And you watch videos about bored rich people climbing pointless rocks. Wow, talk about insulting yourself. Don't be so hard on yourself. You are probably not the complete failure you make yourself out to be. Treat others with respect -- respect their choices, and they will respect you. You didn't and I don't.
One thing I find distasteful, and even irresponsible, in your videos is the hyperfocus on John Krakauer. It seems shortsighted that you don’t constantly keep in mind that Into Thin Air is not solely Krakauer’s intellectual property. A good chunk of the book is quite literally constructed by the firsthand testimonies of people who were at certain points on the mountain while Krakauer was sick after the summit and initial descent. Krakauer interviewed all of the survivors, including the surviving guides/leaders: Anatoli Boukreev, Michael Groom, and Neal Beidleman. And he didn’t just do one interview; he did several with each person, including phone calls, emails, and in-person interviews. Krakauer wasn’t even allowed to publish anything before editors painstakingly contacted each person again and double-checked that the information written was accurate of their interviews and experiences. This is why no survivor has come out to question the book’s historical accuracy except Boukreev, and he only did because he disliked the mirror he was looking at (despite confirming his testimony in the book to said editor months prior). In fact, Biedleman himself has been vocal about cosigning Krakauer’s published events. All of this is to say-Krakauer recounted the 1996 events in collaboration with all of the other survivors, so are you accusing all of them of lying about their trauma? Or is Krakauer the only victim who gets to be extensively shamed because you-someone who wasn’t there-for some reason don’t like that/how he recounted his and everyone else’s experiences?
How do you know Krakauer did all that? Because Krakauer told you. How do you know that Krakauer reported what the people actually said. Because Krakauer told you. You see them problem? When Groom wrote his book, he account is completely different Krakauer's. So, you want me to believe that Groom told Krakauer one thing and then wrote a completely different thing in his booK? Anyway.... Here is your homework. Finds 10 major difference between Krakauer's account about Michael Groom and Michael Groom's account about Michael Groom and for each of them tell me which one you think is accurate. Post again without completing the homework and you will be banned and your comment deleted. This is not the channel to spread misinformation.
Michael, in past videos you have indicated how much of the climb can be reconstructed (prior to the storm) with photographs taken that day. Have any photos ever surfaced of the Taiwanese at the cache point or anywhere else along the route. Other than a Gau summit picture, nothing really exists. Excellent series of videos. I have learned so much about the 1996 disaster.
Yes, there is the photo of Rob Hall's body. I have not used it in the past because I generally do not show photos of bodies unless it is necessary. However, I will probably use it in a future video and simply blur out the actual body to the extent it can be. You can do a search and easily find it and it shows the complete disarray of the bottles at South Summit. While it doesn't explain exactly what happened at South Summit, it is clear the bottle situation was a mess.
I thought Thom in one of his video's state's that he and Jake Norton returned the following year! Jake bringing a Metal Detector to look for the camera around the area of Mallory's body? He does give Conrad credit for finding Mallory the year before. . Cheers🍻
@@michaeltracy2356 Sorry he claims 5/16/99 not the next year and mentions Andy Politz Not Jake in video (My Encounter With George Mallory)! Surely some of it is right? 🤔 I do enjoy the videos. Cheers
Yes, he and Poltiz returned on May 16 and dug up the body. While the version of the story is ever changing, it appears Politz had a metal detector and allegedly was off searching the surrounding area when Pollard photographed Mallory's face. Thus Politz did not see the face and we have only Thom's word that he had a hole in his head. They then left the body partially uncovered and headed down the mountain to sell their photographs. Poltiz has removed all his photos from Getty images after a popular RU-vid channel became critical of how the body was handled on May 16. The photos were out for more than a decade, and even now you can search around and find the ones that show a largely smashed up body that they "searched" on May 16. While I generally feel that Poltiz acted appropriately, his removal of photos that have been available for decades as well as his refusal to discuss exactly what happened that day nor resolve any of the conflicting accounts leaves me more critical of his motives than I was several years ago. Hemmleb has told me that Poltiz owns the video footage of the searchs -- both May 1 and May 16. If true, he is sitting on the largest trove of information that could provide critical insight into the 1924 climb.
The narcissism of climbers is appalling to me. Such selfishness risking one's life and thus impacting the lives of family and friends - all for glory and fame. The 2nd guessing after the fact and the obvious obfuscation of what really happened - to cover asses - is also appalling. Why not try golf instead? A reason to do so are the words of the world renowned psychiatrist, referred to as "The Conscience of Humanity" - Dr.M. Scott Peck. He picked up the game later in life (after a lifetime of tennis gave him chronic problems). He wrote an entire book about golf where the main theme was (his words): "We can all agree that sports are metaphors for life. Golf is different. Golf is not a metaphor for life. Golf IS life." He was 100% serious. Mtn Climbing isn't about life - it's about death. Dying is also not a metaphor for life.
People die playing golf all the time. Usually, they die in storms. Bunch of selfish a-holes those golf players, right? The metaphor of life is a that it is full of self absorbed know it alls that think their favorite pastime is better than everyone else's.
Smythe seems to be pretty good at judging routes he never attempted - he briefly mentions the zig zag on p208 of Ruttledge's book, only to say that, while he had no idea if it was possible to break through the rock band to the east of the couloir's head, its "steeper up there than down here", before moving on to discuss the UFOs
Krakauer was a great technical climber - at relatively low altitudes. The problem with Everest is that you have to be good at altitude and technical skills aren't as important. Pittman had summited Aconcagua and been on Everest two other times - she had much more high-altitude experience than he did. She was literally more qualified to be there than he was.
They made it to the summit: my heart knows this, my gut knows this, and nothing else even makes sense. Those men were absolutely determined, and relentless. Irvine said in his journal that if they could get close enough, they were going for it, and if it was a one way ticket then so be it; that was their mindset. Mallory knew this was probably his last shot, and he put all his cards on the table. When they summited, they knew they were in trouble. They needed to start back down immediately, but they needed proof. Mallory carefully placed the photo of his beloved Ruth as he had promised, and quickly handed the camera to Irvine to snap a photo of him standing on the summit. There was no more time; Irvine hastily tucked the camera into his coat pocket, and they started back down as weather conditions continued to worsen. That camera is in Sandy Irvine's pocket, and God willing, what's inside will re-write the story of Everest. That camera is the holy grail of mountaineering history, and long have I dreamed of gazing upon that photo of Mallory standing on the summit, with a confident smirk, and muttering under my breath for all the skeptics: "Told ya... " 😊
conclusion: John Cracky Hack is a liar. Which, I'm going to be real, I kind of figured out when I read his book as a teen (I was a freshman in high school when the storm happened) and being a woman in outdoors hobbies gotta say I smelled the rat from the start.
FYI, the photo of the watch with the hour hand still attached has now been published in the book by Robert Edwards, just released: « Mallory, Irvine, and Everest ». Which was a fascinating read.
Would be a good book if not so riddled with errors. But with so many blatant mistakes -- such as the location of the 1933 high camp, it ends up being another piece of historical fiction. Fundamentally, it tells a good story, and there are facts that support that story. Unfortunately, so many mistakes leave one wondering what is accurate and what is not. We started to "fact check" it over in the Yeti Academy and it just turned into a joke -- way too many inaccuracies. That the author just assumes the 1960 Chinese made it to the summit is a sure give away that it is not an unbiased and critical look at historical events.
Dang... he left her to die on that mountain. I've always said the guilty make the most noise. The amount of noise he made about Boukreev, accusing him of the exact things he was doing... I hope she haunts his dreams.
I'll never understand why, if Rob Hall had a radio, he never used it until he was trapped at the summit in the teeth of a hurricane with the blazingly crazy idea of someone running oxygen bottles up to the summit. This whole expedition was mismanaged by both companies. Both Hall & Fisher were derelict in their duties--that's just the plain fact. It's a wonder anyone came off that mountain in one piece at all. And if this recount is true of Hall talking Doug back into resuming his climb at that late hour, then that explains why he fought back with base camp when he finally did use the radio and they told him to leave Doug on the mountain and save himself. Now that makes sense why he wouldn't leave. Neither of them had any business up on that mountain that afternoon.
Rob Hall was with Mike Groom and Andy Harris at about 7AM on the Balcony. Those were the only AC people with radios, so there really wasn't any point of using them at that time. At 12PM Hall and Groom were together on South Summit, Harris had just left with Krakauer. Obviously, no need to radio Groom, and there really wasn't any reason to radio Harris at that point. Hall radios down his summit at 2:30, but Groom is with him on the Summit -- Harris is heading to South Summit. Harris had an earlier conversation with Hall as they passed each other -- Hall going up, Harris going down. While he have no way of knowing what was said, immediately after that Harris returned to South Summit and started trying to find oxygen bottles to being back up to Rob Hall. It is reasonable to assume that that when Rob Hall talked to Harris he instructed him to do one of two things: (1) go to South Summit and get more bottles and wait for Hall's radio call to see if he needed them brought up or (2) go get the bottles, no need to wait for a call. Rob then calls down at 4:30 asking for the bottles, but it is not clear what he had told Harris. Harris was clearly waiting at the South Summit even though, by that time, Harris had his own oxygen and could head down. So either Harris took it upon himself to understand that Hall was in trouble or Rob Hall told him earlier that he might be in trouble. But in either case, I don't see how additional radio calls would have helped significantly. I detail the oxygen problem at South Summit in the videos series about that. Whether the oxygen was stolen, misplaced, or just magically disappeared, the problems were that Andy Harris could not locate full bottles of oxygen at South Summit to bring up to Rob Hall. It is unlikely that receiving a radio call at 2:30 would have assisted Harris in locating any of the full bottles as Rob Hall had no idea what the oxygen situation on South Summit was at that point in time -- no one did.
These are amazing videos. The research and unbiased information is critical to this entire story. Other channel and publications leave out certain elements to this because of either involvement in the 96 climb or having some preconceived notion about it. Not being a climber at all but being a lover of correct information whether it’s happy or tragic information brings to logical conclusions. It’s very sad that Jon creates a narrative that only places blame on strange things that either are implied or blatantly false. It’s terrible that some many people died or were permanently scarred physically and emotionally because of some crazy narrative.
The information in these videos is very interesting however the basic facts are unchanged. Those who died were victims of multiple of errors and poor judgement. Those who lived were face to face with death in the most extreme of conditions. The enormity of where they were, why they were there drove those errors and excused poor judgment. No one went there to die or to see fellow climbers die. The "climb Everest culture" entrepreneurs of that era nearly promised summit success for the proper fee, even for a novice. There is plenty of blame to go around and to Krakauer's credit, he admitted his part although Anatoli will always be a hero. So we can sharpshoot people's 28 year old personal accounts all we want but it changes nothing of importance. The event that I marvel at is the Beck Weathers survival, an irrefutable miracle. That he survived in a near coma state, overnight in the death zone without oxygen, reawakened and barely able to see, walked the several hundred yards to camp 4 was nothing short of devine guidance. Then to survive a brutal overnight storm and still walk, short-roped unable to use his hands or see clearly to just above the ice fall to facilitate a helicopter evacuation is just beyond comprehension. I wrote to Beck because my wife had to have the same inovative facial reconstructive surgery due to cancer, not frostbite, at about the same time he did. His survival and attitude towards life is an inspiration.
Why the fascination with Beck? It seems like he went there to commit suicide and changed his mind sometime during the storm. His book covers it in depth, but it has been erased from the "hero" or "miracle" story you seem to believe. His actions caused Groom to loose his toes and Namba to loose her life. All because he wanted to go to the Mountain and die. Great he changed is mind. Great he survived. But I don't buy the "miracle". Namba died for his "miracle." I find his attitude repulsive. Pretending that he went there to climb the mountain when his book tells a very different story. Pretending that people did die to indulge is selfish game. I am sorry, I do no share your view of the man -- and I don't think you know 1/2 of the real story.
@@michaeltracy2356awakening from 22 hours of freezing in those conditions, getting up and walking 400 meters in a raging storm, essentially blind straight into camp 4 is pretty miraculous regardless of what his mental state had been. He was also told to stay put by Rob when he could no longer continue until Rob returned. Call me skeptical, but he had plenty of opportunity to wander off and die the hours he waited for Rob UNLESS all these things I read in various accounts of these events are erroneous too. I watched a couple of your videos today and subscribed because as I had stated, they have interesting information however, in my years of enjoying RU-vid productions, I never had any of the creators make assumptions about me or display hostilities as if I had been an unreasonable critic.
Oh, and yes according to many online articles about Weathers, including his own, he did indeed suffer from lifelong depression, even having suicidal thoughts but none suggested he went to Everst to end his life, rather his mountain climbing was the therapy he sought. His will to live is undeniable and when the group got lost, Namba was the one who was essentially helpless, unable to walk.
Weathers was short ropped down the entire slope from the Balcony by Mike Groom -- Weathers being unable to walk on his own. Namba made it down about 1/2 way under her own power before running out of oxygen. And Krakauer's account leaves on wondering exactly what Beck had "all figured out" -- it's on page 226. Krakauer's version:""So I'm trying to shove her hands back into her mittens 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. " Weathers mentions it in his book (p.149). And if you bothered to read Weather's book, it doesn't agree with you either... "Yasuko and I were the acute problems, however. Neal took her and headed on down the Triangle. Mike short-roped me, which is exactly what it sounds like." Weathers, Beck; Michaud, Stephen G.. Left for Dead (p. 149). Random House Publishing Group. No one else has Yasuko with Beidleman that high up, but, ok, you want to believe everything Beck says -- then he is saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. I will also note, I do not appreciate your "the whole internet prove me right." If you can't cite a specific source for your material and have that source agree with what you want it to say, then don't post it. If you don't wish to take the time or effort to verify things before you say them, then do not post them in this channel. It looks like Weathers did wander off with the intent to die. That is my take from the account in Krakauer's book. I realize he did not come out and say, "Ok, now I am going to wander off and die," and no doubt you will take that as "proof" that he didn't. But a reasonable person certainly could conclude that he did. More problematic is that Weathers mentions the incident in his book and doesn't say a single thing about it. Not a "Oh, I don't remember that part" or a "Oh, I was really out of it at that point." Sometimes silence says more than words. You want to believe Weathers because you liked the story that has been pushed on you. Weather's version of so many things has changed from each telling and little to none of the version in his book matches up with other people's accounts. It comes across as an invented survivor story. As with all invented stories, it will be good. The only problem with it is that I do not think a single piece of it is true. Glad he survived. But going around giving speeches and promoting it like it is some "miracle" while ignoring all the problems with his ever changing accounts are not what I expect from respectable accounts of what happened. But a sucker is born every minute, so these things will continue draw in a certain type of individual.
I find Michael Tracy's videos extremely riveting and valuable. I appreciate the throroughness of his research. I do have a question though, has Michael ever been to the mountain? Just wondering. I can't seem to keep straight who all the different players are like Tom Pollard and Michael Synnot
You can go to the Himalayan Database website a put in anyones name and it will tell you which of the tracked peaks they have climbed -- Everest being one of them.
It's in many of the climbers accounts that Scott assisted with a climber in trouble back down to camp 1 and then had to climb back up to his clients. It was just too much. Helping rescue someone ended up costing him his life.
Our canoe group was accompanied by a South Bend Tribune journalist.Our takeout was next to a bridge which we considered as an easement to avoid property disputes with locals. Locals showed with axe handles and immediately started beating on brothers fiberglass canoe and the reporter's wrist. Write up in paper was completely different than actual events. I had learned journalists have some agenda (search for fame?) different from most folks. Loved into thin air as fiction but have tired of Jon's 28 years of BS. Oh, thankful county police showed up b4 I rammed paddle up a hillbilly arse
Why has Pittman been so vilified in other people’s narratives? I wonder if Krakauer was harder on the women because of their gender rather than their behavior.
Perhaps a bit of both. The issue with gender is that Krakauer refused to acknowledge the written accounts of Charlotte Fox or Lena Gammelgaard. Although both provided very different versions of events than Krakauer's, he just ignored them. He did respond to criticism from male climbers -- Boukreev and Lopsang. His bias against women in general is covered in the book "False Summit: Gender in Mountaineering" by Julie Rak. That books details some of his bias against various women on the 1996 teams, but there are certainly far more examples than Rak lists in her book.
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?
Thanks for the video, it clears up a lot more! Crackhour took some major liberties(Freedoms) in his writing. Can't trust a journalists writings for the truth. It will always be a way different story than any ordinary persons version. You know, (the truth..) I had no idea that he didn't have to pay anything, or even his company didn't have to pay..Crazy!!!
Are drones difficult to get up around the summit? Why not do an expedition and meticulously scan every meter of Irvine's possible location with a flood of drones? I feel like something is being hidden from the public. If that's the case it could only mean they summited and people get very bent out of shape when their 'established' history is thrown to the winds.
About the Biedelman choice to go around... In retrospect, I think it was a mistake. (and by that I mean Neil consciously veered of course) They should have reached the steep and the ropes. Send a two fit man in the base camp to alert and send help(rescue party). In that scenario.. the stranded climbers would have waited much less.. and they will got oxygen in under an hour. Probably all would have lived... Thats basic boy scout manual. 🤷🏼
Krakauer was spent by the time he reached camp 4, he was not there as a guide, so cannot be blamed for yasuko, clearly boukreev saw her as someone else’s client, and was too tired, and left her and weathers where they were
Watch the South Summit series. All Krakauer had to say was "My bottle is only half full" and it would have saved Yasuko's life. Ok, you think he didn't need to bother himself with saying that. But as I said below, you might want to check on who you are defending before you defend them.
And when one of those people said he was quoted inaccurately, Krakauer ignored him. So, I do not consider it useful for a "journalist" to interview people while they are still on the mountain, descending in the icefall after a near death experience for themselves and having watched his friend die, and that is when Krakauer decided to interview Lopsang. Lopsand says he was quoted improperly but Krakauer ignored that. Might want to check on who you are defending before you defend them.
@@michaeltracy2356 not sure why after 28 years you want to berate a book that has tried to be as accurate as possible, it was also an international best seller, Krakauer never imagined he would have a great story out of literally “thin air”, unfortunately it unfolded the worst in guided climbing, and clearly showed that at 28,000 feet guide is an oxymoron, he wrote very well, tried his best to state objectively, and did not go up there with an agenda to find fault with anyone. Boukreev climbed without oxygen to make this yet another feat of his while being paid very well, ignoring his obligations, Scott should not have hired him, he was not the guiding type, Pittman was and even now behaves like an ungrateful Diva, and if these 2 had not been there Scott may be alive today. Weathers, Yasuko, had the misfortune of being in Rob Hall’s team, Weathers should have climbed down as soon as sight was becoming a challenge, Rob Hall’s reputation made him wait for Rob, Yasuko’s misfortune was Boukreev’s detachment from human obligations especially for clients that were not from his team. Again the above are my opinion, I have also read parts of the Climb by Dewalt, and several other documents on the 1996 Everest events.
I met one of the climbers a year ago or so who wrote After the wind, He said he promised his wife he would be back and he turned around at the turn around time despite the summit being in reach. Really nice guy and smart.
I have one (maybe naive) question? After reading all the books and being interested in this disaster for years... Can you explain how the O was the main problem? As far as I understand.. Mountain Madness team has enough if not more oxygen. Adventure Consultants were indeed short on it, but half of their team bailed on the attempt... so theoretically they should have extra bottles instead of less!? The only other expedition that day were the taiwaneses.. (for whom I don't know how well supplied they were), but as in the case of AC exp. only one man continue to the top? My logic tells me that there should have been more than enough instead of not enough oxygen... 🤷🏼
As I explain in this video, the bottles that were labeled as full were not full. Most likely because of oxygen theft. As Yasuko Namba received a bottle that was less than 1/2 full on here descent and she stopped walked as soon as it ran out and later died, it should be fairly obvious why her oxygen situation caused her death. None of the MM clients died, so I am not sure what you think their problem was. They took the wrong route down to camp and got lost. This video covers the issue with oxygen with Harris, Hall, Hansen.
@@michaeltracy2356Thank you for your response. I watched your video(s) more than once.. you indeed throw a new light of that faithful expedition. But still.. a question lingers in my mind. The stash prepared at the South summit was somehow depleted, half-full discarded bottles and so on.. As an amateur diver, I am kinda in disbelief as how that can happen? And if it happen, how, and who was responsible for it! There must be logical explanation. If it was case of stolen bottles.. who stole it? The taiwaneses?! Those are kind of serious accusations, especially without a proof. Then again, as I said.. there weren't too many people continue past the South summit. It should be rather easy to account who was carrying what 🤷🏼 Don't get me wrong! You are on the right track! Please continue your work on this case. It's very much appreciated.
This just in!: In the afterlife, George Mallory contacted famed British psychic/medium/spiritualist Geraldine Cummins (1890-1969) and told her he didn't make the summit. Proof! ;)
Start with something simple. Here is your homework assignment: How many oxygen bottles did the Taiwanese team use after 12PM on May 10, 1996? Please do not post until you have answered that rather simple question.
In the archive somewhere. Why don't you look it up? A common theme on this channel is to watch what people do rather than what they say. The reason Mallory wasn't flapping his arms and trying to get to the summit that way was because he thought that flapping his arms and flying to the summit would not work. Most likely, the reason he was putting one foot in front of the other in the direction of the summit was because he thought is would work.
As far as ITA, I've always put it into the same category as what passes for history in "The Crown", a slanted version of what happened but massaged to meet the needs of the writer, publisher, director, producer. Sadly, this is what passes for true history any more. JK is not a historian but a journalist, and those two things are very different. A journalist blatantly has a POV, one hopes a historian does not, but I'm not sure that is true either. Historians definitely have biases and agendas as well. None of us involved in an event, especially a traumatic one, has the actuality of the whole thing, just our version, and badly remembered at that. If there are multiple witnesses to the same thing, they will remember it differently and once we hear others' versions, we mesh it with ours, discard what we don't think fits or shows us badly, and that becomes our truth. JK's job was to write a story about his experience as a client of a fairly new but burgeoning business of Everest-touristing for a magazine. As a reader of the book, I found it engrossing, if self-serving and self-centered. I felt at the time, there was a lot of cobbling together of various stories, recollections, irritations, jealousies, and suppositions, filling in of things to meet the narrative. I never expected absolute fact, how boring would that be, but a self-centered retelling of a few very bad days on a very high mountain where humans have no biological ability to survive naturally. I expected nothing more, because adventure journalism is always like that. Read RFS or EKS or even RA recounting of their various journeys to the Antarctic. They definitely have an agenda and a POV that often, especially in Scott's descriptions of Shackleton, that is a bit on the rude side. And I have my biases towards that group of Antarctic explorers which probably colors my preferred histories / recountings of those explorers and explorations. Even science has its biases and as a group, scientists tend to be fairly unbiased, except when it comes to our own discoveries and then we are no different, we will support our side, our truth, as long as we can. ("come hell or high water" attitude in some respects. You should read some of our discussions, lol) The only witnesses that do not lie are the ones that are recorded and are unedited or cut to eliminate the bad stuff or to cast blame on one or another party. The "black boxes" that we all know about from aircraft investigations are probably the most reliable witnesses to things, but even they have limitations and based on the investigatory body, the data they contain may be "edited" to fit an agenda.
I really like your thorough analysis, but are you maybe conflating "empty" with "not full"? In everything you showed us in your video it's stated that Harris repeatedly insisted the bottles were EMPTY, yet you keep telling us Harris said the bottles were NOT FULL. These are not the same thing. If you told me, a half-full glass of water is empty, I would also assume that you're irrational.
There is no reason to be rude and insult me. I am well aware that there is a difference between "empty" and "not full." If you really think I couldn't tell the difference, please just leave this channel. "As Andy continued to assert that there were no full bottles at South Summit, Mike looked at me quizzically." -- Krakauer, p 196. Although Harris also says some bottles are empty, there is no dispute that plenty of empty bottles were on South Summit -- many from previous years. Elsewhere in the book Krakauer clears knows the difference between full and partially full bottles. "his third canister was more than three-quarters full when he left the summit" -- page 235. As stated in this video, the problem is with partially full bottles and the difficulty in distinguishing these from empty bottles. You should focus on why Krakauer stated the only way to determine this was to attach a regulator when such a statement was false and Krakauer knew it was false. Rather than assuming everyone other than yourself is an idiot, if you realize that they are not, more of what is going on will make sense.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you for your fast reply. I did not intend to insult you; why would you assume that? There is no need to lash out. The first thing I said in my comment is "I really like your thorough analysis" - and I honestly do. I did not read Krakauer's book nor watched the film based on it. I cannot tell or judge what Krakauer knew or what is made up; all I'm working with here is the information you provide in your video. After your final sentence I went back and doublechecked the quotes you showed. At 7:13 I see "there is no oxygen here" and "these bottles are all empty", at 7:22 it's stated "he kept insisting, they were all empty", at 12:12 Beidleman tries to explain why the bottles may have "registered empty". Now I went back again and unfortunately and admittely I missed the quote at 13:52 (which you repeated in your reply), which is the only reference to "not full" while everything else you presented references "empty". I have no particular opinion about any of the people you covered nor their motivations. I'm merely interested in the puzzle you are trying to solve and the way you approach it. I just noticed the discrepancy between "empty" and "not-full" and felt it could just as well be a miscommunication: Assuming Krakauers depiction of what was said is accurate, Harris probably MEANT that the originally stashed full bottles were gone (not full any more), but didn't SAY it like that. And Krakauer took it literally. After he attached his regulator and noticed the bottle was half-full, it contradicted Harris' statements they were all empty. Maybe he even showed the gauge to Harris, who felt confirmed in that the bottles were not full, but still called them empty which again confirmed Krakauer in his assumption of irrationality? I mean, I have no idea - it's pure speculation, but not impossible? I did not focus on the problem of distinguishing half-full from empty bottles, because I agree with your analysis. I'm clearly a layman and don't claim to be right, but I could imagine that Harris checked the cached bottles, saw the caps attached but noticed they were too light to be full. He maybe attached his regulator to one bottle and found it half-full. Maybe he tried a second, maybe not. But he quickly concluded that something is not right and that bottles that are supposed to be full are only partially filled. He miscommunicated that to Krakauer by calling them "empty". After arriving, Krakauer didn't believe him, assuming the bottles were full because all the caps were in place. Again, I really enjoy your detailed and thorough analysis; I just pointed out the one thing that seemed odd to me. I'm not a fan of Krakauers nor am I trying to defend him. I just thought there is another more favourable explanation. Thank you again for your reply - it could've been a little less aggressive though.
It seem like you can't see the glacier because of all the ice. There are two main points to the video regarding this issue: (1) the way Krakauer uses innuendo to mislead his readers and (2) that had Krakauer said "my bottle is not full", Yasuko Namba would still be alive. In terms of the first, what Krakauer said is not true. You do not need to attach a regulator to tell how much oxygen is in a bottle. His statement that Harris "presumably" did this is so ridiculous that it makes little difference whether Krakauer knew it was false at the time or not. The incident at South Summit was not the result of some misunderstanding about "not full" and "empty" bottles. Had it been, Krakauer would have simply written in his book that he attached his regulator to the bottle, noticed it was half full and then headed down the mountain comfortable knowing that Harris just didn't know the difference between "not full" and "empty." Not surprisingly, that is not what Krakauer wrote. Krakauer receiving a bottle that was about 38% full. Had he simply told someone this, it would have saved lives. No one was sitting there thinking a bunch of the bottles were only partially full. There was no legitimate way they could be partially full. To expect Harris to recognize that bottles that clearly weigh far less than a full bottle were only 38% full is far fetched. It also provides no way for him to easily determine which bottles might be 38% full (or less). There were dozens of bottles on South Summit. You can do an image search for "rob halls body" and shows him dead next to about a dozen bottles. I assure you -- they are not full. The problem with your argument is that it assumes that because Krakauer provided blatantly false information, the other information that he provided that is not blatantly false must be true. There is no reason to believe this. Krakauer said six bottles on South Summit were full -- a blatantly false statement because he received one that was only 38% full. This does not mean that automatically the other 5 were full. It means that Krakauer had no idea how much oxygen was in any of the bottles other than the one he attached his regulator to. And for some reason, this information is so problematic that he waits 4 pages to tell the reader what the gauge said. It appears Groom received a full bottle and Yasuko a partial -- also less than 1/2 full. From this, it does not automatically mean that the other bottles were full. We have no idea what was in the bottles. We do know that Harris is claiming they were either "not full" or "empty." However, it is not clear which. We do know that later, Rob Hall also allegedly had a problem that requires "four hours to de-ice his mask." (p.244). So, according to Krakauer, Harris regulator had ice in it and Hall's mask had ice in it for 4 hours. Both are ridiculous statements. If Rob was having trouble with his mask, he simply would have pulled the tube out and stuck it in his mouth. Just sticking his finger in the mask would probably break the valve in the open position (not really possible to break in the closed position, but if the path is full of ice, it is the same thing). We also know Rob Hall died surrounded by oxygen bottles that are not neatly stacked. Most likely Rob Hall was also going through the bottles as well and having the same problem as Harris. That is the bottles they thought had oxygen in them did not. If they were partially full, that would be enough to last while they looked for the next one. Ultimately, little to nothing about Krakauer's account is the straight forward truth. While I appreciate you are trying to give him the "benefit of the doubt," I do not apply the "benefit of the doubt" to a person who makes numerous blatantly false statements about the key details of an event. On the other hand, if everything that can be verified checks out, then I am inclined to believe the persons statements even though there is no independent verification of them. That is not the case here. Starting on page 194 with "When we go there, and examination of the oxygen cache..." nearly every single sentence is flat out wrong.... ""immediately revealed that there were at least six full bottles" -- false, and Krakauer knew it was false when he wrote it. "nothing Mike or I said could convince him otherwise" -- Groom does not report saying anything to Harris about the empty bottles. Groom states he was busy dealing with problems with Krakauer and Namba and wasn't really paying too much attention to Harris. Not surprisingly, Krakauer has a different view of things. "The only way to know how much has is in a canister is to attach it to your regulator and read the gauge" -- false, and it is difficult to believe that a fact checker did not catch this blatantly false statement. "Then I grabbed a new oxygen canister, screwed it onto my regulator, and headed down the mountain." -- true but completely misleading. I simply do not view the issue as one of Krakauer and Harris having a difference of opinion about "not full" vs "empty" and I don't see that has remotely close to any legitimate explanation of what was going on. Taking the various accounts, Groom was busing helping Namba and Krakauer -- whom he had just rescued and was completely hypoxic. Harris can't locate any full bottles and Krakauer claims to have tried to convince him they were full --- though exactly how Krakauer tried to convince him remains unclear. Later, Harris comes over the radio saying there is a problem with the oxygen. Hall reports he can't get oxygen but this gets labeled as an iced up mask rather than the bottle might not have had oxygen in it. What we do know is that Krakauer claims to have received a partially full bottle, saw that it was partially full, and just said "much ado about nothing." You can blame this on altitude, hypoxia, faulty memory, or whatever else you want, but none of those caused Krakauer to move the information 4 pages later in his book. Nothing caused Krakauer to fail to explain exactly how he was trying to convince Harris the bottles were full. Rather than making excuses for Krakauer, why not try contacting him to see if he can explain what he really meant and why he moved the part about noticing his bottle was only 1/2 full 4 pages later into the book? As I demonstrate in several of these videos, Krakauer's multiple versions of what happened do not match up with photographs of the mountain, the laws of physics, nor the way oxygen equipment operates. It is very unlikely his numerous mistakes in the very small section relating to South Summit on the descent were simply "honest mistakes." But, if they were, he will not doubt be thrilled when you contact him so he can correct the record as to what happened.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you, again, for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. Keep in mind that I'm just a "tourist"; I haven't read any literature on that topic - I had just watched your two videos at the time of my comment and my "theory" is solely based on the information you shared in them. I'm not trying to make excuses for Krakauer nor anyone else I've never met. Given the information in your video, my "benefit of the doubt" approach seemed reasonable. Now, with your replies, I have additional information about the context. Thank you for clarifying.
