Mallory & Irvine: A Bloody Load for Climbing
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 12. 2021
- Review of the oxygen system used by Mallory and Irvine in the climb of Mount Everest in 1924. Also looks at climb times of Ed Viesturs and Eric Simonsons 1987 climb up the Norton Couloir and exiting the small gully. Compares times for Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary from 1953 to get comparable times above the Third Step.
Pete Poston's analysis:people.wou.edu/~postonp/evere...
And about the Watch:
people.wou.edu/~postonp/evere...
people.wou.edu/~postonp/evere...
The Australian Ascent: • EVEREST 1984
Blue Falcon Award: / 453526624958859249
Fair Use:
images.rgs.org/
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
www.amazon.com/White-Limbo-Fi...
www.amazon.com/Mountain-My-Ti...
Clicking the "like" button greatly increases the distribution of these videos -- the button for both the videos and the comments.
I may have missed this in one of the videos. I understand Mallory never intended to take the ridge and the early expeditions were into the Couloir, so it makes sense M&I were as well. My question is on the Zig-Zag. Was that ever discussed by the teams in trip reports or diaries, that is, where did the concept come from? Is it based on looking at photos and "seeing a way" or are there some bread crumbs that indeed Mallory had scouted a way through prior?Perhaps in one of your earliest videos. Let me know. I saw TDP and JN the other day and as you know they seem to think Zig Zag would be harder to muster than you are accounting for. Granted I understand their logic, I am more concerned with my original question on the conceptualization of Zig Zag. Thanks and keep up the good sleuthing.
Fantastic research Michael. I fully agree modern bias, where we assume people from 100 years ago were primitive cavemen while we assume ourselves to be technical geniuses, has totally clouded perceptions and theories about Mallory and Irvine.
Yes, this has profound implications for the way we conventionally view things. And it's easy to forget this and slip back into that conventional thinking . . .
Yeah i feel this is more interesting as a mankind issue. Regardless of their “success” or not understanding more about the try and their abilities shows the strength of man and capabilities even without many technological benefits. If they did reach the summit 30 years before anyone else thats all the more remarkable for humans to achieve it at that time, technology, and knowledge. It would be like if we didnt know if we had landed on the moon or not or about the attempt until we did it decades later.
Still captivated by this story. Hoping you can get back up there soon!
I like this, getting into the technical side, showing how you calculate the ascent rates. Hard data reveals more then speculation
Man I assumed this topic was dead... I'm glad I found your channel.. I know nothing about climbing but this subject fascinates me and I figured Anker was the authority on this subject so I dropped out..
A brilliant wealth of information, as always. Much appreciated on such a fascinating subject. Re-reading Messner's description of his traverse into the couloir in 'The Crystal Horizon' he describes gazing up at the dark looming second step from his position below and feeling absolutely certain that he had made the right decision in avoiding the ridgeline, can't help but think there was no reason why M&I would have not come to the same conclusion albeit from their slightly higher trajectory...
I am so invested in this story. Thanks for making these incredibly detailed videos fo us all to enjoy 👍
Fascinating. I'm now a fan.
From Rotorua, New Zealand 🇳🇿
I found you by accident and what a beautiful one it was.Your channel and all the info you provide..LoudLove
🔊🔊🔊💜💜💜
Hi Michael, great work on this one! I just wanted to point you out that it's not suggested to use the ideal gas law when the gas pressure is high, cause of the molecular interactions start to become important. A better approssimation in that case ( when the pressure start to raise beyond ~100 bar ) could be for example the virial gas expansion ( for oxygen in that case) , so that the resoult can better match the real value of pressure. Anyway that was very well made and the production was top tier too. Keep it up!
Great video - keep up the fantastic research Michael - the truth will reveal itself one day.
Great to hear you Michael talk about Mallory's great climb with just facts which you do not really hear so much considering the historical importance of his climb.
Fascinating takes from much evident research and personal base knowledge!
Malory made it to the summit . His failure to return safely left a major problem for future researchers .. hopefully it can be resolved
I think he made it too.
Very interesting video, thank you very much
Uphill, both ways, in the snow....
Bravo sir.
Awesome videos man. I would absolutely kill to go to Everest and search for evidence of Mallory and Irving, especially using period equipment and attire.
Fantastic analysis. Thank you!
Michael, this is fantastic stuff, thank you. Also, that ascent by the Australians...I remember seeing it when it came out in 1984 (I am Australian). The footage is excellent for its age and their whole climb seems contrary to accepted practice. Up via the couloir and summiting at dusk? They must have descended in the dark. I can see why it is useful in the Mallory/Irvine mystery. I wonder what their climb rate was, at times they seem to be moving very fast
The Australians climbed the last 1500 ft in 4h45m, giving 315 vertical ft per hour without oxygen. That is, indeed, very fast. They were also very smart. They climbed out of the couloir lower so they could get in the sun. They placed their camps in just the right spots. And they had support in high camp for such a late summit (7:45PM). It is truly one of the great climbs on Everest and White Limbo has the best photography of any Everest book.
They climbed unroped for speed. Tim Mccartney-snape had their only rope up front, so they all had to negotiate the virgin territory individually on the ascent. They struck out westward, only slowed by 2 rock bands . Footage taken by Greg Mortimer shows TMS's incredible speed traversing the upper snows of the North Face.
Ershler repeated that diagonal line west (after exiting small gully following Roskelley) for his solo ascent and descent. As Michael points out, using TMS's rope, left anchored by a part from GM's pack! They traveled light!
Here in Oz, it's considered one of the greatest sports achievements in our history.
Thanks Michael!
your channel is so good and your facts are so well researched. I recently read a jake norton blog where he wrote his opinion on what could have happened to mallory and irvine that night.
In the comments though he mentioned that your points are good but he was still unconvinced about the route which you had discussed earlier.(in your youtube video)
I do believe in your theory though.
It's only because Noel Odell had stated that he seen Mallory and Irvine on a prominent rock step, going strong for the top. So then everyone just assumes that Mallory climbed up the second step. I love Jake Norton, he's really has great integrity, but I don't agree that Mallory would even consider the second step.
It is interesting to watch people as they develop. Jake came up with his theory 20 years ago. And although numerous new pieces of information have come out or been re-discovered, his theory has not changed in the slightest. That either means he was completely right on his very first attempt or he suffers from prime basis or first impression bias. That is, you tend to stick to the first impression you make about something.
The largest problem with Jake's theory is there would be no way they could descend the Second Step without leaving a rope. Anker noted this in his book. Unsworth did as well. He also does not defend this ideas. There are numerous problems and he simply writes them off as "differences in opinion" without explaining how he arrives at his opinion. Certainly, it would be a difference of opinion to say, "I think they could descend the second step" but without any explanation as to how they would do it without leaving a rope indicates the theory is not really thought out and has not been subjected to rigorous review.
There is a problem in society where we view people that change their minds as "inconsistent." For me, when new evidence contradicts my theory, I update my theory to reflect the new information. If you watch the two videos form 2017, you see there are differences from what I am saying now. Where I am consistent is that I consistently update the theory to include legitimate new pieces of information.
Just recently, I had started the video that was going to "debunk" the myth of the photo on the summit. But in researching it, it turned out to have a legitimate basis and was probably true with the addition that it was both a letter and a photo. However, if you scrub through all my past comments, you can probably find some in which I did not believe the photo story. The photo story, as told in various books on the subject, was not believable. But I had no problem changing that view once I saw more evidence.
There is also the shift in analysis from 2017 to today. Back then, I was unaware of the extreme bias contained in the conventional accounts -- Anker, Hemmleb, etc. Once you see these people will alter facts, leave out key pieces, and spin the facts that they do use, you go back and question exactly what it is you know about the climb. As soon as you throw out their false facts and include all the stuff they left out, there really is no mystery here.
@@michaeltracy2356 I don't subscribe to Norton's theory at all but with regards to rope or any other evidence, I'm sure the Chinese would've gotten rid of anything they came across in 1960.
@@michaeltracy2356 In his blog, Jake argues the climb above the couloir to the third step is too steep and loose to be viable and M@I would have been deterred by Norton's failure four days previous. The high res photos seem to offer a reasonable route via the zig zag so maybe they had shot.
@@alexk2652 This really appears to be the nub of whether this route is viable. Ed Norton and subsequently Wager & Wyn Harris, later Smythe (lower) on the 1933 expedition would've passed the entrance to a zig-zag route. They generally describe the rock as smooth, downward sloping and loose with no obvious way to break through to above from the traverse line. They would have passed the necessary entry points shortly before entering the couloir where they all got stuck at similar locations much deeper into the couloir. Which isn't to say that its not impossible, if they were forewarned from Nortons descriptions they would have not been so fixated on going into the couloir itself and could have picked a way through. Its possible that differing conditions could alter the grip available to attain the ledges above, we know from Nortons description a few days earlier that there was knee deep unconsolidated powder in the couloir. Others passed these locations in both directions and don't comment on there being an obvious alternative line, I guess we won't know until some brave soul gives this route a look into.
Brilliant! Very informative. Thank you for posting.
I had always believed that Mallory might have removed his oxygen rig on the decent in order to move faster, as there was no sign of it on his body, but placing the bottles in backpacks makes more sense. As it sounds like Mallory's primary strategy was to be light and fast. Do you believe more of they're emptied bottles they used may still be on the actual route they took?
I previously asked this question and apparently the procedure was to throw empty bottles off the mountain for safety purposes.
On looking at my 2018 photos, there is a small "cave" close to the bottom of the zig-zag route that looks like it has something in it -- most likely a rock. So, there is still some remote possibility of finding it. Using drones to search the base of the mountain would be useful and they could help clean up the other trash down there at the same time.
AHH got it now,I asked about the breathing apparatus for Everest climbers,But on a different video of yours,Had I not been lazy to look I would have watched this video first
Thank you for this
great peice, I do hope there will be another one with compelling facts, I have always wondered if indeed it was Hillary up there first, even if it was his team I think it would have been his humble shirpa that set foot atop first
Except that Tenzing acknowledges Hillary got there first. It was not Hillary's "team" as it was a British Expedition, and Hillary (a New Zealander residing in NZ) was not leading it. Michael Tracy is producing a wonderful well-researched thorough commentary, and your brain-fart pollutes it.
Thanks for this
Props . . .
This was really thought out and very interesting and idk why🤷
Watch the Shackleton expedition of Antarctica in the early 1900s & watch what they did to survive & then ask yourself if Mallory & irvan could’ve made it.
Interesting comparison.
Thanks . . .
Do we know what the climb times of Nirmal Purja and his team were? I’ve just watched 14 peaks with the family over Christmas and we were stunned by the rapidity of their attempts. I’m aware that the comparison isn’t direct or that relevant but it would be interesting to know.
Everything was set up for them on a plate, so other than fantastic grit, there's nothing to learn from him/them.
Messier and Habeler were really that fast withou Os? Is it somewhat verifiable? It sounds other worldly. How on earth did Simonson come up with his climb rate?
@MichaelTracy Thank you for this. I am a fan of your work, and I am among those like you who are obsessed with Mallory and Irvine. My question has always been about Mallory's body. When Anker, Roberts and crew found him, was his body located where he had fallen, or had he traveled further down the slope through natural erosion with the decades of snowfall and weather? Like others I saw the photos and he was partially buried, facing up the mountain... but he was laying there for decades. The weather is not gentle on Everest, and the snow doesn't stop. Admittedly I am ignorant to Himalayan weather, but does erosion come into play when looking for Irvine?
He landed where he fell under the ice axe. He never was moved nor was he facing up. He was clawed into the scree, he self arrested his fall. He then became frozen to the mountain. You probably seen fake pictures of his body and not from the 99 team expedition.
And as far as Irvine if he is on the mountain then no he wouldn't be decaying, he would be mummified and frozen to the mountain, it's so cold in the death zone that body's don't decay.
For Mallory, it appears that is where he died and the winds are strong, but numerous bodies stay in place there. There is even a body standing up at the Third Step that has not blow away -- she is wedged into a slot she was trying to climb.
For Irvine, erosion is a significant problem and the 2015 earthquake did not help. It would be nice if the "searchers" from those early attempts to find him would share their photos. Jake Norton has shared a number of his early videos and those are very helpful.
@@michaeltracy2356 Michael, another question about Mallory's final resting place. All the photos show that his head seems to be buried under loose stones? Is this exactly how he was found and the stones built up over time or did Anker and his team partially bury him out of respect?
Great videos. I'm fascinated by this topic and I really hope that conclusive proof is found one day as to whether George and Sandy made it or not. Hopefully the former! 👍
👍👍
When these men fell?....I can only imagine the cold and brain fog/hallucinations they were experiencing.....I like your work sir...it's quite satisfying to end distasteful wonder.
Dear Michael, at about 18:38 you refer to "the estimated climb rate of 330 vertical feet per hour that Mallory had previously stated". Could you kindly indicate the source document from which this figure is derived? Many thanks.
NYT March 18, 1923
Many thanks. I see that the article reads "Perpendicular travel is slow at best, but on the higher slopes of
Everest it slowed down to 330 feet an hour". This is not in quotes, so it appears to be the words of the (uncredited) journalist. I wonder if the journalist was referring to the actual ascent speeds of the 1922 expedition. if so, the climb of Mallory, Norton and Somervell from Camp 5 to Camp 6 (averaging 318 vertical feet per hour) would be a close match for his comment.
Why are comments turned off in the 12/9/21 "Everything Wrong..." video? Just curious.
Many of the comments were very angry with Conrad Anker, and while some contained legitimate criticism, there was also a lot that was over the top. Rather than trying to sort it out, I turned them off.
The issues were discussed by legitimate subscribers that actively participate in the channel, and in general, older videos receive lesser quality comments than newer ones. So, I will keep disabling comments on videos after the discussion on them has run its course -- typically 6 months to a year. The Everything Wrong video simply degenerated faster than others. It is also one of the more popular videos in the channel.
I'm not a mountaineer, but Thom Pollard seems to take credit (falsely) for discovering Mallory, hides what he actually did (digging up a body that had been previously found by others, and had received a formal burial), and we don't know what he took, or what became of it. And no, he apparently didn't have permission. Is this all correct? It's a disgusting story. Is he hiding something about Irvine, as well?
I’m still a little confused about the mystery of how many oxygen bottles were taken. They supposedly had 6 or 7 that morning, based on reckoning, and the debate about whether to bring two or three was based on weight, not availability. If, for example, they went on two each, they’d be leaving behind at least two full bottles, wouldn’t they? My question: Odell was the last person to see that camp before 1933. He supposedly hid inside the Camp VI tent for two hours or more to await the “snow squall” that supposedly took place at 2 p.m. So, then, why was he not able to account for the oxygen bottles there? He made mention of “oxygen cylinders” in the tent, but did not mention whether they were spent bottles (from the climb to Camp VI and sleeping) or full bottles, left behind by M&I that day. Wouldn’t this solve the oxygen mystery by providing a definitive answer to how many they took?
The mystery of how many were in high camp has finally been resolved. The issue was caused by the photo of Mallory and Irvine leaving North Col. In some versions of the photos, it is not clear whether Mallory has 1 or 2 bottles because he is turned slightly.
Upon closer analysis, he had 2 bottles - same as Irvine. The Sherpas carried 6, so there were 10 bottles total in high camp. Slightly less than one bottle (each) was used to get to high camp, so on June 7, they had 8 full bottles in camp. Likely they used 2 to sleep on (one each) and took 6 (3 each) leaving 4 bottles in high camp. So, the issue of how many to take was based on weight, not availability -- they had plenty of oxygen in high camp.
Had Odell photographed or noted the number of cylinders, we would know exactly how many they took. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
It is very unlikely they would leave the spent bottles from climbing in the tent. There just isn't enough room for worthless equipment. If they were not sleeping on oxygen, the bottles would not be in the tent. They would leave them outside and there would be no reason to put them into the tent the next morning. The bottles in the tent strong imply they were sleeping on oxygen because there are few other explanations for bottles inside the tent. It would also be odd to have 8 full bottles and not sleep on oxygen and yet keep two empty bottles inside the tent.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks for the response. So if Odell did note that there were cylinders in the tent, they were most likely full bottles they didn't take?
Or did Odell just note bottles at the camp, not necessarily in the tent (implying that they were spent).
I was just curious,Have Sherpas climbed to the summit? Before any westerners? Before Mallory/Hillary/Chinese?
Very unlikely. Sherpas generally live in Nepal and the climb from the Nepal side would be extremely difficult for a small team or single person because crossing the ice fall is too difficult without ladders. The 1953 summit was a massive team of over 300 people putting the route in place and moving equipment up the mountain.
While Sherpas certainly go/come to and from Tibet -- a story has Tenzing born in Tibet, the North was controlled by a lama at Rongbok and it is very unlikely that at any time he gave permission to climb their holy mountain. It is also not clear what such a person's motivation would be as in general, Sherpas believed the mountains to be gods. There was also no killing of animals allowed in the Rongbok valley, so any Sherpa expedition would have to be extremely well planned out to get by without killing animals. The British had the animals killed outside the valley and brought up, but that required teams of porters constantly going to/from the valley. While vegetarians can and do climb Everest, the ability to get the amount of calories you need with a vegetarian diet is difficult.
I doubt there was the inclination nor the climbing ability to do so.
@@michaeltracy2356 So the mountain is viewed completely different by people who live in the surrounding areas,
Whereas foreigners view the mountain as a place to test themselves and achieve a goal?
I have some military experience climbing,But anything I needed to climb was nothing like Everest,or K2
And I certainly never developed those skills beyond what I needed to do...Wow you folks that do those climbs are certainly something else
I did my climbs because I HAD to,Not because I wanted to.. yeah I was terrified of Heights as a young man, I'm still wary of Heights,but not like I was, Bravo-Zulu to you that just do it..to do it.
Lmao the Hilary step joke hahaha
Tom Hornbein pron. “hornbine” not “hornbean”… sorry, stickler for details. Carry on.
Thanks. I'll do a consolidated video later the pulls all the information together. I doubt the reference to the Hornbein's route will make it in, but if it does, I'll try to remember to get it right.
Great analysis again, Michael. What took me some days ago was the alterations on the oxygen rig in this video, beginning 11:00 and comparing it to the famous north col photo that Odell took from M&I. czcams.com/video/YpMCG6Tgrlo/video.html
Seems initially 4 Bottles and valves on upside. On the north col photo seems bottles are upside down. I find it very realistic that they went for caching strategy with the added benefit to get rid of the bulky rig.
The only negative side on the caching scheme is that you have to come back to the cache spots, so youre not free to change your route of descent in a radical way.
I think that video shows the 1922 expedition for the section using oxygen (around the 11 minute mark). The 1922 design was for 4 smaller cylinders, though I don't know the exact size.
I have a question: if Mallory and Irvine too the zig-zag route on ascent, why did they descend on the ridge? Or, why WOULD they have descended on the ridge?
What makes you think they descended the ridge? There is no way they got down the Second Step without leaving a rope in place. As no rope was left in place, the likelihood they descended the Second Step is so remote as to not realistically be considered. So, if they did climb the Second Step, why didn't they descend by it? That would be a better question.
@@michaeltracy2356 due to the location of the ice axe
Ok, then how does the "location of the ice axe" mean they descended the "ridge?" Wyn-Harris found the ice axe on his way to the couloir and picked it up on his way back from the couloir. And you take someone finding the ice-axe on his way back from the couloir as "proof" someone else left it here descending form the "ridge." If you took the time to spell out what you are really asking, you would find your questions answer themselves.
@@michaeltracy2356 it looks to me that they were awfully close to that ridge, I saw somewhere they were 20 meters below, traversing across. Part of the problem I'm having is translating what appears on the videos into the vast size of the mountain. Sorry. To me it looked like they were on the ridge.
One thing in this channel is "precision of speech." It is important to communicate using words and phrases that have a clear meaning. Certainly, the ice axe is "near" the ridge. It was reported 60 ft below the ridge -- which on Everest, is "near." Probably in horseshoes, 60 ft is not "near."
But because there were "near" the ridge at one point in their climb does little to explain the rest of their climb. Certainly, they started form Camp 6 which is not "near" the ridge. If they followed over to the zig-zag route or the couloir, they would be "near" the ridge up until "around" the First Step and then the route would take then starting at about 100 ft below the ridge to 200ft below the ridge to 300 ft below the ridge. And if they took the couloir, they would then traverse over and not be "near" the ridge any longer.
So you question is "If they took the zig-zag route (on decent this starts at the ridge and then descends to about 300 ft below the ridge) why did they defend on the ridge (which means why were they 60 ft below the ridge about 1/2 mile from the exit (on descent) from the zig-zag route." So, once you clearly articulate your question, it answer becomes clear.
Following the "reverse" of the route on the way up the zig-zag, they would exit the zig zag and be 300 ft below the ridge. They would then traverse over and be 200 ft below the ridge an continue to traverse over to be around the First Step -- just as the 1933 team did. At that point, they would be about 100ft below the ridge. They would continue their traverse over to get to the oxygen bottle cache and at some point this traverse takes them to 60 ft below the ridge which is where the ice axe was found.
There are numerous other explanations as to how they could have gotten to 60 ft below the ridge on descent. The could have taken the couloir out and followed the exact route by Wyn-Harris in 1933. They could have taken the Second Step down, the First Step and followed largely the "modern route" but just been a little lower. They could have started at the Third Step, traversed over to the ocular and decended the small gully than followed Wyn-Harris's route. This is the. "Marco Sifredi" route to the Wyn-Harris route. Any of these are possible and there are reason to believe they took the one that fits all the facts a common sense. As there is no rope on the second step, they likely did not descend there. Thus, they likely traversed below the Second Step at about 200 ft below the ridge on their way over along that traverse that will eventually end up at 60ft below the ridge.
The problem is the "ridge" route is not what they likely took. Just because they were close to the ridge does not mean that in any way increased the probability that they took the "ridge route." Even the "ridge route" is vague and means something different today than it did in 1924. In 1924, the "ridge route" meant along the entire crest of the ridge taking the Second Step head on. Today the "ridge route" means you leave the ridge and traverse roughly 100 ft below the ridge to attack the Second Step from 100 ft below the ridge to access the ridge.
As soon as you replace vague words and phrases with their actual meaning, you will find that most of the "mystery" disappears.
Very interesting. I think Mallory made it. I think their fall happened on the descent because Sandy couldn’t make it. I think Sandy was in physical distress at that point and Mallory wasn’t doing much better after summiting and leaving his wife’s photo at the top. I believe he did leave her photo up at the summit but Sandy couldn’t make it up. It was a frightening, horrifying end for both of them….but I will always believe that Mallory made it, knowing that he might not make it back down. I think they had some serious problems with each other near the summit and Mallory was so determined to get to the top, I think Sandy wanted to turn around. Just my take on everything I’ve read about this historic summit attempt. You scientists can do the math all you want….however, don’t forget that these were two human beings who were in a dangerous, desperate situation with very little equipment and no assistance at any point, except for what they could offer each other which wasn’t much. After all, there was a fall so something during their descent was not going right. Those who believe that they did not make the summit
Those who believe they never made the summit have to agree or partially agree that they were having a serious problem up there. Whatever that problem was resulted in the fall.
Has Tom Holzel's theory on the location of Irvine been disproven? I know you mentioned him in one of your videos, but will have to watch them again to hear what you said about his research.
This is an ignorant question, but could a drone be flown over the spot starting from where Irvine's ice axe was found? Comb the area? Get some high resolution pictures?
Yes, Holzel's theory has been disproven numerous times. I was there in 2018 and there was nothing in that slot. Another searcher walked over to that location and looked at it and nothing was there. They had a drone photograph it in 2019, and here is the photo. (czcams.com/video/fjD1_WYfkXY/video.html) There was nothing there and the slot was 9-inches wide, so there was never anything there.
Despite having a photo showing nothing there, they still decided to go look, but curiously release no photo from ground level.
Nat Geo refuses to release the drone images they took in 2019. And the other searchers either refuse to release their photos or claim that none exist of the area below the ice axe. Given that I have a video up that shows a potential spot for Irvine, it is not clear why they would not photograph it. I took plenty of photos in 2018, but there was too much snow. I have a bunch of pictures of a bunch of snow. However, 2019 was a low snow year and had 2 teams of top climbers supposedly searching. And not one of them has released a single high-resolution photo of the area below the ice axe.
The fundamental problem is snow. If there is low snow, you can quickly search the areas. If there is snow, there is little to no possibility of finding him. This is why the photos from 2019 are so useful.
The more you look into this thing, the more it stinks. I have suspected that they found something in 2019 and are simply not saying anything about it because they were planning on returning the next year to do a recovery. This is normal and the exact same thing I planned in 2018 if I found something. Unfortunately, covid prevented any such search and now everyone is just waiting.
I will also point out that drones could have been used to search the base of oxygen bottles -- but they did not do this. They could have also gotten a close up look at the "zig-zag" route without having to actually climb it -- which was also not done. I am left wondering exactly what they agreed to with the Chinese to get the permit to use the drone.
@@michaeltracy2356 Bro the Chinese retrieved both bodies there's nothing there.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks for explaining this. I hope you get back up there soon and in a low snow year!
@@michaeltracy2356 Hi again Michael. We're all waiting for the "watch" video -- thanks very much. But may I anticipate a question about it, please (?) Am I correct that . . . regardless of what you'll be saying in that video . . . there is NO evidence (and maybe cannot be any ??) to tell us anything substantial about why Mallory and Irvine had their (presumed) accident (?) Is that right (?)
Maybe you could try asking a question, instead of making a loaded statement and asking for agreement.
“Basic chemistry would say……” I think the phrase you mean to say is “basic physics would say….”
you even follow it up by displaying a series of physics equations.
I’m not one of those assholes trying to call out everyone for minor mistakes. I’m just trying to help :)
Internet says "Chemistry" ...
www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-chemistry/gases-and-kinetic-molecular-theory-ap/ideal-gas-laws-ap/a/non-ideal-behavior-of-gases?modal=1
He told me, himself, that he ‘would not release them out of respect for the family’, although he did describe in detail what I asked for. Thus, I was able to conclude Mallory’s remains were tampered with by the Chinese. There’s no way in hell an ice axe did that.
It seems Thom is back peddling a bit on the hole in the head as well. I don't follow every word he says and will just wait for his book to come out. I would not be surprised if he comes around and says one was never there.
Anyone who looks into it would know Mallory didn't die that way. So, that leaves the Chinese or the 1999 team to be the ones who put it there. You like the Chinese theory, but the Chinese are not the ones hiding the tape.
@@michaeltracy2356 Hey, Mike! Dr G here, brother. Great work! Very thorough - start organizing this bad boy into some chapters and get it to a publisher already👍👍Just one detail…he confided to me that it WAS NOT JUST one hole through the frontal bone above the R eye (my concern was if it was merely a depressed fracture, partial thickness, over a frontal sinus cavity - hell, that could happen on a pointed rock, sure, an ice axe)….but it wasn’t. Full thickness AND it looked through-and-through to him. Mind you, I’d have to see it first person. MANY more details about the quality of the wound (jagged vs smooth edges , was there impact grooving/hairline vs gross fracture ratio of frontal bone proximal to the wound). Just give ‘em a call; mark’s pretty easy to reach, too. Look, when we publish, there are things that do and do not stand up to public scrutiny when peers in the same field are part of said public (that is how ISBNs are different from DOIs). The peer review process can be brutal. However, with books, whether or not claims are falsifiable…well….that comes from the readership! To an extent, I agree. Chinese had the motivation. If there was a camera, it was taken. The ‘99 party did not have a dog in that fight. I don’t believe they would. Any one in the presence of others? No. Take care, Michael! Keep going. You are a subject matter expert - you’ve been doing this for a long time. Write some books, brother! 👍👍
~Dr G
@@pugilemoltobene3708 would love to interview you guys . And gals .
Regards from Ireland
Even the comments are a blessing to read .
Slow down my friend.... Very irritating
Did you try slowing the video down on your own -- you can set it to 50% or 75%, etc? Or you want me to do everything for you? Very irritating.
@@michaeltracy2356 I appreciate the rate of speaking
your microphone has too much bass -- no treble - can hardly understand your words