Everest 1996: Sandy Pittman and the Yellow Brick Road
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 04. 2024
- A look at the popular accounts of the Everest 1996 disaster. Looks at the "Big Secret" and evaluates Jon Krakauer's climb, comparing it to that of Sandy Pitman's.
Notes:
Krakauer states the bottles he was carrying weighed 6.6 lbs and lasted between 5-6 hours. This is only consistent with 3 liter bottles. A 4 liter bottle weighs over 8 lbs and last over 8 hours. At no point did any bottle Krakauer nor anyone else was using last 8 hours. Thus, the Adventure Consultant team were also using 3 liter bottles.
I am fully aware that "The Climb" says the Mountain Madness (MM) clients received 3 bottles. However, this is not consistent with the number of bottles MM took on the upper mountain, the number of Sherpa used (more bottles means more Sherpas), not the stated plan in "The Climb" for the caching:
At the South Summit, as had been planned, each descending climber would pick up a third canister that the Sherpas were to cache there.
Boukreev, Anatoli; DeWalt, G. Weston. The Climb (pp. 130-131). St. Martin's Publishing Group.
That would have the clients summit and return to South Summit all on 2 bottles. And then use a full bottle for the short period it typically takes to descend from South Summit to South Col. That "plan" does not remotely make any sense. Instead, the four bottle system would have the climbers pick up a full bottle on South Summit, leaving a partially used bottle which they would pick up on the return.
This is exactly what "The Climb" says was supposed to happen in a different passage:
So, when Beidleman and the clients arrived at the South Summit, their cache of oxygen should have included three full canisters* and whatever partial canisters had been discarded when the climbers had changed bottles on the way up.
Boukreev, Anatoli; DeWalt, G. Weston. The Climb (pp. 157-158). St. Martin's Publishing Group.
So, the "The Climb" has them both picking up a bottle at South Summit on the ascent and on the descent. Even assuming they didn't use an earlier cache point, they all left with 2 bottles, so that still makes 4.
It is entirely possible that Boukreev was confused about the exact scheme to be used and that explains why he was confused about the remaining bottles on South Summit. Boukreev was generally not climbing with the group and was not involved in switching their oxygen out. He certainly did not carry bottles to any of the cache points.
By Debasish biswas kolkataDerivative work MagentaGreen - This file was derived from: Hillary Step near Everest top.jpg:, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
By Uwe Gille (talk · contribs) - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
By Tirthakanji - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
curid=27668124
• Jon Krakauer · Into Th...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @michaeltracy2356
Please read the Description for additional information about the oxygen bottle use. If you wish to quote some book (Into Thin Air, The Climb, etc) in order to "prove" something, you should state why you believe the statement in the book is true and what other evidence corroborates it as well as address the statement of mine that you are trying to "disprove" and explain why the evidence in support of it is wrong or incomplete. Just because Jon Krakauer wrote something does not make it true. Just because it has been repeated for years also does not make it true.
For a more detailed discussion, and to more easily include links, and photos, join us on the discord: discord.gg/EGuxCy2H
I get an error on the Discord link, says it’s expired?
@@adventuresgonewrong discord.gg/jRWRysEj
Thanks for standing up for Sandy. Most people don't know what an experienced climber she was by 1996.
She climbed 6 of the 7 highest peaks by that point..
Sandy had also climbed six of the seven summits before this second attempt at Everest. That is not "inexperienced."
What level of support did she have on those other expeditions?
@@stoneymcneal2458no amount of support discounts the experience climbing mountains she, or anyone, had. This argument is barking up the wrong tree. You need a certain level of experience to be able to climb at this level no matter the level of support received from the guides. It is frequently misinterpreted by many(mostly ignorant people) that a guide can simply do the climb for their client no matter their fitness or experience. It's simply impossible. It's like saying "I had to go take a shit, but I'm a paying client, so I had my guide go do it for me instead". Impossible
@@stoneymcneal2458 Same as any other climber. She attempted the Kangshung face with David Brashears. I doubt he would take an incompetent climber on that route.
@@Tenebarum You might be right, but it is well known that money talks in the mountaineering industry, as it does in all other for profit industries. She, like many other climbers, paid a premium to have others establish the camps, bring the supplies, set the ropes, provide to O2, show them the route, escort them along the journey, bring along the sherpas for support, and be there to protect the paying customer should something go wrong. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the true level of skill required for such a daunting task.
@@stoneymcneal2458 who cares? Very few climbers go solo on the extreme peaks. There is a support industry, and it's mutually beneficial. It's still tough, and it's still risky.
Being unlikable is not the same as being guilty, but it’s often perceived that way
... by people who have no critical thinking skills. Very true.
1000000
Being dragged up by a sherpa on a short rope, and saved from death by Boukreev only to say there were no hero's that night has the pungent stench of a narcissistic individual. Idc what kind of coffee pot she had though..
@@PsychoKillertheGameyep. big time narcissist. That behavior couldn’t be described in any other terms.
It is easy to make Pittman to look bad and take most of the heat. But Rob Hall & Scott Fisher who were supposed to be the adults on the mountain. Showed little regard for safety. And they both set the stage for tragedy.
Let's be honest she had no business being there it was only because she was a socialite that had to do something dangerous to earn respect from her family
Were they that much more risky than most attempts though? If not for the storm they may have all survived.
There have been more Sandy Pittmans before and after 1996.
@@chrispbacon6810 Not a single person who climbed Everest after the first expedition summitted had any business being there. You could maybe argue the first people from each nation to summit if you really wanted. But nobody in the last 20-30 years has had any actual business climbing the mountain. It is entirely an ego trip. There is not a single person climbing who has some legitimate reason outside of some form of ego. So using that as a reason for why she shouldn't be there is the aforementioned misogyny, which you're poorly disguising. Stop hating women. Everyone climbing Everest is doing it for personal reasons. Her personal reasons are no less legitimate then anyone else who's climbed Everest's personal reasons.
@@chrispbacon6810 So climbing Denali, Annapurna weren't dangerous enough? 😅
@@CharlesFreck 100%
I am so glad you have spoken up about this and already highlighted many other facts that have not been highlighted at all !! ... the STORM was without doubt the biggest contributing factor in the deaths and injuries on that mountain ...and the speed of it.. how anyone could blame Pittman makes me question them !! Lots of mistakes made but the Storm was a killer ... thanks for your awesome work .
The mountaineering disaster CZcams audience is about 80% male. It is unfortunate that so many of the creators in the area cater to the lowest common denominator while they pretend to be enlightened or thoughtful people.
Thank you for making this video. I was getting very frustrated with all of the videos blaming Sandy Pitman. She had a lot of climbing experience when this happened. She had completed the other 6 seven summit climbs prior to the 1996 Everest climb. She was not in a leadership position so its crazy to blame her for the whole thing when she was never in charge.
"She was not in a leadership position...." exactly,
Krakauer left some stuff out of into the wild too.
I'm interested to know what, if you could link me anything good to read/watch? McCandless was one of a kind. The story has always both inspired and haunted me.
Some of these videos are libel. My favorite is the video entitled how she killed 8 people on Everest. She's one hell of a climber then. Summits and kills 5 climbers, then swarps around to the north side and takes out 3 more.
Very good and measured video. Sandy Hill went through a lot of public condemnation for doing the same thing everyone else did. Climbed or tried to climb a mountain.
Yes, she apparently carried a cappuccino machine in her pack. Ended up being a few bits and pieces for a method she had to froth the milk so it would be “like a pretend cappuccino” that she left at camp one. Talk about vilification!
@@GoodieWhiteHat She used one of those tiny aluminum Cuban coffee pots.
@@Tenebarum yeah, like many have. But didn’t she froth it up with something? I thought I remembered her saying something about how she did that in an interview.
@GoodieWhiteHat she had a jar she shook up powdered milk and water in. I used to do that too, so I found it believable.
I just don’t get why she felt the need to kill the Indian climbers, they had nothing to do with any of it.
I've seen many videos and movies about the 1996 Everst disaster, and I've read the two most famous books about it. But no one has ever said as clearly as you that the main mistake was dragging that Doug Handson to the summit. There was no sense about it! Rob Hall and Andy Harris would certainly still be alive and they could have helped others descend, including Scott Fisher as you say yourself. Thank you for this clear statement!
Yeah I've read about this disaster numerous times and watched the movie as well, and from what I know I'd tend to agree with you. It seems like the most fatal error was Hall breaking the guidelines to take Hansen to the summit. That mistake alone cost Hall, Hansen, and Harris their lives. If it wasn't for that mistake Hall and Harris would have been around to help others too, so other people might have been saved as well.
THANK YOU FOR THIS. I HAVE WAITED FOR THIS EVER SINCE I READ THE KRAKAUER, VIESTURS, BRASHEARS ACCOUNTS. THE MISOGYNY IS BLATANT.
Your well researched bluntness and humor is quite refreshing in the face of so much Thom Foolery!
Thank you for speaking out against the misogyny in this coverage! I’ve been enjoying going through your channel and look forward to you getting more followers.
The 3 oxygen bottles compared to mountain madness 4 bottles is a massive fact.... the planned stunt/prank also another major factor ... add a fast rolling viscous storm... only by God's grace no more lives were lost ....and many were saved ... easily all could have lost their lives ... Great stuff Michael Tracy !!
You are always fair and reasoned, which is greatly appreciated.
But it sure did sell well.
Wow the stunt. I saw that in Lene's book but wasn't sure how it all tied in. After watching your video, a lot more things make sense with that lens. Now I wonder if Lou's claim of Rob and Scott really wanting to get both teams to the summit at the same time was related. He also said Rob was really obsessed with records. Were they planning on getting a record number of clients to the summit and planning something big (the stunt?) for when they all got there?
Whether or not Fischer planned a stunt, the fact that he failed to turn around at 2 pm is the reason he died. The same can be said for Hall. The slowness of the climb seems to be more attributable to the possibly 2 hr delay in placing the fixed ropes, than to poor fitness of too many clients.
For those interested, there's a 40-minute 2023 interview with Pittman on CZcams: "Podcast: Surviving Everest & social death with Sandy Hill". There's also an EXCEPTIONAL 1.5-hour interview on CZcams with Neal Beidleman. He says it's the only time that he's really gone into detail about Everest '96: "Neal Beidleman | Mill House Podcast - Episode 19".
Of further interest may be an August '96 article in Vanity Fair, "Snow Blind Ambition," which can be read by googling that title.
She really came across well in that video. Well spoken, excellent story teller, sense of humor and likeable.
@@Tenebarum I completely agree. I liked her. She's also my hero for never printing her story or capitalizing on her experience, like most of the rest of them. I thank Michael Tracy for laying this story out so precisely. It really helps exculpate her.
@@boudiccaleduckel4680 She's an interesting person for sure. I thought she handled the situation in a classy and mature way.
Charlotte Fox also says in the interviews on the microsite for DB's Frontline in 2006 or whenever that they were waiting at the top for Scott so they could all celebrate together. She doesn’t mention a prank but it does confirm they were waiting for a specific thing, not just lost track of time…
"CHARLOTTE FOX: It was my feeling that we celebrated a little too long. We were waiting for Scott to come up so we could descend as a team, but he was taking the longest time. And people were enjoying the day. The day was beautiful. There wasn't a cloud out there."
Great stuff. I read Krakauer's book numerous times and it always seemed like he was portraying himself as a serious climber in a group where everyone else had issues of some kind. Off topic, one thing I've always wondered with so many different teams caching bottles. How often do they find that some have been taken mistakenly ( or nephariously ) by other climbers?
Every single time. Oxygen theft is a huge problem.
@@michaeltracy2356I’m so glad you mentioned this oxygen theft, Michael. Cause I have never read or seen footage about it - ever!
Yet I know from experiencing many adventures, that oxygen theft and similar thefts must happen.
Thank you Michael Tracy, for opening the door to a much more critical evaluation of the stories of Thom Pollard, and many others.
By the way, cortisol deficiency can always occur to a person in a prolonged high stress situation. Possibly more so, to a high stress person. Dexamethasone would act as a miracle drug. ( a replacement of our most critical hormone). I'll shut up now. Regards
I'm glad to see you taking this on. I never paid it too much attention, but then the fresh round of anti-Pittman hit pieces started recently and I started thinking more about it. Pittman is clearly in my mind way too convenient a scapegoat, but the one that actually bothers me is the other convenient scapegoat Boukreev, who is in truth as best I can discern it the only true hero in the whole story. Krakauer is clearly spinning a self-serving yarn, but I'm not quite sure why someone like Beidleman is willing to latch on to the "blame Pittman and Boukreev" narrative. Probably partly self-serving on his part as well. Reading between the lines it's easy to find fault with some of the sherpas, but blaming them is not going to be a narrative that sells. Obviously Fisher and Hall should probably come in for the most scrutiny but I guess people don't want to speak ill of the dead.
I am now in the '96 ME tragedy rabbit hole so I am watching (and preparing to read) EVERYTHING I can find. And the more I watch the more I am convinced Krakauer is throwing blame on others just to hide how much selfish coward he was that night, passing everyone without single thought of consideration
Thanks for explaining the Yellow Brick Road! That explains why Rob Hall was able to offer a lower price to Outside magazine for Krakauer- he was spending less on oxygen.
Thank you for doing this! I’ve been waiting for your reply/rebuttal to the “others” who have posted such negative things about Sandy. I can’t stand Tom Thom Pollard’s videos, he must think he’s a great journalist, videographer? Such cowards. Keep up the great work and I look forward to your upcoming videos. Cheers!
TY 🙏🙏. More good, concise, well presented and interesting work.
Glad you enjoyed it!
thom pollard doing a video on david sharp when i have no doubt he would have just walked past him also
I’m not a climber at all like AT ALL but it’s so interesting. I find myself totally involved with these climbs. It’s seems people have a pardon my language but a “ hard on for Jon and his book”. While I believe that he is a type A climber and a decent person he is also extremely ego centric and wants people to think he’s amazing. Even his description of the guy in Alaska that died in that bus is an ego driven person. I think Sandy is the same way with her actions but as for climbing not so much. Jon left someone they died. He couldn’t have that on his resume so he attacked others including Sandy for her questionable actions. Oh well love the series. Mystery, adventure, technology,science, psychology, human body all of it is awesome. Thanks
I get it, she is the perfect scapegoat if you just…. disregard the important fact that everybody (apart from Scott that was not near her) on her team made it back safety. Rob and Doug on another team getting themselves into trouble high above… that darn Sandy!!
I love this series. Thank you for your extensive research.
Thank you for this!
Did you not watch Neal Beidleman's rare and excellent interview on the Mill House Podcast a couple years ago? He is very tactful, honest, and direct, and clearly mentions how Lopsang's "dragging" of Sandy was a primary reason why Lopsang did not fix the ropes above the Balcony, which in turn caused a massive delay which was one of the main problems/mistakes of the disaster. Pittman should have simply refused the short roping. This does not make her responsible for the disaster, as obviously there are multiple reasons and factors, but reducing the criticism of her to 'misogyny' reeks of unearned virtue signaling.
I sure did see it. Why do you think he changed the entire story about the descent? So, both Krakauer made it all up? Not sure why you focus on Pittman when the guy is dropping nuclear bombs on Krakauer's narrative. Maybe listen to it again. You seem to have missed some things.
As for mysyogny... I'll give you a homework assignment. Find Krakauer's "cum" jokes in his book and comment on each of them stating why he used the "joke" and whether there is a pattern as to who he makes such jokes about. Post again without doing the homework, and you will be banned.
Even Habeler slit down on his butt in 1978 to get down faster... So it appears to me as quite a double standard to portray Pittman as incompetent becase of that (as is often implied).
Some people say they saw Krakauer slide down on his butt...
And Krakauer, right in front of me, hardly hesitates and he starts glissading† down on his rear in the fresh snow. And, I’m thinking that’s a good idea, so I give him maybe fifteen yards, and I’m in there right behind him.”‡
‡ Jon Krakauer has not the same memory. He says that he “did no glissading whatsoever during the descent” and that, perhaps, Adams had mistaken Yasuko Namba for him. Adams insists it was Krakauer. Such are memories at high altitude.
Boukreev, Anatoli; DeWalt, G. Weston. The Climb (p. 169). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Very well done. I have pondered this event much over the last few years and was confused by differing accounts. I am not sure it is all completely untangled, but this has I believe improved the overall accuracy of the account.
I feel so bad for Sandy being called in experienced and the villain, if someone is a villain it's Krakauers bullshit.
AWESOME to see you cover this. Thanks!
The storm's progress towards Everest was known and ignored and it was not the surprise it has been depicted as. Another factor was found by scientists (possible NASA, can't recall) a while ago: meteorological conditions meant that there was less oxygen than even the usual reduced amounts.
Yeah, I had always read that Sandy was the reason at least some died, so it's nice to hear another perspective. Can't wait for the other videos in ths series.
I'm not sure Rob Hall was not also part of the problem. He knew Doug Hansen was nearly exhausted, but instead of ordering him to turn back, Hall offered to accompany him to the summit. Hansen had failed in his summit bid the year before, and Rob Hall had promised him that he would get him to the top if he returned to Everest for one last time. Hansen respected Hall, and surely would have turned around if Hall had insisted on that, rather than unwisely agreeing to help Hansen keep going.
You're making assumptions based on hearsay. We don't know what was ever really said or the exact information. You also can't order another man to do anything. They both made decisions based on the information and their emotions at the time. Any decision is easy from an armchair.
If Rob had turned Doug around both plus Andy Harris would have survived but then again if there was no storm all 3 may have survived
Yeah, I really feel upset at the treatment of Doug, not respecting Doug's own knowledge of his own body. Nobody should be convinced against their own intuition & self-knowledge to go up any mountain, let alone one w a Death Zone. This seems to be such a huge failure of leadership.
Just because someone has summited before doesn't automatically confer upon them leadership, wisdom & group management skills. They're different skillsets. Maybe they overlap some, but I personally would never trust a first or second time group leader. Group dynamics take on a life of their own and it takes skills to manage it
Doug already turned around to go back down. It was Rob that convinced him to go up with him. If anyone who’s responsible for Doug and Rob’s death, it was Rob.
@@kevinhsu8184 Agreed. Rob has been put on a pedestal for some reason, when his lack of leadership proved fatal.
Scott Fisher took the madness in "Mountain Madness" too far...
I remember being fascinated by Krakauers book in 99...
Never looked into the 96 disaster since...
Thann you for providing a more fact based narrative Michael!
Nice scoop on the big secret of the climb, and nice analysis of other claims reported previously.
Thank you again for this video. I have learned a great deal about the 1996 climb. since following you. Found a used copy of The Climb ( Boukreev) and looking for Sheer Will ( Groom) now. It has become pretty clear Krakauer's version is riddled with errors. Sandy pissed a lot of her fellow survivors off, when she showed up for the after climb press conference in makeup and fashionably dressed. Smh. Poor excuse for scapegoating her for things she had no control of. Truth be told, had not the storm rolled in on them, all of the climbers would have made it to camp 4, with the possible exception of Doug Hansen. He was in the throes of altitude sickness. The storm was the real villain of the story.
Agreed.
I think many of the people who criticize the actions of these climbers forget that they are in a place where one or two hours is the difference between life and death.
Thank-you so much for doing this! I’ve read most of Krakauer’s stuff and while I initially loved it and found it enthralling, the more I learned about Sandy Pittman, which was not nearly as bad as Krakauer portrayed her, the more I started to dislike Krakauer.
I am curious about two things, but maybe not on topic. Firstly as I recall, Jon Krakauer stated that line had been laid above top camp where it wasnt needed and they then used that for the summit line. But if so many got lost close to the top camp, surely it was needed.
Secondly, researchers have stated that a storm (presumably low pressure) can reduce oxygen availability by 13%. That could have been a critical factor for Hall, Fischer, and the others when they ran out of oxygen. It seems that Hall and Fischer could literally not move? Am asking?
Yes, Krakauer's statement that fixing the ropes immediately above South Col "where really not needed" is a bit odd. First, there were no ropes fixed immediately above S Col as he states. Second, as you note, had there been, the people could have found the camp easily because they would just grab a rope and follow it into camp.
The Montenegrins, who’d got even higher, had installed some fixed line, but in their inexperience they’d used all they had in the first 1,400 feet above the South Col, wasting it on relatively gentle slopes where it wasn’t really needed.
Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 182). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Curiously, Krakauer contradicts himself...
At 6:30, as the last of the daylight seeped from the sky, I’d descended to within 200 vertical feet of Camp Four. Only one obstacle now stood between me and safety: a bulging incline of hard, glassy ice that I would have to descend without a rope.
Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 201). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
So, on the ascent there are 1,400 feet of ropes fixed by fools where it is not necessary. But then when he is descending the last 200 ft, the ropes magically have disapearred as has the easy terrain, turning into glassy ice for which a rope is necessary. Makes for a good story, but as soon as you look at what he really wrote, it doesn't make any sense.
The storm and lower pressure was certainly a factor, but an avoidable one if Doug Hansen and Scott Fischer had turned around at 2PM. Had either one done so, they would still be alive and had Hansen done so, Rob Hall and Andy Harris would also be alive, and likely Yasuko Namba. I will get into exactly what Krakauer was saying about Harris in a future video, as that likely could have save Harris, Hall, and Hansen.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks for answering. It elucidates it, but Im not sure I'm much clearer about it, as you imply. Its contradictory. I guess a lot of climbers without oxygen at high altitude get very confused about what happened at times. (cf Lincoln Hall). But I can work on this. Best Regards
It was super easy to tell years ago what a doof Krakauer was. Sandy was a pretty good mountaineer with some great climbs under her belt by 95:
Aconcagua
Denali
Vinson
Elbris
Kilimanjaro
Kosciusko
Punkak Jaya.
Krakauers accomplishments:
Rock climbing. Writing books
Brilliant. Wonderful to have your analysis about this event.
This is a fascinating video. While it's true that memories at that altitude have to be taken with a grain of salt, Gammelgaard's account is immediately plausible. The idea that a stunt was planned for the summit fills in a gaping hole in the middle of the narrative, as far as timelines and decision-making. Given what we know about the publicity situation (i.e. that Fischer had wanted Krakauer to come with him before he was underbid by Hall) it makes perfect sense that Fischer would have tried to compensate by doing something dramatic on summit day that would have had to make it into the planned article.
As far as I remember, Boukreev doesn't actually give an explanation in his book for the long summit wait time. This would make sense if there's something about it he doesn't want to mention, but is trying not to distort the facts (as he understands them) beyond that. Boukreev is already reacting to what he sees as unfair judgment of his actions by outsiders who don't understand mountaineering, so it makes sense for him to have left out a stunt that would have invited such judgment on Fischer. Especially since he seems to blame planning problems (especially with the oxygen) for what happened, and would therefore have decided the stunt wasn't relevant. The author who wrote the actual text of the book (DeWalt) might not have known to question the long wait time.
Bukreev in the book seems frustrated an puzzled by long time on the summit, even writes that he tried to make people go down. There is a chance he was not aware. Because he would probably be very mad about the idea of "stunt on the summit". In soviet sportive mountaineering tradition such things were a huge no. Long stays on the summit were a big no as a whole, as such things were known to lead to accidents on the descent. And he was a sportsman above anything else. Also, it would have pretty easy to hide from him as he was not fluent in english and worked with sherpas a lot so spent less time with clients than other guides.
@@Sollinare That makes quite a lot of sense, actually. That might also give context to Fischer's decision to have Boukreev descend to camp quickly (which was the subject of so much contention afterwards); if he wasn't in the know or wasn't fully onboard, Fischer might have thought it would be easier to send him down.
Thanks for this video. All the vitriol thrown at Sandy Hill Pittman tires me; it smacks of scapegoating to me. Of course, I wasn’t there, it was a hell of a storm, and this is Everest. I don’t villainize anyone; but I think commercial competition and hypoxia-induced mental confusion played a big role in the tragedy.
Fair to say Thom Pollard has made a decent living or status from finding Mallory in 99. Certainly made his bread out of it, find it abit crass to be honest from the story in 99, been played out far too many times by the likes of Pollard.
Not knocking their endevour and achievement but leave it where it is in 99 now
The story that micheal tracey looks into regarding the routes and finer detials for 1924 and mallory/irvine etc develops the story rather than use it for some kind of barter or profit.
Sorry but been bugging me for a while.
Honestly, having started researching this event without the bias of Into Thin Air or any of the media coverage from the time, I can say that the blaming of Sandy Pittman makes zero sense. I can agree she made some missteps in the time following, but missteps in the public eye and being responsible for multiple deaths are two VERY different, and VERY unrelated things. I've seen no compelling evidence that supports the notions that Pittman was unqualified or responsible for any of the delays that day. If anything, the evidence points to the expedition leaders making bad decisions that likely would have been fine if the weather hadn't turned. Sadly, it did and lives were lost.
I met Scott Fischer in the early ‘80s in the Andes. I found his laid-back optimism and cavalier attitude to be fun, refreshing. We remained in touch until ’96. This is the first I’ve heard of a “stunt.” Of course that doesn’t mean there isn’t something in this new gossip. But, if ropes were to be fixed below the Hillary step then it was not Scott’s fault they weren’t there. He was meticulous in his planning, and he openly shared his beliefs and experience in this regard. I met Anatoli several times before and after ’96. You had to patient with him, as you must be with Sherpas, as English was not his first language. A number of mountaineers, pros and amateurs alike, were unable to tolerate him for that reason. I chatted with Sandy on two occasions after ’96. She had a solid knowledge of big mountains and what they demand. And, she had an odd personality. So do I. As of ’96, rating big mountain nous among women, Wanda Rutkiewicz would be the ten, Araceli Segarra an eight and Sandy Hill-Pittman a six. For about three years after his death, I wondered what Scott was thinking that day and decided I would never know and let it go. Maybe we should all just let it go.
Thanks for sharing. It is always interesting to hear peoples personal stories about such events.
@@birgitmelchior8248I don’t think it’s about the language itself, it’s cultural difference is all. I have a bunch of Russian colleagues I find very hard to work with. Even though I learned to like them, for me, they come across as rude and unpleasant. It’s not that they’re bad people, we’re just raised in a different way and sometimes our personalities aren’t a good match.
@@birgitmelchior8248 So I think you can understand why someone like Anatoli might be difficult to “tolerate” for some people with a more western style upbringing.
@@birgitmelchior8248 Yeah sure, but even when we’re aware of cultural differences it’s still hard to deal with it at times. Plus the language barrier and the pressure of being in a high altitude mountain… you don’t want to be stuck there with people you find unpleasant and have trouble communicating with.
Obviously I never met Anatoli, but he probably had an opinion about other climbers as well. It goes both ways. Nothing wrong with it.
@@birgitmelchior8248 I mean I bet he had plenty of climbing partners he was fond of and they were fond of him as well. But you know when you’re working as a guide you don’t get to choose your clients… and you’re the one getting paid, so yeah you’re the one who’s supposed to adapt.
That’s nice of you to consider how he must’ve felt. But Anatoli seemed like a very tough guy who loved what he did. I think he was fine.
Very curious! Great work on piecing all this together. When can we expect the parts 2 and 3?
Thanks!
This is only the second of your videos I am watching but since you're talking about the number of oxy bottles, I'd like to add that Scott's team used old Soviet bottles, supplied by Boukreev. Problem with these was that American regulators didn't fit them properly and had to be manually adjusted... which can be a problem at altitude in the cold.
Mark Matthews rip
Krak was on assingment and had this material out very quickly. History has not been kind to his version of events. But by being first or one of the first and also journalists by trade raked in the sales. How many who currently climb do so because of that book?
The blame of this should be put on the leaders of each group. What plan did they have if something went seriously wrong. Mt Everest seems to have dished out some Karma of her own. Pitman did seemed a little righteous, but she wasn't calling the shots. I'm no expert but it seemed like shameless promotion was more important than the safety of everyone. Bad decisions were made, the weather was diabolical, and the mother goddess of the earth had something to say about it.
I understood that Scott had been sick with a kind of flue bug and probably had not fully recovered. It makes little sense that a climber of his caliber would be so slow (having sumitted before without oxygen)
I would imagine Messner would have opinions on the use of oxygen at all after showing it could be climbed without oxygen. I agree that Krakauer has written in such a way as to promote his own ability. A passage he wrote about the village of Lobuche raised a red flag for me that he had little experience of Nepal or the Himalayas. I always considered him a "Wannabee"
Are not all the authors promoting their abilities?
And Scott was drinking that day.
Some other videos expose John Krakauer's lies and how he minimizes his own actions, but it infuriates me how the misogyny against Sandy Pittman has been allowed to stand. She was a more experienced climber than Krakauer when these events took place but he acts like she's a helpless climber who had to be carried up when some of the photos used to expose his bottleneck lies show her climbing on her own. He minimizes his own actions but blows up and demonizes her to the point where she gets all the blame. It's disgusting.
The gap between life and death is never very large but at 29,000 feet it’s razor thin. It’s saddening to see what were great challenges of human determination treated with almost casualness. Until reality reasserts itself.
Great analysis.
its so rare to see anyone mention Sandy Pitman without rampant misogyny.
I had started making this video about the rampant misogyny in this area, but it became just so overwhelmingly obvious that I just thought, "If people can't see this on their own, my pointing it out is not going to change their mind."
For general discussion on the issue see:
www.amazon.com/False-Summit-Gender-Mountaineering-Nonfiction-ebook/dp/B08X1RKCDY/
And welcome.
@@michaeltracy2356 I guess you might be right in that no one for 28 years recognized the overwhelming level of mysogny by the hero’s that saved her three times during the descent where she would have unquestionably died. Sheeeesh.
Usually this sort of Witch Hunt is on Twitter. Blaming any of the clients is ridiculous.
Krakauer wrote about the team leader ordering his clients to wait before final ascent to let team catch up. He says he was using oxygen and getting colder for a considerable time whilst standing still.
And why do you think Hall would have said that? Did he want a big gaggle of people heading up the Hillary Step at the same time? No. Rob Hall was not a complete moron. He told Krakauer to wait because the sherpas were bringing up his oxygen and if he left before he got his oxygen he would run out above the Hillary Step and get in trouble. Well, Krakauer got impatient waiting and decided to just head on up -- who needs oxygen anyway? In any case, he ran out of oxygen, got stuck, and needed to get rescued. No problem. He is the one writing the book. He just blames it on the "fixed lines." Soon as you look at the photos, you see there was no issue with the fixed lines. Krakauer just screwed up and tried to blame it on the sherpas.
Krak version was always self serving and opportunistic
The mind plays dirty tricks on memories in a life threatening event. I'm sure everyone who survived that ordeal is self serving, every single one.
@@pizzafrenzyman So what you’re saying is, is that someone like Beck Weathers, who spent the night in that blizzard on the mountain with his hands and face exposed in an open bivouac, resulting in him losing his nose, hands, and parts of his feet to frostbite, is self serving? What exactly did he do that would be self serving?
@@AdamAwesombrero He did covertly blame others for "deserting" him, when actually they thought he was gone - possibly because of his own actions. (Those who were saved stayed in the huddle.) His blindness was due to a pre-existing condition that should have kept him at home. That doesn't make his walk into camp the next day into camp any less remarkable.
@@pizzafrenzyman Not everyone had a book to sell
@@AdamAwesombrero ok, not beck
Interesting video. Good Job. Your statement, they were waiting at the summit for Scott's stunt, implies that several people knew of the stunt. Was Lene the only one to ever mention a stunt? A good investigation should include specific questions to climbers and support staff. If there was a planned stunt, somebody can confirm it and they probably even know what that stunt was.
Gammelgard states that Lobsang was explaining it to the group. It is difficult to believe that other Sherpa were not aware of it, and this could explain why they were so unhappy with Lopsang. In any case, this is not some investigative piece in which people are trying to get the "truth."
Pittman and I discussed these and other events during a seventy-minute phone conversation six months after returning from Everest. Except to clarify certain points about the short-roping incident, she requested that I not quote any part of that dialogue in this book, and I have honored that request.
Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 180). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
Good corrections 👍🙏
Wow I feel bad for the lady. Good on you for doing this
Don’t. Even if she wasn’t the sole reason for the tragedy she is still an asshole.
@@boxtankgamer6014 How do you know that? Did some nice man on the CZcams tell you? I can probably guess which nice man you listen to. Not everything you hear online is true. If a CZcams personality has you riled up enough to go post a comment like that about someone I highly suspect you do not know, you are way too influenceable by social influencers.
@@michaeltracy2356 LOL your replies make me think I'm being wayyyy too nice in my comment section about this story. 😆
Excellent videos
Is there a separate video where you tell us what you REALLY think of Krakauer? Lmao
Oooh I like this I really need more, I definitely knew the into thin air movie was way off but not bc I know a lot bc I don't lol but I know drama and ego when I see it..
Hi Mike, I do love the content, and I am no misogynist myself. I must point out that Sandy's "there were no hero's that night, they were doing what they were paid to do" comments coupled by her hotel behaviour afterwards didn't win her any social capital. This is compounded by a sherpa short roping her up towards the end (dead weight) and without Anatoli Boukreev (RIP) dragging her dead weight down ensuring her survival. Despite being experienced herself she does owe her life to those two people. I could care less for her wealth or cutting her down personally because I neither know her nor engage in such a waste of valuable life seconds. I am perplexed in some ways of your support for her given her attitude though. Is there a reason for this?
The problem is you don't have a source for any of that. Where is the source for your quote? Where is the source of her being "short ripped" "towards the end". I have a photo of her just below the summit and I'll put in in an upcoming video. And guess what? She is not being short roped. I have repeatedly pointed out in these video that things you have been told about the expedition were wrong. And you respond saying you "love the content", but completely ignore it.
There is a single reference to the "paid to do" comment. And it is not a quote. It is someone paraphrasing what they think she said. www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/09/sandy-hill-pittman-mount-everest
Here is the entire paragraph:
Journalist Jon Krakauer, who was part of the New Zealand team and the second to summit that day, filed a raw, emotional account of the tragedy on Outside magazine’s Internet publication. Krakauer, author of the best-selling Into the Wild, has no doubt that Scott Fischer died because he was exhausted from guiding amateur climbers. Rob Hall clearly died in the act of rescuing his amateur client. But Pittman maintains that there were no heroes that night, that the guides were just doing their jobs, what they were paid to do.
So, what do I think of a "Vanity Fair' piece that paraphrase what that author thinks Pittman said? Not much. It provides no supporting evidence. No actual quotes from Pittman. And when it was published in 2015 there were numerous public statements from Pittman stating that there were "heroes". www.outsideonline.com/adventure-travel/destinations/asia/sandy-hill-51/. "aI credit two people with saving my life: Tim Madsen, for being there after everyone had made the dash back to camp and forcing me to stay positive and alert until Anatoli finally found us; and then of course Anatoli, who was in real life the kind of person that superheroes in the movies pretend to be." That was published back in 2006, and there are other articles that she says substantially the same thing. Curiously, you say, "Despite being experienced herself she does owe her life to those two people." Ok. Great. You and Sandy Pittman agree on one thing.
Now, what do I think of a subscriber who still can't spot the difference between Yak Dung and legitimate journalism? I feel like a failure. I make these videos so that people learn to think for themselves, and understand that people are pushing their own agendas. The article even tells you that they are not quoting Pittman. "After talking on background for more than an hour, Pittman declines a formal interview." And then you take something a Vanity Fair author made up to be the truth. It is just very disappointing.
Mr Fischer had just suffered a gastro-intestinal infection - which could account for his slow progress
If you look at the source for that, it is a guy who heard from a guy that he was taking antibiotics. The Climb p 111. While it is possible that he did indeed have a GI issue, I would not place it above speculation and rumor.
The thing is, I actually agree that the criticism of Pitman has been unfair. But, this defense of her falls into the "with friends like this, who needs enemies" category. Using database printouts to "debunk" the non-disputed accounts of people who were there is just detached.
The accounts are disputed, and as an upcoming video will show, there are photos to "debunk" them. Please stick around, I am very interested in how you will criticize the video that analyzed the photo showing the entire story that was fed to you and that you lapped up just isn't true. The video will be out later this week.
@@michaeltracy2356 I'll watch your video. I haven't "lapped up" anything. I wouldn't have watched your video if I wasn't interested in hearing alternative accounts. I've read and watched multiple accounts from several who were there, including Sandy, and others who defend her.
I came here hoping for something compelling to give a counterweight to the criticism of Sandy, which I'll agree feels at least somewhat rooted in misogyny. But the ways in which you've chosen to defend her so far do more harm than good to that cause imo.
As I say, I'll watch your next video and keep an open mind. Peace.
Funny that mountain madness had 1 more oxygen bottle than adventure consultants but mountain madness used all their oxygen up regardless.
Sort of the point of having a sherpa carry your oxygen bottle all the way up the mountain is so that you can use it. They just climbed on a higher flow rate -- which is why they were climbing faster than the AC group and didn't have 5 of their group turn around.
I read the scathing Vanity Fair Article in August 1996 which brutalized Sandy
Makes me wonder the relationship between Conde Nast and outdoor magazine in 1996. Who started the narrative that she was prone to hysterics, was inexperienced and whose “short roping” diverted much needed help to those who died. Also convenient that most of the players in JKs writing either died duri g the storm or in the years afterwards.
While Pittman (not Pitman) was not to blame for the disaster she was and has been her own worst enemy after the event. All she had to do is humbly acknowledge the fact that she would be dead without the aid of Beidleman, Bougreev and Charlotte Fox. At least Krakauer owned his significant weaknesses. This aspect of the disdain for her has nothing to do with supposed "misogyny".
She disputes the actions of Beidleman. I didn't see you listed on the expedition list. So, you believe the statements from someone. Who? Who has provided you with the "true" version of what happened? You believe the big strong man who tells you his story. And the woman -- well, she must be lying when she says that one of the big strong men (Beidleman) did not do the heroic actions he claims to have performed. Why do you believe one version rather than the other? Beidleman didn't tell you about the "stunt." Clearly, there are things he didn't tell you.
Krakauer hid in his tent and was just asked to stand outside and bang some pots together. This was too much for him to assist in saving the lives of others. Krakauer never acknowledged he would be dead if he hadn't been helped down. Instead, he deleted that part from his speech. But, I don't see you blaming Krakauer. Who is worse? Krakauer for deleting his own rescue which he openly admitted took place? Or Pittman for failing to conform to what you believe is the truth?
From the Himalayan Database: Krakauer of Hall's team 17 May 96: "Beidleman did amazing job saving the lives of his clients" but Sandy Hill Pittman disagrees.
Krakauer was passed out asleep and claimed to have been completely unaware of anything that took place that night. Pittman was awake and saw the whole thing. And you believe the man who slept.
According to Krakauer, Beidleman is the one that screwed the group over...
Wanting to avoid the dangerous ice pitch, Beidleman led his group on an indirect route that looped far to the east, where the slope was much less steep, and around 7:30 they safely reached the broad, gently rolling expanse of the South Col.
Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 215). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
So, Beidleman made the decision to take them away from the route so no one could find them. Supposedly to avoid this "dangerous ice pitch" -- the same one that Krakauer just saw someone just slide down and that Krakauer threw his backpack down -- it slid down and came to rest. So, there was nothing "dangerous" about it. They could have just slid down. But Beidleman decided to have them walk down the long way around. You can say he was at altitude and wasn't thinking straight. But you can also say that if Beidlemen hadn't done it, they would have gotten back much faster. So, I don't see Beidlement being essential to saving anyone. Had he not been there, they would have slid down the ice slope just like other climbers and got back to camp or at least been directly on the trail and just a short distance from camp.
Why has she never mentioned that she was in jeopardy? Immediately after the climb, in Katmandu, why did she openly brag about Oprah Winfrey calling her but stated that no one died from her group, completely ignoring the death of Scott Fischer? Why did she not publicly acknowledge an ounce of gratitude to Boukreev for saving her life? "Which gentleman is that?" was her only response. Or do you deny that fact as well? So where is her book? Where is her "truth"?
I have a photo of her at Fischer memorial in Kathmandu, so it is not clear how she "ignored" the death of Scott Fischer. You also might want to watch this video where makes it clear that Pittman kept her mouth shut about the "stunt" to protect Fischer. If she really didn't care about Fischer and was the self-absorbed narcissist you were programmed to believe, why didn't she just. say, "We were all late because Scott had some bing stunt planned on the summit."
You seem to believe whatever social media tells you. You receive a version of the story that fits some narrative being crafted for you, and you simply believe it. There are social influencers and you are the socially influenced. Others are not as guidable as you. In this channel, you need facts to support your position.
Your second part contains misinformation. This is the real quote:
In a subsequent telephone conversation, when asked about her apparent lack of appreciation toward the two gentlemen who had saved her life, Pittman responded tersely: “Which two gentlemen is that?” www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/09/sandy-hill-pittman-mount-everest
You just leave out the part about the two and focus on the one -- spreading your misinformation.
Pittman disputes Beidleman's role. Beidleman made a decisions that likely made things much worse and probably cost Yasuko her life. You gloss over that. Instead, you falsely quote something. Pittman does not dispute what Bourkreev did . She disputes what Krakauer says Beidleman did. Thus, when asked about the TWO people who. saved her, she does not know who this is referring to because she has clearly stated that she disputes Beidlman's account. You choose to believe Krakauer's version. The man who slept. I choose to make up my own mind and look at the facts rather than simply be told what to think by others.
You misquote another source and you will be banned for spreading misinformation. And for your arrogant, "Or do you deny that fact as well? " Yes. I do. You misquoted it. Or do you deny that fact as well?
Perishing during an Everest disaster is difficult as is surviving one
I've read The Climb and didn't even knew the blame was assigned to Pitman. A.B. probably didn't like her, which is understandable regarding wild background differences, but she is not blamed in the book nor presented as someone unfit or underexpireinsed
.
Well, you are luck you did read the other book.
I wouldn't put blame on Sandy. People just don't like her because of her conduct, opinions and her unjustified levels of arrogance.
It’s ridiculous to demonise Sandy Pitman and point the finger at her. Thankfully both teams had one guide each to save the lives of their clients. The rest of them were seriously Missing in Action for most of the second half of the climb
The mountain want you dead regardless. Plenty of very good climbers that is part of the mountain today.
While the accounts of the journey have validity as misogynistic, sandy’s insensitivity post everest is where she lost support.
From what i read, there was almost a variety store set up at base camp, and that it was pittmans equipment to film and record and report live from everest, that those were the two reasons the sherpas were so exhausted.
Also fisher was headed to the summit passing by neil bettlman ( sp) when all of his team had already summitted , so it did not make sense for him to summit so late, and by himself.
I have read everyones book that wrote one whiie they were there.
Beck weathers spoke in his book how the atmosphere was of a party and drinking nature and he was leary of that. He also said that the oxygen bottles had problems with the fittings being universally switched between different manufacturers and that caused delays and problems.
As I state in the pinned comment, you need to offer some explanation as to why what. you "read" is accurate. Myself and everyone else in the channel can read books just as well as you. We do not need you to write a book report for us.
Now, turning to what you "read." Your sources claim the sherpas were tired from hauling Pitman's gear. Why would Rob Hall's Sherpas be carrying Sandy Pitman's gear? They are on different teams. '
Ok, Fischer summited late. If you actually watch the video, it explains why that was. He was not alone on the summit, and no one reported that he was. Lopsang was there, as I go into in this video as to why Lopsang waited. Gammelgard wrote about it, and as you claim to. have read her book, you should go back and read it again. She describes Lopsang waiting for Fischer. They then ran into Fischer shortly after that. Not sure how you missed that when you "read" the book.
If you actually read Beck Weather's book, he describes how he was sucidal prior to going to Everest and that his wife felt he went to Everest just to finish it. If they only thing you took from "reading" Weathers book was that there was "partying" in base camp, you really missed out on what the book was about. Beck's mental state played a key role in his actions that day. Perhaps reread the book, as a significant portion of it is about his mental health..
In any case, Weathers does not criticize the parties, but instead actively participates. Not sure how you missed that, so I'll quote it for you:
We had a couple of parties, for which we broke out the beer. Some people ended up dancing on our dining tent’s stone table. It wasn’t a mosh pit, exactly, but not unlike one. There were also theme-night dinners, when the food and its preparation and everyone’s dress were supposed to complement one team member’s salient characteristic.
Weathers, Beck; Michaud, Stephen G.. Left for Dead (p. 149). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
If Weathers was so put off by all the partying, why did he keep going back to the parties?
@@michaeltracy2356 Well you've certainly put new meaning into the concept of ‘your Party going up the mountain’ Michael!
I wonder if some had got a little too complacent about it (Rob Halls “lucky day” as I recall. And Scott Fishers “We've got the big E totally wired” could almost be guaranteed to put the mockers on that expedition!
I was puzzling over a comment a person made about cave diving to the effect of how come it changes so quickly from;
“Everything is so bright and pretty and fun as they all dive deeper, and then one thing goes wrong and then suddenly it isn't ok anymore. It's dark, silted out, they’re low on air, they've lost the line and it's terrifying!”
Not dissimilar to that storm coming thru that night on Everest. But I realised that in both cases, the ‘dangerous side’ was always there. Slowly increasing, almost imperceptibly. But with the potential to magnify the dangers quickly and exponentially.
For climbers, a late storm / avalanche and one episode of HACE could do it!
Suddenly they're all in darkness and cold, in a blizzard, with frozen fingers on frozen ropes, with hardly breathable air.
There's probably a moral here, but I think it got lost in the dark somewhere too. Best wishes.
I'm not sure why this blogger would choose to bring Sir Edmund Hillary into the frame because above 8,000 metres Everest was virgin territory when he climber it. He may have "only reached 20,00 ft on his first climb on everest" but he was a member of a reconnaisance party looking for possible routes to the summit. Nothing Hillary did was "half hearted" as this blogger suggests. He attempted Everest once only and sumitted on his first attempt. No fixed ropes, no guides. And a nearly vertical rock face just below the summit
Hillary was not the first above 8000m on Everest nor was the 1953 expedition the first above 8000m on Everest South Side. The Swiss reached a little over 8500m on that route. That expedition included Tenzing, which is why Tenzing was able to find the route up for Hillary.
HIs climb from the North was generally considered "half hearted" as it had no real aim and didn't really do anything. He had just failed to summit Cho Oyo and they were sort decided to go have a look at the North. You are just making stuff up.
Two teams together.
One team was going to top first, the second would see mountain madness was here first flags or something for advertising his company.
More than likely that was a prank.?
EDIT :
The ultimate FU to another team like that, would be to leave a bunch of oxygen at the top, showing they had enough to get there And back, which other teams didn't..... So....... Prank could be just a flex in a deadly situation.
The "stunt" seemed to involve having a large number of MM people on the summit at the same time. Simply leaving items there would not require them all to wait around.
Interesting interpretation on the 1996 disaster.
She was a paying customer with average experience, separate of being an unlikable person to most. Fischer would have made a Faustian bargain with anyone. He lost Krakauer, so he located another loud voice. Several far more qualified climbers performed worse than her. What does that say?
I figured you would like this one.
@@michaeltracy2356 yep, I am interested in everyone’s take on any given subject. I might learn something. It all about listening, learning, and weeding out the truth from the misinformation.
Was she inexperienced though? She climbed 6 of the 7 summits, Everest being her 7th.
@@jackharle1251She had more than average experience. I saw some companies recommending you have Anacongua and Denali before you try Everest. She had both, plus 2 previous attempts at Everest. Interestingly enough, she and Lene were the most competent on the glacier.
Hm. I up to now thought of Pittman as the culprit.
Might well beI was wrong.
At least, I never trusted the Krakauer Ego, Thanx😁
The blame on her always made me feel strangely uncomfortable, like it was more gender based critisim, and I'm glad people are calling them out on this now.
Wasn't gender based. She's rich.😂
@@rickp3753it’s Everest. Everyone has money going there. Unless you’re going on someone else’s dime, like Krakauer.
@@SS-xr7jf Doug Hansen was a postal worker.
@@rickp3753 who was able to pay 65 grand to climb a mountain. In 1996 money. The guy wasn’t poor.
@@SS-xr7jf He got a drop discount to rejoin Rob Hall in 96 because they didn't summit in 95.
It’s the Crack Hour!
La gloire ce n’est pas de ne pas tomber ! C’est de se relever à chaque fois on tombes ! 😂
How do you pick who's story you believe?
You see whose account matches with photos and does not require the laws of physics to be broken. Krakauer reports he was in two different places hundreds of feet apart at the same time. If someone claims to be in two places at the same time, you should not believe the story because it is not physically possible to be in two places at the same time. Not that difficult, right?
@michaeltracy2356 ya, ya....how about the other 15 variations, which are all different in the details. Yours is just another in the 'recent spat of videos about it'.
@@dougdavis8986 You are the one asking the question. I answer it, and then you say you don't want the answer. Did you not want to know how to "pick whose story you believe?" Well, take the 15 different versions and analyze them. Or just cry like a little baby and say there are 15 different versions.
@michaeltracy2356 the answer is, you're just trying to get clicks so you have to throw more bs into the ring. Everyone that was on the mountain has their version of what happened and that was their reality. The armchair quarterbacks can Crack a beer, watch the highlight reel and pretend they know what happened. Just like all the rednecks do after the latest football game. Keep preachin' dude, I get a kick out of it.
The same way you decide anything. You analyze all the facts available.
Okay. I'm more than 12 minutes into this, and you've passively compared Sandy Pitman's climbing accomplishments on Everest to Tensing Norgay's and Edmund Hilary's... as if being a participant in a touring expedition is somehow comparable to trailblazing the first ever ascent to the highest place on Earth. Then you compared her times in '96 to Krakauer's, and I'm still waiting for you to at the very least mention the short-roping that has been reported by several of those who were there.
At the moment, you're using a database printout to "disprove" the universally experienced crowding at the steps. Nobody disagrees about that. This is a really strange way to defend Sandy Pitman.
Okay, you mentioned the short-roping. Thank you. I hope you use it to contextualize your comparisons in climb times with other contemporary climbers and of accomplishments with Norgay and Hilary.
Short roped because she struggled all the way up and caused a lot of the stoppages. She was face down in the snow and needed a team member to shoot her up or she’d have died right there. Even though she made impressive climbs before, she folded like a cheap suit on the upper mountain.
You have a source for this? You think Krakauer was lying when he said she climbed the Hillary step on her own? Or she was able to climb the Hillary step on her own but needed to be short ripped up the easy stuff? Cameras all over the mountain that. day. And yet no photos to back up anything that you are saying. Turns out, cameras are not misogynistic. Unlike CZcamsrs.
Taking dexamethasone was the right thing to do. Had she not, a guide would have had to help her down and likely have caused both her death and his. Rather than criticize her for doing the right thing, why not just admit she did the right thing.
@@michaeltracy2356 He didn't say she climbed it on her own or with no difficulty, that is your inference. The excerpt you show said that she and Lopsang both passed by him. I don't know how that invalidates the "short roped" argument. All the articles on the matter seem to reference "many climbers" having seen her struggle and cause delays.
As for cameras, is there a video of Pittman high jumping the Hillary step as you claim? I'll gladly concede my point on that matter if it exists.
My point about the Dex is not that she should have just been left to die there. She was completely spent and short of a Sherpa fireman carrying her down the mountain, she was a goner. Another climber had to jab her and luckily she was able to make it; she didn't do "the right thing" someone else did. More credence to the fact that she just couldn't hack it and didn't have enough gas in the tank for the way down.
"Short roped because she struggled all the way up". All the way up ... All the way up. Your words, not mine. Then Krakauer sees her and she is not struggling. And she is on the way up ... your words. Not mine. Were you there? Did you see her? Quote an exact source where she was "struggled all the way up" or you are will be permanently banned from commenting.
And you think dex takes you from completely gone to able to get down faster the Krakauer? You have a source for that? Anyway, just find the source for "Short roped because she struggled all the way up."
@@michaeltracy2356why are people so up in arms about taking dex? It’s cheap. Has very little risks when you take it. I proposed to thom that maybe every climber on Everest should have it on hand in case they get sick after summiting. They may be ok going up, but become I’ll on the way down. A 24$ syringe of dex could save their ass and prevent others from having to drag them down the mountain. He didn’t like that I said that. And im not sure why it seem to have struck a nerve with him.he mentioned something about that their fate was pretty much sealed if they needed it and shouldn’t be going up the mountain to begin with. And i agree. They shouldn’t be trying to summit if they were sick. But how many people summited or tried to summit and needed to bail before summiting but couldn’t . And possibly could’ve been helped with a shot of dex to descend . I don’t get it as a healthcare worker. People carry epipens . Not with the intention of eating a shrimp dinner they’re allergic to and using the pen as treatment afterwards . But they carry it in case of unintentional exposure. It is cheap medication an has very little risk taking it. Not saying it could’ve helped everyone in the 96 disaster. But there are specific situations where it could help. My doctor has given me a shot of steroids for less threatening illnesses such as bronchitis, etc. it seems crazy to me that it’s such an avoided remedy for climbers on Everest. It’s like a last ditch effort for people nearly dead. I really think the future will trend towards climbers taking treatments that also prevent altitude sickness. Much the way that climbers use oxygen. It will one day seem ridiculous that people don’t take medication sooner when they’re sick. And that everyone will carry a dose.
Charlotte Fox admittedly gave her own shot of dex it was in an interview. There's conflicting reports of a 2nd as well but I never read anything other than a hearsay account about that. I personally don't like arrogant socialites so there's my bias but other than that Rob Hall chose to die with Doug and Scott was on his way up already suffering from cerebral edema its amazing he made it back down as far as he did. The reason why Makalu survived is because he hadn't been moving up and down the mountain with a half assed plan. These guy planned to summit early and together and they didn't bother fixing ropes and then blame got passed on to Pittman. Oh and both guys chose inexperienced guides to help them like Andy Harris. If Anatoli wasn't there more would be dead.
You mention differing accounts of how Pitman descended. I'm going to go ahead and link to a lengthy interview with Beidleman, who assisted her down (she drove her crampons into his back, tearing through his down suit, when she was sliding down on her butt with his assistance) so you're no longer confused about it.
czcams.com/video/jL9UHk1zTeY/video.html
Just because someone says something does not mean it is true. First, use your common sense. If someone is sliding uncontrollably down Everest and they hit someone with their crampons, do you really think the only thing that is going to happen is a ripped down suit? In any case, there is a photo taken by Beidleman showing Pittman 50-60 feet in front of him at a time he claimed to be pulling her down the mountain. You can believe tall tales of "great mountaineers." I'll believe the photographs. And you can read Beidleman's account in The Climb -- totally different from the one in Into Thin Air. It is difficult you looked into this issue at all. A social influencer told you a story -- and you believe it like a gospel.
I came here expecting something compelling.
I came here sympathetic to your cause. I'm a friendly audience. I already feel like the blame that's been heaped on Sandy is not only unfair to her, but absolves the leadership of both expeditions of their culpability.
If I were going to take anyone's word as gospel, it'd be someone with whom I was inclined to agree (aka: you). But my brain always questions, and so far, the case you're making isn't supporting my preconceived opinion. Maybe your next video will be more persuasive.
Comparing Tenzig Norgay’s early attempts on Everest with Pittman’s early attempts is such a stretch that I cannot take this narrator seriously.
Zupa
Now I'm supposed to believe that a guide giving their remaining oxygen bottle to a client on the descent is the same as "climbing without oxygen." If you're unclear on how top guides feel about guiding Everest without oxygen, I suggest watching or listening to Neal Beidleman, Reinhold Messner or Russell Brice (for starters).
You just ignore things that don't fit your "theory." Boukreev had oxygen. He climbed with it on his back. It was there if he needed it. At some point, he determined he didn't need it and gave it to someone who did. Now, your homework assignment is to state who he gave it to and when. Please do not post until you have answered that question.
Reinhold Messner is a "top guide?" Beidleman is a "top guide?"
@@michaeltracy2356 I literally posted a link to the video of Beidleman relating the story of Boukreev giving him the oxygen bottle (and regulator, which he didn't take). What a weird "gotcha."
I don't have a "theory." I have the collected recounted stories of those who were present. And you're asserting that you can tell me more about whether or not there was crowding at the steps based on a database extraction than all of those who were present. It's detached.
@@michaeltracy2356 "top guide" is your term. I'm not sure where you're pulling it from. Both are elite mountaineers... Messner is one of the best who ever lived.
To my point, having climbed the mountain on less oxygen than you brought, and giving your surplus to a struggling client isn't remotely the same thing as climbing without oxygen. To assert that it is makes you look seriously uninformed.
I pull "top guide" from you comment above... " If you're unclear on how top guides feel about guiding Everest without oxygen, I suggest watching or listening to Neal Beidleman, Reinhold Messner or Russell Brice (for starters)." You see where you posted that a couple hours ago?
I once had to tell one of my superiors "Sometimes you have to save people from themselves!" Scott Fisher took on too much that day, nursed a high value client up the hill that had ulterior motives and a superficial understanding of high altitude climbing. Rob Hall took a high value client up the mountain that didn't have the physicality to complete the climb, allowed his emotions to affect his better judgement, and took on too much as well. I also suspect that Sandy Pittman probably "climbed" the other peaks for her book the same way: pay a guide to haul her up the mountain and then get amnesia about how much help she really had. And her lay ze faire attitude reflects a lack of self-awareness about the realities of high-altitude mountain climbing. For all three, the situation was bigger and more complex than their overall understanding. Call it greed or ambition or zeal or narcissism or whatever you want. All of them needed someone with better spatial awareness to save them from themselves. No misogamy, and no name calling. Just the reality of people's ambition getting in the way of good, sound reasoning. I wish them and their families nothing but love and compassion.
Scott Fischer climbed entirely alone that day to the summit. Passed his clients only briefly on their way down. So, not possible he "nursed a high value client up the hill that had ulterior motives and a superficial understanding of high altitude climbing."
If you look at Krakauer's numerous mistakes, you see that he was nursed down the hill and had ulterior motives and a superficial understanding of high altitude climbing. So, yeah, there is a little misogyny when a man does it, you ignore it. When a woman does it, you make a big point out of it. Hansen nursed to summit -- a male, so you don't mention it. And he did cause the deaths of two other people -- as I clearly state in this video that I highly doubt you watched. Why don't you watch the video, as it will fill in most of the facts that you are missing. Then you don't need to just invent stuff.
"Rob Hall took a high value client up the mountain that didn't have the physicality to complete the climb" -- the guy was a postal worker. How does this make him "high value?"
You are just inventing facts to fit a theory you wish to push. The only book Pittman wrote is a cooking book. So, not sure why you mention her book. Did you like the recipes? Again, just making stuff up. to support your theory.
If you're referring to Sandy, she did Anancongua and had 2 previous attempts at Everest as explained in this video. She was considered a very competent climber until someone needed a villain to sell books.
@@michaeltracy2356 So nice to finally see another creator call out the misogyny in this story.
I find the general anti Krakauer sentiment of this channel to be too biased against him, I suspect because his version of the story is most widely accepted and because of this, perhaps a too motivated desire to knock him down. I am not saying Krakauer does not deserve criticism, it just seems to be to many times where we are believing another account over his when we should be suspicious of all accounts and can’t take one as fact over others. Even corroborated stories are dangerous to believe in a case like this, as people being people, are going to stretch truths and lie to protect their own interests and given we are talking oxygen deprived memories even might unconsciously adapt their story with someone they like or respect (as is the opposite for those they dislike). So I think overall instead of looking for the bogeyman I think we are better off examining this incident for the larger truths about what is really happening with Everest.
Krakauer has most likely become the standard simply because he is the best writer in terms of the technical expertise and experience he has in the telling of a compelling story. I have read almost every major book and watched all the main documentaries of this tragedy and my conclusion, which is just my opinion, is there is only the grander themes to learn here. The only hard evidence we have are radio transmissions and some photos and it is so sparse (with even these we have people projecting unfounded conclusions on them to support whose story they wish too most believe).
There is no real way to appoint the appropriate blame in this tragedy because we only have accounts of people to depend on, and people deprived of oxygen at that. As we know from witness testimony in criminal trials, all people are susceptible to bending truths, miss recollecting and might not even be consciously aware they are mistaken, not too say the personal agendas and self protective behaviour which I believe is likely in ALL the accounts of the events that unfolded.
The clear learning is Mother Nature when not respected can and will result in death. Whether it is Hall’s and Fischer’s over confident thinking they can get anyone to the top, too guides making honest mistakes about their role with clients, too sherpas who feel too subservient to western guides to not speak up, too clients who are not self aware enough to know they are being irresponsible and selfish to be somewhere where their incompetence can result in the unjust death of others.
Finally, though I do think Pittman’s role in everyone’s deaths has been exaggerated, likely again to Krakauer’s more wide spread reach, her actions after the disaster have not helped. She, again because of her own pressures and self perseverance, has downplayed the fact that she is only alive thanks to the beyond human efforts of Boukorev and Briedleman and even the dex shot from client Charlotte Fox. The criticism in this regard is not misogyny as she has mostly brought this on her self. I do understand the idea as a women she has likely suffered more righteous judgement than other figures in this story. The only problem being when you combine the stories from the mountain on how unaware she was at times (which as a client I would argue is no real crime since Scott and co essentially approved this behaviour by not addressing it) and her public stance after the events I think we have to put the majority of her public perception clearly in the category of her own doing.
There is a cultural aspect to this that does not seem to get noticed:
The Americans, Mountain Madness, have a cultural arrogance.
The New Zealanders, Adventure Consultants, have a casual attitude to safety and procedure.
I've noticed these national characteristics from living in both countries.
Ok, but how did this play out on the mountain. If you want American Arrogance, you have Krakauer on the AC team. Beck Weathers was on the AC team and it looks like he was just trying to kill himself -- his wife says as much in his book.
In terms of just the teams. The American MM took the far safer option of using more oxygen. And AC chose the "manly" way of doing it with less. Seems more a deliberate choice rather than some type national characteristic. The individual climbers that wanted the "yellow brick road" climbed with a team that provided significantly more oxygen. And the "manly" ones that wanted to do it more on their own climbed with a team with less oxygen.
@@michaeltracy2356 Does anyone know the price differential (if any) for clients of the two expeditions?
IOW, does that description of a rolls royce service have any financial basis?
@@denverfletcher9419 The prices were essentially negotiated on a per-client basis. Outside paid $10,000 for Krakauer with the balance being free advertising in Outside Magazine. Krakauer does mention that the going rate for "reputable" outfits was $65,000. It is not clear if there was any difference in base price between MM and AC.
As a general rule, the main thing you are paying for is oxygen and the sherpas to carry it up. Next, you pay for guides that speak your language. At some point, the price is already pretty high, so you pay for amenities in base camp and better food. If you are not used to a Nepalese diet, this can be a problem. So, people pay to bring in western food.
@@michaeltracy2356 So it would make sense that the expedition organisers would economise on oxygen in order to keep prices down, in a highly competitive market?
I'm just trying to understand the context that leads to such decisions as 3 or 4 oxygen bottles on the mountain.
Interesting analysis. It is widely believed that if the Sherpa Lopsang had not had to short rope Pittman up Everest, he would have set the ropes he was carrying at the balcony and the Hillary step as was planned the day before. Pittman indicated she was being pulled up agains her will, which is just ludicrous. Lopsang said that Fisher did not ask him to haul her up Everest. So why would he knowingly put the entire summit attempt in jeopardy, why strand 30 climbers in the death zone using up precious oxygen? As a result climbers were delayed by hours. If the ropes had been set, then they all would have reached the summit before 1:00 as was planned, and descended to safety just before the storm hit. So is Pittman to blame? Well if she had not climbed that day, which clearly she couldn’t, nobody dies. The tragedy rests entirely on her and Lopsang. All the other poor decisions that day never surface if the ropes had been set. Simple fact that you seemed to ignore. Check out the u tube video interview of Neal Beidleman, a true hero who saved Pittman life on the descent. He relates what happened with Pittman and Lopsang and the whole rope setting fiasco. Please note that he was the one who set the ropes at the balcony and led the effort again at the Hilary Step. He was there and provides a detailed account. Compare this interview with the last interview with Pittman and perhaps you can decide who is truthful and who is not. Respectfully
You need to think for yourself rather than repeat what other people tell you. Stop and think about it for just one second. If the entire plan was that Lopdang needed to be in top shape so that three completely different teams could reach the summit on time. Why would a paying client of Rob Hall rely on a sherpa from another group for them to reach the summit? You just paid Rob Hall $65,000 to get you to the summit and his exucuse is "Oh, a sherpa from a completely different group was tired, so we were hours late." Just use your brain.
@@michaeltracy2356 You need to do your homework a lot better than you have. The day before the summit attempt is was agreed by Fisher and Hall that Lopsang and Ang Dorje would set the ropes and they would leave 90 minutes before the rest of the climbers and set them at the balcony and the Hilary step…both in the death zone. Fisher was very concerned about this because in a prior climb the ropes had not been set and the attempt failed. Lopsang was seen by other climbers hauling Pittman up Everest instead of setting the ropes. Go listen to Beidlman’s interview. He says they were waiting for the ropes and when Lopsang finally arrived with them, he took them as Lopsang was too exhausted from short roping Pittman to help set the ropes. So the two guides set the ropes and everyone waited in the death zone using up their oxygen. Bildeman says that when he got the ropes from Lopsang, it took at least two hours to set the rope at the two spots. I guess the key issue here is did Lopsang actually spend five hours hauling Pittman up the mountain…or not. Too many people saw her and so the climb was delayed by hours and people died. Do your homework. If she had not been on the climb, the ropes are set as planned, and nobody dies. Simple to understand for some.
@@bucksnake The Montenegrian's got to the base of the Hillary Step, so what ropes needed to be fixed? No ropes were ever fixed at the Balcony -- you can see that in the photo I put in this video. No need to do homework, just watch the video that I give you and stop making stuff up.
@@michaeltracy2356 sorry tried to send video interview of the guide Beildman and his comments about Pittman, Lopsang and the rope setting that HE himself did at both the balcony and the Hilary Step. You can apologize after you hear it from the a true hero of the tragedy. Just google Beildeman interview. Truth. Not made up, but from the guy who was there, not you or me.
She is a liar all you have to do is look at her interview
Everybody lies. Krakauer lied. All you have to do is look at his presentation. What is your point?
I'm sorry, can you tell me again what "Sherpa" means? Good grief, is this parody, and I'm just the last one to catch on?
Point being that the Sherpa people are revered in Nepal. Saying "as Sherpa simply means people from the east" may conform with whatever the dictionary you're using says, but it's completely disrespectful to these people. Dismissing these people, whose contributions to Himalayan mountaineering surpass any Westerner's, as "simply people from the east displays a complete lack of appreciation for your subject matter.
When did you personally observe that "Sherpa people are revered in Nepal?" When I was there, they were near the bottom of a religious caste system -- Hindus being the vast majority of the population in Nepal, they do not revere the largely Buddhist Sherpas. If you had read any Nepali newspaper, the issue of the poverty and disrespect shown to Sherpas and others lower on the social ladder is frequently discussed. Where did you receive this information from that they were respected? You are just making stuff up to feel important. You will need to provide a source for your future comments or I will delete them. This is not the place for you to spout unsupported nonsense.