Hi Michael, enjoying this series (as I do with all your videos). It's great to hear someone do a lot of research into this topic that goes against the received wisdom that is so readily accepted in fields with a "mythos" (for want of a better term) like high altitude climbing. I have a question though, about something that has bothered me about this series. Why is your interpretation of 'Into Thin Air' something the author claims to be a truthful account, and that he largely attributes the tragedy to the presence of inexperienced climbers? My feeling was always that Krakauer did not intend this to be a factual account, and that he places plenty of blame on the lead guides not following their own rules (turn around times, etc), and even considers himself as responsible in the death of Andy Harris. I agree there is a narrative being spun by Krakauer, but I don't think that's to the detriment of the book. I am interested in hearing how you came to your interpretation of the book Cheers

@michaeltracy2356

9 күн бұрын

This is a good question, but I will need to break it down to put it in the comments. Let me start with whether Krakauer intended it to be a factual account.... "My intent in the magazine piece, and to an even greater degree in this book, was to tell what happened on the mountain as accurately and honestly as possible, and to do it in a sensitive, respectful manner." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 303). I do not feel his account is accurate nor sensitive nor respectful. He refers to Sandy Pittman as "a millionaire socialite-cum-climber." (p. 119) Hey, I get it. Very funny, yes. Respectful? No. Does he introduce other people as, for example, "physician-cum-climber." No. The only people he uses that little verbal banter with are women. I do not consider that respectful. So, right off the bat I had the impression that this was a boyish book. I have detailed some of the inaccurate items in his book and future videos will detail more. It is the pattern in them that brings me to the conclusion that he blames it on inexperienced climbers. I am going to break the comments up...

@michaeltracy2356

9 күн бұрын

In terms of him blaming inexperienced climbers, Outside Magazine was nice enough to tell us that his assignment ws to go to Everest and write a piece about how inexperienced climbers were a disaster waiting to happen on Everest. (www.outsideonline.com/adventure-travel/destinations/asia/everest-year-later-false-summit/) " What might it augur on a peak already swarming with too many climbers too inexperienced to save themselves-let alone others-if caught by one of the Himalayas’ frequent storms? It seemed a foregone conclusion that reality would soon strike home with a vengeance. The only question was when. By the time we asked contributing editor and lifelong climber Jon Krakauer to examine firsthand the circumstances that might lead to a disaster, things had only gotten worse. Swelling ranks of amateur climbers were paying ever fatter sums to be escorted up the peak, and some outfitters seemed to be all but guaranteeing the summit." Ok, so that is why Outside Magazine paid him to go there and obviously they didn't know the disaster would strike, but all his background that he was gathering would likely support the narrative that Outside Magazine instructed him to tell. And when the disaster did strike, he did not take a fresh look at things. Although he does blame himself for the death of Andy Harris, he does not explain why that is. I will get into in a future video. I do not blame him for not delving too far into it, so on that point I will give him a pass. If that was the only issue or there were not a large number of other issues, I would not be making these videos. But, just because Outside Magazine sent him to write a piece that inexperienced climbers were going to cause a disaster, that does not mean there is support for that in his book. Is there anything in the book that supports this? Next comment....

@michaeltracy2356

9 күн бұрын

Yes. First, the blames the "inexperienced" Montenegrins for screwing up the rope fixing... "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). The only problem with that is it is absolutely not true. They did not fix the first 1400 feet above S Col and if they had, it would have been the most useful rope ever put on the mountain that day. Worthless when there is no storm, but a lifesaver during a storm. They did fix the ropes higher up. In fact, they climbed to the base of the Hillary Step. I will cover this in an upcoming video because it is such a big deal. Krakauer just says a bunch on inexperienced screw ups fixed the rope all wrong. When Krakauer's climb is delayed, he blames the lack of fixed ropes and, of course, Sandy Pittman. ("And now Lopsang had just towed Pittman on a short-rope for five or six hours above the South Col, substantially compounding his fatigue and preventing him from assuming his customary role in the lead, establishing the route." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 177). and see page 182). So, I hope you can see the problem. If the "inexperienced " Montenegrins could get to the base of Hillary Step with just the ropes they fixed on May 9, why couldn't Krakauer get there on May 10? No ropes needed to be fixed on May 10 below the Hillary Step. But Krakauer solves that by saying the ropes needed to be fixed up the Hillary Step and that caused him all the delay. That is why he fudged the 1PM time in this video. As soon as you take his actual time he was at the foot of Hillary Step, you see there was no delay beyond a couple minutes. He left South Col at 12PM and was on summit at 1:12PM. That is a great climb time. But shows there were no delays. That doesn't work, so he inserted the delay. Fortnately, there is a photo take at about 1PM and it shows the base of the Hillary Step. Krakauer is nowhere to be found -- and he says as much in his Illustrated Edition. Here is what his own book says, "...looking up from South Summit at 1:00PM [at the Hillary Step]. Three Climbers -- Deal Beidleman, Martin Adams, and Klev Schoening -- are visible above the Hillary Step, en route to the summit. Anatoli Boukreev, Jon Krakauer, and Andy Harris are out of sight above, just below the top." (p.241) And yet, in the very same book, he is at the base of the Hillary Step at 1PM. And the reason for the delay, according to Krakauer was the inexperienced climbers tiring the Sherpa out. Not only is it not true -- there was no delay. No ropes were ever fixed between South Summit and base of Hillary Step. They just used last years. He just makes the whole thing up to blame other people for his own mistakes. The reason why they all waited at South Summit was not the lack of fixed ropes. It was that the porter sherpas had not brought the oxygen up yet. Smart climbers would wait to get a fresh bottle before going to the summit. Krakauer was trying to be the first one to reach the top for the entire season, so he goes at first chance and his bottle is there yet. So, he runs out of oxygen. Does he blame himself for making a rookie mistake because his ego wanted to be the first to summit? Nope. It was caused by the delay coming down the Hillary Step -- also which he completely describes incorrectly. Fortunately, there is a photo (same one above) that will allow us to determine what really happened at the Hillary Step. Next comment...

@michaeltracy2356

9 күн бұрын

But there are also Krakauer's words.. Later-after six bodies had been located, after a search for two others had been abandoned, after surgeons had amputated the gangrenous right hand of my teammate Beck Weathers-people would ask why, if the weather had begun to deteriorate, had climbers on the upper mountain not heeded the signs? Why did veteran Himalayan guides keep moving upward, ushering a gaggle of relatively inexperienced amateurs-each of whom had paid as much as $65,000 to be taken safely up Everest-into an apparent death trap? (Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 8). ) Why not say "Why did a Himalayan guide convince an experienced climber who had already turned around and was heading down the mountain to re-turn back around again and head up the mountain when everything about the situation told that experienced climber his climb was over? Had that guide not convinced his client to stop his descent and just let him return to the safety of camp, this entire disaster would have been avoided." Well, that would have been the truth. Doug Hansen turned around. Doug Hansen was headed down the mountain. Krakauer white-washed the incident. This is how Krakauer reports it... Not long after that, Doug stepped aside as well, “He was a little ahead of me at the time,” recalls Lou. “All of a sudden he stepped out of line and just stood there. When I moved up beside him, he told me he was cold and feeling bad and was heading down.” Then Rob, who was bringing up the rear, caught up to Doug, and a brief conversation ensued. Nobody overheard the dialogue, so there is no way of knowing what was said, but the upshot was that Doug got back in line and continued his ascent.K rakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (pp. 173-174). And this is Lou's account .... "Now on summit day, Doug decided, based on his own judgment, that the best thing for him was to turn around. Again, this was the individual decision making Rob expected from each of us. Doug was the best judge about his own readiness. As Doug moved below me, the rest of us continued to climb." Kasischke, Lou. After The Wind (p. 146). I do not find Krakauer's account accurate. There is a big difference between standing there and waiting and turning around and heading down. Kasischke's account is clear that Doug turned around and was headed down. And again, we have Krakuer's version of what Kasischke said as opposed to what Kasischke wrote in his book. Now, is there any mystery why Doug Hansen died? And thus Rob Hall? And thus Andy Harris? Obvious when it is highlighted, but where is it in any of his analysis? Was this caused by Boukreev not using oxygen? Sandy having a coffee pot? What does this have to do with the "gaggle of relatively inexperienced climbers?" Thus, based on Krakuer repeated reference to "inexperienced" climbers causing problems while ignoring that Doug Hansen -- an experienced climber with prior Everest experience -- turned around and was then convinced to push on to the summit by Rob Hall means it was not close to a fair or reasonable assessment. I would ask readers to comment if you even knew Doug Hansen had made his own decision to turn around only to be convinced to press on my Rob Hall.

@adventuresgonewrong

9 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356I am finding on my recent video where I mention Doug turning around, that most people had no clue he did that. Or was pretty sick in the lead up to the summit attempt, according to both Lou and Beck. Love your detailed analysis. I didn’t notice that small point of Krakuer mentioning Doug just stepping out of line while completely leaving out him turning around and walking by Lou!

It is a tangled web that Krakauer has woven. I'm fascinated with the way in which you are untangling it Michael. Thank you.

"Fischer was also not carrying a VPK" ... that's a level of sarcasm I can appreciate.

@lumenati

5 күн бұрын

Please explain the ref for the rest of us ha

You might find it interesting that Krakauer's account was/is taught in English class for year 10 students in Australia. Quite ironic as it was used to explore themes of perspective (with the focus on Krakauer being correct and everyone else not). And of course too the themes of "Man v Nature" (the pollution of Everest and too many climbers notions). I only learnt that most people with anything to do with Everest thought it was a load of nonsense in year 12 from a substitute teacher we had for history, one Judy Tenzing. I remember her being especially aggrieved by what he wrote of Boukreev, so it's great to learn about the inaccuracies regarding Sandy Pittman and everything else too. It's good you're covering this for us laymen, and if your videos get swarmed by Australian high school students, you'll know why! haha Anyways keep up the great videos mate, can't wait for the following parts.

@michaeltracy2356

11 күн бұрын

It also looks like from the photos that Krakauer trashed the mountain by leaving an oxygen bottle. There are a number of issues around his rescue and what happened with the bottle he received to rescue him. The photos show no oxygen bottle at the rescue location prior to Krakauer's rescue and then a bottle is there afterwards. It appears, in his desperation to save his life, he just left the empty bottle there -- thus explaining the mystery of why so many bottles remain on Everest. Even well intentioned people leave their trash when it is a choice between their own life and keeping the Mountain clean.

@troopieeeeee

10 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 How did things get to the point that so many people were in desperate, life threatening trouble even before the storm hit?

@oliverreno4734

10 күн бұрын

@@troopieeeeee Piss poor planning.

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

@@troopieeeeee Yeah, pretty much what oliverreno up there said. Look at Jon Krakauer and how he got into desperate, life threatening trouble long before the storm hit. He failed to plan his oxygen use, and did not understand the basics of oxygen equipment use at high altitude. I'll detail his numerous "rookie mistakes" in an upcoming video, but the largest mistake Krakauer made was thinking his high degree of skill in technical climbing would compensate for a lack of understanding of oxygen equipment. You don't need really any mountaineering skill to climb the mountain. You do need to know how to operate your oxygen equipment and plan your climb so that you don't break down like Krakauer and need a guide to rescue you. Other people made other mistakes, but largely the same thing -- just poor planning. Doug Hansen was smart and turned around. But Rob Hall had a chat with him and convinced him to climb back up the distance he had given up and keep going to the summit. So, listening to a motivational guide can also be deadly -- for both the client and the guide. Had Hall just let Hansen stick to his original well thought out decision to continue down the mountain, things would be very different. Hansen planned well and knew he was too far behind extremely early and did the right thing -- turned around. Rob Hall changed his mind. The exact content of that conversation remains a mystery. Beck Weathers was suicidal before going to Everest -- turned all this guns into the police, etc. Family thought he was just going to finish it. In the middle of the storm, we have the following... "when all of a sudden Beck mumbles, ‘Hey, I’ve got this all figured out.’ Then he kind of rolls a little distance away, crouches on a big rock, and stands up facing the wind with his arms stretched out to either side. A second later a gust comes up and just blows him over backward into the night, beyond the beam of my headlamp. And that was the last I saw of him." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 226). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. So, I suspect that Beck Weather's situation is a little different from other peoples. Obviously, he changed his mind about things sometime after he figured it all out. Exactly what he figured out also remains a mystery.

@davidgeisler9885

10 күн бұрын

@@troopieeeeeeI don’t think most were in trouble before the storm hit. They were too late on the mountain but if not for the storm i think all may have survived with the exception of Fischer. Or put another way. I wonder how many client guided expeditions end to too late on the mountain but get away with it because the weather stays manageable. Climbing mountains is inherently risky to begin with then you add in guiding 5 or so amateurs

I'll have to open up the cupboard and go over these books again. I remember being left with a lot of questions but will have to reacquaint myself with the finer details once more.

For other investigations I wanted to write a software tool to allow a group of online sleuths to built precise timelines of where people were, along with any supporting documents, in part to allows the detection of incoherent narratives.

If the 2 guides (Hall and Fischer) stuck to the 2pm turnaround rule no one would of died and we wouldn't even be talking about that day. The delay in the fixed ropes from the Hillary step to the summit, Antonoli not using o2 when he was supposed to be guiding others, Hall pushing Doug to make the summit, Sandy being short roped to the summit, none of that would of mattered if they all would of turned around at 2pm. I've read both The Climb and Into Thin Air numerous times and they are both good takes buy 2 people that were there with different perspectives. Antoloni saved the lives of 4 or 5 climbers that day, he was the real hero as selfish as he may have been climbing without O2. The guides failed their clients that day. RIP peace to all that died that day ✌️

@michaeltracy2356

9 күн бұрын

Even with the "2 pm" turn around time, Krakauer is manipulating it. 3 other people on Adventure Consultants turned around because they insisted it was a "1 pm" turn around time. However, even the "1 pm" is manipulated by Krakauer. What was told to the team was that they would leave at 11PM and have 12 hours of oxygen to each the summit and 6 hours of oxygen for the return. Thus, the time to summit safely was 11AM the next day. For delays and fudge factors, two hours were build in with the absolutely turn around time being 1 PM. However, simply changing the time did not solve the problem of oxygen. Thus, the 2 hours "fudge factor" was to cover things like you waiting and you turned your oxygen down, so your oxygen would last longer. Or your regulator was just giving you slightly less than 2LPM, so your bottles were lasting longer. Krakauer takes this and turns it into this idea that they would climb until 2PM and then turn around. That was never the plan. At South Summit, if you didn't have time to make the summit, you would turn around. That is why 3 people from AC turned around at South Summit well prior to 12PM. Krakauer ignored all this, climbed up, ran out of oxygen, needed to be rescued by a passing guide, and was able to stumble into camp and fall asleep while Boukreev was out in the storm dragging people back to the tents.

@kc72186

8 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 Wether it was 1 or 2pm turnaround time if all involved were to honor that I feel the tragedy would of been avoided. Krakauer was obviously delusional because of his own issues with his decent and being a writer certainly attributed to his inaccuracies of what was happening around him, most journalists wouldn't make themselves look bad. I've always wondered what would of happened if that storm didn't come, I'm sure there would of still been casualties but maybe only 2 or 3. Too many who weren't there try to put the blame on one thing but for me the turnaround rule was key. Unfortunately Krakauer puts a lot of the blame on Anotoli and that is unfair. The guides failed their clients and their greed for success cost them dearly. 🍻

It's difficult to consider that any first-person accounts would be reliable, considering the known dilution of memory accuracy over time, combined with the oxygen-starved conditions in which the memory was first laid down.

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

It is more a question of why Krakauer chose to ignore the photographs and instead rely on those problematic accounts. One tells the story he wants and one tells the story he does not want.

@davidgeisler9885

10 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356he knows how to sell books and has sold millions of them. He might respond and say he retold first hand accounts as he was told them and wasn’t trying to do a detailed factual expedition account as such as it likely wouldn’t have sold near as many copies,

I’m enjoying your takedown of Krakauer. When I read Into Thin Air I found it quite enthralling which led me to read more of his works. Unfortunately the more of his works I read, the more I saw him as a petty soulless man.

Another truthful, great video! Keep’em coming my friend! Cheers!

Fascinating work Michael

Another interesting youtube contribution Mike!

Like every one else I read Into Thin Air and took that story to be completely factual and never questioned any of it. How could I? I’m no expert! I took the Basic Climbing course at The Mountaineers in Seattle a decade after 1996 and no one I climbed with back then ever questioned anything either. Makes me wonder what other pile of lies I have swallowed in the past…

@datacipher

9 күн бұрын

Not me…. But I already knew krakauer played loose with the truth at times, and I had heard boukreev’s book was coming.

The suspense is killing me!

TY Michael 🙏🙏, another well presented video, looking forward to the next one!

I always taken Krakauer's version of what happen during the event of 1996 to be as close to the truth as possible regarding the whole situation with lack of oxygen, bad weather, the fusion of many members memory, etc... It's one of my "favorite" books, describing the tragedy of what happened in 1996 on Mt Everest. It sadden me a lot when pictures like Scott's show a different story and Krakauer have done nothing to correct his story. Many of the people participating in the event have been interviewed about what happened. Listening to what Sandy Hill Pittman and Charlotte Fox both says about the "needle situation" makes me want to believe Fox over Hill Pittman. One's memory isn't really a source of truth but if one write a book about something and new evidence and facts appear the misinformation should immediately be corrected, in my opinion.

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

For me, it is more about the important lessons that were ignored by Krakauer. There is a lot of useful "things learned" if you really look at this disaster -- I will in the near future. Rather than helping the mountaineering community learn from this, Krakauer engaged in petty squabbles and trivial nonsense. I really think that his negative comments toward Boukreev were just that Krakauer was set to be the first to summit that season and Boukreev passed him at the last minute. You can sort of see Krakauer positioning himself to take the first spot, and then all of a sudden -- denied. Whether that is the true motivation or not I do not know.

@somjasa

10 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 I have Boukreev's book as well and never realized that could be Krakauer's intention. I love to listen to books when trying to sleep so I will relistening to Boukreev's book again with your thoughts in mind, thank you!

Great stuff, so interesting, thank you and please, keep it coming.

Ya I am not a Fan of John Krakauar. He singled out and lied about Sandy Pittman from the start. First saying that she brought a cappuccino maker with her not to mention painting her as an amateur climber which she was not at that time she had already climbed 6 of the 7 highest Mountains which left only Mt. Everest to complete that coveted title. The reason John Krakauer did this was to hide his own inabilitys and incidents of failure during the Expedition.

It’s easy for Jon to write whatever he wanted because no one left alive to dispute him

I caught Thom Pollard in a direct lie (I think - not 100% sure). He says in his video with Politz that he tried to remove the leather motorcycle helmet to see if there was any skull damage at the back of Mallory's head as well as the damage above the left eye but he couldn't undo the buckle to get the helmet off and look. That figures...the helmet wasn't there. I cannot see any sign of a leather helmet in the red suit video (not the yellow suit recreation video) or pictures. What I can see on the back of the head is some bleached hair and a bald patch from weathering. So if I'm right, Pollard, when it comes to this, is lying direct. However the helmet lie might lend weight to the left eye area damage claim because if the ice axe did this it might well have ripped the leather cap off in the process. Was the cap recovered? I haven't got that far yet so I don't know. In the meantime I've invented a cocktail called summit on the rocks. It's a triple double whisky with ice. The plan is to use it on Pollard and see if he starts drunk-talking straight.

I get lost in all the details, and I can't tell you which books, articles, videos, and interviews I've gotten this info. from, but Krakauer said that had Rob told him (and maybe others), not to go up ahead of others on their own. At certain points, he described standing/sitting there waiting for Rob to come up. At the point where ropes were needed, he got the green light from Rob to go ahead and fix ropes with Neil and Anatoly. I also read somewhere that Scott had a lingering health problem from ...a fall he had taken when he was younger? ...some illness that flared up occasionally (like malaria, but not malaria), and that he had been having trouble with that. That, coupled with his taking his client back to camp 1 that day, added to his lack of energy and slowed speed? I'm wondering why you think JK would have been aware of the prank Scott and Lapsong were planning, given that he wasn't on that team and that the prank was supposed to be some kind of surprise (i think you said in a previous vid)? Thanks for all you do!

@michaeltracy2356

8 күн бұрын

That there was a "prank" was published in a best selling book. Krakauer would be aware of it either because he spoke to Gammelgaard and she told him, he read the book himself, or one of the thousands of people who read the book told him about it. He claims to be an "investigative journalist," so typically such people ask questions and follow up on leads. His source for most things is Beidleman -- who is on the Mountain Madness team, so if he is not concerned the the MM team, why did he interview its guide? He interviewed Lopsang multiple time. In any case, it does little use to point out things Krakauer said. As I will get into in an upcoming video, Krakauer changed his own story multiple times on major events. So, what you read in Into Thin Air, the book, is his carefully crafted version of things that differs significantly from what he said immediately after the incident and even from what he wrote in the magazine article. The book was published in May of 1997 -- a full year after the events, and either Krakauer invented his original version of what happened that he told back in May of 1996 or he invented the version in the book in 1997 -- or, far more likely, both. Given that Krakauer outright invents things, you have to ask whether Rob Hall really told him that. First, it would not make any difference if he did or didn't. The reason you can't just run out in front of everyone is because, although Krakauer was climbing with oxygen, he was, of course, not carrying it all on his own. Instead, a sherpa was carrying a bottle up for him. Krakauer blatantly misrepresents how climbers switch their bottles climbing. You can go through the math and see that he blatantly misrepresents it. You can look at photos that show other climbers had no problem understanding how the system worked. Now, Krakauer ignored all of this and wanted to just run to the summit and have the sherpas or someone else save him. So, he did it his way, ran out of oxygen, and needed to be rescued. His story of running out of oxygen changes between May 1996 and May 1997 -- dramatically. In fact, his version of just about everything changes dramatically between May 1996 and May 1997. Then major things change again between May 1997 and 1999 where he invents a new version of what happened at the Hillary Step. The main thing is that no one was waiting on ropes to be fixed for any significant amount of time. They were waiting on the oxygen to be brought up. The majority of the route never had fixed ropes on it. There was some misunderstanding with the clients, including Krakauer, that there would be fixed ropes the whole way. While this is the way it is done now, that is not the way it was done then. Instead, Krakauer has presented this myth that everyone was a bunch of inexperienced climbers that were incapable of moving unless they could pull their way up a fixed rope. As the photos of the mountain show, that was not the case. Krakauer invented the whole thing. You can climb as fast as you want, but if you climb faster than the sherpa carrying your oxygen, then you will eventually run out of oxygen. As an inexperienced climber, Krakauer learned this the hard way. Everyone else waited for the oxygen -- not the fixed ropes. To some extent, Krakuer puts that in the book, but it is in the section where he blames the sherpas for not leaving early enough to get his oxygen in place for him. Although the Sherpa was melting his snow for him and other clients at the time, the entitled Krakauer treats the sherpa like dogs and expects them to just magically be able to cater to his every whim. Sure, they had to set up his tent, carry his oxygen, and melt his snow for him all at high camp, but why couldn't they just work faster and climb faster so that Krakauer can have his oxygen in place? Curiously, in the 1996 article, he mentions the sherpa doing some of this. In the book, he deletes the part about the sherpa. Many other sections are cut-and-paste verbatim. And that section is cut-and-paste and well. But the sherpa doing the work got cut -- didn't get pasted. While he pays lip service to "thanking" the Sherpa, he completely disrespected them by deleting that line about the sherpa doing the work and then blaming them for not leaving earlier when they were gather snow and melting it so that Krakauer didn't have to. Whenever Krakauer needed a key fact to support his narrative, he simply invented it -- key "facts" that were missing from his earlier versions and frequently contradicted his earlier version. Ultimately, he settled on the set of facts that told the best story and was easiest for people to believe. For instance, " At the point where ropes were needed, he got the green light from Rob to go ahead and fix ropes with Neil and Anatoly." That is what Krakauer told you. However, the photo on page 237 show Jon Krakauer and everyone else climbing the section just above where Krakauer just told he was waiting for the ropes to be fixed. There are no fixed ropes so he was not waiting for them to be fixed. As soon as you understand that Krakauer invents everything From Thin Air, his whole book will make sense.

Always riveting Michael, always Sir! Best!!

HELP MICHAEL!!. I have just started to watch your videos about Mallory and Irvine, learning a lot about the subject that i didn't know before. I have also seen some videos of Thom Pollard but in other videos you say (if i understood correctly) that they hide information from us, drone photos, accounts on the body of Irvine being taken to Lhasa etc, that if i understand correctly are not true. English isnt my mother language so your videos are a huge challenge for me to understand because of the difficult vocabulary so would you (or anyone please) mind to explain to me with the least words posible things like where you think Irvine is, whether the camera is with him in Lhasa, why hasnt he been found yet and other stuff? I will watch all your videos but if you explained those things to me here you would make the process for me much easier...

@michaeltracy2356

8 күн бұрын

The main point of my channel is that people should not trust KZread. Not me. Not Thom. You will need to work through this on your own. You might look at how the information is presented --- does it have sources that you can check? Or is it just a talking head telling you to believe him because he is a super nice guy? You should also explore things on your own and see if that person's version makes sense. This is also a popular enough channel that if you post something in your native language, probably someone here can answer you that speaks the language fluently. My videos are about educating people so that they can answer their own questions. Likely they can answer yours as well. This is an Everest 1996 video, so probably post Mallory and Irvine questions on an appropriate video. In terms of where Irvine is, he is likely visible in the photo show in the Final Resting Place video. kzread.info/dash/bejne/e5Oq2pt8kqedos4.html That video was released in 2017. I went to Everest in 2018 but there was too much snow and we couldn't get over to that ledge. Two teams went in 2019 and Mark Synnott searched that ledge. There was very low snow and he has not released a single photo of what is there. But there are plenty of other places he could be.

@gabriellopezperez7363

8 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you Michael. I posted my questions on this video cuz it is the most recent so it was more likely that you replied to me here, you have, so i feel very grateful about it. I just got the Third Pole, hoping to learn more because watching your great videos i dont get all the information because you speak too fast for a non native english speaker hahaha. Talking about the photos that Synott hasn't released...the 100th anniversay of the mistery will be in less than two months. Maybe these people that probably know more than they show are waiting for the 8th of june to release breaking news or something, could this be possible?

The "which is more likely" method suggest that he just screwed the times when writing it, rather than deliberately chose to misrepresent. I don't think he's taking detailed notes in a diary as he goes up the summit ridge.

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

I'll outline why he needed to change the time and what the real time means for the overall story. It is not some trivial detail that he just happened to get wrong. It is key to his entire narrative. If he was not taking detailed notes, why didn't he just say that. He could have said, "I was waiting for a little bit, but I wasn't taking detailed notes so I really don't know what time it was. Although I could have looked at my watch, I didn't see the need to know how much oxygen and thus how much time I had left to be alive." Instead, he said he was closely watching his watch and was conscientious of the time because he needed to know how much oxygen he had and thus how much longer he would remain alive unless he got more. " But it was a slow process, and as he painstakingly ascended toward the crest of the Step, I nervously studied my watch and wondered whether I might run out of oxygen." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 188). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group See. Helps if you read the book.

@nezeda.8753

10 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 I wonder if time left on oxygen makes sense if he really had to wait at the top of the Hillary step as he claimed. Weren't there more os stocked there to descend that - by Kraks narrative - he could have reached in time had there not been a bottleneck stuck situation?

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

Krakauer paints that picture that if he was just the only person climbing, then everything would have been just fine for him. But that is like coming in late to work every single day and saying it is because of traffic. Krakuer's analysis is simple. He needed to wait at South Col for the oxygen to come up. He didn't want to because he wanted to be the first to reach the summit for the entire season and write about how he beat all the "inexperienced" climbers. So, he runs out in front and tried to get there first -- but Boukreev comes from behind at the last minute and beats him to the summit. On the descent, Krakauer makes up a story about a guide who was supposed to turn his oxygen off but instead turned it up all the way. And this caused him to run out of oxygen. The only problem is the oxygen coming out is very loud. It makes a loud hissing noise and you can get a rough estimate of what your flow rate is just by listening to it. Now, Krakauer just leaves that out of the book -- well, because then his story doesn't make any sense. If it really was turned up all the way, he would have heard it. And some point, you just have to realize that Krakauer is lying to you. I realize a lot of people "grew up" on this book but it is a work of fiction crafted to tell a predetermined story. Outside Magazine stated that the reason he was sent there was to write about how "inexperienced" climbers had the potential to cause a disaster. And, then when he was there and there was a disaster, wow, what a surprise, he blames it on the inexperienced climbers. Almost as if that had been the plan all along. (www.outsideonline.com/adventure-travel/destinations/asia/everest-year-later-false-summit/). As I will get into into in the final video, "inexperienced" climbers were not the problem. It is that an experienced guide made a deal with the devil (Outside Magazine) and that can directly be traced to every single problem that occurred. Fortunately, Krakauer describes the details of the deal in his book. From there, it is simply a matter of some basic accounting to figure out exactly what happened. Not surprisingly, Krakauer, a writer for Outside Magazine, did not come to the conclusion that making poor deals with Outside Magazine led to the deaths of so many people.

@nezeda.8753

9 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 I was wondering if benefit of doubt would save his narrative. :) Man, you throw such fun details in replies! Thanks for taking the time and effort. Fun fact: I am in Central Europe. This whole media storm, including Krakauer's book did not reach me until youtube recently decided to throw it in my face - very engaging story for sure. I am reading The climb now, I was very interested in Anatoli's point of view, his voice was the hardest to hear from the content I saw.

@lumenati

5 күн бұрын

DARK.

I've never read his books, but he's always rubbed me wrong in the documentaries I've seen him in. Confirmation bias or not, I feel vindicated by this video.

Nice and thorough as always

Pittman in her latest interview said Fischer did not climb with them. And she said that her whole team survived 1996. She said it in a way that, until she clarifies in a later statement, one could question how could she forget Scott died. As an aside, and as expected, this is where tHom ended his “analysis”. And then in his video he brought it up and shed crocodile tears over Pittman forgetting Scott. How could she. And then he used this fact in support of accusations against her. Except she explains this later in that same interview. When asked about who did die that day, she said her EXPEDITION LEADER did die. (Proving she obviously didn’t forget about Scott.) She said Scott was not climbing with her team that day. HE WAS TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS. Was this the stunt? As a further aside that you may enjoy, dr Scott Grande’s horrible video (and maybe tHom’s too) accuse Pittman of forgetting about Anatoli also. Again in her latest interview, she fawns over him, maybe briefly shows a softer side of her personality, and then calls him her life hero. She did not forget about Dre. Twice

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

Well, she went back to Nepal to build the cairn for him and then back a year after that to maintain it, so I am not sure where people get that she didn't care. Fischer did have a large number of photographs -- which takes a lot of time to take your gloves off, take the camera out, etc. The photographs tell us exactly where he was the entire time -- he was well behind the Mountain Madness team and appears to have just been going slow for an unexplained reason. His 1 hour 5 minute for the final summit ridge is a very slow time and cannot be attributed to taking photos.

@rg3412

10 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 are you implying he was carrying something heavy in his pack, possibly for the stunt?

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

@@rg3412 That is one possibility. Fischer climbed Everest without oxygen in 1994, so it is not clear why he had such problems in 1996. For the summit climb, "heavy" just means pretty much anything. Even just 1-2 pounds can make a difference. Could be flags, banners, who knows. From the photo of his body, it does not appear anything substantial was in his pack. But whether there was anything in there weighing him down remains unknown.

@christinaurso-cale7601

10 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 Wasn't he known to be really exhausted, having taken a client personally back down to Base Camp a few days earlier, and also having come to Everest quickly off the back of a Kilimanjaro climb just before? Wouldn't this explain why he was so slow? I don't think there's any dispute as to how exhausted Scott was before the summit attempt.

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

It is not clear how that would exhaust someone. Boukreev went and climbed Lhotse on May 17, also without oxygen, so different people can do different things. Curiously, Boukreev was not labeled as indifferent to Scott Fischer's death --- only Sandy Pittman was. So, you can see people just make stuff up to fit what they want to do. There is the major problem that the "stunt" was not mentioned by Krakauer. Even if he was tired from going down to basecamp, this does not explain why he was climbing nor why he didn't turn around and descend with his clients when he presumably would have realized that he was tired. On the other hand, it appears he told Labsong to wait on the summit so he could pull their stunt. He had no way of telling Lobsang to turn around, so he was sort of stuck with making the summit once that plan was put in motion.

Will Krak run and hide like the other loon producing clickbait Everest shorts?

I’m not a climber but I LOVE everything from this channel.

What kind of "Stunt" would warrant the halting of clients on the summit for hours, especially with word from the IMAX crew that things seemed off and they were pushing their summit attempt back until the weather settled, not to mention Scott Fischer and his guides all aware that Scott had been struggling? I find the "Stunt" that nobody detailed, a bigger stretch that purely losing track of time while celebrating an accomplishment many had dreamt of their whole lives.

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

And who would detail the stunt? Scott Fisher knew the details. Lopsang knew the details. Perhaps the reason we don't have the details you desire is because they are both dead. Instead, you wish to believe that Lopsang lost track of time. That is ridiculous -- he was an experienced Sherpa. Lopsang did not say he lost track of time. He told Gammelgard he was remaining on the summit to pull the prank with Scott. It says so in Gammelgaards book --- which I have shown in both videos on this subject. Any reason you do not want to believe Gammelgaards account? If you can't think of at least 10 "stunts" that would benefit from halting clients on the summit to participate, you lack any creativity.

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

I always thought this would be nice: kzread.info/dash/bejne/Zpykp9CFpNS7dMo.html. But post em if you got em.

@SmokeTheHolyChalice

10 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 it is convenient that both people who knew of the stunt shared it with nobody else before, during or after the terrible event, ended up dying taking it to their grave when it would have done nothing but clarify things and explain their actions, giving them a defense against Krakauer’s book. Lopsang would not find himself in any additional trouble if he revealed it, and in fact would only help explain his actions since Scott was his boss and in charge. Would you decide to carry out a stunt on the top of the highest summit, making your employees and clients wait there with oxygen, daylight and weather dwindling or deteriorating? As far as I know nothing was ever found on Scott Fischer’s body that would be deemed a surprise once it was revealed. What was the big secret stunt going to be, his congratulations cause there isn’t anything tangible that fits the bill that was ever found. In fact, what other stunts have been done by their guides on the summit of Everest? I would like to hear about them since they apparently aren’t that hard to fathom. What it sounds like to me is an excuse for mistakes made that had clients on the summit for too long and way past the turnaround time in order to have the best chance to get back to Camp IV safely. Attributing the details to those already dead helps ensure that the truth can never be known, which is why we are discussing it now. To answer your question, I can’t think of one stunt/prank worth delaying clients on the summit of Everest for a second longer than is necessary and safe. Your job is not to entertain them on the summit, it’s to get them down safely. Nobody is going to miss a prank that nobody knows about. Was Scott so inept or just a dedicated prankster that he would risk his clients lives for what I imagine must of been one hell of a joke cause they failed to find any props to fit the bill. It just about cost him a few of his clients lives, but if he were here he would say that, despite knowing the dangers, it was worth it? I would be quite upset if I ended up on the summit for much to long, putting myself and others in danger, so the person I paid lots of money to to keep me safe, did the opposite for some prank that would never be worth my or anyone else’s life.

@SmokeTheHolyChalice

10 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 by the way, I say all this with the utmost respect as I think you are a fascinating person who puts out quality content that is hard to find. I respect you and your opinion and absolutely admit that you are an expert in this field and I am not even a novice when compared to you. I am only speaking to the actions of the players, as a human being who is trying to square the circles and figure out the motivations of those involved in this tragic event. However, I am only speaking for myself and what makes sense to me. I absolutely see where you are coming from and am open to the fact that you may even be right, which would make me happy and only increase my admiration for you. I say all this because it’s important to me that you know that I believe you are acting with integrity and honesty and that your heart is absolutely in the right place. That is as rare as it is admirable and is something that I realized early on and is why I will continue to subscribe to your channel. I also share your opinion as to the character of others that put out mountaineering content, specifically those focused on the historical aspects, in particular Mallory and Irvine. I also appreciate you responding to me and being respectful, it doesn’t go unnoticed or unappreciated as I am a fan of your first and foremost. Thanks for taking the time to read this.

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

They did mention it. It says so right in Gammalgaards book. While I appreciate the respect you show, you are just "talking past" me. That is, you ignore what I say and just continue to repeat your initial idea. This has become such a part of our modern society, it appears you don't even know you are doing it. I did a different video and discussed the "stunt." No one talked about the stunt because it would ruin Fischer memory and that is all the media would talk about for 50 years. Pittman didn't talk about it. Lobsang didn't talk about it. Gammalgaard did, but it just didn't get wide traction -- because she initially wrote the book in Danish. And no one else wanted to push it. It would be "respectful" to start by displaying that you understand these issue and then address them and explain why Gammalgaard might have made it all up. If she didn't make it up, then you should address what would have happened if Lopsang same down the mountain and said, "We waited for Scott so we could pull a stunt. A lot of people almost died and Scott died just over a silly prank." Well, for one, there would be no best selling book blaming things on "inexperienced" climbers. If you were a western climber, would you want to climb with the sherpa that was going to play the stunt and got someone killed? Krakauer claims that other sherpa didn't like him because he was a "showboat." If that is true, would saying "Oh, we were going to play a big stung on the summit" endear him with his fellow sherpa? Or make him more disliked? ("It was possible, though, that he was simply angry at Lopsang, whom he regarded as a showboat."Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 183)). If you address those issues rather than just repeating your opinion about what happened, then it is a dialog.

Into Thin Air was written and published with haste and heat just six months after these events. A better, more sobre and thoughtful writer would have waited and probably would have done several rewrites. What motivated Krakauer to rush his "story" to the market??? I have some ideas.......$$$$$$$$$???

@michaeltracy2356

9 күн бұрын

He revised it and made corrections over several years. The events were on May 10 and 11 and the book was not published until 1997. So, it looks like you comment suffers from the same problem of rushing to be published. (Hint: That is more than the "just six months" you incorrectly state.). The illustrated Edition was published in November of 1997, so it is not clear what would have been "rushed" with it. Gammelgaard managed to publish her book in 1996 and it is not riddled with errors like Krakauer's.

@michaeltracy2356

9 күн бұрын

And first published in May 1997: www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm/book_number/190/into-thin-air

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis!

John Krak is an incredibly dangerous person and I personally cannot believe the mountaineering community is still interacting with him 🙄

just found this and its fascinating to hear your analysis . To hide my identity so this does not become a thing of personalities I can make real comments. I knew many of the guides on this expedition and I have slept on the south col of Everest without oxygen. The speeds of accent that you speak of is related to the volume of oxygen they are breathing. When I was there we did not use oxygen although myself tried and had systems freeze. We could easily climb 400 feet per hour without oxygen at least up to 27,500 feet. Krakaur went to Everest to write for Outside magazine on the moral question of Everett guide expeditions. when there it seems his attitude changed to legitimise guide expeditions USING OXYGEN. I agree with memory loss over the years but have to think Krakauer massaged his narrative to suit his own ends.

Michael Tracy's content has taught me to try and use a bit more logic these days so here goes: Is it not true that the first person to reach the highest point on earth was the last person who summited? We might surmise that M and I were the first to climb to the top of the mountain, but the first person to have finally reached the highest point on earth will only be known at some future date when the Indian subcontinent stops crashing into Eurasia. Not so? I'm just taking a lesson from Michael here and learning that just because a) means b) it also means c) when it doesn't. I'm just practising getting to grips with this "post truth" stuff!

@michaeltracy2356

2 күн бұрын

Not quite. When I summited, I dug 3 feet off the summit. Therefore I was the first to reach the highest point and keep the title. Wanted to make sure I had lots of summit rocks because Thom Pollard told me that lower down, there were no rocks. So, I took the rocks I dug off the summit and placed them around the mountain. That is why where are so many today, but none when Thom Pollard was there. You see how the post-truth works now? Because I say something, you have to "respect" it, even if it is completely unbelievable. And if you question it, you are a hater and unkind person. So, please like and subscribe. Thanks for watching.

@coloratura6268

Күн бұрын

Michael not only did you summit Everest and keep the highest point (total respect, I'd love to but there's no chance for me financially or physically), you are actually going higher and conquering the invisible mountain of BS. Thank you, gladly subscribed.

I’m glad you’re covering this. I’ve read Lene, Michael, Anatoli, Scott Fischer’s, Ed Visteurs’ accounts. I say Scott but it was pieced together from his Mountain Madness biog. I want to know your theory on this stunt. Are we sure it isn’t just Lene’s turn of phrase?

@michaeltracy2356

8 күн бұрын

She references it twice and stated that Lopsang said something was planned but he wouldn't say what it was. It is unlikely this was some group photo. She later calls it a "boyish prank" while English is not her first language and it is possible she meant something else, but there is also the issue that Krakauer never mentioned it -- nor did anyone else. Krakauer went out of his way to respond to just about every little thing from his critics -- frequently just inventing stuff. And not once is the numerous emails, talks, postscripts or anything else does he mention it. That is, why didn't he say. "Gammelgaard said a stunt was planned, but this was just her broken English and no such stunt was planned."? Because as soon as there is a "stunt" Krakauer's analysis goes out the window. Things were not caused by Pittman. They were not caused by Boukreev. The whole story of these "complex problems" disappear. As other commenters have noted, Gammelgaard's account explains everything that happened with the MM team remaining on the summit for so long. It explains why Lopsang said there. It explains why Fischer had to reach the summit. It explains the whole thing. Gammelgaard's books is not riddled with errors and inconsistencies such as Krakauer's. Scott's account is by far the most accurate. It is not written anywhere. It is in his photos. Using his photos, Scott is speaking from beyond the grave and telling us the Jon Krakauer is full of yak dung. Gammelgaard's account matches up with Fischer's photos. Krakauer's does not come anywhere close.

@lumenati

5 күн бұрын

I’m going to read To the Summit and Safe Return next, in the hope of finding out more. Thanks for giving your reasonings. I agree on Krakauer’s account. It’s trying to do something and that something is at the expense of just the play by play to the best of his recollection.

Ok. I've been obsessed with 8000m peaks since this tragedy. I've read em all. I have always had a bad taste in my mouth for krackauer. Very few alpinists, climbers, or researchers criticise him which is extremely frustrating to me. I may just join your channel & become a member. Now I must catch up on all of your videos. Great work!!!!!

Just here to comment that while Conrad Anker is a world renowned climber. He is also a world renowned liar.

@v-0448

10 күн бұрын

Can you elaborate? Im honestly curious.

@tylerrichards6456

10 күн бұрын

You’re not wrong but what does that have to do with Krakauer and the ‘96 disaster? He wasn’t even on the mountain this year.

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

@@tylerrichards6456 There is a connection between Conrad Anker and something in this video. If you can figure it out, you get a Yeti Snack.

@cathylarkins9949

9 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356I know the answer 😊

@Clanner666

6 күн бұрын

@@tdurb0 He wants people to think, if they are really curious about the topics presented on this channel. That is a main purpose of this whole channel.

The title of "guide" in any wilderness "adventure" implies substantial relevant and local experience as well as skill, resourcefulness, good judgment, and a dedication to the safety of the clients. Compiling some sort of report card on the guides might show they were long on individual climbing experience but short on the other qualities. For just 2 examples,, sensing the gathering storm, and finding camp in the storm might have been better accomplished by guides with more Everest experience.

I’m not a climber, but these videos are just great. Mr. Tracey, you’re a great story teller who does the now rare thing of privileging actual facts and unanswered questions, rather than coming up with the overall narrative first, and then cherry picking whatever bits that fit.

I know it might be netx to impossible, but knowing the participants, I'm genuinely asking here if any commentators can guess what the stunt would or could be?

@lumenati

5 күн бұрын

I want this for us too…

I will never understand thrill seeking behavior. Life is hard sometimes for no reason at all. Why seek trouble out

@michaeltracy2356

6 күн бұрын

If human beings did not seek the thrill of certain actives -- sexual intercourse for instance, then human beings would not exist any more. Pretty simple to understand why people might seek such thrills -- even when it frequently ends up in disaster, unintended consequences, and even death.

Please write a book michael. It would be a fantastic read

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

I did write a book: www.amazon.com/Professional-Visual-C-Isapi-Programming/dp/1874416664/

@Nic-bd6bj

10 күн бұрын

😂😂😂

Thanks for another facinating movie.

Outstanding sleuthing!

Krakauer is a journalist. Like most journalists his realtionship with the facts is selective and frequently flexible. As Mr Tracy emphasises several times, Krakauer fixated on telling a story. He shaped his narrative using events selectively and to his advantage in telling his tall tale. The Climb was an inevitable repudiation of Krakauer's spray of false accusations about Bukreev, who was justifiably offended and angered by Krakauer's manipulation of events to suit his "bestseller." I like that Michael Tracy has the wit and authenticity to call out Krakauer's wobbly narrative, which has misled most of his readers for 28 years. Will we see an apology or retraction from Krakauer? Probably not, but he knows he has bent the truth to suit book sales and to bolster his faux brand of self-righteousness and morality. I find him to be low in moral rigour and high in hyperbole and melodrama. Accuracy and truth are not chosen priorities in his writing. Thank you Michael Tracy for applying transparency to these waters which Krakauer muddied deliberately and wilfully. The truth will always out!

What do you think of Messner defending Krakauer regarding the the Boukreev controversy? And adding "a great description of reality"? This interview: kzread.info/dash/bejne/q5WLqsaBgNrRhpM.html

@michaeltracy2356

7 күн бұрын

There is little factual difference between what Krakauer says. Boukreev did and what Boukreev said he did. First, Krakauer claims to have been asleep the entire time of the storm. Thus, Krakauer never says anything himself about what Boukreev actually did. Krakauer heard it from other people. There are a few minor variances between what Krakauer report he heard from other people and what Boukreev says he did himself. The main difference is at the Hillary Step. As I will get into, Krakauer changed his version 3 times about what happened. So, if Messner happens to agree with one of the versions, please ask him which one it is. The main difference between Krakauer and Boukreev is the interpretation of what should have been done. Krakauer claims that guide should climb with oxygen and not descent before their clients. Boukreev points out that of the three guides who died, all climbed with oxygen and did not descend before their clients. None of those three rescued anyone. For the other two guides, Mike Groom climbed with oxygen, but gave it up to John Krakauer. After that, perhaps he had some more, but we know he ran out of oxygen and abandoned his clients, Yasuko Namba and Beck Weathers. Not blaming him for this. Had he not, there would be 4 dead guides who used oxygen and did not descent in front of their clients. Thus, I do not see the point in much of what Krakauer is saying. Sure, guides should climb with oxygen and not descend in front of their clients. Great idea. It didn't work. There is also the problem of the realities of the climb. Ok, Boukreev is supposed to climb with oxygen. Where does this oxygen come from? He carries all 3 bottles? (None of the other guides did). That means, you now need an additional Sherpa to carry the bottles for him. That means more sherpas through the ice fall. That means more sherpa deaths. The largest single group of people who die climbing on the South are sherpas carrying through the ice fall. And Krakauer's "solution" is to have more sherpas carrying more oxygen. Yes, that might reduce western deaths. Overall deaths? In any case, all the guides do climb with oxygen and the number of sherpa deaths in the icefall have skyrocketed since 1996. So, it is not a theory. You want all the oxygen, great. It means sherpas will die. Now, do you really want all the oxygen?

@allenaviation5746

6 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 Thanks for your reply Michael. My first thought was that overcrowding and making the summit a tourist destination for amateurs was, and still is, very unpopular. Even more so amoung accomplished climbers, resulting in widespread support for Krakuar. I would have to listen to more from Messner and others but I can just imagine that Fischer's yellow brick road, and that kind of stuff really set them off.

Thanks for setting us straight, Sherlock. Maybe you can analyze the Zapruder film next.

@michaeltracy2356

10 күн бұрын

As I state in the video, I am still not done setting you straight. So, the next couple videos will continue to straighten you on the 1996 Everest Disaster. Then I have some more Mallory and Irvine content. You are no doubt such a smart person, link the videos you made here so we can all benefit from your profound wisdom.

@allanfrederick8705

9 күн бұрын

@@michaeltracy2356 Hilarious Mike, have you considered standup?

So what's your what's your point on this hypoxic disaster? Just trying to kick someone in the teeth and you were not anywhere near the place, eh?

@michaeltracy2356

6 күн бұрын

The point is to learn how to think. How to spot falsities even when you were not there. People will tell you such-and-such is going on over in this place. Or something happened in this other place years ago -- none of which you were there for. You might not have even been born. You should be able to look at those statements and determine whether they are truthful or not. These videos give you some ideas and tools that perhaps you can use in your own daily life to evaluate claims that you did not personally witness. But, ultimately, for most people ignorance is bliss. So, I understand why you are so unhappy when someone provides you with knowledge.

Krakauer is as poisonous to Everest as Russell Bryce

So i take it you dont like John Krakaur.

@ost324

10 күн бұрын

😂

@1unsung971

9 күн бұрын

You have mispelt Krakauer's name. Tracy never said anything about liking or disliking Krakauer. I think you think your comment is droll and amusing. It isn't. It's puerile and demeaning of Michael Tracy, who has researched these events deeply to present an unbiased correction of Krakauer's lazy reporting. Where I come from we call people like you a C*CK.

@allanfrederick8705

9 күн бұрын

Oh course Mikey is a much more accomplished climber 😆

2:39 🤣

Exactly.. I couldn't agree more. I was the guy who dropped Scott off at the airport for this expedition having been helping him with his business for not quite a year before. Everything I've seen and read concerning "into thin air" I keep thinking Krakauer is portraying himself above that of Scott's abilities and decency. Which knowing Scott I always find as quite the stretch. As far as this so-called stunt I would like to ask Lene directly. Frankly I don't feel any woman should climb that mountain unless it's a all woman team.. plenty of examples of them not doing well. Sure there are exceptions but certainly not the rule. Further if I was on a group climb I would want the strongest climbing men as part of the team.

@1unsung971

9 күн бұрын

And yet, women exceed men in ultra endurance events. I doubt that any female climbers would want to have you on their team, so it's a purely hypothetical situation. What percentage of male climbers have died on 8000m peaks? What percentage of female climbers have died on 8000m peaks? Show us your stats.

@jjzap2935

9 күн бұрын

@@1unsung971 Sorry I don't subscribe to your gynocentric views. Look into Lenin Peak and Annapurna . And of course there are men like my friend Scott because extreme mountain climbing has always been dominated by men. So of course there are plenty of dead/frozen men on these 8km + peaks. Endurance.. haha in made up BS games not in real existence like physical labor.. your welcome to show up and work 60+ hours a week with me painting.. same thing I was doing in the 90's and why I was able to help out Mountain Madness with collecting supplies while I was self-employed. Further in 40 years of physical labor I've seen less than my 10 digits of women actually doing everyday real labor work. So it's quite obvious to me that men build this existence and always will.

IF that woman was not there THEN none of this would have happened.

@1unsung971

9 күн бұрын

Wrong and poorly informed. You will need to read more widely to dispossess yourself of your mistaken point of view. It's never clever to blurt out opinions based on inadequate information. You can do better than this. Your comment could be interpreted as libelous.

@adventuresgonewrong

9 күн бұрын

Her and her coffee pot killed everyone! 😂

@adventuresgonewrong

9 күн бұрын

@@1unsung971At this point, with all the info out there and available to anyone, those with blanket statements about Sandy Hill just prove the lack of critical thinking of these commenters. They blindly believe the inaccurate public narrative about her and have for 30yrs.

@Chris_Craft777

Күн бұрын

@@1unsung971 Prove it and sue me then... gfy. My comment stands as The Truth until then.

@Chris_Craft777

Күн бұрын

@@adventuresgonewrong Prove me wrong... NONE of those things would have happened or even been contemplated except for the fact that she was there.

Once again this guy plays Mt. Everest super detective ---- and for what??? *WHAT IS THE FRIGGIN PURPOSE OF THESE VIDEOS?* So his timeline is off.......*WHO CARES??* Again, these vids are filled with innuendo, etc......without ever making a friggin' point. Annoying.

@michaeltracy2356

9 күн бұрын

Why do you keep watching them?

@Clanner666

6 күн бұрын

I find their purpose quite obvious and each of them has a very significant, pretty clear cut point. Even if you just watched them for a little lesson on critical thinking and logic, without any interest for the facts of the topic at hand, they would be interesting. So I don't get your point.

@Mike_Baldwin

6 күн бұрын

@@Clanner666 The point I'm making is - there is no point to these videos. Example: > Is Jon Krakauer going to be arrested for getting his timelines wrong? Did anyone die because of Jon Krakauer's messed up timelines? Is Jon's messed up timelines covering up a crime? ---- Of course not, so *WHO FRIGGIN CARES?* - What is the point of these videos other than mud slinging and baseless innuendo that never leads to anything. So Krakauer is a liar. Who cares?

@Clanner666

6 күн бұрын

@@Mike_Baldwin On a broader interpretation. To deconstruct a narrative, that is out there, blaming people for stuff they are not to be blamed for. To deconstruct the narrative, the facts and their connections have to be shown and Michael has an odd talent to be extraordinarily pedantic and precise about them. That would probably not be necessary, if people wouldn't make money by pushing a story, that never happened like they keep portraying it, dragging other people's name through the mud. As long as people keep reading those books and articles, they are relevant. So why would a rebuttal of those books and narratives be irrelevant? Calling it "mud-slinging" to point out the facts is kinda of odd and calling a pretty straight forward attack on a topic "innuendo", makes me wonder what you are even trying to say. Do you want to say the truth doesn't matter or you question his conclusions or methods and find the accusations about a false narrative to be baseless? On a very meta level: The truth matters. Facts matter. Proper logic and critical thinking matters. And the truth does not only matter if it directly leads to somebody getting arrested or harm being prevented orwhatever your condition for "having a point" is. And as far as I can see, Michael is trying to build a community, where people push each other to develop those skills/values. Some videos are functional to do that, some are about the topics at hand, some are both.