In 2016, Krakauer admitted that he "publicly falsified the story." thecatalystnews.com/2016/04/29/the-true-nature-of-journalism-through-the-eyes-of-jon-krakauer/ Details confirming that the climber at the top of the step is indeed Sandy Pittman: th-cam.com/video/DP8PfWS6N28/w-d-xo.html In a recent Instagram post Krakauer stated he needed to made some corrections to his book in response to these videos. My response video: th-cam.com/video/iqEJV3RelQw/w-d-xo.html
In trying to make your comment actually make logical sense but i literally can't. I understand it's supposed to be a compliment but it makes no actual sense
Ouch!! Fascinating. I read Into Thin Air several years ago, and liked it. I then read The Climb by Boukreev and liked that more, but remember a few times thinking, "Ah, ok, so it happened like that..." I hated the way Krakauer criticised everyone, but particularly Boukreev. He was so unkind, ungrateful and ungracious about him. My lasting impression of Krakauer is a sanctimonious person with a huge agenda and an even bigger ego. Your meticulous analysis is a real eye-opener. Nice one!
Need Advice: Since you've read both books & knowing what we know from this video, would u even bother reading K's book? I have it on my Kindle, haven't read it and considering deleting. I'm interested in truth not fiction. What do u think?
@@msbeecee1 I think it's worth reading as an insight into his psyche. When I read it, I had no idea he had skewed the story in such a spectacular way, and only became suspicious after reading Boukreev's account and using that as a launchpad to dig deeper. Your approach to Krakauer's book would therefore be from an entirely different standpoint. I did enjoy it when I read it, from an engaging point of view, but I wouldn't recommend it now as an accurate account of what happened.
I read Into thin air, and enjoyed it, but….. Something seemed a bit off with the criticism of, especially, Boukreev, so like you, I dug around a bit, and the read Boukreev’s book. It was definitely an eye opener. Oh, and I returned Krakauer’s book to Audible, he lost credibility to me.
I intended to read Boukreevs book as I never liked Krakauer. Saw a talk he gave, strange stuff. So sorry Boukreev became Krakauers scapegoat. Likely jealousy. 💐 Thanx
Wow. After watching the movie and pretty much every video I could get my hands on, I thought I knew a thing or two about what happened back in the day. Your analysis pretty much blows my mind and it feels like I have to start all over again on this subject.
I don't mind that Krakauer did not write as an objective reporter -- he could not possible be objective after going through such a trauma -- but it's a long way from "merely subjective" to "maliciously self-serving". Hoarding oxygen while on the climb, lying about his actions, and attempting to blame others for his own and other problems are obviously despicable. Too bad we'll never see him respond to this directly.
I find it really disgusting that he was lying so much and confusing too, he must have done things that where unethical and wrong, maybe he feels shame and thought he needed to lie.
I mind, because he presents, Into Thin Air, as an accurate account made by a journalist, not a novelist, not as simply a survivor. Journalistic integrity is very important, people give a lot of weight to what a journalist writes and publishes due to this fact. Much like a witness in a court of law, they are expected to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. After reading both, Into Thin Air and The Climb, I developed significant doubts into the truthfulness and accuracy of Jon's account and, worse, began to believe he and Outside Magazine went out of their way to smear Anatoli. Going so far as to protest Boukreev receiving the award for heroism that an independent group voted he earned. It was very poor behavior and one that didn't make them look anymore honest in my eyes. Quite the opposite actually. I've not read any more of Krakaur's books and I doubt I will. Making mistakes is human, but falsifying and embellishing upon actual events and making others look bad is despicable, especially when they aren't here to defend themselves.
Another masterpiece, thanks MT. Anything 1996 is particularly fascinating because we had a huge blizzard in Maryland that year and for some reason both stick in my mind.
Great series. I've known that Krakauer's account was likely bunk for a long time, as many ppl familiar w this case have, but the meticulous detective work and compiling of details and comparisons of accounts and photographic evidence you've provided here, especially re: Krakauer & Namba, is really impressive and informative
Summit crazed narcissism has turned Everest into a trash heap. I have sympathy for the sherpas and the villagers who've come to depend on the income created by this industry but I have no respect for anyone else.
clearly you dont know the mts. an armchair adventurer? Judgement is very easy when you only watch videos, The Sherpas depend on this income. Ask them.....
@@mary5292 the sherpas only rely on it because the nepalese government has invested in that, as opposed to improving infrastructure and education in the area. its good that they are raising permit prices to reduce overcrowding but there are many things they could improve on.
This video is amazing. Thank you for your observations. This is the first time ever that I've been able to listen to an entire analysis video. Very interesting. Grabbed my attention. Keep them coming!❤ ❤❤
At that time, May 1996, a daredevil from Sweden, Göran Kropp, was doing a stunt where he biked to Mount Everest, climbed it unassisted with no oxygen, and then biked home. He was successful, but he witnessed the storm and the confusion and reported back to us. We (in Sweden) were therefore blessed that if we wished, we did have a neutral account to what happened, to us who were interested. We heard early about the fact one dude had a journo on the team and the journo was supposed to report positively about the trip. When Krakauer started his media circus, those of us who seeked the information did know that he was in fact out of order due to severe hypoxia and had to be more or less carried down the mountain while hallucinating. The fact that Krakauer admitted to that WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY judging others for what HE claimed (remember: HALLUCINATING) they had done was mindblowing to us. Kropp talked warmly about Boukreev (B was from the former Soviet Union so the daredevils hadn't really been able to know him until its collapse in 1991) and mentioned Boukreev was an absolute beast who had saved many lives that night. Kropp also mentioned that the climb to the summit was easier than expected and he retold about the ropes left from previous years that he used to ascend and descend. He was worried before his trip that he would have to buy kilometres of rope while in Nepal but it turned out he could reuse some old equipment already present! I went to two of his presentations, one in 1997 and one in 1998 or 1999 and his story did not change.
@@EmiliaJay He did an attempt during the storm day but turned around, yes, since he thought things looked awful. He was never that close to the summit though. He summited almost two weeks after the storm. I don't remember the exact day.
I recently learned I have a relative who was climbing another mountain in this range during this storm. Didn’t want to ask his opinion since he knew Scott Fischer and Anatoni Boukreev personally, but he only had positive things to say about them. I’m not qualified to speak on any of the controversy, but I just wanted to share this anecdote.
Always fun to read of personal close ups. Thank you!
2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2
I worked with a man who was leading the Montenegrin team who attempted the ascent the day before the tragedy. They spent the night at 8000m and managed to reach a spot 44m from the summit before the storm forced them to abandon the pursuit. He was so haunted by those events that he wrote a book about it as well a decade later.
Boukreev was beyond the pale amazing in saving those people and never giving up on them. He did seem to have a hard time following orders so maybe that's where the criticism comes from.
Krakauer points out that Boukreev was climbing without oxygen and thus unable to be of much assistance near the summit. Boukreev quickly summited then raced down to South Col. Krakauer's criticism is widely accepted as valid: that Anatoly was paid to assist his group to summit and safely descend, not to break his own records as a mountaineer. Krakauer repeatedly mentions Boukreev's talents, but fairly critiques his irresponsibility in ducking down exhausted to the South Col to recuperate. Boukreev's conduct in assisting the Huddle is praised however.
@@matthewsutton3682 1. Bukreev stayed at the top for a long time, assisting climbers to summit and left when it was time to leave for everyone, initially leading first climbers down. 2. It was of no sportive interest for him as it was neither his first no-oxigen summit nor the fastest. 3. He was able to save anyone at all BECAUSE he was not using oxygen. 4. Bukreev wrote that his no-oxigen ascent, speedy discent, rest, come back to assist climbers heading back was planed and agreed by Scott. So word against word, sory, I believe Bukreev.
I'm not a mountaineer but I've watched hours of videos about Everest and I've come to the conclusion that many of these mountain climbers are narcissists out for personal glory looking for thrills.
I do agree.Everest is not difficult to climb as thousands have proved it.The only demanding bit is the final,summit section.If someone wants to prove their status they should climb North Face vertically and not using the Disneyland stroll route.
@@markwroblewski6500 No by far the hardest bit is the ice flow between camp 1 and 2. The ice flow on Everest is extremely deadly, one of the hardest parts of any mountain to climb. However there is a special team of Sherpa's that set ladders and ropes and spend weeks looking for the best path across it before any climbing team is allowed to go up the rest of the mountain. In truth some parts of Everest are harder than K2 but the local porters for K2 are not even remotely as skilled as the porters/Sherpas for Everest, its the guides that remove a lot of the danger from an Everest ascent. The experience of the guides between the two mountains makes a massive difference.
I used to be into mountaineering years ago. Not at this level, no. But I did my share of rope haulting, step kicking, being on the sharp end of the rope. There is truth to your assessment.
Yesssssss 😡 I have his book in my Kindle account but haven't read it yet. I'm so glad I saw this. Now I'm gonna delete it unread. Sorry I spent money on it and gave him a sale.
@@msbeecee1read it it’s a best seller for a reason. Very compelling. Whether it’s all factually correct in every respect it seems not. But it’s meant to be his journalistic account put into words at the time
The timing of Fischer's return from Camp II to base camp and meeting Boukreev at the Ice Fall doesn't seem to make sense. How many hours had Boukreev stayed at base camp, for Fischer have gone up and down? Can you lay out the timeline?
I may be wrong here, but the statement that if the oxygen flow rate was set to maximum, the user would have heard the excessive flow seems to ignore possible wind noise at the time. However, even if this were the case, there appears to be other reasons to question this story element.
I always thought the ‘accidentally turned my oxygen up to max’ was a bit strange. The more you think about it the more lazy and outrageous it becomes. Using a ‘dead-man’s-hand,’ if you will, to explain how he ran out.
EXTREMELY suss, for sure. He uses this strategy more than once, according to the video. The saying "the living write the history books" has many implications....
@vanzell1912Absolutely! It's really disgusting isn't. As trustworthy as a used car salesman and I'm not just talking about the subject of this video. I'm talking about 90% of them.@vanzell1912
I think Krakauer is a great writer. His book got me into Everest. But he should say that it is loosely based on the 1996 event or that it is fiction. After everything I have read, he wanted to blame Mountain Madness team for everything. Boukreev was a hero. Krakauer should tell the truth once and for all.
How can you say he's a great writer and later say that he should tell the truth once and for all??? I can only guess that you like 'how' he writes, and not necessarily about writing the truth.
In a presentation given June 1, 1997, Krakauer provides more details about what he knew about his oxygen situation and when he knew it. That account he provides has him running out of oxygen because he took too much time and not because Andy Harris screwed up turning the valve off. Sorry Krakauer fans. Into Thin Air is confirmed to be inaccurate by Jon Krakauer: th-cam.com/video/q5LtdIwZF50/w-d-xo.html
Edit: Sorry about that. So you believe Krakauer killed Harris? Is that what you are implying? Did Harris have any responsibility for himself? Uh oh…I know how you feel about edits…
I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but wonder if in this case he was just charitably leaving out the detail of what he believed to be Andy messing up the valve. That said, you bring up many other items that are harder to explain away.
@@TJTurnage He left the part about the valve out of an obscure interview in which he is cursing, swearing, and clearly just talking off the top of his head. He then included it in a best selling book translated into multiple languages and still used in some university level courses. So, if he was being kind, perhaps he would have done the opposite and just briefly mention it but leave it out of the version that sold millions of copies. As for TJ, not sure what you are going on about. Krakauer has already said he feels terrible about this, and it has been giving him a recurring nightmare where Harris is trying to reach a rope and Krakauer can't get him a rope. I have no idea what his dreams mean, but talking about "killing" someone is ridiculous. Please keep your comments within the bounds of decency. Krakauer has said he feels extremely responsible for Harris' death. I agree with Krakauer on that point. However, I feel that certain aspect of his book were reported accurately. Krakauer was climbing with Harris most of the day. As nearly every aspect of Krakauer's own climb has been mis-reported, it is just a coincidence that Krakauer happened to be next to Harris when the events in question took place. It also makes sorting things out more difficult because Harris is not here to tell his version.
@@TJTurnage Speaking of dogs, remember that year they said a dog had summitted Everest? All I could think of was how the hell did he get up the Hillary step? Maybe that pooch should try again now that the earthquake happened…
@@michaeltracy2356 Really glad you took the time to respond because I’m interested in your opinion. Yes, I agree that recounting the alleged valve incident in a bestseller is the opposite of being kind and charitable and not a good explanation for this video clip. I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying after that. For example, I didn’t say anything about anyone killing anybody. Was this another commenter perhaps? Anyway, your statement about arguing with a dead man (Anatoli) struck me as very accurate and I’m willing to consider that the death of Harris could be getting leveraged here too. I’d appreciate any clarification you’re willing to offer here and I look forward to more videos.
Boukreev's book also details how Kraukauer was presented with evidence contradicting the version set forth in his book Into Thin Air but chose to ignore it.
Yes, this was quite interesting. Boukreev's book has its own perspective and agenda, of course, but one thing that stands out is a kind of amazed frustration in places at Krakauer repeatedly refusing to correct his narrative even when faced with objective evidence (i.e. photographs) that what he is saying is not true. Krakauer seems to have an indifference to the truth worthy of a true bullshit artist.
I’m so glad you are representing the hard facts in these videos. It’s clear Krakauer lied and exaggerated to make himself some kind of protagonist, and UNFAIRLY as hell portrayed others as villains when they were much more brave and heroic than he. He ruined Sandy and Bourkeev’s reputations for decades. It’s only now people are really talking about it, and how much “Into Thin Air” is to blame. Also, I had no idea about Rob Hall paying Outside for the article/ads. The last few sentences of this video made everything make sooo much sense.
Bunch o' crap. JK never portrays himself as a protagonist in his book or interviews. He even says that he was probably the least qualified guy to be there. As for SHP and Anatoli, I think Sandy gets a bit of a bum rap though there's no doubt Lopsang's short rope of her did contribute to delays. But I don't blame her for that but there's no doubt that special attention was paid to her so she could successfully reach the summit. Anatoli? Both hero and villain. Hero for rescuing people that night. Villain for taking off and leaving the clients to their own devices. With Scott out of the picture and Lopsang focused on SHP and tagging the summit (something Rob Hall basically fired him over in '95), Anatoli's decision to go down ahead of everyone leaving only the inexperienced Neal Beidleman as a guide for the clients was VERY questionable. Reinhold Messner and David Breashears both criticized that decision. Remember, it was Anatoli's unwillingness to follow directions that caused Scott Fischer to come down from Camp 2 to escort an ill climber off the mountain back to base camp and then back up again, contributing to Fischer's collapse and death 2 days later. Yes, Anatoli was a hero later on but it's quite likely that if he had acted the part for which he was getting paid (as a lead guide) that rescue may have never been needed.
@waltblackadar4690 How many other guides and sherpa from the Mountain Madness team were on the route when Boukreev left them to their own devices? How many of his team did not make it back because of his decision? If he had not gone down quickly and got any rest or warmth, would there have been less deaths?
@@waltblackadar4690Sandy Hill Pittman being short roped by Lopsang didn’t cause any delays and all the timestamped photos prove that. The short roping happened within the first hour of the summit push when they set out of camp 4 (which was an hour behind Rob’s team, yet they all still caught up to them fairly quickly)
Climbers in Rob Hall 's team did not like presence of an embedded journalist amidst them...early on ,in base camp ,he was sending reports to Outside reporter about each climber which was all over internet...Lou's wife Sandy saw it on the net & informed him..when confronted in base camp Jon said he didn't know that his report was released on internet
A lie is a deliberate act. It seems not inconceivable both perception and memories may suffer from high altitude exposure, resulting in a good faith misrepresentation. What's your evidence it's the former and not the latter?
Comparing accounts is like comparing witness accounts in a court room. People remember things differently. Victims of Trauma also change their accounts after time.
So true. It's also annoying when photos completely disprove what you are saying, along with multiple accounts from others who were there, but you still push forward with the inaccurate reality because it makes for a better story to sell (I mean because you have ptsd).
@cwired9407. Not just because it makes a better story but because it is self aggrandizing and ignores the author’s egregious behaviour and casts blame on the innocent.
Wow, thanks for this! Very informative! Krakauer is an unreliable narrator. When I read Into Thin Air I loved it and I didn’t hear the jibes he made. I did notice he was a bit off on his own and not really connecting to anyone but it did t bother me. However later I found out he confronted Boukreev at a talk he was giving and he published the sad conversations between Rob and his wife against her wishes. The more I learn the more kinda weasely he seems to get. I watched quite a few documentaries and the survivors did not seem to be saying what he was saying. Just a lot of things that make you go hmm. They say that in a survival situation who you really are surfaces.
I'm incredibly passionate about Everest stories, especially your channel! It's also fantastic that you take the time to respond to people's comments. Jake Norton mentioned in one of his recent videos, that you come across as confrontational, and because of that, he prefers not to collaborate with you (something like that). Not sure how stating facts can be misconstrued as being confrontational. Keep them videos coming pls...
Yes, Michael, pls keep making more. People don't like to be shut down in their unfair debate tactics, which is what you do quite handily. Repeating lies over and over is what is bringing America down. Pls continue to be a warrior for facts & fair fighting in mountaineering 🙏
People don't think when the truth competes with their narrative. I prefer facts as well and have been called a few things myself, some not as nice as confrontational though. Lol
Very good analysis. Personal accounts of these types of disaster events are often inconsistent and biased so I am not surprised by your findings at all. For this event, unfortunately the leaders of the expeditions (Hall and Fischer) are not available. My perspective is that with the makeup of the teams, the inherent physical limitations and logistical challenges high on the mountain and the unpredictable weather conditions, 2 pm should have been a max turnaround time. Also, in my opinion, not enough focus was given to oxygen distribution on the mountain, particularly by Hall’s team.
You seem to be right on all accounts. And too bad Hall and Fischer weren't able to stick around and clear some things up. I do strongly believe that they neglected to coordinate everybody since they had an unusually large amount of people on the mountain and different groups than they were used to back then. Re oxygen: I recall reading that they did not receive the amount of canisters that they ordered and it was too late to make good on that, leaving them to juggle around what they received. That was a real big deal in the eventual outcome of that tragic day.
34:50 I'm confused about the timeline here. As Krakauer was about to descend the step, he looked up and saw Fischer... at the top of the Hillary Step? What time was this? How could it be that Fischer did not summit until 4.30pm, if he was at the top of the Hillary Step as Krakauer was descending? Am I missing something?
Your videos are great! Do you have any insight on why Hall seemed stuck on that day to go for the summitt? He seemed hell bent on May 10th. Even with Imax going back and Anatoli not feeling good about it. Also, why on earth did he want to climb with Scotts team? Nobody seemed comfortable with that idea except him and Scott. I can't make sense of it.
Sure, I'll get into it in an upcoming video -- it has to do with the finances. Rob Hall spent all his money on the contract with Outside Magazine so that he would get future advertising. Hence, he had to skimp on this expedition. They didn't have the latest oxygen equipment, they had less of it, and they didn't have backups. Once Rob Hall's team started using oxygen to head up the mountain, they were committed. Rob Hall had not purchased enough oxygen to delay for another day and certainly nowhere near enough to descend and try again in a week or two. Now, where did the money go? It went to pay for Jon Krakauer's climb -- we was climbing for "free." That is, Rob Hall spent all the money to provision Jon Krakauer's food, tents, sherpas, oxygen, etc. This left him with one shot for the summit. Once they started using oxygen on the way up, they were committed. Of course, Jon Krakauer is not likely to explain that him and the contract with his employer (Outside Magazine) were the reason Hall could not move the summit date. Fischer had a large team that would likely reach the summit, so he was going to climb with another group one way or the other. The IMAX team needed a clear mountain for their photography, so better for Fischer to go when Hall was going rather than when the IMAX team was going. It would have been better for Fischer to go on the 10th and Hall to go with IMAX, but as Hall did not have the ability to delay, the die was cast.
@@michaeltracy2356 I have read so much on this event and did not know that. I knew Scott was stressed about finances, had no idea Hall was as well. He did a huge disservice to his team bringing Krakauer then. It explains why Lou was upset with him too. And to think Krakauer frames Anatoli and Sandy as the villains. It was Anatoli who saved the lives of his team. From watching these videos it sounds as though Lou and Anatolis accounts are closer to truth and maybe Krakauer needs to put himself under the microscope. Not to mention poor decision making on the part of Scott and especially Rob. However, Krakauer doesnt mention this much. I often wonder what Rob said to Doug to make him continue the ascent when Lou said that Doug was going to head back. Hell of a position he put himself in. But I'm guessing Krakauer would say that's Sandy's fault too.
You know, I have watched A LOT of these accounts of the 1996 Everest disaster climb, and I always felt weird about JK's account. Your account is SO good that I get it now. I really wonder now about the account of INTO THE WILD! thank you SOOOOO much for doing this video. It has cleared up SO much BS!!!!
"Into The Wild" is so amazingly written that I overlook any discrepancies. Krakauer did a lot of quoting and direct copying of letters, though, and I thought he wrote sympathetic to young Chris's life.
I know it's just one photo but it looks like Pittman was climbing pretty well, on top of the step by herself and a head of the main pack. Where exactly on the mountain was she being short roped? I have read Into Thin Air and the Climb a few times but it's been years since my copies are boxed away, these posts of yours makes me want to dig them out and read them again. Of all the books written by actual climbers of that day in 96 which do you think appears to be the most accurate? Thank you for your analysis of these events on Everest, it gives us many things to ponder 🍻
I don't think she was ever short-roped (at least not on the way up; she seems to have had some trouble with altitude on the way down, which can happen to anyone) just as I don't think sherpas were nonsensically carrying her (electric?) espresso machine up the mountain. I think Krakaur was just salty about her being there for whatever reason.
very much worth searching up Pittmans 2023 short interview on her experience. It's on 'Harvest Series' podcast. Only 35 mins but very informative if u want a direct experience of her. There's also an excellent video abt Pittman on Adventures Gone Wrong channel
@@FabricofTime From what I have learned (see a comment I made) Pittman did get short roped over the Kumbu Icefall since there was an accident just before she and a few others came there, and this was just a precaution of some kind. My memory is a bit hazy on this, since I just listened to a presentation. But she wasn't nannied like SOMEONE claimed.
@@QuiltedZero12I also believed terrible things about Pitman, and it was based largely on Krakauer's account. I would never contact her or harass her but I totally believed she was a rich tourist with no climbing experience who tied up several sherpas and had she not, the ropes would have been fixed, there would have been no delay, and the climbers would have beat the storm down to safety. I wonder if she has considered suing him. I'm ashamed of my willingness to just believe those things about her. I can only imagine the harrassment she continues to endure. She can never truly live his version down when every day a new round of people reads his book or watches his lecture online. I happened to see that episode of Adventures gone wrong, and it made me realize I had it all wrong. What an asshole.
Read Krakauer's book in school, but the details definitely seemed off. It makes sense that he might change the story to make his story 'better' than others. I'll have to check out some of the other climbers' books to see where any other discrepancies are at. Awesome and super in-depth video I really enjoyed it!
There are different accounts from different people, but one problem was the long time people spent on the summit. I cover the issue in the Yellow Brick Road video. Scott Fischer planned to pull a "stunt" on the summit, according to Lene Gammelgaard. While Krakauer and every other writer just ignores the "stunt" issue, it explains much of the rather bizarre behavior that led to the problems on the mountain. You are welcome to focus on who said what about when the "turn around" time was and what it really meant. However, if you are not looking at the "stunt" issue, you are missing the Yeti in the living room. As soon as you do look into the "stunt" issue, it becomes apparent that Krakauer was not trying to tell what really happened and just made up a fairytale that had little to do with what actually happened that day.
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
@@michaeltracy2356 Yep. If the camera is level, the angle is 36.7 degrees. If the camera is not level, then there's no way to know what the angle is from this photo.
I've read a fair amount of Krakauer's writing, and what you point out about the Gary Stu concept (30:05) is hard to dismiss. While his writing improved over time for the most part, this aspect has a thread throughout most of his works, and is noticeable in both Into the Wild (specifically McCandless skills, and death), Into Thin Air, but also Three Cups, and in likelihood Missoula (which I didn't read, in honesty). He seems to attempt to offset it, or self-inoculate if you will, by mentioning self-critical moments, but in the end writes with an air of certainty, from a self-appointed voice of expertise that is subtly off putting. Many writers do this, but not with the level of judgment and authority he does about such critical historical facts. In my youth I met the late Galen Rowell (I made a tribute video do him on my channel), here is what he wrote in the American Alpine Journal about Krakauer's criticism of Boukreev. I think this put everything into a nutshell: "The fact is that every one of Boukreev's clients survived without major injuries, while the clients who died or received major injuries were members of your party. Could you explain how Anatoli's shortcomings as a guide led to the survival of his clients…?"
Anatoli Boukreev was an incredibly strong, able climber who saved three people on that mountain that awful day. He is a hero in my book. I read Krakauer's book and enjoyed it, and also have read all I can about what happened during that climb. I need to read Bookreev's book to find out his point of view. I have trekked around the Everest region a lot but only climbed a trekking peak, small at 18,000 feet by Everest standards, Gokyo. I never did a climb that required special equipment or oxygen. If I was in trouble on that mountain, I would have loved Bookreev saving the day. Which he did. Krakauer has his viewpoints, but Bokreev walked the walk and talked the talk. He was a mountrain of a man with a heart of gold on a mountain with people in trouble. I can't add anythng else to what he did that day,
Thank you for another excellent video. You set out the facts so well. I read both of Krakauer's books, (Into the Wild is the other), and always wondered about his presentation of facts.
I was under the impression that the Russian O2 bottles/adapters used by Hall’s team could not provide a flow rate of 4 liters/min. Am I wrong about this?
Memory is inaccurate at the best of times. I cannot imagine how much more compromised it would be at high altitude, and after trama. I am sure that all recollections are inaccurate to a point. That's why photos are great, as it adds facts. I think the whole thing was a mess.
Fantastic video. I’m new to Everest history and I was curious where this photo came from and any others from that day. Would love to fall down the rabbit hole you’ve gotten me interested in
Love this. I have been fascinated by this event since I heared of it. I always hope someone could make some sort of interactive map with timeline wich shows where everyone is at what time and where certain events happen.
TY 🙏🙏, more detailed, interesting & informative work! Regarding the oxygen supply, could it be possible that high winds near the summit would be louder than a hissing supply? I appreciate you've said the incident likely never happened, but just for general knowledge.
As seen in the photo, the winds were not significant at 1PM. Krakauer claims the oxygen was turned off at about 1:35PM. So, it is extremely unlikely the winds were such that you just couldn't hear anything. It is difficult to imagine people would have continued up the step if the winds were that bad at that time. There is also the fact that the entire story is missing from his May 20 account. If he hadn't told a completely different story a year earlier, perhaps there would be some explanation for it. He also does a similar things with the oxygen equipment -- saying things that are completely false but only people who used such systems would know. For instance, he claims that to determine if a bottle is full or not, you have to attach a regulator. Not only is that not true -- you simply pick it up and feel how heavy it is, it makes it impossible to understand what Andy Harris was talking about at South Summit.
Interesting. I read Into Thin Air when it came out but I don't remember much from it except he said people were dragging Sandy Pittman up the mountain. But there she is at the top of the step and there's no one near her.
very much worth searching up Pittmans 2023 short interview on her experience. It's on 'Harvest Series' podcast. Only 35 mins but very informative if u want a direct experience of her. There's also an excellent video abt Pittman on Adventures Gone Wrong channel. Pittman had already summited 6 of the "7 peaks." Everest was the final of the 7 and it was her 3rd attempt at Everest. She was extremely qualified. And had started her love of mountains from teen & college years. She was sooo mischaractereized.
I think Krakauer's memory improved because he spent a lot of time contacting the other climbers and interviewing them. The initial article of course would not have as much information. He learned later that it was not Andy Harris he saw near Base Camp 4 but a different climber
Why would he rely on statements from other climbers rather than photographs of the mountain? Why didn't the photographs help his memory? In any case, wait until the next video, and see if your "his memory improved" theory still works.
Awesome as always sir. Hey where Pittman is standing is that where the Hillary Step slid off? Just curious....a friend of ours just went to Everest to climb but since the Chinese had cancelled 249 permits this year all of those people came over to the Nepal side from what I understand. In the end this person after reaching Camp 1 after the ice fall said it was too dangerous and they bailed.
That upper portion where Pittman is standing is still largely in place. It is the rock underneath her that slid down a little. The result is that snow builds up on the Kangshung (right) side, and people can walk right up a snow slope. However, they still fix the route the "old" way and have people scale what is the large rock below Pittman -- but now it is sort of shifted down. Thus, it appears that they fix the rope in such a way as to leave some sort of scramble up the remaining rocks when you could just go around to the right. A similar thing is done on the North. You don't need to climb the Third Step -- you can go around to the right. But everyone climbs up it because there is a rope there and the Sherpas don't want you climbing off rope.
@@michaeltracy2356 what is ur opinion on why they continue to fix rope in old way when there is an easier path ? 🤔 are they trying to create some kind of equivalency to prior climbs for comparisons? Are they trying to cover up the slippage of the rock for PR purposes ?? Clearly the summit is still an amazing feat even if u take the easier slope...
@@michaeltracy2356 I am interested in your view as I have a library of about 20 books written on this topic, but I wasn’t aware of Mike Groom’s book and I already ordered it.
I don't understand why it matters what Krakauer said in his book. It all comes down to the fact that the team leaders were at fault for the tragedies by not adhering to a strict turnaround time.
It is more about critical thinking and not simply accepting something that you have been told. It is easy to say "If they all just would have turned around on time..." But that just ignores major issues. In 1985, they all turned around on time and 5 people died. As 5 people also died on the South Side in 1996, what makes you so sure they would have lived if they all turned around on time? In any case, you seem to know everything, so why did so many people die in 1985? Who were their team leaders in 1985? What mistakes did they make? And while the team leader's mistakes were largely responsible, not adhering to strict turnaround times could easily have been compensated by other decisions. Some claim the decision to climb on that day given the weather was the big mistake. Others that both teams going on the same day was a mistake. My analysis is that the business decisions made Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were what caused the deaths and ones those decisions were made, something like this was highly probable -- the failure to turn around simply a result of a the decisions made months ago about how to advance their business objectives.
Depends if they are on rocks that scape them. But there were about 5 years of ropes on a lot of sections when I was there in 2013. Biggest problem with the large amount of fixed ropes is you don't really know which ones are older and potentially less reliable. Also, you trip over them and your crampons get tangled in the mess of ropes -- very difficult to step over 5 years of old ropes. You can easily do an image search for "Everest fixed ropes." Looks like about 5-7 years worth at the Hillary Step: gazette.com/travel/nepal-will-try-to-ease-congestion-on-mount-everest/article_d71e69c9-bfb6-5977-b445-987146cf9872.html. Exactly how degraded the old ropes are is not clear, but they don't look that bad. Without weight loading them, you can't really say, but if the main rope was cut, I would just grab two of the old ones and feel perfectly safe using that.
That's the fear - on another climb years before this incident Mike Groom lost a good friend because he decided to use an old rope to save time. Worst part is that friend had rescued Mike on that trip.
Just a thought: has any plus 8 thousand metre climber NOT noticed their bottle was on full flow? Is it possibe in that mental conidition, to be become oblivilous to the sound of the oxygen hiss? What about the sound of ambiant wind, or the sound of snow hitting your suit?
It is extremely rare to climb on full-flow. Maybe going up a difficult step, but in general, you do not climb on full flow. Krakauer specifically said he was worried about his oxygen running out. So, if you are worried about your oxygen running you, you listen for the hissing sound, so that when you don't hear it any more, you can prepare for what comes next -- you might slow down, clip into the rope rather than arm it down, etc. Krakauer leaves out numerous basic things about high-altitude climbing that lets him get away with fabrications such as this. In any case, he told two different versions of the story -- so, why do you believe the second one and not the first? What about simply running out of oxygen is so difficult to believe? Why do you think the later created version (for which there are two different versions in the book) is more believable?
Well done. "Into Thin Air" was my first book, about this tragedy. Staggering, until one reads the others' accounts, of the same incident. Boukreev seems to have done some incredibly heroic things, that day.
wow...I had read so much about this climb, including Krakauer's book, but this detailed analysis is really eye opening. I am filled with chagrin at believing Krakauer's account. His defenders say...oh, it's just artistic embellishment, or hypoxia. Come on.... it was lies to sell a book, and movie rights. Anatoli's absolute legendary heroism and strength shines every brighter than before. But Into Thin Air is a disservice to the families of the fallen.
I really like these videos. I’m a big Krakauer fan but realize he’s far from infallible. So, I appreciate your different take, which seems to be informed and honest, as far as I can tell. Guess I need to check out Groom’s book.
I have to wonder if the natural human tendency to get defensive hasn’t played a role in Krakauer’s responses to criticism. Also, I am curious how accurate one really can be about experiences in the death zone.
I think Krakauer is a fantastic writer; he's compulsively readable, as people often say about novelists. That doesn't mean I think he's 100% accurate and trustworthy, just that he presents his version of things extremely well.
Perhaps im just misremembering or unable to find it on your channel, but you previously did a shorter video about this topic, specifically where the person in the yellow down suit near the top of the step was edited out in the book iirc? Or it was a lower resolution photo that didnt show it properly. What happened to that video?
There was such a video and the numerous discussions about it are in the Yeti Academy. As with a couple of other videos, it was just one asking for assistance analyzing a photo and those get taken down once the issue is addressed.
And Mike Groom who was climbing with him on this expedition wrote in his books that it was 1PM - page 297. Lou Kasischke, who climbed on that expedition wrote in his book it was 1PM - page 125 . So, I guess because Viesturs wrote about twice, does that mean he gets two votes? I do a whole video about the Rashomon Effect. Simply pointing out that one person who was not even on that particular expedition wrote something in several books does not make it the truth. It is just one more Roshomon story. In any case, as I detail in the video, the turn around time is was not the primary reason for the deaths -- Beidelman, Fox, Marin, GammeelGaard all "turned around" after 3:10PM. That is, they left the summit after that time. They all made it down just fine. Harris left summit before 1:30PM and he died. Hansen turned around at an out 5AM and was heading down the mountain -- Rob Hall the convinced him to turn back around and press on to the summit which ended up killing both of them. So, while Krakauer has this big message about an alleged 2pm turn around, the actual story is that Doug Hansen turned around hours and hours and hours before that. The motivation that caused Rob Hall to push him to the summit, past his own assessment of being about to make it is the real story. But that story involved Outside Magainze and Rob Hall's advertising -- so, it gets dropped from the book. Instead, people are debating whether the turn around time was indeed 2pm.
It was 2pm . The time doesn't change from one year to the next . Why would it it's the same ridge. Veisturs, Hall , and Fisher all climbed it many times. You're reaching
Fox and Gammlegard did not make it down " fine " they nearly died with the rest of the group lost in the storm on the wrong side of the south col. Right next to Beck Westhers
‘A publicity piece for a paying client’ - how did I miss until this moment that Hall paid Outside and not the other way around. I’ve thought all along that Outside paid Krakauer’s fees with Hall, sponsoring his climb as it were - when you’re saying that Hall paid Outside to ASSIGN Krakauer to be a paid adver-journalist. Thank you.
Yet another in the very long list of opinions about what happened by people that weren't there and are sitting in their warm, dry house. You know what they say about opinions.
@rylandavis2976 I wasn't there. It would be ridiculous for me look at a few photos and make claims about what happened. Thanks, you just made my point.
@@dougdavis8986 dude he literally presented a photo that proves someone's account of the events is not possible there are many other photos that also prove his accounts possible. The accounts of the people that were actually there contradict, he's using the photos as evidence to prove who's account is more accurate. This kind of deductive reasoning is done everyday by layman serving on juries. Would you as a juror just say well I wasn't there so everyone can f off I'm voting not guilty? It's an exceptionally bad argument
Your underlying theme seems to be that Krakauer is a self-serving liar. I may be in the minority here, but I don’t find many of the inconsistencies you cite as compelling evidence in support of your argument. And as for the differing Krakauer and Boukreev accounts, it is interesting that Reinhold Messner said in an interview (it’s on TH-cam) that he believes Krakauer.
Do you find him stating he was at the bottom of the Hillary Step at 1pm when he was not to be a truth or a lie? The problem with your "argument" is the you just have an internal definition -- which you refuse to share -- and then tell us that something doesn't match with your own internal fantasy world. Krakauer made untrue statements that make him look better and sell books. Plenty of evidence to support that. But, when you close your eyes, you can't see it. I hardly addressed Boukreev's account. Krakauer contradicts Krakauer's own account. No need to even look at Boukreev. I address Michael Groom's account at length. But you build your little straw man around Boukreev, and then "destroy" the straw man you built with a reference to Messner. That doesn't work here.
I don’t understand your equivocation of Fischer with Krakauer. The disorder and chaos of the summit bid rests squarely on Fischer’s shoulders and had Fischer survived I can’t imagine you being so oddly fixated on Krakauer. Then again I don’t claim to understand Mountaineers and videos like these confuse me all the more. I certainly would never want to climb with someone who might inadvertently fixate somewhere in the death zone.
@Fififogone Gee, Calling out a liar , whose version is is the one most people seem to accept, when it's not accurate, seems like a good reason. You think maybe that fuels his supposed dislike? Maybe?
I find it suspect that you are looking for perfect logical decision making and perfect memory from people who have gone through tremendous trauma, and have done so in the death zone, where we all know the altitude potentially causes problems with memory--as does trauma. Plus, there have been many studies showing the the brain transforms memories over time. I doubt any account is completely accurate, and how can you know whom to trust on which issue? It's very easy to sit back and feel superior based on some photos and the careful layout of logical decision making when you are not in the middle of the danger and terrifying events at altitude.
Krakauer had this photograph. He could look at it and "sit back and feel superior based on some photos" -- because he had the exact same photos I have -- even more. Krakauer had this photo and yet Krakauer still chose to tell you a story that does not match up with it. He did not write Into Thin Air up on Mount Everest. He was not in any danger when he was writing it. He chose to make up a story knowing full well it didn't match with this photo nor any of the numerous other photos from that day. And you choose to make excuses for what he did -- make up a story that simply does not match with photographs from the Mountain that day. “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
@@arneboveng3756Krakauer is a journalist exploiting people’s deaths for money. And throwing a dead man under the bus. A man who risked his own life to save others. Having read Into Thin Air and The Climb, I know which version I believe. Krakauer is poison
Thank you for calling attention to all these, half truths, lies and random new memory recollections. Sounds like Krakauer, was trying to not only make himself look good, but also wanting to cash in on his book, where he’s portrayed as a hero character. We need more people like you, to help set the record straight and shine a new light on what really happened on this day. 👏👏👏
Naive to think the same person tells a different story because of those items. More naive when Krakauer had the photographs and he could easily have pieced together what really happened. He claimed his book was accurate, not some hypoxic trauma induced hallucination. So, while you may think that is why Krakauer wrote what he did -- he certainly does not claim that is the case. Any reason you dislike Krakauer so much? Seems rather personal to discount his book as a hypoxic trauma induced rant? Do you know him?
MT touches on this. Ego, self-rightousness, Summit Fever, and business relationship between Outside and Adventure Consultants. Finally, the truth would self-implicate JK's role in contributing to the potential deaths of others. JK, to his credit, comments to the possibility but doesn't go into details.
Wow, all of that from one picture. I do agree that Krakauer embellished the events of that climb, especially those involving him. But Rob Halls misuse of the O2 bottles led to the death of his climbers without knowing all of the details of his decision-making that day seems a bit reckless. Now, I'll be the first to admit that i do not know all the pertinent details, so perhaps you are making valid points. But, i wasn't there. I believe the storm had something to do with the tragedies which had taken place in May of '96.
Bruh everyone on the mountain that years has stated the mountain was crowded. Maybe the traffic happened right after the picture was taken. Makalu Gau said the Hillary step was crowded and it was difficult and a SLOW go.
And what makes you think Malalu Gau's statements were accurate? This isn't the only photo from that time period and we know where people were and how fast they were going. Makalu Gau was slow because Makalu Gau was a slow climber -- not because people were in front blocking him. If he were a fast climbed, he would have just been in front like Boukreev and not had to wait. The reason he is behind all the other climbers is because he climbed slower than all the other climbers.
I thought this might be an interesting take on the 1996 events. Instead, it comes across more as some Internet crank wasting time looking for small differences in witness testimonies. No two people view the same incidents in the same manner or remember it in the same way and especially over time. I imagine this is more true when the incidents occurred within the death zone. These discrepancies among witnesses are well known in legal circles. So what exactly is the point of this video, to grind out a vendetta against Jon Krakauer? While I am sure there are factual inaccuracies in his writings as well of those of the others who also recorded their memories later, Krakauer did bring the whole Everest phenomena home to his vast number of readers, almost all of whom were likely new to this topic. I don't believe he ever claimed it to be a peer-reviewed publication. Accept it for what is and move on to doing something productive with your time, like writing a new book about mountaineering that gets read by millions.
The title of the video is "Analysis of Scott Fischer's photo from South Summit." What about it gave you the impression it was going to be a "take on the 1996 events." It is looking at one particular photo -- just as it states in the title of the video and that same photo appears in the thumbnail.
@@CanadaCoolPondue I have not climbed with him. Have you ever climbed Mount Everest? Because if you had, you would find that inevitably people ask you, "Oh, what about Into Thin Air?" And then when you have to explain that the book is full of yak dung for the 500th time, perhaps a little "disdain" will develop. As I state in this video, little to nothing is accurate in his book. You can see him changing his story over time as he gets caught in his fabrications. He wrote a best selling book. Great, so did Chairman Mao. That does not mean it contains any wisdom or that any of it is true.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you for the reply! I’m learning a lot of things on your channel. You have a wealth of knowledge about this subject and an entertaining way of presenting it. You seem way more than qualified to maybe write your own book about your Everest experiences or write the definitive book on the 1996 tragedy. It’s very interesting the way you layout Jon’s discrepancies, not like with malice or anything but just logically. It’s just not right how the movies and documentaries and interviews have not really told the story how it was.
As a fan or Everest, I think it is all so ridiculous to still pulling strings on this like it matters 28 years later. Let’s face it, the word “guides” did not mean what one who was not familiar with what was going to happen when it went to shit in the death zone. I have read Anotoli’s book as well and he admits to be first on the summit, and first back in his tent. We have no idea if his assertion that, “that was the plan between him and Scott” to make him available for rescue, as he states in his book. They are both gone a long time ago. So take what you want from that. Was it true or was it an excuse for the events after the fact. You will never KNOW. There is no doubt about his selfless, heroic rescue efforts, but you all act like if someone points out an imperfection in someone OR possibly the lack of a plan on BOTH of the consulting firms, in those early consulting days, it negates anything good or heroic he did. Folks, both can be true at the same time. Ok, John’s times were off and maybe this pic proves it. Guess what, there are a million little details that you were not there for, but John was. But you sure act like you know it all. His book was written by one man, with one man’s opinion. 28 years later, the same people died that day, and Anotoli approx a year later. It was a cluster F of quite a few things, all exasperated by the storm that was the real cause. It’s like your looking for villains to make you all feel better, where there aren’t any.
That would be fine, if Jon (learn to spell his name) Krakauer agreed with you. However, Krakauer's book, while "written by one man" was allegedly fact checked by others and he had an editor. It isn't some blog post -- and most importantly, he claims to have compared things and got it right. And Krakauer took the time to point out numerous errors in Boukreev's book. ..."This was one of the many errors I pointed out to DeWalt and his editors upon publication of the first edition of The Climb in November 1997, yet it was still incorrect in the paperback edition published some seven months later." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 311). So, Krakauer himself clearly thinks that correcting inaccuracies is important. He expects other authors to correct their inaccuracies. He does not say "both can be correct." He does not say "it was a cluster F". He does not say "You will never KNOW." He instead says that Boukreev's book (DeWalt was the co-author, Boukreev having died, he obviously couldn't make the correction) is wrong and should be corrected. Nor does Krakauer consider "minor" things not in need of correction... "Referring to this particular error in the 1999 edition of his book, DeWalt wrote, “In all paperback editions of The Climb, a photo caption was deleted to correct what had been an honest and regrettable mistake.” The spurious photo caption has indeed finally been removed. But, tellingly, neither DeWalt nor his publisher has yet bothered to correct the error where it appears in the main text of the 1999 edition, on page 228." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 334). And yet, you are arguing that Krakauer should get a pass for the exact same thing he criticized Boukreev for. I highly suspect you have never read Krakauer's book and have no idea what he actually wrote in it. Krakauer claims to be an investigative journalist. And not a single thing you said remotely agrees with any tenet of investigative journalism.
Krakauer was a journalist so it isn't surprising he would lie to advance a false narrative. This is now a common characteristic of modern journalism and why all but a small number can be trusted to report the truth.
In 2016, Krakauer admitted that he "publicly falsified the story." thecatalystnews.com/2016/04/29/the-true-nature-of-journalism-through-the-eyes-of-jon-krakauer/
Details confirming that the climber at the top of the step is indeed Sandy Pittman: th-cam.com/video/DP8PfWS6N28/w-d-xo.html
In a recent Instagram post Krakauer stated he needed to made some corrections to his book in response to these videos. My response video: th-cam.com/video/iqEJV3RelQw/w-d-xo.html
I look forward to these videos so much!!! Content is unmatched. True Everest historian you are sir. Hats off
Michael, if a picture is worth a thousand words you just made these two pictures worth an encyclopedia. Unbelievably well done.
he pays you
10 cents
for each letter of praise
In trying to make your comment actually make logical sense but i literally can't. I understand it's supposed to be a compliment but it makes no actual sense
@@goddammitalanahe’s saying that bc an encyclopedia is much longer than a thousand words this picture is worth more than a thousand words
Ouch!! Fascinating. I read Into Thin Air several years ago, and liked it. I then read The Climb by Boukreev and liked that more, but remember a few times thinking, "Ah, ok, so it happened like that..." I hated the way Krakauer criticised everyone, but particularly Boukreev. He was so unkind, ungrateful and ungracious about him. My lasting impression of Krakauer is a sanctimonious person with a huge agenda and an even bigger ego. Your meticulous analysis is a real eye-opener. Nice one!
Need Advice: Since you've read both books & knowing what we know from this video, would u even bother reading K's book? I have it on my Kindle, haven't read it and considering deleting. I'm interested in truth not fiction. What do u think?
@@msbeecee1 I think it's worth reading as an insight into his psyche. When I read it, I had no idea he had skewed the story in such a spectacular way, and only became suspicious after reading Boukreev's account and using that as a launchpad to dig deeper. Your approach to Krakauer's book would therefore be from an entirely different standpoint. I did enjoy it when I read it, from an engaging point of view, but I wouldn't recommend it now as an accurate account of what happened.
@@msbeecee1I have read The Climb" and an currently reading "After the Wind". Shows K's bias and unnecessary criticism of Anatoli Boukreev.
I read Into thin air, and enjoyed it, but….. Something seemed a bit off with the criticism of, especially, Boukreev, so like you, I dug around a bit, and the read Boukreev’s book. It was definitely an eye opener.
Oh, and I returned Krakauer’s book to Audible, he lost credibility to me.
I intended to read Boukreevs book as I never liked Krakauer. Saw a talk he gave, strange stuff. So sorry Boukreev became Krakauers scapegoat. Likely jealousy.
💐 Thanx
Wow. After watching the movie and pretty much every video I could get my hands on, I thought I knew a thing or two about what happened back in the day.
Your analysis pretty much blows my mind and it feels like I have to start all over again on this subject.
@Capt.Turner
I'm right there with you. ☹
@@morgan72359 same here!!! 😳
I don't mind that Krakauer did not write as an objective reporter -- he could not possible be objective after going through such a trauma -- but it's a long way from "merely subjective" to "maliciously self-serving". Hoarding oxygen while on the climb, lying about his actions, and attempting to blame others for his own and other problems are obviously despicable. Too bad we'll never see him respond to this directly.
We don’t need to. Lou‘s and Bukreevs and Grooms Books are very close. It’s just Krakauers lies that differ.
I find it really disgusting that he was lying so much and confusing too, he must have done things that where unethical and wrong, maybe he feels shame and thought he needed to lie.
I mind, because he presents, Into Thin Air, as an accurate account made by a journalist, not a novelist, not as simply a survivor. Journalistic integrity is very important, people give a lot of weight to what a journalist writes and publishes due to this fact. Much like a witness in a court of law, they are expected to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. After reading both, Into Thin Air and The Climb, I developed significant doubts into the truthfulness and accuracy of Jon's account and, worse, began to believe he and Outside Magazine went out of their way to smear Anatoli. Going so far as to protest Boukreev receiving the award for heroism that an independent group voted he earned. It was very poor behavior and one that didn't make them look anymore honest in my eyes. Quite the opposite actually. I've not read any more of Krakaur's books and I doubt I will. Making mistakes is human, but falsifying and embellishing upon actual events and making others look bad is despicable, especially when they aren't here to defend themselves.
I feel duped.
He was a journalist, no one should expect that he would ever tell the "objective truth".
Another masterpiece, thanks MT. Anything 1996 is particularly fascinating because we had a huge blizzard in Maryland that year and for some reason both stick in my mind.
Ya we still talk about "the great blizzard of 96" here in Ohio. I remember we were off school for like two weeks
Great series. I've known that Krakauer's account was likely bunk for a long time, as many ppl familiar w this case have, but the meticulous detective work and compiling of details and comparisons of accounts and photographic evidence you've provided here, especially re: Krakauer & Namba, is really impressive and informative
New video and it's 36 minutes long! You've made me happy.
You helped me visualize this like nobody else, many thanks.
Summit crazed narcissism has turned Everest into a trash heap. I have sympathy for the sherpas and the villagers who've come to depend on the income created by this industry but I have no respect for anyone else.
Such an original comment.
clearly you dont know the mts. an armchair adventurer? Judgement is very easy when you only watch videos, The Sherpas depend on this income. Ask them.....
Hey now, it’s not just a garbage heap! It’s also a cemetery.
@@mary5292, he clearly states he understands the Sherpas need for the income provided.
@@mary5292 the sherpas only rely on it because the nepalese government has invested in that, as opposed to improving infrastructure and education in the area. its good that they are raising permit prices to reduce overcrowding but there are many things they could improve on.
This video is amazing. Thank you for your observations. This is the first time ever that I've been able to listen to an entire analysis video. Very interesting. Grabbed my attention. Keep them coming!❤ ❤❤
Thank you! I recently read The Climb co-authored by Anatoli Boukreev I believe the accounts of that day in this book! RIP Anatoli
I found Anatoli's book not persuasive. Very disappointed in it.
@@allanfifield8256What’s up with it? I’m considering getting it
At that time, May 1996, a daredevil from Sweden, Göran Kropp, was doing a stunt where he biked to Mount Everest, climbed it unassisted with no oxygen, and then biked home. He was successful, but he witnessed the storm and the confusion and reported back to us.
We (in Sweden) were therefore blessed that if we wished, we did have a neutral account to what happened, to us who were interested. We heard early about the fact one dude had a journo on the team and the journo was supposed to report positively about the trip. When Krakauer started his media circus, those of us who seeked the information did know that he was in fact out of order due to severe hypoxia and had to be more or less carried down the mountain while hallucinating.
The fact that Krakauer admitted to that WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY judging others for what HE claimed (remember: HALLUCINATING) they had done was mindblowing to us.
Kropp talked warmly about Boukreev (B was from the former Soviet Union so the daredevils hadn't really been able to know him until its collapse in 1991) and mentioned Boukreev was an absolute beast who had saved many lives that night.
Kropp also mentioned that the climb to the summit was easier than expected and he retold about the ropes left from previous years that he used to ascend and descend. He was worried before his trip that he would have to buy kilometres of rope while in Nepal but it turned out he could reuse some old equipment already present!
I went to two of his presentations, one in 1997 and one in 1998 or 1999 and his story did not change.
If the ropes were already there why did they have to redo em, setting them back 2 hours
I thought he turned around before he summited? Rob Hall is quoted as saying he respected Kropp for turning around so close to the top.
@@EmiliaJay He did an attempt during the storm day but turned around, yes, since he thought things looked awful. He was never that close to the summit though. He summited almost two weeks after the storm. I don't remember the exact day.
@@_Xds_ It is unwise to use ropes that has been there since last year. I guess Kropp could use them since he was his own boss.
@@CapitalismSuxx I see
I recently learned I have a relative who was climbing another mountain in this range during this storm. Didn’t want to ask his opinion since he knew Scott Fischer and Anatoni Boukreev personally, but he only had positive things to say about them. I’m not qualified to speak on any of the controversy, but I just wanted to share this anecdote.
Always fun to read of personal close ups. Thank you!
I worked with a man who was leading the Montenegrin team who attempted the ascent the day before the tragedy. They spent the night at 8000m and managed to reach a spot 44m from the summit before the storm forced them to abandon the pursuit. He was so haunted by those events that he wrote a book about it as well a decade later.
The fact the Krakauer blamed Boukreev for not doing more still angers me after all these years.
Boukreev was beyond the pale amazing in saving those people and never giving up on them. He did seem to have a hard time following orders so maybe that's where the criticism comes from.
Krakauer points out that Boukreev was climbing without oxygen and thus unable to be of much assistance near the summit. Boukreev quickly summited then raced down to South Col. Krakauer's criticism is widely accepted as valid: that Anatoly was paid to assist his group to summit and safely descend, not to break his own records as a mountaineer. Krakauer repeatedly mentions Boukreev's talents, but fairly critiques his irresponsibility in ducking down exhausted to the South Col to recuperate. Boukreev's conduct in assisting the Huddle is praised however.
@@matthewsutton3682
1. Bukreev stayed at the top for a long time, assisting climbers to summit and left when it was time to leave for everyone, initially leading first climbers down.
2. It was of no sportive interest for him as it was neither his first no-oxigen summit nor the fastest.
3. He was able to save anyone at all BECAUSE he was not using oxygen.
4. Bukreev wrote that his no-oxigen ascent, speedy discent, rest, come back to assist climbers heading back was planed and agreed by Scott. So word against word, sory, I believe Bukreev.
Same here. Krakauer repeatedly emerges as a congenital blamer.
He blamed it all on Sandy Pittman as well. People are still viscously trashing her.
Thank the Yeti. Been looking forward to this video .
The idea of climbing Everest has really lost it's mojo...personally I'd be happy to look on in awe.
I'm not a mountaineer but I've watched hours of videos about Everest and I've come to the conclusion that many of these mountain climbers are narcissists out for personal glory looking for thrills.
I do agree.Everest is not difficult to climb as thousands have proved it.The only demanding bit is the final,summit section.If someone wants to prove their status they should climb North Face vertically and not using the Disneyland stroll route.
@@markwroblewski6500 No by far the hardest bit is the ice flow between camp 1 and 2. The ice flow on Everest is extremely deadly, one of the hardest parts of any mountain to climb. However there is a special team of Sherpa's that set ladders and ropes and spend weeks looking for the best path across it before any climbing team is allowed to go up the rest of the mountain.
In truth some parts of Everest are harder than K2 but the local porters for K2 are not even remotely as skilled as the porters/Sherpas for Everest, its the guides that remove a lot of the danger from an Everest ascent. The experience of the guides between the two mountains makes a massive difference.
I used to be into mountaineering years ago. Not at this level, no. But I did my share of rope haulting, step kicking, being on the sharp end of the rope. There is truth to your assessment.
I dont think you express yourself as much as you should because a person can be out for personal glory looking for thrills and not be a narcissist.
Do you think a better title for johns vook should ve out of thin air cause he makes uo so much
Yesssssss 😡 I have his book in my Kindle account but haven't read it yet. I'm so glad I saw this. Now I'm gonna delete it unread. Sorry I spent money on it and gave him a sale.
@@msbeecee1 If you paid for it I would read it. I have always been suspect of his story, but it should be read.
@@msbeecee1read it it’s a best seller for a reason. Very compelling. Whether it’s all factually correct in every respect it seems not. But it’s meant to be his journalistic account put into words at the time
really enjoy your lucid powers of analysis, which often exposes those who have been, what's the phrase...... "economical with the truth" 😀
The timing of Fischer's return from Camp II to base camp and meeting Boukreev at the Ice Fall doesn't seem to make sense. How many hours had Boukreev stayed at base camp, for Fischer have gone up and down? Can you lay out the timeline?
I may be wrong here, but the statement that if the oxygen flow rate was set to maximum, the user would have heard the excessive flow seems to ignore possible wind noise at the time. However, even if this were the case, there appears to be other reasons to question this story element.
I always thought the ‘accidentally turned my oxygen up to max’ was a bit strange. The more you think about it the more lazy and outrageous it becomes. Using a ‘dead-man’s-hand,’ if you will, to explain how he ran out.
EXTREMELY suss, for sure. He uses this strategy more than once, according to the video. The saying "the living write the history books" has many implications....
@vanzell1912Absolutely!
It's really disgusting isn't.
As trustworthy as a used car salesman and I'm not just talking about the subject of this video. I'm talking about 90% of them.@vanzell1912
Journalism is DEAD...it's now Commie propaganda
Excellent video. Your evidence, critical thinking and balance of probabilities insights have made me a new subscriber. Well done sir. 🇨🇦
Very nice analysis! Thank you for sharing!
I think Krakauer is a great writer. His book got me into Everest. But he should say that it is loosely based on the 1996 event or that it is fiction. After everything I have read, he wanted to blame Mountain Madness team for everything. Boukreev was a hero. Krakauer should tell the truth once and for all.
How can you say he's a great writer and later say that he should tell the truth once and for all???
I can only guess that you like 'how' he writes, and not necessarily about writing the truth.
@@bobabooey4537a great writer can still be a liar. simply means they are engaging and easy to read their stories.
@@bobabooey4537 She said he is a great writer, not that it’s 100% factual. Just read the words.
Once again, an excellent informative analysis
In a presentation given June 1, 1997, Krakauer provides more details about what he knew about his oxygen situation and when he knew it. That account he provides has him running out of oxygen because he took too much time and not because Andy Harris screwed up turning the valve off. Sorry Krakauer fans. Into Thin Air is confirmed to be inaccurate by Jon Krakauer: th-cam.com/video/q5LtdIwZF50/w-d-xo.html
Edit: Sorry about that. So you believe Krakauer killed Harris? Is that what you are implying? Did Harris have any responsibility for himself?
Uh oh…I know how you feel about edits…
I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but wonder if in this case he was just charitably leaving out the detail of what he believed to be Andy messing up the valve.
That said, you bring up many other items that are harder to explain away.
@@TJTurnage He left the part about the valve out of an obscure interview in which he is cursing, swearing, and clearly just talking off the top of his head.
He then included it in a best selling book translated into multiple languages and still used in some university level courses. So, if he was being kind, perhaps he would have done the opposite and just briefly mention it but leave it out of the version that sold millions of copies.
As for TJ, not sure what you are going on about. Krakauer has already said he feels terrible about this, and it has been giving him a recurring nightmare where Harris is trying to reach a rope and Krakauer can't get him a rope. I have no idea what his dreams mean, but talking about "killing" someone is ridiculous. Please keep your comments within the bounds of decency.
Krakauer has said he feels extremely responsible for Harris' death. I agree with Krakauer on that point. However, I feel that certain aspect of his book were reported accurately. Krakauer was climbing with Harris most of the day. As nearly every aspect of Krakauer's own climb has been mis-reported, it is just a coincidence that Krakauer happened to be next to Harris when the events in question took place. It also makes sorting things out more difficult because Harris is not here to tell his version.
@@TJTurnage Speaking of dogs, remember that year they said a dog had summitted Everest? All I could think of was how the hell did he get up the Hillary step?
Maybe that pooch should try again now that the earthquake happened…
@@michaeltracy2356 Really glad you took the time to respond because I’m interested in your opinion.
Yes, I agree that recounting the alleged valve incident in a bestseller is the opposite of being kind and charitable and not a good explanation for this video clip.
I’m not sure I follow what you’re saying after that. For example, I didn’t say anything about anyone killing anybody. Was this another commenter perhaps?
Anyway, your statement about arguing with a dead man (Anatoli) struck me as very accurate and I’m willing to consider that the death of Harris could be getting leveraged here too.
I’d appreciate any clarification you’re willing to offer here and I look forward to more videos.
Boukreev's book also details how Kraukauer was presented with evidence contradicting the version set forth in his book Into Thin Air but chose to ignore it.
Yes, this was quite interesting. Boukreev's book has its own perspective and agenda, of course, but one thing that stands out is a kind of amazed frustration in places at Krakauer repeatedly refusing to correct his narrative even when faced with objective evidence (i.e. photographs) that what he is saying is not true. Krakauer seems to have an indifference to the truth worthy of a true bullshit artist.
And Tony Hawk stole the first 540
And Edison stole almost everything
And..
@@steveshea6148Not really the same thing
WOW, I hope this goes viral!!!
Did Covid teach you nothing?😅
@@stoobydootoo4098 hahaha it taught me that truth is better than fiction 😅
@@whackamole4909 paid by whom and in order to achieve what?
@@whackamole4909 Paid by whom, and in what particulars is he incorrect?
@@stoobydootoo4098
yes it did! Covid taught me that “conspiracy theorists” end up being correct an awful lot of the time
I get the distinct impression you're not a fan of Jon Krakauer...🤔
I’m so glad you are representing the hard facts in these videos. It’s clear Krakauer lied and exaggerated to make himself some kind of protagonist, and UNFAIRLY as hell portrayed others as villains when they were much more brave and heroic than he. He ruined Sandy and Bourkeev’s reputations for decades. It’s only now people are really talking about it, and how much “Into Thin Air” is to blame. Also, I had no idea about Rob Hall paying Outside for the article/ads. The last few sentences of this video made everything make sooo much sense.
Bunch o' crap. JK never portrays himself as a protagonist in his book or interviews. He even says that he was probably the least qualified guy to be there.
As for SHP and Anatoli, I think Sandy gets a bit of a bum rap though there's no doubt Lopsang's short rope of her did contribute to delays. But I don't blame her for that but there's no doubt that special attention was paid to her so she could successfully reach the summit.
Anatoli? Both hero and villain. Hero for rescuing people that night. Villain for taking off and leaving the clients to their own devices. With Scott out of the picture and Lopsang focused on SHP and tagging the summit (something Rob Hall basically fired him over in '95), Anatoli's decision to go down ahead of everyone leaving only the inexperienced Neal Beidleman as a guide for the clients was VERY questionable. Reinhold Messner and David Breashears both criticized that decision. Remember, it was Anatoli's unwillingness to follow directions that caused Scott Fischer to come down from Camp 2 to escort an ill climber off the mountain back to base camp and then back up again, contributing to Fischer's collapse and death 2 days later. Yes, Anatoli was a hero later on but it's quite likely that if he had acted the part for which he was getting paid (as a lead guide) that rescue may have never been needed.
@waltblackadar4690 How many other guides and sherpa from the Mountain Madness team were on the route when Boukreev left them to their own devices? How many of his team did not make it back because of his decision? If he had not gone down quickly and got any rest or warmth, would there have been less deaths?
@@waltblackadar4690Sandy Hill Pittman being short roped by Lopsang didn’t cause any delays and all the timestamped photos prove that. The short roping happened within the first hour of the summit push when they set out of camp 4 (which was an hour behind Rob’s team, yet they all still caught up to them fairly quickly)
Climbers in Rob Hall 's team did not like presence of an embedded journalist amidst them...early on ,in base camp ,he was sending reports to Outside reporter about each climber which was all over internet...Lou's wife Sandy saw it on the net & informed him..when confronted in base camp Jon said he didn't know that his report was released on internet
A lie is a deliberate act. It seems not inconceivable both perception and memories may suffer from high altitude exposure, resulting in a good faith misrepresentation. What's your evidence it's the former and not the latter?
Comparing accounts is like comparing witness accounts in a court room. People remember things differently. Victims of Trauma also change their accounts after time.
So true. It's also annoying when photos completely disprove what you are saying, along with multiple accounts from others who were there, but you still push forward with the inaccurate reality because it makes for a better story to sell (I mean because you have ptsd).
@cwired9407. Not just because it makes a better story but because it is self aggrandizing and ignores the author’s egregious behaviour and casts blame on the innocent.
Wow, thanks for this! Very informative! Krakauer is an unreliable narrator. When I read Into Thin Air I loved it and I didn’t hear the jibes he made. I did notice he was a bit off on his own and not really connecting to anyone but it did t bother me. However later I found out he confronted Boukreev at a talk he was giving and he published the sad conversations between Rob and his wife against her wishes. The more I learn the more kinda weasely he seems to get. I watched quite a few documentaries and the survivors did not seem to be saying what he was saying. Just a lot of things that make you go hmm. They say that in a survival situation who you really are surfaces.
Very interesting and great work! Looking very much forward to upcoming videos. 😺
I'm incredibly passionate about Everest stories, especially your channel! It's also fantastic that you take the time to respond to people's comments. Jake Norton mentioned in one of his recent videos, that you come across as confrontational, and because of that, he prefers not to collaborate with you (something like that). Not sure how stating facts can be misconstrued as being confrontational. Keep them videos coming pls...
Yes, Michael, pls keep making more. People don't like to be shut down in their unfair debate tactics, which is what you do quite handily. Repeating lies over and over is what is bringing America down. Pls continue to be a warrior for facts & fair fighting in mountaineering 🙏
People don't think when the truth competes with their narrative. I prefer facts as well and have been called a few things myself, some not as nice as confrontational though. Lol
Very good analysis. Personal accounts of these types of disaster events are often inconsistent and biased so I am not surprised by your findings at all. For this event, unfortunately the leaders of the expeditions (Hall and Fischer) are not available. My perspective is that with the makeup of the teams, the inherent physical limitations and logistical challenges high on the mountain and the unpredictable weather conditions, 2 pm should have been a max turnaround time. Also, in my opinion, not enough focus was given to oxygen distribution on the mountain, particularly by Hall’s team.
You seem to be right on all accounts. And too bad Hall and Fischer weren't able to stick around and clear some things up. I do strongly believe that they neglected to coordinate everybody since they had an unusually large amount of people on the mountain and different groups than they were used to back then. Re oxygen: I recall reading that they did not receive the amount of canisters that they ordered and it was too late to make good on that, leaving them to juggle around what they received. That was a real big deal in the eventual outcome of that tragic day.
Neal Beidleman's account is interesting (2020 Millhouse podcast).
34:50 I'm confused about the timeline here. As Krakauer was about to descend the step, he looked up and saw Fischer... at the top of the Hillary Step? What time was this? How could it be that Fischer did not summit until 4.30pm, if he was at the top of the Hillary Step as Krakauer was descending? Am I missing something?
Your videos are great! Do you have any insight on why Hall seemed stuck on that day to go for the summitt? He seemed hell bent on May 10th. Even with Imax going back and Anatoli not feeling good about it. Also, why on earth did he want to climb with Scotts team? Nobody seemed comfortable with that idea except him and Scott. I can't make sense of it.
Sure, I'll get into it in an upcoming video -- it has to do with the finances. Rob Hall spent all his money on the contract with Outside Magazine so that he would get future advertising. Hence, he had to skimp on this expedition. They didn't have the latest oxygen equipment, they had less of it, and they didn't have backups. Once Rob Hall's team started using oxygen to head up the mountain, they were committed. Rob Hall had not purchased enough oxygen to delay for another day and certainly nowhere near enough to descend and try again in a week or two.
Now, where did the money go? It went to pay for Jon Krakauer's climb -- we was climbing for "free." That is, Rob Hall spent all the money to provision Jon Krakauer's food, tents, sherpas, oxygen, etc. This left him with one shot for the summit. Once they started using oxygen on the way up, they were committed. Of course, Jon Krakauer is not likely to explain that him and the contract with his employer (Outside Magazine) were the reason Hall could not move the summit date.
Fischer had a large team that would likely reach the summit, so he was going to climb with another group one way or the other. The IMAX team needed a clear mountain for their photography, so better for Fischer to go when Hall was going rather than when the IMAX team was going.
It would have been better for Fischer to go on the 10th and Hall to go with IMAX, but as Hall did not have the ability to delay, the die was cast.
@@michaeltracy2356 I have read so much on this event and did not know that. I knew Scott was stressed about finances, had no idea Hall was as well. He did a huge disservice to his team bringing Krakauer then. It explains why Lou was upset with him too.
And to think Krakauer frames Anatoli and Sandy as the villains. It was Anatoli who saved the lives of his team. From watching these videos it sounds as though Lou and Anatolis accounts are closer to truth and maybe Krakauer needs to put himself under the microscope. Not to mention poor decision making on the part of Scott and especially Rob. However, Krakauer doesnt mention this much. I often wonder what Rob said to Doug to make him continue the ascent when Lou said that Doug was going to head back. Hell of a position he put himself in. But I'm guessing Krakauer would say that's Sandy's fault too.
You know, I have watched A LOT of these accounts of the 1996 Everest disaster climb, and I always felt weird about JK's account. Your account is SO good that I get it now. I really wonder now about the account of INTO THE WILD! thank you SOOOOO much for doing this video. It has cleared up SO much BS!!!!
"Into The Wild" is so amazingly written that I overlook any discrepancies. Krakauer did a lot of quoting and direct copying of letters, though, and I thought he wrote sympathetic to young Chris's life.
@@annettegenovesiunfortunately, we’ll never know how true to life that was. RIP alexander supertramp
I know it's just one photo but it looks like Pittman was climbing pretty well, on top of the step by herself and a head of the main pack. Where exactly on the mountain was she being short roped? I have read Into Thin Air and the Climb a few times but it's been years since my copies are boxed away, these posts of yours makes me want to dig them out and read them again. Of all the books written by actual climbers of that day in 96 which do you think appears to be the most accurate?
Thank you for your analysis of these events on Everest, it gives us many things to ponder 🍻
I don't think she was ever short-roped (at least not on the way up; she seems to have had some trouble with altitude on the way down, which can happen to anyone) just as I don't think sherpas were nonsensically carrying her (electric?) espresso machine up the mountain. I think Krakaur was just salty about her being there for whatever reason.
very much worth searching up Pittmans 2023 short interview on her experience. It's on 'Harvest Series' podcast. Only 35 mins but very informative if u want a direct experience of her. There's also an excellent video abt Pittman on Adventures Gone Wrong channel
I think she was very unfairly judged. She was a very experienced climber.
@@FabricofTime From what I have learned (see a comment I made) Pittman did get short roped over the Kumbu Icefall since there was an accident just before she and a few others came there, and this was just a precaution of some kind. My memory is a bit hazy on this, since I just listened to a presentation. But she wasn't nannied like SOMEONE claimed.
@@QuiltedZero12I also believed terrible things about Pitman, and it was based largely on Krakauer's account. I would never contact her or harass her but I totally believed she was a rich tourist with no climbing experience who tied up several sherpas and had she not, the ropes would have been fixed, there would have been no delay, and the climbers would have beat the storm down to safety. I wonder if she has considered suing him. I'm ashamed of my willingness to just believe those things about her. I can only imagine the harrassment she continues to endure. She can never truly live his version down when every day a new round of people reads his book or watches his lecture online. I happened to see that episode of Adventures gone wrong, and it made me realize I had it all wrong. What an asshole.
Read Krakauer's book in school, but the details definitely seemed off. It makes sense that he might change the story to make his story 'better' than others. I'll have to check out some of the other climbers' books to see where any other discrepancies are at. Awesome and super in-depth video I really enjoyed it!
Wait was 2pm the summit time or turn around time? Because if people need dozens of minutes to rest at the summit than those are two different times.
There are different accounts from different people, but one problem was the long time people spent on the summit. I cover the issue in the Yellow Brick Road video. Scott Fischer planned to pull a "stunt" on the summit, according to Lene Gammelgaard. While Krakauer and every other writer just ignores the "stunt" issue, it explains much of the rather bizarre behavior that led to the problems on the mountain.
You are welcome to focus on who said what about when the "turn around" time was and what it really meant. However, if you are not looking at the "stunt" issue, you are missing the Yeti in the living room. As soon as you do look into the "stunt" issue, it becomes apparent that Krakauer was not trying to tell what really happened and just made up a fairytale that had little to do with what actually happened that day.
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
nope. Do the math.
@@michaeltracy2356 Yep. If the camera is level, the angle is 36.7 degrees. If the camera is not level, then there's no way to know what the angle is from this photo.
Michael, does this photo have a time stamp on it?
I've read a fair amount of Krakauer's writing, and what you point out about the Gary Stu concept (30:05) is hard to dismiss. While his writing improved over time for the most part, this aspect has a thread throughout most of his works, and is noticeable in both Into the Wild (specifically McCandless skills, and death), Into Thin Air, but also Three Cups, and in likelihood Missoula (which I didn't read, in honesty). He seems to attempt to offset it, or self-inoculate if you will, by mentioning self-critical moments, but in the end writes with an air of certainty, from a self-appointed voice of expertise that is subtly off putting. Many writers do this, but not with the level of judgment and authority he does about such critical historical facts.
In my youth I met the late Galen Rowell (I made a tribute video do him on my channel), here is what he wrote in the American Alpine Journal about Krakauer's criticism of Boukreev. I think this put everything into a nutshell: "The fact is that every one of Boukreev's clients survived without major injuries, while the clients who died or received major injuries were members of your party. Could you explain how Anatoli's shortcomings as a guide led to the survival of his clients…?"
Fascinating video!!! You have a new subscriber here!!!👍🏻👍🏻
Anatoli Boukreev was an incredibly strong, able climber who saved three people on that mountain that awful day. He is a hero in my book. I read Krakauer's book and enjoyed it, and also have read all I can about what happened during that climb. I need to read Bookreev's book to find out his point of view.
I have trekked around the Everest region a lot but only climbed a trekking peak, small at 18,000 feet by Everest standards, Gokyo. I never did a climb that required special equipment or oxygen. If I was in trouble on that mountain, I would have loved Bookreev saving the day. Which he did. Krakauer has his viewpoints, but Bokreev walked the walk and talked the talk. He was a mountrain of a man with a heart of gold on a mountain with people in trouble. I can't add anythng else to what he did that day,
I saw Everest movie about a month ago and then I knew about this incident. My curiosity to know more about this incident bought me to this video.
Thank you for another excellent video. You set out the facts so well. I read both of Krakauer's books, (Into the Wild is the other), and always wondered about his presentation of facts.
Into the wild ia also featooned with bs
I was under the impression that the Russian O2 bottles/adapters used by Hall’s team could not provide a flow rate of 4 liters/min. Am I wrong about this?
Great job Michael.
assuming you do more on this event, you can pronounce the Japanese climber's given name as 'Yassko' (the u is dropped)
Memory is inaccurate at the best of times. I cannot imagine how much more compromised it would be at high altitude, and after trama. I am sure that all recollections are inaccurate to a point. That's why photos are great, as it adds facts. I think the whole thing was a mess.
Fantastic video. I’m new to Everest history and I was curious where this photo came from and any others from that day. Would love to fall down the rabbit hole you’ve gotten me interested in
Love that you are calling krakour out
Love this. I have been fascinated by this event since I heared of it. I always hope someone could make some sort of interactive map with timeline wich shows where everyone is at what time and where certain events happen.
😂 i love your explanation of Spitting Distance 😂
TY 🙏🙏, more detailed, interesting & informative work!
Regarding the oxygen supply, could it be possible that high winds near the summit would be louder than a hissing supply? I appreciate you've said the incident likely never happened, but just for general knowledge.
As seen in the photo, the winds were not significant at 1PM. Krakauer claims the oxygen was turned off at about 1:35PM. So, it is extremely unlikely the winds were such that you just couldn't hear anything. It is difficult to imagine people would have continued up the step if the winds were that bad at that time.
There is also the fact that the entire story is missing from his May 20 account. If he hadn't told a completely different story a year earlier, perhaps there would be some explanation for it. He also does a similar things with the oxygen equipment -- saying things that are completely false but only people who used such systems would know. For instance, he claims that to determine if a bottle is full or not, you have to attach a regulator. Not only is that not true -- you simply pick it up and feel how heavy it is, it makes it impossible to understand what Andy Harris was talking about at South Summit.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you for taking the time for a detailed reply Michael 🙏🙏
Interesting. I read Into Thin Air when it came out but I don't remember much from it except he said people were dragging Sandy Pittman up the mountain. But there she is at the top of the step and there's no one near her.
They've done a great job of vilifying that woman, and it was very destructive in her life post-climb.
very much worth searching up Pittmans 2023 short interview on her experience. It's on 'Harvest Series' podcast. Only 35 mins but very informative if u want a direct experience of her. There's also an excellent video abt Pittman on Adventures Gone Wrong channel. Pittman had already summited 6 of the "7 peaks." Everest was the final of the 7 and it was her 3rd attempt at Everest. She was extremely qualified. And had started her love of mountains from teen & college years. She was sooo mischaractereized.
The latest pictures of climb day provide a vast contrast with 1996. Today it looks like the line entering an ERAS concert.
I think Krakauer's memory improved because he spent a lot of time contacting the other climbers and interviewing them. The initial article of course would not have as much information. He learned later that it was not Andy Harris he saw near Base Camp 4 but a different climber
Why would he rely on statements from other climbers rather than photographs of the mountain? Why didn't the photographs help his memory? In any case, wait until the next video, and see if your "his memory improved" theory still works.
Awesome as always sir. Hey where Pittman is standing is that where the Hillary Step slid off? Just curious....a friend of ours just went to Everest to climb but since the Chinese had cancelled 249 permits this year all of those people came over to the Nepal side from what I understand. In the end this person after reaching Camp 1 after the ice fall said it was too dangerous and they bailed.
That upper portion where Pittman is standing is still largely in place. It is the rock underneath her that slid down a little. The result is that snow builds up on the Kangshung (right) side, and people can walk right up a snow slope. However, they still fix the route the "old" way and have people scale what is the large rock below Pittman -- but now it is sort of shifted down. Thus, it appears that they fix the rope in such a way as to leave some sort of scramble up the remaining rocks when you could just go around to the right.
A similar thing is done on the North. You don't need to climb the Third Step -- you can go around to the right. But everyone climbs up it because there is a rope there and the Sherpas don't want you climbing off rope.
@@michaeltracy2356 what is ur opinion on why they continue to fix rope in old way when there is an easier path ? 🤔 are they trying to create some kind of equivalency to prior climbs for comparisons? Are they trying to cover up the slippage of the rock for PR purposes ?? Clearly the summit is still an amazing feat even if u take the easier slope...
You might as well call this video: “Every effort made to discredit John Krakauer”
Oh, I assure you, there is more to come. I hardly have to make an effort. Krakauer discredits himself.
@@michaeltracy2356 I am interested in your view as I have a library of about 20 books written on this topic, but I wasn’t aware of Mike Groom’s book and I already ordered it.
I think some fact checking and cross referencing is completely within the bounds of good taste
Seems this guy is slightly jealous of the best selling author.
I think they were all traumatized & most climbers didnt agree with what Krakauer wrote.
I don't understand why it matters what Krakauer said in his book. It all comes down to the fact that the team leaders were at fault for the tragedies by not adhering to a strict turnaround time.
It is more about critical thinking and not simply accepting something that you have been told. It is easy to say "If they all just would have turned around on time..." But that just ignores major issues. In 1985, they all turned around on time and 5 people died. As 5 people also died on the South Side in 1996, what makes you so sure they would have lived if they all turned around on time?
In any case, you seem to know everything, so why did so many people die in 1985? Who were their team leaders in 1985? What mistakes did they make?
And while the team leader's mistakes were largely responsible, not adhering to strict turnaround times could easily have been compensated by other decisions. Some claim the decision to climb on that day given the weather was the big mistake. Others that both teams going on the same day was a mistake. My analysis is that the business decisions made Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were what caused the deaths and ones those decisions were made, something like this was highly probable -- the failure to turn around simply a result of a the decisions made months ago about how to advance their business objectives.
Throughout the video I was trying to figure out what Krakauer would gain by lying. You of course delivered the answer.
How long can ropes stay on the mountain without dangerous levels of degridation?
Depends if they are on rocks that scape them. But there were about 5 years of ropes on a lot of sections when I was there in 2013. Biggest problem with the large amount of fixed ropes is you don't really know which ones are older and potentially less reliable. Also, you trip over them and your crampons get tangled in the mess of ropes -- very difficult to step over 5 years of old ropes. You can easily do an image search for "Everest fixed ropes." Looks like about 5-7 years worth at the Hillary Step: gazette.com/travel/nepal-will-try-to-ease-congestion-on-mount-everest/article_d71e69c9-bfb6-5977-b445-987146cf9872.html. Exactly how degraded the old ropes are is not clear, but they don't look that bad. Without weight loading them, you can't really say, but if the main rope was cut, I would just grab two of the old ones and feel perfectly safe using that.
That's the fear - on another climb years before this incident Mike Groom lost a good friend because he decided to use an old rope to save time. Worst part is that friend had rescued Mike on that trip.
Just a thought: has any plus 8 thousand metre climber NOT noticed their bottle was on full flow? Is it possibe in that mental conidition, to be become oblivilous to the sound of the oxygen hiss? What about the sound of ambiant wind, or the sound of snow hitting your suit?
It is extremely rare to climb on full-flow. Maybe going up a difficult step, but in general, you do not climb on full flow.
Krakauer specifically said he was worried about his oxygen running out. So, if you are worried about your oxygen running you, you listen for the hissing sound, so that when you don't hear it any more, you can prepare for what comes next -- you might slow down, clip into the rope rather than arm it down, etc.
Krakauer leaves out numerous basic things about high-altitude climbing that lets him get away with fabrications such as this.
In any case, he told two different versions of the story -- so, why do you believe the second one and not the first? What about simply running out of oxygen is so difficult to believe? Why do you think the later created version (for which there are two different versions in the book) is more believable?
Well done. "Into Thin Air" was my first book, about this tragedy. Staggering, until one reads the others' accounts, of the same incident. Boukreev seems to have done some incredibly heroic things, that day.
I read Krakauer’s book when it was published in 1997 and it was full of ungrounded accusations to everyone around
wow...I had read so much about this climb, including Krakauer's book, but this detailed analysis is really eye opening. I am filled with chagrin at believing Krakauer's account. His defenders say...oh, it's just artistic embellishment, or hypoxia. Come on.... it was lies to sell a book, and movie rights. Anatoli's absolute legendary heroism and strength shines every brighter than before. But Into Thin Air is a disservice to the families of the fallen.
I really like these videos. I’m a big Krakauer fan but realize he’s far from infallible. So, I appreciate your different take, which seems to be informed and honest, as far as I can tell. Guess I need to check out Groom’s book.
I have to wonder if the natural human tendency to get defensive hasn’t played a role in Krakauer’s responses to criticism. Also, I am curious how accurate one really can be about experiences in the death zone.
I think Krakauer is a fantastic writer; he's compulsively readable, as people often say about novelists. That doesn't mean I think he's 100% accurate and trustworthy, just that he presents his version of things extremely well.
@@merri-toddwebster2473 Well said. His prose is awesome, but prose doesn’t necessarily equal truth and accuracy.
Perhaps im just misremembering or unable to find it on your channel, but you previously did a shorter video about this topic, specifically where the person in the yellow down suit near the top of the step was edited out in the book iirc? Or it was a lower resolution photo that didnt show it properly. What happened to that video?
There was such a video and the numerous discussions about it are in the Yeti Academy. As with a couple of other videos, it was just one asking for assistance analyzing a photo and those get taken down once the issue is addressed.
Ed Viesturs who guided for Rob Hall and climbed with him a lot. Says there turn around time was 2pm . He talks about it in at least two of his books.
And Mike Groom who was climbing with him on this expedition wrote in his books that it was 1PM - page 297. Lou Kasischke, who climbed on that expedition wrote in his book it was 1PM - page 125 . So, I guess because Viesturs wrote about twice, does that mean he gets two votes? I do a whole video about the Rashomon Effect. Simply pointing out that one person who was not even on that particular expedition wrote something in several books does not make it the truth. It is just one more Roshomon story.
In any case, as I detail in the video, the turn around time is was not the primary reason for the deaths -- Beidelman, Fox, Marin, GammeelGaard all "turned around" after 3:10PM. That is, they left the summit after that time. They all made it down just fine. Harris left summit before 1:30PM and he died. Hansen turned around at an out 5AM and was heading down the mountain -- Rob Hall the convinced him to turn back around and press on to the summit which ended up killing both of them. So, while Krakauer has this big message about an alleged 2pm turn around, the actual story is that Doug Hansen turned around hours and hours and hours before that. The motivation that caused Rob Hall to push him to the summit, past his own assessment of being about to make it is the real story. But that story involved Outside Magainze and Rob Hall's advertising -- so, it gets dropped from the book. Instead, people are debating whether the turn around time was indeed 2pm.
It was 2pm . The time doesn't change from one year to the next . Why would it it's the same ridge. Veisturs, Hall , and Fisher all climbed it many times. You're reaching
Fox and Gammlegard did not make it down " fine " they nearly died with the rest of the group lost in the storm on the wrong side of the south col. Right next to Beck Westhers
Also Ed Viesturs was actually at everest that day . Watching it all from camp 2 along with the imax team that summited a week or so later
@@hawkchalkWe all know what he meant by saying "made it down fine". He is well aware of the storm.
‘A publicity piece for a paying client’ - how did I miss until this moment that Hall paid Outside and not the other way around. I’ve thought all along that Outside paid Krakauer’s fees with Hall, sponsoring his climb as it were - when you’re saying that Hall paid Outside to ASSIGN Krakauer to be a paid adver-journalist. Thank you.
Summitting at 2PM is still very risky. They all knew it too.
Yet another in the very long list of opinions about what happened by people that weren't there and are sitting in their warm, dry house. You know what they say about opinions.
Yeah, they are like comments.
He's looking at actual evidence from the day, of you have evidence to contradict what he's saying go ahead and present it
@rylandavis2976 I wasn't there. It would be ridiculous for me look at a few photos and make claims about what happened. Thanks, you just made my point.
@@dougdavis8986 dude he literally presented a photo that proves someone's account of the events is not possible there are many other photos that also prove his accounts possible. The accounts of the people that were actually there contradict, he's using the photos as evidence to prove who's account is more accurate. This kind of deductive reasoning is done everyday by layman serving on juries. Would you as a juror just say well I wasn't there so everyone can f off I'm voting not guilty? It's an exceptionally bad argument
The climbers shadow 2nd from bottom, reads 1.10pm
Very good and reasonable analysis. Thanks.
Your underlying theme seems to be that Krakauer is a self-serving liar. I may be in the minority here, but I don’t find many of the inconsistencies you cite as compelling evidence in support of your argument.
And as for the differing Krakauer and Boukreev accounts, it is interesting that Reinhold Messner said in an interview (it’s on TH-cam) that he believes Krakauer.
Do you find him stating he was at the bottom of the Hillary Step at 1pm when he was not to be a truth or a lie? The problem with your "argument" is the you just have an internal definition -- which you refuse to share -- and then tell us that something doesn't match with your own internal fantasy world. Krakauer made untrue statements that make him look better and sell books. Plenty of evidence to support that. But, when you close your eyes, you can't see it.
I hardly addressed Boukreev's account. Krakauer contradicts Krakauer's own account. No need to even look at Boukreev. I address Michael Groom's account at length. But you build your little straw man around Boukreev, and then "destroy" the straw man you built with a reference to Messner. That doesn't work here.
I don’t understand your equivocation of Fischer with Krakauer. The disorder and chaos of the summit bid rests squarely on Fischer’s shoulders and had Fischer survived I can’t imagine you being so oddly fixated on Krakauer. Then again I don’t claim to understand Mountaineers and videos like these confuse me all the more. I certainly would never want to climb with someone who might inadvertently fixate somewhere in the death zone.
This guy is extremely fixated on Krakauer as if he has a personal bone to pick with him. You have to wonder what that’s all about.
@Fififogone Gee, Calling out a liar , whose version is is the one most people seem to accept, when it's not accurate, seems like a good reason. You think maybe that fuels his supposed dislike? Maybe?
When did you sumit?????
I am not your research assistant. Go look it up in Himalayan Database.
While you are looking in the Himalayan database, you can also try find out what the meaning of "sumit" is🙄🙄
Who took the photo where Boukreev was the first in line?
Beidleman
It seems unlikely that an experienced climber wouldnt know which way was on/off on an oxygen bottle.
I find it suspect that you are looking for perfect logical decision making and perfect memory from people who have gone through tremendous trauma, and have done so in the death zone, where we all know the altitude potentially causes problems with memory--as does trauma. Plus, there have been many studies showing the the brain transforms memories over time. I doubt any account is completely accurate, and how can you know whom to trust on which issue? It's very easy to sit back and feel superior based on some photos and the careful layout of logical decision making when you are not in the middle of the danger and terrifying events at altitude.
Krakauer had this photograph. He could look at it and "sit back and feel superior based on some photos" -- because he had the exact same photos I have -- even more. Krakauer had this photo and yet Krakauer still chose to tell you a story that does not match up with it. He did not write Into Thin Air up on Mount Everest. He was not in any danger when he was writing it. He chose to make up a story knowing full well it didn't match with this photo nor any of the numerous other photos from that day. And you choose to make excuses for what he did -- make up a story that simply does not match with photographs from the Mountain that day.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
@@michaeltracy2356 Kraukauer is not a person who "feels superior".
How do you know this?
@@arneboveng3756Krakauer is a journalist exploiting people’s deaths for money. And throwing a dead man under the bus. A man who risked his own life to save others.
Having read Into Thin Air and The Climb, I know which version I believe. Krakauer is poison
@@michaeltracy2356 wow...powerful Sagan quote
Excellent examination of the events and a welcome alternative to Krakauers version.
Thank you for calling attention to all these, half truths, lies and random new memory recollections. Sounds like Krakauer, was trying to not only make himself look good, but also wanting to cash in on his book, where he’s portrayed as a hero character. We need more people like you, to help set the record straight and shine a new light on what really happened on this day. 👏👏👏
Where in Krakauer’s book was he portrayed as heroic?
I attribute all these differing stories to hypoxia, trauma, and personal point of view. And of course, I was not there.
Naive to think the same person tells a different story because of those items. More naive when Krakauer had the photographs and he could easily have pieced together what really happened. He claimed his book was accurate, not some hypoxic trauma induced hallucination. So, while you may think that is why Krakauer wrote what he did -- he certainly does not claim that is the case. Any reason you dislike Krakauer so much? Seems rather personal to discount his book as a hypoxic trauma induced rant? Do you know him?
Was that made into a movie some years ago?
Great analysis! I've always wondered: What do people generally think is the motivation for Krakauer lying about events on the mountain?
MT touches on this. Ego, self-rightousness, Summit Fever, and business relationship between Outside and Adventure Consultants. Finally, the truth would self-implicate JK's role in contributing to the potential deaths of others. JK, to his credit, comments to the possibility but doesn't go into details.
Krakauer probably thinks he could teach Reinhold Messner a thing or two.
Where on the mt were you
Wow, all of that from one picture. I do agree that Krakauer embellished the events of that climb, especially those involving him. But Rob Halls misuse of the O2 bottles led to the death of his climbers without knowing all of the details of his decision-making that day seems a bit reckless. Now, I'll be the first to admit that i do not know all the pertinent details, so perhaps you are making valid points. But, i wasn't there. I believe the storm had something to do with the tragedies which had taken place in May of '96.
Bruh everyone on the mountain that years has stated the mountain was crowded. Maybe the traffic happened right after the picture was taken. Makalu Gau said the Hillary step was crowded and it was difficult and a SLOW go.
And what makes you think Malalu Gau's statements were accurate? This isn't the only photo from that time period and we know where people were and how fast they were going. Makalu Gau was slow because Makalu Gau was a slow climber -- not because people were in front blocking him. If he were a fast climbed, he would have just been in front like Boukreev and not had to wait. The reason he is behind all the other climbers is because he climbed slower than all the other climbers.
Makalu gau said he and Beck were helicoptered out together. Either his command of English is not good, or he was completely out of it.
@@michaeltracy2356 could be a jam when you have bidirectional traffic above the S summit. That ridge doesn't play games.
I thought this might be an interesting take on the 1996 events. Instead, it comes across more as some Internet crank wasting time looking for small differences in witness testimonies.
No two people view the same incidents in the same manner or remember it in the same way and especially over time. I imagine this is more true when the incidents occurred within the death zone. These discrepancies among witnesses are well known in legal circles.
So what exactly is the point of this video, to grind out a vendetta against Jon Krakauer? While I am sure there are factual inaccuracies in his writings as well of those of the others who also recorded their memories later, Krakauer did bring the whole Everest phenomena home to his vast number of readers, almost all of whom were likely new to this topic.
I don't believe he ever claimed it to be a peer-reviewed publication. Accept it for what is and move on to doing something productive with your time, like writing a new book about mountaineering that gets read by millions.
The title of the video is "Analysis of Scott Fischer's photo from South Summit." What about it gave you the impression it was going to be a "take on the 1996 events." It is looking at one particular photo -- just as it states in the title of the video and that same photo appears in the thumbnail.
@@michaeltracy2356 I’m just curious have you ever climbed with him? Because your disdain for him feels personal.
@@CanadaCoolPondue I have not climbed with him. Have you ever climbed Mount Everest? Because if you had, you would find that inevitably people ask you, "Oh, what about Into Thin Air?" And then when you have to explain that the book is full of yak dung for the 500th time, perhaps a little "disdain" will develop. As I state in this video, little to nothing is accurate in his book. You can see him changing his story over time as he gets caught in his fabrications. He wrote a best selling book. Great, so did Chairman Mao. That does not mean it contains any wisdom or that any of it is true.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you for the reply! I’m learning a lot of things on your channel. You have a wealth of knowledge about this subject and an entertaining way of presenting it. You seem way more than qualified to maybe write your own book about your Everest experiences or write the definitive book on the 1996 tragedy. It’s very interesting the way you layout Jon’s discrepancies, not like with malice or anything but just logically. It’s just not right how the movies and documentaries and interviews have not really told the story how it was.
As a fan or Everest, I think it is all so ridiculous to still pulling strings on this like it matters 28 years later. Let’s face it, the word “guides” did not mean what one who was not familiar with what was going to happen when it went to shit in the death zone. I have read Anotoli’s book as well and he admits to be first on the summit, and first back in his tent. We have no idea if his assertion that, “that was the plan between him and Scott” to make him available for rescue, as he states in his book. They are both gone a long time ago. So take what you want from that. Was it true or was it an excuse for the events after the fact. You will never KNOW. There is no doubt about his selfless, heroic rescue efforts, but you all act like if someone points out an imperfection in someone OR possibly the lack of a plan on BOTH of the consulting firms, in those early consulting days, it negates anything good or heroic he did. Folks, both can be true at the same time. Ok, John’s times were off and maybe this pic proves it. Guess what, there are a million little details that you were not there for, but John was. But you sure act like you know it all. His book was written by one man, with one man’s opinion. 28 years later, the same people died that day, and Anotoli approx a year later. It was a cluster F of quite a few things, all exasperated by the storm that was the real cause. It’s like your looking for villains to make you all feel better, where there aren’t any.
That would be fine, if Jon (learn to spell his name) Krakauer agreed with you. However, Krakauer's book, while "written by one man" was allegedly fact checked by others and he had an editor. It isn't some blog post -- and most importantly, he claims to have compared things and got it right. And Krakauer took the time to point out numerous errors in Boukreev's book. ..."This was one of the many errors I pointed out to DeWalt and his editors upon publication of the first edition of The Climb in November 1997, yet it was still incorrect in the paperback edition published some seven months later." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 311).
So, Krakauer himself clearly thinks that correcting inaccuracies is important. He expects other authors to correct their inaccuracies. He does not say "both can be correct." He does not say "it was a cluster F". He does not say "You will never KNOW." He instead says that Boukreev's book (DeWalt was the co-author, Boukreev having died, he obviously couldn't make the correction) is wrong and should be corrected.
Nor does Krakauer consider "minor" things not in need of correction...
"Referring to this particular error in the 1999 edition of his book, DeWalt wrote, “In all paperback editions of The Climb, a photo caption was deleted to correct what had been an honest and regrettable mistake.” The spurious photo caption has indeed finally been removed. But, tellingly, neither DeWalt nor his publisher has yet bothered to correct the error where it appears in the main text of the 1999 edition, on page 228." Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 334).
And yet, you are arguing that Krakauer should get a pass for the exact same thing he criticized Boukreev for. I highly suspect you have never read Krakauer's book and have no idea what he actually wrote in it. Krakauer claims to be an investigative journalist. And not a single thing you said remotely agrees with any tenet of investigative journalism.
Good Analysis ,Michael 👍
Krakauer was a journalist so it isn't surprising he would lie to advance a false narrative. This is now a common characteristic of modern journalism and why all but a small number can be trusted to report the truth.