Awesome video. Thank you for providing such educational and accurate info on your videos. Its very common for some channels to botch everything about Everest to bring in attention, but i heavily respect and enjoy your real, thoughtful approach. Keep it up!
This is why I'm glad I found your channel. I know nothing first hand of mountaineering - I live at sea level & have only climbed coastal mountain trails with boy scouts. That said I was super into the stories of Everest as a teen & to have an expert publish no-frills, no BS videos that are technical yet accessible to a layman is fantastic. You're one of the few youtubers who isn't just here to make money - it's clear you've got a story to share (or maybe set straight) Thank you! :)
Micheal Ryan's summit video I've watched this three times now and it's certainly answered a lot. For one, looking at the sequence of transferring both a simple carabiner and a jamming carabiner around each anchor point does explain Rob Hall's statement that he didn't think his frozen hands could handle the fixed ropes. (It might also explain why Bruce Herrod died apparently tangled in the fixed ropes). Second, Michael mentions on the descent that his personal sherpa is hurrying him along, and even doing all the unclipping and clipping for him - there's a man who knows where things go wrong. Looking at the few seconds of them descending in that slippery slope that Neil wanted to avoid, I now agree that even with two incapacitated clients, Neil and Mike Groom should have been able to manage them (provided they had enough ropes, possible only Mike Groom had a rope?) As an aside here, Neil's choice was (obviously) correction - possibly- made with the agreement of Mike Groom and the two Sherpa who joined them, so was it more of a consensus decision? The final thing I agree with you on is the absurdity of Lobsang actually pulling Sandy up those steep parts. I have an alternative explanation, based on two things from Lene's book. I think he was simply keeping her with him so that he (and Scott) knew she would have the best chance of getting up to the summit, because, of all Scott's clients, Sandy would be the jewel in the crown because of her publicity connections. My basis for this conclusion comes from Lene's book . P123, on the climb to camp 3 Sandy feels ill and Lene slows to climb with her, subsequently P132 Scott uses her slow climb rate to say he no longer backs her plan to climb without O2. She is not pleased. Then, P144 Lene notices Scott and Neal are timing her and the others. So Scott is obviously working out who is in what sort of shape. Lobsang's apparent exhaustion at the balcony is therefore not due to his hauling somebody up the slope, it's because he has the extra gear for the "stunt", and as Lene has mentioned several times, he was already coughing and vomiting before even reaching camp 4.
Great analysis. As always. It is important to note that no one could have foreseen in 1996 that this level of analysis and access to materials (pictures, video, data about the mountain) would be possible within 20~30 years. I am guessing there was less pressure to be "accurate" about telling a story.
I just finished reading Into Thin Air and came across your videos. I'm loving each one, thanks for the great analysis. The book was indeed confusing to follow in terms of timeline, and I agree that JK wanted to come across as more experienced than he was and blamed others. Your videos show his true colors. I find he was jealous, especially of Boukreev and Pittman. In regards to the black square on the video, I noticed in other Everest videos this technique is used to hide dead bodies.
continuing forensic destruction of Krak's narrative, has to be admired. Excellent as ever , MT . Had already watched the fab young Ryan's (and his super fit/fast sherpa) video. His descent video is even better than his ascent.👌👋
Lovely. In Brian Blessed's book where he tried to recreate Mallory's ascent of Everest he heard about some climbers just trampling over a dead or dying climber (probably Indian) on a rope like that so he ripped up one of their flags at base camp and pissed on it. Galahad of Everest is the film and the Turquoise Mountain is the book. He reached 25,200 feet as Mallory when aged 54 then got to 28,200 aged 57 on the normal route.
Correct. However . . . It was not in the original climb video. He posted another video summarizing his 5 hour climb, and that is where he states that. So, if you are looking for that, you have to view the 2nd video.
I cannot wrap my head around the idea of being on a snow covered mountain without an ice axe. Are there fixed ropes for the entire route now? One thing is for sure, there is no substitute for youth.
there are many photos taken over the years on Everest that I have never been able to identify the location of, even if they list WHERE specifically it was it always seems like that mountain is forever changing each year but then you see some parts which look basically the same as they did 40 or so years ago, its very strange
Honestly, I think the angle of the camera has everything to do with this. Trying to decipher specific landmarks in a location that is primarily a 2d white void is hard, and if two pictures don’t line up almost perfectly with one another, they’re going to look like completely different locations. Especially if you haven’t been there yourself.
Mr. Tracy, I always appreciate your input on the '96 disaster that I lost my boss/brother from another mother Scott Fischer. The truth about Krakauer and Outside Magazine is that it was Scott who got Outside Magazine involved, I remember it was a rough day at the office of MM when Outside Mag. decided to go with AC instead of us. Further I'd enjoy if you take the time to point out how another putz (who spells his name funny, Thom) seems to be consistent pointing out that AC allocated 4 bottles per climber compared to MM allocating 3 bottles per climber which is backwards. The only reason I can come up with as to why people like Thom & Krakauer seemly like to beat down Scott and MM team is jealousy knowing they could never be half the man Scott was.
Thom climbed Everest in 2016 and stepped over two living climbers leaving them for dead while his Sherpa and him sprinted to the summit. One of those climbers was rescued by someone who gave up their summit bid to assist the dying climber. It seems Thom's guilt over that incident has him criticizing everyone else who climbed the mountain. Of course, if you post anything about the two people he stepped over in his channel, you get banned, so it is just an open secret among TH-cam viewers.
@@michaeltracy2356 The other thing that puzzles/disgusts me is how grave robbing is legitimate on Everest but illegal as hell anywhere else?? As far as I understand it was Thom who pushed for it. With nothing gained from what was known before.
fisher died like a moron on the mountain. summitted way too late and so did most of his team. why are you talking about Scott like he wasn't the crucial failure point. Scott was brilliant but he was totally out of control. he was a strong climber and it went to his head and he died because of it. he was no hero that day. more like a sad fool
Physical fitness is more important than experience. I have been saying this on every reddit comment. It did not matter how good of a climber you are. On MT Everest death zone its all about how physically fit and mentally fit you are.
Ok, it sometimes takes me several readings before I start to see something. I've been looking at the part where you point out on Ryan's shots the steep ice slope and above it the gentler detour that was "The Choice". In going through the sequence leading up to that I've come up against what to me is a major discrepancy. Lene and Klev are descending, reach Yasuko, and pass her. Behind them is Mike Groom who will arrive at the Balcony "With Yasuko" according to Beck Weathers (Left For Dead speech on the David Snow channel).Mike, Yasuko and Beck then start to descend, caught up with by Neil and his group. Klev and Lene are in front of Yasuko until they have descended the slippery slope, see lights to the left, and go across to find most of the rest of their team plus Yasuko, Beck and Mike. How did the others get ahead of them? Is "The Choice" a significantly faster route than the slope? It doesn't look so on the shots you pointed out because it's two sides of a triangle with the slippery slope being the hypoteneuse. Lene and Klev were sharing oxygen but if that slowed them that much, how come the others with partial incapacity still got down to the edge of the South Col ahead of them? How come neither Lene nor Klev saw Beck when they passed the Balcony? If they passed Yasuko than they must have passed Beck when they came to the balcony, unless they too go off-route?
Klev and Lee passed Namba well below the Balcony. Groom's version is different, and he does not have Namba with him when he encounters Weathers. Weathers was blind at the time, so it is not clear how he was able to see who was with Groom so clearly. He may have mistaken Martin Adams for Namba. Beidleman's Choice takes place on the largely flat portion of the climb shortly above South Col. Deviating a hundred yards to the skier's left and then backtracking 100 yards is much longer than the straight time distance --- just use Pythagorean theorem. Beck was sort of buried in the snow, it was getting dark, and they were not looking for people sitting in the snow. But their encountered Namba hundreds of feet below that. The Weathers account requires Groom to have told Namba to descend on her own while he assisted Weathers. Not only did Groom say this is not what happened, but it would be difficult to believe that even if Groom told her to go ahead by herself that she would listen to him. More than likely, if he did issue such a bizarre statement, she would have stayed with him. The only scenario that makes sense is Groom's account of him sending Namba down with Krakauer and Krakauer later abandoning her. Had she been alone at any time prior to that, Ang Dorje passed her and it is difficult to believe he would simply speed past her if she was alone. The most likely explanation for Ang Dorje not assisting her is that she was descending with someone else. As Groom reported meeting Dorje on his re-assent and Namba was clearly not climbing back up the mountain with Mike Groom to assist Rob Hall, this only leaves one other option -- that Groom's account is correct and Namba was descending with Krakauer.
I imagine Pittman may have weighed more than your estimate with gear and oxygen. 5'11 is pretty tall for a woman. A fit woman of that height with enough muscle to climb Everest is probably at least 150 before gear. 160-170 total is definitely a lower bound, as with gear and oxygen that would make her underweight for her height by BMI. It doesn't change anything about your analysis, except making it even more unlikely that she was pulled up the mountain. It's just something that stood out to me as a relatively fit woman into hiking (but not mountaineering) that's half a foot shorter than Pittman who would have weighed more than your estimate with gear and oxygen.
Probably at base camp. You do lose a lot of weight in the period up to the summit push. But certainly she could have weighed more -- definitely not the same as Yasuko Namba.
Yeah you can see that theres someone lying down on the edges of the blacked out part. He also mentions in his video that someone died on the mountain while he was making his summit push. I assume that is the deceased person
Was the comment about Krakauer not liking that Sandy Pittman was taller just a crack about Krakauer's height? If there is not a clear basis for this claim, it comes off as petty, and thus undermines Tracy's credibility as an unbiased commentator. If there is a real basis for the comment that would somehow make the comment about height relevant, that's different story.
It is from Krakauer's book -- which I highly doubt you read. If you did read it, go read that part again. Best to speak about stuff you know than ridicule others about stuff you don't.
@@michaeltracy2356 I thought the tone of my comment was measured; I was not ridiculing. I asked a question--fully admitting that I do not know the answer--and indicated openness to being corrected. I did read Into Thin Air, but it was a long time ago and I certainly wouldn't remember this detail either way. What I'd be interested in if you can is something a little more specific about what Krakauer said. I mean, did he just came out and say: "I don't like or resent Sandy Pittman because she is taller than me"? I'm not denying that he did, it just seems like an odd thing for him to say. (I know he is critical of Pittman but this is an odd angle for criticism.)
I am glad that you question statements made in TH-cam videos. If more people did this, the world would be a far better place. Can you point out other videos where you have questioned that the creator said? Or is this video special for some reason? You are welcome to re-read Into Thin Air where his comments about Pittman's height should stick out like a sore thumb. Not sure how you missed it the first time through -- is doesn't really make any sense that he is discussing Pittman and his own height. But I am not your research assistant. If you want to not believe something in my video -- no one can stop you. My viewers are not idiots and they don't need someone pointing out the rather obvious statement that if I provide blatantly false information it would detract from my "credibility." I think you miss the main points of these videos that I put many of the sources in the video. I am not sure where else on TH-cam you find videos where every single statement has the proof put forward in the video. Please let me know which channels those are so I can subscribe to them. You also have a very naive view of the word if you think Krakauer is going to come out and say "I don't like or resent Sandy Pittman because he is taller than me." That is not the way the world works. Instead, you need to do your own research and make up your own mind. These videos take hours to create. Coming in here like a crying child saying "show me your quote for such and such" is annoying. It is difficult to believe you read the book and didn't notice it. Go read it again and you will have the information you claim you need so much. For now, you have a homework assignment. Post the name of another video where you asked the creator to provide proof of a statement made in the video.
Krakauer got many things correct. Most of his simple statements of fact are correct. Where he has problems is with his vague statements where he is implying things. Things such as what time the started from South Col, when they got to the Balcony, when they got to South Summit, all match up with what everyone else says and with the photographs. The problem is most of this statements are vague, opinionated, and hyper technically true. The example I used in this video is " The Montenegrins, who’d got even higher, had installed some fixed line, but in their inexperience they’d used all they had in the first 1,400 feet above the South Col, wasting it on relatively gentle slopes where it wasn’t really needed." Whether the Montenegrins were or were not "inexperienced" is just a matter of opinion. As is whether a given portion of the mountain requires fixed ropes. And while it is true that they used the fixed ropes "in the first 1,400 feet" they did not fix the entire 1,400 feet. It would be equally true to say they used the fixed rope "in the first 2,000 feet" or "in the first 3,000 feet." Rather than just saying exactly where they fixed the ropes, he just uses his opinionated vague statement to carry his narrative.
Mitchell's video was the first for me to see that there's an actual rock wall at the South Summit; after 10 years of Everest interest.
Awesome video. Thank you for providing such educational and accurate info on your videos. Its very common for some channels to botch everything about Everest to bring in attention, but i heavily respect and enjoy your real, thoughtful approach. Keep it up!
Thanks for sharing. Great video of the SE Ridge route!
@@michaeltracy2356have you made the Beidlemen’s choice video yet? I don’t see it.
This is why I'm glad I found your channel. I know nothing first hand of mountaineering - I live at sea level & have only climbed coastal mountain trails with boy scouts. That said I was super into the stories of Everest as a teen & to have an expert publish no-frills, no BS videos that are technical yet accessible to a layman is fantastic.
You're one of the few youtubers who isn't just here to make money - it's clear you've got a story to share (or maybe set straight)
Thank you! :)
Ryan Mitchell did a great job both having a great performance on the mountain at such a young age and filming it very well.
Micheal Ryan's summit video
I've watched this three times now and it's certainly answered a lot.
For one, looking at the sequence of transferring both a simple carabiner and a jamming carabiner around each anchor point does explain Rob Hall's statement that he didn't think his frozen hands could handle the fixed ropes. (It might also explain why Bruce Herrod died apparently tangled in the fixed ropes).
Second, Michael mentions on the descent that his personal sherpa is hurrying him along, and even doing all the unclipping and clipping for him - there's a man who knows where things go wrong.
Looking at the few seconds of them descending in that slippery slope that Neil wanted to avoid, I now agree that even with two incapacitated clients, Neil and Mike Groom should have been able to manage them (provided they had enough ropes, possible only Mike Groom had a rope?) As an aside here, Neil's choice was (obviously) correction - possibly- made with the agreement of Mike Groom and the two Sherpa who joined them, so was it more of a consensus decision?
The final thing I agree with you on is the absurdity of Lobsang actually pulling Sandy up those steep parts. I have an alternative explanation, based on two things from Lene's book. I think he was simply keeping her with him so that he (and Scott) knew she would have the best chance of getting up to the summit, because, of all Scott's clients, Sandy would be the jewel in the crown because of her publicity connections.
My basis for this conclusion comes from Lene's book . P123, on the climb to camp 3 Sandy feels ill and Lene slows to climb with her, subsequently P132 Scott uses her slow climb rate to say he no longer backs her plan to climb without O2. She is not pleased. Then, P144 Lene notices Scott and Neal are timing her and the others. So Scott is obviously working out who is in what sort of shape.
Lobsang's apparent exhaustion at the balcony is therefore not due to his hauling somebody up the slope, it's because he has the extra gear for the "stunt", and as Lene has mentioned several times, he was already coughing and vomiting before even reaching camp 4.
I followed Ryan’s journey on Everest. I really enjoyed his journey and I loved how he shared it with us. 🇨🇦
Great analysis. As always. It is important to note that no one could have foreseen in 1996 that this level of analysis and access to materials (pictures, video, data about the mountain) would be possible within 20~30 years. I am guessing there was less pressure to be "accurate" about telling a story.
Thank you, Michael
Your videos are incredible thank you for another banger
This is a brilliant series. Thank you.
Sigh of relief knowing that you're back with another video. Was getting worried.
as was I...
I just finished reading Into Thin Air and came across your videos. I'm loving each one, thanks for the great analysis. The book was indeed confusing to follow in terms of timeline, and I agree that JK wanted to come across as more experienced than he was and blamed others. Your videos show his true colors. I find he was jealous, especially of Boukreev and Pittman.
In regards to the black square on the video, I noticed in other Everest videos this technique is used to hide dead bodies.
continuing forensic destruction of Krak's narrative, has to be admired. Excellent as ever , MT .
Had already watched the fab young Ryan's (and his super fit/fast sherpa) video. His descent video is even better than his ascent.👌👋
If you watch Ryan's video he explains the black square is a dead climber on the fixed rope.
Lovely.
In Brian Blessed's book where he tried to recreate Mallory's ascent of Everest he heard about some climbers just trampling over a dead or dying climber (probably Indian) on a rope like that so he ripped up one of their flags at base camp and pissed on it.
Galahad of Everest is the film and the Turquoise Mountain is the book. He reached 25,200 feet as Mallory when aged 54 then got to 28,200 aged 57 on the normal route.
Correct. However . . .
It was not in the original climb video.
He posted another video summarizing his 5 hour climb, and that is where he states that. So, if you are looking for that, you have to view the 2nd video.
Worth a re-watch! Great work.
Thank you for the thorough comparisons! it is neat to learn how much more difficult it was not that long ago.
TY Michael, another enjoyable & informative video!🙏🙏
Thank you, Michael. Another really interesting video.
I wear my badge of honour knowing I’ve not contributed to the madness on that hill 👍, good video as always 🙏
When I hear "upcoming video" it makes me happy as Larry
Another great and interesting video. Thanks!
Another fascinating video. Thank you very much.
In Ryan’s videos when there was a black square like that, there was a dead body, and he was very respectful and did not want to show it
I cannot wrap my head around the idea of being on a snow covered mountain without an ice axe. Are there fixed ropes for the entire route now?
One thing is for sure, there is no substitute for youth.
TWO ice axes!
That's what I was wondering: Ryan is super fit and the ropes are there, but if he DID slip, could he arrest w/o an ice axe?
From what I remember from the video, the black square was covering a body Ryan passed.
there are many photos taken over the years on Everest that I have never been able to identify the location of, even if they list WHERE specifically it was
it always seems like that mountain is forever changing each year but then you see some parts which look basically the same as they did 40 or so years ago, its very strange
Honestly, I think the angle of the camera has everything to do with this. Trying to decipher specific landmarks in a location that is primarily a 2d white void is hard, and if two pictures don’t line up almost perfectly with one another, they’re going to look like completely different locations. Especially if you haven’t been there yourself.
Mr. Tracy, I always appreciate your input on the '96 disaster that I lost my boss/brother from another mother Scott Fischer.
The truth about Krakauer and Outside Magazine is that it was Scott who got Outside Magazine involved, I remember it was a rough day at the office of MM when Outside Mag. decided to go with AC instead of us.
Further I'd enjoy if you take the time to point out how another putz (who spells his name funny, Thom) seems to be consistent pointing out that AC allocated 4 bottles per climber compared to MM allocating 3 bottles per climber which is backwards. The only reason I can come up with as to why people like Thom & Krakauer seemly like to beat down Scott and MM team is jealousy knowing they could never be half the man Scott was.
Thom climbed Everest in 2016 and stepped over two living climbers leaving them for dead while his Sherpa and him sprinted to the summit. One of those climbers was rescued by someone who gave up their summit bid to assist the dying climber. It seems Thom's guilt over that incident has him criticizing everyone else who climbed the mountain. Of course, if you post anything about the two people he stepped over in his channel, you get banned, so it is just an open secret among TH-cam viewers.
@@michaeltracy2356 The other thing that puzzles/disgusts me is how grave robbing is legitimate on Everest but illegal as hell anywhere else?? As far as I understand it was Thom who pushed for it. With nothing gained from what was known before.
fisher died like a moron on the mountain. summitted way too late and so did most of his team. why are you talking about Scott like he wasn't the crucial failure point. Scott was brilliant but he was totally out of control. he was a strong climber and it went to his head and he died because of it. he was no hero that day. more like a sad fool
Love your channel! You keep it real and tell the truth instead of glorifying krakkauer
Physical fitness is more important than experience. I have been saying this on every reddit comment. It did not matter how good of a climber you are. On MT Everest death zone its all about how physically fit and mentally fit you are.
The area in the video that is blacked out is to cover a dead body that is behind the person pictured.
The consequences of a weather forecasting failure will be devastating on these lines of unskilled climbers that are being guided into the death zone.
Yes - absolutely - that plus the delays and ignoring turn-around-times = 1996 tragedy.
Ok, it sometimes takes me several readings before I start to see something. I've been looking at the part where you point out on Ryan's shots the steep ice slope and above it the gentler detour that was "The Choice". In going through the sequence leading up to that I've come up against what to me is a major discrepancy.
Lene and Klev are descending, reach Yasuko, and pass her. Behind them is Mike Groom who will arrive at the Balcony "With Yasuko" according to Beck Weathers (Left For Dead speech on the David Snow channel).Mike, Yasuko and Beck then start to descend, caught up with by Neil and his group.
Klev and Lene are in front of Yasuko until they have descended the slippery slope, see lights to the left, and go across to find most of the rest of their team plus Yasuko, Beck and Mike.
How did the others get ahead of them? Is "The Choice" a significantly faster route than the slope? It doesn't look so on the shots you pointed out because it's two sides of a triangle with the slippery slope being the hypoteneuse. Lene and Klev were sharing oxygen but if that slowed them that much, how come the others with partial incapacity still got down to the edge of the South Col ahead of them?
How come neither Lene nor Klev saw Beck when they passed the Balcony? If they passed Yasuko than they must have passed Beck when they came to the balcony, unless they too go off-route?
Klev and Lee passed Namba well below the Balcony. Groom's version is different, and he does not have Namba with him when he encounters Weathers. Weathers was blind at the time, so it is not clear how he was able to see who was with Groom so clearly. He may have mistaken Martin Adams for Namba.
Beidleman's Choice takes place on the largely flat portion of the climb shortly above South Col. Deviating a hundred yards to the skier's left and then backtracking 100 yards is much longer than the straight time distance --- just use Pythagorean theorem.
Beck was sort of buried in the snow, it was getting dark, and they were not looking for people sitting in the snow. But their encountered Namba hundreds of feet below that. The Weathers account requires Groom to have told Namba to descend on her own while he assisted Weathers. Not only did Groom say this is not what happened, but it would be difficult to believe that even if Groom told her to go ahead by herself that she would listen to him. More than likely, if he did issue such a bizarre statement, she would have stayed with him.
The only scenario that makes sense is Groom's account of him sending Namba down with Krakauer and Krakauer later abandoning her. Had she been alone at any time prior to that, Ang Dorje passed her and it is difficult to believe he would simply speed past her if she was alone. The most likely explanation for Ang Dorje not assisting her is that she was descending with someone else. As Groom reported meeting Dorje on his re-assent and Namba was clearly not climbing back up the mountain with Mike Groom to assist Rob Hall, this only leaves one other option -- that Groom's account is correct and Namba was descending with Krakauer.
I imagine Pittman may have weighed more than your estimate with gear and oxygen. 5'11 is pretty tall for a woman. A fit woman of that height with enough muscle to climb Everest is probably at least 150 before gear. 160-170 total is definitely a lower bound, as with gear and oxygen that would make her underweight for her height by BMI. It doesn't change anything about your analysis, except making it even more unlikely that she was pulled up the mountain. It's just something that stood out to me as a relatively fit woman into hiking (but not mountaineering) that's half a foot shorter than Pittman who would have weighed more than your estimate with gear and oxygen.
Probably at base camp. You do lose a lot of weight in the period up to the summit push. But certainly she could have weighed more -- definitely not the same as Yasuko Namba.
Now I really curiou about why that climber was blacked out in the original video : )
Sadly, I realized that he was putting the black rectangle to hide a body that was lying there-dead or dying-not the climber in front of him.
@@juan.i5oi believe some climbers were trying to get a collapsed/exhausted climber down, and as a show of respect ryan blacked it out
Yeah you can see that theres someone lying down on the edges of the blacked out part. He also mentions in his video that someone died on the mountain while he was making his summit push. I assume that is the deceased person
tracey is up like 20-0 against krakour...
Was the comment about Krakauer not liking that Sandy Pittman was taller just a crack about Krakauer's height?
If there is not a clear basis for this claim, it comes off as petty, and thus undermines Tracy's credibility as an unbiased commentator. If there is a real basis for the comment that would somehow make the comment about height relevant, that's different story.
It is from Krakauer's book -- which I highly doubt you read. If you did read it, go read that part again. Best to speak about stuff you know than ridicule others about stuff you don't.
@@michaeltracy2356 I thought the tone of my comment was measured; I was not ridiculing. I asked a question--fully admitting that I do not know the answer--and indicated openness to being corrected. I did read Into Thin Air, but it was a long time ago and I certainly wouldn't remember this detail either way. What I'd be interested in if you can is something a little more specific about what Krakauer said. I mean, did he just came out and say: "I don't like or resent Sandy Pittman because she is taller than me"? I'm not denying that he did, it just seems like an odd thing for him to say. (I know he is critical of Pittman but this is an odd angle for criticism.)
I am glad that you question statements made in TH-cam videos. If more people did this, the world would be a far better place. Can you point out other videos where you have questioned that the creator said? Or is this video special for some reason?
You are welcome to re-read Into Thin Air where his comments about Pittman's height should stick out like a sore thumb. Not sure how you missed it the first time through -- is doesn't really make any sense that he is discussing Pittman and his own height. But I am not your research assistant. If you want to not believe something in my video -- no one can stop you. My viewers are not idiots and they don't need someone pointing out the rather obvious statement that if I provide blatantly false information it would detract from my "credibility."
I think you miss the main points of these videos that I put many of the sources in the video. I am not sure where else on TH-cam you find videos where every single statement has the proof put forward in the video. Please let me know which channels those are so I can subscribe to them.
You also have a very naive view of the word if you think Krakauer is going to come out and say "I don't like or resent Sandy Pittman because he is taller than me." That is not the way the world works. Instead, you need to do your own research and make up your own mind. These videos take hours to create. Coming in here like a crying child saying "show me your quote for such and such" is annoying. It is difficult to believe you read the book and didn't notice it. Go read it again and you will have the information you claim you need so much.
For now, you have a homework assignment. Post the name of another video where you asked the creator to provide proof of a statement made in the video.
Did krakur tell the truth about anything?
Krakauer got many things correct. Most of his simple statements of fact are correct. Where he has problems is with his vague statements where he is implying things. Things such as what time the started from South Col, when they got to the Balcony, when they got to South Summit, all match up with what everyone else says and with the photographs.
The problem is most of this statements are vague, opinionated, and hyper technically true. The example I used in this video is " The Montenegrins, who’d got even higher, had installed some fixed line, but in their inexperience they’d used all they had in the first 1,400 feet above the South Col, wasting it on relatively gentle slopes where it wasn’t really needed." Whether the Montenegrins were or were not "inexperienced" is just a matter of opinion. As is whether a given portion of the mountain requires fixed ropes. And while it is true that they used the fixed ropes "in the first 1,400 feet" they did not fix the entire 1,400 feet. It would be equally true to say they used the fixed rope "in the first 2,000 feet" or "in the first 3,000 feet." Rather than just saying exactly where they fixed the ropes, he just uses his opinionated vague statement to carry his narrative.