Mallory & Irvine: The Rashomon Effect
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 04. 2022
- Discusses how the stories about George Mallory and Andrew Irvine's 1924 climb have been influenced by the Rashomon Effect. Also discusses how the finding of George Mallory's body has been influenced by the Rashomon effect.
Much of this content was originally part of the "Watch" video and thus it discusses how handling the body affected the Watch. At issue is that allegedly, the watch cover was missing when found and the question is with the rough handling of the body, was it likely that the cover simply fell out of the pocket when the "searchers" were looking for the camera.
Fair use:
• #JLF 2013: Mallory and...
• Wade Davis: Into the S...
• Reinhold Messner Inter...
www.amazon.com/Ghosts-Everest...
There are issues with linking the Salon article. Do a search for "Salon Mark Synnott" and you will find it.
Please read before commenting: CZcams is deleting comments that mention a certain country in a negative light or that link to articles that portray that country in a negative light. If you are an "approved commentator", I will not delete your comments without telling you. That is, I'll delete it and then post a comment saying what I deleted and why. It is also very rare that I delete an "approved commentator's" post -- I can't remember the last time I have done so. Typically, I just leave the post and demote you to unapproved so future comments have to go through moderation.
If your comment just magically vanishes, it was not done by me. We live in a world of mass censorship and we need to learn how to manage. Perhaps refer to the "Klingons" rather than a specific country -- subscribers will catch on to what you are talking about pretty quickly. Note: The Klingons are from Kronos.
You also cannot link to articles critical of the Klingons. To get around this, take a fairly unique phrase from the article, put quotes around it, and put it into google. It will then generate a search string that you can link to where the article will come up. For example: www.google.com/search?q=%22+The+location+of+the+Klingon+homeworld+in+relation+to+Sol+and+other+stars+was+depicted+on+a+star+chart.%22&source=hp&ei=-DVgYomSBomk_QanyLsI&iflsig=AHkkrS4AAAAAYmBECGIZnLEn7wnkJdVzzfMmsqqar8Iy&ved=0ahUKEwiJ7oP8iKP3AhUJUt8KHSfkDgEQ4dUDCAg&uact=5&oq=%22+The+location+of+the+Klingon+homeworld+in+relation+to+Sol+and+other+stars+was+depicted+on+a+star+chart.%22
Cut off the last part after the last %22 -- as I did above. The article you are trying to link to will then show up in the search and people can easily find it.
Comments will be limited to people who have participated in the past or those that have some valid contribution to make. If you are new to this channel, it is highly recommended that you watch all the videos so that you can participate in a meaningful way.
The comments are used to facilitate a dialog. If you post a comment and I ask you a question or seeks to clarify your comment and you do not respond, I will delete the comment and prohibit your future participation in the channel. If you post misinformation, generally I will ask you to fix the misinformation.
No comments about "It only counts if you make it back down" will be permitted for this video. That issue is addressed in the Pasang Lhamu Sherpa video (czcams.com/video/6eUwf_YQVcc/video.html). This issue has been fairly well discussed and unless you are adding something genuinely new to the debate, it is not worth posting about.
A civil dialog requires that you listen to the other person and respond in an intelligent manner. However, there is no requirement in this channel to suffer fools.
Most likely the mystery of summiting may never be solved. It really hinges on discovering Irvine which at this point seems remote given the time and various possibilities for where he is/was. There are scenarios where he could be discovered still but neither may prove nor disprove a successful summit. Nearly every theory has some parts where assumptions need to be made, so all of them include possibilities for error. All of them. That said, after years of research of Holzel, the 1999 team, Synott, Davis and Michael Tracy, it is clear to me that the theory with the least holes, most linear, and based on known and available data and therefore closest to reality is the research and investigation of Michael Tracy. By far he has done the most real work. His approach is the most scientific, also using a jurisprudence approach. What I presume to be valid at this point is that 1) They didn't try the Second step, 2) They were likely spotted at the Third by Odell 3) They may or may not have made it from there, but chances were good, 4) An accident occurred on the way back, 5) Mallory was found and Irvine has not been, 6) They were capable of finishing the climb, 7) Weather was supportive. Discovering Irvine could provide summit rocks, a camera (not a VPK), possible diary entry or notes. The absence or presence of those would help but not break the case. Scenarios still exist where Irvine is found but not the desired items. I personally find the Chinese body removal theory to be tantalizing but hearsay and unsupported. There have been tons of revisions by the '99 team. Holzel suffers from confirmation bias. I hope Irvine is found and we can put this to rest, but I am not optimistic. It certainly is one of the best mysteries in modern historical culture related to the outdoors and exploration.
The mistake is treating it as a mystery. There is no mystery. All the evidence, and I suspect this will become even clearer with the Watch video, is that they made the summit. The mystery would be how they didn't, and that is why so many people over the years have felt the need to theorize, invent and lie to justify why they didn't summit. Because it is more mysterious and hard to understand how they didn't summit then it is to believe they did. So you need to invent storms and make easy terrain difficult, and have them take a different route to what they planned. All while ignoring evidence like the oxygen bottle, the ice axe location, the watch. To say they summitted simply requires you to presume they took the route they said they would take, know the geography of the mountain enough to understand that Odell couldn't have seen them below the third step and thought they would summit by 4pm, and know at that point almost everyone who dies having reached that height does so having summitted. Those 3 pieces of information alone are enough to make it clear that a summit is all but certain. And the certainty arises from the watch, the ice axe location, the oxygen bottle and all the other analysis by Mr Tracy, which shows the other theories do not align with the facts.
The creation of so many competing theories is no accident. If there was only one opposing theory it could be easily shown to be unlikely. But if there's dozens of different stories about how it might have happened, then it becomes difficult to sort through and discount all the nonsense. All the other theories rely on speculation, the theory they summitted relies only on the attainment of 3 basic facts. If they were spotted at the third step at 12:50, then the possibility of them failing to summit is vanishingly small. It is not a total certainty, but in the absence of physical evidence, the simplest conclusion should be treated as the best one. It's Occam's Razor. The more things you require to explain your theory, the less likely it is to be true. The best theories don't require an entire book to explain them.
There is no need to find Irvine or any physical evidence outside of satisfying some human curiosity. Evidence enough exists for the conclusion that they summitted. It is only through extensive efforts by those who don't want the truth to be clear, for whatever reasons, that the idea of this being a mystery has come into existence. The only mystery is why people have felt the need to obscure the truth.
@@CharlesFreck I agree with that, but in my post I used the word solved....Which to me is definitive proof. Your 3 criteria are very solid, agreed. Certainly finding Irvine would be amazing, I hope that happens. At this point for me, I actually feel finding Irvine is more important than answering the summit question with certainty. For what it is worth, I think they likely summited.
and it would have a much better look and feel if insulting language were not used in tracy's rhetoric. speaking like an arrogant asshole creates a climate in which few what to follow or participate in.
@@CharlesFreckyes, well put. I agree. The mystery is why people try to concoct elaborate reasons to deny Mallory and Irvine successfully getting to the summit whereas the Chinese summit attempt story has the smell of BS about it yet treated as if were true.
I came to this channel to learn about mountain climbing.
I'm staying to learn about psychology. Fascinating stuff....
8:30 - This is by far the best educated shit talking I've ever heard.
Why do Anker and other "modern climbers" have the arrogance to make definitive judgements on how good a climber Mallory was and what he could and couldn't climb?
I believe the 2nd step is a moot point but nevertheless, their belief in their superiority baffles and frustrates me.
Excellent content, as always. Thank you for taking the time to lead us through this, giving us the chance to jump ahead and then reaching out your hand to pull us along if we missed that chance. I thought I had read all of Liesl Clark's dispatches on the pbs website but still missed her reference to summit rocks. How can that be the only mention of them? I could understand no mention at all, but to bring them up in that context alone is so strange.
Wade Davis was much more animated and angry about all this in person than in writing. It seemed that it was the deception that got him so fired up. Understandable given the years of detailed research he had done to uncover truths about the expeditions, to ensure his account of the events was supported by evidence regardless of how far he had to go to find that evidence. Only to watch others covering themselves with glory while playing fast and loose with the truth.
What to say about Mark Synnott's recent article? How can we ever know anything? If there is some positive pre-post-truth message in there, some stupid baby, I can't wait to hear it.
I used to look forward to your acerbic replies to all the "It only counts if you make it back down" comments and will miss them.
I think this is my favourite video to date. Thank you, the pieces of the puzzle seem to be fitting together nicely
Good summary video for introducing new people to the channel, especially ahead of the Watch video. Sums up the deeper point. And it was a good recommendation for Rashomon, what a film. Best homework I've gotten.
Michael, what really stands out is how on earth Wyn and Wager plus Smythe all failed at the same point in the couloir as Norton. Clearly, Mallory had already jettisoned this possibility.
Why, in 1933, after 9 years of opportunity for analysis of reports and photographs wouldn't they either ;-
a) cross the couloir lower and attain the subsidiary couloir (a la Messner, the Aussie '84 and Ershler/Roskelley) to the NNE spur or upper Nth Face, or
b) force a route through the rock band and emerge on the snowy slopes below the bastions if the 3rd Step, therefore circumventing the "impossible" NE ridgeline.
Your zigzag theory is really the only route that makes sense.
Anker's free climb of the 2nd step, albeit on the crumbly, angled right hand of the ladder pitch, is superfluous as it bears not one similarity with what Odell saw from the clarity of his original dispatches.
It's amazing what our imaginations can conjure up when only part of the story is known. I think the mystery and intrigue has only added to the M & I legacy. Book after book has been written and most every new theory or "story" has always captured the imagination. It's quite remarkable really, if you think about how our reality would be if they actually succeeded and got down alive, they would have their names in history for sure, but I know our lives wouldn't have been altered in the same way had they not gone down in a blaze of mystery instead. The names Irvine and Mallory would replace Tenzing and Hillary in the history books, but I doubt we'd dig any further and really get to know these men like we have. I honestly believe them disappearing was the best thing for their legacy and their story is 100x more intriguing than the guy who reached the top first. I for one hope Mallory and Irvine could know that they didn't die in vain and their story has captured the worlds attention and held it for nearly a hundred years. Who else can claim that?
Amelia Earhardt will probably claim that same distinction in another 12 years or so OR until the U.S. government finally comes clean and tells us what really happened to her….and they know exactly what happened to her….so does the U.S. Navy and Coastguard.
Thank you Mr. Tracy for your informative videos on Mnt. Everest. I have been watching them for some months. Your thumbnail and title threw me off, until I saw your name I did not trust watching it. Some 30yrs ago I told my manager I had a Dr.'s appointment so I could go downtown to see a Kurosawa film fest including Rashomon. However, all I can think of now is how my countrymen treated George Mallory, his possessions and his family . I am sad, angry and sick to my stomach. I need a cup of tea. Thank you for your research.
I cannot get enough of your videos Mr Tracy. 👍🏻
Nice! An unexpected treat to listen to as I have my morning coffee.
I keep thinking about the movie,and how it pertains to history of Mallory and Irvine.
Now I can't read a history book or watch a documentary the way I used to...I generally take a grain of salt with history,But this Mallory and Irvine mess..I'm going to need a boulder of salt.
Lately as I watch any history related things...my thoughts go back to your video 'it is known ' or Rashoman.
At any rate, thanks for putting your time and effort into help some of us navigate a way thru what's true and what's baloney.
I always thought that Mallory and Irvine made the summit and died during the descent. I don't know if this the Romantic in me who believes in the power of personal passions, or the optimist, but that is what i believe.
Finally got around to watching Rashomon. It's a movie everyone should see at least once. Thanks for the recommendation!
How dare you question Davy Crockett killing that bear
Did I hear Mr. Tracy say something about writing a book? I truly hope so. Excellent video, thank you.
I think a study of the 1960 Chinese expedition would be very interesting.
Yes but the ability to extract facts or to fully believe anything you find or are told, means it could all be an exercise in frustration and futility.
It would be great though, a long with the 70's climbs too.
Getting to any truth as to the 1960 Chinese expedition would be impossible. The nature of the government and the political system at the time makes it so.
Appreciate every video, every step taken is a step towards the truth.
Hey Michael, I love this channel and your ruthlessly analytic approach to solving this mystery. If you truly are interested in building support for your theories and crowdfunding drone footage, I would suggest backing off slightly with the caustic tone and cynicism. Your argument are robust enough to stand on their own
Just my two cents ; I will watch and enjoy your videos regardless.
One of the advantages of my "tone" is that there are numerous people just waiting for me to make a mistake. When I make a mistake in a video, it is promptly pointed out and I can fix it. It is a little rough and it would be better if we could all be more opening critical. But such is life. As I am more interested in finding out what actually occurred, it does not hurt to push people a little to do the same to me.
I tried the "please tell me what you think about..." approach and I just got, "Yeah, sounds great, keep going." I'd much rather people just tell me when I am wrong, and I hope others feel the same. If not, likely they will not be in this channel long.
Absolutely correct
You almost lose the argument Michael with some of your quite frankly ridiculous chat
Thanks for the excellent and important work you're doing. Enough with the post-truth peddlers and spin doctors.
Truth doesn't care about emotions.
Amazing the way this topic makes one desire one outcome over another and how this sways back and forth like some of the writers who one day say they did make it and the next say they did not .
It should be noted that no matter what the outcome your work goes beyond research or passion .
When you have been gifted with such intellect you are also bewitched by the loneliness of such a gift .
This world is full of this .. I have found only one cure for the challenge of such a world .. it is to climb .
The other day I was out on a hill , feeling great , with comfortable energy . Descending with a friend having covered much ground with surprising ease . ... Then I took a fall , catching my left toe on the ground and forcing the right into an extended drop .. auto pilot decided it was better to fall than over extend the knee and as I dropped I clipped my knee of a sawn stump . The agony intense like a funny bone times 11.
I walked out , got home and became a cripple in less than four hours .
No lying , leg elevated , wondering if I'll ever walk again .. it makes me sad in my heart.
Fair play Michael , had to watch this twice , that's how interesting it is .
Can you imagine being Norton , searching for his mates for those days .. god help them .
There's something about their energy and success that lives on willing you to discover the truth .
I feel you're on the money , I rarely doubt the feelings of that energy . It's the echoes of their souls .
That was a masterpiece
Always interesting to watch/listen to your videos. For the 1999 team the hard part was finding the bodies and they found one. For me an Ice Axe to free a body is a No Go.....why not go back to camp and bring back a few boilers on the next day....hot water and ice just an idea ;-)..the body is sitting there for the past 70 years what is one more day? And yes I agree with you a proper burial would have been respectful, hopefully someone will take the time and risk to do it someday.
I am from Austria, my neighbour was Peter Habeler, he is regarded like a god by some in the village but not by all, because he has the same ego problem like Messner but without Reinhold's charisma. Messner always talked about the Second Step in relation to Mallory & Irvine, in my humble opinion he is totally wrong, they went up the zig-zag or the couloir. I wish we were able to do a dig at the bottom of Nortons couloir for old oxygen bottles.
Speaking of Messner, I wonder what is true and what is 'Rashomon' about the events on Nanga Parbat where his brother perished.
Лучшее что я слышал. Гений чистого разума. Правда когда нибудь всплывёт.мое мнение эти двое дошли до вершины и погибли на спуске, тогда люди были из стали.просто все последующие восходители на фоне своих достижений вносят сомнения в их успех. Ирвин был там в третий раз....длительная экспедиция.... акклиматизация....четкий план....разведка...они могли и без кислорода иметь успех. Они были более закалённые и в лёгкой одежде более подвижны и ловчее, чем современные пингвины.
My translation: Anton Shkatelov
1 month ago
The best I've heard. Genius of pure reason. The truth will emerge someday. My opinion is that these two reached the summit and died on the descent, then people were made of steel. It’s just that all subsequent climbers, against the background of their achievements, cast doubts on their success. Irvine (MALLORY) was there for the third time....long expedition....acclimatization....clear plan....reconnaissance...they could have succeeded without oxygen. They were more hardened and, in light clothing, more mobile and more dexterous than modern penguins.
😊mind-blowing thank you so much for removing my eyelids xx
Anker said (Referring to the 2nd step): "It is more difficult with the ladder than without it!" Huh? Than why is the ladder there? Am I misunderstanding something here?
Probably a misunderstanding. He is likely referring to when he "free climbed" it and the ladder was there. As he didn't want to step on it, it was just in the way. So, likely he meant, "It is easier to free climb when there is no ladder in your way." As a note, he stepped on the ladder in 1999 as there was no where else to put his foot. So, 1999 was not a free climb.
I have a dumb question: If Mallory had died first, somehow, or the two got separated, Irvine being a novice, might he have ended up in someplace very unpredictable and novice like? Other side of the ridge? I don't know Everest, but looking at Irvine through the lens of a novice, he might have done something very unanticipated...provided they were either separated, or Mallory fell first? Thoughts?
All of those locations have been searched. All of the places he could have legitimately walked to were already covered by the 1933 team as they took various different routes up the mountain.
Those same areas were searched again several times between 1999 and 2019 with Irvine not being found. The specific spot searched by Mark Synnott in 2019 was walked across by Frank Smythe in 1933, so it is not clear why they thought a body could be there.
The likely place for Irvine is somewhere below the ice axe site -- either 100 ft or 5000ft.
A more recent satellite photo shows something that could be Irvine's grave in the area below the ice axe -- in the area circled in the "Final Resting Place" video. I have photos of it posted in the Discord chat. This would not be an exposed body -- it is would be a grave. That is, someone found Irvine and buried him. There are numerous people looking and if he was found by a "private collector" (i.e. treasure hunter), this would likely be the result. But it might just be a pile of rocks.
Drone photos of any "Irvine survived" situations have been released and there is no possibility Irvine is in any location in which he walked away from the fall. Drone photos of the area below the ice axe location are still "top secret."
Mr Tracy: I've appreciated these videos -- thank you. So I'm sorry that you've felt it necessary to delete 2 of my advance-the-conversation comments: one a link to a CZcams video of Rashomon . . . and another to the Salon article by Mark Synnott. How do these deletions fit in with your perspective on finding Truth . . . (?)
Simple. I didn't delete them. CZcams did. I saw them come in. And then they were gone. I was going to ask you about why you deleted them, but you beat me to it. I was working up an add on to the Mark Synnott article, so I was glad you had posted the the comment.
Another user, Mr. H had a comment deleted, and I asked him about it in a different video. Mr. H, if you could take a look at that. (czcams.com/video/Lb-4-56fh7s/video.html).
I have had comments that I had deleted, and they seem to relate to certain key words. I keep telling people this is not about two people climbing a mountain.
As a note, the article you linked accuses a country that cannot be named of doing things that are not nice, so CZcams gave it the Trotsky Ice Axe -- wasn't me.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks. I'm going to go now and have the Colorado equivalent of a stiff drink. Otherwise, this kind of stuff makes me despair . . .
@@michaeltracy2356 Interestingly enough Michael, I sent you a link to the Salon article as well about a week ago and when I posted it, I just said, "If you've already read the article, just disregard it!" Now that I've read these comments about the deletions, I went and looked for my comment with the Salon link, and,...yup!...it has been deleted as well!
@@edkiely2712 Thanks for the update.
I've come to the conclusion that it's hard for anyone above the death zone (with or without oxygen) looses their freekin' minds. It has to have been a fog trying to remember minute details while trying to
focus on every step they take and every breath they take. Ego sadly has few allies.
It will always be a mystery, I choose to believe they made it as I've studied Mallory and as a man he was capable and driven and if the weather was good (and it was) that would have been enough.
Despite my years (65) I still tend to assume that people are usually sincere and truthful. I may never learn.
Please excuse asking such a silly question, but is it at all possible that Irvin could of fallen off the OTHER side towards down the East Side?
The British expeditions were terrified of the ridge because they did not have fixed ropes and they thought they would either be blown off or fall through a cornice as they had no idea what part was rock and what part was snow. Thus, neither Mallory nor Irvine would deliberately walk close to the ridge.
As they were roped together when they fell, it is extremely unlikely Irvine would be down the East face. Most likely Irvine is on the North face above Mallory, exactly where I point in the "Final Resting Place" video. Looking at the 2018 photos, it looks like there are additional rocks there. There was an earthquake in 2015 and that it not the only place that has additional rocks. However, it remains a distinct possibility that Irvine was buried in place there some time after 2013. That none of the 2019 "searchers" will release any photos of that area remains curious.
It appears that the "zig-zag" route was climbed in 2014 as there are track in the snow -- but no one is taking credit for it. There are other groups that have been looking for Irvine and their motivations are not clear and they are very secretive about what they do.
I've never been to Everest, but my understanding is some of the dead bodies there are in pieces because, when they freeze, they can break up upon falling farther down or against rocks. All of the dead bodies I've seen on video are basically in one piece, but the possibility does exist that Irvine's body has possibly broken-up some. Just speculation! Also, though it appears Mallory stayed relatively in the same general area of his fall, we do have to consider the possibility that Irvine's body is also well below where Mallory was found, if he was possibly blown farther down! If I remember correctly from his lecture, Davis said there was about 10ft of rope found on Mallory and that one end was frayed. How much that indicates, I'm not sure! I mean, how much rope did they take with them when they left in their summit attempt? Do we know? Much rope could still be with Irvine's body or a sizable string of rope could easily have broken-off and blow away and decayed over almost 100yrs! A mystery that keeps on giving! Look forward to the next installment!
@@edkiely2712 Michael can answer with more authority than me but i think the bodies that are broken up, are generally the one's that have suffered vertical falls or pulverising tumbles over many thousands of feet.
Chinese found Irvin’s @$$ and launched him over the side. Would’ve done the same with Mallory if not found in ‘99. Chinese ‘canceling’ the Brit “Third Pole…”. One or both summited. Mallory, yes.
@@TheSaxon. Hey! Thx for replying! What you're saying would make sense, because, like I said, every body I've seen has been in one piece and I've seen about every video on Everest there is on CZcams. Even the wind blowing some of these dead bodies is hard to fathom because, even though the winds on Everest can reach up towards 100mph, frozen, dead bodies can weigh a lot!
Hello Sir, just curious if you have ever climbed Mt Everest. I've watched almost all of your videos and find them very informative and enjoyable. I hope they find Irvine someday. Thanks!
Watch them again... czcams.com/video/I_vx9CbD7rk/video.html
he has, in 2013 from the North Side according to the Everest Summit Database.
@@michaeltracy2356
Hello Mr. Tracy
I follow your works and highly appreciate your effort to get to the truth of 1924 climb.
As you often mention, whether they made it to the summit is not the point of course. It's almost obvious that they did. For a rational and unbiased mind, Your videos alone will suffice to understand that it's all but a cover up.
What amazes me is, why? Why some international forces will align to make sure that everyone believes a lie? What would have happened/ will happen if it gets established that George and Irvine were the first? Who's interest will be harmed with this fact?
I genuinely think that this is the biggest question we have now, relating to 1924 climb. I am pretty sure that this question may be the one which haunt you the most.
Why no photos from NatGeo? Why a messed up search in 1999 and even a more messed up story? Why people like jake norton and some others are relentlessly trying to convince people with misinformation? Why had the UK art gallery was broken into and descriptions were destroyed? Who's doing this cover up since their disappearance?
From shebbeare to holzel to Anker ... Everyone is like, "I know what it is but I'm not going to tell you".. why this?
Like many, I too was fascinated about the obvious question for long, if they summited or not. Now, this question is not of much importance. There's nothing to prove about the summit. What important is, whats the motive behind this cover up for about a century. This is the obvious question now.
Please share your views on the probably reasons for this made-up story.
That is a good question. Short answer: I do not know. Much like you, I was focused on the question of the summit and at first it just looked like simple mistakes. Then, the more I look into it, there are more and more mistakes. Now, they do not look like mistakes -- they were deliberate.
But who, why? Not an obvious answer. Sure, the Klingons could be behind it, that it is too obvious. Seems like someone is trying to make it look like it is the Klingons. (See the pinned comment for who the "Klingons" are).
And CZcams is deleting comments now -- it is very bizarre. It seems what ever this mystery is, it is likely far beyond my ability to unravel it. And I am smart enough not to poke my nose in too deep. At this point, I am just watching what happens as 2024 comes up. Someone is up to something. So, same as the prior research, gather information first and then try to work a theory out.
For those looking for a little insight, I will just say my current direction is something along the lines of the movie "The Traveling Salesman." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_Salesman_(2012_film)
This is a very complex issue, and 99% of even subscribers will have no idea how it could possibly relate to Mt. Everest. The movie is extremely boring and I don't recommend it unless you have a good understanding of the P=NP? issue. But there are major problems with society and those problems come from basic problems with mathematics, physics, logic, etc. I suspect The Mount Everest mystery is just symptom of what these problems create.
I may get into those subjects at a later date, but for now, people are still caught up in the "did they summit?" question. And, well, I have to get the Watch video out.
Because the next attempt with oxygen was in 1952 and climbing the mountain without oxygen is not feasible without extensive experience and training specifically for high altitude climbing.
I explain that in the Watch video, and as I note, it is best if you watch all the videos before commenting.
For a significant portion of that time 1925-1932 and 1939-1951, the mountain was closed -- you know, the whole world war thing.
I just found your channel the other day. As I have been reading everything I can about Mallory & Irving for several years as their 1924 climb intrigues me. I think Mallory made it to the summit because his wife’s letter and photo were not on him. I think he survived that horrific fall for a brief period of time then succumbed to his injuries. I am not surprised that his body was treated so disrespectful after it was found. Artifacts of any kind are big business in todays world. It’s really all that matters to some. Look what was done to the Titanic after it was found…..it was pillaged and picked clean of every valuable object they could find because Ballard failed to claim ownership of the vessel after he discovered it. Every fortune hunter with the big bucks went down into that underwater cemetery and stole from the dead. They should have left it alone. The same thing with Mallory….they should have left him buried where he was and covered him with rocks. I hope they never find Irving because he too will be picked clean for artifacts. It’s a disgusting world we live in….it really is.
I disagree. After finding Mallory's - if not before - there should have been great thought on how to proceed almost as if was a crime scene. Not knowing whether summit rocks were in Mallory's
pockets was an avoidable mistake.
Cant you still go check for summit rocks. Couldnt they be laying near the body if knocked out of a pocket? Or am i late with this question?
Not realistically feasible. It is nothing but rocks. Would be like finding a needle in a needle stack.
@michaeltracy2356 I thought the rocks are geologically different? I get it may be difficult..........
Reading the Salon article about the 1975 Chinese finding the camera on Irvine and subsequently ruining the film is stomach churning.
Good news. The article says it was a VPK, and if Irvine was carrying a VPK, that means he had two cameras. So, we just go get Irvine's other camera and look in his pocket for summit rocks and the problem is solved. And 8200m is close to Mallory (8140m), so the gave should be easy to find with low-snow. Probably just review that drone footage and mystery solved -- wonder why they haven't released it.
The article is 99% bullshit, and it is important to be able to spot that. What is the 1% that is not bullshit -- they are right about one thing, there is an international cover-up of a dead climber's ascent.
You might also read the article...
Economist: What about the camera?
Pan Duo: I don't remember the details of this . . . We buried him under a pile of stones: it wasn't bad. We stood there freezing. The body lay on the floor, when we went to pull him, maybe spleen or whatever, all would have been damaged. We considered it and then put small stones on his body, to show our grief/mark the grave.
Economist: And what about the camera?
Pan Duo: After we came down, we didn't see anything. Maybe others discovered it. I don't know.
So, someone who says the didn't see a camera becomes, not only was there a camera, but they tried to develop the film, failed, and then were so nice as to inform a British diplomat about it. If you can't spot that as bullshit, there is little hope.
@@michaeltracy2356 "Good news. The article says it was a VPK, and if Irvine was carrying a VPK, that means he had two cameras. So, we just go get Irvine's other camera and look in his pocket for summit rocks and the problem is solved."
I thought you argued in the "it is known" video that the other camera was more complex and fragile and therefore less likely to survive vs the small, comparatively rugged VPK? If the other camera is still on his corpse, isn't it likely it (or the film) would be damaged and any evidence of the summit unrecoverable? Rocks still seem like the only sure thing to me.
"And 8200m is close to Mallory (8140m), so the gave should be easy to find with low-snow. Probably just review that drone footage and mystery solved -- wonder why they haven't released it"
Is it possible that perhaps Irvine's corpse is not on the mountain anymore? The Chinese remove bodies and debris from the mountain often; wouldn't Irvine's body and the associated evidence (rocks, camera) of successful north side summit attempt be important for the Chinese to cover up for propaganda purposes? That certainly seems like the kind of thing I'd want kept away from western eyes.
"Economist: What about the camera?"
Please link, I cannot find it.
"So, someone who says the didn't see a camera becomes, not only was there a camera, but they tried to develop the film, failed, and then were so nice as to inform a British diplomat about it. If you can't spot that as bullshit, there is little hope."
What would be her motivation for lying? If Synnott completely fabricated it, what would be his motive? How does the article in any way conflict with the theory that Mallory and Irvine made the summit? Genuine questions.
I was being facetious about the "good news." They obviously would not find a small VPK and leave a much larger camera. Which tells you --- they never found Irvine. They are lying to you.
Of course, it is possible his corpse is no longer on the mountain. However, it is highly likely the corpse was photographed in 2013 and that is the photo shown in Final Resting place. It is also possible a Yeti ate him. Or a UFO took the corpse. Rather than looking into extremely remote but not impossible claims, it is best to focus on highly probable claims.
I do not have the ability to read Synnott's brain. I can look at what he is doing and try to figure out why he might be doing it. In his book, it was a completely different story:
This narrative echoed rumors that we had heard earlier in the expedition but were unable to confirm. In 2012, a Chinese liaison officer told Jamie that the body had been removed some time prior to 2008.
Synnott, Mark. The Third Pole (p. 377). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Now, let's look at possible motives. (1) He may have found Irvine in 2019 but not been able to excavate because you need tools, more people, etc. If that is the case, you do not want other expeditions going there looking for Irvine because that will negatively effect the amount of money you can make selling photographs. By telling people the body is no longer there, others do not search.
(2) Someone he works for does not want Irvine found. It is nice to think that I, by myself, would simply hike up there and find Irvine. If he is in that Final Resting Place, that could be a possibility. But one person walking around is not likely to find anything. You need a large number of people and special equipment, and good weather -- and that means money. (Money does not buy weather, but it allows you to return multiple times until you get good weather. ) People with money will not invest if they think the body is not on the mountain.
(3) He is teaching people how to live in the post-truth world and deliberately gives them both misinformation and the information that shows it is misinformation so you can learn that people lie to you all the time. This creates more informed people so society does not fall into an information dystopia where people blindly believe everything they read in the mainstream media.
(4) The whole thing is bullshit and he just is generating media "buzz" to sell more copies of his book.
(5) Some idiot on the internet is pretending to be a diplomat and Synnott goes along with it because he is generating media "buzz" to sell more copies of his book.
(6) Unknown to Synnott, his publicist is pretending to be a diplomat and gets Synnott to believe it to generate media "buzz" to sell more copies of his book.
I would label the theory that a legitimate diplomat is telling the truth as less likely than UFOs or Yetis.
Given that Synnott's "source" directly lies right in the same article about Pan Duo finding a camera, you might think they are lying to you about other things. I can't link the article because CZcams is deleting the links. You might think about why CZcams would do that.
Finally, if you "can't find" a large quote on the internet, you have serious research problems. Take one of the paragraphs that I quote above... go to google.... put quotes around the entire thing and press the search button -- it comes up pretty quickly -- I just tried it.
@@michaeltracy2356 "I was being facetious about the 'good news.'"
Ahh, understood. Hard to tell through the screen sometimes.
"Now, let's look at possible motives..."
Very interesting. I think your first theory sounds the most plausible to me (I assume you ordered them from most to least likely?). In that case, would you say there is a strong chance that Synnott is the one preventing the release of the drone footage? Does he have that kind of pull at NatGeo? Are they the sole owners of that video?
"Finally, if you "can't find" a large quote on the internet, you have serious research problems."
At risk of sounding like a fool here, I seriously can't. I put in the article name, and each quote both individually and as a block into google. Nothing. I put the article name and quotes into my University's database and still couldn't find it. That's why I asked for a link.
You just put the entire quote into google with "" around it... www.google.com/search?q=%22Pan+Duo%3A+I+don%27t+remember+the+details+of+this+.+.+.+We+buried+him+under+a+pile+of+stones%3A+it+wasn%27t+bad.+We+stood+there+freezing.+The+body+lay+on+the+floor%2C+when+we+went+to+pull+him%2C+maybe+spleen+or+whatever%2C+all+would+have+been+damaged.+We+considered+it+and+then+put+small+stones+on+his+body%2C+to+show+our+grief%2Fmark+the+grave.+%22&ei=sxdgYtq8AuCuqtsPlPaQ2AU&ved=0ahUKEwia4v6M7KL3AhVgl2oFHRQ7BFsQ4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22Pan+Duo%3A+I+don%27t+remember+the+details+of+this+.+.+.+We+buried+him+under+a+pile+of+stones%3A+it+wasn%27t+bad.+We+stood+there+freezing.+The+body+lay+on+the+floor%2C+when+we+went+to+pull+him%2C+maybe+spleen+or+whatever%2C+all+would+have+been+damaged.+We+considered+it+and+then+put+small+stones+on+his+body%2C+to+show+our+grief%2Fmark+the+grave.+%22
Then look for the Salon article -- it will be near the top. We live in a world of mass censorship, and you will likely not know why the censors are doing what they are doing.
👍👍
I think contemporary climbers (as of 1999) are just too arrogant to stop and consider the reality of the situation, and insert too much of themselves into the Mallory & Irvine dilemma. Anker, Hahn, and others claiming that they (M&I) didn't summit or couldn't summit I just take to mean that they feel that *they* could not have summited with the gear that M&I were using. It's also interesting that they seem to just be basing their ideas off of their initial gut reactions, and appear to look for things that confirm what they have always believed, rather than gathering evidence and taking an objective look.
I also feel like they have an extraordinary issue with recency bias, all of them. People have been climbing mountains for thousands of years, and while 1924 may seem like some remote time in ancient history, it was actually quite recent on the timeline of humanity and mountaineering. If you examine it through the lens of it actually not being that long ago, then it just becomes a question of could these two people summit? They say no, and point to Irvine's inexperience. I say that that particular logic is idiotic. Irvine proved himself more than capable, as evidenced by the fact that Mallory selected him for the final attack. If Irvine could not hack it, it would have been established much earlier on, likely on the march to Tibet or before Camp III. Rather than requiring technical rock climbing expertise, it has been established that more than anything else, climbing Everest requires the ability to acclimate to the altitude and the nerve to endure harsh conditions while maintaining forward momentum. I point to the Irvine letter from late in the expedition, wherein he is already suffering from fairly severe sunburn, bouts of mild altitude sickness, and other maladies. Through all this, he is still eager to get to that summit, "I'd sure like to have a whack at it myself," (paraphrasing). If his experience was an issue, it would have got the better of him LONG before the final push. Duh. Anker and others just don't want to believe a kid with little experience and questionable gear (in their minds) had the ability to do what they can barely do today (especially Hahn). Too much of their own ego getting the better of objectivity. Could it be that George Mallory was actually a *better* climber than Anker?!? Yeah, actually. I think it's highly likely. Anker is most known for finding Mallory's body, George was known for his climbing abilities alone. Who the hell is Anker to judge whether Mallory could have climbed the second step? What is he factoring in? Surely not his own research, I read his terrible book. Is it that hard to admit that a universally well known climber (Mallory) is better than you? He rated the climb as medium difficulty. Yeah, surely one of the greatest climbers in history couldn't possibly have done it, but Anker could, of course. Gimme a break. People in the 1920s weren't stupid or blind, and it was unequivocal that George Mallory was one of the greatest climbers of that era.
Any objective researcher will say yes, they could. It feels as if Anker, Hahn and others would not have believed people with M&I's gear could have even survived a day at base camp. They were genuinely shocked that the 1924 expedition even got as high as Camp VI. It's just a lack of respect and understanding, really. It is too difficult for them to actually investigate the 1920s expeditions in an objective or thorough way. They constantly mention things that make me think that part of why they believe they did not make it is simply because it was the 1920s, which is of course, moronic and shows a lack of insight. Again, recency bias prevails here. They assume that because it was "so long ago," they must not have known what they were doing. In reality, their expedition was more thoroughly researched and plotted than the 1999 expedition. Shocking.
In summary, Anker does not believe he could have summited if dealt the same gear as M&I. That is my understanding of his ideas on the mystery. He is inserting too much hindsight into the equation. M&I didn't know North Face polypropylene jackets existed, hence they didn't pine for such technology or feel unprepared by not having such technology. They had what they had, which was what they knew, and they did not have the hindrance of knowing how "bad" their gear was (I bet that their gear was just fine honestly).
Lastly, mountaineering is one of those sports that has gotten safer, yes. But altogether better? How does it become objectively better? How can we honestly rate a climber from the 20s by today's metric? I just don't understand. It's a simple matter, really. Despite their poorer gear and looser adherence to ports physiology, they managed to still do what climbers can do today. So. Are they better today, or were they stronger back then? Neither. Some are great no matter their time, place, or circumstances. They would be great in a Patagonia coat and cramp-ons, or in caulks and fleece. They were bron to be great, and no era would impede their greatness. George Mallory and, in all likelihood Sandy Irvine, were great on that level.
It is dissapointing to realize that the "experts" (in every field, not just mountaineering) all use the same speaking tricks as I do when they come to a part of their presentation that they are uncertain of, but which is nonetheless critical to making the case for their hypothesis. I.e., state that which you are least confident of with the greatest confidence and your audience will be less likely to investigate for themselves those portions of your argument.
Yes, Kurosawa addresses that exact issue with the testimony of the bandit. He boldly makes various claims and the louder he is making them, the more problems there are with them.
It is an age old trick and most people are wise to it. A better observation is the modern trend to have "nice" people deliver the parts that are uncertain and then label any attack on those parts an attack on the "nice" person. This trick works quit well.
@@michaeltracy2356 yes, I see that too. I like your term, “post truth era”, for the bizarre time we live in now. I thought I could escape it by diving into the history of mountaineering on Everest. Well, that fantasy didn’t last long.
You should work with a mathematician and do a bayesian analysis of the 4 factors you listed for why mallory and irvine summited. The mathematician can give you a good idea of its probability. Bayesian analysis of historical events is gaining in popularity in historicity circles, for example see richard carriers work.
I am a mathematician and am familiar with bayesian analysis. I am also familiar with trying to force data that does not fit. The statistical data gives us insight into a basic human response to a stimuli -- in this instance, it is called "summit fever", and it refers to the overwhelming desire to reach the summit, even if it results in death. Most people understand that and see how it applies here. But turning it into an exact measurement is pointless. There are numerous factors for which no statistical data exists or could exist.
Also, you may have notice that a theme of this channel is the "Spirit of Man." I will be getting to exactly what the limits of mathematics are and why it does not provide a good model for all reasoning.
Richard Carrier seems interesting, but his target is religious "scholarship." It is trivial to find charlatans in that field. More difficult is to find the non-charlatans. Part of this channel is finding the non-charlatans in various fields, and generally these relates to that same topic -- the Spirit of Man.
Forget the Roshoman effect, I think the way the 1999 party searched Mallory's body has had more of a Rochambeau effect: czcams.com/video/d0H1RSbmlkM/video.html on ever finding out the truth about if Mallory and/or Irvine ever summited. Personally I think Irvine's body is somewhere around Mallory's or in line between where the ice axe was found and around Mallory's body. I think what happened was they were cutting back after having summited due to it getting very cold in the evening and Irvine being the weaker of the 2 climbers probably slipped, fell, and took Mallory with him. Why else would Mallory still have rope around him? I also think Mallory expired further up the mountain and ended up where he is after a number of rock slides. You can kind of tell this the way he was found. Irvine is probably still buried somewhere around Mallory. Maybe a cadaver dog would help pinpoint Irvine?
And how are they meant to het a cadaver dog all the way up there?
a hundred years after the fact and the "smell" is still detectable !!? even if a dog could live at that height - mad.
Have you noticed that publishers since 2000 have demanded significant mistruths or "absence of truth" to get a book published? Even their fiction books astonishingly enough?
Did you notice that the photo of Mallory's boots doesnt show hobnail boots, but ones with rubber grips? That he could have walked the summit ridge in. (Despite Messner (who btw now claims his yeti was a bear)).
There IS a way of finding out the truth about Mallory, by the way. Regards.
Everything is wrong with Odell.
Who could sleep before such a day?... bright weather...
I think, they started as early as possible, to have time enough for difficulties and the way down again, using Sandys rope ladder idea with a gripping anchor for the 2nd step Problem. With your given climbing times, that means, they made it to the top of the world before noon.
They were on the way down to the 3rd step, where Odell has seen them and knew, that they had made it.
And he knew the rest of the story... an accident?... maybe...
So Odell confused them "going strongly for the top" with them descending? Bizarre.
I think Mallory and Irving did reach the top ....they were obviously strong and extremely motivated
I stumbled across these videos the other day. They are very interesting. I have no idea who Michael Tracy is, but one thing is made very clear by these videos. Michael Tracy is about as arrogant and sanctimonious as they come. This fact doesn’t make the videos any less interesting, but it does make me think what a nightmare it’d be to have to interact with this guy on a regular basis. Whew
Michael have you seen the latest Synott interview from Happy Quotient? It will probably just annoy you so don't watch it. A lot of " I heard from an anonymous source" stuff.
Synnott wrote in his book that he has no interest in this subject and only went to Mt Everest because he was paid to do so.
"Truth be told, I wasn’t interested in Mount Everest at all."
Synnott, Mark. The Third Pole (p. 5). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
The narrator says as much in the opening lines of Ghosts Above ..."I never wanted to be here but here I am crawling to the roof of the world. I came here on a National Geographic assignment I couldn't turn down..." (Not clear if spoken by Synnott or Ozturk, but mirrors similar statements in The Third Pole). Later, Synnott says he is done with the "mystery" and will leave it to others -- which he then reverses because an inquiry by a "diplomat."
"So, I guess I’m fortunate that my own Everest journey has come to an end, that my infatuation with the top of the world lasted less than a year, that I’m not haunted by a sense of unfinished business."
Synnott, Mark. The Third Pole (p. 388). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
So, assuming Synnott is telling the truth, he has no interest in this and is just doing it because someone is paying him. Now, I would not accept anything Synnott says without some reason to believe it. But just listening to him speak on the subject it is like night and day between Wade Davis and him. Davis has a genuine passion in the subject and is extremely knowledgeable. Synnott seems annoyed to have to deal with legitimate questions and does not seem to know the basics of the British Expeditions -- that he did not immediately spot that Pan Duo was likely confusing Wilson's body with the one found higher on the mountain is a good indication that he knows little about the subject.
Any legitimate researcher has long accepted that Irvine might never be found. Just the fact that he might have fallen all the way down back in 1924 remains a distinct possibility. So, it is not clear why Synnott is saying "Irvine is not there." Ok, that might be his opinion, but given that he doesn't remotely care about this subject, it is more likely the opinion of the people who paid for the expedition. Not surprisingly, they made an entire video where he says this -- over and over again. And now, the big revelations is, "No, really, Irvine is not there." Yeah, we heard you the first 50 times. How about you release the drone footage and we have a look for ourselves?
In addition, the mountain is closed on the North, so even if there were armies of researchers wishing to head up the mountain looking for Irvine, they couldn't do it this year, probably not next year -- who knows when. So, there is hardly any urgency in publishing what at-best could be considered a half-baked story. Nor is it clear why they would care if a bunch of researchers head up the mountain to have a look for themselves.
If Synnott, Pollard and Norton wish to help resolve the mystery, they can just release their photos. Pollard has a key photo of the watch that could resolve with extremely high probability whether they made the summit. Not quiet a camera with film that can be developed nor even summit rocks in the pocket, but a photo exists that may show the band on the watch as being clasp -- which would tell exactly what time they died and thus the entire climb can be worked out from them. This will be covered in the upcoming watch video.
Jake Norton has numerous photos that relate to the timing of finding the oxygen bottle and whether it was planted there earlier in the day. These photos used to be on the internet, but as soon as it was pointed out that they seemed to indicate the story of the "storm" didn't add up, they were removed. He also has photos of Arstenziev and it is not clear if these were taken on the way up or the way back down. We don't need to see the body, but if they were taken on the way down, the backgrounds in them will indicate what the weather was like. Given that her body is about 100ft from where the bottle is now claimed to have been found, it would show that the story of the "storm" is bullshit.
And of course, Synnott has some access to Nat Geo. Rather than heading to China to ask for film that they likely do not have, how about Synnott heads to Washington DC and "confronts" the head of National Geographic and demands the drone footage be released. I am quite certain the drone footage exists.
It is just funny they are saying "The Chinese have film they won't release because it goes against their narrative." It isn't the Chinese that are refusing to release film -- the drone footage, the excavation footage, lots of things Synnott can "confront" them about.
As with everything, simply look at what people do rather than what they say. Pollard used the drone photos of the portion of the mountain east of the warts in one of his presentations, so they clearly have access to these photos. He has a photo of the watch that he refuses to release. And yet he keeps telling people he is interested in solving the mystery.
@@michaeltracy2356 As expected, a cogent and thorough response. Thank you!
Does no one know the Chinese climber that picked up the axe? Seems like an easy thing to find out
That is a good point. It is odd that they apparently found Irvine and a VPK camera, but not Wyn-Harris' ice axe which is known to have been along their route.
@@michaeltracy2356 I mean without accusing him of anything it just seems like he could give some answers
Pretty sure all the members from those expeditions are dead. Whatever they knew, they took with them.
@@michaeltracy2356 well, maybe the grandkids heard something or inherited some things. Idk, it just doesn't seem like the type of story people could keep to themselves
Just finished a deep dive on the Chinese expedition... Not sure if I'd believe everything that was said... Allegedly one the three that summited, Qu Yinhua, climbed the second step barefoot
Wait a minute...Messner killed a Yeti?
I believe the stories that he was found in the 70’s by the Chinese cause of where they say the British climber was discovered and that they also pushed him off and tried to recover the photos but couldnt from the camera.They also say the camera is in a museum in China.Irvine will never be found up there cause he is no longer up there.LoudLove
🔊🔊🔊💜💜💜
Could you provide a reference to them "pushing him off"? And also a reference to both who and what is said about the camera being in a museum?
Seems not a lot of thought beyond personal glory went into what to do if they actually found Mallory or Irvine. Just on an ethical level, it is very disappointing.
I think the desire, which for some has turned into a need, to believe that Mallory and Irvine made it first, often substitutes the element of determinative evidence. We can infer many things from the circumstantial evidence available regarding their expedition. Unfortunately, we end up on the same spot; inferences. On the other hand, we know for a fact that Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay made it. No inferences needed. No assumptions. Until something changes, the answer to the question of whether Mallory and Irvine reached the summit of Everest will have to remain just that, a question.
You assume Hillary and Tenzing told the truth and that the photo of Tenzing on the summit was not fake. Reasonable assumptions. But assumptions none the less.
It would be no different if Irvine were found with a summit photo in his camera and summit rocks in his pockets. You would then have to "assume" whether someone faked them or not. Same if he was found with an empty camera and empty pockets. You would have to "infer" whether someone set it up that way or not.
And this is hardly an academic exercise. People claim summits using false photos. (www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/photoshopped-images-false-claims-are-everest-ascents-too-easy-to-fake/story-vynOpUUpxnFclEfz8hkCvI.html ) And whether the Chinese made it in 1960 and if so, how they made it are legitimate questions.
Of course, your "curiosity" is only as to whether they made it to the summit. It would not say anything about how they got there nor why some people try to hard so that we don't known. And that is what this channel is about.
Uh, no. Their ascent was documented. Their description of the climb has been verified by other climbers. Indeed, Hillary’s description of the summit was spot on according to Ernst Schmied. So it’s just more than a picture-although I find it very difficult that their photo could have been faked back in the early 50’s in a manner that would have fooled the entire alpine climbing community, and the entire world). With Mallory we truly just have inferences.
Nope. Their ascent to the summit was not "documented" by anyone else. No one else was there. Photos were easily faked back in the 50s. Stalin is famous of faking photos and he died in 1953. So, you learned something new today. In the 1950's an prior, it was very easy to fake photos. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union )
And then you "assume" that Ernst Schmeid also knows what the summit looks like. Again, a reasonable assumption. But an assumption.
If you were not there, if you did not personally witness it, you are "assuming" something -- that some other person is telling the truth. I know you don't like this very basic fact, but wishing it away does not make it so.
"even people who hunt Yetis can tell the truth" .....ah the intricacies of being a human
Shameful that those two people went back… and did this
Why on earth would someone risk their ass to move a heavy oxygen bottle? To what end? I can't imagine a good reason but that doesn't mean their can't be one obviously, but I can't imagine one.
If you assume someone want to make it seem that Mallory and Irvine did not summit, then the whole thing will make sense.
As it stands there have been in excess 10 000 summits if George Mallory could not summit Mt Everest
Who could ?
Yes, mountaineering is such an exact science. (Are you kidding??)
I question most serious climbers' judgment at pretty much everything BUT climbing.
I've been interested in this expedition for a long time, but I'm not a mountain climber and I don't know much about the community or the technical side of things.
I hadn't heard of the desecration of Mallory's remains before this video, and that's really sad to hear--especially that someone slid under the body to look at his face.
If that's accurate... Well dammit all. It'd have been better for him never to have been found. This isn't a crime to investigate, it's just a mystery... Maybe it should remain that way =/ I'm beginning to hope Irvine or the camera are never found.
They only hurt themselves and others who care, a corpse doesn't have hurt feelings.
hmmm I dont think the searchers were disrespectful. How many think Mallory would be ok with be searched? He had given his life to the mountain, and to history. Did God sent him someone to tell the truth? This was a opportunity to possibly document a spectacular achievement. Suppose the camera or summit rocks had been found?? What would we then think of the searchers conduct? Tell me again the altitude he was found at? Tell me again how clearly we can think at that altitude? IF we could choose the people "we wanted" to find Mallory, these guys may not have been first. But, who would the best choice? AND what would the "best people" have done differently? I also think they have exercised restraint in their display / sale of THEIR pics. Suppose the camera (with film) was found under his face? Would we want a pic of that? Now there is only a search for Irvine. Has anyone written a set of rules to be followed if he is found? Has the "best team" been picked to find him? WHO is that? Who picked that team? Who wants to make a list of what good conduct at Irvine's grave is? Will they check to see how the rope is tied? ( to see who was leading?) Suppose it appears as though there are rocks in HIS pockets?? Suppose it appears as though there is a camera tucked in under ALL his clothes? What will be done then?
@@samstewart4807 god doesn't exist.
We'll never know how Mallory would feel about it, since he's dead and gone.
Who cares if the camera was under his face? I'm saying that if this is what it takes to find out whether they summited, then it's not worth finding out.
Mallory (assessing the second step with Irvine): "Let's go around."😊
[Don't hire these climbers as archeologists with their managing and handling skills of bodies and artifacts.]
I still don't understand what there would have been to gain by so willfully avoiding investigating or talking about summit rocks. Was not answering the question more valuable over the last 20 years than knowing whether or not there were rocks in pockets? Did it simply keep the chinese happy? Even saying there weren't rocks found isn't proof of a non-ascent, it's just proof of no rocks. Was it potentially dangerous to even talk about it, while a semi-fictional camera was not? I am a naive person, but in all the hours I've watched of your stuff I don't think I've ever understood the potential motive for doing it wrong on purpose and dissembling. Carelessness and ego drunkenness make sense but that really doesn't cover the extent of their ineptitude over such a long period of time.
I get into it in "Bejing, We Have A Problem." The issue is that summit rocks can be used to determine whether the Chinese reached the summit in 1960. When you read Ghosts on Everest, Detectives on Everest, or The Third Pole, you will be amazed at how much time is spent discussing how the Chinese made the summit in 1960 and will be left scratching your head as to what this has to do with Mallory and Irvine.
In any case, the issue with summit rocks has been known about for years, and neither National Geographic nor Discovery -- who both made videos about the "mystery" in 2020 didn't mention them once.
@@michaeltracy2356 thanks.
This video is very dense but your comment concerning interpreting religious texts is deep to the point of being creepy. As someone who trained in that exact activity I can assure you that the entire business of interpreting the christian Bible is a sham and the vast majority of people who do it are only successful because they are too busy being dishonest about themselves to be honest about their work. 1. the bible is written in languages and a format where you need to already have a point of view to make grammatical sense of it. you have to already know what it says to be 100 percent sure of what it says. And you absolutely cannot be very sure of what they're saying. A small adjustment of context can move the structure of a clause which can completely change the meaning of a related clause several phrases or even paragraphs away. 2. the bible was written by dozens of people of different cultures over hundreds of decades to address very specific concerns using very specific storytelling and social traditions that they were familiar with. Many of those people are addressing recent history through their own rashomon lens, either wistfully or willfully misstating what they heard happened from someone else. 3. you cannot unify the bible without contradictions if you pore over every word. It only makes remote sense if you step very far back and see the overall picture using whatever personal lens you've acquired. If you try to knit all the words together you will be both wrong about what those words say and miss the overall point.
The prevailing view of the bible for the last few hundred years is that it is 30,000 sentences listed in a fairly generic order, and they they are not fundamentally or contextually codependent but somehow must all be equally 100 percent true and not contradictory.
Your work reminds me of that time of my life and while I appreciate it very much I still get the creeps sometimes.
the first years of exploration of anything before then thought impossible ,, the challenges effort sacrafice are true wonders.
then it de evolves into passing others injured afraid alone by. with excuses.
then their bodies become way points,, objects . . the whole ideal becoming repulsive sinful arrogant.
There are thousands of unclaimed corpses in the world's battlefields. Grab a trowel, and start digging until your noble conscience tires of it.
Michael you are wrong but tell a nice story. Que tenga un buen dia amigo.