Відео

I read the scathing Vanity Fair Article in August 1996 which brutalized Sandy

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.

This is my first try of a comment on this channel, so here goes: People who tell stories that involve themselves generally tend to modify stories to make themselves look better, a fact that is pretty well known from forensic witness statements, for example. Most people won't invent new stuff, but just tweak the story a bit here and there. So, Beidelmann leaving out his decision to change his route can be seen in this regard. In hindsight it wasn't the best idea, so he leaves it out in later retelling of the story. While I absolutely admire Boukreev I don't think he's completely free of this, especially in view of the attacks aimed at him regarding not guiding conscientiously enough. I think he went on his first search for missing climbers later than he claimed, and maybe not as far as he claimed (because of the storm?), and he had to somehow account for why he didn't find anyone, which may be a reason why the timelines don't match and why the whole account is such a mess. I think the missing oxygen bottles are the biggest puzzle. If I remember this correctly (if not, please fell free to yell at me), the Adventure Consultants group had one less oxygen bottle each than the Mountain Madness team. Could it be that Mountain Madness members had taken oxygen bottles that didn't belong to them, because there wasn't enough for them and they were desperate? If so, Krakauer would definitely leave that out since he was paid to make Rob Halls group look good (not only himself) and he went to astonishing lengths to do so.

I am amazed how I can not get the mountain out of my head. It's kind of like that guy in the movie "Close Encounter." I think they summited. Their story will long be as famous. What courage!

Andrew is my mums god fathers brother we miss him we hope he gets found

Please speak slowly and enunciate. I had to use close captioning.

I burst out when you said JK memorized everyone’s outfit. Omg.

Charlotte Fox was a true bad ass. She had nothing to prove. I believe her account.

I think the whole expedition was not organized and poor decision making. No check and balance on o2.

What strikes me everytime I hear the name Mallory is that he was in a position that indicates he was still alive when he had come to a halt. He must have died in agony, banged up as he was sliding down the slope.

Great content. Small thing, pronounciation of Chaitanya is way off. It's the drink "chai" or "shaitaan" and women name"Tanya"

Why all the hoopla over two different accounts?

Sandy Pittman has been a scapegoat the entire time for the tragedy. From people blaming her for being tied to Lopsang causing Lopsang to not "fix the ropes" to making the sherpas carry too much stuff. Both are bs and had nothing to do with the deaths. She hired two extra sherpas just for herself and Lopsang regularly tied weaker climbers to him. Sandy was only tied to him for 1 hour before she could convince him to let her be by herself. If we can blame anyone I really think a lot of the blame should go on Scott. First off, those radios! He got paid tens of thousands of dollars, why did he not get new, good radios? Next he was "leading for the back"??? What bs. He should have been up front so he knew exactly what was going on with another guide at the back that could turn back with people if they got really bad. Next he wore himself out with too many trips prior to Everest and personally taking people back down the mountain. He was already having a very tough time acclimating and he hurt himself even more by doing that. Then there is one of the biggest mistakes... he didn't stick to his turn around time. For his clients nor himself. Lastly he ignored signs from other experienced climbers to not go up that day as the imax team or to turn around when time and oxygen was in short supply. I think Krakauer discredited and blamed Sandy instead of others because she alive and he didn't want to ridicule the dead and she was the "other journalist". If he badmouthed her then his voice would be more believed and he would get more fame and notoriety. Which pretty much worked.

TL;DR N B went off-slope for the right reasons at the time but it's simpler afterwards to say the wind did it. J K has it right this time. In the wiki article on "The Climb" N B complains he was not consulted about many salient points, and it mentions M G also was not consulted - N B describes The Climb as "a dishonest account", so that leads us back to J K and N B's accounts, of which NB has to be the primary source, so J K's account in the book is the most likely one to be accurate. (I'm mixing up homeworks here as L G's book Climbing High has just arrived) - LG states that she and K S came down the slope and headed left towards some lights which turned out to be NB and the others. When they met up with them MG, B W and Y N are also there, so the larger group came down as one, and included two Sherpas. IF (big if) the group did indeed get diverted by the wind, then I think the fault lies with whoever was in front of that group, as the others would likely be stumbling along after them, (and J K's book has the Sherpas leading the way and then abruptly doubling back). Since both the guides were hampered by assisting incapacitated clients I can't find it in my heart to blame them for the decision. Indeed, could N B and M G have managed to get their two invalids down the icy slope at all? And afterwards? Is N B going to say "If only I had abandoned the other team's client I could have made the right decision" ? M G faced a similar situation in a TV interview on Australian TV where he stated he had no regrets about his actions but almost at once has to admit he wished he could have done things differently for B W. I'm going to say I think N B consciously took them around the slippery face because he and M G would not have been able to slide the clients down safely, but subsequently is caught up in survivor guilt because of it, and switched to the wind story because it isn't pointing the finger at anybody. BTW - I have an interesting insight into why the ropes weren't fixed which comes from L G's book, I'll wait for a suitable video on which to comment it

About fixing the rope. He said he fixed some part of the rope and asked Mike that he will carryon after sometime. I just read the book, so this is not an inconsistency

Krakauer encountered the bottleneck while coming down after being in the summit for about 10 minutes so he reached the top of it at about 1:30 - 1:45 just about the time Yasukonwas starting to climb it very slowly. You can see the line of climbers in the photo behind her. They all took a long time, listen to Makalu Gou’s interview in Storm over Everest he says that everybody was taking forever to climb it and when it was his turn he could see why, it took him very long to get to the top as well. krakauer probably saw more than 8 clients take about 10 minutes each to climb which is about 80 minutes of standing around. he finally saw Fischer climb over the step who everyone saw was climbing super slow, from David Breshears, to Groom Lene Gamelgaard and Charlotte fox. So I dont see the contradiction or fabrication you point out.

I'm a big fan of you Mr Tracy and your forensic taking apart of all the sociopathic narcissists out there (not mentioning any names, Thom Dharma Pollard) but might have to rethink if you keep setting me homework assignments. I'm 53 for cripes sake. Spoon feed me the facts Mr Tracy, sir. Please don’t give me detention eiither. Joking aside, please keep up the good work.

Thank you for this. It's one thing to not recalling correctly because of all the stress one had descending in s storm, but fabricating stories to hide one 's cowardice and blame others for one's mistakes? Not cool

I've just re-read parts of "The Climb". It reads to me that while Beidleman originally directed the group to the left at the end of the fixed ropes, he was not leading the group after that. He states "I could not travel to the front of the group carrying the Japanese woman, and I didn't have a headlamp on". I don't know who was leading or making the decisions on which way to go at that point, but I don't think it was Beidleman. It does appear that he was instrumental in getting the group to stop where they did to avoid potentially walking off the Kangshung face. On the other hand Adams, Krakauer and very much later Lobsang were all able to get back to camp during the storm via the regular route, so it probably wasn't a great choice for Biedleman (on his first Himalayan guiding assignment) to go the way he did, albeit his thinking process to a layman like me appears reasonable. I see that Boukreev says he was first out of his tent at 6:30 pm and the weather at the South Col was OK at that point, but 10 to 15 minutes later had deteriorated. I can think of no reason why Boukreev would lie about the times. But surely the Beidleman group are still somewhere above Boukreev around this time, not below? Martin Adams didn't get in until 8:30 or 9:00 pm, and he and Krakauer were some way ahead of the Biedleman group. Boukreev was back in his tent when Martin Adams came in so It seems more likely all the clients were still on the fixed rope sections when Boukreev finished his first foray. I've no idea why Krakauer would say it was 7:30pm when Boukreev left the tent. Doesn't make sense. I don't have a copy of "Into Thin Air" to see what else Krakauer may say about what was happening at that time. I've been trying to count oxygen bottles in "The Climb" but I can't tell what has happened, other than there wasn't enough. I'm surprised that Boukreev had to remove some from the sherpas to make his rescue attempts. I'm curious too as to what happened to the two sherpas who were reportedly with the Beidleman group initially - presumably they made it back to camp OK, but were unable or saw no need to raise the alarm about the missing clients.

Maybe there were Os there when Jon passed through first, but not when Neal passed through later. I have no doubt that the memories of everyone up there that night is tainted due to shock and extreme fatigue. Medically speaking, blood wasn't reaching all the brain in order to keep the body alive.

Brad Pitts performance in 12 Monkeys was spot on. He seriously dug into that character.

Based on what I’ve read, Boukreev doesn’t strike me as the type to expand much or go into much detail. He seemed pretty matter of fact.

I always wondered why Krakauer wasn’t on David Brashears PBS special about the incident. Makes more sense now.

I'm sorry, my dog always eats my homework 😂

TY 🙏🙏

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.

Beidleman and Anatoli are cool 😎

Ooh, a puzzle. Idk about oxygen, but the timing of Krakauer meeting Adams, Krakauer’s return to camp, Boukreev’s first rescue trip up the mountain, and Beidleman’s group’s circling around the col - all supposedly happening at or near 6:30 and 7:30pm - does not make much sense as presented in both books. Either it was a very near miss, or someone is mistaken or misremembering. I’d say B. realized the problem but left the camp later than he suggests in The Climb, and Beidleman is telling a somewhat sanitized version because he’s sick and tired of this story. And Krakauer? Gee, God only knows. But I’m no expert, just trying this as a textual/intellectual exercise.

It’s also possible that everyone who spent that long on the mountain, in a severe crisis mind set, can’t recall things properly. That’s why there are so many varying stories. Also with the amount of deaths, there’s a lot of trauma and potential blame people are carrying - the brain is very good at convincing us of certain things to prevent trauma and protect. It’s a complex thing indeed. Can we ever know what actually happened… probably not?

Going rogue here. I think Michael is leading us in the direction that Krakauer took some of the stashed oxygen bottles for his own use at Camp 4 😂

Seems like a mistake to deviate from the standard descent route when it is dark and a storm is raging, so better to say that you were blown off course if you are trying to avoid accountability. But my main takeaway is that it was inexcusable to delay the descent from the summit to the point where it is dark on the descent; that was the critical mistake. Once you've made the summit, a major goal has been achieved, and then all efforts should be on the other main goal which is to get off the mountain alive. To me, that is the main lesson, not Sandy Pittman or Into Thin Air or anything else: be sure to summit early enough, then get the hell back down ASAP.

Michael’s channel is like the Makalu of Mt. Everest channels, razor sharp and criminally underrated.

If Beidleman knew the direction to camp and knew his view would be obstructed, he could have taken a compass bearing and followed it. ..survival 101. That is, if he had a compass...and he should have had one. Again, survival 101. Instead, he knowingly took the group to a place where a rescue party would not look for them if they got lost... again, not using basic survival strategy. It is no wonder he has been reluctant to be interviewed and is changing his story to "force majeure."

I’m inclined to believe that Beidleman is telling what he, at that time many years later, believes is the truth. ‘We got blown off course and visibility was terrible so we were lost’ isn’t really all that different from ‘I wanted to go a slightly different route to avoid x and the wind and visibility ended up with us lost’ which is the spirit of what I interpret him to be saying, even if it’s not entirely the same as what he says in the transcripts. I’m also more inclined to believe what he said closer to the event, than so many years later, with memory being fallible. Especially since I think it’s totally believable that people haven’t really scrutinized what he’s said much, as the narrative that became popular thanks to Into Thin Air doesn’t particularly encourage people to do so. This is also supported by all of the knowledge about Pittman from the interviewer suggesting it’s not what they’re paying attention to either. But he has, in all likelihood, been asked to retell the general story before. Probably many times. In which case, it makes sense that a whittled down, simplified, broad strokes version would develop over the years. I also don’t see any self serving reason for anyone to lie about it. The problem seems to be the weather in all of the tellings. As for the bottles, Krakauer has proven to be unreliable on issues of that sort you can probably just throw his version out. Boukreev doesn’t seem to contradict Beidekman’s. His book doesn’t seem to pay much attention to tracking oxygen in general outside of giving/bringing people oxygen, if I recall correctly. I’m not convinced anyone can give an accurate account of boukreev going out the first time. His telling of that was, in my opinion, confusing to the point where I’m not sure how anyone could come to firm conclusions on how far he ventured out, where, and how many times. I’m inclined to believe he did try. I might just be too dumb to follow the story, though lol

It is not necessarily contradictory to consciously deviate from a standard route due to a storm and simultaneously be blown sideways on the new route.

Alot of decrepecies of this event can be explained with people not being honest to themselves and trying to rationalize their devisions that they made in a panic. Makes sense in order for someone to live with the survivor guilt of the event to rewrite events so in the future they can genuinly beleive there was nothing they could do. Issue is Krakaur didn't just lie to make himself look good to himself but maliciously attempt to rewrite history to his own financial benifit.

The whole thing was a disastrous boisterous effort by two competing camps. Leading to unnecessary risk morbidity and death Greed and fame powered this effort

Who benefits from all the deception about Mallory and Irvine? What’s the ultimate need to mask truths…

awaiting the detailed zig-zag video...or is it out already? if yes, someone share the link?

Here is my take: Krakauer has very little credibility, as your videos prove. Of course the oxygen was a mess - people worried about their life will rationize their behavior. Beidleman gave off the air of someone who wanted to put 1996 behind him, he didn't want to explain his decision again. As he mentioned he doesn't give interviews about it, it could have been a requirement of granting the interview that the interviewer didn't push back. Lastly I believe Boukrev's account. Beidleman was an experienced mountaineer and seems intelligent. It is extremely likely that he would make a plan based on the terrain as the storm rolled in. It doesn't make sense that Anatoly would make up such a detailed story. My guess is Anatoly tried to go up to the fixed ropes, got thwarted by the storm, and then met the Beidleman group. Armed with new information about the groups location, he then went back out.

Silly conversation Michael. I apologize for my big part of it. Thank you for your content that I enjoy very much.

I’m utterly convinced that these two amazing English gentlemen made the summit. By all gods and Merlin’s beard, please may we find the camera and expose the film. I bet the pictures would show George Mallory bent over, trousers around his ankles flashing his arse with a cross of St George sticking out his pipe! Or maybe just a huge big smile after conquering the highest peak in a set of tweeds, his plumbs weighing down his trousers.

Where does it say that the Mountain Madness team received 4 bottles of oxygen for the summit bid? From Charlotte Fox's article "At the Balcony we had our first change of oxygen (each of us carried a second bottle)" ..... "It turns out I had plenty of time to contemplate our next move. We waited again while more people arrived at our small sheltered nook under the South Summit. All were due for a last bottle of oxygen at this point (which we would use to summit and descend to the South Col) to be delivered by Sherpa staff." Am I reading that incorrectly? That sounds like they only had 3 bottles of oxygen each. The two they carried and the one the sherpa staff delivered to the south summit.

Is this a video? All I see is text

Thanks for the Irvine/ Mallory work. It is great to get an assesment from a real mountaineer. Have fun and climb safe!!

Apparently the only truthful thing Krakuarer wrote of was his account of smoking that dank Nepalese ganja.

at time stamp 23:51, there is a major discrepancy in the narration. the narrator says 15-degree slope, it is trig. it is geometry, and it is approximately 45 degrees

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.