There's so much ignorance regarding this subject, it seems that if someone comes along with a few fancy degrees and an air of confidence, then they must be worth listening to.
I LOVE your videos!!! And your wisdom and wish you had 1-2 other topics you would get super microscopic about bc I’d listen to you go in great detail about ANYTHING! but I will say I enjoy this topic a lot and the facts vs the fog can’t be beat in terms of the AUDACITY of all of the “main characters”
Michael, Didn't Simonson, in '99, accurately describe the location of the oxygen cylinder to Richards and Norton (on descent) with reasonable enough accuracy to be confirmed later? Or do you believe that it had likely been moved between 1960 and circa 1987 by an expedition?
The report is that it was moved in 1999 -- even Thom Pollard is saying that. What we do know is that Tap Richards got a call over the radio and then in just 5 minutes located an oxygen bottle that was. supposedly seen. by Simonson back in1991. So, yeah, that would be a very vivid and accurate description. The problem is that Simonson has never been able to. say exactly what he told Richards. The only thing is that it was "under a boulder." It is unlikely that "under a boulder" would allow someone to find a bottle in less than 5 minutes. If a photo was taken of the bottle in place and it was on top of snow, then it would mean it. was just placed there. The fact that no one can say exactly where the bottle was found nor exactly what Simonson said about the location is a good indication that not everyone is being completely honest about what happened. Tap Richards was back in 2001 and could not be bothered to pin point the location or take photographs of it even though the bottle was no longer there. The notion that the potentially highest piece of physical evidence of Mallory and Irvine's climb is completely shrouded in mystery should stick out as a major problem. I realize you want to find a set of facts that makes every one look good and believe everything was just a misunderstanding or a mistake. It is unlikely any such explanation exists. These people are still alive. You are welcome to contact them. They won't tell you a thing and you will quickly see what type of reception you get as soon as you ask about. it. Please do. Please contact. these people and tell then you just want to clear it all up and you just need to know the description Simonson gave to Richards or you just need to know which boulder it was under. Good luck with that.
Enjoy your videos - thank you. Sorry for asking but do you have beef with Everest Mysteries channel guy? I feel behind on the history but sense some stick poking from both sides. I enjoy your approach and the investigative / scientific nature of your videos.
The motto for the channel is "Sic Semper Charlatanis." People who routinely invent nonsense and are blatant hypocrites do not fare well on this channel. The constant need to correct various "mistakes" made in other people's books and videos does get a little old and may come across as a "beef."
It’s really disturbing how a “regular” person could watch those videos on EM and be sooooo easily content and accepting. It is scary to me. Seeing a channel like that be so wrong and so “hidden” for even the most seasoned of minds. I don’t have the words to describe what I mean 😢
(This is about the internet in general, not the OP here. Those videos just seem to be too easy for people to go right along with and for all the “right” reasons - yikes! And then you turn the page and do a little work and bam! It is an avalanche of yikes!)
Hi Michael, I have an unrelated question. Another video states the chinese saw an english body in 1960. I think they are saying they saw this body near the couloir? Is this the standard account of the siting of this body?? thanks- sam
The watch looks fakey as isn't waterproof by design so after some time the iron parts would be covered with rust.Rolex Oyster was waterproof since 1926.
Hi Mark. The Borgel waterproof case was patented in 1891. Rolex (Hans Wilsdorf) actually utilized such cases for their 'waterproof' watches until they had fully developed the Oyster and released it in 1926. Rolex later went on to purchase Borgel patents as a hedge against the competition... but yes, the Borgel case was effective. The Oyster case was even better, but there's no reason to doubt the reported material condition of the works inside Mallory's watch, as found.
@@nanii414 That's very interesting,but watch was found with missing glass.It's practically open=without sealing.The moisture would attack for sure mainspring,balance spring,iron alloy screws.Especially after 75 years.I'd like to be mistaken but if I was an expert I would vote the watch in question as not Mallory's Borgel.
@@markwroblewski6500 Hi again, Mark. I am certainly taking it on faith that the watch reviewed by David Boettcher was indeed recovered from George Mallory's remains. I'm not intimate with the climate near the summit, but I wager that the temperature and relative-humidity ranges that are conducive to the mummification of human remains would also be favorable to retarding metal corrosion/oxidation. Although stainless steel was not yet popular in watch-case construction at the time (and it so happens, the subsequent owners of Borgel's company, Taubert et Fils, were leaders in this regard, with their "Staybrite' stainless) the watch case in question is described as silver. This is consistent with the 'top grade' perlage finish of the bridges of the 13' FHF movement inside, and those bridges appear to be nickeled. The balance would have been bronze alloy, and the hairspring a chromium-nickel-iron (a stainless steel with nickel , if you like) alloy like Elinvar, which was developed in 1913 and adopted by the Swiss manufactures from about 1918. I feel the mainspring would have been relatively safe inside its barrel, oiled. The loss of the polymer crystal would have chiefly exposed the (painted) dial, the hands which were vulnerable blued steel, the cannon pinion, and possibly the hub of the hour whee. Those central latter are a possible route for moisture to get into the works, if the face was significantly exposed to or immersed in water, although a proper fit of the dial to the pillar plate would protect. The threading of the Borgel case would --by design-- restrict the second possible route for water ingress the perimeter of the movement. The third, via the crown tube, is typically gasketed with leather or rubber, and oiled. In any case (pun intended)... my reply to you was to point out that 'waterproof watch-cases' existed before the Oyster, specifically and most pertinently, the Borgel case. Cheers.
Excited for this one Michael, you've gotten me into a rabbit hole with your content!
Rasically Rabbit! Trix are for kids!
I love the depth of knowledge you share on this topic.
“When the facts do not correspond to the theory, they must be disposed of.”
Bob Edwards leaves a trail of errors in his wake - how he gets a publishing deal is beyond belief.
There's so much ignorance regarding this subject, it seems that if someone comes along with a few fancy degrees and an air of confidence, then they must be worth listening to.
@@TheSaxon. All you have to do is read The Fight For Everest 1924 and everything is crystal clear
TY Michael, another enjoyable video 🙏🙏
I LOVE your videos!!! And your wisdom and wish you had 1-2 other topics you would get super microscopic about bc I’d listen to you go in great detail about ANYTHING! but I will say I enjoy this topic a lot and the facts vs the fog can’t be beat in terms of the AUDACITY of all of the “main characters”
Woo hoo - Michael's back!
Michael has taken those "experts" to school yet again
Michael,
Didn't Simonson, in '99, accurately describe the location of the oxygen cylinder to Richards and Norton (on descent) with reasonable enough accuracy to be confirmed later?
Or do you believe that it had likely been moved between 1960 and circa 1987 by an expedition?
The report is that it was moved in 1999 -- even Thom Pollard is saying that. What we do know is that Tap Richards got a call over the radio and then in just 5 minutes located an oxygen bottle that was. supposedly seen. by Simonson back in1991. So, yeah, that would be a very vivid and accurate description. The problem is that Simonson has never been able to. say exactly what he told Richards. The only thing is that it was "under a boulder." It is unlikely that "under a boulder" would allow someone to find a bottle in less than 5 minutes.
If a photo was taken of the bottle in place and it was on top of snow, then it would mean it. was just placed there. The fact that no one can say exactly where the bottle was found nor exactly what Simonson said about the location is a good indication that not everyone is being completely honest about what happened.
Tap Richards was back in 2001 and could not be bothered to pin point the location or take photographs of it even though the bottle was no longer there. The notion that the potentially highest piece of physical evidence of Mallory and Irvine's climb is completely shrouded in mystery should stick out as a major problem.
I realize you want to find a set of facts that makes every one look good and believe everything was just a misunderstanding or a mistake. It is unlikely any such explanation exists. These people are still alive. You are welcome to contact them. They won't tell you a thing and you will quickly see what type of reception you get as soon as you ask about. it. Please do. Please contact. these people and tell then you just want to clear it all up and you just need to know the description Simonson gave to Richards or you just need to know which boulder it was under. Good luck with that.
Enjoy your videos - thank you. Sorry for asking but do you have beef with Everest Mysteries channel guy? I feel behind on the history but sense some stick poking from both sides. I enjoy your approach and the investigative / scientific nature of your videos.
The motto for the channel is "Sic Semper Charlatanis." People who routinely invent nonsense and are blatant hypocrites do not fare well on this channel. The constant need to correct various "mistakes" made in other people's books and videos does get a little old and may come across as a "beef."
@@michaeltracy2356 thank you! I really enjoy the videos - and the motto😂
It’s really disturbing how a “regular” person could watch those videos on EM and be sooooo easily content and accepting. It is scary to me. Seeing a channel like that be so wrong and so “hidden” for even the most seasoned of minds. I don’t have the words to describe what I mean 😢
(This is about the internet in general, not the OP here. Those videos just seem to be too easy for people to go right along with and for all the “right” reasons - yikes! And then you turn the page and do a little work and bam! It is an avalanche of yikes!)
There is a difference between entertainment gossip and serious scholarship.
Is the original camp VI still being used?
No, it is over on the North Ridge. It is a little lower and further to the east from modern high camp. The last time it was used was in 1924.
Hi Michael, I have an unrelated question. Another video states the chinese saw an english body in 1960. I think they are saying they saw this body near the couloir? Is this the standard account of the siting of this body?? thanks- sam
No. I cover the 1960 sighting here: ruclips.net/video/RcgZ-AtMQUg/видео.html
Facinating..................
The watch looks fakey as isn't waterproof by design so after some time the iron parts would be covered with rust.Rolex Oyster was waterproof since 1926.
Hi Mark. The Borgel waterproof case was patented in 1891.
Rolex (Hans Wilsdorf) actually utilized such cases for their 'waterproof' watches until they had fully developed the Oyster and released it in 1926.
Rolex later went on to purchase Borgel patents as a hedge against the competition... but yes, the Borgel case was effective. The Oyster case
was even better, but there's no reason to doubt the reported material condition of the works inside Mallory's watch, as found.
@@nanii414 That's very interesting,but watch was found with missing glass.It's practically open=without sealing.The moisture would attack for sure mainspring,balance spring,iron alloy screws.Especially after 75 years.I'd like to be mistaken but if I was an expert I would vote the watch in question as not Mallory's Borgel.
@@markwroblewski6500 Hi again, Mark.
I am certainly taking it on faith that the watch reviewed by David Boettcher was indeed recovered from George Mallory's remains.
I'm not intimate with the climate near the summit, but I wager that the temperature and relative-humidity ranges that are conducive to the mummification of human remains would also be favorable to retarding metal corrosion/oxidation.
Although stainless steel was not yet popular in watch-case construction at the time (and it so happens, the subsequent owners of Borgel's company, Taubert et Fils, were leaders in this regard, with their "Staybrite' stainless) the watch case in question is described as silver. This is consistent with the 'top grade' perlage finish of the bridges of the 13' FHF movement inside, and those bridges appear to be nickeled. The balance would have been bronze alloy, and the hairspring a chromium-nickel-iron (a stainless steel with nickel , if you like) alloy like Elinvar, which was developed in 1913 and adopted by the Swiss manufactures from about 1918. I feel the mainspring would have been relatively safe inside its barrel, oiled.
The loss of the polymer crystal would have chiefly exposed the (painted) dial, the hands which were vulnerable blued steel, the cannon pinion, and possibly the hub of the hour whee. Those central latter are a possible route for moisture to get into the works, if the face was significantly exposed to or immersed in water, although a proper fit of the dial to the pillar plate would protect. The threading of the Borgel case would --by design-- restrict the second possible route for water ingress the perimeter of the movement. The third, via the crown tube, is typically gasketed with leather or rubber, and oiled.
In any case (pun intended)... my reply to you was to point out that 'waterproof watch-cases' existed before the Oyster, specifically and most
pertinently, the Borgel case.
Cheers.