with all your videos). It's great to hear someone do a lot of research into this topic that goes against the received wisdom that is so readily accepted in fields with a "mythos" (for want of a better term) like high altitude climbing.
I have a question though, about something that has bothered me about this series. Why is your interpretation of 'Into Thin Air' something the author claims to be a truthful account, and that he largely attributes the tragedy to the presence of inexperienced climbers? My feeling was always that Krakauer did not intend this to be a factual account, and that he places plenty of blame on the lead guides not following their own rules (turn around times, etc), and even considers himself as responsible in the death of Andy Harris. I agree there is a narrative being spun by Krakauer, but I don't think that's to the detriment of the book. I am interested in hearing how you came to your interpretation of the book
Cheers
This is a good question, but I will need to break it down to put it in the comments. Let me start with whether Krakauer intended it to be a factual account.... "My intent in the magazine piece, and to an even greater degree in this book, was to tell what happened on the mountain as accurately and honestly as possible, and to do it in a sensitive, respectful manner." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 303).
I do not feel his account is accurate nor sensitive nor respectful. He refers to Sandy Pittman as "a millionaire socialite-cum-climber." (p. 119) Hey, I get it. Very funny, yes. Respectful? No. Does he introduce other people as, for example, "physician-cum-climber." No. The only people he uses that little verbal banter with are women. I do not consider that respectful. So, right off the bat I had the impression that this was a boyish book.
I have detailed some of the inaccurate items in his book and future videos will detail more. It is the pattern in them that brings me to the conclusion that he blames it on inexperienced climbers.
I am going to break the comments up...
In terms of him blaming inexperienced climbers, Outside Magazine was nice enough to tell us that his assignment ws to go to Everest and write a piece about how inexperienced climbers were a disaster waiting to happen on Everest. (www.outsideonline.com/adventure-travel/destinations/asia/everest-year-later-false-summit/)
" What might it augur on a peak already swarming with too many climbers too inexperienced to save themselves-let alone others-if caught by one of the Himalayas’ frequent storms? It seemed a foregone conclusion that reality would soon strike home with a vengeance. The only question was when. By the time we asked contributing editor and lifelong climber Jon Krakauer to examine firsthand the circumstances that might lead to a disaster, things had only gotten worse. Swelling ranks of amateur climbers were paying ever fatter sums to be escorted up the peak, and some outfitters seemed to be all but guaranteeing the summit."
Ok, so that is why Outside Magazine paid him to go there and obviously they didn't know the disaster would strike, but all his background that he was gathering would likely support the narrative that Outside Magazine instructed him to tell. And when the disaster did strike, he did not take a fresh look at things.
Although he does blame himself for the death of Andy Harris, he does not explain why that is. I will get into in a future video. I do not blame him for not delving too far into it, so on that point I will give him a pass. If that was the only issue or there were not a large number of other issues, I would not be making these videos.
But, just because Outside Magazine sent him to write a piece that inexperienced climbers were going to cause a disaster, that does not mean there is support for that in his book. Is there anything in the book that supports this?
Next comment....
Yes. First, the blames the "inexperienced" Montenegrins for screwing up the rope fixing... "The Montenegrins, who’d got even higher, had installed some fixed line, but in their inexperience they’d used all they had in the first 1,400 feet above the South Col, wasting it on relatively gentle slopes where it wasn’t really needed." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 182).
The only problem with that is it is absolutely not true. They did not fix the first 1400 feet above S Col and if they had, it would have been the most useful rope ever put on the mountain that day. Worthless when there is no storm, but a lifesaver during a storm. They did fix the ropes higher up. In fact, they climbed to the base of the Hillary Step. I will cover this in an upcoming video because it is such a big deal. Krakauer just says a bunch on inexperienced screw ups fixed the rope all wrong. When Krakauer's climb is delayed, he blames the lack of fixed ropes and, of course, Sandy Pittman. ("And now Lopsang had just towed Pittman on a short-rope for five or six hours above the South Col, substantially compounding his fatigue and preventing him from assuming his customary role in the lead, establishing the route." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 177). and see page 182).
So, I hope you can see the problem. If the "inexperienced " Montenegrins could get to the base of Hillary Step with just the ropes they fixed on May 9, why couldn't Krakauer get there on May 10? No ropes needed to be fixed on May 10 below the Hillary Step.
But Krakauer solves that by saying the ropes needed to be fixed up the Hillary Step and that caused him all the delay. That is why he fudged the 1PM time in this video. As soon as you take his actual time he was at the foot of Hillary Step, you see there was no delay beyond a couple minutes. He left South Col at 12PM and was on summit at 1:12PM. That is a great climb time. But shows there were no delays. That doesn't work, so he inserted the delay. Fortnately, there is a photo take at about 1PM and it shows the base of the Hillary Step. Krakauer is nowhere to be found -- and he says as much in his Illustrated Edition. Here is what his own book says, "...looking up from South Summit at 1:00PM [at the Hillary Step]. Three Climbers -- Deal Beidleman, Martin Adams, and Klev Schoening -- are visible above the Hillary Step, en route to the summit. Anatoli Boukreev, Jon Krakauer, and Andy Harris are out of sight above, just below the top." (p.241) And yet, in the very same book, he is at the base of the Hillary Step at 1PM.
And the reason for the delay, according to Krakauer was the inexperienced climbers tiring the Sherpa out. Not only is it not true -- there was no delay. No ropes were ever fixed between South Summit and base of Hillary Step. They just used last years. He just makes the whole thing up to blame other people for his own mistakes.
The reason why they all waited at South Summit was not the lack of fixed ropes. It was that the porter sherpas had not brought the oxygen up yet. Smart climbers would wait to get a fresh bottle before going to the summit. Krakauer was trying to be the first one to reach the top for the entire season, so he goes at first chance and his bottle is there yet. So, he runs out of oxygen. Does he blame himself for making a rookie mistake because his ego wanted to be the first to summit? Nope. It was caused by the delay coming down the Hillary Step -- also which he completely describes incorrectly. Fortunately, there is a photo (same one above) that will allow us to determine what really happened at the Hillary Step.
Next comment...
But there are also Krakauer's words..
Later-after six bodies had been located, after a search for two others had been abandoned, after surgeons had amputated the gangrenous right hand of my teammate Beck Weathers-people would ask why, if the weather had begun to deteriorate, had climbers on the upper mountain not heeded the signs? Why did veteran Himalayan guides keep moving upward, ushering a gaggle of relatively inexperienced amateurs-each of whom had paid as much as $65,000 to be taken safely up Everest-into an apparent death trap? (Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 8). )
Why not say "Why did a Himalayan guide convince an experienced climber who had already turned around and was heading down the mountain to re-turn back around again and head up the mountain when everything about the situation told that experienced climber his climb was over? Had that guide not convinced his client to stop his descent and just let him return to the safety of camp, this entire disaster would have been avoided." Well, that would have been the truth. Doug Hansen turned around. Doug Hansen was headed down the mountain. Krakauer white-washed the incident. This is how Krakauer reports it...
Not long after that, Doug stepped aside as well, “He was a little ahead of me at the time,” recalls Lou. “All of a sudden he stepped out of line and just stood there. When I moved up beside him, he told me he was cold and feeling bad and was heading down.” Then Rob, who was bringing up the rear, caught up to Doug, and a brief conversation ensued. Nobody overheard the dialogue, so there is no way of knowing what was said, but the upshot was that Doug got back in line and continued his ascent.K rakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (pp. 173-174).
And this is Lou's account ....
"Now on summit day, Doug decided, based on his own judgment, that the best thing for him was to turn around. Again, this was the individual decision making Rob expected from each of us. Doug was the best judge about his own readiness. As Doug moved below me, the rest of us continued to climb."
Kasischke, Lou. After The Wind (p. 146).
I do not find Krakauer's account accurate. There is a big difference between standing there and waiting and turning around and heading down. Kasischke's account is clear that Doug turned around and was headed down. And again, we have Krakuer's version of what Kasischke said as opposed to what Kasischke wrote in his book.
Now, is there any mystery why Doug Hansen died? And thus Rob Hall? And thus Andy Harris? Obvious when it is highlighted, but where is it in any of his analysis? Was this caused by Boukreev not using oxygen? Sandy having a coffee pot? What does this have to do with the "gaggle of relatively inexperienced climbers?"
Thus, based on Krakuer repeated reference to "inexperienced" climbers causing problems while ignoring that Doug Hansen -- an experienced climber with prior Everest experience -- turned around and was then convinced to push on to the summit by Rob Hall means it was not close to a fair or reasonable assessment.
I would ask readers to comment if you even knew Doug Hansen had made his own decision to turn around only to be convinced to press on my Rob Hall.
@@michaeltracy2356I am finding on my recent video where I mention Doug turning around, that most people had no clue he did that. Or was pretty sick in the lead up to the summit attempt, according to both Lou and Beck.
Love your detailed analysis. I didn’t notice that small point of Krakuer mentioning Doug just stepping out of line while completely leaving out him turning around and walking by Lou!
You might find it interesting that Krakauer's account was/is taught in English class for year 10 students in Australia. Quite ironic as it was used to explore themes of perspective (with the focus on Krakauer being correct and everyone else not). And of course too the themes of "Man v Nature" (the pollution of Everest and too many climbers notions).
I only learnt that most people with anything to do with Everest thought it was a load of nonsense in year 12 from a substitute teacher we had for history, one Judy Tenzing. I remember her being especially aggrieved by what he wrote of Boukreev, so it's great to learn about the inaccuracies regarding Sandy Pittman and everything else too.
It's good you're covering this for us laymen, and if your videos get swarmed by Australian high school students, you'll know why! haha
Anyways keep up the great videos mate, can't wait for the following parts.
It also looks like from the photos that Krakauer trashed the mountain by leaving an oxygen bottle. There are a number of issues around his rescue and what happened with the bottle he received to rescue him. The photos show no oxygen bottle at the rescue location prior to Krakauer's rescue and then a bottle is there afterwards. It appears, in his desperation to save his life, he just left the empty bottle there -- thus explaining the mystery of why so many bottles remain on Everest. Even well intentioned people leave their trash when it is a choice between their own life and keeping the Mountain clean.
@@michaeltracy2356 How did things get to the point that so many people were in desperate, life threatening trouble even before the storm hit?
@@troopieeeeee Piss poor planning.
@@troopieeeeee Yeah, pretty much what oliverreno up there said. Look at Jon Krakauer and how he got into desperate, life threatening trouble long before the storm hit. He failed to plan his oxygen use, and did not understand the basics of oxygen equipment use at high altitude. I'll detail his numerous "rookie mistakes" in an upcoming video, but the largest mistake Krakauer made was thinking his high degree of skill in technical climbing would compensate for a lack of understanding of oxygen equipment. You don't need really any mountaineering skill to climb the mountain. You do need to know how to operate your oxygen equipment and plan your climb so that you don't break down like Krakauer and need a guide to rescue you. Other people made other mistakes, but largely the same thing -- just poor planning.
Doug Hansen was smart and turned around. But Rob Hall had a chat with him and convinced him to climb back up the distance he had given up and keep going to the summit. So, listening to a motivational guide can also be deadly -- for both the client and the guide. Had Hall just let Hansen stick to his original well thought out decision to continue down the mountain, things would be very different. Hansen planned well and knew he was too far behind extremely early and did the right thing -- turned around. Rob Hall changed his mind. The exact content of that conversation remains a mystery.
Beck Weathers was suicidal before going to Everest -- turned all this guns into the police, etc. Family thought he was just going to finish it. In the middle of the storm, we have the following...
"when all of a sudden Beck mumbles, ‘Hey, I’ve got this all figured out.’ Then he kind of rolls a little distance away, crouches on a big rock, and stands up facing the wind with his arms stretched out to either side. A second later a gust comes up and just blows him over backward into the night, beyond the beam of my headlamp. And that was the last I saw of him."
Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 226). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
So, I suspect that Beck Weather's situation is a little different from other peoples. Obviously, he changed his mind about things sometime after he figured it all out. Exactly what he figured out also remains a mystery.
@@troopieeeeeeI don’t think most were in trouble before the storm hit. They were too late on the mountain but if not for the storm i think all may have survived with the exception of Fischer.
Or put another way. I wonder how many client guided expeditions end to too late on the mountain but get away with it because the weather stays manageable.
Climbing mountains is inherently risky to begin with then you add in guiding 5 or so amateurs
Well done. I have also written about problems with Krakauer's narrative in False Summit. Other published versions of what happened, such as Lene Gammelgaard's and Lou Kaschiske's, also shed light on problems with what Krakauer says.
To me the narrative I saw in the book wasn't "inexperienced climbers bad" but that the system of paying customers added pressure to make poor choices by the guides in order for the company to maintain business.
Really enjoying your videos.
It's difficult to consider that any first-person accounts would be reliable, considering the known dilution of memory accuracy over time, combined with the oxygen-starved conditions in which the memory was first laid down.
It is more a question of why Krakauer chose to ignore the photographs and instead rely on those problematic accounts. One tells the story he wants and one tells the story he does not want.
@@michaeltracy2356he knows how to sell books and has sold millions of them.
He might respond and say he retold first hand accounts as he was told them and wasn’t trying to do a detailed factual expedition account as such as it likely wouldn’t have sold near as many copies,
I think the problem is pictures also can be misinterpreted and the times they were taken because again you are depending on people’s recollection of traumatic events under not only the regular stress of what was happening but brain function above 8000m. I love your attention to detail but unfortunately we don’t know whose accounts are correct and never will. It became a big game of he said, she said and as we know with human nature, personal interest tends to warp ones memories (as you are very correctly doing with Krakauers timeline).
I agree with your basic premise that there is a complicated set of factors that contributed to the deaths but you have to also agree the commercialization of Everest from a climbing exercise to an adventure tourism opportunity is resulting in the mountain being more dangerous than it likely should be.
@@RetroHondo67 it does feel like yet another version from someone who was not there as much as I respect the detail and effort Michael has gone to. As Michael always says, you get a narrative repeated enough times it becomes assumed to be fact, even if it started as speculation or exaggeration or outright made up.
@@davidgeisler9885 Yeah in the end we will never really know the truth, I will say Michael is the best at trying to unravel all the narratives but it is a mystery, wrapped up in enigma. Look Krakauer is no innocent and he gets way too much praise simply because he is an excellent writer, but I think you need to look at this from all perspectives and try and not judge any of them, from him to Sandy, to the guides, to Scott and Rob. In the end it is a compelling human story, a tragedy mostly because Mother Nature can be incredibly cruel and punish the unprepared. The challenge with Everest now is you have to risk that someone else’s incompetence and selfish behaviour can end your life. Hard know where the balance needs to be where the mountain is respected but also open to those who deserve to try and challenge it.
"Are you gonna believe ME, or your lying eyes?"
- Krakauer, in response to the photographs that contradict his version of events
I’m not a climber but I LOVE everything from this channel.
I attended an event where Beck Weathers talked about the tragedy. He has no malfeasance against Krakauer except to say he was not an asset to the climbing teams that day. Beyond that he also said take his books/ account of details as you like because everyone was suffering physically and emotionally before, during and after this happened. One last thing, he said he would never risk his life for glory or ego ever again. Very interesting hearing him speak and I’ll never forget it.
HIs book was all about how he was suicidal. Did he talk about dealing with that and answer the big question--- whether his entire trip to Everest was an attempted suicide?
@@michaeltracy2356
Yes he did
So, what was his answer?
@@michaeltracy2356
He said he realized on the mountain that he had friends and loved ones at home that loved him. He said he felt he was so selfish to risk his life by doing something in which the odds are against you in such a way as the possibility of death on Mt. Everest. That’s what he meant when he said he would never do anything because of his selfish ego or pride.
Wow, that is pretty messed up. Groom assisted him rather than Yasuko, he lives, she dies. And he was just there to do what he couldn't do on his own. Very sad. Glad he made it, but too bad he didn't think about the others and someone else who didn't go there to kill themselves had to die in his place.
Also, did he given any reason he didn't specifically thank Mike Groom for saving his life? Groom lost a couple toes assisting Weathers, and in his book he just says the guides were doing their jobs --- thanks others for saving him, but not Groom. Did he given any reason for this?
For other investigations I wanted to write a software tool to allow a group of online sleuths to built precise timelines of where people were, along with any supporting documents, in part to allows the detection of incoherent narratives.
How is it coming along?
@@zadieb5273 still at the design phase. I want to be absolutely sure it is useful to web sleuths, journalists, etc. People who have to run investigations in a decentralized way.
I read the book years ago when it first came out and haven't paid much attention to the incident since, but the feeling I came away with THEN after reading Krakauer was that the guide companies' pushiness to up the exploitation was the problem, not the inexperienced climbers. That was the impression the book gave me, reading just that and knowing nothing else about it.
I read Krakauer book but good lord I didn't pay for it. I have been fascinated by the 96 disaster. Personally, I see climbing Everest as an empty pursuit. The mountain is littered with bodies and trash. It's an insult to nature and makes us humans look really bad. The commercialization of a magnificent part of Earth is responsible. Everest brings out the worst in us. I wish people would leave it alone and stop climbing it.
You read my mind…
This is like asking humans not to be humans…… get over yourself….
100% agreed
Makes us look bad to who exactly?
‘Nature’ has and will be just fine with or without us. Go outside and play.
Ya I am not a Fan of John Krakauar. He singled out and lied about Sandy Pittman from the start. First saying that she brought a cappuccino maker with her not to mention painting her as an amateur climber which she was not at that time she had already climbed 6 of the 7 highest Mountains which left only Mt. Everest to complete that coveted title. The reason John Krakauer did this was to hide his own inabilitys and incidents of failure during the Expedition.
He was very clear in his assessment that the 7 peaks was more of a pr stunt and did not require pro climbing ability.
If the 2 guides (Hall and Fischer) stuck to the 2pm turnaround rule no one would of died and we wouldn't even be talking about that day. The delay in the fixed ropes from the Hillary step to the summit, Antonoli not using o2 when he was supposed to be guiding others, Hall pushing Doug to make the summit, Sandy being short roped to the summit, none of that would of mattered if they all would of turned around at 2pm.
I've read both The Climb and Into Thin Air numerous times and they are both good takes buy 2 people that were there with different perspectives.
Antoloni saved the lives of 4 or 5 climbers that day, he was the real hero as selfish as he may have been climbing without O2.
The guides failed their clients that day.
RIP peace to all that died that day ✌️
Even with the "2 pm" turn around time, Krakauer is manipulating it. 3 other people on Adventure Consultants turned around because they insisted it was a "1 pm" turn around time. However, even the "1 pm" is manipulated by Krakauer. What was told to the team was that they would leave at 11PM and have 12 hours of oxygen to each the summit and 6 hours of oxygen for the return. Thus, the time to summit safely was 11AM the next day. For delays and fudge factors, two hours were build in with the absolutely turn around time being 1 PM. However, simply changing the time did not solve the problem of oxygen. Thus, the 2 hours "fudge factor" was to cover things like you waiting and you turned your oxygen down, so your oxygen would last longer. Or your regulator was just giving you slightly less than 2LPM, so your bottles were lasting longer.
Krakauer takes this and turns it into this idea that they would climb until 2PM and then turn around. That was never the plan. At South Summit, if you didn't have time to make the summit, you would turn around. That is why 3 people from AC turned around at South Summit well prior to 12PM. Krakauer ignored all this, climbed up, ran out of oxygen, needed to be rescued by a passing guide, and was able to stumble into camp and fall asleep while Boukreev was out in the storm dragging people back to the tents.
@@michaeltracy2356
Wether it was 1 or 2pm turnaround time if all involved were to honor that I feel the tragedy would of been avoided. Krakauer was obviously delusional because of his own issues with his decent and being a writer certainly attributed to his inaccuracies of what was happening around him, most journalists wouldn't make themselves look bad. I've always wondered what would of happened if that storm didn't come, I'm sure there would of still been casualties but maybe only 2 or 3. Too many who weren't there try to put the blame on one thing but for me the turnaround rule was key. Unfortunately Krakauer puts a lot of the blame on Anotoli and that is unfair.
The guides failed their clients and their greed for success cost them dearly. 🍻
How did Boukreev not using oxygen impact the outcome? He fixed ropes, summited, came back down and rescued three members of his team. No one could rescue Scott.
@kc72186 learn proper english.
"Fischer was also not carrying a VPK" ... that's a level of sarcasm I can appreciate.
Please explain the ref for the rest of us ha
the vpk was the type of camera that mallory/irvine were supposed to have.
I'd believe Anatoli Boukreev version before I'd believe Krakauer any day of the week. Boukreev actually put his own life on the line to save others, Krakauer only saved himself.
I’m not a climber, but these videos are just great. Mr. Tracey, you’re a great story teller who does the now rare thing of privileging actual facts and unanswered questions, rather than coming up with the overall narrative first, and then cherry picking whatever bits that fit.
I’m enjoying your takedown of Krakauer. When I read Into Thin Air I found it quite enthralling which led me to read more of his works. Unfortunately the more of his works I read, the more I saw him as a petty soulless man.
That’s interesting to know. I also loved the book and I believed it until I heard he published the conversations between Rob Hall and his wife against her consent. Made me go ‘hmm’. Then I found other accounts as well.
After absorbing all accounts I found Into Thin Air a work of fiction
@@kamakaziozzie3038 it’s looking that way, yeah. It’s just not matching up to the evidence.
With your current pov on the subject are you finding this expose easy to follow? I’ve listened to and read a few things now but this detail is next level!
@@williammorris4419 His ‘mistakes’ only appear to go one way in that they paint him in a better light and those he obviously dislikes in a worse light. That’s journalistic malfeasance which I’ve long suspected from him and for which Michael has clearly shown.
@@Jay-zl6jm it’s hard to find reports now but she was very upset when he did it and called him media scum. There is a little in Rob’s Wikipedia page and some in a German journal about the incident. It’s not where I first heard it though but I am unable to find that in order to offer it here. I wonder if by now she might be beyond worrying about it as the recording was used in the Everest film which she was very happy with and JK’s transcript is so many years old now.
When humans perform high risk activities, they perform a risk assessment on the specifics of that activity and mitigate the risk by implementing controls. The procedure is then followed to achieve a safe and successful outcome. If there is any deviation from the agreed and approved procedure, then the level of risk rises and it is no longer acceptable. 2pm means 2pm, no matter who you think you are.
With this viewpoint, I would recommend you not engage in outdoor activities that last for more than a couple of hours. Your rigid engineering framework is not applicable to human beings in highly variable and unpredictable settings. I've flexed turnaround times a few minutes on plenty of occasions when conditions, including my own, were perfect and it was clear that some of the standard unpredictable possibilities that are accommodated by a prudent turnaround time were not going to happen. And I've turned around early when the opposite was the case. It's called good mountaineering judgment which supplements a predetermined turnaround time. Not by several hours on Everest, but by part of an hour in less extreme settings. But I agree, you only do this if you have the ability to judge reliably that the level of risk is still acceptable.
Jon Krakhaur was very jealous of Bourkeev.
1. Bourkeev got on the summit first.
2. Bourkeev did not fix the ropes because his team clients did not have oxygen yet and if he fixed it the Jon and his team would get their first.
3. Jon refused to go help others when Bourkeev asked him to.
4. Jon slept through the storm in which he famously reported on (the irony) while Bourkeev was saving lives
5. Eventually Bourkeev team had one casualty and he even went back for that one causualty to make sure that he could save him.
6. Boekeev was a hero. Jon was a jealous journalist.
7. Remember Jon was paid by Rob’s company to report on it, he had to find someone to blame that was not in his team. Who better than the man he was jealous of.
Someone linked me this video after I mentioned how much i enjoyed (enjoyed is not the right word for this kind of book) Into Thin Air. Halfway through the video I've completely changed my tune. Wow, his narrative is incredibly manipulative! I looked into the backlash to the book and the different narratives right after i finished reading it, but none of it convinced me in the way this video did. I already knew he was after reading Inti the Wild, but, damn, Krakauer is a terribly unethical journalist!!
Thank you for saving me from buying Krakauer's book. I was considering it.
This is a great video. If Krakauer blanked out from exhaustion and didn’t remember anything, then he should have done what he did in ,”Into the Wild.” Writing what other people remembered and not destroying reputations and manipulating the truth to save himself. Thanks.
TY Michael 🙏🙏, another well presented video, looking forward to the next one!
Yeah have always found his book to be hard to believe, glad u have broken this all down in various videos
I'll have to open up the cupboard and go over these books again. I remember being left with a lot of questions but will have to reacquaint myself with the finer details once more.
Thanks
Great stuff, so interesting, thank you and please, keep it coming.
I get lost in all the details, and I can't tell you which books, articles, videos, and interviews I've gotten this info. from, but Krakauer said that had Rob told him (and maybe others), not to go up ahead of others on their own. At certain points, he described standing/sitting there waiting for Rob to come up. At the point where ropes were needed, he got the green light from Rob to go ahead and fix ropes with Neil and Anatoly. I also read somewhere that Scott had a lingering health problem from ...a fall he had taken when he was younger? ...some illness that flared up occasionally (like malaria, but not malaria), and that he had been having trouble with that. That, coupled with his taking his client back to camp 1 that day, added to his lack of energy and slowed speed? I'm wondering why you think JK would have been aware of the prank Scott and Lapsong were planning, given that he wasn't on that team and that the prank was supposed to be some kind of surprise (i think you said in a previous vid)? Thanks for all you do!
That there was a "prank" was published in a best selling book. Krakauer would be aware of it either because he spoke to Gammelgaard and she told him, he read the book himself, or one of the thousands of people who read the book told him about it. He claims to be an "investigative journalist," so typically such people ask questions and follow up on leads.
His source for most things is Beidleman -- who is on the Mountain Madness team, so if he is not concerned the the MM team, why did he interview its guide? He interviewed Lopsang multiple time.
In any case, it does little use to point out things Krakauer said. As I will get into in an upcoming video, Krakauer changed his own story multiple times on major events. So, what you read in Into Thin Air, the book, is his carefully crafted version of things that differs significantly from what he said immediately after the incident and even from what he wrote in the magazine article. The book was published in May of 1997 -- a full year after the events, and either Krakauer invented his original version of what happened that he told back in May of 1996 or he invented the version in the book in 1997 -- or, far more likely, both.
Given that Krakauer outright invents things, you have to ask whether Rob Hall really told him that. First, it would not make any difference if he did or didn't. The reason you can't just run out in front of everyone is because, although Krakauer was climbing with oxygen, he was, of course, not carrying it all on his own. Instead, a sherpa was carrying a bottle up for him. Krakauer blatantly misrepresents how climbers switch their bottles climbing. You can go through the math and see that he blatantly misrepresents it. You can look at photos that show other climbers had no problem understanding how the system worked. Now, Krakauer ignored all of this and wanted to just run to the summit and have the sherpas or someone else save him. So, he did it his way, ran out of oxygen, and needed to be rescued. His story of running out of oxygen changes between May 1996 and May 1997 -- dramatically. In fact, his version of just about everything changes dramatically between May 1996 and May 1997. Then major things change again between May 1997 and 1999 where he invents a new version of what happened at the Hillary Step.
The main thing is that no one was waiting on ropes to be fixed for any significant amount of time. They were waiting on the oxygen to be brought up. The majority of the route never had fixed ropes on it. There was some misunderstanding with the clients, including Krakauer, that there would be fixed ropes the whole way. While this is the way it is done now, that is not the way it was done then. Instead, Krakauer has presented this myth that everyone was a bunch of inexperienced climbers that were incapable of moving unless they could pull their way up a fixed rope. As the photos of the mountain show, that was not the case. Krakauer invented the whole thing. You can climb as fast as you want, but if you climb faster than the sherpa carrying your oxygen, then you will eventually run out of oxygen. As an inexperienced climber, Krakauer learned this the hard way. Everyone else waited for the oxygen -- not the fixed ropes.
To some extent, Krakuer puts that in the book, but it is in the section where he blames the sherpas for not leaving early enough to get his oxygen in place for him. Although the Sherpa was melting his snow for him and other clients at the time, the entitled Krakauer treats the sherpa like dogs and expects them to just magically be able to cater to his every whim. Sure, they had to set up his tent, carry his oxygen, and melt his snow for him all at high camp, but why couldn't they just work faster and climb faster so that Krakauer can have his oxygen in place? Curiously, in the 1996 article, he mentions the sherpa doing some of this. In the book, he deletes the part about the sherpa. Many other sections are cut-and-paste verbatim. And that section is cut-and-paste and well. But the sherpa doing the work got cut -- didn't get pasted. While he pays lip service to "thanking" the Sherpa, he completely disrespected them by deleting that line about the sherpa doing the work and then blaming them for not leaving earlier when they were gather snow and melting it so that Krakauer didn't have to.
Whenever Krakauer needed a key fact to support his narrative, he simply invented it -- key "facts" that were missing from his earlier versions and frequently contradicted his earlier version. Ultimately, he settled on the set of facts that told the best story and was easiest for people to believe.
For instance, " At the point where ropes were needed, he got the green light from Rob to go ahead and fix ropes with Neil and Anatoly." That is what Krakauer told you. However, the photo on page 237 show Jon Krakauer and everyone else climbing the section just above where Krakauer just told he was waiting for the ropes to be fixed. There are no fixed ropes so he was not waiting for them to be fixed. As soon as you understand that Krakauer invents everything From Thin Air, his whole book will make sense.
@@michaeltracy2356 Excellent discussion. My 2c would be, knowing Everest is a zoo, I'd want to be able to go at my own pace, and carry my own damn oxygen so I could do that without dependence on anyone else.
Fascinating work Michael
Like every one else I read Into Thin Air and took that story to be completely factual and never questioned any of it. How could I? I’m no expert! I took the Basic Climbing course at The Mountaineers in Seattle a decade after 1996 and no one I climbed with back then ever questioned anything either. Makes me wonder what other pile of lies I have swallowed in the past…
Not me…. But I already knew krakauer played loose with the truth at times, and I had heard boukreev’s book was coming.
The lie you swallowed, most likely, is that climbing Everest is a honorable endeavor.
Another interesting youtube contribution Mike!
I always taken Krakauer's version of what happen during the event of 1996 to be as close to the truth as possible regarding the whole situation with lack of oxygen, bad weather, the fusion of many members memory, etc... It's one of my "favorite" books, describing the tragedy of what happened in 1996 on Mt Everest.
It sadden me a lot when pictures like Scott's show a different story and Krakauer have done nothing to correct his story.
Many of the people participating in the event have been interviewed about what happened. Listening to what Sandy Hill Pittman and Charlotte Fox both says about the "needle situation" makes me want to believe Fox over Hill Pittman.
One's memory isn't really a source of truth but if one write a book about something and new evidence and facts appear the misinformation should immediately be corrected, in my opinion.
For me, it is more about the important lessons that were ignored by Krakauer. There is a lot of useful "things learned" if you really look at this disaster -- I will in the near future. Rather than helping the mountaineering community learn from this, Krakauer engaged in petty squabbles and trivial nonsense. I really think that his negative comments toward Boukreev were just that Krakauer was set to be the first to summit that season and Boukreev passed him at the last minute. You can sort of see Krakauer positioning himself to take the first spot, and then all of a sudden -- denied. Whether that is the true motivation or not I do not know.
@@michaeltracy2356 I have Boukreev's book as well and never realized that could be Krakauer's intention. I love to listen to books when trying to sleep so I will relistening to Boukreev's book again with your thoughts in mind, thank you!
Another truthful, great video! Keep’em coming my friend! Cheers!
Ok. I've been obsessed with 8000m peaks since this tragedy. I've read em all. I have always had a bad taste in my mouth for krackauer. Very few alpinists, climbers, or researchers criticise him which is extremely frustrating to me. I may just join your channel & become a member. Now I must catch up on all of your videos. Great work!!!!!
An enduring and interesting story. Trying to piece together the tragic climbs seems to have the same difficulties you have when trying to exactly reconstruct battles. Even with an arm load of eyewitness accounts conflicts in the narrative abound. In these life and death situations there is almost as strong a survival instinct for ones reputation afterwards as for ones life during the event.
Nice and thorough as always
Always riveting Michael, always Sir! Best!!
What kind of "Stunt" would warrant the halting of clients on the summit for hours, especially with word from the IMAX crew that things seemed off and they were pushing their summit attempt back until the weather settled, not to mention Scott Fischer and his guides all aware that Scott had been struggling? I find the "Stunt" that nobody detailed, a bigger stretch that purely losing track of time while celebrating an accomplishment many had dreamt of their whole lives.
And who would detail the stunt? Scott Fisher knew the details. Lopsang knew the details. Perhaps the reason we don't have the details you desire is because they are both dead. Instead, you wish to believe that Lopsang lost track of time. That is ridiculous -- he was an experienced Sherpa. Lopsang did not say he lost track of time. He told Gammelgard he was remaining on the summit to pull the prank with Scott. It says so in Gammelgaards book --- which I have shown in both videos on this subject. Any reason you do not want to believe Gammelgaards account? If you can't think of at least 10 "stunts" that would benefit from halting clients on the summit to participate, you lack any creativity.
I always thought this would be nice: ruclips.net/video/4hpEnLtqUDg/видео.html. But post em if you got em.
@@michaeltracy2356 it is convenient that both people who knew of the stunt shared it with nobody else before, during or after the terrible event, ended up dying taking it to their grave when it would have done nothing but clarify things and explain their actions, giving them a defense against Krakauer’s book. Lopsang would not find himself in any additional trouble if he revealed it, and in fact would only help explain his actions since Scott was his boss and in charge. Would you decide to carry out a stunt on the top of the highest summit, making your employees and clients wait there with oxygen, daylight and weather dwindling or deteriorating? As far as I know nothing was ever found on Scott Fischer’s body that would be deemed a surprise once it was revealed. What was the big secret stunt going to be, his congratulations cause there isn’t anything tangible that fits the bill that was ever found. In fact, what other stunts have been done by their guides on the summit of Everest? I would like to hear about them since they apparently aren’t that hard to fathom. What it sounds like to me is an excuse for mistakes made that had clients on the summit for too long and way past the turnaround time in order to have the best chance to get back to Camp IV safely. Attributing the details to those already dead helps ensure that the truth can never be known, which is why we are discussing it now. To answer your question, I can’t think of one stunt/prank worth delaying clients on the summit of Everest for a second longer than is necessary and safe. Your job is not to entertain them on the summit, it’s to get them down safely. Nobody is going to miss a prank that nobody knows about. Was Scott so inept or just a dedicated prankster that he would risk his clients lives for what I imagine must of been one hell of a joke cause they failed to find any props to fit the bill. It just about cost him a few of his clients lives, but if he were here he would say that, despite knowing the dangers, it was worth it? I would be quite upset if I ended up on the summit for much to long, putting myself and others in danger, so the person I paid lots of money to to keep me safe, did the opposite for some prank that would never be worth my or anyone else’s life.
@@michaeltracy2356 by the way, I say all this with the utmost respect as I think you are a fascinating person who puts out quality content that is hard to find. I respect you and your opinion and absolutely admit that you are an expert in this field and I am not even a novice when compared to you. I am only speaking to the actions of the players, as a human being who is trying to square the circles and figure out the motivations of those involved in this tragic event. However, I am only speaking for myself and what makes sense to me. I absolutely see where you are coming from and am open to the fact that you may even be right, which would make me happy and only increase my admiration for you. I say all this because it’s important to me that you know that I believe you are acting with integrity and honesty and that your heart is absolutely in the right place. That is as rare as it is admirable and is something that I realized early on and is why I will continue to subscribe to your channel. I also share your opinion as to the character of others that put out mountaineering content, specifically those focused on the historical aspects, in particular Mallory and Irvine. I also appreciate you responding to me and being respectful, it doesn’t go unnoticed or unappreciated as I am a fan of your first and foremost. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
They did mention it. It says so right in Gammalgaards book. While I appreciate the respect you show, you are just "talking past" me. That is, you ignore what I say and just continue to repeat your initial idea. This has become such a part of our modern society, it appears you don't even know you are doing it.
I did a different video and discussed the "stunt." No one talked about the stunt because it would ruin Fischer memory and that is all the media would talk about for 50 years. Pittman didn't talk about it. Lobsang didn't talk about it. Gammalgaard did, but it just didn't get wide traction -- because she initially wrote the book in Danish. And no one else wanted to push it.
It would be "respectful" to start by displaying that you understand these issue and then address them and explain why Gammalgaard might have made it all up. If she didn't make it up, then you should address what would have happened if Lopsang same down the mountain and said, "We waited for Scott so we could pull a stunt. A lot of people almost died and Scott died just over a silly prank."
Well, for one, there would be no best selling book blaming things on "inexperienced" climbers.
If you were a western climber, would you want to climb with the sherpa that was going to play the stunt and got someone killed? Krakauer claims that other sherpa didn't like him because he was a "showboat." If that is true, would saying "Oh, we were going to play a big stung on the summit" endear him with his fellow sherpa? Or make him more disliked? ("It was possible, though, that he was simply angry at Lopsang, whom he regarded as a showboat."Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 183)).
If you address those issues rather than just repeating your opinion about what happened, then it is a dialog.
The suspense is killing me!
Thanks for the Irvine/ Mallory work. It is great to get an assesment from a real mountaineer.
Have fun and climb safe!!
Really enjoying these videos. Excellent work. Thanks!
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis!
HELP MICHAEL!!. I have just started to watch your videos about Mallory and Irvine, learning a lot about the subject that i didn't know before. I have also seen some videos of Thom Pollard but in other videos you say (if i understood correctly) that they hide information from us, drone photos, accounts on the body of Irvine being taken to Lhasa etc, that if i understand correctly are not true. English isnt my mother language so your videos are a huge challenge for me to understand because of the difficult vocabulary so would you (or anyone please) mind to explain to me with the least words posible things like where you think Irvine is, whether the camera is with him in Lhasa, why hasnt he been found yet and other stuff? I will watch all your videos but if you explained those things to me here you would make the process for me much easier...
The main point of my channel is that people should not trust RUclips. Not me. Not Thom. You will need to work through this on your own. You might look at how the information is presented --- does it have sources that you can check? Or is it just a talking head telling you to believe him because he is a super nice guy? You should also explore things on your own and see if that person's version makes sense. This is also a popular enough channel that if you post something in your native language, probably someone here can answer you that speaks the language fluently. My videos are about educating people so that they can answer their own questions. Likely they can answer yours as well. This is an Everest 1996 video, so probably post Mallory and Irvine questions on an appropriate video.
In terms of where Irvine is, he is likely visible in the photo show in the Final Resting Place video. ruclips.net/video/I_vx9CbD7rk/видео.html
That video was released in 2017. I went to Everest in 2018 but there was too much snow and we couldn't get over to that ledge. Two teams went in 2019 and Mark Synnott searched that ledge. There was very low snow and he has not released a single photo of what is there. But there are plenty of other places he could be.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you Michael. I posted my questions on this video cuz it is the most recent so it was more likely that you replied to me here, you have, so i feel very grateful about it. I just got the Third Pole, hoping to learn more because watching your great videos i dont get all the information because you speak too fast for a non native english speaker hahaha. Talking about the photos that Synott hasn't released...the 100th anniversay of the mistery will be in less than two months. Maybe these people that probably know more than they show are waiting for the 8th of june to release breaking news or something, could this be possible?
It’s easy for Jon to write whatever he wanted because no one left alive to dispute him
I read Into Thin Air (more than once, actually. LOL) I don't doubt anything you are pointing out given your obvious expertise and photo evidence, but I'm wondering what prompted this expose so many years later. It's just curious to me. Did Jon Krakauer do something else recently to irritate the climbing community?
Never mind, I just watched another one of these where you explain the motivation being the recent spate of videos about the 1996 disaster. Thanks!
This pains me to say, but I don't think JK was saying he went from the Hillary Step to the summit in 12 minutes. I think what he was saying, using way too many random words and explanations, was that he switched to his second O2 bottle on the Balcony, and in a 7 hour time period he would have to go from the Balcony, to the summit, but to the South Summit to get his 3rd bottle. And he was apparently concerned at some point at or near the summit he would have to get to the South Summit in less than 45 minutes, which I'm guessing is not possible.
I could be wrong though...I did read that paragraph like 10 times trying to understand it. Lol
He said he was below the Hillary Step "after 1PM." "But now it was already after 1:00, and I was beginning to have serious doubts."Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 188). And he is on the summit at 1:12PM .."FOURTEEN SUMMIT 1:12 P.M., MAY 10, 1996 • 29,028 FEET" Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 193).
I realize you are giving him the "benefit of the doubt." But he routinely modifies times and locations to benefit himself and make Boukreev look worse. Here, is is claiming it took Boukreev too long to scale the Hillary Step which slowed people down. "But it was a slow process, and as he painstakingly ascended toward the crest of the Step, I nervously studied my watch and wondered whether I might run out of oxygen." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 188).
Other people report Boukreev climbing it very quickly and given the times of the first groups to reach the summit, it appears the accounts of Boukreev climbing quickly were all correct and the single account of him being slow (Krakauer's) is contradicted by Krakauer's own timeframe.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you for taking away the pain of having to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I can't stand what he did and has done, and continues to do, especially the money he has made off of it, and making others who were up there the villain. I appreciate people who tell the truth, despite how unpopular it might be to some, so I definitely appreciate your videos. I found them last night and binge watched a few already about what happened with my notes app open trying to make a timeline to understand everyone's actions a little more.
Do you think he has always had it out for Boukreev because he beat him to the top by a few minutes, or because he was on the Mountain Madness team, or just a combo of things? I had to laugh when I saw the quote of his saying how people's stories change over time to make them more favorable to themselves and how it's all about ego and self importance.
I mean the definition of self-projection right there. I had to rewind the quote just to make sure I didn't mishear who had said it because I thought someone had said it about him and I missed the name.
The title of "guide" in any wilderness "adventure" implies substantial relevant and local experience as well as skill, resourcefulness, good judgment, and a dedication to the safety of the clients. Compiling some sort of report card on the guides might show they were long on individual climbing experience but short on the other qualities. For just 2 examples,, sensing the gathering storm, and finding camp in the storm might have been better accomplished by guides with more Everest experience.
What do you think of Messner defending Krakauer regarding the the Boukreev controversy? And adding "a great description of reality"? This interview: ruclips.net/video/yaWHdHPwkV0/видео.html
There is little factual difference between what Krakauer says Boukreev did and what Boukreev said he did. First, Krakauer claims to have been asleep the entire time of the storm. Thus, Krakauer never says anything himself about what Boukreev actually did. Krakauer heard it from other people. There are a few minor variances between what Krakauer reports he heard from other people and what Boukreev says he did himself. The main difference is at the Hillary Step. As I will get into, Krakauer changed his version 3 times about what happened. So, if Messner happens to agree with one of the versions, please ask him which one it is.
The main difference between Krakauer and Boukreev is the interpretation of what should have been done. Krakauer claims that guides should climb with oxygen and not descent before their clients. Boukreev points out that of the three guides who died, all climbed with oxygen and did not descend before their clients. None of those three rescued anyone. For the other two guides, Mike Groom climbed with oxygen, but gave it up to John Krakauer. After that, perhaps he had some more, but we know he ran out of oxygen and abandoned his clients, Yasuko Namba and Beck Weathers. Not blaming him for this. Had he not, there would be 4 dead guides who used oxygen and did not descend in front of their clients.
Thus, I do not see the point in much of what Krakauer is saying. Sure, guides should climb with oxygen and not descend in front of their clients. Great idea. It didn't work. There is also the problem of the realities of the climb. Ok, Boukreev is supposed to climb with oxygen. Where does this oxygen come from? He carries all 3 bottles? (None of the other guides did). That means, you now need an additional Sherpa to carry the bottles for him. That means more sherpas through the ice fall. That means more sherpa deaths. The largest single group of people who die climbing on the South are sherpas carrying through the ice fall. And Krakauer's "solution" is to have more sherpas carrying more oxygen. Yes, that might reduce western deaths. Overall deaths? In any case, all the guides do climb with oxygen and the number of sherpa deaths in the icefall have skyrocketed since 1996. So, it is not a theory. You want all the oxygen, great. It means sherpas will die. Now, do you really want all the oxygen?
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks for your reply Michael. My first thought was that overcrowding and making the summit a tourist destination for amateurs was, and still is, very unpopular. Even more so amoung accomplished climbers, resulting in widespread support for Krakuar. I would have to listen to more from Messner and others but I can just imagine that Fischer's yellow brick road, and that kind of stuff really set them off.
I would love to follow a youtube video with step by step trail on Google earth or whatyamacallit, through the timelines up and down the whole disaster on summit day and the day after in 1996. You seem to be the one who could do it! I ”return” to these 96’ expeditions every year, I don’t know why. I am not a climber.
Another question to this photo: My understanding was that Hall during his descent encountered Hansen and accompanied him on the last stretch to the summit. Why is he not to be seen on that picture?
This is a little further down the mountain than where that took place and about 20-30 minutes earlier.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks. So that means that Hansen and Hall really just met right below the summit, right? Because if Hansen is 40 minutes away from the summit on this photo and if he and Hall met 20-30 minutes later (as you stated) that can only mean that they encountered each other just a couple of meters away from the summit.
At that point would it really have made a difference whether they turned around immediately? And is it likely from psychological point of view that somebody who is literally just a few steps away from the summit already far above the Hillary step, that such a person would turn around?
I am just asking all that, because until now my understanind was that Hall and Hansen lost hours because of summiting together, but now knowing that there encounter was so close to the summit, it seems I have to change my perception. Probably Hansen was basically doomed already when this photo was taken, right?
Hall maybe could have made it, if he had left him behind and not summited again.
It looks like Hall descended just a little bit to assist Hansen as in this photo, he is about 1/4 the way there. Hansen would not be visible from the summit at this point, so probably Hall went down after Hansen. was visible -- which is just a short way before the summit.
Tough to say when the impossibility of returning occurred. So much depends on the oxygen situation and Andy Harris. There was plenty of oxygen, but Harris was having problems. Had Harris been able to think clearly and operate, he could have used an extra bottle himself, turn it to 4 lpm and climb back up taking 2 bottles for Hall and Hansen. Would that be enough? Possibly. Or it could have beeb a waste. Without extra oxygen being brought up by Harris, Hansen not little to no possibility of returning at this point. Hall could drag him down the summit ridge, but very tough to lower someone down Hillary Step if they can't move.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks Michael
"Krakauer was asleep" love the sarcasm which it really isn't, it's just the truth spoken plainly.
Apparently the only truthful thing Krakuarer wrote of was his account of smoking that dank Nepalese ganja.
John Krak is an incredibly dangerous person and I personally cannot believe the mountaineering community is still interacting with him 🙄
Climbers and the truth don't seem to mix too well. Not the first time that eyewitness reports from various persons don't match up at all. Which leaves me to the conclusion that there is a certain common psychological component to people who aspire the to get to the peak of the mountain, and preferrably be the first ones to do so.
I’m glad you’re covering this. I’ve read Lene, Michael, Anatoli, Scott Fischer’s, Ed Visteurs’ accounts.
I say Scott but it was pieced together from his Mountain Madness biog.
I want to know your theory on this stunt. Are we sure it isn’t just Lene’s turn of phrase?
She references it twice and stated that Lopsang said something was planned but he wouldn't say what it was. It is unlikely this was some group photo. She later calls it a "boyish prank" while English is not her first language and it is possible she meant something else, but there is also the issue that Krakauer never mentioned it -- nor did anyone else. Krakauer went out of his way to respond to just about every little thing from his critics -- frequently just inventing stuff. And not once is the numerous emails, talks, postscripts or anything else does he mention it. That is, why didn't he say. "Gammelgaard said a stunt was planned, but this was just her broken English and no such stunt was planned."? Because as soon as there is a "stunt" Krakauer's analysis goes out the window. Things were not caused by Pittman. They were not caused by Boukreev. The whole story of these "complex problems" disappear.
As other commenters have noted, Gammelgaard's account explains everything that happened with the MM team remaining on the summit for so long. It explains why Lopsang said there. It explains why Fischer had to reach the summit. It explains the whole thing. Gammelgaard's books is not riddled with errors and inconsistencies such as Krakauer's.
Scott's account is by far the most accurate. It is not written anywhere. It is in his photos. Using his photos, Scott is speaking from beyond the grave and telling us the Jon Krakauer is full of yak dung. Gammelgaard's account matches up with Fischer's photos. Krakauer's does not come anywhere close.
I’m going to read To the Summit and Safe Return next, in the hope of finding out more.
Thanks for giving your reasonings. I agree on Krakauer’s account. It’s trying to do something and that something is at the expense of just the play by play to the best of his recollection.
How did Scott Fischer give an account. He died on this climb.
If you read my comment, I’ve addressed this already.
Legitimate question, is the focus on the 1996 disaster and especially your assessment of Krakauer, because you suspect lying, perhaps even foul play on Krakauer’s part?
As it seems he is trying at the very least to hide something.
Is he thought to be responsible for other climbers death in 1996?
I'll wait for Krakauer's response and have a better idea after he makes his revisions.
@ this is what all this is about though right? Getting to the bottom of it?
I've never read his books, but he's always rubbed me wrong in the documentaries I've seen him in. Confirmation bias or not, I feel vindicated by this video.
I will never understand thrill seeking behavior. Life is hard sometimes for no reason at all. Why seek trouble out
If human beings did not seek the thrill of certain actives -- sexual intercourse for instance, then human beings would not exist any more. Pretty simple to understand why people might seek such thrills -- even when it frequently ends up in disaster, unintended consequences, and even death.
Where does it say that the Mountain Madness team received 4 bottles of oxygen for the summit bid? From Charlotte Fox's article "At the Balcony we had our first change of oxygen (each of us carried a second bottle)" ..... "It turns out I had plenty of time to contemplate our next move. We waited again while more people arrived at our small sheltered nook under the South Summit. All were due for a last bottle of oxygen at this point (which we would use to summit and descend to the South Col) to be delivered by Sherpa staff."
Am I reading that incorrectly? That sounds like they only had 3 bottles of oxygen each. The two they carried and the one the sherpa staff delivered to the south summit.
I discuss it in the Yellow Brick Road video. It is in Gammelgaard's account. Boukreev provides a detailed inventory in The Climb. The actual analysis is a little more complicated, and I'll get into the details about how they received 4 bottles, but why some of them thought they received 3 bottles. And why, Fox probably did indeed receive only three bottles -- it has to do with 2 of the bottles going missing. So, if 2 bottles go missing, that means 2 people will receive only 3 bottles.
I will have to watch that video. I read the Climb, just don't remember it talking about 4 bottles each.
Do you think Charlotte Fox's description in that article makes it sound like they only had 3 bottles each?
Thanks for the reply. I look forward to learning more
Thanks for another facinating movie.
Please write a book michael. It would be a fantastic read
I did write a book: www.amazon.com/Professional-Visual-C-Isapi-Programming/dp/1874416664/
😂😂😂
Krakauer climbed on Cerro Torre and almost reached the top but still claimed he reached the summit because he
"almost' got there.
Do you have a source for this?
@@michaeltracy2356 Yes, Krakauer stated this fact in an article he wrote about the c limb in Outside Magazine years ago.
Outstanding sleuthing!
Right on. Thanks for sharing.
What a crock. Krakauer was there and he questioned everybody who was there. His is the most comprehensive account. Everybody who had something to say was included. He gave full disclosure.
No, he didn't. As I go over in these videos, he left out any account that didn't agree with his and fooled people like you into believing he provided "full disclosure."
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Here's an interview with Neal Beidleman that contains answers to some of the questions, such as why he spent so much time on the summit: ruclips.net/video/jL9UHk1zTeY/видео.html
The problem with "history by quotation" is that it assumes that people always tell the accurate version of what happened. Beidleman has told several different versions of what happened. So, I'll give you a homework assignment. Beidleman said a very different version in that interview about why he took the long way around to get back to South Col. First, what. is the reason he states in that interview? What is the reason Krakauer said Beidleman told him back in 1996? Which version is the "answer"?
Just here to comment that while Conrad Anker is a world renowned climber. He is also a world renowned liar.
Can you elaborate? Im honestly curious.
You’re not wrong but what does that have to do with Krakauer and the ‘96 disaster? He wasn’t even on the mountain this year.
@@tylerrichards6456 There is a connection between Conrad Anker and something in this video. If you can figure it out, you get a Yeti Snack.
@@michaeltracy2356I know the answer 😊
@@tdurb0 He wants people to think, if they are really curious about the topics presented on this channel. That is a main purpose of this whole channel.
This whole discussion has devolved into a Kardashian level after the fact b-fight.
Thanks for setting us straight, Sherlock. Maybe you can analyze the Zapruder film next.
As I state in the video, I am still not done setting you straight. So, the next couple videos will continue to straighten you on the 1996 Everest Disaster. Then I have some more Mallory and Irvine content. You are no doubt such a smart person, link the videos you made here so we can all benefit from your profound wisdom.
@@michaeltracy2356 Hilarious Mike, have you considered standup?
If I can chuck my two penn'oth worth into this...Graham Ratcliffe in his book - A Day to Die For, suggests that one of the main teams, I forget which, were getting 'accurate' local weather predictions, via satellite, from the Netherlands (?), novel at the time, and not sharing this info with other teams...sorry to be vague, but it goes with the 'territory'.
When I climbed in 2013, you have to sign a non-disclosure agreement for your weather forecast. It would not make any sense for a weather forecasting service to allow one person to pay for an extremely expensive forecast and then give it to anyone else.
However, the issue with the alleged forecast is overrated. The Japanese team on the North managed to summit on the day Rob Hall was stuck on South Summit and dying. So, the storm is one factor -- and a major one, but even if the teams were provided with any allegedly "accurate" forecast, I doubt it would have made much difference.
@michaeltracy2356 thanks for that, my unqualified opinion is that they placed a lot of faith on that forecast to achieve their aims, 2 large guided teams, rivals until they decided to 'join' forces, lack of a clear plan understood by all, pressure drop, personal fitness, personal self reliance....a compounding of errors.... I'm no mountaineer, and I'm not interested in the blame game. If I was, I would say poor leadership. Many thanks for your reply. NE England.
When you say “what’s left of the Hillary steps” what is that referring to? Erosion? Thanks loving this story, your deeply researched videos & pithy clapbacks in the comments lol
The 2015 earthquake toppled the major rock formation that made up the Hillary Step. It is now more of snow slope than a rock step.
These videos started out as informative but now come across as a personal vendetta against Krakauer.
No one forces you to watch them. And if you have to point it out to other viewers, then perhaps it is not as obvious a "personal vendetta" as you think. Not sure why you bothered posting this.
It’s amazing how jealousy can drive you crazy to a point in which you have to attack a story that took place 28 years ago in an attempt to feel, superior. You weren’t there, just deal with it already.
Amazing that jealousy has driven you to criticize a video which you claim is completely irrelevant. Everyone knows this is 28 years old. You don't need to be a "Cather in the Rye" protecting innocent children from videos talking about events that took place in the past. But, since you do, there are a whole bunch of World War 2 and Civil War videos on RUclips. None of the creators were there. So, you have your work cut out for you.
What would this have to do with “jealousy”?
It’s about the truth, and respect for those who lost their life and aren’t here to tell their story. They deserve for the real story to be understood, especially given it’s an event where, despite it being 30 years on, people are still profiting from telling “their version” of the story. Heck, there was a multimillion dollar movie about it just a few years ago
Krakauer is as poisonous to Everest as Russell Bryce
I think Everest needs more inexperienced climbers not less
just found this and its fascinating to hear your analysis . To hide my identity so this does not become a thing of personalities I can make real comments. I knew many of the guides on this expedition and I have slept on the south col of Everest without oxygen. The speeds of accent that you speak of is related to the volume of oxygen they are breathing. When I was there we did not use oxygen although myself tried and had systems freeze. We could easily climb 400 feet per hour without oxygen at least up to 27,500 feet. Krakaur went to Everest to write for Outside magazine on the moral question of Everett guide expeditions. when there it seems his attitude changed to legitimise guide expeditions USING OXYGEN. I agree with memory loss over the years but have to think Krakauer massaged his narrative to suit his own ends.
dude. you have a serious case of Krakauer derangement system. You need help
Just make sure your tongue doesn't stick while you are licking Krakauer's climbing boots.
Interesting
What stunt are talking about?
The one Jon Krakauer chose to ignore. It is discussed in the Yellow Brick Road videos.
@ thank you!
I’m not sure why it matters so much WHO is telling the most accurate remembrance. The entire thing took place at altitudes that human beings are not meant to function well at. Maybe NOONE is lying, but telling the story in the way that they remember it. Oxygen deprivation can do a job on human memory and people’s ability to make good judgment calls. It was no ones fault. Krakauers retelling may be to the best of ability to remember accurately
Krakauer was not telling the story the way he remembered it. That you even think so is a good indication you have never read his book. Krakauer, as you can probably figure out on your own, is only one person. His book covers multiple groups on both sides of the mountain. And yet, you somehow think Krakauer is telling the version he "remembers" about climbers he never met on a side of the mountain he never saw. Even on the side he was on he is reporting events that others experienced. For the majority of the storm, Krakauer states he was passed out in his tent. If he did write an account of the way he remembered it, it would be a very very very short book. Obviously, he didn't do that.
Instead, he gathers informations from different sources, makes judgement decisions about who is telling the truth, and then packages that for his reader. It is not clear how you missed that he was doing his -- considering he comes right out and says that is exactly what he is doing. Given is judgements and decisions about other people, you can look at the exact same underlying facts that Krakauer had and think for yourself about what might have happened.
Ultimately, your comment says more about you than about these videos, Jon Krakauer, or climbing. A weak ideology in which "everyone is right" even when the people you are "defending" say the exact opposite of what you wish they were saying. This type of "religious" thinking is annoying -- just as listening to religious preachers go on about what they claim is the "true" interpretation of what some book says. So, please, take your religion somewhere else. Comments that are imaginary inventions of reality are not welcome here.
@@michaeltracy2356 actually I DID read his book back in 2013. Not sure why u have such a hate campaign raging against the guy, but hey, that just says a lot about YOU. Peace ✌️
Why would you read a book about an actual event if it didn't matter if the author was telling the truth of not? Anyway, I can see you can't be challenged about things and are just repeating platitudes some "social influencers" have programmed you to repeat. Good luck with that, but you are not welcome in this channel.
You don't care about the actual facts that lead to people dying? Imagine you were those people's kin and some guy publically makes up stuff about your loved ones to suit his agenda and make money off it. He could've said "inspired by real events" and it would've been fine/ethical if formulaic as a piece of storytelling. If he was too impaired to remember he could've interviewed the survivors. That's what journos do.
@@michaeltracy2356In reply to a cogent question composed without umbrage you choose to attack the writer personally.
You seem to have fallen into the same crevasse of moral turpitude you claim Krakauer resides.
2:39 🤣
The truth is allways beckoning. I think it's important to understand no individuals account is ever perfect. And that's history. Be open to reinterpretation by others.
The Everest debacle is an adventure event. Not really ground breaking history.
Even this guy needs corroborating. For me it's a waste of time all this analysis.
But anyway I'm listening.
If it is a waste of time, why are you listening? No one said an account needs to be perfect. But there is a difference between faulty memory and outright fabrications. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference, but issue comes up over and over again. If you follow the Royal Post scandal, you will see the exact same thing --- "faulty memories." Most people can see through that nonsense, but there will always be people like you willing to believe whatever they are told. Ignorance is bliss.
@michaeltracy2356 agreed. You're absolutely correct.
Your distaste for Krakauer is palpable. In the fog of an Everest climb, memories of times and sequences are often confused. Get real bro.
Ever hear of a camera? Krakauer can look at the photo just as well as you -- in fact, he did and he put it in his book with the commentary about it. Krakauer doesn't have any problem looking at photos and using those to state what happened when it fits his narrative. And when it doesn't people who have been taken in by him argue it is "faulty memory."
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Krakauer is just a liar
So i take it you dont like John Krakaur.
😂
Oh course Mikey is a much more accomplished climber 😆
person in the foreground is in absolutely unnatural position- it does look as if it is running uphill… even with its right arm straightened it would be impossible to support itself just by ice pick standing upright like that. one more thing- I could be wrong, but: if they were climbing from nepali side the shadows are all wrong?! all considering the whole “photograph” does look tempered with to say the least…?
Let it go mate. Was nearly 30 yrs ago ffs
Once again this guy plays Mt. Everest super detective ---- and for what??? *WHAT IS THE FRIGGIN PURPOSE OF THESE VIDEOS?* So his timeline is off.......*WHO CARES??* Again, these vids are filled with innuendo, etc......without ever making a friggin' point. Annoying.
Why do you keep watching them?
I find their purpose quite obvious and each of them has a very significant, pretty clear cut point. Even if you just watched them for a little lesson on critical thinking and logic, without any interest for the facts of the topic at hand, they would be interesting. So I don't get your point.
@@Clanner666 The point I'm making is - there is no point to these videos. Example: > Is Jon Krakauer going to be arrested for getting his timelines wrong? Did anyone die because of Jon Krakauer's messed up timelines? Is Jon's messed up timelines covering up a crime? ---- Of course not, so *WHO FRIGGIN CARES?* - What is the point of these videos other than mud slinging and baseless innuendo that never leads to anything. So Krakauer is a liar. Who cares?
@@Mike_Baldwin On a broader interpretation. To deconstruct a narrative, that is out there, blaming people for stuff they are not to be blamed for. To deconstruct the narrative, the facts and their connections have to be shown and Michael has an odd talent to be extraordinarily pedantic and precise about them. That would probably not be necessary, if people wouldn't make money by pushing a story, that never happened like they keep portraying it, dragging other people's name through the mud.
As long as people keep reading those books and articles, they are relevant. So why would a rebuttal of those books and narratives be irrelevant?
Calling it "mud-slinging" to point out the facts is kinda of odd and calling a pretty straight forward attack on a topic "innuendo", makes me wonder what you are even trying to say. Do you want to say the truth doesn't matter or you question his conclusions or methods and find the accusations about a false narrative to be baseless?
On a very meta level: The truth matters. Facts matter. Proper logic and critical thinking matters.
And the truth does not only matter if it directly leads to somebody getting arrested or harm being prevented orwhatever your condition for "having a point" is.
And as far as I can see, Michael is trying to build a community, where people push each other to develop those skills/values. Some videos are functional to do that, some are about the topics at hand, some are both.
@@Mike_Baldwin i care. i'm reading this. who are you?
Exactly.. I couldn't agree more. I was the guy who dropped Scott off at the airport for this expedition having been helping him with his business for not quite a year before. Everything I've seen and read concerning "into thin air" I keep thinking Krakauer is portraying himself above that of Scott's abilities and decency. Which knowing Scott I always find as quite the stretch.
As far as this so-called stunt I would like to ask Lene directly. Frankly I don't feel any woman should climb that mountain unless it's a all woman team.. plenty of examples of them not doing well. Sure there are exceptions but certainly not the rule. Further if I was on a group climb I would want the strongest climbing men as part of the team.
@@1unsung971 Sorry I don't subscribe to your gynocentric views. Look into Lenin Peak and Annapurna . And of course there are men like my friend Scott because extreme mountain climbing has always been dominated by men. So of course there are plenty of dead/frozen men on these 8km + peaks.
Endurance.. haha in made up BS games not in real existence like physical labor.. your welcome to show up and work 60+ hours a week with me painting.. same thing I was doing in the 90's and why I was able to help out Mountain Madness with collecting
supplies while I was self-employed. Further in 40 years of physical labor I've seen less than my 10 digits of women actually doing everyday real labor work. So it's quite obvious to me that men build this existence and always will.
I'm confused. If women don't do well, how would having an all women team work? Wouldn't that be a bad idea?
Three of the four women involved in this drama climbed well. Two of them needed rescue, but men did as well.
I wouldn't want to be on a team with you regardless of gender, as you appear to be a member of the old boys' club.
@@Tenebarum Yes it is a bad idea but if women that think they can do anything a man can do want to let them. Further if you were climbing a mountain would't you want someone stronger than you to be your climbing partner??
@@jjzap2935 This had nothing to do with a climbing partner. It was a paid group. Contrary to all the stuff out there, the groups had competent climbers. Most of them made good decisions.