Almost Everything Wrong With Conrad Anker and David Robert's Assessment
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 12. 2021
- Reviews the assessment of Mallory & Irvine's 1924 climb of Mt. Everest contained in the book The Lost Explorer by Conrad Anker and David Roberts. Looks at George Mallory's route and decisions made at high camp and fall from the ice axe location.
Fair use items:
• Discovering MALLORY & ...
www.bentleybeetham.org/
www.amazon.com/Ghosts-Everest...
www.amazon.com/White-Limbo-Fi...
www.amazon.com/Together-Top-W...
www.amazon.com/Lost-Explorer-...
www.bonhams.com/auctions/2271...
Thank you Michael. Your use of photos and your explanation of the timeline really adds clarity to what can be a very confusing subject.
this guy has turned my world upside down, thank you.
For everyone in the back of the room listen up. This is why the movie "The Wildest Dream' is a complete joke. Yes I said a complete joke!!!!!!!!!!!!! Michael Tracy is spot on!!!!!!!!!
Well done! Thank you for your attention and logic dispelling the inaccuracies in the book, The Lost Explorer.
Always a treat to hear someone who is clear, crisp, rational, well-informed and calm.
Love hearing your perspective. So many people take those other guys opinion as if they can't possibly be wrong.
It's very frustrating to know that there is more footage of Mallory's remains that we haven't seen along with high definition drone footage of the area where Irvine is most likely resting on, but powers that be will no release it for further analysis!
I wonder if they don’t release it due in part to our new Chinese media $$$ overlords
The national and financial politics of Everest are quite complicated.
I think he still has a living son but if hes no longer alive there is going to be other relatives so it might be for their sake that its unreleased. Or it might be just out of respect. Honestly I'd like to see it, it's not a morbid thing I'm fascinated by archeology in general, for instance when they examine mummies or other human remains from tombs, it's like that.
No drones allowed on the Chinese side I thought, or is that rule only for helicopters?
@@ericclaptonsrobotpilot7276the drone footage is from the Chinese side I believe, Nat Geo has it and was allowed by Chinese government to bring drone in
More great work, Michael. Your productivity and output lately is very impressive. Can’t wait for the watch video. 👍👍
Thank you Michael Tracy.
Always happy to see you upload
Thanks Michael, you make things so simple and clear.
Wonderful presentation ,just awesome research and at last ,a voice for George and sandy ,god bless 👍
i was waiting for new videos !!!!!!!!!! Thank you!
Splendid scholarship. Thank you and best wishes, Michael!
I think Mallory summited Everest and died due to lack of oxygen, exhaustion during descent.
One has to consider that Nat Geo isn't an impartial observer in this. They're a well-funded non-profit foundation that has a vested interest in not having findings overturned for which they provided the funding. That would be bad for their reputation and future fundraising.
im fascinated by mallory in Irvine and your videos are fantastic. keep up the good work
Good video! The watch video draws closer every day haha
Great video per usual!
They made it to the summit. Anymore videos? I love them
Thanks Micheal.
Fantastic videos
@Michael Tracy, I have always believed the reason that the team changed the story on the 24 expedition was because, they had always believed Holzels crazy theories about Mallory leaving Irvine and going to the summit himself, then having Irvine falling below the axe. When they find Mallory they begin to realize the story was wrong. Now Holzel completely changes to no way did they summit.
In The Third Pole, Synnott states that years ago Holzel visited Odell at his home in Cambridge and interviewed him. However, Holzel lost the notes. After the interview, Odell wrote a letter to Holzel. Holzel left the letter hanging in "direct sun" and Synnott says "the ink had faded to the point that Odell's letter was completely illegible."
If you are noticing that the conversation about Mallory and Irvine always seems to end up actually being about the so-called "researchers", you can see what is going on. There was no mystery here. Holzel created one and he sells you a book that will "solve" it for you. And then some additional "researchers" come along, and they want to tell a story from the Chinese perspective, so they create some additional mysteries. And again, they are the ones who will help you understand those mysteries -- if you just buy their book and watch their movie.
Had they searched for summit rocks, there would be no movie, no people debating whether the Second Step is a "5.8" or a "5.9" or whatever other BS they talk about. There would be no follow-up expeditions, no TV specials, no Nat Geo expeditions. Even without the search for summit rocks, every single so-called historian (Hemmleb, Holzel, etc) referenced John Noel's book that had the route descriptions and ever single person who looked at the terrain from Odell's view said it was the Third Step. Again, there never was a mystery.
We have all been played. Some people realize this, learn from it, and apply it to their daily lives. Others are so caught up in the bamboozle they can't let go. As Carl Sagan wrote: “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
And that leads to the "post-truth" world, which will be the subject of my analysis of The Third Pole.
Браво!!!!!
Ho ho ho ha ha ha! That was humorous Michael. Well analysed.
Love these lectures which are well presented and full of interesting facts. Has anybody thought of running a drone up and down that ridge and section of the mountain face down to where Mallory was found? I have never heard anybody mentioning this, but maybe it has already been considered? A drone would cover that area much quicker than men could. It can record the entire area in high-definition video. Later that video could be studied in detail for evidence of Irvine's remains, or any of the other points of interest relating to that expedition, and others.
Your entire understanding of what is going on will change as soon as you find out they did all of that in 2019 -- the drone, the "search", everything.
@@michaeltracy2356 what are your thoughts about the 2019 expedition? why do you think they are hiding this information?
All that needs to be said is "Boom" 👊👏
I'm not in anyway into climbing but I stumbled across your videos and they are fascinating. I'd love to delve deeper into George Mallory, do you have any book recommendations to start with?
A Memoir by David Pye is probably the best for the historical Mallory but it does not discuss the 1924 climb at all. If you want a more romanticized view of Mallory and that era, The Wildest Dream (the book) is based largely on Pye but expands into more of the people on the expedition. Into the Silence is a good book about the operations of the British Empire and post-war psychology as viewed through the lens of the Mount Everest Expeditions but relies on Conrad Anker's assessment of the actual climb itself. The Everest expedition reports (Fight for Everest, Assault on Mount Everest) are good historical sources and are copyright free.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'll check out your suggestions.
I'll add "Everest" by Walt Unsworth. This is a large book and covers numerous climbs. However, it has fairly good coverage of the 1924 climb. Notably, it was written prior to the discovery of Mallory's body and adoption of the "ridge route" theory as the main theory. Thus, it has the most realistic assessments of what happened and discusses more options than simply "they climbed the Second Step." In looking at it, it was not until the repeated pounding of the "Second Step" by Conrad Anker and Hemmleb that this became the accepted version.
@@michaeltracy2356 I downloaded
MOUNT EVEREST - The First Expedition of 1921 and The Assault on Mount Everest: The 1922 Attempt and am enjoying them both. I'll check out your additional recommendation too. Thank you.
@@michaeltracy2356 into the silence is pretty amazing
Thanks for these videos, Michael. Apologies if you've explained this already, but what motivates you to keep investigating this? Is it because you want to solve the mystery? Because you feel like if those brave men made it to the top then someone owes it to them to prove it? I'd be interested to know why the story grips you. Cheers!
Because I can't stand bullshit.
@@michaeltracy2356 I believe you!
@@michaeltracy2356someone with my sensibilities…..I get that VERY much! 😂🤬
great video and explanation everything you said sounded really likely though one thing that seemed off was the body breakup as lately several people have died on the 8000 peaks and its been said when recovered even the next day they are badly broken up so it can happen in a fall no?
People are providing massive amounts of misinformation regarding this "mystery." If "it's been said", you can bet it is probably wrong. And that statement is. Watch Discovery's 2019 show and it will answer your question. But I'll discuss it briefly in an upcoming video.
Marvelous stuff. Sorry if you have already addressed this but what motivation do you attribute to the “National Geographic” position that Mallory and Irvine climbed the ridge, were poorly prepared and doomed to fail? What is in it for all the people pushing this line in the face of the evidence that you present? Commercially I would have thought it would make more sense for them to support the notion of a successful ascent. Bigger, more sensational storyline. Why the determination to downplay their chances? Is it an attempt to mislead other search teams?
The "consensus" at the time (1999) was that they climbed the ridge. This was being pushed by a Holzel and people pretty much didn't look into it. It was sloppy research and people coming along and failing to do their own research. It is much easier to just cut-and-paste someone else's work than to research it on your own.
This is why in modern information campaigns, you post easily accessible information that allows people to feel they "researched" the issue without actually having done any research. Some people use this to explain and walk people through complex issues. Others use it to spread misinformation.
Once Nat Geo committed to the "ridge route" theory -- which they did when they selected Conrad Anker to be their property, they are stuck with that theory. However, even by 2007, when The Wildest Dream movie was made, it was still the "consensus" they climbed the ridge route. So, now Nat Geo has a rather expensive film that they would like people to watch for the 100 year mark. It is also problematic that their property (Anker) was video taped in the "search" of George Mallory's body. (czcams.com/video/IwUqUzgpHw0/video.html) And even more problematic that National Geographic did not spot the issue of summit rocks -- seeing as they market themselves as a magazine that explains science to the masses.
That brings us to the 1999 team. They ruined the chance to determine what happened. They didn't look for summit rocks, they ripped up the body in such a manner that it will be impossible to say what happened. Now, if Mallory never had a chance to make it to the summit, this is not big deal. And if he climbed the ridge, he never had a chance to make the summit. Nat Geo does not want to be associated with the team that bungled the biggest mystery in mountaineering history. They want you to subscribe to Disney+ (Disney owns Nat Geo), watch their movie, and be thankful that "heros" like Conrad Anker are here to explain things to you. This is kind of the way the whole world works.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you for answering my question. I see how it could happen that way. That strange phenomenon of lazily/arbitrarily believing something to be true and then becoming even more entrenched and committed to that position as contrary facts are presented.
Still disappointing to see a science-based organisation caught up in intellectual dishonesty where there is money to be made and a reputation to be saved. And Wade Davis is such a meticulous researcher. I’ve admired his work far beyond this book and assumed he didn’t much care whether Mallory summitted or not, so it was surprising to see him unreservedly supporting this narrative. Maybe the allure of the coolest job title in the world, Explorer-in-Residence at National Geographic. Or, as you say, a tendency for experts in one field to rely on the opinion of an expert in another field without verifying it.
Thanks again for the clarification and your ongoing commitment to shed light on this event. I hope the upcoming anniversaries bring more attention to your work and eventually enough pressure is brought to bear to reveal everything that can currently be known about it. Although it could go the other way with the loudest voices dominating the narrative. You need a contrarian backer with very deep pockets.
I think you will really like the review of Into the Silence. Wade Davis is a very smart man, and I like Serpent and the Rainbow as well. I'll get into it a little with the review, but my view is that there are some things he can say and some he cannot. So people sort of try to tell their story while still sticking to what they need to do. I'll cover it with Synnott's Third Pole because it is a little more obvious. But, I am going to get into exactly what Davis is try to say with Into the Silence. Most of it, he has articulated in lectures and interviews done since then, but you can see it all being developed with Into the Silence.
In the book, he says, "[Anker's] conclusions, carefully crafted and drawn from direct personal experience, resonate with authenticity. Unless and until further discoveries are made, they must surely be considered definitive."
Davis, Wade. Into the Silence (p. 571).
He then goes on to explain things that are always in terms of "Anker’s reservations are several..." and talking about what Anker said. I just view that as him saying he can't really do anything about it. Maybe he had looked into it and found some stuff that didn't add up. So, he just goes with "Anker believes..."
The nice thing is that 2024 is not far away, and all of these people will be able to revisit the issue. There is already a fairly big corporate campaign to white-wash the 1999 search and to bolster the "ridge route" theory. It will be interesting to see what all the 1999 team members have to say. For Conrad Anker, the key question was whether Mallory could climb the Second Step. So, now that everyone knows he didn't climb the Second Step, what will it be? For Hemmleb, there is the problem I refer to as "Into the Silence" -- which is where any question about why a geologist did not know to look for summit rocks goes. And I hope Jake Norton figures out that there are people that are just using him. They are standing on the back of his hard work (and Dave Hahn's and Andy Politz, etc) and just using them as a platform to spread their own agenda. Thom Pollard and Mark Synnott have taken a very interesting approach. I am watching it develop and it is very interesting. I'll get into it more when I review The Third Pole. And it was really comments in the channel that had me take a second look at what Pollard was doing -- it is not obvious on its face. I appreciate that Pollard had the patience with me with I figured it out.
@@michaeltracy2356 Yes, I’m as excited to hear your review of Into The Silence as others are for the Watch video. Wade Davis was my introduction to the whole Mallory story and I appreciate you trying to make sense of his public statements and giving them a context. It’s encouraging to hear that you believe there is hope for revision from the accepted narrative. We need hope when confronted with powerful vested interests. And timely as this morning I opened The Third Pole to start reading it and the first thing I saw, even before the Prologue, was a map of the Mallory Irvine route going up the ridge with no qualification.
Why is Wade all of a sudden pals with Conrad?? I've watched his lectures about into the Silence, where he talks about his distaste for the 99' team stepping on Mallory. He talks about watching the video of them chopping him apart from the mountain and cussing. Now he is kissing Ankers ass. Oh and why is Conrad doing this lecture on Mallory when he said years ago he was done talking about Mallory. Oh ya, now I remember the money is just to good. If the guy was going to make a movie or do a lecture you would think he could get the right information out instead of his lies he keeps spouting. Wish Wade hadn't done this lecture with Conrad
Michael, mallory body had a string wound when found. Do you believe at acident time he was attached tô irvine? Tks
Yes, Mallory and Irvine were likely roped together when they fell.
0:30
Has Anker stated he does not wish to engage further in the topic?
If so, has he said why he does not?
Thank you for interesting discussion
I tried contacting Anker years ago and never heard back from him. There was a lot going on in his life at the time and I didn't inquire any further. As far as I am aware, he has not spoken about Mallory publicly for several years. I hope he is doing well and certainly he will have an opportunity to comment as 2024 approaches. But if he is done with it, I would understand.
I have uncovered the details of his 2007 climb which sheds some additional light on things and will get into that in an upcoming video. The 2007 climb was part of filming The Wildest Dream.
@@michaeltracy2356
Thank you for this response
Michael: is there a 100 year anniversary climb being planned . . . and are you part of it (?) Thanks . . .
It is not clear the North will be open to foreigners in either 2023 or 2024 and any useful search requires low snow.
In terms of someone climbing the "zig-zag", it is very unlikely the Chinese would allow such a climb and off-permit climbs are extremely difficult these days.
There is the possibility of climbing to a good vantage point on the Nepal side and photographing the area. This also requires low snow and is extremely difficult to do.
So far the North side is closed for 2021 and 2022. Some believe that they will keep it closed up past 2024. Hopefully I'm wrong but it seems to be the normal way with the Chinese in regards to anything Mallory and Irvine.
@@michaeltracy2356 Am I wrong to think that a hobbyist with a few modified high-altitude drones, like those we've seen in rescue ops on Nanga Parbat/K2, would suffice in answering many of these questions? I guess a weather window is still an issue but this would lower the bar for who could provide some evidence as I imagine you could get some decent shots from ABC.
@@michaeltracy2356 Has there ever been a team of drone pilots assess the slopes during a low snow period? By the way I've been fascinated by the stories of Everest ever since my father went there in 1981. I believe I begged him to bring me a cloud back in a bottle - I was only six at the time!
@@michaeltracy2356 Have you considered using a drone to film the area? Is the air too thin to fly a drone? Too cold for the batteries to stay charged? Just curious. Thanks.
I’m of the mind that Mallory and Irvine did summit and coming back lost their footing at the axe location. Maybe loose stone or just fatigue- nobody knows. I also believe Irvine tumbled further down the slope and ended up going over the edge.
I am not a great climber myself, and I certainly do not know all the historical and new information relevant to this search. As far as I see the areas searched most thoroughly are below the location of the axe, for obvious reasons. The ridge from the high camp (VI?) to the summit is long though. The assumption then seems to be that both climbers were together when the accident happened. Is that because it is unlikely for Irvine to have died in a different spot, after which Mallory descended further alone before he fell?
You don’t climb the 2nd step in minutes it must have been the 3rd step which you can climb in minutes….Mallory did not know that the last 200m would take so much energy and time (no one did) he got summit fever….the fact that no letter or photograph was found on his body is proof in itself that they summited RIP
O AND a letter was found on him, wtf! It was from Ruth his wife. WOW wrong on everything huh.
Great video, I fear that the chinese (with their usual lack of respect for anything and their political agenda) have found and taken or destroyed Irvin's remains.
It Is also a shame how the '99 team treated Mallory's remains.
I would really like to know, if you want to, your position about the possibility to find some of the missing pieces, the camera, the photo(i dubt It), or Irwin with rocks on him. Thanks, I've red about Mallory only 3 years ago but I have been quite obsessed with It since then, I really think modern people owe them the Truth, they are some of the last romantic heroes, dreaming the impossible "per aspera ad astra"
Thank you so much sir for your brilliant investigation. Please keep going and demonstrating the truth!
I don't believe Mallory took the ridge route but the arrogance of "modern" climbers telling us what Mallory, could or couldn't climb, always annoys me. All we know is, he was a very good climber but only Mallory had any real knowledge of his ultimate capabilities, as we don't know everything he did or attempted. Anker and Co have no right telling the world what Mallory's "limits" were and it's just another example of "We're the current generation, so are inherently superior to all that came before us".
You call Reinhold Messner "arrogant?" He asserts Mallory lacked the ability to ascend the 2nd Step.
Messner also said if he took the couloir route he would of given him a shot at climbing it
@@Longtack55and that’s arrogant, what’s your point?
I wouldn’t say arrogance but I would say a highly skilled mountaineer could make a accurate judgement on yes this route or no it’s too dangerous!
Any skilled climber cannot climb all 8,000 meter peaks all over the would and make bad judgement calls and live to climb again !
There are paying clients and paid Sherpas and they don’t have the same level of skill sets !
Mallory was smart enough to not waste his time trying to climb the 2nd step. Better to work your way towards the Norton Coloir and take his chances there…
Sounds like someone has an ice axe to grind…
Has Messner ever put forth his opinion if they made the summit or not?
In The Second Death of George Mallory, he is of the opinion they did not reach the summit because they could not climb the Second Step. In a later interview, he expresses a different opinion about alternate routes. See the Rashomon video. czcams.com/video/vS3ferOixJA/video.html
Anyone who has climbed above 8000 metres without oxygen would realise how fit and well acclimatised Odell was. His times are comparable to todays top climbers. Assuming that Mallory was at least as fit and understanding that Mallory really understood the value of bottled oxygen one can guess that he was completely capable of summiting. As for the second step and whether Mallory was skilled enough to climb it I would say yes he was. It's also possible that the snow cone leading up to the rock was higher in those days leaving less rock to climb. The number of hours that they were away above the last camp and the speed they were moving at suggests they summited. Otherwise what were they doing all that time. Just sitting around??
On the Mallory atleast as fit part I can offer I saw a climber that saw his body interview and he mentioned he had doubts Mallory made it to the summit before, but when he saw his exposed shoulder.. Even after all these years, you could tell he was a climber and well built for the task.
I always climb the most difficult route! That’s my style sir!
Wait, Mike, you’re not saying that Thom kept a few items bc he has all the video, right?
Thom doesn't have that video. He wasn't there on May 1. I don't remotely think Thom pilfered anything. I don't suspect any of the climbers.
It is not clear who has the tape.
@@michaeltracy2356 ok, gotcha, Mike! You’re thinking more curators? Yeah those guys would also know the market for that shit, brother. There are some greedsters out there, I agree.
My theory: Mallory and irvine left a bottle of oxygen at near the first step in the morning when they were going to the top ,when they return at night it was easy to spot the first step and propable they left as a mark Irvine's ice axe(odell said in a interview that the ice axe that was found, must be left there)when they tried to take and connect the oxygen bottle, they took off the miten gloves(that explain Mallory hands without gloves and the miten found near the first step)then they both fall still both connect with a rope ,(maybe Mallory slip )the marks of Mallory body from the rope indicate that maybe Irvine tried to hold Mallory.Now at the finally resting place of Mallory he had a broken leg ,no oxygen, many hours above 8000 m and was dark .the lack of none frostbites in Mallory body suggest that he had a quick death after the fall.Irvine must be close to Mallory ,he cut the rope and maybe Mallory ask him to kill him as a mercy act.Irvine used Mallory ice axe(Chinese is reported that took Mallory ice axe around 1970)and hit him in the skull for a quick death.(that explain the hole in Mallory skull)at this point Irvine is exhausted being dark and many hours at the top,perhaps he tried to go a little up to find the same route for return to the camp ,but he was tired and cold and he found a little spot to rest where in everest above 8000m if you stop and rest at night is certainly death.(chinese is reported that saw a body of an englisman at a rest place with the feet pointing the summit around 1970)My conclusion is that the chinese have something to do with Irvine body ,since they want to be the first that summit everest from the north (they even suggest that were the first and Hillary was not reach the top.)
interesting theory and it seems plausible maybe not the ice axe to the dome but who knows its fascinating stuff
Wow this is interesting
And that will be version 4563, waiting for a movie scriptwriter.
Wow this is a bad one. He hit him? You know how fast and painless it is to freeze to death? I almost died that way so I know. What complete nonsense. And Mallory HAD FROSTBITE….this channel mentions many times…..on his fingers look at pics it’s MORE THAN OBVIOUS.
@@Longtack55this is an insanely awful and silly one with him getting hit in the head for a mercy kill LMFAO real life isn’t straight to streaming movies.m
👍👍👍👍👍
Sometimes a person just has to give up on watching an infection progress, hopeful that it can be left to heal. That pus loaded cavity has to be pricked and excavated to clean, clear tissue, sanitized, medicated, and either packed or perhaps left free to the air and sunlight . . .
Thank you for your frequent debridement forays, much as we may grit our teeth seeing the “instruments” laid out before us as paper and film documentation!
Your’s is good and vital work!!
Over several years 25 or more and owning several fine books on Everest I find myself lately watching around a weeks worth of information on CZcams also !
It’s seems to me that some theory’s or I should say a lot don’t agree with each other and some books on the subject about Mallory and Irvine mystery don’t agree with some of the others and time is wasted telling other climbers who were on the mountain , oh no “ you are all wrong “
Like the location of Mallory’s body seems to be in different locations than it actually is , gawd ! GPS coordinates were taken at the time in 1999 so it’s shouldn’t be a dispute where it actually is !
Irvine’s body it seems was discovered in 1960 and again in 1975 by a Chinese climbing team but the location of it seems to be all over the mountain ! Plus to make it more confusing the mysterious camera has been found but others say no it has not and the Chinese are saying we know nothing about any camera and before that point the camera film could not be processed to produce any results ! If one can believe that much !
So it just goes on and on and goes nowhere !
Speculation of the unknown !
There is no question that Mount Everest is a huge dangerous undertaking to climb and very expensive!
Some day we may have more information on the subject of Irvine’s location as this years marks the 100 year anniversary so something solid for information “and accurate “should come out of it !!
Conrad married the widow of a phenomenal mountaineer. That’s how I remember his name. Not for anything else.
Michael, I believe the statement you make at around 10:40 seems to be conflating/confusing "roped up" with simu-climbing. Simu-climbing is the outdated technique that Anker & Roberts are referring to as "roped up." Certainly later climbs, to this day, use roped belays for technical sections but not simul-climbing. It is still used on glacier travel, especially in groups of 3 or more (to provide a running belay over hidden crevasses).
It helps if you read the book. The entire statement by Anker is:
"The Sherpas payed out the new rope as I led the Step, sliding my ascender up the old fixed ropes. At the top, I anchored the new line by tying it to long, thin pitons that other parties had driven into the rock. This was not only time-consuming; I also had to take off my mittens and wear only fleece gloves while I tied the knots. The First Step was very exposed fourth-class climbing; if it had been any harder, we would have roped up and belayed."
Anker, Conrad; Roberts, David. The Lost Explorer (p. 176). Little, Brown Book Group. Kindle Edition.
Thus, there were fixed ropes in place, Anker put a new one in and then says if it was more difficult, they would have "roped up and belayed." This is clearly something different than using the jumar to get up -- which Anker just said he did.
The passage from Ershler is referring to them climbing "roped up" in the same manner as Mallory and Irvine -- what you refer to as "simu-climbing." Their climb was in 1984, but the practice continues.
"The next morning John and I set out, leaving Wick deep in his bag with his journal. I led out with about 50 feet of rope between us."
Together On Top of the World: The Remarkable Story of the First Couple to Climb the Fabled Seven Summits . Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition.
That is clearly not using a fixed rope and is not using a roped belay. It is doing what you refer to as "simul-climbing."
When I climbed in 2013, it was not uncommon for a small team (2-3) people to unclip from the fixed rope and travel "roped up" in the same manner as Mallory and Irvine because they wished to pass people on the fixed ropes. When I went back in 2018, most of the difficult sections had 2 ropes (1 for ascending and 1 for descending) and the practice was no longer used. So, you must have climbed very recently -- perhaps you were there the same time I was in 2018. I would not consider it outdated, as it relies on multiple ropes or less people so you don't have to go around. If you don't have those fixed ropes, people will rope up the exact same way as Mallory and Irvine.
As you no doubt know from climbing off the fixed routes yourself, you can survive a small slip, and if someone is there to pull up the slack in the rope, you can survive a little bit more. When I climbed off-route, I didn't have a partner -- but it sure would have helped if I did.
Michael, do you climb? right
Not so much any more. I might have one more in me. We'll see.
So did the rope combining them snap or was mallory cut loose?
Funny how we are having such trouble with "experts" nowadays. Suspect it's really been going on longer than I think -
would lack of modern equipment and clothing make any difference?
I get into that in the "Mallory vs Modern" and "A Bloody Load" videos. Short answer -- their equipment allowed them to climb at the same rate as others but would not allow an overnight bivouac -- which probably in why they died. I'll have more of the analysis in the "Watch" video.
Conrad Anker is a Legend!
He sure is, and he'll tell you so.
I don’t think either of them made it. Irvine likely died on the ridge waiting for Mallory, and Mallory died in the place he was found, having mistakenly taken the wrong route back to Irvine. I think Mallory descended after having conquered the 2nd step, believing that he could have come up the following day with Odell with gas. His letters home to his wife show that he was maddeningly in love with her and wanted badly to return home to her.
Opinions are like a-holes and unsupported opinions are like leaky a-holes -- no one wants to deal with yours. No reason to believe any of that is remotely close to what happened and ridiculous to think that Mallory somehow descended the Second Step without leaving a rope in place.
@@michaeltracy2356 You go through all that vitriol just to say that Mallory would’ve left a rope? He was wearing a rope when he was found in 1999. You’re nuts if you think he carried two ropes after complaining in his note to Odell about just the gas canisters being a crazy heavy load. You are wrong on this, plain & simple. You’re proof positive that there’s a difference between analyzing other people’s thoughts (you’re great at tearing down books written inconsistently by explorers) and synthesizing your own narrative based on evidence (you’re poor at this).
Again, just your unsupported opinions. Mallory wouldn't carry a rope because he was carrying oxygen equipment? Hillary carried a rope and his oxygen equipment weighted the same. Did a whole video on it. More obviously, he would have used the rope he was later found wearing. I realize you have never been to the Second Step. But if you had, you would immediately see how ridiculous such theories as yours are. You may even note that Conrad Anker said the exact same thing in his book -- which I state I agree with in the video that analyzes his other inconsistent statements. Again, much like me, Conrad Anker has climbed the Second Step and we both had the same opinion about whether Mallory would leave a rope in place. You have never been close to the Second Step and come up with a theory for which you do not offer a single supporting fact.
Since I am so poor at that analysis, I'll give you a homework assignment. Make a video that explains your theory of what happened. Do not post until it is done. Then I will link to your video and you can see what the internet thinks of your theory, but I am not going to entertain you any further. Post again without a link to your new video and I'll delete it.
One obvious clue on Ankers slow ascent times, was his heart disease and heart attack he had later with climbing partner David Lama on another Expedition.
Obvious? This climb was in 1999. He makes 165ft per hour. Then he climbs in 2007 and, when it is not being used to "prove" they didn't make it, does 280 vertical ft per hour -- while stopping to take the ladder off the Second Step and having both him and Leo Holding both completely free climb the second step. And not using oxygen for the final summit slope. To be clear, his 2007 climb was from high camp at 8250 at 3AM to summit at 9:55AM while completely free climbing the second step.
He suffered a heart attack in 2016, but I do not see how that would make his 1999 time "obviously" more than 100 vertical feet per hour slower than he was able to do in 2007.
Care to explain it?
@@michaeltracy2356 It's obvious because he had coronary artery disease because he had a heart attack. That's not his fault the doctors he was working with didn't detect it and his other ascent.
if your arteries have a 60% or more blood flow reduction, it affects your circulation and performance at altitude.
Audio is awful
Please Take a breath when talking
who is Michael Tracy ? an angel of revenge ?.. pfft... Boring.
A nobody on CZcams makes subjective and speculative theories against some of the greatest climbers in the world and trashes their achievements is just pure jealousy and clickbate bullshit.
Thanks for commenting. Comments like your help spread the word with the "algorithm" for these "clickbait bullshit" videos to get such a large audience. So, please continue to assist. Maybe click the "dislike" button -- that really helps.
Snarky ‘I benefit by your negative review’ still doesn’t answer the question why does an amateur climber even if they have summited once, think they know more about climbing and Everest than some of the greatest climbers of the last few decades? Why would they lie? I’ve read other climbers opinions concerning your theory and many feel it’s speculative at best. Profit (monetization) making at worst.
FYI: Algorithms are overrated.
Have a fine day.
Well, you didn't ask a question. You said, "A nobody on CZcams makes subjective and speculative theories against some of the greatest climbers in the world and trashes their achievements is just pure jealousy and clickbate bullshit."
So, I just thanked you for your negative comment and "still didn't answer the question" because you didn't ask one.
Well, let's look at why Conrad Anker might lie.... In his book, he tells us. No doubt you read it, so why don't you benefit us. Find the part in Conrad Anker's book where he explicitly says he lied. Hint: I mention it in the video.
So, you can read Conrad Ankers own books and he will explain to you "Why would they lie?" For at least one thing. The fact that you had no idea that Anker would (1) lie about Mallory and (2) admit to (3) when I mention it in the video indicates you didn't watch the video.
So, why don't you watch this video first and then click on the "Response to Jake Norton, Part 1" video and it will explain the "big conspiracy." I come out and say exactly who is behind the "big conspiracy" in that video. So, go ahead and watch it and let me know if that answers your question.
You may note that my videos are about the 1924 Everest expedition. I don't claim to know about climbing and I certainly don't make climbing videos. If you are trying to learn to climb, this is the wrong channel for you. If you are trying to conduct historical research into the 1924 expedition, this is a good place to start. However, there is no need to go climb any mountains in order to read books. In fact, spending time climbing mountains rather than doing research would not be useful in writing a book about a historical event. Also, climbing mountains tells you nothing about Everest. I talk about he geological significance of summit rocks and the different geological features that are unique to Everest, but that also does not come form climbing mountains. It is not clear why you think "climbing" would give someone insight into a historical event or the geology of a mountain -- the things I do talks about.
Why don't you just state who you have read about my theories? Is it a secret? Which "climber" has written something about my theories? I would love to read it. No need to keep everything a secret. Also, who is "many?" If so many people think it is "speculative" why not just say the names. I will say Dave Hahn was a professional climber and in a video (czcams.com/video/5RY9zRpQEf8/video.html) he says he believes Mallory and Irvine took a completely different route and indicates it was going around the Second Step. This would be consistent with the "zig-zag." Now, that interview was from before my videos existed, so you should first explain how a professional climber, Dave Hahn, was able to get "my theory" before I made a video about "my theory." Then, you might ask yourself what about Dave Hahn's theory is "speculative." Hint: His theory is the same as mine. And while I appreciate you giving me the credit, alas, Dave Hahn, a professional climber, had the idea before I did.
Now, I have taken the time to address each of your questions. If post anything short of addressing each of the questions I pose to you, you will be banned from further benefiting my channel with your comments. As much as you are helping promote my channel, I just can't suffer fools.
"why does an amateur climber even if they have summited once, think they know more about climbing and Everest than some of the greatest climbers of the last few decades?"
Because:
1. Conrad Anker claiming the cooker rolled down from camp VI when Odell himself says it rolled down from camp V is factually wrong, even if it's Conrad Anker that says it.
2. Conrad Anker claiming Mallory climbed the ridge when Mallory himself said the ridge was impossible is factually wrong, even if it's Conrad Anker that says it.
3. Conrad Anker claiming they didn't sleep with oxygen when an oxygen bottle was found in their tent is factually wrong, even if it's Conrad Anker that says it.
4. Conrad Anker claiming they were spotted on the First Step when Odell says they were at the last step before the base of the pyramid is factually wrong, even if it's Conrad Anker that says it.
You're falling prey to the argument of authority fallacy.
If someone is demonstrably wrong, he's wrong. Doesn't matter who he is, or who is pointing it out.
Wow you are an angry man.