Analysis of Scott Fischer's photo from South Summit
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2024
- Takes a look at a photo taken by Scott Fischer to determine what happened on the upper part of Mount Everest on May 10, 1996.
Looks at various accounts from Jon Krakauer and determines they do not match up with photographs taken that day.
Fair Use:
web.archive.org/web/200807201...
/ a-postscript-to-into-t...
• The 1996 Disaster · ST...
www.amazon.com/Sheer-Will-Ins...
www.amazon.com/Into-Thin-Air-...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @michaeltracy2356
In a presentation given June 1, 1997, Krakauer provides more details about what he knew about his oxygen situation and when he knew it. That account he provides has him running out of oxygen because he took too much time and not because Andy Harris screwed up turning the valve off. Sorry Krakauer fans. Into Thin Air is confirmed to be inaccurate by Jon Krakauer: ua-cam.com/video/q5LtdIwZF50/v-deo.html
Edit: Sorry about that. So you believe Krakauer killed Harris? Is that what you are implying? Did Harris have any responsibility for himself?
Uh oh…I know how you feel about edits…
I miss spoke of my previous reply. I edited it.
Now you’re gonna think I’m part of the conspiracy…
I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but wonder if in this case he was just charitably leaving out the detail of what he believed to be Andy messing up the valve.
That said, you bring up many other items that are harder to explain away.
@@TJTurnage He left the part about the valve out of an obscure interview in which he is cursing, swearing, and clearly just talking off the top of his head.
He then included it in a best selling book translated into multiple languages and still used in some university level courses. So, if he was being kind, perhaps he would have done the opposite and just briefly mention it but leave it out of the version that sold millions of copies.
As for TJ, not sure what you are going on about. Krakauer has already said he feels terrible about this, and it has been giving him a recurring nightmare where Harris is trying to reach a rope and Krakauer can't get him a rope. I have no idea what his dreams mean, but talking about "killing" someone is ridiculous. Please keep your comments within the bounds of decency.
Krakauer has said he feels extremely responsible for Harris' death. I agree with Krakauer on that point. However, I feel that certain aspect of his book were reported accurately. Krakauer was climbing with Harris most of the day. As nearly every aspect of Krakauer's own climb has been mis-reported, it is just a coincidence that Krakauer happened to be next to Harris when the events in question took place. It also makes sorting things out more difficult because Harris is not here to tell his version.
@@TJTurnage Speaking of dogs, remember that year they said a dog had summitted Everest? All I could think of was how the hell did he get up the Hillary step?
Maybe that pooch should try again now that the earthquake happened…
The fact the Krakauer blamed Boukreev for not doing more still angers me after all these years.
Boukreev was beyond the pale amazing in saving those people and never giving up on them. He did seem to have a hard time following orders so maybe that's where the criticism comes from.
Krakauer points out that Boukreev was climbing without oxygen and thus unable to be of much assistance near the summit. Boukreev quickly summited then raced down to South Col. Krakauer's criticism is widely accepted as valid: that Anatoly was paid to assist his group to summit and safely descend, not to break his own records as a mountaineer. Krakauer repeatedly mentions Boukreev's talents, but fairly critiques his irresponsibility in ducking down exhausted to the South Col to recuperate. Boukreev's conduct in assisting the Huddle is praised however.
@@matthewsutton3682
1. Bukreev stayed at the top for a long time, assisting climbers to summit and left when it was time to leave for everyone, initially leading first climbers down.
2. It was of no sportive interest for him as it was neither his first no-oxigen summit nor the fastest.
3. He was able to save anyone at all BECAUSE he was not using oxygen.
4. Bukreev wrote that his no-oxigen ascent, speedy discent, rest, come back to assist climbers heading back was planed and agreed by Scott. So word against word, sory, I believe Bukreev.
Ouch!! Fascinating. I read Into Thin Air several years ago, and liked it. I then read The Climb by Boukreev and liked that more, but remember a few times thinking, "Ah, ok, so it happened like that..." I hated the way Krakauer criticised everyone, but particularly Boukreev. He was so unkind, ungrateful and ungracious about him. My lasting impression of Krakauer is a sanctimonious person with a huge agenda and an even bigger ego. Your meticulous analysis is a real eye-opener. Nice one!
Need Advice: Since you've read both books & knowing what we know from this video, would u even bother reading K's book? I have it on my Kindle, haven't read it and considering deleting. I'm interested in truth not fiction. What do u think?
@@msbeecee1 I think it's worth reading as an insight into his psyche. When I read it, I had no idea he had skewed the story in such a spectacular way, and only became suspicious after reading Boukreev's account and using that as a launchpad to dig deeper. Your approach to Krakauer's book would therefore be from an entirely different standpoint. I did enjoy it when I read it, from an engaging point of view, but I wouldn't recommend it now as an accurate account of what happened.
@@msbeecee1I have read The Climb" and an currently reading "After the Wind". Shows K's bias and unnecessary criticism of Anatoli Boukreev.
I read Into thin air, and enjoyed it, but….. Something seemed a bit off with the criticism of, especially, Boukreev, so like you, I dug around a bit, and the read Boukreev’s book. It was definitely an eye opener.
Oh, and I returned Krakauer’s book to Audible, he lost credibility to me.
I intended to read Boukreevs book as I never liked Krakauer. Saw a talk he gave, strange stuff. So sorry Boukreev became Krakauers scapegoat. Likely jealousy.
💐 Thanx
Wow. After watching the movie and pretty much every video I could get my hands on, I thought I knew a thing or two about what happened back in the day.
Your analysis pretty much blows my mind and it feels like I have to start all over again on this subject.
Thank you! I recently read The Climb co-authored by Anatoli Boukreev I believe the accounts of that day in this book! RIP Anatoli
I don't mind that Krakauer did not write as an objective reporter -- he could not possible be objective after going through such a trauma -- but it's a long way from "merely subjective" to "maliciously self-serving". Hoarding oxygen while on the climb, lying about his actions, and attempting to blame others for his own and other problems are obviously despicable. Too bad we'll never see him respond to this directly.
We don’t need to. Lou‘s and Bukreevs and Grooms Books are very close. It’s just Krakauers lies that differ.
I find it really disgusting that he was lying so much and confusing too, he must have done things that where unethical and wrong, maybe he feels shame and thought he needed to lie.
I mind, because he presents, Into Thin Air, as an accurate account made by a journalist, not a novelist, not as simply a survivor. Journalistic integrity is very important, people give a lot of weight to what a journalist writes and publishes due to this fact. Much like a witness in a court of law, they are expected to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. After reading both, Into Thin Air and The Climb, I developed significant doubts into the truthfulness and accuracy of Jon's account and, worse, began to believe he and Outside Magazine went out of their way to smear Anatoli. Going so far as to protest Boukreev receiving the award for heroism that an independent group voted he earned. It was very poor behavior and one that didn't make them look anymore honest in my eyes. Quite the opposite actually. I've not read any more of Krakaur's books and I doubt I will. Making mistakes is human, but falsifying and embellishing upon actual events and making others look bad is despicable, especially when they aren't here to defend themselves.
I feel duped.
He was a journalist, no one should expect that he would ever tell the "objective truth".
At that time, May 1996, a daredevil from Sweden, Göran Kropp, was doing a stunt where he biked to Mount Everest, climbed it unassisted with no oxygen, and then biked home. He was successful, but he witnessed the storm and the confusion and reported back to us.
We (in Sweden) were therefore blessed that if we wished, we did have a neutral account to what happened, to us who were interested. We heard early about the fact one dude had a journo on the team and the journo was supposed to report positively about the trip. When Krakauer started his media circus, those of us who seeked the information did know that he was in fact out of order due to severe hypoxia and had to be more or less carried down the mountain while hallucinating.
The fact that Krakauer admitted to that WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY judging others for what HE claimed (remember: HALLUCINATING) they had done was mindblowing to us.
Kropp talked warmly about Boukreev (B was from the former Soviet Union so the daredevils hadn't really been able to know him until its collapse in 1991) and mentioned Boukreev was an absolute beast who had saved many lives that night.
Kropp also mentioned that the climb to the summit was easier than expected and he retold about the ropes left from previous years that he used to ascend and descend. He was worried before his trip that he would have to buy kilometres of rope while in Nepal but it turned out he could reuse some old equipment already present!
I went to two of his presentations, one in 1997 and one in 1998 or 1999 and his story did not change.
If the ropes were already there why did they have to redo em, setting them back 2 hours
I thought he turned around before he summited? Rob Hall is quoted as saying he respected Kropp for turning around so close to the top.
@@EmiliaJay He did an attempt during the storm day but turned around, yes, since he thought things looked awful. He was never that close to the summit though. He summited almost two weeks after the storm. I don't remember the exact day.
@@_Xds_ It is unwise to use ropes that has been there since last year. I guess Kropp could use them since he was his own boss.
@@user-yi3yx2fn7g I see
WOW, I hope this goes viral!!!
Did Covid teach you nothing?😅
@@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098 hahaha it taught me that truth is better than fiction 😅
@@whackamole4909 paid by whom and in order to achieve what?
@@whackamole4909 Paid by whom, and in what particulars is he incorrect?
@@sirbarringtonwomblembe4098
yes it did! Covid taught me that “conspiracy theorists” end up being correct an awful lot of the time
I look forward to these videos so much!!! Content is unmatched. True Everest historian you are sir. Hats off
Michael, if a picture is worth a thousand words you just made these two pictures worth an encyclopedia. Unbelievably well done.
he pays you
10 cents
for each letter of praise
Another masterpiece, thanks MT. Anything 1996 is particularly fascinating because we had a huge blizzard in Maryland that year and for some reason both stick in my mind.
New video and it's 36 minutes long! You've made me happy.
Summit crazed narcissism has turned Everest into a trash heap. I have sympathy for the sherpas and the villagers who've come to depend on the income created by this industry but I have no respect for anyone else.
Such an original comment.
Yet you probably admire all the old school mountaineers who had the exact same habits of leaving all their trash behind.
clearly you dont know the mts. an armchair adventurer? Judgement is very easy when you only watch videos, The Sherpas depend on this income. Ask them.....
Hey now, it’s not just a garbage heap! It’s also a cemetery.
@@mary5292, he clearly states he understands the Sherpas need for the income provided.
You helped me visualize this like nobody else, many thanks.
Thank the Yeti. Been looking forward to this video .
Boukreev's book also details how Kraukauer was presented with evidence contradicting the version set forth in his book Into Thin Air but chose to ignore it.
Yes, this was quite interesting. Boukreev's book has its own perspective and agenda, of course, but one thing that stands out is a kind of amazed frustration in places at Krakauer repeatedly refusing to correct his narrative even when faced with objective evidence (i.e. photographs) that what he is saying is not true. Krakauer seems to have an indifference to the truth worthy of a true bullshit artist.
And Tony Hawk stole the first 540
And Edison stole almost everything
And..
I'm incredibly passionate about Everest stories, especially your channel! It's also fantastic that you take the time to respond to people's comments. Jake Norton mentioned in one of his recent videos, that you come across as confrontational, and because of that, he prefers not to collaborate with you (something like that). Not sure how stating facts can be misconstrued as being confrontational. Keep them videos coming pls...
Yes, Michael, pls keep making more. People don't like to be shut down in their unfair debate tactics, which is what you do quite handily. Repeating lies over and over is what is bringing America down. Pls continue to be a warrior for facts & fair fighting in mountaineering 🙏
Very interesting and great work! Looking very much forward to upcoming videos. 😺
Very nice analysis! Thank you for sharing!
You know, I have watched A LOT of these accounts of the 1996 Everest disaster climb, and I always felt weird about JK's account. Your account is SO good that I get it now. I really wonder now about the account of INTO THE WILD! thank you SOOOOO much for doing this video. It has cleared up SO much BS!!!!
"Into The Wild" is so amazingly written that I overlook any discrepancies. Krakauer did a lot of quoting and direct copying of letters, though, and I thought he wrote sympathetic to young Chris's life.
Once again, an excellent informative analysis
I always thought the ‘accidentally turned my oxygen up to max’ was a bit strange. The more you think about it the more lazy and outrageous it becomes. Using a ‘dead-man’s-hand,’ if you will, to explain how he ran out.
EXTREMELY suss, for sure. He uses this strategy more than once, according to the video. The saying "the living write the history books" has many implications....
The reliability of journalists involved in any major event has historically been shown to be suspect.
@@vanzell1912Absolutely!
It's really disgusting isn't.
As trustworthy as a used car salesman and I'm not just talking about the subject of this video. I'm talking about 90% of them.@vanzell1912
Excellent video. Your evidence, critical thinking and balance of probabilities insights have made me a new subscriber. Well done sir. 🇨🇦
It is good
Neal Beidleman's account is interesting (2020 Millhouse podcast).
really enjoy your lucid powers of analysis, which often exposes those who have been, what's the phrase...... "economical with the truth" 😀
Love this. I have been fascinated by this event since I heared of it. I always hope someone could make some sort of interactive map with timeline wich shows where everyone is at what time and where certain events happen.
Love that you are calling krakour out
I know it's just one photo but it looks like Pittman was climbing pretty well, on top of the step by herself and a head of the main pack. Where exactly on the mountain was she being short roped? I have read Into Thin Air and the Climb a few times but it's been years since my copies are boxed away, these posts of yours makes me want to dig them out and read them again. Of all the books written by actual climbers of that day in 96 which do you think appears to be the most accurate?
Thank you for your analysis of these events on Everest, it gives us many things to ponder 🍻
I don't think she was ever short-roped (at least not on the way up; she seems to have had some trouble with altitude on the way down, which can happen to anyone) just as I don't think sherpas were nonsensically carrying her (electric?) espresso machine up the mountain. I think Krakaur was just salty about her being there for whatever reason.
very much worth searching up Pittmans 2023 short interview on her experience. It's on 'Harvest Series' podcast. Only 35 mins but very informative if u want a direct experience of her. There's also an excellent video abt Pittman on Adventures Gone Wrong channel
I think she was very unfairly judged. She was a very experienced climber.
@@MoonlightCircus From what I have learned (see a comment I made) Pittman did get short roped over the Kumbu Icefall since there was an accident just before she and a few others came there, and this was just a precaution of some kind. My memory is a bit hazy on this, since I just listened to a presentation. But she wasn't nannied like SOMEONE claimed.
@@thatone2192I also believed terrible things about Pitman, and it was based largely on Krakauer's account. I would never contact her or harass her but I totally believed she was a rich tourist with no climbing experience who tied up several sherpas and had she not, the ropes would have been fixed, there would have been no delay, and the climbers would have beat the storm down to safety. I wonder if she has considered suing him. I'm ashamed of my willingness to just believe those things about her. I can only imagine the harrassment she continues to endure. She can never truly live his version down when every day a new round of people reads his book or watches his lecture online. I happened to see that episode of Adventures gone wrong, and it made me realize I had it all wrong. What an asshole.
Thank you for calling attention to all these, half truths, lies and random new memory recollections. Sounds like Krakauer, was trying to not only make himself look good, but also wanting to cash in on his book, where he’s portrayed as a hero character. We need more people like you, to help set the record straight and shine a new light on what really happened on this day. 👏👏👏
Maybe this video will give him a push to respond. It seems he was quick to blame everyone else for everything that went wrong. Hope this video goes viral to get a response.
Finally, was looking forward to new videos! Great Stuff!
Could you recommend any good books/source on Mallory?
Fallen by Mick Conefrey just came out recently I believe the channel Everest Mystery has a video about it 😊
If you want a book on Mallory's life in the context of his times then Wade Davis's Into the Silence is the one to go for. Extraordinary detailed social history framing his biography. Not the go-to account of his final attempt on Everest if that is your main interest though. Will be interesting to hear what Michael makes of Fallen.
Too many people believe Krakauer was just a journalist. He was an expert climber. (Stikine Icecap)Even if you take his version(s) at face value, he did not shine at all on May 10.
Being the first client to reach the summit for a season is "shinning" by any remote stretch. His entire goal was to be the first to the summit. As it is, he was the first client to reach the summit. It is the price he paid to do so that is the real story -- and one he does not tell.
@@michaeltracy2356Krakauer is no different than the people he loathes. In fact, he’s worse because under the guise of ‘journalism’, he maligns them!
@@WWIIPacificHistory his level of gaslighting (continuing to lie even when directly confronted w evidence to the contrary..basically denying 'reality') is at sociopathic level.
Many times sociopaths are the ones who rise to the top because of their willingness to cold-bloodedly do whatever it takes w no morality or empathy for others
Excellent examination of the events and a welcome alternative to Krakauers version.
I saw Everest movie about a month ago and then I knew about this incident. My curiosity to know more about this incident bought me to this video.
Very good analysis. Personal accounts of these types of disaster events are often inconsistent and biased so I am not surprised by your findings at all. For this event, unfortunately the leaders of the expeditions (Hall and Fischer) are not available. My perspective is that with the makeup of the teams, the inherent physical limitations and logistical challenges high on the mountain and the unpredictable weather conditions, 2 pm should have been a max turnaround time. Also, in my opinion, not enough focus was given to oxygen distribution on the mountain, particularly by Hall’s team.
You seem to be right on all accounts. And too bad Hall and Fischer weren't able to stick around and clear some things up. I do strongly believe that they neglected to coordinate everybody since they had an unusually large amount of people on the mountain and different groups than they were used to back then. Re oxygen: I recall reading that they did not receive the amount of canisters that they ordered and it was too late to make good on that, leaving them to juggle around what they received. That was a real big deal in the eventual outcome of that tragic day.
Do you think a better title for johns vook should ve out of thin air cause he makes uo so much
Yesssssss 😡 I have his book in my Kindle account but haven't read it yet. I'm so glad I saw this. Now I'm gonna delete it unread. Sorry I spent money on it and gave him a sale.
@@msbeecee1 If you paid for it I would read it. I have always been suspect of his story, but it should be read.
@@msbeecee1read it it’s a best seller for a reason. Very compelling. Whether it’s all factually correct in every respect it seems not. But it’s meant to be his journalistic account put into words at the time
Great job Michael.
Well done sir!
Fantastic video. I’m new to Everest history and I was curious where this photo came from and any others from that day. Would love to fall down the rabbit hole you’ve gotten me interested in
Thank you for another excellent video. You set out the facts so well. I read both of Krakauer's books, (Into the Wild is the other), and always wondered about his presentation of facts.
I really like these videos. I’m a big Krakauer fan but realize he’s far from infallible. So, I appreciate your different take, which seems to be informed and honest, as far as I can tell. Guess I need to check out Groom’s book.
Awesome as always sir. Hey where Pittman is standing is that where the Hillary Step slid off? Just curious....a friend of ours just went to Everest to climb but since the Chinese had cancelled 249 permits this year all of those people came over to the Nepal side from what I understand. In the end this person after reaching Camp 1 after the ice fall said it was too dangerous and they bailed.
That upper portion where Pittman is standing is still largely in place. It is the rock underneath her that slid down a little. The result is that snow builds up on the Kangshung (right) side, and people can walk right up a snow slope. However, they still fix the route the "old" way and have people scale what is the large rock below Pittman -- but now it is sort of shifted down. Thus, it appears that they fix the rope in such a way as to leave some sort of scramble up the remaining rocks when you could just go around to the right.
A similar thing is done on the North. You don't need to climb the Third Step -- you can go around to the right. But everyone climbs up it because there is a rope there and the Sherpas don't want you climbing off rope.
@@michaeltracy2356 what is ur opinion on why they continue to fix rope in old way when there is an easier path ? 🤔 are they trying to create some kind of equivalency to prior climbs for comparisons? Are they trying to cover up the slippage of the rock for PR purposes ?? Clearly the summit is still an amazing feat even if u take the easier slope...
😂 i love your explanation of Spitting Distance 😂
I don’t understand your equivocation of Fischer with Krakauer. The disorder and chaos of the summit bid rests squarely on Fischer’s shoulders and had Fischer survived I can’t imagine you being so oddly fixated on Krakauer. Then again I don’t claim to understand Mountaineers and videos like these confuse me all the more. I certainly would never want to climb with someone who might inadvertently fixate somewhere in the death zone.
I recently learned I have a relative who was climbing another mountain in this range during this storm. Didn’t want to ask his opinion since he knew Scott Fischer and Anatoni Boukreev personally, but he only had positive things to say about them. I’m not qualified to speak on any of the controversy, but I just wanted to share this anecdote.
Always fun to read of personal close ups. Thank you!
Perhaps im just misremembering or unable to find it on your channel, but you previously did a shorter video about this topic, specifically where the person in the yellow down suit near the top of the step was edited out in the book iirc? Or it was a lower resolution photo that didnt show it properly. What happened to that video?
There was such a video and the numerous discussions about it are in the Yeti Academy. As with a couple of other videos, it was just one asking for assistance analyzing a photo and those get taken down once the issue is addressed.
Wow, thanks for this! Very informative! Krakauer is an unreliable narrator. When I read Into Thin Air I loved it and I didn’t hear the jibes he made. I did notice he was a bit off on his own and not really connecting to anyone but it did t bother me. However later I found out he confronted Boukreev at a talk he was giving and he published the sad conversations between Rob and his wife against her wishes. The more I learn the more kinda weasely he seems to get. I watched quite a few documentaries and the survivors did not seem to be saying what he was saying. Just a lot of things that make you go hmm. They say that in a survival situation who you really are surfaces.
Throughout the video I was trying to figure out what Krakauer would gain by lying. You of course delivered the answer.
Your videos are great! Do you have any insight on why Hall seemed stuck on that day to go for the summitt? He seemed hell bent on May 10th. Even with Imax going back and Anatoli not feeling good about it. Also, why on earth did he want to climb with Scotts team? Nobody seemed comfortable with that idea except him and Scott. I can't make sense of it.
Sure, I'll get into it in an upcoming video -- it has to do with the finances. Rob Hall spent all his money on the contract with Outside Magazine so that he would get future advertising. Hence, he had to skimp on this expedition. They didn't have the latest oxygen equipment, they had less of it, and they didn't have backups. Once Rob Hall's team started using oxygen to head up the mountain, they were committed. Rob Hall had not purchased enough oxygen to delay for another day and certainly nowhere near enough to descend and try again in a week or two.
Now, where did the money go? It went to pay for Jon Krakauer's climb -- we was climbing for "free." That is, Rob Hall spent all the money to provision Jon Krakauer's food, tents, sherpas, oxygen, etc. This left him with one shot for the summit. Once they started using oxygen on the way up, they were committed. Of course, Jon Krakauer is not likely to explain that him and the contract with his employer (Outside Magazine) were the reason Hall could not move the summit date.
Fischer had a large team that would likely reach the summit, so he was going to climb with another group one way or the other. The IMAX team needed a clear mountain for their photography, so better for Fischer to go when Hall was going rather than when the IMAX team was going.
It would have been better for Fischer to go on the 10th and Hall to go with IMAX, but as Hall did not have the ability to delay, the die was cast.
@@michaeltracy2356 I have read so much on this event and did not know that. I knew Scott was stressed about finances, had no idea Hall was as well. He did a huge disservice to his team bringing Krakauer then. It explains why Lou was upset with him too.
And to think Krakauer frames Anatoli and Sandy as the villains. It was Anatoli who saved the lives of his team. From watching these videos it sounds as though Lou and Anatolis accounts are closer to truth and maybe Krakauer needs to put himself under the microscope. Not to mention poor decision making on the part of Scott and especially Rob. However, Krakauer doesnt mention this much. I often wonder what Rob said to Doug to make him continue the ascent when Lou said that Doug was going to head back. Hell of a position he put himself in. But I'm guessing Krakauer would say that's Sandy's fault too.
TY 🙏🙏, more detailed, interesting & informative work!
Regarding the oxygen supply, could it be possible that high winds near the summit would be louder than a hissing supply? I appreciate you've said the incident likely never happened, but just for general knowledge.
As seen in the photo, the winds were not significant at 1PM. Krakauer claims the oxygen was turned off at about 1:35PM. So, it is extremely unlikely the winds were such that you just couldn't hear anything. It is difficult to imagine people would have continued up the step if the winds were that bad at that time.
There is also the fact that the entire story is missing from his May 20 account. If he hadn't told a completely different story a year earlier, perhaps there would be some explanation for it. He also does a similar things with the oxygen equipment -- saying things that are completely false but only people who used such systems would know. For instance, he claims that to determine if a bottle is full or not, you have to attach a regulator. Not only is that not true -- you simply pick it up and feel how heavy it is, it makes it impossible to understand what Andy Harris was talking about at South Summit.
@@michaeltracy2356 Thank you for taking the time for a detailed reply Michael 🙏🙏
The timing of Fischer's return from Camp II to base camp and meeting Boukreev at the Ice Fall doesn't seem to make sense. How many hours had Boukreev stayed at base camp, for Fischer have gone up and down? Can you lay out the timeline?
I love mike groom!!! Wish he would be interviewed more
i always thought Krakauer is too egoistic to speak the truth and i tend to believe climbers instead, like Boukreev, rest in piece. Great vid, thanks
Ditto
assuming you do more on this event, you can pronounce the Japanese climber's given name as 'Yassko' (the u is dropped)
Good video
Wait was 2pm the summit time or turn around time? Because if people need dozens of minutes to rest at the summit than those are two different times.
There are different accounts from different people, but one problem was the long time people spent on the summit. I cover the issue in the Yellow Brick Road video. Scott Fischer planned to pull a "stunt" on the summit, according to Lene Gammelgaard. While Krakauer and every other writer just ignores the "stunt" issue, it explains much of the rather bizarre behavior that led to the problems on the mountain.
You are welcome to focus on who said what about when the "turn around" time was and what it really meant. However, if you are not looking at the "stunt" issue, you are missing the Yeti in the living room. As soon as you do look into the "stunt" issue, it becomes apparent that Krakauer was not trying to tell what really happened and just made up a fairytale that had little to do with what actually happened that day.
Wouldn't one notice feeling better if O's were turned up, especially if stationary? Sounds like there were other issues we will never properly know about. Thanks for the deep dive!
Yes, Krakauer provided another account where he did indeed claim he felt much better and was apparently completely unaware that the reason for this was the increased oxygen flow. I left it out of the video due to length of the video being too long already. But for most of the items I mention in these videos, there are even more reasons supporting the claim that Krakauer made stuff up than just what I put in the videos.
Brilliant analysis of this photo by Mr Tracy. Those who still hold Krakauer as the definitive account of 1996 can retreat into the hedge like Homer Simpson after this. Mr Tracy shows that a good historian has to read ALL the literature available to corroborate an event, especially when one account has been deemed to be the only trustworthy account by "everyone" for years. I read a lot of history, and note that corroboration of literal evidence is standard. Sadly, it wasn't scrutinised properly at the time by media, and that's why other accounts of 1996 were dismissed out of hand. Krakauers account could only be considered trustworthy if he was the only person there, nobody survived, and no photos or witnesses were available to contradict him. As proved here, there were lots to contradict him.
Disclaimer: I bought ITA illustrated edition last year as a future read on my shelf. I will niw read it with the knowledge that it is borderline historical fiction dressed up as a subjective reportage book. As in the only facts that are indisputably true are that there is a mountain called Everest, two expeditions climbed it, a storm happened and climbers died. Everything else he describes is questionable. However, one commenter on this thread intends to read ITA as an insight into Krakauers pysche, which I will certainly do too.
Just a thought: has any plus 8 thousand metre climber NOT noticed their bottle was on full flow? Is it possibe in that mental conidition, to be become oblivilous to the sound of the oxygen hiss? What about the sound of ambiant wind, or the sound of snow hitting your suit?
It is extremely rare to climb on full-flow. Maybe going up a difficult step, but in general, you do not climb on full flow.
Krakauer specifically said he was worried about his oxygen running out. So, if you are worried about your oxygen running you, you listen for the hissing sound, so that when you don't hear it any more, you can prepare for what comes next -- you might slow down, clip into the rope rather than arm it down, etc.
Krakauer leaves out numerous basic things about high-altitude climbing that lets him get away with fabrications such as this.
In any case, he told two different versions of the story -- so, why do you believe the second one and not the first? What about simply running out of oxygen is so difficult to believe? Why do you think the later created version (for which there are two different versions in the book) is more believable?
What a great video So many died that day sadly unnecessarily Why oh why are people not turned round when apparent that time had run out We see this time after time on several climbs Unfortunately though people make lots of money on books made up of fabrications and well Michael covers this so well
I bet your dance card is full at the Khumbu Ball.
Well done!
I was very shocked to learn from Fischer’s writings and other sources that *krakauer* (allegedly, I don’t know this first hand) was primarily to blame
I'm super curious about this particular topic where Krakauer is to blame. Can you tell me some sources to read more on that specifically?
RIP Boukreev and all M.E. fatalities. I find what happens in the death zone to be a horror show on steroids. My view is people do not belong there. As I re-call from my readings of many, many years ago, in Into T.A. Krak represents Boukreev as a guide ( with guide responsibilities ) that went to the top without oxygen thus baking in Boukreev's inability to fully perform "client care" guide duties during the time prior to the storm hitting the climbers ... hence, per Krak, Boukreev going up the mountain as a guide ( without oxygen ) was reckless on the part of Boukreev and of his employer because it increased risks faced by clients. Into T.A. paints Boukreev as a hero in regards to his rescue of climbers in trouble that day and I see him as a hero too. If Krak's narrative is correct and Boukreev, as a guide, went up the mountain without oxygen thus massively reducing Boukreev's ability to help clients then that is a foundational error and perhaps a major contributor to the loss of live on M.E. that day.
Wonderful photo Scott took
I always think if only Rob had come back down
Doug Hansen turned around early that morning and was headed back to camp. As soon as Rob Hall convinced him to re-think and push on to the summit, Rob's fate was sealed.
@@michaeltracy2356 i didn’t know Doug wanted to turn back
I did read into things air when it came out- it was the first time I became hooked on Everest 1996 event
Your video was is the most comprehensive video I’ve ever heard explained.
Why do you think Rob pushed him to go up to the summit?
Rob was very concerned about his "success rate." He was advertising that he had a "100% success" rate, even when it was clear he did not. Rob Hall paid for Krakauer to climb and had a deal for advertising with Outside Magazine as part of. the deal. So, the 1996 climb was much more of a publicity piece than Into Thin Air makes it out to be. Given that Rob Hall paid for Krakauer's climb, it is not surprising that Rob Hall comes out looking great. The account of Hansen turning around is glossed over in Into Thin Air but fully described by Lou Kasische in After The Wind.
"Not long after Frank turned back, I saw the headlamp of someone else turning around and climbing down. That light became Doug. As he passed me, he said he was cold and feeling bad. Doug was sensitive to being cold after his feet were frostbitten on the 1995 attempt. Over the previous weeks he worried about his feet and possible additional frostbite. Doug knew the tissue was more vulnerable the second time. Doug’s turn around didn’t surprise me, or add to my own apprehension about the day. The cold and pressures of the moment kept me focused on just my next step. Again, I had no emotion about Doug’s decision.
Doug was in the tent with me at High Camp. He had not been happy with Rob’s decision to go for the summit. From his appearance, he didn’t seem physically well. Combined with his earlier health problems, all of this must have been too much. Doug made the individual hard call decision that Rob expected from each of us."
Kasischke, Lou. After The Wind (p. 145). Good Hart Publishing
@@michaeltracy2356 thank you for taking the time to respond
I am a new subscriber for your channel ⭐️
@@michaeltracy2356 And ROb also made Beck promise to wait for him on the descent. So many bad decisions
Excellent Michael, you have evicerated the narcassist Krakaur in a very precise and thorough way.
Ed Viesturs who guided for Rob Hall and climbed with him a lot. Says there turn around time was 2pm . He talks about it in at least two of his books.
And Mike Groom who was climbing with him on this expedition wrote in his books that it was 1PM - page 297. Lou Kasischke, who climbed on that expedition wrote in his book it was 1PM - page 125 . So, I guess because Viesturs wrote about twice, does that mean he gets two votes? I do a whole video about the Rashomon Effect. Simply pointing out that one person who was not even on that particular expedition wrote something in several books does not make it the truth. It is just one more Roshomon story.
In any case, as I detail in the video, the turn around time is was not the primary reason for the deaths -- Beidelman, Fox, Marin, GammeelGaard all "turned around" after 3:10PM. That is, they left the summit after that time. They all made it down just fine. Harris left summit before 1:30PM and he died. Hansen turned around at an out 5AM and was heading down the mountain -- Rob Hall the convinced him to turn back around and press on to the summit which ended up killing both of them. So, while Krakauer has this big message about an alleged 2pm turn around, the actual story is that Doug Hansen turned around hours and hours and hours before that. The motivation that caused Rob Hall to push him to the summit, past his own assessment of being about to make it is the real story. But that story involved Outside Magainze and Rob Hall's advertising -- so, it gets dropped from the book. Instead, people are debating whether the turn around time was indeed 2pm.
It was 2pm . The time doesn't change from one year to the next . Why would it it's the same ridge. Veisturs, Hall , and Fisher all climbed it many times. You're reaching
Fox and Gammlegard did not make it down " fine " they nearly died with the rest of the group lost in the storm on the wrong side of the south col. Right next to Beck Westhers
Also Ed Viesturs was actually at everest that day . Watching it all from camp 2 along with the imax team that summited a week or so later
@@nathanthompson2369We all know what he meant by saying "made it down fine". He is well aware of the storm.
Summitting at 2PM is still very risky. They all knew it too.
Excellent video. Can you discuss why some guides sped to the summit far in advance of the mass of clients?
Both Boukreev and Harris -- the guides that went in to the summit first are now dead, and Boukreev did not say anything about it before he died. However, as I indicated in this video, it appears there was a "race" on to get to the summit. Krakauer want to get there to fit his narrative that he bested all the "inexperienced" climbers on Everest. Harris seems to have been assigned to Krakauer. At South Summit, there were 3 AC guides and 3 AC clients, so it seems each guide picked a client. Later Hall leaves Hanson and is climbing without any clients -- that is, Namba is far in front of him and Hanson is far behind him.
I will get into it with the video about the contract with Outside Magazine, but you have two business managers (Hall and Fischer) and they made business decisions about how to market their firms. They also happened to be the lead guides because that is part of the brand image. Hall chose to pay for media coverage and Fischer wanted to get "free publicity." For both of them, the decision would cost them their lives. Not the story you heard in Into Thin Air, nor any of the other books, but once you "follow the money," it will make sense. Don't worry, I'll outline it in an upcoming video.
As it relates to them speeding ahead, that is simply the competition of the two teams for their respective publicity with Krakauer inserting his own ego into the whole thing.
@@michaeltracy2356 I will say that is all BS. Krauk is a real climber. I've climbed with him. I've witnessed him look after several parties of strangers at the top of Devil's Tower in a lightning storm, finding different rap anchors so everyone could down quickly and safely. A real climber like Jon is confident, with no need to prove anything against peak baggers.
@@arneboveng3756 Hopefully he's learned a lot with experience.
@@arneboveng3756 So, he got stuck in a storm on Everest. Now you tell me he got stuck in a storm on Devil's Tower? Or he was just down below looking at the people above?
@@michaeltracy2356 As an accountant and not a climber, I have wondered about the finances of the 1996 expedition and whether anyone has fully analysed their role in the disaster and, if not, whether it is too late now to uncover the relevant information. Very happy to see that you will be doing a video with this focus.
Sherpa in white outfit? only reasons I could think of white colour is that it reflects sunlight and doesn’t radiate heat.
Was that made into a movie some years ago?
You can tell Krakauer was pretty critical of Anatoly, and others just reading his book. It was obviously a fictional story, profiting off of the loss of others. I was glad to read Anatoly's story. Becks books show an even darker story of almost getting left behind again. After he made it back to camp 4.
I recently re-read ITA and he was critical of Anatoly for ascending and descending without any clients and his excuse was that he could make tea at camp, which was the job of the sherpas. In the book it says that Scott Fischer also was angry with Anatoly and had discussed this with the Mountain Madness office
@@kerpriceThat is an over simplification, Anatoly and Fisher agreed that he should head straight back to camp. That way he would be fresh, and available to help take extra oxygen up those descending. Why would he be angry over something he agreed to. I believe (from memory) that at least one ‘client’ and one guide knew of this agreement.
That's a lot to digest.
Indeed.
Excellent video as always. The still picture of Anatoli Boukreev appears to show him wearing an oxygen mask. Are my eyes deceiving me?
It does sort of look like that. But it is actually the clasp for his hood. Typically, these are secured with velcro, but I have no idea which suit manufacture he is wearing. There is a large piece of nylon you can clasp in front of your face to secure the hood -- and block a little wind from your face. As he exhales, it accumulates ice -- which is what the white thing is.
Interesting. I read Into Thin Air when it came out but I don't remember much from it except he said people were dragging Sandy Pittman up the mountain. But there she is at the top of the step and there's no one near her.
They've done a great job of vilifying that woman, and it was very destructive in her life post-climb.
very much worth searching up Pittmans 2023 short interview on her experience. It's on 'Harvest Series' podcast. Only 35 mins but very informative if u want a direct experience of her. There's also an excellent video abt Pittman on Adventures Gone Wrong channel. Pittman had already summited 6 of the "7 peaks." Everest was the final of the 7 and it was her 3rd attempt at Everest. She was extremely qualified. And had started her love of mountains from teen & college years. She was sooo mischaractereized.
Yet another in the very long list of opinions about what happened by people that weren't there and are sitting in their warm, dry house. You know what they say about opinions.
Yeah, they are like comments.
Great channel, thank you.
When did you sumit?????
I am not your research assistant. Go look it up in Himalayan Database.
While you are looking in the Himalayan database, you can also try find out what the meaning of "sumit" is🙄🙄
Your underlying theme seems to be that Krakauer is a self-serving liar. I may be in the minority here, but I don’t find many of the inconsistencies you cite as compelling evidence in support of your argument.
And as for the differing Krakauer and Boukreev accounts, it is interesting that Reinhold Messner said in an interview (it’s on UA-cam) that he believes Krakauer.
Do you find him stating he was at the bottom of the Hillary Step at 1pm when he was not to be a truth or a lie? The problem with your "argument" is the you just have an internal definition -- which you refuse to share -- and then tell us that something doesn't match with your own internal fantasy world. Krakauer made untrue statements that make him look better and sell books. Plenty of evidence to support that. But, when you close your eyes, you can't see it.
I hardly addressed Boukreev's account. Krakauer contradicts Krakauer's own account. No need to even look at Boukreev. I address Michael Groom's account at length. But you build your little straw man around Boukreev, and then "destroy" the straw man you built with a reference to Messner. That doesn't work here.
hi, so glad I never read into thin air. I bought the book some yrs ago. Never had the time to read it. Looks like I need to get groom's book and read them both at the same time. How are you avoiding the utube commerials?
I bought but never read it too. Now I won't bother.
The bottleneck was primarily at the Hilary Step! According to Krakauer. Where people waited for hours for the ropes to be fitted. Thus. All of this 'disprove' very little of Krakauers account.
Do you see anyone waiting? Who? I see three people on above of the step -- they are not waiting on anyone. I see one person at the top of the step -- Pittman. She is not waiting. Scott Fischer is taking a photo, he is not waiting on anyone. Who exactly is waiting for the ropes to be fixed? Not a single person. Proves you are an idiot.
The thing is Kakauer is a writer, not a news reporter. I think over the years and as the versions were written and rewritten artistic interpretation for writing took place. Making a better story perhaps as opposed to strictly chronicling.
Also, everyone had just experienced an intense situation, low oxygen, low brain function given all the circumstance. Recall and all of those things would be quite hazy, maybe getting clearer as years went on…
That's not what he said. You obviously didn't read his book. So, perhaps read what he actually said before you stick up for something you don't know.
So, his memory got better? And the photos are the inaccurate things? Got it.
I can’t stand Krakauer’s self righteous indignation towards others he dislikes and I love these expose videos of yours. However, I do think you’re mistaking one portion of your video when Krakauer talks about the final summit ridge at 60 degrees. It’s not exactly clear, but I don’t think Krakauer is talking about the traversing slope being 60 degrees, but rather the sides of that slope being 60 degrees.
Looks like about 20-30 degrees going in that direction. Maybe you can find one spot of it that might be 60 degrees. In any case, Hillary described his climb in detail and he had a completely different assessment of that portion. Hillary and Tenzing felt it was safe enough to move together over, so it is not clear why Krakauer would have a completely different description of it. In any case, the description did not make it into his book.
I’ve always thought that 4pm was the established “last chance” summit time, but I guess I was mistaken…
It depends on the weather, what time you left, and your oxygen. 4pm was Mallory and Irvine's set turn around time. Although the weather was fine on June 8 in after 4PM, they would have had problems with oxygen if they turned around after that. Likely they pushed on to the summit and got there after 4PM becoming the first case of summit fever. Had they turned around at 4pm, likely they would have lived.
I think you may well be correct although another answer you've got here says it's more down to weather and oxygen.
Weather isn't only about windy and / or snow. Weather is also about temperature and temperature starts falling off on an increasing time frame after 3.00 to 3.30. On an exceptional day they might try a 4.00 ascent but, that would be an "exceptional" day.
It's the cold that gets most climbers coming down. Going down requires less effort and adrenaline flow is not as high so, cold gets at you much quicker. Delays and hesitations, tiredness and muscle fatigue also contribute . A late ascent is not a good idea. More chances for things to conspire against you.
@@michaeltracy2356100%
depends on how many toes you want to take home with you
@@OzzieDeWitt Excellent point
Ha ha ha
Might need to move Into Thin Air to the fiction section.
It's quite clear to me Krakauer is a putz glorifying himself.. Good Job Mr. Tracy!!
I don't understand why it matters what Krakauer said in his book. It all comes down to the fact that the team leaders were at fault for the tragedies by not adhering to a strict turnaround time.
It is more about critical thinking and not simply accepting something that you have been told. It is easy to say "If they all just would have turned around on time..." But that just ignores major issues. In 1985, they all turned around on time and 5 people died. As 5 people also died on the South Side in 1996, what makes you so sure they would have lived if they all turned around on time?
In any case, you seem to know everything, so why did so many people die in 1985? Who were their team leaders in 1985? What mistakes did they make?
And while the team leader's mistakes were largely responsible, not adhering to strict turnaround times could easily have been compensated by other decisions. Some claim the decision to climb on that day given the weather was the big mistake. Others that both teams going on the same day was a mistake. My analysis is that the business decisions made Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were what caused the deaths and ones those decisions were made, something like this was highly probable -- the failure to turn around simply a result of a the decisions made months ago about how to advance their business objectives.
I can’t imagine taking WAY too much time to climb the Hilary Step and causing a massive bottleneck behind me of other people and not just stepping aside…. I’m sorry but the narcissism and selfishness needed to do that is something I can’t comprehend especially when it involves literally putting peoples lives at risk
Krakauer probably thinks he could teach Reinhold Messner a thing or two.
I need to defend Krakauer. I’m sure anyone watching this video has read Into Thin Air. And I ask you, does Krakauer come out of that book looking like a hero? Is he king of the mountain who saves the day?
I read a tortured man, trying to make sense of a traumatic experience. He repeatedly states that his memory of the event is compromised.
So let’s accept your premise, he is intentionally and maliciously altering the events to make himself look… That’s where I get stuck.
What is it you say he’s accomplishing by altering history? Do you believe he needs to just accept responsibility for the deaths of everyone that day?
It helps if you watch the other videos in the series. Nowhere did I say Krakauer is making himself into a hero or king. As I make clear in the Sheer Will video, he is altering events to make his employer's client look good. Adventure Consultants had a deal with Outside Magazine who was in turn paying Krakauer. Thus, you should address whether Krakauer altered events to make the paying client of Outsize Magazine look better.
By altering this story, Adventure Consultants would continue to buy advertising space in Outside Magazine. If Adventure Consultants went out of business because no one wanted to climb with them, then Outside Magazine would not receive any advertising revenue from them. Scott Fischer chose not to advertise with Outside Magazine, so if people chose not to climb with Mountain Madness, it would not affect Outside Magazine at all.
As I go through in these videos, there are numerous subtle changes made that made the MM people look bad and the AC people look good.
And while Krakauer does "repeatedly state his memory of the even is compromised," he then has magic memories that he claims are not compromised around key details that support his story. Krakauer's admission is that he forgot all the irrelevant stuff, but retains perfect and detailed knowledge of exactly the key details that support his version of the story and remembers with his such detail that they make it an almost certainty that his version is correct. I give the example of the conversations between Boukreev and Fischer. Krakauer does not state his memory is fuzzy on that issue. He does not say it was compromised. He remembers exactly who was standing where while he rappelled down the Hillary Step. If you don't find that completely ridiculous, you are not looking at this objectively.
@@michaeltracy2356 That’s fair. I’ll watch them.
@@michaeltracy2356 And for all the pushback I’m giving you, its clear from Scott Fisher photo, if that is Sandy Pittman almost at the top of the step, than Jon Krakauer’s narrative about her being short lined is…problematic.
And I don’t doubt you have identified many more discrepancies. I just want to make sure that’s clear.
@@michaeltracy2356Additional ad revenue for Outside feels like a flimsy and unnecessary justification for Krak painting Adventure Consultants in a more positive light. Is there any evidence to suggest his motivations were anything but his own or is this conjecture? It can be tempting to support an argument with an assumed justification to give it a stronger foundation.
I'm confused why he's supposedly lying so much? Is it guilt or.
I think Krakauer's memory improved because he spent a lot of time contacting the other climbers and interviewing them. The initial article of course would not have as much information. He learned later that it was not Andy Harris he saw near Base Camp 4 but a different climber
Why would he rely on statements from other climbers rather than photographs of the mountain? Why didn't the photographs help his memory? In any case, wait until the next video, and see if your "his memory improved" theory still works.
Totally agree! From everything I’ve read, Krakauer has fabricated much of this expedition.
He needed to sell books
Great - I was just about to order that book, after watching some videos about the incidents of 1996. Now I'm in doubt because I expected an accurate summary of the story. It was already strange to hear about Krakauer obviously was not explicitly a fan of Boukreev, so I think I can skip that book if it's more fictional but biographical. 🙁
This is a pretty good summary: ua-cam.com/video/7qp2bj-CCaw/v-deo.html
Not my video, but I don't make introductory overviews like this. It presents various different versions, but has some stuff from Krakauer's account that I have ruled out as being yak dung.
@@michaeltracy2356Thanks a lot, her channel‘s already on my list 🙂 At the moment I’m sucking in your videos, currently it’s Odell‘s view of Mallory & Irvine… Great job (your whole channel)!
one weird sidenote I remember seeing in a book many years ago and that has now gone all over the web
either during 1996 (or just after? maybe before? not 100% sure) Anatoli Boukreev took a photo of a skeletonized set of remains that still haunts and confuses me, its wearing either late 80s or early 90s gear, is entirely skeletal, and its laying in a patch of rocks looking back directly at the camera, I think there may have been a single whisp of blonde hair but I can't recall, I often wonder who that was...
so many mysteries on that mountain that will probably never be answered...
A photo of that corpse appears in his book, though it does not include the face. Not sure who took the one with the head more visible -- may have been. Boukreev, just not suitable for publication.
@@michaeltracy2356 I know in other books he photographed a different body (was part of a small group with that one "socialite" woman whom I forget the name of which had a bit of controversy at the time) and I suspect that may actually be Ray Genet, as they have identical gear to what he was wearing in 1979, blue jacket and pants with red boot covers over HANWAG boots (the body was laying on its side and the upper half was not visible and you can see the other climbers in the background ascending)
#justiceforsandy
Boukreev was never supposed to use oxygen in the first place.
Secondly, If there wasn’t enough oxygen for those who needed it, then how would it have been possible for Boukreev to start using oxygen?
As far as other climbers opinions go, Ed Viesturs who was lower down on the mountain that day climbing for IMAX thinks JK’s take on Anatoly not using O2 was way out of line and that speaks volumes to me.
What I'd like to know is why Jake Norton has suddenly taken an interest in posting vids again.
Give us something to talk about over at the Yeti Academy.
Adventures Gone Wrong channel is also posting an excellent series on 1996, too. Seems like it's "in the air" 😅
I attribute all these differing stories to hypoxia, trauma, and personal point of view. And of course, I was not there.
Naive to think the same person tells a different story because of those items. More naive when Krakauer had the photographs and he could easily have pieced together what really happened. He claimed his book was accurate, not some hypoxic trauma induced hallucination. So, while you may think that is why Krakauer wrote what he did -- he certainly does not claim that is the case. Any reason you dislike Krakauer so much? Seems rather personal to discount his book as a hypoxic trauma induced rant? Do you know him?
I'm not a mountaineer but I've watched hours of videos about Everest and I've come to the conclusion that many of these mountain climbers are narcissists out for personal glory looking for thrills.
Before you draw any conclusion about what happened you must read Boukreev's book.I will leave it at that.
Boukreev's book does not differ factually from Krakauer's that much. As Boukreev does not attempt to state what happened when he was not there, it only covers what Boukreev actually saw. As a result, it presents a different view than Krakauer's, but they agree on most of the factual points that are not direct contradictions in Krakauer. That is, Krakauer cannot be both at the bottom of the Hillary step and just below the summit at the same time (1PM). Both Boukreev and Krakauer place them just below the summit at 1PM.
Where Boukreev differs from Krakauer is in the analysis of his actions and on one rather minor point of whether Boukreev had one conversation with Fischer or two conversations while above the Hillary Step. The largest problem is that Boukreev was killed in an avalanche and thus could no longer respond to Krakauer. Krakauer continued to write his misrepresentations and nonsensical analysis well after Boukreev was dead. Thus, it is not so important to read Boukreev's book as it is to be able to think critically and see that what Krakauer was saying is largely nonsense.
As Boukreev and Lopsang pointed out errors of Krakauer, Krakauer would just change his story and arguments. Then both of them were dead and Krakauer had the last word. For people who can't think for themselves, they rely on someone else to tell them what to think -- either Boukreev or Krakauer. With Boukreev dead, Krakauer got the last word and many people just accepted that because no one who was there contradicting it any more.
Krakauer is no different than the people he loathes! In fact, he’s far worse IMO because under the guise of ‘journalism’, he viscously lies about and maligns them!