Unveiling the Truth: The Hidden Story of Mallory & Irvine's Route on Everest
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 05. 2022
- Which route did George Mallory and Sandy Irvine take on their fateful summit attempt on 8 June 1924? Did they take the ridge route via the Second Step, or did they repeat Norton's unsuccessful attempt of the couloir route?
The greatest of respect to those who research the topic and to those who disagree, I love to hear your thoughts and always willing to be convinced otherwise in a civil discourse of this fascinating topic. Cheers, -Thom
WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENED?
Map of all Everest Searches: 1999-2019 by JAKE NORTON:
jakenorton.com/everest-search...
The Happiness Quotient podcast: thehappinessquotient.buzzspro...
Thom's Patreon for exclusive content:
/ thehappinessquotient
For more fascinating and insightful videos about Mallory & Irvine and Everest, be sure to subscribe:
www.youtube.com/@everestmystery?sub_confirmation=1
Jake Norton played around at 28,000 feet. I just love this shit.
I live about one hundred feet above sea level. Anything above that is my personal Death Zone.
😂
Thank you for your work bringing this resource together & getting fascinating contributors to share their insight. I'm no climber but I can't put this mystery down.
I believe Messner traversed the couloir much lower than the hypothesized "zig-zag" route and there was minimal visibility that day (as seen on his summit photo) so I'm not certain how thoroughly he would have assessed the possible route. It would be terrific to see an expedition try to explore that area under similar snow conditions and assess possible routes and maybe even climb out through the zig-zag. I wonder if one reason it hasn't happened is that it would be an even more dangerous place to be than usual with a bunch of climbers overhead on the ridge.
Great comment, thank you. Yes, get a team in there to scope it out and give it a try. I appreciate your insight about Messner's summit day.... One thing I believe would be an issue would be getting the CTMA to issue a permit allowing such an expedition.
%100 agree. Messner did not get close enough to the east side of the upper Norton Couloir to have even made a detailed assessment. He exited much lower and stayed to the west. To my knowledge no one has spent enough time or multiple times on the down facing series of benches in the Zig Zag area to really know the area enough to to say it couldnt be done -Eshler, McCartney-Snape, Messner, Viesters etc... all exited west lower prior to really assessing that area off to the east and it's lines of weakness. They all saw the tightening head wall on the Norton Couloir above and decided to exit prior -which makes sense when approaching from much lower -but maybe not if you are reaching the Norton C from higher walking along the benches prior to a side sntry into the couloir... also is there a reason Mallory and Irvine couldnt have followed the Norton route into the Couloir and then exited slightly LOWER in the Couloir (after spotting the 2 options to exit that are lower) like Messner and those previously listed, but traversed back east to side of the third step to be sighted at the base of the final pyramid by Odell as described.
Thom, you are a beast! Excellent job! Thank You!
I am a fan of both your channel and Michael Tracy's! Both channels are valuable resource for this Mallory Mystery!
Cool, there are so many truly hard working sleuths out there....every opinion counts and every opinion matters. Cheers
I really respect Jake Norton's opinion and thank you for asking his opinion on the zig zag route! A question which has been on our minds!
A great discussion and meeting of minds. It's interesting how the idiom "opening up a can of worms" is used regarding the number of possibilities that have seemed to have increased about how Mallory and Irvine could have reached the summit. However, I wouldn't see it as "opening up a can of worms" as such, but rather "going further down that rabbit hole" as the complexity of this discussion makes this mystery even more surreal. Jake Norton's impression of Reinhold Messner is remarkable by the way!
... as a German Biologist - this story is addictive - from the moment I saw the picture of Mallory lying down in a sort of “Crucifixion” pose. The remarks of Irvine about his condition - damages from high altitude, radiation, exhaustion. The super human work they were doing in relentless efforts of climbing. No rest, no regeneration. What was the physiological condition that Morning, when they got up - in disarray, what did they prepare for the climb? 8 hours or more of exhausting work - what were the resources - Water? Food? I am certain the goal was to reach the summit at all cost. Trying to find a Route that demanded still the least exhaustion possible. The turning back point must have been the Summit - not one Inch earlier. How did Irvine perform? To me- this is the crucial question leading to the “Crucifixion” event. The condition of the broken Ropes on Mallory. Did the ends point DOWN??? Was it Mallory on top - asking Irvine to get down as fast as possible - a short cut through the Yellow Band... Irvine too exhausted to go on... then Irvine slipped down, dragging Mallory to his final position - when he broke his leg in a sudden STOP on a Rock - the ropes broke - and Irvine fell over the Cliff. In my view - Irvine fell down and may never be found...
Both must have been totally depleted and exhausted - a last attempt to make it back as FAST as possible. Study the ROPES ! That is the final clue to the puzzle...
How can the Boot and Sock can come off - all by itself? Were the clothes of his back cut and torn off by the first discoverer... A Crime scene to inspect... addicting stuff
This is a fascinating comment, thank you sir, I was rapt with attention, don't stop....keep telling the story! Thank you for sharing with us....
Always great to get multiple opinions on this topic. Great video.
Glad you enjoyed it! Thank you my friend
Fascinating interview! However, I wouldn't say that Jake "all but blows the lid off the possibility that Mallory and Irvine took the Norton coloiur route". Messner's opinion is significant for sure,, however Messner has also changed his opinions on these matters from time to time so its leaves questions. As opposed to the modern ridge route theory,,, I believe Mallory would have taken some variation of Norton's route since norton/Summerville had just been there and mallory now had fresh intelligence on that route and Norton having made it to a world record elevation without even using oxygen. Considering M&I would be using oxygen,, this route would have been too compelling for Mallory not to take imho. This along with Odell's description of his sighting which seems to describe the third step compels me to believe M&I found some variation off Nortons route which worked for them yet still burned significant time as Odell saw them at 12.50pm nearing the summit pyramid moving strong. Probably it took Mallory considerable time to find the best line up and perhaps they even had to descend little to find a better line up like Messner...who knows. The one thing im 99% sure of is M&I did not attempt to climb the second step and if we are to analyze Odell's sighting he could not have seen them there. His own description of 5min for the figure climbing the step makes that impossible for the second step! Even with ladders in place its doubtful a modern climber could do it in 5 minutes! To even think this occured would put Mallory in a superhuman class and actually give even more support to the theory he made it to the summit! Then theres those who think they were seen at the first step. First, its doubtful Odell could even see the first step from his vantage point, second, if we accept he did see them at the first step,, then M&I took till 12.50pm to merely reach the first step which means there would have had to be some serious problem to be that far behind schedule (but certainly not a fall or injury because Odell saw them moving up strong) and they would have turned back and been back at camp early drinking tea and ending the expedition. There would have bene no point going on. They wouldnt have gone up any further. Mallory would not have wasted resources on what would for certain be a failed summit.
Thanks for these thoughts Scott, truly appreciate it. I will say that I'm not 99% sure of anything about what happened. To see two figures surmount anything on Everest upon the ridge suggests that in the period of five minutes Odell saw them at or near the crest of the ridge, wherever they were...not, for instance, at the bottom of the step then up to the top. Norton got slammed on the couloir route primarily because there was so much snow in it and the footing was treacherous. The Chinese in 1960 thought the British were fools for thinking that the Second Step was not climbable. Perhaps Mallory felt the same, especially when seeing Norton the night after being dead-ended on the couloir. All that said, no one knows, no one....there are some who believe they do know, and that's a red flag. Cheers, thanks for being here and for watching, great having you here!
@@EverestMystery In 1933 they said routes by the Couloir were much less difficult than initially thought.
Excellent analysis. Add to this Mallory had told the photographer to look near the Couloir at 10 AM. Odell could not have seen them at the firsrt step. It never woud have taken them 7 hours to reach it. No one at that time climbed the second step with "alacrity and ease".
We're all trying to answer this backwards; the first question to ask is not, "could they have summited via the Couloir?" The first question to ask is, "what factors would have gone into Mallory choosing his route in 1924?" Every data point that goes into answering that question must come from no later than June 8, 1924. Since Norton believed the mountain could be summited by a route he saw from his highest point, I find no reason for Mallory to deviate from Norton's route before the point at which he believed he could improve upon it. Why would that point have come before the Couloir?
I completely agree. Especially when it was late season and they were on the edge of monsoon season. It was well past time for scouting out new routes or reinventing the wheel so to speak. This was their window of opportunity and Mallory needed to use the most current intelligence info on deciding the route. Its ridiculous to even theorize Mallory would attempt some new route on the ridge involving climbing something like the second step which would be too strenuous and take too much time. Mallory made it quite clear in his writings he was looking for a line to the summit that was the most efficient.
Exactly. That was the route they scouted for the summit attempt. Why deviate. Modern researchers just assuming everyone before would have taken the Modern route is just cognitive bias. I find it weird to think they would have tried a completely new route on summit day
It's a shame that all parties interested in solving this mystery can't put aside their differences, their personal ambitions and try to communicate with each other to help possibly find the truth.
But being human, personal beliefs, desires and ambitions often interfere, usually without our realizing it's happening.
I do appreciate all the efforts that are being expended and the discourse on what happened.
I couldn't agree more. Thank you my friend! This is not a competition. I would love to learn they took the Norton Couloir, LOVE to learn it. Thank you, cheers
Suspicious of what? Maybe You could contact Nat Geo and get the video
@@EverestMystery Ok! Let's clear the matter then! Honest questions for you Thomas! If you are so willing to be cooperative and want this to be "for everybody" and "open sourced," as you have stated numerous times, then why have you not been willing to share some of the drone footage of Renan's from 2019 that you have used yourself, at times, on your videos? Why has ALL of the 1999 video not been released for everyone to look at? Why did Nat Geo not use some of the drone footage that they said they would use for their 'Once Upon A Climb; Stories From Mt. Everest' exhibit back beginning on February 16th? I believe they didn't even bring up Mark or 'The Third Pole!' I think what frustrates a lot of people interested in the M & I story is that there always seems to be excuses of convenience when some of these questions are brought up. There are others as well! It just doesn't appear to be 'for everybody' or 'open sourced' now does it?
Also, you state, "I couldn't agree more!" above, then,...if you share the interests of your viewers and subscribers, who have asked you multiple times to have Michael Tracy on- why have you not contacted him for an interview? He has stated that he is willing to come on your channel! Better yet, call Mark Synnott AND Michael and those 'differences' can be addressed in the open for everyone to see and hear. This isn't a competition for Michael, nor is it a 'race for the truth!' That's not how he operates! He has zero problem with commenting on your YT channel, as seen above! Have you once made a comment on any of his videos? If not, why not? You've stated before that you have almost been obsessed with the story of M & I! Michael addresses some substantial concerns and there are some details within the M & I narrative that have undergone some significant revision the last 20+ years that only he seems to address. If you are so open-minded as you claim to be Thomas, then you will contact Micahel and put EVERYTHING on the table for questions and analysis. Possibly do a multi-part livestream? Again numerous of your subscribers & followers want this Thomas. We will see if you step up to the plate!
Not everyone is motivated to solve the mystery. With money to be made from book deals, and video documentaries sure to appear around 2024, , the least desirable outcome would be for the situation to be clearly settled too soon.
@@edkiely2712 props
Great video and thanks for posting. A couple of things - I think most of the "new evidence" that is mentioned has actually been available for a long time, such as the note from Mallory to John Noel. Also, I believe that Edward Norton turned around because of the time restraints, see Chapter 5, The Fight for Everest 1924. He notes that the going wasn't exactly difficult but, was dangerous for a solo climber. There was about 200 feet more of the terrain he was on before he reached what he describes as safety. Hence, from the description in the book, I think that it is fair to say that the Norton route would have been a viable route for Mallory, who was a superior climber to Norton. It is also worth noting that Norton set a height record without oxygen that was not broken until 1978 by Messner and Habeler and a solo height record without oxygen that was not broken until Messner in 1980, who coincidentally, pretty much went up the same route. Clearly, they were rock hard back in 1924! The Norton Couloir has been successfully snowboarded in descent as well, by an incredibly gifted young Frenchman.
Julian, awesome comment....this is really good stuff. Thank you. I appreciate it. This is insightful analysis. I also plainly admit that one of the reasons I interview people about these topics is because I get a bit lost (bored, perhaps) in the minutia of details. You lay it out very clearly here. Thanks again. Cheers
It seems weird to not go the Norton route after the relative success without oxygen.
Taking an entirely untried route seems like a sloppy strategy. Unless Norton and Somerville told them it was impossible and they need to try another route entirely.
Honestly, I tend to agree with you....which is the interesting part of this debate. Some wish to believe I am of the mind they absolutely did not take that route. I lean toward them attempting that route as more likely....
@@EverestMystery Or, unless Mallory was route finding as he went, which seems very possible. He supposedly was great at that and would have been aware of Norton's problems in the couloir with deep snow. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if he had an idea, but still kept his eye open for a plausible route. It's odd how the 'zig zag' area looks easy enough from some angles on film, impossible from others.
Completely agree.
@fergalohearga9594 aren't a lot of the routes scoped out with binoculars up front, even back then? Obviously can't see everything ahead of time but
Just found this channel, and I’m so glad I did. Great work collating all of this information! It’s such a fascinating mystery!
Thank you, glad to have you here! Truly appreciate it
That was really fascinating.
Thank you!
Another extremely interesting video Thom, many thanks. M&I taking the Couloir route is a fascinating concept isn’t it and, as you say, someone definitely needs to go there and check it out. It’s all very well Messner slamming the idea of this route but, until we get boots on the ground we won’t know anything definitively. Who knows, the Couloir may hold the last piece of the puzzle that we all want and need. Regards from Hereford, UK.
Absolutely, thanks for watching to the end, because essentially, my ultimate aim in a video like this is to show that although the Norton Couloir might have been 'easier' it is by no means easy....from sea level I believe there's an idea that it would be a piece of cake. If Messner says holy crap, not easy....it just qualifies the route as a significant challenge, albeit likely less so than the Second Step. Cheers!
🇨🇦civility is something we used to take for granted when we spoke face to face. Person to person. Your reputation rested on how you spoke. Well spoken was a high compliment. Let’s get back there. Love this mystery new to me. Thank you for sharing. 🌞✨
Thank you so much. Indeed, civility is forgotten on social media. I endeavor to keep it as one of the primary elements of this channel. Hope all is well with you!
You do have the Michael Tracy and his trolls.
As someone who has become obsessed with Everest in the last couple of years I can see how this can consume someone. I'm a 9th generation Texan. The people who climb mountains we don't even have hills here but I would love to go to Basecamp on Everest that's as far up as I care to go.
Thanks for the video. I really loved the cameo appearance by the chipmunk.
To me, much depends on what we think that Odell really saw.
If you don't believe that they could ascend the second step and had to turn around at that point, we have to believe that Odell didn't really see them. That's an acceptable hypothesis. We can't prove it either way. I guess Odell could have seen them somewhere else below the second step, but I don't know the mountain well enough to have an opinion where that might have been.
If Odell really did see them above the second step, then they had to get there in some way. Is it possible that they saw some route that no one has seen since then? Is it possible that something changed between 1924 and the times that later climbers tried to go around the second step? I've heard that the big earthquake a few years ago changed a few things on the mountain. Would we necessarily know if a smaller earthquake hit in the late 20's or early 30's and caused changes to the mountain? Maybe those changes would appear relatively small from a distance but would make all the difference between a climbable route around the second step and the need to ascend the second step. No matter how much people think that the Norton Couloir is impossible, if Odell really saw them above the second step and that's the only way for them to have gotten there, maybe they took that route.
If Mallory and Irvine somehow ascended the second step and had to leave a rope there on the descent, what are the chances that natural forces would have removed the rope before another team ascended the second step later in history? If the wind and UV beating on the rope could have caused it to abrade and blow off the mountain before the next team was in that area, then the lack of a rope there wouldn't mean that they didn't somehow ascend the second step and leave a rope there during the descent.
I don't have an opinion, but I'm curious.
Absolutely agree about a fascinating subject and that everyone should be civil about it. This certainly is a valid theory
Some good points raised here but Thom is ignoring the elephant in the room; the known timeline of events means they must have turned around long after they would have reached the Second Step had they been taking the ridge route.
This can only mean that either they ascended and descended the Second Step, or they used a different route, or a combination of the two (different ascent and descent route).
Whether they made the summit or not is another issue but it does fit with the timeline.
I’ve watched your various videos on Everest, Mallory and Irvine this morning. Very enjoyable!
I’ve followed this mystery for about 15 years, so I greatly appreciate the insights.
Thanks so much, I appreciate it. I'm glad you're here and hope to bring some more good stuff, content that makes us think about more than just Everest. Cheers, looking forward to seeing you around!
First of all thank you Thom for your gracious reply to my comment on your previous video. I would be happy to contribute to the discourse as I agree with you totally that as we approach the 100 year anniversary, it is important to examine all the evidence and ideas about the 1924 expedition. In this way, people who are not familiar with the story can form their own opinions based upon the balance of probability. I certainly would not argue with Reinhold Messner about conditions in the couloir, however, I am aware that discussions around the late 1970's in the British climbing fraternity, including Chris Bonington, whilst discounting an ascent of the 2nd step, did indeed consider the possible existence of a route through the couloir. Therefore I do not agree with Jake that this theory is the product of reverse engineering, it has been around for some time but only recently gained traction on the internet. It is important to stress that we are not trying to rewrite Everest history here, as Edmund Hillary said when asked about Mallory, the 1924 attempt was not a success because they did not return. The achievements of Norgay, Hillary, the Chinese 1960 expedition et al, are in no way diminished by a re examination of what happened in 1924. If you are interested in a perspective from Mallory and Irvine's "home turf" as it were, I could drop you an email via your website if you wish. Kind regards.
Jonny, please do email me. I'd love that. I readily admit, as time marches onward I am more of the thought that the Norton Couloir makes more sense for an attempt. That said, I still will have a long way to go to believe they 'succeeded'...but am more than open to being convinced otherwise. My ultimate goal in this video is just to show that the Norton Couloir isn't easy at all. I think from the perspective of those who have never been in the Death Zone, that putting one's boots on can take 45 minutes....melting water an hour or more....life and death is a tenuous balance where losing a single glove or goggles can mean death. The idea of the Norton Couloir is strong (probable perhaps) however, someone needs to go there on a mission to show the possibilities. I'd personally love to see that.... Cheers, looking forward to hearing from you!
With Regards to Norton in 24, the guys from 33 and Messner in 80. All of these climbs to the Couloir were done without oxygen.
It's hypothetical but if Mallory and Irvine's oxygen was performing as desired, they should've been in a better state than all these men and able to think, analyse and perform better, once at the Couloir.
I would suggest that Mallory's desire may have also have surpassed these other men due to his circumstances but that is just speculation.
There's also no evidence (that i'm aware of) that Mallory ever had any intention of attempting the 2nd step, so i tend to favour the Couloir route, given Norton's success without oxygen just days before.
Thanks for the content.
I think the issue in comparing those attempts is that both Messner's and the 1984 Australian (indeed the Ershler climb subsequent) successes utilized a final camp very near the rock cliff at the top of the couloir before tackling the Yellow Band and exit gullies. Therefore, eliminating the long horizontal distance covered by Norton, Finch/Bruce before they even entered the couloir. The crossing of the couloir to the upper NNE face from Norton's (Wager, Wyn Harris, Smythe et al) position, I'm fairly certain, has still to be achieved. The subsidiary couloir is accessed lower and Norton was simply too high in line to descend unroped some 50-100 vertical meters to gain a clean access point (the Swedes were the first in '87 to take that particular route in question, although they didn't summit).
I believe M and I circumvented or turned the 2nd Step strata at the top of the Yellow Band, as Norton managed, before coaxing a mixed rock/snow line through to one of the crags of the 3rd Step before gaining the skyline. Essentially a form of the Zig-Zag .The couloir deep snow would have likely necessitated this decision. Odell was surely right the first observation!
Loving the discussion!
Very interesting to hear you guys talk on this (as it’s been becoming a more and more popular opinion of late). Would love to hear more! I guess the central problem I have with the whole thing is that to me, Odell’s description only really makes sense if he’s describing the third step, but if they didn’t take the couloir, then are we just left with the option that he simply fabricated his sighting (!?). I’m still surprised there isn’t more interest in retreading that route though in search of any evidence. It seems like almost everywhere else has been searched and searched again and again, but never the route which even Mallory himself suggested as his first choice. You know what the greatest detective of them all used to say; “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” ;)
Excellent comment. Yes, I urge any who are of solid mind and body to mount an expedition to the Norton Couloir. It will have to be covert, as the Chinese will likely refuse any permit going off the normal route. As was ours, the true goal of the expedition would have to be kept secret. Regarding where Odell saw them....I have spent hours looking at the ridge from various areas near or in some cases purportedly exactly where Odell was when he spotted them. The idea that clouds came in and obscured the view of them says that there were clouds....were clouds possibly obscuring elements of the ridge, causing him to assume certain locations on his cognitive map of the ridge? Many feel it's a discredit to Odell to question him.... Jake Norton has an awesome breakdown of the view Odell had and shows the photos of the ridge as the human eye would. It's pretty good stuff. Cheers and thank you!
"Improbable" does not mean "impossible",it means "low probability", it means somewhere they did not look.
I could never say that Odell old a lie, most likely he was mistaken. Later on in life it is said that he said that was not certain he saw them. The description of seeing them makes the sighting doubtful by itself. Blokes from Aus.
This is such an interesting yet puzzling mystery compounded by the year-by-year accumulating narrative that seems in equal parts as interesting and puzzling as its subject. One commentator below quotes Conan Doyle and rightfully so I believe. By way of example - if Mallory and Irvine did indeed use either the so called zig zag or couloir route on the ascent why then, if we assume they used the same (allowing for some deviation) route on their descent, would they have then climbed back up to the point where the notorious ice axe was found? Why would they have even followed in Norton's footsteps when he had encountered knee to waist deep snow? And about that axe . . . Why has it come to pass that it was possibly Mallory's when received knowledge posits that he suffered a frightful head wound involving his axe? Is it possible that he fell, almost immediately suffering the wound dropped the axe and continued downwards for two thousand feet suffering other horrific injuries until coming to rest still alive, having enough self-awareness to cross his feet in order to alleviate the pain of a compound fracture? Does not common sense then suggest that it is indeed Irvine's ice axe? Is the site where the Chinese climber claims to have found an "English dead" known with certainty? What correlation, if any, does this site have to the location where the axe was found? Has that area been exhaustingly searched? And so it goes . . . Mysteries invite speculation which is not at all a bad thing, after all is not speculation is a necessary part of the scientific empirical process? But there are worlds between intelligent speculation and opinionizing for a moment's notoriety. Let us hope that this investigation continues to be driven by the former and not the latter. Cheers!
You have asked so many important and pertinent questions. Truly, I can answer none of them with absolute certainty. I feel that each of the theories have very strong possibilities. The axe, I have never thought it was Mallory's, given the notches on the handle (a trait of Irvine's). I think that the axe was a bit high, comparatively, to where they would have been had they used the couloir. But, it's still hard to know from sea level....
No matter one's firm belief in this matter, I'm open to any argument except the arguments of those who criticize the alternative theories. That is where I stop even having a conversation.
I hope you're enjoying this channel. I'll try to bring more good content for you about M&I, Everest and beyond. Thanks for watching. Cheers
If we accept that odell saw them climb the third step then the traverse to the zig zag and the difficulty climbing the zig zag would explain why they reached the third step so late in the day
yes... lets discredit Odell`s first description, of his last sighting, of his two lost friends, while he still was on the mountain searching for them, even though there is only one place they could be for that description to make any sense at all.
and lets take Messner`s absolute word with seriousness... it is impossible that Mallory and Irvine climbed the Couloir, and there are Yeti`s roaming the Himalayas...!
Uncorroborated eyewitness testimony is routinely unreliable - and at high altitude I'd suggest even more so. At best Odell's sighting suggests he believes he saw them somewhere on the ridge at 12.50. His subsequent opinions were made in the context of additional time, external pressures - for example opinions of other climbers, but also in the context of commenting whilst both he and the immediate families of M&I were in mourning. Therefore concluding the third step is irrevocably where they were last seen and the only possibility based on his sighting is misguided.
@@apikecalledmike
this is not just any eyewitness... this is Odell, he was supposed to be the one doing the climb with Mallory up until the last minute change to Irvine, Odell knew the mountain well, he was climbing support for them all the way up to high camp, he was the one up there searching for them, and his eyesight was 20/20!
the very next day after Mallory and Irvine went missing Odell wrote in a dispatch to base camp about his last sighting of them "at the final step before the pyramid, at 12:50".
other early statements from Odell include them "climbing this step with alacrity", "going strong for the top" and in his estimate, late but on time to reach the summit at 16:00, which was Mallory`s cutoff time.
Norton took it upon himself to change the time and place of Odell`s sighting... why?
Odell later made contradicting statements and never really clarified where he saw them... why? did Norton influence him?
Odell did seem to have held on to his earlier statements when talking to family and friends of his missing friends and teammates, but not publicly... why? again, did Norton influence him?
if any, then Odell`s early statements are the most trustworthy as it is very important to be as accurate as possible when reporting the last known location of someone that has gone missing, and these are from before Norton/anyone could have any influence on him to make changes to what goes out to the public!
for Odell to have seen them on the first step and describe it as the final step before the pyramid is absurd, and for him to also get the time wrong on top is stretching it to the limit, on top of that he would have known very well that there would be no chance of them reaching the summit before 16:00 from the first step.
for them to be here at 12:50 they must have been the slowest climbers to ever attempt Everest, of course they were not, they have ascent rates at times doubling those of some very accomplished modern climbers.
for Odell to have seen them at the second step makes no sense, while it is not an impossible obstacle it is for certain that they would not climb it with alacrity, and if they were not on top of it then Odell would have known they were to late to reach the summit before 16:00, even if they were on top of it that would be a stretch.
the third step is the only one that makes sense according to Odell`s early statements, and this is where they would silhouette to be spotted the easiest, the first and third step is the only ones that can be climbed with alacrity, this is from where they could have reached the summit before 16:00.
in fact this is where they would have to be to even have a chance to summit within the time frame they planned it, to say they could not have reached this point at this time is to say it was impossible for them to summit at all and the entire mission was pointless whatever route they chose. and Mallory said himself that the ridge route was not a good choice because of the second step.
some claim that they could have been at the third step as a stretch and highly unlikely, they easily disregard Odell`s early statements and take no note of Norton changing the events reported, trust is put on modern climbers words, words from Conrad Anker that said it was impossible for them to have climbed the second step even though his first answer to this was that, yes they could have climbed it, and the word of Messner, that they could not have climbed the couloir and that there are Yeti`s out there.
seems to me, as hard it would be for them to make it, it is also a bit of a stretch in the opposite direction to so adamantly suggest it to be impossible or very unlikely in the face of the evidence suggesting so... and considering that this is where they would have to be on this time at the very latest to even get close to a chance of making it, it is reasonable to question ones reasons for doing so, as is so often done the other way around, and even to the point of using personal attacks as to discredit the research.
@@ralphbooger4756 to add to this, from Odell's spotting position, the first step wouldn't be visible, and you don't crest the ridge for the second step.
Odell said;
"approached the great rock step and shortly emerged at the top; the second did likewise."
To be seen at the top of a rock step, from where Odell took the sighting, can only describe the third step.
The fascinating part of this discussion is that many are of the belief that this video is a case arguing strongly against the possibility of M&I taking the Norton Couloir route. It is not. If it wasn't conveyed in the video, a longer reply wouldn't suffice, either. Cheers and thanks for weighing in.
@@EverestMystery It definitely felt like an argument against the case to me.
If many feel that way, perhapos it came across that way?
I'll watch it again tomorrow, I am not making judgments.
I love all the information from so many generous professionals and non professionals that are sharing. My question, be it a stupid one is this. Do topographical or other maps exist of Everest that might show points of interest that have disappeared due to earthquake or other natural phenomenon over time?
Maria, good question....I don't believe such a map exists...however, many surmise that the Hillary Step fell off the mountain during the earthquake of 2015. As well, on the other hand, there are glaciologists mapping the retreat of the glaciers, which I imagine are probably searchable on the web. Thanks for watching!
Who knows what someone may find should they choose to go the Couloir route - parts of M&I’s climbing equipment perhaps? Or maybe perhaps Irvine himself, still at rest somewhere that has been overlooked. It would be a fascinating trip.
I'd love to see someone go there to find out...I believe I am past my prime for such endeavors...but would eagerly watch and cheer such a team on
Noel O'Dell had excellent eyesight and didn't need glasses until he was into his 90's
Man, wish I could say that....my readers are 1.5's and not often strong enough lol - much appreciated!, thanks for dropping by!
This is great 👍🏽 and I wish you will do an audiobook or a book or both. Thanks from my heart, as an alpinist
I truly appreciate your thoughts, thank you!
Thom my thoughts are that although I'm not a Mountaineer.......with all the written accounts I have read including letters and dispatches, Mallory and the 1924 team knew they couldn't climb the second step because of the effort it would take! Jake and you basically said he was technically capable of this but getting back down and the effort/danger would be too great!
First, I think you would agree, nobody was as Driven to "Summit Everest" as Mallory. So, if I was Mallory and was going to tackle the second step, I would have brought Plenty of Rope! Which they didn't as you any others say about 100 feet? As I said I'm not a high-altitude climber, but I have dog leashes that long?
Second, think about it as an explorer might? You have some recon from Norton's attempt. None with the Ridge Route besides what you have viewed through binoculars and stated several times that it would expend to much energy! I would try to build off my team members efforts.
Third, as an explorer you might change routes along the way. Where the "Ice Axe" was found doesn't mean for sure they took the ridge route. it is kind of sketchy about that location anyways.
Last, I don't believe they went to the second step and tried a few times and said we can't do it lets turn around.
I think of it this way........... I'm going to be searching for the best route as I go but having an overall plan which I feel was heading toward the Norton Couloir. Jake and you mentioned how hard that climb would be. BUT, they didn't have the recon we have today to know any better. Maybe they got to or above Norton's high point and turned around as it was impossible.
I believe the next search expedition should be to follow the Norton Route. Search that area for evidence such as gear/oxygen bottles, and etc. I know this is tough because of all the traffic above causing rock falls and etc.
Again, I'm not a Mountaineer! But, I do love listening to you all. Keep it coming Bro!
Good stuff, thank you for the analysis. I probably didn't make it very clear in the video, and it's my bad, that I tend to think there's a better chance they went for the Norton Couloir route...I think either route would have thwarted their efforts and therefore caused them to turn around. Not a popular opinion....still, what they accomplished stands as one of the greatest climbs in mountaineering history, albeit with a tragic end.
Thanks for having Jake on to discuss this Thom!
Always great to hear his 'boots on the ground' perspective, especially here of the terrain around the Norton couloir. To me the couloir headwall, through which the proposed 'zig-zag' route goes, has always looked imposingly steep and overhanging in sections, based on photos of the area. The angle, coupled with the character of the rock, sounds like finding a route through would be exhausting. Physically and mentally!
Taking Jake's account of the character of the rock in that area and the written accounts of early expedition members, suggests to me that the balance of probability favours Mallory and Irvine taking something like the modern north-east ridge route.
Of course there are many unknowns, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the evidence base relating to Mallory and Irvine, and we'll likely never have as much certainty as we might like. But this is why it's so much fun to speculate about what happened that fateful day, and why it's been such an enduring mystery.
Time for a field trip out there Darren to prove it one way or another. Get your boots on. 👍
@@alexk2652 Haha. If you can get the money together Alex let's go!
Not even thinking of searching for anything, but it would be great if it was possible for someone to get a permit to attempt Norton's route to the summit for the 100 year anniversary.
Truth, I honestly would love to see an expedition get up there.
Alex should volunteer to sponsor your climb, Darren.... :)
Great comment. Man, I would love to see an expedition go up there and do a full documentation of it.... Cheers!
Really interesting video. I too think that the third step is the one that makes most sense in terms of Odell's sightings. But if we rule out both the ridge route (second step) and the Norton Couloir, is there another route that one could take that would take them to and over the third step? If I understand correctly both Meissner and the Australians summited without taking the ridge route, but they also didn't climb the third step. I wonder if there is a way from their routes back to the third step?
I believe there are some variations over there where Messner was....yes. Truly, anything is possible I suppose.
@@EverestMystery thanks for the reply Thom. Putting together all the fragments of evidence, I’m increasingly convinced they made it to the top. Unfortunately we may never know.
The beautiful thing about this mystery is that we will most likely never know. It is a lot of fun to speculate, though. I like to think they made it or got very close and fell on descent in the dark. I like the Norton route, but who knows?
I hear you....I can see tons of possibilities in the Norton Couloir route. From sea level, for armchair mountaineers, I believe the jump to the 'easier' Norton Couloir route makes sense. Jake lays out that both routes were SUPER hard. I've said many times that I would love for a modern day expedition to go there and climb by that route, document it, search in the area, so that we can learn more about the possibilities, and perhaps even prove that they did, in fact, take that route. Cheers!
You're exactly right, nothing better than a mystery without a clear solution! Amazing that the Mallory find in 1999 did nothing but add more ambiguity to the whole thing.
If M&I traversed across to the couloir why didn't the 1933 climbers not find any physical evidence? The truth is, the highest piece of physical evidence was found before the First Step.
Very true. Another point for the many who say they were successful in reaching the summit via the couloir, how is it that the next two British expeditions in the 1930's (with exceptional climbers) were unsuccessful. To me, those two unsuccessful attempts say very much.
Good point. Wager and Wyn-Harris were at the couloir by 10am. They just ran out of steam.
Had Mallory & Irvine been successful via the couloir there would also have been no sighting of them by Odell unless they were at a point on the ridge further down below the first step.
All climbers who exited the couloir went straight up to the summit rather than going across to the third step.
Been rereading the couloir accounts by the 33 team and Norton. It's interesting to note that they said that the couloir slabs were impossible to climb with fresh snow.
To throw another spanner into the mix the mountain had considerable fresh snow dropped on it during the afternoon storm after Odell's sighting.
If Norton and the 33 team are correct then how would Mallory and Irvine be able to descend back down the couloir late afternoon/evening.
@@WellyCoaster I'm very much in agreement with you...absolutely. Thank you for the insight and clear explanation!
Such an interesting mystery. Any time more info/artifacts are found, I want to know about it.
I will endeavor to be the first one to report any new developments! Thank you for watching, always good having you here
If Norton was in waist deep snow in the couloir. Then that would mean enough snow to make the second step doable and then on up to the summit. On the way down they could have lowered the second step then cut the rope. I believe that is why when they fell on the return Mallory went one way and Irvine bounced thousands of feet farther down the mountain. As for Messner different conditions and a another time.
Yes, absolutely. Great insight. Thank you...I totally agree.
At the end of the day..all we have is. Eye witness (odell)and a china climbing team that found Irvine...why would odell not be sure were he saw them ..this was a major deal at the time...2nd if Irvine was found by use of the ridge route then thats the route i must believe they took..and 3rd Mallory was one hell of a climber
I think there's something really interesting in the comparison between the easier but more dangerous/unstable traverse approach and the more technically challenging ridge approach. Taking into account the post war psychology of Mallory from David Roberts work my instinct would say given the option of a less challenging route with higher risks Mallory would choose the traverse over having to turn back at the second step
This is super cool insight....i appreciate it and can't argue with that at all...thanks for watching!
@@EverestMystery thanks Thom, just a thought but its hard to get into the mind set they had at the time, especially if you layer on the Spector of Imperialism. A good comparison is the south pole expedition where Scott and his team pushed on knowing the chances of return were slim to none.
Has anyone climbed the Norton Route, and how difficult was it? Again going by O'Dell's last sighting, they were on the ridge route, possibly where the ankle break happened. The Norton route is just a big drop in to the Abyss I believe, no chance of surviving a fall.
Truly a great question regarding which route they took. This is a good video to watch for some intel on that: czcams.com/video/5ZRacaWu8U4/video.html
O'Dell's last sighting in no way confirms the ridge route. People believe they took the ridge because so many prominent voices have said they did that it is now essentially axiomatic. But when one looks at the actual evidence, including Mallory's own thoughts about possible routes, the most one can say is that there is little to support that belief. Indeed, there is much that contradicts it, and the accounts that continue to push it are so filled with errors (i.e., that they lost their cooker from camp 6, that Mallory had always preferred ridge climbing, etc.) that they just can't be taken seriously. I won't claim to know with certainty what happened, but the best evidence I have seen adds up to a traverse below the ridge, a final sighting at 12:50 at the third step, and at the very least an attempt on the summit before a late return and eventual demise below the first step.
Odell's description is unfortunately vague. Also, his vantage point made it tough from there to describe the features on the ridge (he was looking along the length of the ridge from a crappy angle - very different from viewing the ridge broadside from lower down). The view higher up looks different - this is a typical mountaineering phenomena. Also, the modern third step (a term that I understand did not exist then) disappears into the summit pyramid from his view. His description cannot match that feature. The note that he made that day in his journal is incredibly brief. The more familiar description that we read was written months later, and after others started arguing about whether he saw them at the First or Second Step (he ultimately settled on the Second Step, but that also does not make much sense).
I personally think that at the time of his observation, he did not determine exactly where they were, although he formed an impression. He did not know that he was experiencing the last view of them. Only later when it became crucial did he start to calculate "exactly where were they." And he was doing it without pictures from that vantage. His description is just not that reliable - a classic case of the frequent weakness of eyewitness testimony.
@@dmbeaster fantastic insights, thank you. Your description is right on point, about how we see things from obtuse angles in mountaineering and cannot really know just how distorted they are from that particular vantage point. It hadn't occurred to me that the 'third' step would have been obscured, if you will, by the summit pyramid. I enjoyed reading Camp 6 by Frank Smythe, who does some analysis of this (you might have read it, given your understanding of this). We're hoping to build a community on an Everest Mystery Discord server....it's for members, but not too steep...if .99 cents isn't too much, your insights could get a good conversation going over there. Irregardless, I really appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts....THANK YOU
It's vague in that the terms he uses are not what we use today. But there there are very few places where they could have been even hypothetically, and from there we can make some sound judgments. The first step is out of the question for lots of reasons. The second step is technically possible, but simply does not line up with any of the other available evidence. The timing is wrong, the route is almost certainly wrong, and Odell's initial account, which is no doubt the most reliable one, does not match well with the second step. The third step is the one place that plausibly matches all of those factors, including the timing and location of the accident that killed them. Admittedly, one has to assume they made a push for the summit after Odell's sighting to make even that work out, but that is true of any other location as well, and far less plausible. We'll never know, but if we had a time machine I'd happily wager they did not take the ridge route and were never at the second step at all. @@dmbeaster
Jake Norton's analysis is great but it begs the question of snow conditions. What is the difference in snow conditions on June 8 1924 versus when other parties have gone into the Norton Coloir? I'm pretty sure Messner had very good snow conditions and that Norton himself was in waist deep snow in '24. Could this variable make the other Coloir routes/exits less appealing than the Zig Zag?
🙏
They must have taken the couloir (Somervell and Norton had climber it without oxygen a couple of days before, so it is climbable!) , they lost some time climbing it or in the zigzag route that ends at the third step where O'Dell saw them at 12.50. They made it to the top which delayed them a lot. They were in the dark less than one hour from the shelter of their high camp when they took a fall killing Mallory and injuring Irvine who died soon later
Subscribed
Thank you!
We know 1924 had excess snowfall and clear weather on the day of Mallory/Irvine's attempted summit, the excess snow making all routes likely much easier.
In 1933 Somervell noted that the ground there wasn't too loose and very climbable.
They would only have to climb at 250ft/hr to be at the third step when Odell sighted them "on the last step but one', ie the last step before the citadel.
Odell figured they would summit by 4pm from where he spotted them, only 3 hours and 10 minutes to reach the summit. So logically that only fits 3rd step and maybe the 2nd step.
So, I apologise, but I disagree with how quickly Jake Norton appears to have dismissed these ideas.
@Alfred Weber yes, sorry. Brainfart.
Odell’s sighting is hearsay
You very well could be correct...and both Jake and I agree that it's just as likely they did take the Norton Couloir. I actually think it more probable than not. Putting them at the summit 3 hours and 10 minutes from where Odell possibly saw them, though, is where Odell was wrong. It would have taken longer, in modern day assessments. Cheers and thanks for your insight and input!
Not in 1924...with faulty oxygen apparatus...could have been 2x or 4x the time....but still, no one really knows. I pray they made it!
@@EverestMystery Why not in 1924? When Mallory had climbing speeds considered to be ahead of the average mountaineer today, did he not?
Interesting. So Zig-zag not possible according to Messner and what about they climb up to Norton highpoint and then they could take small gully on right hand side of the Norton couloir. Same as Messner took, but at the top they can traverse back to the base of 3th step. This route was taken in opposite direction by Marco Siffredy when he scaled down Everest through Norton in 2001 so the traverse is possible. What do you think?
That sounds very possible! Thank you for weighing in! Cheers
I support the theory that they took the zig zag route and so does Michael Tracy
Honestly, I can't doubt either....I always am willing to be convinced of either. The difficulty of the Norton Couloir is important to consider. Both routes offer incredible challenges. Jake lays that out pretty nicely. Thank you for watching!
Why?
It would be to technically difficult
I have two questions. One, are the climbers saying Tracy’s zig zag route is unclimbable or that it appears to dangerous relative to know safer routes?
Second, could Mallory have seen the terrain was too dangerous to climb, before actually climbing the north collier on that day?
The 1933 team reconned the area and found it to be unclimable. Wager and Wyn Harris primary role was to see if the second step was climbable, if not they would take Nortons traverse and provide the best line of attack for Smythe and Shipton.
They turned the first step and arrived below the second step, from here the rockband wall that forms the first step prevented them from reaching the foot of the second step so they traversed westwards as they saw a gully that they thought might allow them to climb up and turn the second step. They found it to be a deception with smooth holdless walls that again formed into a cliff above. After that there were no more breaks in the wall until about the area of the subsidery couloir on the western wall of the Norton Couloir, they reached Nortons high point and returned.
After reaching Nortons high point Smythe also looked for a break in the wall in the zig zag area several times on his way back but didn't see any. He described the area as an impregnable sea cliff.
In 1950 Norton wrote an article called the Last Lap for future expeditions attempting to summit Everest from the north. He said he found the wall east of the couloir to be smooth and holdless. He went into alot of detail about climbing the western wall of the couloir as the line of attack but nothing for the eastern side, the only other place he mentioned was the second step (which he didn't like at all).
The only favourable route from the couloir traverse seemed to be on the west wall of the Norton couloir. This is the same exit Messner, the Aussies etc used and they climbed directly up to the summit, there's no need to go to the ridge or third step from this line.
Nortons Last Lap can be found here: www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1950_files/AJ57%201950%20285-292%20Norton%20Everest.pdf
1933 account: archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.210461/page/n199/mode/2up
Got to respect his opinion , the man has turned over places no man goes , and Everest is so beautiful away from the summit , and you really feel like you are an Explorer with jakes Routes , nobody films the warts or the pinnacles , and has the eyes of a hawk for Khaki and Olive Green if anyone was going to find him it should have been him , hes always been open to any question asked of him despite the repetition always been polite , never dismissed anything about both routes always open to suggestion . I would say he would make a great news reporter as hes just the man you want on the ground , great work
Jake is one of the fairest, kindest and humble beings I know. He is always willing to accept that he's wrong....if the video shows that the Norton Coulor is F***ING hard, then it has succeeded. Of course the Second Step was harder, lol...just trying to even the playing field. Cheers Gary!
With the recent geological alteration of the Hillary Step because of the Nepal earthquake, has anyone researched possible geological alterations of the couloir area that might have occurred since 1924? It might have been a less risky route in Mallory's time than in ours, which would influence his choice of routes. Just thinking. I know it is easier to assess the alteration of the Hillary Step than it would be to assess the couloir (a big understatement).
Interesting to ponder....I do know of someone interested in checking out the couloir in a coming season. I would imagine it would probably be changing....but, do know that in 1924 it was impregnable. Norton was on a tenuous thread up there before turning around.
Cheers and thank you
A question, if I may... The supposition is that Mallory and Irvine crossed underneath the ridge to get to the couloir. Since, Mr. Messner was able to get near the supposed zig zag route and at least surveill the area visually during his climb, his route and the supposed Mallory and Irvine route would be somewhat near each other at least at some point. Is there a spot where the Mallory and Irvine route might have intersected the Messner route? If so, would that have been a potential path up for our pair?
Just curious. I'm not a climber, just a history geek who is fascinated by this story.
Thank you for the videos and for keeping this debate alive.
Super good question, and I honestly would have to defer to Jamie McGuinness or Jake Norton, possibly Jochen Hemmleb for an educated guess. Thank you for visiting, I'll endeavor to get an answer for you.
@@EverestMystery Many thanks!
@@robertmorgan8754 on Messners climb he entered the couloir much lower down and exited out the west of it so it misses the area of Nortons couloir traverse.
Googling Messners solo route has a National Geographic picture showing his route.
As Messner climbed up he would've seen the rockband around the top of the couloir and looked for lines and exits around both the zig zag area and the western wall, he saw his exit out on the western wall and went that way.
Its the same breach Norton, Wager, Wyn Harris and Smythe were going for before turning back.
The zig zag idea is above the eastern wall of the couloir.
So if Mallory and Irvine intersected Messners route they would've followed Nortons traverse over to the west wall of the couloir and gone up that way.
The issue then is that Messner and other climbers who summited that way went straight up to the top missing the NE ridge. If M & I went that way its really unlikely Odell would have his sighting of them climbing a step on the ridge.
If someone would fly a drone over the zigzag, i guess it would be possible to determine if this is climbable?
It’s possible. Boots on the ground would be the best method to determine it. China has closed the mountain for three years, no plans to open it in 2023. Someone will hopefully step forward when it does open up. Cheers !
I know this sounds goofy, but I feel like you can know Thom is legit because his little chipmunk buddy comes up and says hello to the camera as Thom is speaking. That takes spirit.
Wow. 98 years ago today
Is it possible that Irvine fell with Mallory and Irvine's body is closer to Mallory's than we think but a bit further up? Is the 1975 Chinese camp much higher than the site of Mallory's body? Just thinking if Wang did see Irvine that it would support this scenario and if this area has been searched before. Loving these interviews with Jake Norton.
Many thanks....yes, it's possible. Jochen sheds some light on this in an interview I posted a week or so before this. Jake is fun to talk with, I'll bring more of him soon....might actually plan a road trip for this summer and film in person... Thanks Jonathan
Couloirs are usually avoided in climbing. I avoided them. I would have picked staying on the ridge if climbing Everest. When I climbed I stayed away from couloirs and large rocky scree piles. Not always avoidable. Yes it would be great to see if the zig zag route talked about is doable.
I agree....couloirs are funnels for falling debris. My first climbing trip to France taught me that. I'll do a deeper dive into the Norton Couloir route soon. Thank you for being a part of the channel!
The idea of Norton Couloir is a logical (don't know if it is viable) option.
Imagine if you were G.M This is your 3rd and probably last chance to summit.
You have seen Norton reaching 28.126ft.
You believe in supplementary O2.
It is a simple thought that you could climb 300 vertical meters more than Norton by following the same route.
On the other you can follow the ridge route knowing that there are some hard obstacles there and you may not be able to pass...In your last chance to summit it isn't the best choice... Of course these are only my thoughts and could be just all wrong...
I think it worth checking Norton's route for possible evidence (O2 bottles etc)
Yes, absolutely, totally agree. I hope that someone is planning an expedition to take that route and do an exhaustive search of that area. I will be cheering them on and cannot wait to see how it goes.
Odell's dispatches back to Britain states that Mallory and Irvine set an altitude record, knowing that Norton reached 28,126ft. Second step is 28,248ft, third step is 28,580 ft.
Something that interests me greatly.
To bad Mallory’s altimeter was broken
Thom and Jake, forgive my ignorance on this particular angle of the Mallory and Irvine mystery, but what's the impact if they took the ridge route versus the Norton route? And if it was impassible for Norton on that route and since he had to turn around, wouldn't Mallory and Irvine also have had to turn around? Is that why the zig-zag route was suggested? And it seems that most climbers chose to stay away from the Norton route, so why was it that Norton chose to go that way? Sorry for all this especially questions, but I just want to learn. Thank you!
@@donaldcarpenter5328 No George Mallory jokes allowed!! Lol!
The Norton Couloir route by all appearances looks to be more passable.... The ridge route has the obstacle known as the Second Step, which now has a ladder on it. In 1960 during the Chinese ascent, they climbed up and over each other to climb it. I think the Norton Couloir is a viable route....we should investigate this more! Thanks Mike....
Modern climbers avoid the Norton area because:
1) if there's a ladder in place on 2nd step, the ridge is a lot easier
2) if there are a bunch of people on the ridge, you don't really want to be climbing a couple hundred feet below them
The question is what would have appeared more feasible in 1924? We know what Norton thought, and that he turned around because he was exhausted and it was getting too late. (he was climbing without oxygen)
In any case, the main impact of this theory of their route is that if it's accurate, then it means Odell almost certainly saw them climbing over what they now call the 3rd step at 1:00. And if that's what happened then they almost certainly summitted and then suffered a mishap on the way down after dark.
In Nortons article The Last Lap he wrote in about 1949/50 he was still pushing for his couloir route and going into great detail about that section of the mountain. Interestingly he made no suggestion of a zig zag route and said he found that area east of the couloir "slippery and holdless".
Love this stuff.
Do you think , politics aside that the Chinese would be more helpful in solving this mystery if they had gotten more love on their impressive 1960 Summit?
It's possible....that 1960 ascent is a remarkable and incredible story.....it's beyond inspirational to read its account.
I never thought of the fact that if they came back down the second step, they would have to leave a rope in place. Did any of the British expeditions of the 1930s reach the second step? Otherwise it's possible that the Chinese in 1960 could have removed it and not mentioned it
It's a great point.
1933 team didnt view it from along the ridge but had a close look at it from underneath.
Interesting idea, for sure....their descent route. It's possible the 1960 team had some involvement....absolutely. Thank you for watching!
Thank you Carl, absolutely
@@EverestMystery great to have you back into it!
The extent of my experience being rock-climbing a few summers in the Adirondacks, I'm prepared to take the hit for a most ignorant question...is it possible that Mallory and Irvine made the second step on the way up but tried a different route back down?
There is no evidence that Mallory did, or had any intention of, attacking the ridge. Even Odell’s description of what he saw simply does not match that. We’ll never know for sure, but there us far more reason to think they did not than that they did.
@@donadams5094 I completely agree. Just throwing it out there because they've been saying that he could have gotten up it but couldn't have gotten back down it so therefore he didn't make it at all because any other route would have been ''impossible''. I think Odell saw exactly what he said he saw and that they made it.
With five or six O2 bottles between them, they would in all probability employed a bottle caching system. That would necessitate using the same route up amd down.
@@awralls No one knows how many bottles they took with them on that morning.
@@czarcastic1458 They know how many bottles were taken to Camp VI, and how many of those were not there when Odell reached that camp. In addition, Mallory had the pressure details of five bottles written on an envelope found on his body. One of those was bottle #9 found 150 yds east of the first step. So, yes, we know that it was five or six.
undoubtedly there was plenty of ropes on the second step when Messner got to the second step-- of course he would choose that over any unprotected routes
Is it very strange that everyone can find a lot of high resolution photos from planet Mars and lunar than photos from North face of Everest? Many teams claim that went to Everest in order to find Irvine but they try to search only after the summit attempt 🙂. My phone can take a 100 megapixels photos with 10x optical zoom. Think what can take a professional camera. Where is all this image library? Why people keep this photos for personal use? Maybe all together we can find possible points to find Irvine's body.
Great point. The main focus of our expedition was to search by the use of drones, which we employed many times. The photographs and footage of the entire north face are spectacular. I'm not sure what Nat Geo plans to do with them (I have copies but not the super high res). Our intent regarding boots on the ground was to go to one specific location (which happened) and spare the more dangerous boots on the ground part of searching. Truly appreciate your thoughts.
@@EverestMystery thank you very much for your answer. Good luck in whatever you do. I hope one day your efforts pay off.
Agree 100% All the possibilities could be filmed from the right helicopter such as the one that touched down briefly at the summit. Why not a go fund me effort and raise the required money to really get top drawer visuals of all the route possibilities?
I completely agree with your assessment about the Second Step. It seems that the majority (or plurality) view is that Mallory wouldn't have attempted it if he had made it to that point. While people will point to the missing photo of Mallory's wife, I would point to the missing camera(s). Mallory would have known the importance of that camera (or those cameras) in terms of history. Yet, when Mallory's body was found, there was no camera on his person.
If the scenario is actually that Irvine died (or was injured and couldn't go on) and Mallory tried on his own, I think that he would have taken the camera with him. This would be Scenario #1. However, Mallory didn't have the camera. This would indicate that Mallory didn't take the camera because it wasn't worth taking -- because the camera didn't include an image of the summit because they never reached it.
Of course, it's possible that both Mallory and Irvine were injured at the same time (given the condition of Mallory's body -- particularly with the rope marks). Thus an alternate scenario is that both were injured -- with Irvine either falling to his death and coming to his final resting place (possibly where Mallory could not locate or get to him). Mallory would then try on his own (possibly injured) until his own unfortunate demise. This would be Scenario #2. In this scenario, Mallory still didn't take the camera with him. This would mean that they never made it to the top (as with Scenario #1) or that Irvine was out-of-reach from Mallory (whether injured or not).
A third scenario (Scenario #3) would be that both Mallory and Irvine survived as they descended to near the place where Mallory's body was located. Irvine could have survived (possibly injured); but, he left Mallory and tried to finish on his own before he also was lost to the mountain. With this scenario, Irvine took the camera(s) with him.
Personally (back on topic), I think that the Couloir is worth exploring for this reason. It's not just to find out whether or not we think Mallory and Irvine made it to the top. They likely did not. However, it's for the sake of history that we learn more of their attempt. How far did they get using the route that they chose? Thus, I would argue that the Couloir has to be explored -- retracing a possible journey -- to either prove it or bring doubt to that path.
the ridge may have been alot windyer/colder so Mallory may have stuck to less windy routes wherever possable
If they took the Norton Couloir up would they have thought it easier to descend via the "steps" rather than try the Norton Couloir in the dark?
Both routes would be terrifying
Gosh, it's a good possibility....still a head shaker after all these years pondering it, working out every conceivable angle of what might have happened. Thanks for watching!
Did Mallory bring his pipe up with him ? Again thanks for all of this. Loved Mr Nortons search Videos.
Great question! Dang, another question that must be answered. Personally, I’d expect yes! Cheers!
Even though I’m rooting for proof that they made it but I think knowing the truth is what counts.
Great content as always.🍻
Oh man, me too, I'd love to hear they made it! Cheers
Hot damn Thom. You nail it every time.
Alex, thank you as always...I just ask questions and let the experts do the talking! Cheers!
Ever thought the Oxygen rig could be used to get down from the second step , by using it as an Anchor , then cutting it , then the chinese kick it off lol , always thought after 30 years working with Marble and limestone that the rope looked cut by knife , just a wild opinion i know having used tiles and slabs to cut string over the years i certainly know it cuts , but weathered marble ? have a good day hope my input is ok
@@donaldcarpenter5328 its only a theory i have never seen it at 8000 metres , but ill be surprised Grappling hooks were not taken as it was used in a lot of robberies in Britain in the early to mid part of the 20th century and of course in the Navy for hundreds of years
Very cool.....wedging it into the cracks....dig it, nothing is too crazy....
Does the fact that Mallory did not have a camera when found provide any circumstantial evidence at all? I thought, when I had heard that he had borrowed a camera (falsely) but was found w/out a camera, that it meant he had given the camera to Irvine at the summit for a photo. Then Irvine kept the camera. Did he have a camera, even if he hadn’t borrowed one? Does this make sense at all?
Absolutely....yes, we believe that Mallory borrowed Howard Somervell's camera. You might find this video that I did with Jochen Hemmleb very interesting, in which he talks about how there may have been three cameras on summit day:
czcams.com/video/zfBFTyDjOaI/video.html
Thanks again
@@EverestMystery Thanks!
I have heard a "recent" (in geological terms, I suppose) rumor that a later Chinese expedition followed the route well documented by the one that discovered "old English dead" in a sheltered place (doesn't sound like Mallory's final situation) and it posits:
"The follow-up Chinese expedition found Sandy Irvine's corpse exactly as described by the deceased previous climber. The team collected everything from the rock niche and hauled it back to China for investigation. Included was the camera, which they unsuccessfully attempted to develop its film, and the camera is on display in a Chinese museum."
I have seen the video of someone touring said museum and don't know what to think. I wouldn't put it past being a hoax, but have no solid evidence either way. Irvine may have been carrying summit stones with his borrowed camera in those deep pockets.
This rumor has been floating around awhile now. Since right around 1984, I believe. It was during this time that Sir George Bishop, then the president of the Royal Geographical Society made arrangements for a British Diplomat to do an interview with a member of the 1975 Chinese Everest expedition, Phanthog (a.k.a.- Pan Duo). Phanthog was the second woman to ever summit Everest and the first to summit Mount Everest via the North Face route. It was during this interview that the claim is first brought to light, I believe. Although, I'm sure if it is true that the members of the expedition would've discussed it amongst close friends and family prior to this occasion. In 2008 it resurfaced when Wayne Wilcox a former Marine officer, former US State Department Regional Security Officer, and retired corporate security director was in Beijing with his wife for the Olympic games. His wife worked for the British Foreign Office. As fate would have it Phanthog was bearer of the Olympic Flag at the opening ceremony they were attending. This sparked a conversation with another high ranking embassy official in attendance, who relayed the story to Mr. Wilcox and his wife. After reading, "The Third Pole: Mystery, Obsession, and Death on Mount Everest" by Mark Synnott, Mr. Wilcox was compelled to contact him with his story. It was not the first time Mr. Synnott had heard this rumor. In 2019, an official with the Chinese Tibet Mountaineering Association told a Nepali friend of his, this same story. The friend in turn shared this information with Mr. Synnott. These sources were credible and in position to know things so Mr. Synnott had to look into them. This channel has a video uploaded of a remarkable interview they did with Mr. Synnott on the subject. Almost anything you would want to know about the Mallory & Irvine Expedition/mystery you will find here. Not only that but the channel creator, Mr. Pollard was on the famed expedition that found Mallory! Not only that but he was also on a 2019 Everest expedition, armed with new info, to search for Irvine. So he is not just an arm chair researcher. The man is super intelligent, serious, and boots on the ground. lol 👏👏👏
Nobody really can tell...what happened that day... i would to have been there,someone says coluoir , some other say the zig zag...every option means real difficolties or concrete risks.
The evidence was that they died more closely to their high camp than to the principal obstacles of any of these routes, second step, couloir or systems of gullies breneath the third step on the North face. My 2 cents are that they could overcome the worst part of their ascent, but they, maybe exahusted died on their way back. In my heart i hope that they could get their goal and be the first on top of world...sometimes trying means to bet your life on a dream....respect for them and May God bless them
Which one of you has Malory gloves 🧤?
Artifacts are with family or with the Royal Geographical Society. Cheers and thanks for watching!
On the 4th Norton had to turn back because he claimed it became to technically difficult to go any farther. I doubt that Mallory and for sure Irvine could have done it also and if the zig zag route was the way to go then why didn't Norton take it? I doubt Mallory or Irvine could have climbed the zig zag route with just a rope tying them together. and it also was to technically difficult also. Lets get real here . IMHO
Norton turned back from a combination of exhaustion, the very deep snow in the couloir and how slippy it all was under his boots. But I think he was just going up the couloir that ... well, bears his name, rather than going up an alternative route that starts just to the left of it.
All such very good insight....thank you for watching!
I'd love to see a team get up there and document it, that would be so awesome
He said he couldn’t go any further because it was to difficult. Otherwise though exhausted he probably would have kept going.
@@EverestMystery dust off the boots Thom??
Would some kind of satellite ground radar help find bodies under show and ice?
I love that idea....and we have discussed this before, never having the budget, nor do I think the technology was ready then.....it is a worthy thing to consider. Thank you for watching
I'm certain that Mallory and Irvine summited ... because that's what I really want to have happened. Anybody got a better argument than that?😉
I was wondering who has the number 9 oxy tank that was found?
I'll have to ask Jochen about that....
@@EverestMystery thanks
Do we know that the mountain is the same as it was almost 100 years ago?
The mark of humans has definitely made changes, as have receding glaciers....lots of change happening.
But where Mallory’s body was found?
He was at 26,750 feet (8,153m) or so, east of and below the First Step.
@1:15 the spirit of Mallory came as a chipmunk and doesn't agree with you. He summited.
Haha, absolutely, it was a sign, HE MADE IT TO THE SUMMIT, the chipmunk told me so!
@@EverestMystery Seriously though, he did. Who would come all the way to the second step and decide, nope, can't do it, turn back and die. People who abort Everest climb almost never die, it's those who push on higher who die when coming down. Also i followed your discussion with Jake and after careful analysis of the high res map and other maps I disagree that the Norton route is made of loose rocks and snow, there are two stratus. Yes there's the one you see first for a long while facing you when you contour the 2nd step and arrive at the Norton couloir that is loose rocks pile, however the geological features seen on the map clearly shows a different terrain on your immediate left that is not loose rocks but i am not sure of the gradient of the slope. And i can see why Messner if he did not go all the way to the Norton corridor mouth would only see the loose rocks facing not that firm geological area. From Mallory's many notes he sent to others it seems he put a whole lot of effort, maybe years, studying the geology and routes because he did not have crampon so that route study was more deftly mastered art than now. I think he saw that alternative just like i was able to see it on a map. Black and white film photography is surprisingly good I suppose he had some good high res photos or may have studied visually the mountain from lower camps a lot and discussing it with team mate like Odel who had Hawk eyes.
Also having seen Odel's interview, i don't see someone with the least inclination to lie. He either saw moving figures on the third step or he hallucinated, but it is not someone who wants to see something that isn't there. There is no dishonesty, no cunning and no deceit in that man.
Against all odds, with careful planning and rational decisions about the climb (not his life) Mallory pushed to the top. We tend to analyse Everest expedition with post 1956 eyes, where crampons (Messner) and pitons changed the game. Once you learn new methods you unlearn older ones and that is where we go wrong analyzing Mallory and Irvine's climb. Just like we are no longer capable of building some ancient stone monument and erecting them even with the technology available to us today, because we unlearnt older approaches for newer ones. We can do things differently now which are better in some ways but there are things we cannot do and see how to do anymore. Like understand how Mallory made it.
With all due respect, the fact is all this speculation is just that. No one will ever know for sure.
Yes, I agree!
is tat the way marco siffredi went on snowboard ?
Marco was attempting to snowboard down the Hornbein Couloir. It's on the same side of the mountain, but quite a different location....over to the right (west) as you're looking at the north face.
Yes. In the first attempt 2001 he went this way...the interesting bit is at 55: 20 in this video where he tackles a steep section just before entering the easier terrain of snowfield at the top of the couloir czcams.com/video/ZkEGn1ADTgQ/video.html. If you look at photos of the top of the couloir it's easy to make out exactly where he is, and he just crossed some dangerous terrain to get there. When he went missing in 2002 he started off the same way then traversed far to the right (as we look) to access the top of the Hornbein, and from there who knows...
yes where the other guy told him it wasn t possible ,but won t the hornbein on his left ?then he go above this big gash where he could have fell in it ? merci njoylife
@@leduch As he descended from his perspective, he would have traversed to 'his' left across the base of the summit pyramid on the snowfield that spreads across from the top of the Norton towards the Hornbein. It says in the video that he started off the same way as in 2001, but swung a hard left at that point. As we look at the mountain from the traditional view from the Rongbuk, this would be to 'our' right. The Hornbein does look so much harder.
@@nellyx1x493 it does look very hard to get to no mistake ! merci njoylife
If MALLORY can get to 8200+ metres in 1924....i dont think anything could have stopped him from making it to the top!!
Those final 500 meters is a HELL of a long distance at that altitude.....however, many share your optimism of them having made the summit
Good artists copy, great artists steal! Did Messner work out the real Mallory and Irvine route of 1924 and claim it for himself for his 1980 solo? Has anyone researched this or asked Messner directly? Seems like Messner knows that the zig zag route up from the Norton Couloir is a red herring, just like the presumed ridge climb seems to be. If Messner's 1980 line goes and it was certainly influenced by knowledge of the area, why could Mallory and Irvine have not gone that way if they made a similar traverse in 1924? In climbing the obvious lines are the ones which get repeated. I'd say Messner, Mallory and Irvine have a spirit of Alpinism that aligns, but perhaps that's just my imagination? Any sensible feedback anyone?
It's essential and would be invaluable for a team to go there for the purposes of finding these questions out. I appreciate your insight. Perhaps others here might care to share their thoughts
Mallory and Irvine's high camp was much higher than Messner's traverse to couloir hence make no sense for then climb down and traverse. On the other hand to traverse lower on the mountain was very important for Messner
I like the civil discourse, one leading pundit gets beside himself if you disagree with him
I am optimistic that we can work it all out....thank you Jim, glad you stopped by!
One leading pundit is fed up with the changing stories about M & I.
Thom, didn't you get access to the 2019 drone footage? Why can't we see it if you're interested in figuring out what happened?
How do become so fixated on a finding a camera on a man's corpse that you stand on his frozen body and chop away with an ice axe, causing untold physical injuries and eliminating any actual scientific discovery other than "is there a camera in this corpse's pocket?" You take pictures of a corpse to sell for thousands of dollars, and 2 weeks after "respectfully" burying him, you guys dug him up again AND THEN FOUND A WATCH. These aren't professionals these people aren't even human. 1999 crew are glorified grave robbers, and looking at the situation objectively it is clear they know they screwed up. What's not clear is why, after they desecrate his corpse and cut frozen tissue off his body for DNA (they lied and said that this was the family's wishes) they still have to tell the whole world "he didn't make it to the top" for some reason.
@@dannydevito5729 I have no dog in this fight, but no doubt it was difficult to do a good burial given the frozen substrate and difficulties of working at that altitude. As far as desecrating
the corpse, the same thing could be said of cremation where bodies are burnt to a crisp and then' powderized and probably bleached. That said I agree with some of your other comments.
to me irvine and mallory were pioneers proberly just went anywhere haha ...
They were indeed pioneers! Thank you for watching!
So this so-called 'zig zag' route has never been climbed before?
Jake explains it, the Australians in 1984. Then he discusses Erschler, Messner, going up the north side in that general area.
@@EverestMystery Yes, but I thought those routes were more or less up the head of the couloir to the right, rather than a route that would bring them to the base of the third step. Am I wrong there?
@@EverestMystery By the way, I'm delighted with these videos and especially the calmness and open hearted presentation that seems to be lacking in some other videos on the subject. Rock on
@@fergalohearga9594 correct. No formal record of a successful zigzag route.
The problem is that traversing the yellow band to enter the couloir and then entering it to climb the zig-zag route would be extremely dangerous if climbers are up on the ridge on the normal route. The risk of falling rocks, stones and discarded equipment would be considerable.
I have listned to all, climbers stories mostly. I have humbly concluded that Odell did not see Mallory and Irvine as he says (I don't care why he insisted that he did). They did not climb higher than where they died, or thereabouts. There is no evidence that they climbed any higher than that. Climbers who know the place can best tell where Irvin's body went. His gear was taken by passers by, e,g. the camera. In my oppinion Mallory was the wrong choice to send up. Be objective, George Mallory was not a good planner, he was careless and undidy as a climber. Irvine counted on him and lost his life, and to that extent George Mallory irresponsible. He led the young fellow to death. Terrible way to talk, but closer to truth than all the conjectures and possibilities. Andrew Irvin trusted George Mallory and for that he died. Bloke from Aus.
Many people share your feelings on this. While I believe Sandy was willing and able, I think that it was, indeed, GLM's responsibility to get him down safely. Knowing of GLM's do-or-die commitment, Sandy wasn't the right person for the task. Odell was the strongest and most capable person left on the team. Cheers and thank you for watching!
is it steeper than the mallory on aig du midi chamonix? and couldn t irvin did it the way siffredi came down ?
Great video. I've been fascinated with the Mallory/Irvine story all my life, since I was a high school kid back in the '60s. When Mallory's body was discovered, I was enthralled and amazed, like millions of people around the world. Like everyone else I hope that one day Sandy Irvine will also be found. However, I do not believe they made it to the summit of Everest. The most rational explanation to me is that Irvine fell on the ascent, was either injured or died, and they were separated forever. Mallory subsequently fell and died on the descent. A lot of people want to believe they summitted and fantasize about the lost camera story proving it happened, but I think a lot of people underestimate the extreme difficulty the two men faced as they got close to the top. With their primitive equipment and lack of supplies, they were already beyond human limits in the death zone and they paid the ultimate price.
Fascinating....thank you for sharing your thoughts. It's such a fascinating story.....I also hope Sandy will one day be found (and documented)....
There was no camera, that’s been pretty well proven by the timeline. The timing, assuming the time found on the watch is accurate, makes a successful summit more likely. If they only went to the second step and turned around they would have had plenty of time to make it back to camp 6. I am a convert to Michael Tracy's way of thinking on this and as an American I have no skin in the game one way or another.
What lack of supplies? They had 02 and Norton would have made it to the top if not for the difficulty
of the slippery rocks and he didn't have 02 nor the suicidal drive of Mallory to summit.
Who knows..they died thats for sure, the rest is speculation and I dont see the point in trying to prove a theory when there is no proof other than speculation. I guess people want so badly for their theory to be true. I have read and seen so many documentaries about the subject and it all comes down to what actual facts are there and that is not a lot.
So true, what we have is less fact and more speculation, built upon tidbits of information leading up to June 8th.... Thanks for watching!
Well go away then Hendrikus if you see no point in these discussions, but fyi someday those O2 will likely be found and that is going to add a lot of support to someone's theory.
I hope you look at your videos and compare them to the Michael Tracey videos. Look at his content. Look at your content. Compare his script with yours. To me his content is much more credible. Look at this video. First you cant/ wont post the background pic correctly. To me that is a terrible mis representation of what is the REAL pic. .This is the 2nd? video you have done that. That is not what it really looks like. It appears to me as though you are discounting all od Odell's statements. When I compare your interpretation of Odell with Tracy's I see 2 completely different stories. Mallory and Irvine HAD oxygen on that climb. How am I supposed to believe you??
Odell changed his story where he saw them and what he says is hearsay not proof of anything. Zero tangible evidence they made it past the first step.
@@czarcastic1458 when did he change his story? where is that interview? Why does no one else know about this?
Brad Washburn shared some advice with me once and said that if a person wants to ask a question of another, it's helpful not to levy offenses about that other person in advance of said questions. It helps to set the table, so to speak, for civil discourse.
Because Mr. Pollard pins Mr. Tracy's comments above, it is clear that Mr. Pollard's differences of opinion or perspective, if that is what they are, are made in good faith. I don't view Mr. Pollard as hiding anything and he's rightly not bending over backwards to persuade you of the rightousness of his opinion or belief(s). The tone of your comment is unhelpful Mr. Stewart because it hinders honest and free discourse. The fact that Mr. Pollard made this video and titled it as a question should tell you that he is welcoming civil debate about the topic.
@@samstewart4807 Then you are ignorant and maybe shouldn't comment.
A mystery that will never be solved, I don't believe that either Mallory or Irvine ever made it to the summit of Everest. As to why any serious individual would give credence to Noel Odell's account of what he saw ( or didn't see ) on June 8th. 1924. Mr. Odell change his account as to what he saw on that day numerous times. I believe he fabricated his account, the only comment he made that I personally would give any credence to was that at around 8,000 meters looking upwards he saw two figures at the base of the Second Step.
That was shortly before 1pm, a severe storm blew in and obscured the two figures, that was the last time either one of them were seen. I don't believe they ascended the Second Step which is difficult in good weather never mind in a storm. I firmly believe in what has been said numerous times ,,, if they didn't ascend the Second Step then it was impossible for them to reach the Third Step. Also if they didn't ascend the second step then they certainly didn't summit Everest.
Study what we do know then make a judgment ,, they were caught in a storm, the temperature was freezing, their gear gave them little protection and their oxygen supply was depleted. Those are the facts that we do know ,, in any event I'm sure the good Lord took them both in His arms and comforted them ,, God bless them both.
Cool take...thank you, appreciate it
munnjean, you have injected your own speculation that Odell saw them at the second step when his
description fits the 3rd step. But you in effect say Odell lied. Really? Lied about a historic event?
Lastly, there was no severe storm on Everest that day. Odell say a mist surrounded the climbers - that is not what I would call a severe storm. Further, photos taken that day show no severe storm on Everest.
The biggest and most important climb in history...everyone one the team where focused . with that said i believe Odeal and were he said there were at..im sorry the world knew about the climb .. They wouldnt have someone assume anything like were they were last seen...
John, many thanks, super glad you watched!