Analysis of Scott Fischer's photo from South Summit 

Edit: Sorry about that. So you believe Krakauer killed Harris? Is that what you are implying? Did Harris have any responsibility for himself? Uh oh…I know how you feel about edits…

I miss spoke of my previous reply. I edited it. Now you’re gonna think I’m part of the conspiracy…

I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but wonder if in this case he was just charitably leaving out the detail of what he believed to be Andy messing up the valve. That said, you bring up many other items that are harder to explain away.

@@TJTurnage He left the part about the valve out of an obscure interview in which he is cursing, swearing, and clearly just talking off the top of his head. He then included it in a best selling book translated into multiple languages and still used in some university level courses. So, if he was being kind, perhaps he would have done the opposite and just briefly mention it but leave it out of the version that sold millions of copies. As for TJ, not sure what you are going on about. Krakauer has already said he feels terrible about this, and it has been giving him a recurring nightmare where Harris is trying to reach a rope and Krakauer can't get him a rope. I have no idea what his dreams mean, but talking about "killing" someone is ridiculous. Please keep your comments within the bounds of decency. Krakauer has said he feels extremely responsible for Harris' death. I agree with Krakauer on that point. However, I feel that certain aspect of his book were reported accurately. Krakauer was climbing with Harris most of the day. As nearly every aspect of Krakauer's own climb has been mis-reported, it is just a coincidence that Krakauer happened to be next to Harris when the events in question took place. It also makes sorting things out more difficult because Harris is not here to tell his version.

@@TJTurnage Speaking of dogs, remember that year they said a dog had summitted Everest? All I could think of was how the hell did he get up the Hillary step? Maybe that pooch should try again now that the earthquake happened…

Need Advice: Since you've read both books & knowing what we know from this video, would u even bother reading K's book? I have it on my Kindle, haven't read it and considering deleting. I'm interested in truth not fiction. What do u think?

@@msbeecee1 I think it's worth reading as an insight into his psyche. When I read it, I had no idea he had skewed the story in such a spectacular way, and only became suspicious after reading Boukreev's account and using that as a launchpad to dig deeper. Your approach to Krakauer's book would therefore be from an entirely different standpoint. I did enjoy it when I read it, from an engaging point of view, but I wouldn't recommend it now as an accurate account of what happened.

​@@msbeecee1I have read The Climb" and an currently reading "After the Wind". Shows K's bias and unnecessary criticism of Anatoli Boukreev.

I read Into thin air, and enjoyed it, but….. Something seemed a bit off with the criticism of, especially, Boukreev, so like you, I dug around a bit, and the read Boukreev’s book. It was definitely an eye opener. Oh, and I returned Krakauer’s book to Audible, he lost credibility to me.

I intended to read Boukreevs book as I never liked Krakauer. Saw a talk he gave, strange stuff. So sorry Boukreev became Krakauers scapegoat. Likely jealousy. 💐 Thanx

If the ropes were already there why did they have to redo em, setting them back 2 hours

Such an original comment.

Yet you probably admire all the old school mountaineers who had the exact same habits of leaving all their trash behind.

clearly you dont know the mts. an armchair adventurer? Judgement is very easy when you only watch videos, The Sherpas depend on this income. Ask them.....

Boukreev was beyond the pale amazing in saving those people and never giving up on them. He did seem to have a hard time following orders so maybe that's where the criticism comes from.

We don’t need to. Lou‘s and Bukreevs and Grooms Books are very close. It’s just Krakauers lies that differ.

I find it really disgusting that he was lying so much and confusing too, he must have done things that where unethical and wrong, maybe he feels shame and thought he needed to lie.

I mind, because he presents, Into Thin Air, as an accurate account made by a journalist, not a novelist, not as simply a survivor. Journalistic integrity is very important, people give a lot of weight to what a journalist writes and publishes due to this fact. Much like a witness in a court of law, they are expected to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. After reading both, Into Thin Air and The Climb, I developed significant doubts into the truthfulness and accuracy of Jon's account and, worse, began to believe he and Outside Magazine went out of their way to smear Anatoli. Going so far as to protest Boukreev receiving the award for heroism that an independent group voted he earned. It was very poor behavior and one that didn't make them look anymore honest in my eyes. Quite the opposite actually. I've not read any more of Krakaur's books and I doubt I will. Making mistakes is human, but falsifying and embellishing upon actual events and making others look bad is despicable, especially when they aren't here to defend themselves.

I feel duped.

he pays you 10 cents for each letter of praise

Did Covid teach you nothing?😅

@@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098 hahaha it taught me that truth is better than fiction 😅

@@msbeecee1 truth? this guy's a paid loony.

​@@whackamole4909 paid by whom and in order to achieve what?

@@whackamole4909 Paid by whom, and in what particulars is he incorrect?

Yes, this was quite interesting. Boukreev's book has its own perspective and agenda, of course, but one thing that stands out is a kind of amazed frustration in places at Krakauer repeatedly refusing to correct his narrative even when faced with objective evidence (i.e. photographs) that what he is saying is not true. Krakauer seems to have an indifference to the truth worthy of a true bullshit artist.

And Tony Hawk stole the first 540 And Edison stole almost everything And..

Yes, Michael, pls keep making more. People don't like to be shut down in their unfair debate tactics, which is what you do quite handily. Repeating lies over and over is what is bringing America down. Pls continue to be a warrior for facts & fair fighting in mountaineering 🙏

EXTREMELY suss, for sure. He uses this strategy more than once, according to the video. The saying "the living write the history books" has many implications....

The reliability of journalists involved in any major event has historically been shown to be suspect.

"Into The Wild" is so amazingly written that I overlook any discrepancies. Krakauer did a lot of quoting and direct copying of letters, though, and I thought he wrote sympathetic to young Chris's life.

Yesssssss 😡 I have his book in my Kindle account but haven't read it yet. I'm so glad I saw this. Now I'm gonna delete it unread. Sorry I spent money on it and gave him a sale.

he was actually there as opposed to this pitman shill

@@msbeecee1 If you paid for it I would read it. I have always been suspect of his story, but it should be read.

@@msbeecee1read it it’s a best seller for a reason. Very compelling. Whether it’s all factually correct in every respect it seems not. But it’s meant to be his journalistic account put into words at the time

I don't think she was ever short-roped (at least not on the way up; she seems to have had some trouble with altitude on the way down, which can happen to anyone) just as I don't think sherpas were nonsensically carrying her (electric?) espresso machine up the mountain. I think Krakaur was just salty about her being there for whatever reason.

very much worth searching up Pittmans 2023 short interview on her experience. It's on 'Harvest Series' podcast. Only 35 mins but very informative if u want a direct experience of her. There's also an excellent video abt Pittman on Adventures Gone Wrong channel

I think she was very unfairly judged. She was a very experienced climber.

@@MoonlightCircus From what I have learned (see a comment I made) Pittman did get short roped over the Kumbu Icefall since there was an accident just before she and a few others came there, and this was just a precaution of some kind. My memory is a bit hazy on this, since I just listened to a presentation. But she wasn't nannied like SOMEONE claimed.

I was one who has believed that she was the villan for a long time. In recent times, I'm realizing that Pittman has been done so unfairly. Where was this photo while the media was villifying her.

Being the first client to reach the summit for a season is "shinning" by any remote stretch. His entire goal was to be the first to the summit. As it is, he was the first client to reach the summit. It is the price he paid to do so that is the real story -- and one he does not tell.

@@michaeltracy2356Krakauer is no different than the people he loathes. In fact, he’s worse because under the guise of ‘journalism’, he maligns them!

​​@@WWIIPacificHistory his level of gaslighting (continuing to lie even when directly confronted w evidence to the contrary..basically denying 'reality') is at sociopathic level. Many times sociopaths are the ones who rise to the top because of their willingness to cold-bloodedly do whatever it takes w no morality or empathy for others

I'm super curious about this particular topic where Krakauer is to blame. Can you tell me some sources to read more on that specifically?

It is good

Fallen by Mick Conefrey just came out recently I believe the channel Everest Mystery has a video about it 😊

If you want a book on Mallory's life in the context of his times then Wade Davis's Into the Silence is the one to go for. Extraordinary detailed social history framing his biography. Not the go-to account of his final attempt on Everest if that is your main interest though. Will be interesting to hear what Michael makes of Fallen.

You seem to be right on all accounts. And too bad Hall and Fischer weren't able to stick around and clear some things up. I do strongly believe that they neglected to coordinate everybody since they had an unusually large amount of people on the mountain and different groups than they were used to back then. Re oxygen: I recall reading that they did not receive the amount of canisters that they ordered and it was too late to make good on that, leaving them to juggle around what they received. That was a real big deal in the eventual outcome of that tragic day.

Always fun to read of personal close ups. Thank you!

That upper portion where Pittman is standing is still largely in place. It is the rock underneath her that slid down a little. The result is that snow builds up on the Kangshung (right) side, and people can walk right up a snow slope. However, they still fix the route the "old" way and have people scale what is the large rock below Pittman -- but now it is sort of shifted down. Thus, it appears that they fix the rope in such a way as to leave some sort of scramble up the remaining rocks when you could just go around to the right. A similar thing is done on the North. You don't need to climb the Third Step -- you can go around to the right. But everyone climbs up it because there is a rope there and the Sherpas don't want you climbing off rope.

​@@michaeltracy2356 what is ur opinion on why they continue to fix rope in old way when there is an easier path ? 🤔 are they trying to create some kind of equivalency to prior climbs for comparisons? Are they trying to cover up the slippage of the rock for PR purposes ?? Clearly the summit is still an amazing feat even if u take the easier slope...

Doug Hansen turned around early that morning and was headed back to camp. As soon as Rob Hall convinced him to re-think and push on to the summit, Rob's fate was sealed.

@@michaeltracy2356 i didn’t know Doug wanted to turn back I did read into things air when it came out- it was the first time I became hooked on Everest 1996 event Your video was is the most comprehensive video I’ve ever heard explained. Why do you think Rob pushed him to go up to the summit?

Rob was very concerned about his "success rate." He was advertising that he had a "100% success" rate, even when it was clear he did not. Rob Hall paid for Krakauer to climb and had a deal for advertising with Outside Magazine as part of. the deal. So, the 1996 climb was much more of a publicity piece than Into Thin Air makes it out to be. Given that Rob Hall paid for Krakauer's climb, it is not surprising that Rob Hall comes out looking great. The account of Hansen turning around is glossed over in Into Thin Air but fully described by Lou Kasische in After The Wind. "Not long after Frank turned back, I saw the headlamp of someone else turning around and climbing down. That light became Doug. As he passed me, he said he was cold and feeling bad. Doug was sensitive to being cold after his feet were frostbitten on the 1995 attempt. Over the previous weeks he worried about his feet and possible additional frostbite. Doug knew the tissue was more vulnerable the second time. Doug’s turn around didn’t surprise me, or add to my own apprehension about the day. The cold and pressures of the moment kept me focused on just my next step. Again, I had no emotion about Doug’s decision. Doug was in the tent with me at High Camp. He had not been happy with Rob’s decision to go for the summit. From his appearance, he didn’t seem physically well. Combined with his earlier health problems, all of this must have been too much. Doug made the individual hard call decision that Rob expected from each of us." Kasischke, Lou. After The Wind (p. 145). Good Hart Publishing

@@michaeltracy2356 thank you for taking the time to respond I am a new subscriber for your channel ⭐️

@@michaeltracy2356 And ROb also made Beck promise to wait for him on the descent. So many bad decisions

Sure, I'll get into it in an upcoming video -- it has to do with the finances. Rob Hall spent all his money on the contract with Outside Magazine so that he would get future advertising. Hence, he had to skimp on this expedition. They didn't have the latest oxygen equipment, they had less of it, and they didn't have backups. Once Rob Hall's team started using oxygen to head up the mountain, they were committed. Rob Hall had not purchased enough oxygen to delay for another day and certainly nowhere near enough to descend and try again in a week or two. Now, where did the money go? It went to pay for Jon Krakauer's climb -- we was climbing for "free." That is, Rob Hall spent all the money to provision Jon Krakauer's food, tents, sherpas, oxygen, etc. This left him with one shot for the summit. Once they started using oxygen on the way up, they were committed. Of course, Jon Krakauer is not likely to explain that him and the contract with his employer (Outside Magazine) were the reason Hall could not move the summit date. Fischer had a large team that would likely reach the summit, so he was going to climb with another group one way or the other. The IMAX team needed a clear mountain for their photography, so better for Fischer to go when Hall was going rather than when the IMAX team was going. It would have been better for Fischer to go on the 10th and Hall to go with IMAX, but as Hall did not have the ability to delay, the die was cast.

@@michaeltracy2356 I have read so much on this event and did not know that. I knew Scott was stressed about finances, had no idea Hall was as well. He did a huge disservice to his team bringing Krakauer then. It explains why Lou was upset with him too. And to think Krakauer frames Anatoli and Sandy as the villains. It was Anatoli who saved the lives of his team. From watching these videos it sounds as though Lou and Anatolis accounts are closer to truth and maybe Krakauer needs to put himself under the microscope. Not to mention poor decision making on the part of Scott and especially Rob. However, Krakauer doesnt mention this much. I often wonder what Rob said to Doug to make him continue the ascent when Lou said that Doug was going to head back. Hell of a position he put himself in. But I'm guessing Krakauer would say that's Sandy's fault too.

There was such a video and the numerous discussions about it are in the Yeti Academy. As with a couple of other videos, it was just one asking for assistance analyzing a photo and those get taken down once the issue is addressed.

And Mike Groom who was climbing with him on this expedition wrote in his books that it was 1PM - page 297. Lou Kasischke, who climbed on that expedition wrote in his book it was 1PM - page 125 . So, I guess because Viesturs wrote about twice, does that mean he gets two votes? I do a whole video about the Rashomon Effect. Simply pointing out that one person who was not even on that particular expedition wrote something in several books does not make it the truth. It is just one more Roshomon story. In any case, as I detail in the video, the turn around time is was not the primary reason for the deaths -- Beidelman, Fox, Marin, GammeelGaard all "turned around" after 3:10PM. That is, they left the summit after that time. They all made it down just fine. Harris left summit before 1:30PM and he died. Hansen turned around at an out 5AM and was heading down the mountain -- Rob Hall the convinced him to turn back around and press on to the summit which ended up killing both of them. So, while Krakauer has this big message about an alleged 2pm turn around, the actual story is that Doug Hansen turned around hours and hours and hours before that. The motivation that caused Rob Hall to push him to the summit, past his own assessment of being about to make it is the real story. But that story involved Outside Magainze and Rob Hall's advertising -- so, it gets dropped from the book. Instead, people are debating whether the turn around time was indeed 2pm.

It was 2pm . The time doesn't change from one year to the next . Why would it it's the same ridge. Veisturs, Hall , and Fisher all climbed it many times. You're reaching

Fox and Gammlegard did not make it down " fine " they nearly died with the rest of the group lost in the storm on the wrong side of the south col. Right next to Beck Westhers

Also Ed Viesturs was actually at everest that day . Watching it all from camp 2 along with the imax team that summited a week or so later

​@@nathanthompson2369We all know what he meant by saying "made it down fine". He is well aware of the storm.

As seen in the photo, the winds were not significant at 1PM. Krakauer claims the oxygen was turned off at about 1:35PM. So, it is extremely unlikely the winds were such that you just couldn't hear anything. It is difficult to imagine people would have continued up the step if the winds were that bad at that time. There is also the fact that the entire story is missing from his May 20 account. If he hadn't told a completely different story a year earlier, perhaps there would be some explanation for it. He also does a similar things with the oxygen equipment -- saying things that are completely false but only people who used such systems would know. For instance, he claims that to determine if a bottle is full or not, you have to attach a regulator. Not only is that not true -- you simply pick it up and feel how heavy it is, it makes it impossible to understand what Andy Harris was talking about at South Summit.

@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you for taking the time for a detailed reply Michael 🙏🙏

It is extremely rare to climb on full-flow. Maybe going up a difficult step, but in general, you do not climb on full flow. Krakauer specifically said he was worried about his oxygen running out. So, if you are worried about your oxygen running you, you listen for the hissing sound, so that when you don't hear it any more, you can prepare for what comes next -- you might slow down, clip into the rope rather than arm it down, etc. Krakauer leaves out numerous basic things about high-altitude climbing that lets him get away with fabrications such as this. In any case, he told two different versions of the story -- so, why do you believe the second one and not the first? What about simply running out of oxygen is so difficult to believe? Why do you think the later created version (for which there are two different versions in the book) is more believable?

Ditto

I recently re-read ITA and he was critical of Anatoly for ascending and descending without any clients and his excuse was that he could make tea at camp, which was the job of the sherpas. In the book it says that Scott Fischer also was angry with Anatoly and had discussed this with the Mountain Madness office

@@kerpriceThat is an over simplification, Anatoly and Fisher agreed that he should head straight back to camp. That way he would be fresh, and available to help take extra oxygen up those descending. Why would he be angry over something he agreed to. I believe (from memory) that at least one ‘client’ and one guide knew of this agreement.

There are different accounts from different people, but one problem was the long time people spent on the summit. I cover the issue in the Yellow Brick Road video. Scott Fischer planned to pull a "stunt" on the summit, according to Lene Gammelgaard. While Krakauer and every other writer just ignores the "stunt" issue, it explains much of the rather bizarre behavior that led to the problems on the mountain. You are welcome to focus on who said what about when the "turn around" time was and what it really meant. However, if you are not looking at the "stunt" issue, you are missing the Yeti in the living room. As soon as you do look into the "stunt" issue, it becomes apparent that Krakauer was not trying to tell what really happened and just made up a fairytale that had little to do with what actually happened that day.

Yeah, they are like comments.

That's not what he said. You obviously didn't read his book. So, perhaps read what he actually said before you stick up for something you don't know. So, his memory got better? And the photos are the inaccurate things? Got it.

Both Boukreev and Harris -- the guides that went in to the summit first are now dead, and Boukreev did not say anything about it before he died. However, as I indicated in this video, it appears there was a "race" on to get to the summit. Krakauer want to get there to fit his narrative that he bested all the "inexperienced" climbers on Everest. Harris seems to have been assigned to Krakauer. At South Summit, there were 3 AC guides and 3 AC clients, so it seems each guide picked a client. Later Hall leaves Hanson and is climbing without any clients -- that is, Namba is far in front of him and Hanson is far behind him. I will get into it with the video about the contract with Outside Magazine, but you have two business managers (Hall and Fischer) and they made business decisions about how to market their firms. They also happened to be the lead guides because that is part of the brand image. Hall chose to pay for media coverage and Fischer wanted to get "free publicity." For both of them, the decision would cost them their lives. Not the story you heard in Into Thin Air, nor any of the other books, but once you "follow the money," it will make sense. Don't worry, I'll outline it in an upcoming video. As it relates to them speeding ahead, that is simply the competition of the two teams for their respective publicity with Krakauer inserting his own ego into the whole thing.

@@michaeltracy2356 I will say that is all BS. Krauk is a real climber. I've climbed with him. I've witnessed him look after several parties of strangers at the top of Devil's Tower in a lightning storm, finding different rap anchors so everyone could down quickly and safely. A real climber like Jon is confident, with no need to prove anything against peak baggers.

@@arneboveng3756 Hopefully he's learned a lot with experience.

@@arneboveng3756 So, he got stuck in a storm on Everest. Now you tell me he got stuck in a storm on Devil's Tower? Or he was just down below looking at the people above?

@@michaeltracy2356 As an accountant and not a climber, I have wondered about the finances of the 1996 expedition and whether anyone has fully analysed their role in the disaster and, if not, whether it is too late now to uncover the relevant information. Very happy to see that you will be doing a video with this focus.

They've done a great job of vilifying that woman, and it was very destructive in her life post-climb.

very much worth searching up Pittmans 2023 short interview on her experience. It's on 'Harvest Series' podcast. Only 35 mins but very informative if u want a direct experience of her. There's also an excellent video abt Pittman on Adventures Gone Wrong channel. Pittman had already summited 6 of the "7 peaks." Everest was the final of the 7 and it was her 3rd attempt at Everest. She was extremely qualified. And had started her love of mountains from teen & college years. She was sooo mischaractereized.

It does sort of look like that. But it is actually the clasp for his hood. Typically, these are secured with velcro, but I have no idea which suit manufacture he is wearing. There is a large piece of nylon you can clasp in front of your face to secure the hood -- and block a little wind from your face. As he exhales, it accumulates ice -- which is what the white thing is.

Good questions. Did you ask Jon Krakauer? He wrote an entire "postscript" to his book doing just that -- tearing apart Boukreev's account. Krakauer has said his account is accurate -- he did not say what you are saying. He has defended in publicly numerous times for various issues. My analysis is a little more thorough than most, but it is not the first, nor will it be the last, to point out that Krakauer's account is fictionalized. Previously, it was thought to have been somewhat fictionalized, but these videos are demonstrating that the photos do not match up with anything that he said. It isn't a question of 10 different accounts. It is the issue that a photograph shows one things and Krakauer claims something else took place. In general, Krakauer is saying that some climber was being dragger down the mountain by a guide -- a humiliating situation that Krakauer published in his book that sold millions of copies. And you think it is too much to point out that Krakauer's humiliating statements were in fact false?

Indeed.

He's a damned liar who ruins lives for a living and then makes money on it

He's more like a sociopathic narcissist. His lies have destroyed lives and he gaslights when confronted directly w evidence that he's lying.

It depends on the weather, what time you left, and your oxygen. 4pm was Mallory and Irvine's set turn around time. Although the weather was fine on June 8 in after 4PM, they would have had problems with oxygen if they turned around after that. Likely they pushed on to the summit and got there after 4PM becoming the first case of summit fever. Had they turned around at 4pm, likely they would have lived.

I think you may well be correct although another answer you've got here says it's more down to weather and oxygen. Weather isn't only about windy and / or snow. Weather is also about temperature and temperature starts falling off on an increasing time frame after 3.00 to 3.30. On an exceptional day they might try a 4.00 ascent but, that would be an "exceptional" day. It's the cold that gets most climbers coming down. Going down requires less effort and adrenaline flow is not as high so, cold gets at you much quicker. Delays and hesitations, tiredness and muscle fatigue also contribute . A late ascent is not a good idea. More chances for things to conspire against you.

​@@michaeltracy2356100%

depends on how many toes you want to take home with you

​@@OzzieDeWitt Excellent point

Do you see anyone waiting? Who? I see three people on above of the step -- they are not waiting on anyone. I see one person at the top of the step -- Pittman. She is not waiting. Scott Fischer is taking a photo, he is not waiting on anyone. Who exactly is waiting for the ropes to be fixed? Not a single person. Proves you are an idiot.

Looks like about 20-30 degrees going in that direction. Maybe you can find one spot of it that might be 60 degrees. In any case, Hillary described his climb in detail and he had a completely different assessment of that portion. Hillary and Tenzing felt it was safe enough to move together over, so it is not clear why Krakauer would have a completely different description of it. In any case, the description did not make it into his book.

Krakauer had this photograph. He could look at it and "sit back and feel superior based on some photos" -- because he had the exact same photos I have -- even more. Krakauer had this photo and yet Krakauer still chose to tell you a story that does not match up with it. He did not write Into Thin Air up on Mount Everest. He was not in any danger when he was writing it. He chose to make up a story knowing full well it didn't match with this photo nor any of the numerous other photos from that day. And you choose to make excuses for what he did -- make up a story that simply does not match with photographs from the Mountain that day. “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

@@michaeltracy2356 Kraukauer is not a person who "feels superior".

How do you know this?

@@arneboveng3756Krakauer is a journalist exploiting people’s deaths for money. And throwing a dead man under the bus. A man who risked his own life to save others. Having read Into Thin Air and The Climb, I know which version I believe. Krakauer is poison

​@@michaeltracy2356 wow...powerful Sagan quote

I bought but never read it too. Now I won't bother.

I am not your research assistant. Go look it up in Himalayan Database.

While you are looking in the Himalayan database, you can also try find out what the meaning of "sumit" is🙄🙄

Jon Krakauer writes book about events he was not there for -- Pat Tillman's death, for example. In general, people who are there have their own biases and tell a story that makes themself look better. However, your lack reasoning skills is explained by your refusal to read any history book unless the author was actually at the event.

What a pea brain you have. So Civil War or WWII historians had to engage in battle to know what they’re talking about? Grow up, hater/troll.

Give us something to talk about over at the Yeti Academy.

Adventures Gone Wrong channel is also posting an excellent series on 1996, too. Seems like it's "in the air" 😅

This is a pretty good summary: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7qp2bj-CCaw.html Not my video, but I don't make introductory overviews like this. It presents various different versions, but has some stuff from Krakauer's account that I have ruled out as being yak dung.

@@michaeltracy2356Thanks a lot, her channel‘s already on my list 🙂 At the moment I’m sucking in your videos, currently it’s Odell‘s view of Mallory & Irvine… Great job (your whole channel)!

it's not surprising to me abt controversy on an ego boost 8000m mountain: 1) Narcissists are more likely to rise to positions of power because they have no scruples abt doing whatever it takes to get there. Before social media, writing was a position of power 3) elite climbers are high ego people, and the conditions confusing.

Into Deep Pockets!

Do you find him stating he was at the bottom of the Hillary Step at 1pm when he was not to be a truth or a lie? The problem with your "argument" is the you just have an internal definition -- which you refuse to share -- and then tell us that something doesn't match with your own internal fantasy world. Krakauer made untrue statements that make him look better and sell books. Plenty of evidence to support that. But, when you close your eyes, you can't see it. I hardly addressed Boukreev's account. Krakauer contradicts Krakauer's own account. No need to even look at Boukreev. I address Michael Groom's account at length. But you build your little straw man around Boukreev, and then "destroy" the straw man you built with a reference to Messner. That doesn't work here.

Boukreev placed his pack over his face to prevent people from photographing it. Generally, only despicable people photograph the face of a dead climber -- but it is a mystery why Everest attracts so many of such people. Some people take photographs of a face and then deny having done so -- a bizarre lot Everest climbers.

Scott Fishers wife asked Ed Viesturs to take Fishers wedding ring off of him and bring it back to her in Seattle. It was a week or so later when the IMAX team made their summit attempt. Viesturs says in his book he couldn't bring himself to do it , but he had a moment to say goodbye to his old K2 climbing partner.

In my 5 or so times reading into thin air I never came across the part where Krakauer blames the sherpa for anything. Also I don't remember him calling anyone from mountain madness " the bad guys". Maybe I'll read it again on Wednesday and get back to you. Also you do understand that there were people watching them climb that day from lower on the mountain before it was engulfed by clouds .

​@nathanthompson2369 wow so I guess his wife never got her one request fulfilled ? Par for the course...

@@nathanthompson2369 Viesturs was right. Fischer's wife asking for the wedding ring wasn't appropriate . . .