Everest 1996: Sandy Pittman and the Yellow Brick Road
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.พ. 2025
- A look at the popular accounts of the Everest 1996 disaster. Looks at the "Big Secret" and evaluates Jon Krakauer's climb, comparing it to that of Sandy Pittman's.
Notes:
Krakauer states the bottles he was carrying weighed 6.6 lbs and lasted between 5-6 hours. This is only consistent with 3 liter bottles. A 4 liter bottle weighs over 8 lbs and last over 8 hours. At no point did any bottle Krakauer nor anyone else was using last 8 hours. Thus, the Adventure Consultant team were also using 3 liter bottles.
I am fully aware that "The Climb" says the Mountain Madness (MM) clients received 3 bottles. However, this is not consistent with the number of bottles MM took on the upper mountain, the number of Sherpa used (more bottles means more Sherpas), not the stated plan in "The Climb" for the caching:
At the South Summit, as had been planned, each descending climber would pick up a third canister that the Sherpas were to cache there.
Boukreev, Anatoli; DeWalt, G. Weston. The Climb (pp. 130-131). St. Martin's Publishing Group.
That would have the clients summit and return to South Summit all on 2 bottles. And then use a full bottle for the short period it typically takes to descend from South Summit to South Col. That "plan" does not remotely make any sense. Instead, the four bottle system would have the climbers pick up a full bottle on South Summit, leaving a partially used bottle which they would pick up on the return.
This is exactly what "The Climb" says was supposed to happen in a different passage:
So, when Beidleman and the clients arrived at the South Summit, their cache of oxygen should have included three full canisters* and whatever partial canisters had been discarded when the climbers had changed bottles on the way up.
Boukreev, Anatoli; DeWalt, G. Weston. The Climb (pp. 157-158). St. Martin's Publishing Group.
So, the "The Climb" has them both picking up a bottle at South Summit on the ascent and on the descent. Even assuming they didn't use an earlier cache point, they all left with 2 bottles, so that still makes 4.
It is entirely possible that Boukreev was confused about the exact scheme to be used and that explains why he was confused about the remaining bottles on South Summit. Boukreev was generally not climbing with the group and was not involved in switching their oxygen out. He certainly did not carry bottles to any of the cache points.
By Debasish biswas kolkataDerivative work MagentaGreen - This file was derived from: Hillary Step near Everest top.jpg:, CC BY-SA 4.0, commons.wikime...
www.amazon.com...
By Uwe Gille (talk · contribs) - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
By Tirthakanji - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
curid=27668124
• Jon Krakauer · Into Th...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @michaeltracy2356
Please read the Description for additional information about the oxygen bottle use. If you wish to quote some book (Into Thin Air, The Climb, etc) in order to "prove" something, you should state why you believe the statement in the book is true and what other evidence corroborates it as well as address the statement of mine that you are trying to "disprove" and explain why the evidence in support of it is wrong or incomplete. Just because Jon Krakauer wrote something does not make it true. Just because it has been repeated for years also does not make it true.
For a more detailed discussion, and to more easily include links, and photos, join us on the discord: discord.gg/EGuxCy2H
I get an error on the Discord link, says it’s expired?
@@adventuresgonewrong discord.gg/jRWRysEj
Being unlikable is not the same as being guilty, but it’s often perceived that way
... by people who have no critical thinking skills. Very true.
1000000
Being dragged up by a sherpa on a short rope, and saved from death by Boukreev only to say there were no hero's that night has the pungent stench of a narcissistic individual. Idc what kind of coffee pot she had though..
@@PsychoKillertheGameyep. big time narcissist. That behavior couldn’t be described in any other terms.
@@kamakaziozzie3038ok arm chair psychiatrist
I've seen many videos and movies about the 1996 Everst disaster, and I've read the two most famous books about it. But no one has ever said as clearly as you that the main mistake was dragging that Doug Handson to the summit. There was no sense about it! Rob Hall and Andy Harris would certainly still be alive and they could have helped others descend, including Scott Fisher as you say yourself. Thank you for this clear statement!
Yeah I've read about this disaster numerous times and watched the movie as well, and from what I know I'd tend to agree with you. It seems like the most fatal error was Hall breaking the guidelines to take Hansen to the summit. That mistake alone cost Hall, Hansen, and Harris their lives. If it wasn't for that mistake Hall and Harris would have been around to help others too, so other people might have been saved as well.
I have always said that about Doug. He wanted to finish so badly and I feel with him on that. Unfortunately, I believe that was part of the reason very experienced guides made poor decisions that they knew they shouldn’t have. Obviously, these “mistakes” might not have been deadly if not for the storm
Even without the storm ,they would have been benighted because of poor decisions by leaders...@@whitneypaxton2690
Of course. It all falls on the shoulders of Rob Hall. He felt a certain obligation to get Doug to the summit because of turning him back the year before. He let his emotions rule his decision making and it cost him his life.
From the reports I read Hansen wanted to quit numerous times during the expedition but was convinced to continue by Hall. He had frostbite and was extremely weak during the final climb being unable to eat or sleep properly for 6 or 7 days.
It is easy to make Pittman to look bad and take most of the heat. But Rob Hall & Scott Fisher who were supposed to be the adults on the mountain. Showed little regard for safety. And they both set the stage for tragedy.
Let's be honest she had no business being there it was only because she was a socialite that had to do something dangerous to earn respect from her family
Were they that much more risky than most attempts though? If not for the storm they may have all survived.
There have been more Sandy Pittmans before and after 1996.
@@chrispbacon6810 Not a single person who climbed Everest after the first expedition summitted had any business being there. You could maybe argue the first people from each nation to summit if you really wanted. But nobody in the last 20-30 years has had any actual business climbing the mountain. It is entirely an ego trip. There is not a single person climbing who has some legitimate reason outside of some form of ego. So using that as a reason for why she shouldn't be there is the aforementioned misogyny, which you're poorly disguising. Stop hating women. Everyone climbing Everest is doing it for personal reasons. Her personal reasons are no less legitimate then anyone else who's climbed Everest's personal reasons.
@@chrispbacon6810 So climbing Denali, Annapurna weren't dangerous enough? 😅
@@CharlesFreck 100%
Sandy had also climbed six of the seven summits before this second attempt at Everest. That is not "inexperienced."
What level of support did she have on those other expeditions?
@@stoneymcneal2458no amount of support discounts the experience climbing mountains she, or anyone, had. This argument is barking up the wrong tree. You need a certain level of experience to be able to climb at this level no matter the level of support received from the guides. It is frequently misinterpreted by many(mostly ignorant people) that a guide can simply do the climb for their client no matter their fitness or experience. It's simply impossible. It's like saying "I had to go take a shit, but I'm a paying client, so I had my guide go do it for me instead". Impossible
@@stoneymcneal2458 Same as any other climber. She attempted the Kangshung face with David Brashears. I doubt he would take an incompetent climber on that route.
@@Tenebarum You might be right, but it is well known that money talks in the mountaineering industry, as it does in all other for profit industries. She, like many other climbers, paid a premium to have others establish the camps, bring the supplies, set the ropes, provide to O2, show them the route, escort them along the journey, bring along the sherpas for support, and be there to protect the paying customer should something go wrong. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the true level of skill required for such a daunting task.
@@stoneymcneal2458 who cares? Very few climbers go solo on the extreme peaks. There is a support industry, and it's mutually beneficial. It's still tough, and it's still risky.
Your well researched bluntness and humor is quite refreshing in the face of so much Thom Foolery!
I noticed what l thought was originally a mistake when he mentioned at the start the "recent 'spat' " of videos on the subject. Lol!
Charlotte Fox also says in the interviews on the microsite for DB's Frontline in 2006 or whenever that they were waiting at the top for Scott so they could all celebrate together. She doesn’t mention a prank but it does confirm they were waiting for a specific thing, not just lost track of time…
"CHARLOTTE FOX: It was my feeling that we celebrated a little too long. We were waiting for Scott to come up so we could descend as a team, but he was taking the longest time. And people were enjoying the day. The day was beautiful. There wasn't a cloud out there."
You are always fair and reasoned, which is greatly appreciated.
But it sure did sell well.
Thanks for standing up for Sandy. Most people don't know what an experienced climber she was by 1996.
She climbed 6 of the 7 highest peaks by that point..
Yes finally! People tearing her apart and putting so much blame.
For those interested, there's a 40-minute 2023 interview with Pittman on TH-cam: "Podcast: Surviving Everest & social death with Sandy Hill". There's also an EXCEPTIONAL 1.5-hour interview on TH-cam with Neal Beidleman. He says it's the only time that he's really gone into detail about Everest '96: "Neal Beidleman | Mill House Podcast - Episode 19".
Of further interest may be an August '96 article in Vanity Fair, "Snow Blind Ambition," which can be read by googling that title.
She really came across well in that video. Well spoken, excellent story teller, sense of humor and likeable.
@@Tenebarum I completely agree. I liked her. She's also my hero for never printing her story or capitalizing on her experience, like most of the rest of them. I thank Michael Tracy for laying this story out so precisely. It really helps exculpate her.
@@boudiccaleduckel4680 She's an interesting person for sure. I thought she handled the situation in a classy and mature way.
Some of these videos are libel. My favorite is the video entitled how she killed 8 people on Everest. She's one hell of a climber then. Summits and kills 5 climbers, then swarps around to the north side and takes out 3 more.
Very good and measured video. Sandy Hill went through a lot of public condemnation for doing the same thing everyone else did. Climbed or tried to climb a mountain.
Yes, she apparently carried a cappuccino machine in her pack. Ended up being a few bits and pieces for a method she had to froth the milk so it would be “like a pretend cappuccino” that she left at camp one. Talk about vilification!
@@GoodieWhiteHat She used one of those tiny aluminum Cuban coffee pots.
@@Tenebarum yeah, like many have. But didn’t she froth it up with something? I thought I remembered her saying something about how she did that in an interview.
@GoodieWhiteHat she had a jar she shook up powdered milk and water in. I used to do that too, so I found it believable.
I just don’t get why she felt the need to kill the Indian climbers, they had nothing to do with any of it.
The overall reluctance by Krakauer and others to suggest that Rob Hall, as leader of his expedition, should be held accountable for his decision to re-summit with Doug Hansen after 4 pm while knowingly leaving Beck Weathers waiting for him to come down from his 2:30 pm first summit continues to baffle me. Hall was, at that point, clearly valuing Hansen's and Namba's ascent over his obligations to his other client, Weathers, who needed help descending and was instead left waiting for Hall to come back down from the summit.
Fischer, likewise, needs to be held accountable for his own death in that he should have certainly turned around when he met Beidleman and the other Mountain Madness clients descending; thereby, ensuring that whatever stunt he had planned would not take place. Instead, he opted to continue to the summit alone late in the day while admitting to being abnormally exhausted.
As a mere client of Fischer's, Sandy Pitman could not reasonably be held responsible for Rob's illogical decisions nor could she be held accountable for Fischer's illogical decision to summit. She's also not responsible for the decisions of Boukreev or even Lopsang. Having climbed 6 of the 7 summits with only Everest left (the same status as Namba), and having made two other credible attempts on Everest, it's obvious that she was certainly well enough qualified to be there.
I completely agree with your comment! Scott Fischer only killed himself because of his stupid decision to summit, although it was already too late and he didn't feel well. I think that nobody understood why Scott Fischer behaved so irrationally. However, Rob Hall's misguided decision to help Doug Hansen to summit although it was already way too late, caused several deaths - including his own! I was always baffled why this hasn't been mentioned more often! But it's most likely a case of people being reluctant to say bad things about someone who died in such a tragic way and who left a pregnant wife behind! Even the movie from 2016 - which is not based on Jon Krakauer's book - isn't overly critical of Rob Hall, although the events happened 20 years ago!
@@sabineb.5616 I'm not trying to disparage Hall at all. I see them simply crucial mistakes made by fallible human beings. Let's not forget that Fischer's death was equally tragic and he also left behind a young family.
Were they the second and third women in the world to achieve the 7 mountains? In that particular day?
@j.m.2022 , sorry, l didn’t see your reply until today. Anyway, thanks for answering.
I don't think that your original comment disparaged Rob Hall who was well liked and seen as a very capable mountaineer by all who knew him. But on that fateful day in 1996 he made a few crucial mistakes which claimed his own and Doug Hansen's life, and this prevented him from being available when those who got caught in the the snow storm, needed his assistence. But while others who were involved in the tragedy, have been criticized harshly and in some cases unfairly, Rob Hall has been largely spared in the aftermath. While the deaths of all people who lost their lives during the disaster, were equally tragic, Rob Hall's death became more prominent and memorable because of this incredibly sad and heartbreaking last phone conversation with his pregnant wife, when both of them and everybody who listened, knew full well that he couldn't possibly survive his ordeal! But these completely understandable sentiments which stopped people from criticizing him too harshly, don't change the fact that Rob Hall made a few deadly mistakes. And while l revisited the 1996 disaster, l found out that it was even worse than l remembered: l was under the impression that Doug Hansen refused to turn around, and that Rob Hall accepted that decision and decided to summit together Doug, although the agreed upon turnaround hour had already passed. But that was apparently not the case. Doug Hansen was actually willing to turn around and descend - but Rob Hall changed Doug's mind and encouraged him to continue with his ascent! To be fair, Rob Hall could not know that the weather would change drastically. Back then the weather forecasts weren't as accurate as they are today. But it's nevertheless true that Rob Hall's ill-advised decision led to Doug's and his own death. If they would've turned around, they would've had at least a chance to survive the storm. If l would be a member of Doug's family, l would have been furious!
As to Scott Fischer, we will probably never understand why he decided to summit, although it was already late and he didn't feel well. There have been rumours that he had planned something special for his clients when they reached the summit, and therefore he himself needed to be present as well. But when he decided to continue his late ascent, he knew, that all his clients had already descended. The special ceremony or whatever Scott Fischer had planned, couldn't take place. Why then did he feel the need to continue hiking towards the summit? He had done it before after all, and he didn't need to prove that he could reach the top of Mount Everest! What was going on in his head? Did he feel the need to prove that he was still up to it? Or was he in the grips of summit fever despite his great experience? While Rob Hall's deadly decisions can be explained with misplaced sympathies for his client and friend Doug Hansen and maybe also with Hall's ambition to get as many of his clients as possible to the summit, Scott Fisher's lonely death is still mystifying after all these years.
@@sabineb.5616it seems to me that people were so sure of Scott's strength as a climber that they didn't consider he could be in trouble.
I am so glad you have spoken up about this and already highlighted many other facts that have not been highlighted at all !! ... the STORM was without doubt the biggest contributing factor in the deaths and injuries on that mountain ...and the speed of it.. how anyone could blame Pittman makes me question them !! Lots of mistakes made but the Storm was a killer ... thanks for your awesome work .
The mountaineering disaster TH-cam audience is about 80% male. It is unfortunate that so many of the creators in the area cater to the lowest common denominator while they pretend to be enlightened or thoughtful people.
Sorry that is like saying the cars caused the accident that killed five people on a highway. If the ropes had been set as was planned the day before, nobody dies. It really is that simple.
@@bucksnake And if Rob Hall and Scott Fischer had stuck to their turnaround times it's also entirely possible that no one would have died. It was also Scott's call to even have Sandy along, if you want to blame her so much. If he thought she wasn't ready he should have told her so. The reality is that the people who were being paid to keep people safe made bad decisions that day, but because they died no one wants to speak ill of them, so it's easier to blame a woman who wasn't even the one who was making the calls that day.
@@bucksnakethe delay that took place for placing of the ropes wasn’t a big deal. It took I believe Neal and Anatoli les than an hour to place the ropes. The delay on the MM team occurred because they spend too much time on the summit waiting for Fisher.
The delay on the AC’s team occurred due to exhausted clients that moved too slowly to reach the summit.
De delay on that day didn’t occur because of the ropes not being placed on time. How do we know that , Anatoli and Neal reached the summit around 1:15 more or less, the rest of MM team reached the summit an hour later around 2:00o’clock and something, within the turn around time of MM team….
@@Kibacula1 Beidleman said that he set the ropes that Lopsang was carrying at the balcony and that it took about an hour. He then waited at the Hillary Step for Lopsang to come up and set the ropes there. According to him he waited for 4 hours and then he and Anatoli set the ropes that Anatoli was carrying, again taking about an hour. So that is a total of 6 hours delay. I can’t help but think that this slowed everybody down. Other climbers turned back that day because of the bottlenecks and they barely missed the storm on their descent. I suspect that if ALL climbers had reached the summit on or before 1:00 as was planned, that they too would have missed the storm…except perhaps Hansen who was struggling. Respectfully
Wow the stunt. I saw that in Lene's book but wasn't sure how it all tied in. After watching your video, a lot more things make sense with that lens. Now I wonder if Lou's claim of Rob and Scott really wanting to get both teams to the summit at the same time was related. He also said Rob was really obsessed with records. Were they planning on getting a record number of clients to the summit and planning something big (the stunt?) for when they all got there?
Thank you for making this video. I was getting very frustrated with all of the videos blaming Sandy Pitman. She had a lot of climbing experience when this happened. She had completed the other 6 seven summit climbs prior to the 1996 Everest climb. She was not in a leadership position so its crazy to blame her for the whole thing when she was never in charge.
"She was not in a leadership position...." exactly,
The 3 oxygen bottles compared to mountain madness 4 bottles is a massive fact.... the planned stunt/prank also another major factor ... add a fast rolling viscous storm... only by God's grace no more lives were lost ....and many were saved ... easily all could have lost their lives ... Great stuff Michael Tracy !!
I'm glad to see you taking this on. I never paid it too much attention, but then the fresh round of anti-Pittman hit pieces started recently and I started thinking more about it. Pittman is clearly in my mind way too convenient a scapegoat, but the one that actually bothers me is the other convenient scapegoat Boukreev, who is in truth as best I can discern it the only true hero in the whole story. Krakauer is clearly spinning a self-serving yarn, but I'm not quite sure why someone like Beidleman is willing to latch on to the "blame Pittman and Boukreev" narrative. Probably partly self-serving on his part as well. Reading between the lines it's easy to find fault with some of the sherpas, but blaming them is not going to be a narrative that sells. Obviously Fisher and Hall should probably come in for the most scrutiny but I guess people don't want to speak ill of the dead.
I am now in the '96 ME tragedy rabbit hole so I am watching (and preparing to read) EVERYTHING I can find. And the more I watch the more I am convinced Krakauer is throwing blame on others just to hide how much selfish coward he was that night, passing everyone without single thought of consideration
Thank you for doing this! I’ve been waiting for your reply/rebuttal to the “others” who have posted such negative things about Sandy. I can’t stand Tom Thom Pollard’s videos, he must think he’s a great journalist, videographer? Such cowards. Keep up the great work and I look forward to your upcoming videos. Cheers!
Whether or not Fischer planned a stunt, the fact that he failed to turn around at 2 pm is the reason he died. The same can be said for Hall. The slowness of the climb seems to be more attributable to the possibly 2 hr delay in placing the fixed ropes, than to poor fitness of too many clients.
Krakauer left some stuff out of into the wild too.
I'm interested to know what, if you could link me anything good to read/watch? McCandless was one of a kind. The story has always both inspired and haunted me.
TY 🙏🙏. More good, concise, well presented and interesting work.
Glad you enjoyed it!
IMO, mistakes were made by just about everyone, but the lion’s share of the blame belongs to the expedition leaders. They both did ridiculous things from the jump, and continued to make terrible judgement calls throughout the entire climb. They ignored all of their own rules and ethos and they paid with their lives.
While I ultimately believe that each person who chooses to climb Everest is taking their lives into their own hands, no one else’s, it’s hard to ignore all the leadership fuck ups.
Krakauer was a great technical climber - at relatively low altitudes. The problem with Everest is that you have to be good at altitude and technical skills aren't as important. Pittman had summited Aconcagua and been on Everest two other times - she had much more high-altitude experience than he did. She was literally more qualified to be there than he was.
Thank you for this!
Thanks for explaining the Yellow Brick Road! That explains why Rob Hall was able to offer a lower price to Outside magazine for Krakauer- he was spending less on oxygen.
I get it, she is the perfect scapegoat if you just…. disregard the important fact that everybody (apart from Scott that was not near her) on her team made it back safety. Rob and Doug on another team getting themselves into trouble high above… that darn Sandy!!
THANK YOU FOR THIS. I HAVE WAITED FOR THIS EVER SINCE I READ THE KRAKAUER, VIESTURS, BRASHEARS ACCOUNTS. THE MISOGYNY IS BLATANT.
I'm not sure Rob Hall was not also part of the problem. He knew Doug Hansen was nearly exhausted, but instead of ordering him to turn back, Hall offered to accompany him to the summit. Hansen had failed in his summit bid the year before, and Rob Hall had promised him that he would get him to the top if he returned to Everest for one last time. Hansen respected Hall, and surely would have turned around if Hall had insisted on that, rather than unwisely agreeing to help Hansen keep going.
You're making assumptions based on hearsay. We don't know what was ever really said or the exact information. You also can't order another man to do anything. They both made decisions based on the information and their emotions at the time. Any decision is easy from an armchair.
If Rob had turned Doug around both plus Andy Harris would have survived but then again if there was no storm all 3 may have survived
Yeah, I really feel upset at the treatment of Doug, not respecting Doug's own knowledge of his own body. Nobody should be convinced against their own intuition & self-knowledge to go up any mountain, let alone one w a Death Zone. This seems to be such a huge failure of leadership.
Just because someone has summited before doesn't automatically confer upon them leadership, wisdom & group management skills. They're different skillsets. Maybe they overlap some, but I personally would never trust a first or second time group leader. Group dynamics take on a life of their own and it takes skills to manage it
Doug already turned around to go back down. It was Rob that convinced him to go up with him. If anyone who’s responsible for Doug and Rob’s death, it was Rob.
@@kevinhsu8184 Agreed. Rob has been put on a pedestal for some reason, when his lack of leadership proved fatal.
Thank-you so much for doing this! I’ve read most of Krakauer’s stuff and while I initially loved it and found it enthralling, the more I learned about Sandy Pittman, which was not nearly as bad as Krakauer portrayed her, the more I started to dislike Krakauer.
Nice scoop on the big secret of the climb, and nice analysis of other claims reported previously.
It was super easy to tell years ago what a doof Krakauer was. Sandy was a pretty good mountaineer with some great climbs under her belt by 95:
Aconcagua
Denali
Vinson
Elbris
Kilimanjaro
Kosciusko
Punkak Jaya.
Krakauers accomplishments:
Rock climbing. Writing books
I think many of the people who criticize the actions of these climbers forget that they are in a place where one or two hours is the difference between life and death.
Even Habeler slit down on his butt in 1978 to get down faster... So it appears to me as quite a double standard to portray Pittman as incompetent becase of that (as is often implied).
Some people say they saw Krakauer slide down on his butt...
And Krakauer, right in front of me, hardly hesitates and he starts glissading† down on his rear in the fresh snow. And, I’m thinking that’s a good idea, so I give him maybe fifteen yards, and I’m in there right behind him.”‡
‡ Jon Krakauer has not the same memory. He says that he “did no glissading whatsoever during the descent” and that, perhaps, Adams had mistaken Yasuko Namba for him. Adams insists it was Krakauer. Such are memories at high altitude.
Boukreev, Anatoli; DeWalt, G. Weston. The Climb (p. 169). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Many climbers did the same, e.g. _Lorétan_ and _Troillet_ in the _Hornbein_ couloir on the Everest (43 hours Base Camp round trip)
Fair to say Thom Pollard has made a decent living or status from finding Mallory in 99. Certainly made his bread out of it, find it abit crass to be honest from the story in 99, been played out far too many times by the likes of Pollard.
Not knocking their endevour and achievement but leave it where it is in 99 now
The story that micheal tracey looks into regarding the routes and finer detials for 1924 and mallory/irvine etc develops the story rather than use it for some kind of barter or profit.
Sorry but been bugging me for a while.
Krak was on assingment and had this material out very quickly. History has not been kind to his version of events. But by being first or one of the first and also journalists by trade raked in the sales. How many who currently climb do so because of that book?
Great stuff. I read Krakauer's book numerous times and it always seemed like he was portraying himself as a serious climber in a group where everyone else had issues of some kind. Off topic, one thing I've always wondered with so many different teams caching bottles. How often do they find that some have been taken mistakenly ( or nephariously ) by other climbers?
Every single time. Oxygen theft is a huge problem.
My interpretation of Krakauer was roughly the same but with a strong sense of self deprecation on his part. Going into the experience it seemed Krakauer thought of himself as a more “serious” climber, but by the end of the book concluded that much of his prior experience was useless on Everest and many climbers he underestimated turned out to be fierce. His book strikes me as pretty self-effacing so it’s interesting to see people portraying ‘Into Thin Air’ as just him stroking his ego when it’s clear he has immense guilt and regret about the whole situation.
thom pollard doing a video on david sharp when i have no doubt he would have just walked past him also
Hypocrisy..
Yeah, I had always read that Sandy was the reason at least some died, so it's nice to hear another perspective. Can't wait for the other videos in ths series.
Scott Fisher took the madness in "Mountain Madness" too far...
I remember being fascinated by Krakauers book in 99...
Never looked into the 96 disaster since...
Thann you for providing a more fact based narrative Michael!
The blame of this should be put on the leaders of each group. What plan did they have if something went seriously wrong. Mt Everest seems to have dished out some Karma of her own. Pitman did seemed a little righteous, but she wasn't calling the shots. I'm no expert but it seemed like shameless promotion was more important than the safety of everyone. Bad decisions were made, the weather was diabolical, and the mother goddess of the earth had something to say about it.
I love this series. Thank you for your extensive research.
😂😂😂😂”sleeping through the storm of the century, which he would famously report on it”😂😂😂nice one. The irony, that’s why there’s so much inconsistency in his story, HE SLEPT THROUGH THE STORM
Thank you for speaking out against the misogyny in this coverage! I’ve been enjoying going through your channel and look forward to you getting more followers.
its so rare to see anyone mention Sandy Pitman without rampant misogyny.
I had started making this video about the rampant misogyny in this area, but it became just so overwhelmingly obvious that I just thought, "If people can't see this on their own, my pointing it out is not going to change their mind."
For general discussion on the issue see:
www.amazon.com/False-Summit-Gender-Mountaineering-Nonfiction-ebook/dp/B08X1RKCDY/
And welcome.
@@michaeltracy2356 I guess you might be right in that no one for 28 years recognized the overwhelming level of mysogny by the hero’s that saved her three times during the descent where she would have unquestionably died. Sheeeesh.
@@bucksnakeYou mean like the WOMAN who gave her the shot of dex which solved her only actual problem on the mountain, a medical condition that can happen to ANYONE and that no level of training and climbing experience at low altitude can fix? Charlotte Fox made that call without any guide telling her what to do and it was Charlotte Fox most responsible for Sandy getting down alive.
@@marinareilly-collette2490 ah well woman can be hero’s too you know. And Charlotte certainly saved her as did the two guides. She just should not have been climbing that day. Because of her and Lopsang, the climb was delayed for hours while climbers waited in the death zone for the ropes that Lopsang was carrying. He was late because he was hauling Pitman UP Everest for hours. I think the days of labeling the deeds by men as misogynistic are coming to a rapid close. Or are you just a prolific man hater. Listen to Beidleman’s interview and then decide if he is not also a hero along with Charlotte.
AWESOME to see you cover this. Thanks!
Thank you for telling the truth. It is ridiculous to blame her. She was not an inexperienced climber it’s misogynistic.
I feel so bad for Sandy being called in experienced and the villain, if someone is a villain it's Krakauers bullshit.
The gap between life and death is never very large but at 29,000 feet it’s razor thin. It’s saddening to see what were great challenges of human determination treated with almost casualness. Until reality reasserts itself.
This is only the second of your videos I am watching but since you're talking about the number of oxy bottles, I'd like to add that Scott's team used old Soviet bottles, supplied by Boukreev. Problem with these was that American regulators didn't fit them properly and had to be manually adjusted... which can be a problem at altitude in the cold.
Mark Matthews rip
Very curious! Great work on piecing all this together. When can we expect the parts 2 and 3?
Thanks!
I met Scott Fischer in the early ‘80s in the Andes. I found his laid-back optimism and cavalier attitude to be fun, refreshing. We remained in touch until ’96. This is the first I’ve heard of a “stunt.” Of course that doesn’t mean there isn’t something in this new gossip. But, if ropes were to be fixed below the Hillary step then it was not Scott’s fault they weren’t there. He was meticulous in his planning, and he openly shared his beliefs and experience in this regard. I met Anatoli several times before and after ’96. You had to patient with him, as you must be with Sherpas, as English was not his first language. A number of mountaineers, pros and amateurs alike, were unable to tolerate him for that reason. I chatted with Sandy on two occasions after ’96. She had a solid knowledge of big mountains and what they demand. And, she had an odd personality. So do I. As of ’96, rating big mountain nous among women, Wanda Rutkiewicz would be the ten, Araceli Segarra an eight and Sandy Hill-Pittman a six. For about three years after his death, I wondered what Scott was thinking that day and decided I would never know and let it go. Maybe we should all just let it go.
Thanks for sharing. It is always interesting to hear peoples personal stories about such events.
@@birgitmelchior8248I don’t think it’s about the language itself, it’s cultural difference is all. I have a bunch of Russian colleagues I find very hard to work with. Even though I learned to like them, for me, they come across as rude and unpleasant. It’s not that they’re bad people, we’re just raised in a different way and sometimes our personalities aren’t a good match.
@@birgitmelchior8248 So I think you can understand why someone like Anatoli might be difficult to “tolerate” for some people with a more western style upbringing.
@@birgitmelchior8248 Yeah sure, but even when we’re aware of cultural differences it’s still hard to deal with it at times. Plus the language barrier and the pressure of being in a high altitude mountain… you don’t want to be stuck there with people you find unpleasant and have trouble communicating with.
Obviously I never met Anatoli, but he probably had an opinion about other climbers as well. It goes both ways. Nothing wrong with it.
@@birgitmelchior8248 I mean I bet he had plenty of climbing partners he was fond of and they were fond of him as well. But you know when you’re working as a guide you don’t get to choose your clients… and you’re the one getting paid, so yeah you’re the one who’s supposed to adapt.
That’s nice of you to consider how he must’ve felt. But Anatoli seemed like a very tough guy who loved what he did. I think he was fine.
Brilliant. Wonderful to have your analysis about this event.
Michael, you omitted the one item. Pittman is JK's competition aka the other media soul on the climb. JK and Outside are Deity's gift to humanity while Pittman and NBC are something approaching evil.
JK is not without blame, owing to his mere presence. If it were me I wouldn't have JK on any tour of mine, even if nothing to do with Outside. He's a writer, so can still write a story, even if not for Outside. How does that reality influence one's decision-making? There's this thing called your subconscious mind, aka the you that is with you (your conscious mind) every step of the way but who you never seem to meet, and so your judgment? So no JK on my tour. That for the wholly misinformed and not at all observant and their hypoxia. Sorry, not lack of oxygen but instead what happens when you need look good for your invited media members, you know, the humans who can make or break your tour's reputation. Just run a fvcking ad and include a few quotes from satisfied clients if you feel the need. Is infinitely preferable to death. I'm looking at you, Rob and Scott.
Oh, and can some of you kindly stop treating JK and his Into Thin Air as if both were immutable laws of physics. JK made that nitwit, Alexander Supertramp, into a tragic hero and never mind him NOT having a plan that included an escape route out should the river rise owing to melt, rain, etc. Aka JK forgot all about inexperience. For the supreme irony: ITA when the mistakes that mattered were made by the experienced and then ITW and never mind the mind-numbering inexperience of Alexander Supertramp who got himself killed.
Lastly, all one needs to know about JK, Outside, etc., is that JK was indeed sent to Everest to write about how inexperienced climbers were the bane of Everest. Yet both Rob and Scott died. As did Andy Harris. Those three as against Yasuko Namba and Doug Hanson. Doug wanted to return to camp except Rob convinced him not to. Yasuko dies because neither Rob nor Andy were available to help her. Leaving us with the immutable law of physics for Everest 1996: Experience kills. As does tour leaders obsessed with good media coverage to help with their tour sales. Re that last, the season prior, Rob and his AC had no client summit, owing to enforced turnaround time. 1996 and JK and turnaround time not enforced. You do the math.
Great analysis.
I am at the stage where I don’t know who to believe. What I do think is that the two teams had journalists on them and a burgeoning tourism trade with money to be made with possibly the exposure through the journalists on this trip. Also, it doesn’t matter how much experience anyone has. Some very experienced climbers have died on Everest. Our bodies are precocious and even when we think we are at our peak, something is just not right. I believe Sandy Pittman had one of those days, and she struggled. However this is not the reason for the failure of this expedition. The guides didn’t guide, the leaders did not lead. The clients had to make their own decisions and find their own way, which led to poor time management and illogical decisions.
Thank you! I appreciate you calling out the blatant misogyny. Misogyny also comes in to play how Charlotte gets no credit for the heroic role she played during the tragedy.
She gets credit but should get a lot more, agreed. Sandy, tho? Good riddance
Thanks for this video. All the vitriol thrown at Sandy Hill Pittman tires me; it smacks of scapegoating to me. Of course, I wasn’t there, it was a hell of a storm, and this is Everest. I don’t villainize anyone; but I think commercial competition and hypoxia-induced mental confusion played a big role in the tragedy.
Some other videos expose John Krakauer's lies and how he minimizes his own actions, but it infuriates me how the misogyny against Sandy Pittman has been allowed to stand. She was a more experienced climber than Krakauer when these events took place but he acts like she's a helpless climber who had to be carried up when some of the photos used to expose his bottleneck lies show her climbing on her own. He minimizes his own actions but blows up and demonizes her to the point where she gets all the blame. It's disgusting.
Thank you again for this video. I have learned a great deal about the 1996 climb. since following you. Found a used copy of The Climb ( Boukreev) and looking for Sheer Will ( Groom) now. It has become pretty clear Krakauer's version is riddled with errors. Sandy pissed a lot of her fellow survivors off, when she showed up for the after climb press conference in makeup and fashionably dressed. Smh. Poor excuse for scapegoating her for things she had no control of. Truth be told, had not the storm rolled in on them, all of the climbers would have made it to camp 4, with the possible exception of Doug Hansen. He was in the throes of altitude sickness. The storm was the real villain of the story.
Agreed.
Your taking all of this on the count of you believing the “secret” that was told in between a coughing fit from someone who doesn’t speak English well… but she heard “stunt” crystal clear… 🤷 don’t think we’ll ever know the truth but it’s amazing how different the TH-camrs videos are from each other… almost like they all have their own opinion to what happened and want to push it 🤫
She had two conversations about it and it is clear from the timing that the clients were directed to stay at the summit for some reason. Or was Charlotte Fox just not hearing Neal Beidleamn when he told her to wait at the summit? Seems like everything that doesn't agree with your reality is someone in a coughing fit.
Krakauer has already admitted he "publicly falsified the story." thecatalystnews.com/2016/04/29/the-true-nature-of-journalism-through-the-eyes-of-jon-krakauer/. Perhaps its time you realize that he did as well.
Krak version was always self serving and opportunistic
The mind plays dirty tricks on memories in a life threatening event. I'm sure everyone who survived that ordeal is self serving, every single one.
@@pizzafrenzyman So what you’re saying is, is that someone like Beck Weathers, who spent the night in that blizzard on the mountain with his hands and face exposed in an open bivouac, resulting in him losing his nose, hands, and parts of his feet to frostbite, is self serving? What exactly did he do that would be self serving?
@@AdamAwesombrero He did covertly blame others for "deserting" him, when actually they thought he was gone - possibly because of his own actions. (Those who were saved stayed in the huddle.) His blindness was due to a pre-existing condition that should have kept him at home. That doesn't make his walk into camp the next day into camp any less remarkable.
@@pizzafrenzyman Not everyone had a book to sell
@@AdamAwesombrero ok, not beck
The storm's progress towards Everest was known and ignored and it was not the surprise it has been depicted as. Another factor was found by scientists (possible NASA, can't recall) a while ago: meteorological conditions meant that there was less oxygen than even the usual reduced amounts.
Some speculation about a sudden drop in atmospheric pressure in 1924 causing loss of O2 absorption by Mallory & Irvine.
This is a fascinating video. While it's true that memories at that altitude have to be taken with a grain of salt, Gammelgaard's account is immediately plausible. The idea that a stunt was planned for the summit fills in a gaping hole in the middle of the narrative, as far as timelines and decision-making. Given what we know about the publicity situation (i.e. that Fischer had wanted Krakauer to come with him before he was underbid by Hall) it makes perfect sense that Fischer would have tried to compensate by doing something dramatic on summit day that would have had to make it into the planned article.
As far as I remember, Boukreev doesn't actually give an explanation in his book for the long summit wait time. This would make sense if there's something about it he doesn't want to mention, but is trying not to distort the facts (as he understands them) beyond that. Boukreev is already reacting to what he sees as unfair judgment of his actions by outsiders who don't understand mountaineering, so it makes sense for him to have left out a stunt that would have invited such judgment on Fischer. Especially since he seems to blame planning problems (especially with the oxygen) for what happened, and would therefore have decided the stunt wasn't relevant. The author who wrote the actual text of the book (DeWalt) might not have known to question the long wait time.
Bukreev in the book seems frustrated an puzzled by long time on the summit, even writes that he tried to make people go down. There is a chance he was not aware. Because he would probably be very mad about the idea of "stunt on the summit". In soviet sportive mountaineering tradition such things were a huge no. Long stays on the summit were a big no as a whole, as such things were known to lead to accidents on the descent. And he was a sportsman above anything else. Also, it would have pretty easy to hide from him as he was not fluent in english and worked with sherpas a lot so spent less time with clients than other guides.
@@Sollinare That makes quite a lot of sense, actually. That might also give context to Fischer's decision to have Boukreev descend to camp quickly (which was the subject of so much contention afterwards); if he wasn't in the know or wasn't fully onboard, Fischer might have thought it would be easier to send him down.
Okay. I'm more than 12 minutes into this, and you've passively compared Sandy Pitman's climbing accomplishments on Everest to Tensing Norgay's and Edmund Hilary's... as if being a participant in a touring expedition is somehow comparable to trailblazing the first ever ascent to the highest place on Earth. Then you compared her times in '96 to Krakauer's, and I'm still waiting for you to at the very least mention the short-roping that has been reported by several of those who were there.
At the moment, you're using a database printout to "disprove" the universally experienced crowding at the steps. Nobody disagrees about that. This is a really strange way to defend Sandy Pitman.
Okay, you mentioned the short-roping. Thank you. I hope you use it to contextualize your comparisons in climb times with other contemporary climbers and of accomplishments with Norgay and Hilary.
@@bobcunningham9590 FYI. Even Pittman admitted to being short roped by Lopsang that morning but indicated that it was just a short time and that she really didn’t want to be short roped but didn’t want to hurt Lopsang’s feelings. Others said it was up to five hours. But it really doesn’t matter if it was five hours or five minutes. Once the decision was made to not set the ropes, the die was cast. If the ropes had been set it is likely that everyone summits on or before 1:00 as was planned and is able to miss the storm. This is truly not that complicated. The mystery is why was this decision made at all knowing full well that this would place the entire attempt in jeopardy as it did for Rob Hall the prior year. Pittman and Lopsang made this fateful decision all on their own. Pittman isn’t talking and Lopsang is dead.
Is there a separate video where you tell us what you REALLY think of Krakauer? Lmao
Making Krakauer the devil doesn’t make Pittman an angel.
The devil wouldn't make such simple and easy to debunk lies. He is very insulted by you comparing him to Krakauer.
This guy is treating Krakauer the same way he claims others treat Pitmann, he sounds like a hypocrite that doesn’t like Krakauer. I could careless I have no issue with any of them. But to act like people are wrong for treating Pitmann bad an in the same way treat Krakauer that way is hilarious. Grow up.
If you could "careless", why did you take the time to watch the video? Thanks for watching and commenting. It greatly helps to spread the word you claim to be so eager to stop having spread. I guess you said it was "hilarious", so you like comedy? Be sure to click that "Like" button then -- or the "Dislike" both help the video out. Or just respond with another comment -- anything you can do to help is appreciated.
You couldn't care less. Could care less means you could actually care less but don't. Why do americans say the wrong thing constantly?
Honestly, having started researching this event without the bias of Into Thin Air or any of the media coverage from the time, I can say that the blaming of Sandy Pittman makes zero sense. I can agree she made some missteps in the time following, but missteps in the public eye and being responsible for multiple deaths are two VERY different, and VERY unrelated things. I've seen no compelling evidence that supports the notions that Pittman was unqualified or responsible for any of the delays that day. If anything, the evidence points to the expedition leaders making bad decisions that likely would have been fine if the weather hadn't turned. Sadly, it did and lives were lost.
This is from your video description "That would have the clients summit and return to South Summit all on 2 bottles. And then use a full bottle for the short period it typically takes to descend from South Summit to South Col. That "plan" does not remotely make any sense. Instead, the four bottle system would have the climbers pick up a full bottle on South Summit, leaving a partially used bottle which they would pick up on the return." ... So the full bottle they pick up on the south summit (ascent) is their 3rd bottle, they summit, return to south summit and pick up their partially used bottle (which is their 2nd bottle). Isn't that a three bottle system, or am I reading that description wrong?
That is either for 3 or 4. If they are going on 4, they can turn up their oxygen and use more above South Summit. Then when they return, simply pick up a full bottle. Gammelgaard used such a 4-bottle system -- though he traded her final bottle with Pittman.
So Sandy used 5 bottles then? One to the balcony, one to the south summit, a third (which was delivered by the sharpas on the south summit) to summit, a fourth from Lopsang on the summit and then gets a fifth from Lene?
Probably -- but it is not entirely clear what Pittman received at South Summit on the ascent. She ran out of oxygen shortly before reaching the summit at 2:15PM. Had she picked up a bottle at South Summit she would have received a new bottle shortly before 12PM. That would mean the bottle lasted 2:15 or maybe 2:30 minutes. Even at full flow, that would not be a full bottle -- 4 LPM would be 3 hours.
However, it is unlikely she didn't get a bottle at South Summit when everyone else did. So, she probably received 5 bottles -- but whether all of them were full is an issue -- as is much of the oxygen situation at South Summit. The bottle from Gammelgaard was an exchange -- so the bottle given to Gammelgaard was not empty. Thus, it is not as simple as "Sandy used 5 bottles."
From the limited information Boukreev provides, it appears there were different "levels" of oxygen for Mountain Madness. Gammelgaard had paid for 4 bottles -- she claims so her book. It appears Pittman did as well. Fox and Martins were on a "discount" plan. It is not clear if these meant they were allocated less oxygen. With the initial loading there was enough oxygen for all clients to go with 4 bottles, but when Pemba was told to remain in camp, this meant 2 people could not.
Gammelgaard was aksed to give her bottle to Pittman, and she agreed. This was not something they could really enforce, so Gammelgaard deserves some credit for that. When Gammelgaard did a book reading in New York, Pittman also attended and the two seemed to get along just fine.
@@michaeltracy2356 So which of the 5 bottles (other than the one exchanged with Lene) would be questionable as to their fullness? She left with two full bottles, she got a full bottle on the summit that Lopsang was carrying (as he did not use any), and she was waiting for the other sherpas to arrive on the south summit with full bottles for the clients. Would this not imply that the bottles, delivered by the sherpas on the ascent at the south summit, were partially full?
Also, can you point me to where Boukreev reports there were different "levels" of oxygen.
Good corrections 👍🙏
I understood that Scott had been sick with a kind of flue bug and probably had not fully recovered. It makes little sense that a climber of his caliber would be so slow (having sumitted before without oxygen)
I would imagine Messner would have opinions on the use of oxygen at all after showing it could be climbed without oxygen. I agree that Krakauer has written in such a way as to promote his own ability. A passage he wrote about the village of Lobuche raised a red flag for me that he had little experience of Nepal or the Himalayas. I always considered him a "Wannabee"
Are not all the authors promoting their abilities?
And Scott was drinking that day.
Is that a John Martin painting used in the thumbnail? Or an A.I. look a likey?
‘Short-rope Sandy’ 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀and counting…
Interesting video. Good Job. Your statement, they were waiting at the summit for Scott's stunt, implies that several people knew of the stunt. Was Lene the only one to ever mention a stunt? A good investigation should include specific questions to climbers and support staff. If there was a planned stunt, somebody can confirm it and they probably even know what that stunt was.
Gammelgard states that Lobsang was explaining it to the group. It is difficult to believe that other Sherpa were not aware of it, and this could explain why they were so unhappy with Lopsang. In any case, this is not some investigative piece in which people are trying to get the "truth."
Pittman and I discussed these and other events during a seventy-minute phone conversation six months after returning from Everest. Except to clarify certain points about the short-roping incident, she requested that I not quote any part of that dialogue in this book, and I have honored that request.
Krakauer, Jon. Into Thin Air (p. 180). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
The thing is, I actually agree that the criticism of Pitman has been unfair. But, this defense of her falls into the "with friends like this, who needs enemies" category. Using database printouts to "debunk" the non-disputed accounts of people who were there is just detached.
The accounts are disputed, and as an upcoming video will show, there are photos to "debunk" them. Please stick around, I am very interested in how you will criticize the video that analyzed the photo showing the entire story that was fed to you and that you lapped up just isn't true. The video will be out later this week.
@@michaeltracy2356 I'll watch your video. I haven't "lapped up" anything. I wouldn't have watched your video if I wasn't interested in hearing alternative accounts. I've read and watched multiple accounts from several who were there, including Sandy, and others who defend her.
I came here hoping for something compelling to give a counterweight to the criticism of Sandy, which I'll agree feels at least somewhat rooted in misogyny. But the ways in which you've chosen to defend her so far do more harm than good to that cause imo.
As I say, I'll watch your next video and keep an open mind. Peace.
Where are the other two videos?
I look forward to watching the next two videos in this sequence. Like seemingly everyone else here, I've listened to a variety of accounts of the 1996 disaster, both from people who were there and people who weren't. Between the "Rashomon effect" and the revelation of/speculation about various self-serving agendas that were either definitely or likely in play, it leaves your (mine, anyway) head spinning. According to Charlotte Fox, Sandy Pittman was lying flat on the ground, completely exhausted, when Fox gave her the dexamethasone jab, which was literally life-saving for Pittman at that point. And I believe that Beck Weathers' account describes Pittman -- in the night-long exposed huddle with him, Yasuko Namba, and I think one other barely surviving climber -- becoming hysterical and repeatedly screaming "I don't want to die!" (and if true, I for one certainly can't blame her even though she was obviously squandering her last reserves of strength). Another account has Pittman screaming that she _wanted_ to die. Regardless, Charlotte Fox and Beck Weathers don't strike me as being standard-bearers of misogyny.
You made this video and yet there are still comments here making the same tired arguments about why Sandy is the blame for all evil things in the world. It’s like they are hearing what they want to…
Many such cases.
that’s because this video doesn’t make a strong case for alleviating Sandy of her grave shenanigans
I don't think it is fair to label one person as the "villain". It is due to the mistakes of many including the two competing team leaders. An argument can be made if a person did not have the ability or resources necessary to be on that mountain. I believe that paying someone to short rope you and attend to every need is not smart in the killing environment of Everest. Tourists should not be there. $65,000 should not be the major barrier to entry for climbing this mountain.
Mr Fischer had just suffered a gastro-intestinal infection - which could account for his slow progress
If you look at the source for that, it is a guy who heard from a guy that he was taking antibiotics. The Climb p 111. While it is possible that he did indeed have a GI issue, I would not place it above speculation and rumor.
The blame on her always made me feel strangely uncomfortable, like it was more gender based critisim, and I'm glad people are calling them out on this now.
Wasn't gender based. She's rich.😂
@@rickp3753it’s Everest. Everyone has money going there. Unless you’re going on someone else’s dime, like Krakauer.
@@SS-xr7jf Doug Hansen was a postal worker.
@@rickp3753 who was able to pay 65 grand to climb a mountain. In 1996 money. The guy wasn’t poor.
@@SS-xr7jf He got a drop discount to rejoin Rob Hall in 96 because they didn't summit in 95.
I’m not a climber at all like AT ALL but it’s so interesting. I find myself totally involved with these climbs. It’s seems people have a pardon my language but a “ hard on for Jon and his book”. While I believe that he is a type A climber and a decent person he is also extremely ego centric and wants people to think he’s amazing. Even his description of the guy in Alaska that died in that bus is an ego driven person. I think Sandy is the same way with her actions but as for climbing not so much. Jon left someone they died. He couldn’t have that on his resume so he attacked others including Sandy for her questionable actions. Oh well love the series. Mystery, adventure, technology,science, psychology, human body all of it is awesome. Thanks
lol a hard on? I don’t like how JK tried to shade the memory of the homie and absolute LEGEND Anatoli, but Into Thin Air has won 5 of the most prestigious literary awards in the category, including the Walter Sullivan Award and a finalist nomination for a Pulitzer in 98.
But yeah, just some people with a hard on lol. Get outta town
Comparing Tenzig Norgay’s early attempts on Everest with Pittman’s early attempts is such a stretch that I cannot take this narrator seriously.
Real talk
Poor Charlotte Fox survived the storm only to die at home falling over a railing
Wow I feel bad for the lady. Good on you for doing this
Don’t. Even if she wasn’t the sole reason for the tragedy she is still an asshole.
@@boxtankgamer6014 How do you know that? Did some nice man on the TH-cam tell you? I can probably guess which nice man you listen to. Not everything you hear online is true. If a TH-cam personality has you riled up enough to go post a comment like that about someone I highly suspect you do not know, you are way too influenceable by social influencers.
@@michaeltracy2356 LOL your replies make me think I'm being wayyyy too nice in my comment section about this story. 😆
wow, this video is loaded with goofball info. I’d be really surprised if the narrator knows the first thing about climbing, team work, selflessness, etc.
Krakauer has already admitted that he "publicly falsified the story". thecatalystnews.com/2016/04/29/the-true-nature-of-journalism-through-the-eyes-of-jon-krakauer/.
Sorry you were fooled for so long about what happened.
“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
Did you not watch Neal Beidleman's rare and excellent interview on the Mill House Podcast a couple years ago? He is very tactful, honest, and direct, and clearly mentions how Lopsang's "dragging" of Sandy was a primary reason why Lopsang did not fix the ropes above the Balcony, which in turn caused a massive delay which was one of the main problems/mistakes of the disaster. Pittman should have simply refused the short roping. This does not make her responsible for the disaster, as obviously there are multiple reasons and factors, but reducing the criticism of her to 'misogyny' reeks of unearned virtue signaling.
I sure did see it. Why do you think he changed the entire story about the descent? So, both Krakauer made it all up? Not sure why you focus on Pittman when the guy is dropping nuclear bombs on Krakauer's narrative. Maybe listen to it again. You seem to have missed some things.
As for mysyogny... I'll give you a homework assignment. Find Krakauer's "cum" jokes in his book and comment on each of them stating why he used the "joke" and whether there is a pattern as to who he makes such jokes about. Post again without doing the homework, and you will be banned.
Exactly. The short roping of Pittman by Lopsang is widely regarded as the primary catalyst that caused the delays. After all Lopsang was carrying the very ropes that everyone was waiting for. You are right to just listen to Beidleman. He was there and ended up setting ropes at two spots on the mountain. This is really not that difficult. If the ropes had been set on time, most likely everybody summits around 1:00 and misses the storm. Nobody pushes Pittman on this issue. Why did Lopsang abandon his rope setting duties. Why, why, why. Only he and Pittman know and Pittman isn’t talking, and Lopsang is dead.
Agree with you, Beidleman was very clear about this and it is an obvious reason for the delay. It may not have been Pittman's fault, Lopsang may have insisted, but it is clearly the major factor in the delay prior to reaching the summit.
@@kevinwoolley7960 agree, it is just not clear as to why Lopsang did this knowing full well that doing so meant he would be unable to set the ropes on time. And it really doesn’t matter whether Pittman was short roped for two hours or for two seconds. Lopsang was scheduled to leave camp 90 minutes early along with a Sherpa from Hall’s group to set the ropes. So something happened that morning between Lopsang and Pittman. According to Lopsang, Fisher did not tell him to do this. Pittman indicated she was being pulled up against her will but didn’t say anything because she didn’t want to hurt Lopsang’s feelings. NOBODY really believes this for a second. So we are left to speculate. What would cause Lopsang to put the entire climb in jeopardy? Pittman had so much riding on this her third try, both personally and professionally. I seriously doubt that Lopsang just decided to forget the roping setting that would knowingly strand 30 climbers at two spots in the death zone. Pittman doesn’t say how or why this happened. She needs to walk through exactly what was said and when and who if anyone else was involved. But she won’t. Watch her most recent interview. It is unfortunate when she refers to the group as “her team” and forgets that Fisher actually died on the mountain. Also she plays the victim but never addresses the short roping. She never will so unfortunately her legacy will always be that she was the primary catalyst for the tragedy. If the ropes had been set as was planned, nothing else that happened that morning matters. The climbers summit on time and get down to camp just before the storm. For some to introduce misogyny into these events is just ludicrous. If there is one woman who would never tolerate such behavior, it would be Pittman. She was tough and resilient but on that day she should have stayed back in her tent. But she didn’t and so five good people froze to death in the storm that they would have missed had she done so. Forever her legacy.
No doubt there is (and even more so back then) a fair amount of misogyny in climbing, but when I read Krakauer's book, a long time ago I admit, I remember feeling his attacking of Pittman was about her being obscenely wealthy, not being a woman. I felt through many of his general comments on all the climbers he had a bias against / jealousy of the wealthy.
Personally, I believe that Krakauer has been disingenuous and motivated by annoyance and dislike of Sandy Pittman. Apparently, Sandy's personality wasn't for everyone, however there were people who thought well of her, too. After watching an interview with Sandy, I found her account to be quite believable, and she was inexplicably gracious toward Krakauer. If I were her, I would still be suing him!
nobody on the expedition thought well of her, which is interesting. They may have going into it, but said and done, not a single one maintained coms with her up to this point.
I'm not sure why this blogger would choose to bring Sir Edmund Hillary into the frame because above 8,000 metres Everest was virgin territory when he climber it. He may have "only reached 20,00 ft on his first climb on everest" but he was a member of a reconnaisance party looking for possible routes to the summit. Nothing Hillary did was "half hearted" as this blogger suggests. He attempted Everest once only and sumitted on his first attempt. No fixed ropes, no guides. And a nearly vertical rock face just below the summit
Hillary was not the first above 8000m on Everest nor was the 1953 expedition the first above 8000m on Everest South Side. The Swiss reached a little over 8500m on that route. That expedition included Tenzing, which is why Tenzing was able to find the route up for Hillary.
HIs climb from the North was generally considered "half hearted" as it had no real aim and didn't really do anything. He had just failed to summit Cho Oyo and they were sort decided to go have a look at the North. You are just making stuff up.
@@michaeltracy2356 you’ve got to be a top notch climber with all the shade you throw :)
Michael, if there were two oxygen cache points (one at the balcony and one at south summit) and the clients left with two bottles, why would Charlotte Fox say they waited an hour for the sherpas to deliver oxygen to the south summit? Wouldn't they all have dropped the first bottle they used at the balcony, picked up their first cached bottle (now they have two full bottles again), drop another bottle at south summit (they would all still have one full bottle at this point), summit and then return to the south summit, at which point the sherpas would have delivered the last bottle of oxygen to use for the descent?
No, they only dropped one at the Balcony. They didn't pick one up.
@@michaeltracy2356 Doesn't it say at 8:05 of the video that Lene's book says they was a supply of oxygen at the balcony and a supply at the south summit?
@@AmbroseBrohman one supply cache was MM’s and the other was AC’s
@@michaeltracy2356 At 8:18 of the video you say that Lene stated they picked up one bottle at the balcony
Yes, she is just saying that they switched bottles at the Balcony A major theme in these videos is to avoid "history by quotation" -- that is where you take a quote and take it as the literal truth despite all other evidence. Gammelgaard says they started out with 2 bottles -- fine to take that as the literal truth. She then notes at the Balcony "exchange my one almost-empty oxygen canister for a full one. Thanks to the efforts of our high-altitude Sherpas, there's a supply of full bottles here and, supposedly, a supply below South Summit."
I take Gammelgaards rather vague statements about what happened as simply meaning that she dropped her nearly empty bottle and attached her regulator to a full bottle. On page 168 she has Tim check her oxygen bottle and he notes it is almost empty... "Have to think now. From here to ... I've got to find a full bottle of oxygen among those lying scatter around here.." So, she clearly did not have 2 bottles a couple hours after she left the Balcony. Taking all of her account together and applying reason and logic, she did not pick up a bottle at the Balcony -- even though a reading of her account seems to imply that she did. Hence the need to avoid "history by quotation" and to think though what really happened.
Also, English is not Gammelgaard's first language nor the one the book was written in -- it being translated by the three people listed in the book.
Hi Mike, I do love the content, and I am no misogynist myself. I must point out that Sandy's "there were no hero's that night, they were doing what they were paid to do" comments coupled by her hotel behaviour afterwards didn't win her any social capital. This is compounded by a sherpa short roping her up towards the end (dead weight) and without Anatoli Boukreev (RIP) dragging her dead weight down ensuring her survival. Despite being experienced herself she does owe her life to those two people. I could care less for her wealth or cutting her down personally because I neither know her nor engage in such a waste of valuable life seconds. I am perplexed in some ways of your support for her given her attitude though. Is there a reason for this?
The problem is you don't have a source for any of that. Where is the source for your quote? Where is the source of her being "short ripped" "towards the end". I have a photo of her just below the summit and I'll put in in an upcoming video. And guess what? She is not being short roped. I have repeatedly pointed out in these video that things you have been told about the expedition were wrong. And you respond saying you "love the content", but completely ignore it.
There is a single reference to the "paid to do" comment. And it is not a quote. It is someone paraphrasing what they think she said. www.vanityfair.com/culture/2015/09/sandy-hill-pittman-mount-everest
Here is the entire paragraph:
Journalist Jon Krakauer, who was part of the New Zealand team and the second to summit that day, filed a raw, emotional account of the tragedy on Outside magazine’s Internet publication. Krakauer, author of the best-selling Into the Wild, has no doubt that Scott Fischer died because he was exhausted from guiding amateur climbers. Rob Hall clearly died in the act of rescuing his amateur client. But Pittman maintains that there were no heroes that night, that the guides were just doing their jobs, what they were paid to do.
So, what do I think of a "Vanity Fair' piece that paraphrase what that author thinks Pittman said? Not much. It provides no supporting evidence. No actual quotes from Pittman. And when it was published in 2015 there were numerous public statements from Pittman stating that there were "heroes". www.outsideonline.com/adventure-travel/destinations/asia/sandy-hill-51/. "aI credit two people with saving my life: Tim Madsen, for being there after everyone had made the dash back to camp and forcing me to stay positive and alert until Anatoli finally found us; and then of course Anatoli, who was in real life the kind of person that superheroes in the movies pretend to be." That was published back in 2006, and there are other articles that she says substantially the same thing. Curiously, you say, "Despite being experienced herself she does owe her life to those two people." Ok. Great. You and Sandy Pittman agree on one thing.
Now, what do I think of a subscriber who still can't spot the difference between Yak Dung and legitimate journalism? I feel like a failure. I make these videos so that people learn to think for themselves, and understand that people are pushing their own agendas. The article even tells you that they are not quoting Pittman. "After talking on background for more than an hour, Pittman declines a formal interview." And then you take something a Vanity Fair author made up to be the truth. It is just very disappointing.
Well said. Beidleman’s interview is a great source. He was there and got the ropes from Lopsang who was carrying them while he was short roping Pittman that morning. Great interview. Totally authentic and one of three people who saved Pittman and others on the decent. A true hero and not a misogynist in the least. Why somebody would deny the whole short roping fiasco is beyond me. She wasn’t short roped to the top Everest. She was short roped by Lopsang in the morning before reaching the balcony. So he was unable to set the ropes he was carrying as had been planned the day before. It really is simple. He and Pittman made a fatal decision to short rope her that morning. They made it alone. And so the other climbers were delayed by hours and were unable to summit by 1:00 as planned. Many other poor decisions and insufficient preparation happened that day. But this decision by the two of them is the primary catalyst that ended up killing five good people. Beidleman has the story right. Then listen to Pittman’s interview. You’ll see.
Interesting analysis. It is widely believed that if the Sherpa Lopsang had not had to short rope Pittman up Everest, he would have set the ropes he was carrying at the balcony and the Hillary step as was planned the day before. Pittman indicated she was being pulled up against her will, which is just ludicrous. Lopsang said that Fisher did not ask him to haul her up Everest. So why would he knowingly put the entire summit attempt in jeopardy, why strand 30 climbers in the death zone using up precious oxygen? As a result climbers were delayed by hours. If the ropes had been set, then they all would have reached the summit before 1:00 as was planned, and descended to safety just before the storm hit. So is Pittman to blame? Well if she had not climbed that day, which clearly she couldn’t, nobody dies. The tragedy rests entirely on her and Lopsang. All the other poor decisions that day never surface if the ropes had been set. Simple fact that you seemed to ignore. Check out the u tube video interview of Neal Beidleman, a true hero who saved Pittman life on the descent. He relates what happened with Pittman and Lopsang and the whole rope setting fiasco. Please note that he was the one who set the ropes at the balcony and then with Anatoli at the Hilary Step. He was there and provides a detailed account. Compare this interview with the last interview with Pittman and perhaps you can decide who is truthful and who is not. Respectfully
You need to think for yourself rather than repeat what other people tell you. Stop and think about it for just one second. If the entire plan was that Lopdang needed to be in top shape so that three completely different teams could reach the summit on time. Why would a paying client of Rob Hall rely on a sherpa from another group for them to reach the summit? You just paid Rob Hall $65,000 to get you to the summit and his exucuse is "Oh, a sherpa from a completely different group was tired, so we were hours late." Just use your brain.
@@michaeltracy2356 You need to do your homework a lot better than you have. The day before the summit attempt is was agreed by Fisher and Hall that Lopsang and Ang Dorje would set the ropes and they would leave 90 minutes before the rest of the climbers and set them at the balcony and the Hilary step…both in the death zone. Hall was very concerned about this because in a prior climb the ropes had not been set and the attempt failed. Lopsang was seen by other climbers hauling Pittman up Everest instead of setting the ropes. Go listen to Beidlman’s interview. He says they were waiting for the ropes and when Lopsang finally arrived with them, he took them as Lopsang was too exhausted from short roping Pittman to help set the ropes. So the two guides set the ropes and everyone waited in the death zone using up their oxygen. Bildeman says that when he got the ropes from Lopsang, it took at least two hours to set the rope at the two spots. I guess the key issue here is did Lopsang actually spend five hours hauling Pittman up the mountain…or not. Too many people saw her and so the climb was delayed by hours and people died. Do your homework. If she had not been on the climb, the ropes are set as planned, and nobody dies. Simple to understand for some.
@@bucksnake The Montenegrian's got to the base of the Hillary Step, so what ropes needed to be fixed? No ropes were ever fixed at the Balcony -- you can see that in the photo I put in this video. No need to do homework, just watch the video that I give you and stop making stuff up.
@@michaeltracy2356 sorry tried to send video interview of the guide Beildman and his comments about Pittman, Lopsang and the rope setting that HE himself did at both the balcony and the Hilary Step. You can apologize after you hear it from the a true hero of the tragedy. Just google Beildeman interview. Truth. Not made up, but from the guy who was there, not you or me.
@@michaeltracy2356 you need to watch the Beidleman interview. He was there and said he set the ropes at both locations. He is a hero and entirely authentic and believable.
Very well done. I have pondered this event much over the last few years and was confused by differing accounts. I am not sure it is all completely untangled, but this has I believe improved the overall accuracy of the account.
I wouldn't put blame on Sandy. People just don't like her because of her conduct, opinions and her unjustified levels of arrogance.
Misogyny features in NZ mountaineer and guide Lydia Brady's experience ascending Everest without supplemental oxygen while initially in Hall's team. It is now generally accepted she was the 1st woman to summit without extra O2, although for "various reasons" Hall et al stated she was lying. Lydia is not so egotistical she would lie about her ability, and she has climbed Eve' six times. She has many female 1st ascents of Yosemite walls to her name.
You mention differing accounts of how Pitman descended. I'm going to go ahead and link to a lengthy interview with Beidleman, who assisted her down (she drove her crampons into his back, tearing through his down suit, when she was sliding down on her butt with his assistance) so you're no longer confused about it.
th-cam.com/video/jL9UHk1zTeY/w-d-xo.html
Just because someone says something does not mean it is true. First, use your common sense. If someone is sliding uncontrollably down Everest and they hit someone with their crampons, do you really think the only thing that is going to happen is a ripped down suit? In any case, there is a photo taken by Beidleman showing Pittman 50-60 feet in front of him at a time he claimed to be pulling her down the mountain. You can believe tall tales of "great mountaineers." I'll believe the photographs. And you can read Beidleman's account in The Climb -- totally different from the one in Into Thin Air. It is difficult you looked into this issue at all. A social influencer told you a story -- and you believe it like a gospel.
I came here expecting something compelling.
I came here sympathetic to your cause. I'm a friendly audience. I already feel like the blame that's been heaped on Sandy is not only unfair to her, but absolves the leadership of both expeditions of their culpability.
If I were going to take anyone's word as gospel, it'd be someone with whom I was inclined to agree (aka: you). But my brain always questions, and so far, the case you're making isn't supporting my preconceived opinion. Maybe your next video will be more persuasive.
Everyone needs to watch Beidleman’s interview and determine for themselves if he seems to be honest. Then watch the last interview with Pittman and decide who is most credible.
"sleeping through the storm of the century that he would later become famous for reporting on"
Misogyny or not, Sandy Pittman would not have made it back without being dragged on the descent and getting oxygen from Lene. All accounts from others, including Charlottes and Lene, say she was lying face first at one point during the descent and had to be helped. The true heros, if any, are Neal and Lene. Also, Sandy didn’t even bother to acknowledge the help she got afterwards.
Krakauer wouldn't have made it back without Groom's oxygen. What is your point?
Pittman thanked the people publicly and repeatedly. Stop with your nonsense.
@@michaeltracy2356 no she didn’t. she never used their names and said anyone who helped her was just ‘doing their job’.
Has the "stunt" ever been identified? My guess is Fischer planned to make coffee with the group, along with a Starbucks banner of some sort. I guess this because he had a similar banner on his tent at BC, and Sandy had been making coffee there as well. This might have been a nice ad plug for Starbucks (back in 1996).
Anyone know for sure?
Exactly what the "stunt" was has never been identified. Other than Lena Gammelgaard, none of the climbers have publicly mentioned it.